1
DRAFT
GUIDANCE
FOR
EVALUATING
THE
VAPOR
INTRUSION
TO
INDOOR
AIR
PATHWAY
FROM
GROUNDWATER
AND
SOILS
(
Subsurface
Vapor
Intrusion
Guidance)

I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
General
One
of
the
primary
objectives
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER)
under
EPA's
Strategic
Plan
is
stated
as:

"
By
2005,
EPA
and
its
state,
tribal
and
local
partners
will
reduce
or
control
the
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
at
more
than
374,000
contaminated
Superfund,
RCRA,
underground
storage
tank
(
UST),
brownfields
and
oil
sites,
and
have
the
planning
and
preparedness
capabilities
to
respond
successfully
to
all
known
emergencies
to
reduce
the
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment."

In
order
to
effectively
"
reduce
or
control
the
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment,"
it
is
necessary
to
determine
if
specific
exposure
pathways
exist.
If
an
exposure
pathway
exists,
we
need
to
evaluate
the
site
to
determine
whether
contamination
is
present
at
levels
that
may
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

B.
What
Is
The
Intent
Of
This
Guidance?

This
draft
guidance
specifically
addresses
the
evaluation
of
a
single
exposure
pathway
 
the
"
vapor
intrusion
pathway."
The
intent
of
this
draft
guidance
is
to
provide
a
tool
to
help
the
user
conduct
a
screening
evaluation
as
to
whether
or
not
the
vapor
intrusion
exposure
pathway
is
complete
and,
if
so,
whether
it
poses
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.
A
complete
pathway
means
that
humans
are
exposed
to
vapors
originating
from
site
contamination.
The
approach
suggested
in
this
draft
guidance
begins
with
simple
and
generally
reasonable
conservative
screening
approaches
and
gradually
progresses
toward
a
more
complex
assessment
involving
increasingly
greater
use
of
site­
specific
data.
For
those
sites
determined
to
have
an
incomplete
vapor
intrusion
pathway,
EPA
generally
recommends
that
further
consideration
of
the
current
site
situation
is
not
needed.
For
those
sites
determined
to
have
a
complete
pathway,
recommendations
are
provided
on
how
to
evaluate
whether
the
pathway
does
or
does
not
pose
a
potential
significant
risk
to
human
health.

This
guidance
is
not
intended
to
provide
recommendations
on
how
to
delineate
the
extent
of
risk
or
how
to
eliminate
the
risk,
only
to
determine
if
there
is
a
potential
for
an
unacceptable
risk.
We
generally
recommend
that
a
reevaluation
of
a
screened­
out
site
be
carried
out
if
site
conditions
or
building/
facility
uses
change
in
a
way
that
might
change
2
the
screening­
out
decision
or
other
new
information
suggests
greater
conservatism
is
warranted
in
assessing
this
exposure
pathway.

Please
recognize
that
this
is
a
guidance
document,
not
a
regulation.
This
document
presents
current
technical
and
policy
recommendations
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
based
on
our
current
understanding
of
the
phenomenon
of
subsurface
vapor
intrusion.
EPA
personnel
(
and
of
course,
states)
are
free
to
use
and
accept
other
technically
sound
approaches,
either
on
their
own
initiative,
or
at
the
suggestion
of
responsible
parties
or
other
interested
parties.
In
addition,
personnel
who
use
this
guidance
document
are
free
to
modify
the
approach
recommended
in
this
guidance.
This
guidance
document
does
not
impose
any
requirements
or
obligations
on
EPA,
states,
or
the
regulated
community.
Rather,
the
sources
of
authority
and
requirements
for
addressing
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
are
the
relevant
statutes
and
regulations
(
e.
g.,
RCRA,
CERCLA
and
the
NCP).

C.
At
What
Sites
Are
We
Currently
Suggesting
You
Use
This
Guidance?

The
draft
guidance
is
suggested
for
use
at
RCRA
Corrective
Action,
CERCLA
(
National
Priorities
List
and
Superfund
Alternative
Sites
),
and
Brownfields
sites,
but
is
not
recommended
for
use
at
Subtitle
I
Underground
Storage
Tank
(
UST)
sites
at
this
time.
The
draft
guidance
recommends
certain
conservative
assumptions
that
may
not
be
appropriate
at
a
majority
of
the
current
145,000
petroleum
releases
from
USTs.
As
such,
the
draft
guidance
is
unlikely
to
provide
an
appropriate
mechanism
for
screening
the
vapor
pathway
at
UST
sites.

We
recommend
that
State
and
Regional
UST
corrective
action
programs
continue
to
use
a
risk
based
decision
making
approach
as
described
in
OSWER
Directive
9610.17:
Use
of
Risk­
Based
Decision
Making
in
UST
Corrective
Action
Program
to
address
this
pathway.
A
majority
of
State
programs
are
successfully
implementing
this
directive
at
their
UST
cleanups
and
use
the
recommended
approaches
where
appropriate,
to
prioritize
and
remediate
their
sites,
including
risk
associated
with
vapor
migration
to
indoor
air
in
a
manner
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

EPA
also
acknowledges
that
there
are
many
unique
issues
specific
to
petroleum
releases
from
underground
storage
tanks.
EPA
is
forming
an
EPA­
State
working
group
to
further
study
the
behavior
of
petroleum
and
petroleum
products
in
the
subsurface
associated
with
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

D.
What
Is
The
Scope
Of
The
Guidance?

This
draft
guidance
is
intended
to
address
the
incremental
increases
in
exposures
and
risks
from
subsurface
contaminants
that
may
be
intruding
into
indoor
air.
The
approaches
suggested
in
this
draft
guidance
are
primarily
designed
to
ensure
protection
of
the
public
in
residential
settings
but
may
be
adjusted
for
other
land
uses
(
e.
g.,
commercial/
industrial,
recreational),
so
that
human
exposures
in
non­
residential
settings
may
also
be
considered
under
this
guidance,
as
described
below.
3
1)
Occupational
settings
where
persons
are
in
a
working
situation.

There
may
be
occupational
settings
where
persons
present
are
employees
and
hazardous
constituents
may
be
intruding
into
the
air
space
from
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Such
settings
could
include
workplaces
where
workers
are
handling
hazardous
chemicals
(
e.
g.,
manufacturing
facilities)
similar
to
or
different
from
those
in
the
subsurface
contamination,
as
well
as
other
workplaces,
such
as
administrative
and
other
office
buildings
where
chemicals
are
not
routinely
handled
in
daily
activities.
OSHA
and
EPA
have
agreed
that
OSHA
generally
will
take
the
lead
role
in
addressing
occupational
exposures.
Workers
will
generally
understand
the
workplace
(
e.
g.,
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration,
OSHA)
regulations
(
and
monitoring,
as
needed)
that
already
apply
and
provide
for
their
protection.
For
example,
workplaces
are
subject
to
a
written
Hazard
Communication
and
Monitoring
Plan.

In
general,
therefore,
EPA
does
not
expect
this
guidance
be
used
for
settings
that
are
primarily
occupational.
1
However,
employees
and
their
employers
may
not
be
aware
of
subsurface
contaminants
that
may
be
contributing
to
the
indoor
air
environment
of
their
workplaces,
particularly
since
vapor
intrusion
may
include
constituents
that
are
no
longer
or
were
never
used
in
a
particular
workplace,
may
originate
from
elsewhere,
or
be
modified
by
bio­
degradation
or
other
subsurface
transformation
processes.
Therefore,
we
recommend
that
regional
or
State
authorities
notify
the
facility
of
the
potential
for
this
exposure
pathway
to
cause
a
hazard
or
be
recognized
as
a
hazard
and
suggest
that
they
consider
any
potential
risk
that
may
result.
Any
change
in
the
future
use
of
the
building/
facility
might
suggest
a
need
to
reevaluate
the
indoor
air
pathway.

2)
Non­
residential
settings
where
persons
are
in
a
non­
working
situation.

Non­
residential
buildings
may
need
to
be
evaluated
where
people
(
typically
non­
workers
 
see
above)
may
be
exposed
to
hazardous
constituents
entering
into
the
air
space
from
the
subsurface.
This
would
include
for
example
buildings
where
the
general
public
may
be
present,
e.
g.,
schools,
libraries,
hospitals,
hotels,
and
stores.
EPA
recommends
the
appropriate
environmental
(
public
health
protection)
screening
levels
be
applied
to
these
situations.

The
recommendations
in
this
guidance
may
be
appropriate
for
such
situations,
although
we
recommend
adjustments
appropriate
for
non­
residential
exposure
durations,
the
building
specific
air
volumes
and
air
exchange
rates,
as
well
as
other
relevant
factors
be
considered.
The
model
used
in
this
guidance
accommodates
the
inclusion
of
these
kinds
of
variables
and
for
comparison
of
computed
values
with
the
recommended
numerical
criteria
in
Tables
2
and
3.

1It
should
be
noted
that
at
CERCLA
sites,
the
cleanup
levels
are
generally
determined
either
by
ARARs
or
risk
range
considerations;
the
OSHA
standards
are
not
ARARs
under
the
CERCLA
statute
and
regulations.
Therefore,
there
may
be
instances
(
under
CERCLA
and
other
cleanup
programs)
where
standards
other
than
the
OSHA
standards
are
used
to
determine
whether
the
exposure
pathway
presents
a
risk
to
human
health.
4
E.
Will
This
Guidance
Supersede
Existing
Guidance?

This
draft
guidance
supersedes
the
draft
RCRA
EI
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Vapor
Intrusion
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway
(
December
2001).
It
does
not
supersede
State
guidance.
However,
we
believe
that
States
will
find
this
guidance
useful
and
States
will
consider
this
guidance
in
making
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations.
Additionally,
the
lead
regulatory
authority
for
a
site
may
determine
that
criteria
other
than
those
recommended
herein
are
more
appropriate
for
the
specific
site
or
area.
For
example,
site­
specific
indoor
air
criteria
may
differ
from
the
generic
indoor
air
criteria
generally
recommended
in
this
guidance
and,
consequently,
the
corresponding
soil
gas
or
groundwater
screening
levels
may
differ.
Also,
the
site­
specific
relationship
between
indoor
air
concentrations
and
subsurface
soil
gas
or
groundwater
concentrations
may
differ
from
that
assumed
in
developing
this
guidance.
Therefore,
we
suggest
that
the
first
step
generally
be
to
consult
with
the
lead
regulatory
authority
to
identify
the
most
appropriate
approach
for
evaluation
of
any
potential
vapor
intrusion
to
indoor
air
pathway.

F.
Will
We
Continue
To
Evaluate
Data
And
Revise
This
Document
Accordingly?

Vapor
intrusion
is
a
rapidly
developing
field
of
science
and
policy
and
this
draft
guidance
is
intended
to
aid
in
evaluating
the
potential
for
human
exposure
via
this
pathway
given
the
state­
of­
the­
science
at
this
time.
EPA
will
continue
to
explore
this
area
and
improve
our
understanding
of
this
complex
exposure
pathway.
As
our
understanding
improves,
this
guidance
will
be
revised
as
appropriate.
EPA
and
State
site
managers
are
encouraged
to
provide
OSWER
with
relevant
site
information
that
can
be
added
to
the
OSWER
database
to
facilitate
EPA's
efforts
(
for
more
information
see
Site­
Specific
Investigations).

II.
EXPLANATION
OF
VAPOR
INTRUSION
Vapor
Intrusion
is
the
migration
of
volatile
chemicals
from
the
subsurface
into
overlying
buildings.
Volatile
chemicals
in
buried
wastes
and/
or
contaminated
groundwater
can
emit
vapors
that
may
migrate
through
subsurface
soils
and
into
indoor
air
spaces
of
overlying
buildings
in
ways
similar
to
that
of
radon
gas
seeping
into
homes,
as
shown
in
Figure
1.
(
However,
this
guidance
is
not
intended
for
evaluation
of
intrusion
of
radon
gas.)
As
the
figure
illustrates,
this
vapor
intrusion
pathway
may
be
important
for
buildings
both
with
and
without
a
basement.
5
Figure
1:
Generalized
schematic
of
the
pathway
for
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
into
indoor
air.

A.
Why
Should
You
Be
Concerned
With
This
Pathway?

In
extreme
cases,
the
vapors
may
accumulate
in
dwellings
or
occupied
buildings
to
levels
that
may
pose
near­
term
safety
hazards
(
e.
g.,
explosion),
acute
health
effects,
or
aesthetic
problems
(
e.
g.,
odors).
Typically
however,
the
chemical
concentration
levels
are
low
or,
depending
on
site­
specific
conditions,
vapors
may
not
be
present
at
detectable
concentrations.
In
residences
with
low
concentrations,
the
main
concern
is
whether
the
chemicals
may
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
of
chronic
health
effects
due
to
long­
term
exposure
to
these
low
levels.
A
complicating
factor
in
evaluating
the
potential
chronic
risk
from
vapor
intrusion
is
the
potential
presence
of
some
of
the
same
chemicals
at
or
above
background
concentrations
(
from
the
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
and/
or
emission
sources
in
the
building
e.
g.,
household
solvents,
gasoline,
cleaners)
that
may
pose,
separately
or
in
combination
with
vapor
intrusion,
a
significant
human
health
risk.

B.
How
Is
This
Exposure
Pathway
Different
From
Other
Pathways?

The
inhalation
exposure
pathway
from
vapor
intrusion
differs
from
other
pathways
in
several
respects.
First,
there
is
much
less
experience
for
risk
assessors
to
draw
upon
when
assessing
the
subsurface
vapor
to
indoor
air
pathway
than
there
is
for
the
assessment
of
other
pathways
(
e.
g.,
groundwater
ingestion
and
direct
exposure
to
contaminated
soils).
Consequently,
the
key
issues
and
technical
challenges
are
not
as
fully
understood.
Second,
response
options
will
typically
be
different.
For
example,
where
groundwater
used
as
drinking
water
is
found
to
be
highly
contaminated,
the
groundwater
plume
may
be
cleaned
up
or
its
volume/
concentration
reduced,
or
people
may
drink
bottled
water,
or
they
can
be
connected
to
other
potable
sources.
In
the
case
of
significant
vapor
intrusion,
ventilation
is
likely
the
most
appropriate
approach.
Third,
assessing
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
can
be
more
complex
than
assessing
other
pathways
because
it
typically
involves
the
use
of
indirect
measurements
and
modeling
6
(
e.
g.,
using
soil
gas
or
groundwater
data)
to
assess
the
potential
for
indoor
inhalation
risks.
Fourth,
it
is
our
judgment
that
indoor
air
sampling
results
can
be
misleading
because
it
is
difficult
and
sometimes
impossible
to
eliminate
or
adequately
account
for
contributions
from
"
background"
sources.

III.
SUMMARY
OF
DRAFT
GUIDANCE
This
draft
guidance
employs
a
tiered
approach
to
assist
the
user
in
determining
whether
the
exposure
pathway
is
complete
(
i.
e.,
subsurface
vapors
intrude
into
indoor
air
spaces);
and,
if
so,
whether
the
vapors
are
present
at
levels
that
may
pose
an
unacceptable
exposure
risk.
Although
vapors
may
be
present
in
soils
beneath
a
building,
the
vapors
may
or
may
not
pose
a
risk
to
human
health.
It
may
also
be
predicted
that
a
plume
would
reach
a
development
or
that
future
construction
may
occur
over
a
plume
that
would
result
in
a
potential
for
exposure
via
this
pathway.
Estimating
human
health
risk
from
indoor
air
exposure
depends
upon
human
exposure
to
the
vapors.
If
contaminant
vapors
do
not
enter
the
building,
the
exposure
pathway
from
the
source
of
contamination
to
a
person
(
receptor)
is
not
"
complete,"
and
in
such
circumstances
the
person
cannot
be
considered
to
be
at
risk
from
indoor
air
exposure
due
to
vapor
intrusion.
In
other
situations,
vapors
may
enter
the
building,
but
be
present
at
such
low
levels
that
the
risk
is
considered
negligible.
However,
in
some
cases,
vapors
may
seep
into
a
building
and
accumulate
at
levels
that
may
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.

A.
How
Should
You
Use
This
Draft
Guidance?

The
overall
approach
presented
here
is
similar
to
that
used
in
the
February
5,
1999,
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
Guidance.
Record
sheets
containing
a
series
of
questions
guide
users
through
a
recommended
series
of
analytical
steps
to
help
determine
if
the
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
into
indoor
air
pathway
is
complete
and
may
present
unacceptable
risks.
The
record
sheets
encourage
documentation
of
the
facts
and
considerations
that
typically
drive
responses.
Documentation
is
important
to
ensure
clarity
and
transparency
of
the
decisions.
We
recommend
those
who
use
this
guidance
consider
the
technical
objectives,
apply
professional
judgment,
and
attempt
to
assess
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
in
a
technically
defensible
fashion.
Users
may
find
the
discussions
included
in
the
attached
Appendices
to
be
useful
in
applying
professional
judgment
to
the
evaluation
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

B.
How
Do
I
Start
And
What
Are
The
Different
Tiers?

OSWER's
fundamental
approach
to
evaluating
contaminated
sites
uses
Guidance
for
the
Data
Quality
Objectives
(
DQO)
Process,
EPA
QA/
G­
4
(
EPA/
600/
R­
96/
055;
August
2000);
(
URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
quality/
qs­
docs/
g4­
final.
pdf
)
which
calls
for
proceeding
in
a
careful
stepwise
fashion.
We
recommend
that
site
investigators
use
the
specific
sequential
approach
outlined
in
the
DQO
process
to
adequately
determine
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination,
and
identify
potential
exposure
pathways
and
receptors
that
may
be
at
risk
(
see
Appendix
A
for
more
information).
The
first
step
in
the
7
DQO
process
is
to
develop
a
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CSM).
A
CSM
is
a
threedimensional
"
picture"
of
site
conditions
illustrating
the
contaminant
sources,
their
movement
of
contaminants
in
the
environment,
their
exposure
pathways
and
the
potential
receptors
(
see
Appendix
B
for
more
information).

The
flowchart
presented
in
Figure
2
summarizes
the
evaluation
approach
presented
in
this
draft
guidance.
There
are
three
tiers
of
assessment
that
involve
increasing
levels
of
complexity
and
specificity.

 
Tier
1
­
Primary
Screening
is
designed
to
be
used
with
general
knowledge
of
a
site
and
the
chemicals
known
or
reasonably
suspected
to
be
present
in
the
subsurface;
it
does
not
call
for
specific
media
concentration
measurements
for
each
constituent
of
concern;
 
Tier
2
­
Secondary
Screening
is
designed
to
be
used
with
some
limited
sitespecific
information
about
the
contamination
source
and
subsurface
conditions
(
e.
g.,
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
concentrations
of
target
chemicals
in
groundwater
or
soil
gas,
and
depth
of
contamination
and
soil
type);
and
 
Tier
3
­
Site­
Specific
Pathway
Assessment
involves
collecting
more
detailed
sitespecific
information
and
conducting
confirmatory
subslab
and/
or
indoor
air
sampling.

The
evaluation
process
shown
in
Figure
2
presents
a
logical
and
linear
progression
designed
to
screen
out
sites
ordinarily
not
needing
further
consideration
and
focuses
attention
on
those
sites
that
generally
need
further
consideration
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
or
action.
We
suggest
that
a
user
of
this
guidance
start
at
tier
1.
However,
the
user
does
not
need
to
begin
with
tier
1
and
may
proceed
directly
to
tier
2
or
3
if
they
so
choose.
In
addition,
as
noted
earlier,
the
user
may
use
other
technically
sound
approaches
in
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

C.
What
Are
The
Steps
Associated
With
Each
Tier
And
How
Do
I
Use
Them?

Tier
1
­
Primary
Screening:
This
step
is
designed
to
help
quickly
identify
whether
or
not
a
potential
exists
at
a
specific
site
for
subsurface
vapor
intrusion,
and,
if
so,
whether
immediate
action
may
be
warranted.
Criteria
recommended
for
making
these
determinations
under
the
guidance
are
presented
in
Questions
1
through
3,
which
focus
on
identifying:

a)
if
chemicals
of
sufficient
volatility
and
toxicity
are
present
or
reasonably
suspected
to
be
present
(
Question
1);
b)
if
inhabited
buildings
are
located
(
or
will
be
constructed
under
future
development
scenarios
 
except
for
Environmental
Indicator
determinations,
see
section
IV.
C
below)
above
or
in
close
proximity
to
subsurface
contamination
(
Question
2);
and
c)
if
current
conditions
warrant
immediate
action
(
Question
3).
8
If
the
Primary
Screening
does
not
support
a
conclusion
that
the
pathway
is
incomplete,
or
that
immediate
action
is
warranted
to
mitigate
risks,
we
recommend
the
user
proceed
to
Secondary
Screening.

Tier
2
­
Secondary
Screening:
This
analysis
involves
comparing
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
concentrations
of
target
chemicals
in
various
media
(
groundwater,
soil
gas,
and/
or
indoor
air)
to
recommended
numerical
criteria
identified
in
Questions
4
and
5.
These
"
generic
criteria"
reflect
generally
reasonable
worst­
case
conditions.
Question
4
provides
a
conservative
first­
pass
screening
of
groundwater
and
soil
gas
data.
Question
5
(
based
on
a
mathematical
model)
considers
the
relationship
(
if
any)
between
groundwater
and
soil
gas
target
criteria
to
such
site­
specific
conditions
as
depth
of
contamination
and
soil
type.
Under
the
guidance,
the
site
risk
manager
may
choose
to
select
media­
specific
target
concentrations
for
screening
at
three
cancer
risk
levels:
10­
4,
10­
5,
and
10­
6,
or
a
hazard
quotient
of
1
for
non­
cancer
risk,
whichever
is
appropriate.
When
results
from
secondary
screening
do
not
support
a
determination
that
the
pathway
is
incomplete,
we
recommend
the
user
proceed
to
the
Site­
Specific
Pathway
Assessment.

Tier
3
­
Site­
Specific
Pathway
Assessment:
This
tier
specifically
examines
vapor
migration
and
potential
exposures
in
more
detail
(
Question
6).
At
this
level
of
assessment,
the
guidance
generally
recommends
direct
measurement
of
foundation
air
and/
or
indoor
air
concentrations
from
a
subset
of
the
potentially
affected
buildings
and
complementary
site­
specific
mathematical
modeling
as
appropriate.
Modeling
is
considered
to
be
useful
for
determining
which
combination
of
complex
factors
(
e.
g.,
soil
type,
depth
to
groundwater,
building
characteristics,
etc.)
lead
to
the
greatest
impact
and,
consequently,
aid
in
the
selection
of
buildings
to
be
sampled.
It
is
recommended
that
sampling
of
subslab
or
crawlspace
vapor
concentrations
and/
or
sampling
of
indoor
air
concentrations
be
conducted
before
a
regulator
makes
a
final
decision
that
there
is
not
a
potential
problem
with
respect
to
vapor
intrusion.
When
indoor
air
sampling
is
conducted
to
determine
if
a
significant
risk
exists,
we
recommend
that
it
be
conducted
more
than
once
and
the
sampling
program
be
designed
to
identify
ambient
(
outdoor)
and
indoor
air
emission
sources
of
contaminants.

IV.
USE
OF
THIS
GUIDANCE
A.
Under
What
Conditions
Do
We
Recommend
You
Consider
This
Pathway/
Guidance?

We
recommend
that
you
consider
the
possibility
of
exposure
by
this
pathway
if
you
have
or
suspect
the
presence,
in
soil
or
groundwater,
of
volatile
chemicals
(
Henry's
Law
Constant
>
10­
5
atm
m3/
mol)
at
your
site
as
follows:

 
located
100
ft
or
less
in
depth
or
 
located
in
close
proximity
to
existing
buildings
or
future
buildings
(
see
Primary
Screening
Question
#
2
for
definition
of
close
proximity)
or
 
To
the
expected
footprint
of
potential
future
buildings
(
for
non­
EI
determinations).
9
B.
Does
This
Guidance
Address
Setting
Risk
Management
Goals?

No.
The
tiered
approach
to
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
described
in
this
guidance
uses
computed
target
media­
specific
concentrations
generally
based
on
consensus
toxicity
values,
where
available,
to
aid
in
determining
whether
an
unacceptable
inhalation
exposure
risk
is
posed
by
the
site
contamination.
The
tables
in
this
guidance
provide
target
media­
specific
concentrations
that
may
be
used
(
where
appropriate)
for
those
contaminants
for
which
a
determination
has
been
made
that
a
pathway
is
complete.
An
adequate
site
evaluation
demands
careful
consideration
of
all
relevant
chemical
and
site­
specific
factors
as
well
as
appropriate
application
of
professional
judgment.
Risk
management
action
decisions
may
need
to
consider
other
factors
depending
on
the
regulatory
program
that
applies
and/
or
site­
specific
circumstances.
We
recommend
that
the
lead
regulatory
authority
select
the
most
appropriate
value
to
consider
for
site
evaluation
purposes.

C.
How
Is
The
Guidance
To
Be
Used
In
Making
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
Environmental
Indicator
(
EI)
Determinations?

We
recommend
that
the
approaches
suggested
in
this
guidance
be
used,
where
appropriate,
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations.
However,
we
do
not
believe
that
confirmatory
sampling
will
generally
be
necessary
in
that
context.
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
are
intended
to
reflect
a
reasonable
conclusion
by
EPA
or
the
State
that
current
human
exposures
are
under
control
with
regard
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
current
land
use
conditions.
We
believe
that
not
recommending
confirmatory
sampling
is
appropriate
because
of
the
conservative
nature
of
the
assumptions
made.
Additionally,
the
recommended
approaches
are
designed
to
help
site
decision
makers
to
differentiate
those
sites
for
which
there
is
more
likely
to
be
unacceptable
vapor
intrusion
from
those
where
unacceptable
vapor
intrusion
exposures
are
less
likely.

Finally,
this
guidance
provides
targeted
indoor
air
concentrations
set
at
10­
4,
10­
5,
and
10­
6
(
incremental
individual
lifetime
cancer
risk)
levels
and
a
Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ)
of
1
for
non­
cancer
risk.
For
the
purposes
of
making
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
with
respect
to
vapor
intrusion
under
RCRA
and
CERCLA,
EPA
generally
recommends
the
use
of
10­
5
values.
This
level,
in
EPA's
view,
serves
as
a
generally
reasonable
screening
mechanism
for
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Additionally,
it
takes
into
account
practical
issues
associated
with
the
analytical
difficulties
in
taking
air
measurements
and
the
possible
presence
of
many
constituents
of
concern
due
to
contributions
from
"
background"
sources,
including
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
and/
or
emitted
from
indoor
sources.

D.
How
Will
This
Guidance
Be
Used
In
The
RCRA
And
CERCLA
(
Superfund)
Programs?
10
We
recommend
that
this
draft
guidance
be
used
in
making
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
at
RCRA
and
NPL
sites,
as
well
as
in
CERCLA
remedial
investigations
and
RCRA
facility
investigations.
It
is
not
designed
to
help
the
site
decision
makers
conduct
a
more
detailed
(
e.
g.,
site­
specific)
assessment
of
current
and
future
risks
at
NPL
sites
and
it
does
not
address
cumulative
risk
that
includes
other
exposure
pathways.
2
Likewise,
this
draft
guidance
is
not
designated
to
be
used
during
the
process
for
determining
whether,
and
to
what
extent,
cleanup
action
is
warranted
at
these
sites.

E.
What
Has
Changed
From
Previous
Guidance
Related
To
Vapor
Intrusion
That
I
Should
Be
Aware
Of?

This
draft
guidance
provides
improved
methodologies
designed
to
be
used
at
any
site
evaluation
involving
a
potential
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Much
work
has
been
done
to
improve
methodologies
and
coordinate
various
cleanup
programmatic
interests,
especially
the
major
OSWER
regulatory
programs,
in
developing
this
vapor
intrusion
guidance.
EPA
believes
that
this
guidance
should
prove
useful
and
beneficial
to
these
programs
as
well
as
to
others
by
providing
the
most
up­
to­
date
recommended
approach
for
use
in
evaluating
potential
exposures
via
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Specifically,
it
should
be
noted
that:

°
The
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Model
(
1991)
is
used
in
Questions
5
and
6
of
this
draft
guidance.
EPA/
OSWER
re­
evaluated
the
strengths
and
limitations
of
the
model
which
led
to
revisions
of
the
previous
spreadsheets
developed
by
the
Superfund
Program
in
1997.
The
revisions
include
new
default
parameters
that
EPA
generally
recommends
be
used
in
vapor
intrusion
pathway
evaluations.
The
new
spreadsheets
are
available
on
the
following
website
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
risk/
airmodel/
johnson_
ettinger.
htm
°
EPA
is
also
issuing
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Developing
Soil
Screening
Levels
for
Superfund
Sites
(
SG)
(
OSWER
9355.4­
24)
which
updates
the
1996
Soil
Screening
Guidance
and
includes
non­
residential
exposure
scenarios.
The
sitespecific
methodologies
and
tools
presented
in
the
SG
are
consistent
with
this
vapor
intrusion
guidance.

°
As
further
improvements
in
practice
are
developed,
for
example
sampling
techniques
described
in
Appendix
E,
they
will
be
further
evaluated
and
considered
for
updating
of
this
vapor
intrusion
guidance
and
notification
on
the
OSWER
website.

2
The
draft
guidance
does
not
specifically
address
the
issue
of
"
additive
risk."
At
sites
where
there
are
a
limited
number
of
constituents
in
the
subsurface
environment,
this
likely
is
not
an
issue.
However,
at
those
sites
where
a
number
of
contaminants
are
identified
in
the
subsurface
environment,
the
Regions
and
states
may
want
to
consider
the
additively
of
these
contaminants.
For
further
guidance
on
additively,
you
could
review
Section
2.1.1
of
the
Soil
Screening
Guidance:
Technical
Background
Document,
EPA/
540/
R­
95/
128,
May
1996.
11
F.
If
I
Have
Indoor
Air
Measurements
Do
I
Need
To
Follow
All
The
Steps
Described
In
This
Guidance?

We
do
not
recommend
that
indoor
air
quality
monitoring
be
conducted
prior
to
going
through
the
steps
recommended
in
this
guidance.
In
those
cases
where
indoor
air
quality
data
are
available
at
the
beginning
of
the
evaluation,
however,
we
generally
recommend
that
these
data
be
considered.
We
recommend
that
a
site­
specific
evaluation
be
performed
simultaneously
with
the
subsurface
assessment
if
indoor
air
concentrations
exceed
target
levels.
In
some
cases,
the
responsible
party
or
others
may
decide
to
proactively
eliminate
exposures
through
avoidance
or
mechanical
systems
as
a
costeffective
approach.
This
option
may
be
appropriate
at
any
time
in
the
assessment.

In
addition,
there
may
be
circumstances
in
which
a
lead
authority
or
a
responsible
party
elects
to
initiate
indoor
air
quality
monitoring
to
determine
whether
there
are
any
potential
risks
rather
than
pursue
assessment
of
the
pathway
via
the
steps
recommended
in
this
guidance.
If
a
responsible
party
decides
to
initiate
indoor
air
monitoring,
coordination
and
approval
of
air
monitoring
plans
with
the
lead
regulatory
authority
is
recommended.
3
G.
What
Else
Might
I
Consider
If
I
Have
Indoor
Air
Concentrations
Data?

Using
other
information
in
conducting
a
screening
evaluation
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
beyond
the
guidance
presented
in
this
document
may
be
appropriate
and
would
be
consistent
with
the
need
to
consider
all
relevant
data/
information
in
screening
and/
or
assessing
vapor
intrusion
to
a
building.
For
example,
in
some
cases,
a
building
may
be
positively
pressurized
as
an
inherent
design
of
the
heating,
ventilation,
and
air
conditioning
system.
It
may
be
possible
to
show
that
the
pathway,
in
this
case,
is
incomplete,
at
the
current
time,
by
demonstrating
a
significant
pressure
differential
from
the
building
to
the
subsurface.

H.
How
Should
"
Background"
Be
Considered
In
Evaluating
The
Contribution
Of
Subsurface
Contamination
To
Indoor
Air
Contamination?

We
believe
that
it
is
critical
to
consider
the
presence
of
background
concentrations
in
assessing
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Background
concentrations
may
be
impacted
by
volatile
chemicals
commonly
found
in
the
home
or
found
in
local
atmospheric
emissions.
For
example,
in
urban
areas
air
quality
is
often
affected
by
multiple
atmospheric
emission
sources.
In
addition,
human
activities
(
e.
g.,
smoking,
craft
hobbies)
or
consumer
products
(
e.
g.,
cleaners,
paints,
and
glues)
typically
found
in
the
home
provide
additional
indoor
vapor
emission
sources
that
can
contribute
to
increased
indoor
air
concentrations
of
some
chemicals.
In
fact,
there
may
be
dozens
of
detectable
chemicals
in
indoor
air
even
absent
subsurface
contribution.
These
two
types
of
sources
can
contribute
to
background
indoor
air
levels
of
VOCs,
and
we
recommend
they
be
considered
in
3
While
proactive
indoor
air
monitoring
may
be
initiated
at
any
time,
EPA
recommends
that
it
is
generally
not
necessary
if
the
pathway
can
be
confirmed
to
be
incomplete
considering
other
sitespecific
data
and
factors.
12
evaluating
the
contribution
of
subsurface
contamination
to
indoor
air
contamination
in
dwellings
at
a
cleanup
site.
Additionally,
we
recommend
that:
1)
an
inspection
be
conducted
of
the
residence,
2)
an
occupant
survey
be
completed
to
adequately
identify
the
presence
of
(
or
occupant
activities
that
could
generate)
any
possible
indoor
air
emissions
of
target
VOCs
in
the
dwelling
(
see
appendices
E,
H
and
I),
3)
all
possible
indoor
air
emission
sources
be
removed,
and
4)
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
samples
be
collected
in
conjunction
with
any
indoor
air
samples.
We
recommend
the
evaluation
of
existing
indoor
air
data
focus
on
constituents
(
and
any
potential
degradation
products)
present
in
subsurface
sources
of
contamination.
We
recommend
the
relative
contributions
of
background
sources
be
carefully
considered
(
see
Appendix
I)
in
order
to
properly
assess
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
risks
that
can
be
attributed
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

It
may
be
a
challenge
to
distinguish
"
background"
(
ambient
outdoor
and
indoor
air)
sources
of
vapors
from
site­
related
contamination.
However,
we
recommend
vapors
attributable
to
background
sources
be
accounted
for
during
the
"
Site
Specific
Assessment"
to
properly
assess
the
potential
risk
posed
by
exposures
via
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
To
the
extent
practicable,
we
recommend
that
background
sources
of
contamination
be
removed
or
excluded
from
the
site
dwellings
or
occupied
buildings
selected
for
sampling
before
any
indoor
air
sampling
is
conducted.
If
this
is
not
possible,
then
we
recommend
the
contribution
from
these
sources
be
carefully
considered
when
evaluating
any
indoor
air
sampling
results.
(
See
Site­
Specific
Question
#
6)
13
Compile
Site
Information
 
Develop
Data
Quality
Objectives
 
Develop
Conceptual
Site
Model
Tier
1
­
Primary
Screening
 
Determine
if
volatile
and
toxic
chemicals
are
present
(
see
Table
1).
 
Determine
if
inhabited
buildings
are,
or
in
the
future
could
potentially
be,
located
near
subsurface
contaminants.
­
If
toxic
volatile
chemicals
are
present
and
current,
or
future,
human
exposure
is
suspected,
proceed
with
screening.
 
Determine
if
potential
risks
warrant
immediate
action.
­
If
immediate
action
does
not
appear
to
be
necessary,
proceed
to
secondary
screening.

Tier
2
­
Secondary
Screening
Question
4
 
If
indoor
air
data
are
available,
compare
to
appropriate
target
concentration
(
Table
2a,
b,
or
c).
­
If
indoor
air
data
exceed
the
target
concentration
proceed
to
Question
6.
 
Determine
if
there
is
any
potential
for
contamination
of
soils
in
the
unsaturated
zone.
­
If
contamination
of
the
unsaturated
zone
is
suspected,
assess
soil
gas
data.
­
If
contamination
of
the
unsaturated
zone
is
not
suspected,
assess
groundwater
data.
 
Compare
soil
gas
or
groundwater
data
to
appropriate
target
concentration
(
Table
2a,
b,
or
c).
­
If
groundwater
data
exceed
the
target
concentration,
assess
soil
gas
data.
­
If
soil
gas
data
exceed
the
target
concentration
proceed
to
Question
5.
 
Determine
if
data
are
adequate
to
characterize
the
site
and
support
an
assessment.
­
If
adequate
data
are
not
available,
develop
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
satisfies
the
established
data
quality
objectives.
 
Determine
if
site
conditions,
or
data
limitations,
would
preclude
the
use
of
generic
attenuation
factors
used
in
Tables
2a,
b,
and
c.
 
If
appropriate
data
do
not
exceed
target
media
concentration,
pathway
is
considered
to
be
incomplete.

Question
5
 
Determine
if
there
is
any
potential
for
contamination
of
soils
in
the
unsaturated
zone.
­
If
contamination
of
the
unsaturated
zone
is
suspected,
assess
soil
gas
data.
­
If
contamination
of
the
unsaturated
zone
is
not
suspected,
assess
groundwater
data.
 
Compare
soil
gas
or
groundwater
data
to
appropriate
target
concentration
(
Table
3a,
b,
or
c).
­
If
groundwater
data
exceed
the
target
concentration,
assess
soil
gas
data.
­
If
soil
gas
data
exceed
the
target
concentration
proceed
to
Question
6.
 
If
adequate
data
are
not
available,
develop
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
satisfies
the
established
data
quality
objectives.
 
Determine
if
site
conditions,
or
data
limitations,
would
preclude
the
use
of
scenario­
specific
attenuation
factors
used
in
Tables
3a,
b,
and
c.
 
If
appropriate
data
do
not
exceed
target
media
concentration,
pathway
is
considered
to
be
incomplete.

Tier
3
­
Site
Specific
Pathway
Assessment
Question
6
 
Determine
if
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
has
been
adequately
characterized
to
identify
the
buildings
that
are
most
likely
to
be
impacted.
­
If
no,
develop
a
sampling
and
analysis
plan
that
satisfies
the
data
quality
objectives.
 
Compare
sub­
slab
soil
gas
or
indoor
air
data
to
appropriate
target
concentration.
­
If
sub­
slab
data
exceed
target
concentration,
assess
indoor
air
data.
 
Determine
whether
or
not
site
data
meet
data
quality
objectives
and
background/
ambient
sources
have
been
adequately
accounted
for.
 
Determine
if
exposure
pathway
is
complete.

Figure
2.
Schematic
flow
diagram:
evaluation
process
recommended
in
guidance.
14
IV.
TIER
1
­
Primary
Screening
Primary
Screening
is
designed
to
help
quickly
screen
out
sites
at
which
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
does
not
ordinarily
need
further
consideration,
and
point
out
the
sites
that
do
typically
need
further
consideration.
This
evaluation
involves
determining
whether
any
potential
exists
at
a
specific
site
for
vapor
intrusion
to
result
in
unacceptable
indoor
inhalation
risks
and,
if
so,
whether
immediate
action
may
be
warranted.
Recommended
criteria
for
making
these
determinations
are
presented
in
Questions
1
through
3,
which
focus
on
identifying:

a)
if
chemicals
of
sufficient
volatility
and
toxicity
are
present
or
reasonably
suspected
to
be
present
(
Question
1);
b)
if
inhabited
buildings
are
located
(
or
will
be
constructed
under
future
development
scenarios
 
except
for
Environmental
Indicator
determinations,
see
section
IV.
C
below)
above
or
in
close
proximity
to
subsurface
contamination
(
Question
2);
and
c)
if
current
conditions
warrant
immediate
action
(
Question
3).

This
primary
screening
process
is
illustrated
in
a
flow
diagram
included
in
Appendix
C.

A.
Primary
Screening
 
Question
#
1
Q1:
Are
chemicals
of
sufficient
volatility
and
toxicity
known
or
reasonably
suspected
to
be
present
in
the
subsurface
(
e.
g.,
in
unsaturated
soils,
soil
gas,
or
the
uppermost
portions
of
the
ground
water
and/
or
capillary
fringe
 
see
Table
1)?
(
We
recommend
this
consideration
involve
DQOs
(
see
Appendix
A)
used
in
acquiring
the
site
data
as
well
as
an
appropriately
scaled
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CSM)
for
vapor
intrusion
(
see
Appendix
B).)

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
check
off
the
relevant
chemicals
on
Table
1,
and
continue
with
Question
2.
The
chemicals
identified
here
(
and
any
degradation
products)
are
evaluated
as
constituents
of
potential
concern
in
subsequent
questions.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
provide
the
rationale
and
references
below,
and
then
go
to
the
Summary
Page
to
document
that
the
subsurface
vapor
to
indoor
air
pathway
is
incomplete
(
i.
e.,
no
further
consideration
of
this
pathway
is
needed);
or
_____
If
sufficient
data
are
not
available,
go
to
the
Summary
Page
and
document
the
need
for
more
information.
After
collecting
the
necessary
data,
Question
1
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

1.
What
is
the
goal
of
this
question?

This
question
is
designed
to
help
quickly
screen
out
sites
at
which
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
generally
does
not
need
further
consideration.
This
evaluation
involves
determining
whether
or
not
any
potential
exists
at
a
specific
site
for
the
vapor
intrusion
15
pathway
to
result
in
unacceptable
indoor
air
inhalation
risks.
Table
1
lists
chemicals
that
may
be
found
at
hazardous
waste
sites
and
indicates
whether,
in
our
judgment,
they
are
sufficiently
volatile
(
Henry's
Law
Constant
>
10­
5
atm
m3/
mol)
to
result
in
potentially
significant
vapor
intrusion
and
sufficiently
toxic
(
either
an
incremental
lifetime
cancer
risk
greater
than
10­
6
or
a
non­
cancer
hazard
index
greater
than
1,
or
in
some
cases
both)
to
result
in
potentially
unacceptable
indoor
air
inhalation
risks.
The
approach
used
to
develop
Table
1
is
documented
in
Appendix
D
and
can
be
used,
where
appropriate,
to
evaluate
volatile
chemicals
not
included
in
the
Table.
We
recommend
that
if
any
of
the
chemicals
listed
in
Table
1
that
are
sufficiently
volatile
and
toxic
are
present
at
a
site,
those
chemicals
become
constituents
of
potential
concern
for
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
are
evaluated
in
subsequent
questions
in
this
guidance.
If
the
chemicals
listed
in
Table
1
are
not
present
at
a
site,
and
no
other
volatile
chemicals
are
present,
we
suggest
that
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
be
considered
incomplete
and
no
further
consideration
of
this
pathway
is
needed.

2.
What
should
you
keep
in
mind?

In
evaluating
the
available
site
data,
we
recommend
the
DQOs
used
in
collecting
the
data
be
reviewed
to
ensure
those
objectives
are
consistent
with
the
DQOs
for
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
(
see
Appendix
A).
We
recommend
the
detection
limits
associated
with
the
available
groundwater
data
be
reviewed
to
ensure
they
are
not
too
high
to
detect
volatile
contaminants
of
potential
concern.
Also,
we
suggest
that
the
adequacy
of
the
definition
of
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
in
groundwater
and/
or
the
vadose
zone
be
assessed
to
ensure
that
all
contaminants
of
concern
and
areas
of
contamination
have
been
identified.
Additionally,
we
recommend
groundwater
concentrations
be
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
using
samples
collected
from
wells
screened
at,
or
across
the
top
of
the
water
table.
We
recommend
users
read
Appendices
B
(
Conceptual
Site
Model
for
the
Vapor
Intrusion
Pathway)
and
E
(
Relevant
Methods
and
Techniques)
to
obtain
a
greater
understanding
of
the
important
considerations
in
evaluating
data
for
use
in
screening
assessments
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

3.
Rationale
and
References:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
16
B.
Primary
Screening
 
Question
#
2
Q2:
Are
currently
(
or
potentially)
inhabited
buildings
or
areas
of
concern
under
future
development
scenarios
located
near
(
see
discussion
below)
subsurface
contaminants
found
in
Table
1?

_____
If
YES
 
check
here,
identify
buildings
and/
or
areas
of
concern
below,
and
document
on
the
Summary
Page
whether
the
potential
for
impacts
from
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
applies
to
currently
inhabited
buildings
or
areas
of
concern
under
reasonably
anticipated
future
development
scenarios,
or
both.
(
Note
that
for
EI
considerations,
we
recommend
only
current
risks
be
evaluated.)
Then
proceed
with
Question
3.

_____
If
NO
 
check
here,
describe
the
rationale
below,
and
then
go
to
the
Summary
Page
to
document
that
there
is
no
potential
for
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
to
impact
either
currently
inhabited
buildings
or
areas
of
concern
under
future
development
scenarios
(
i.
e.,
no
further
evaluation
of
this
pathway
is
needed).
(
Note
that
for
EI
considerations,
only
current
risks
are
evaluated.);
or
_____
If
sufficient
data
are
not
available
 
check
here
and
document
the
need
for
more
information
on
the
Summary
Page.
After
collecting
the
necessary
data,
Question
2
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

1.
What
is
the
goal
of
this
question?

The
goal
of
this
question
is
to
help
determine
whether
inhabited
buildings
currently
are
located
(
or
may
be
reasonably
expected
to
be
located
under
future
development
scenarios)
above
or
in
close
proximity
to
subsurface
contamination
that
potentially
could
result
in
unacceptable
indoor
air
inhalation
risks.
If
inhabited
buildings
and/
or
future
development
are
not
located
"
near"
the
area
of
concern,
we
suggest
that
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
be
considered
incomplete
and
no
further
consideration
of
the
pathway
should
be
needed.

For
the
purposes
of
this
question,
"
inhabited
buildings"
are
structures
with
enclosed
air
space
that
are
designed
for
human
occupancy.
Table
1,
discussed
above
in
Question
1,
lists
the
"
subsurface
contaminants
demonstrating
sufficient
volatility
and
toxicity"
to
potentially
pose
an
inhalation
risk.
We
recommend
that
an
inhabited
building
generally
be
considered
"
near"
subsurface
contaminants
if
it
is
located
within
approximately
100
ft
laterally
or
vertically
of
known
or
interpolated
soil
gas
or
groundwater
contaminants
listed
in
Table
1
(
or
others
not
included
in
table
1
 
see
Question
1)
and
the
contamination
occurs
in
the
unsaturated
zone
and/
or
the
uppermost
saturated
zone.
If
the
source
of
contamination
is
groundwater,
we
recommend
migration
of
the
contaminant
plume
be
considered
when
evaluating
the
potential
for
future
risks.
The
distance
suggested
above
(
100
feet)
may
not
be
appropriate
for
all
sites
(
or
contaminants)
and,
17
consequently,
we
recommend
that
professional
judgment
be
used
when
evaluating
the
potential
for
vertical
and
horizontal
vapor
migration.

2.
How
did
we
develop
the
suggested
distance?

The
recommended
distance
is
designed
to
allow
for
the
assessment
to
focus
on
buildings
(
or
areas
with
the
potential
to
be
developed
for
human
habitation)
most
likely
to
have
a
complete
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Vapor
concentrations
generally
decrease
with
increasing
distance
from
a
subsurface
vapor
source,
and
eventually
at
some
distance
the
concentrations
become
negligible.
The
distance
at
which
concentrations
are
negligible
is
a
function
of
the
mobility,
toxicity
and
persistence
of
the
chemical,
as
well
as
the
geometry
of
the
source,
subsurface
materials,
and
characteristics
of
the
buildings
of
concern.
Available
information
suggests
that
100
feet
laterally
and
vertically
is
a
reasonable
criterion
when
considering
vapor
migration
fundamentals,
typical
sampling
density,
and
uncertainty
in
defining
the
actual
contaminant
spatial
distribution.
The
recommended
lateral
distance
is
supported
by
empirical
data
from
Colorado
sites
where
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
has
been
evaluated.
At
these
sites,
no
significant
indoor
air
concentrations
have
been
found
in
residences
at
a
distance
greater
than
one
house
lot
(
approximately
100
feet)
from
the
interpolated
edge
of
ground
water
plumes.
Considering
the
nature
of
diffusive
vapor
transport
and
the
typical
anisotropy
in
soil
permeability,
in
our
judgment
a
similar
criterion
of
100
feet
for
vertical
transport
is
generally
conservative.
These
recommended
distances
will
be
re­
evaluated
and,
if
necessary,
adjusted
by
EPA
as
additional
empirical
data
are
compiled.

3.
What
should
you
keep
in
mind
when
evaluating
this
criterion?

It
is
important
to
consider
whether
significant
preferential
pathways
could
allow
vapors
to
migrate
more
than
100
feet
laterally.
For
the
purposes
of
this
guidance,
a
"
significant"
preferential
pathway
is
a
naturally
occurring
or
anthropogenic
subsurface
pathway
that
is
expected
to
have
a
high
gas
permeability
and
be
of
sufficient
volume
and
proximity
to
a
building
so
that
it
may
be
reasonably
anticipated
to
influence
vapor
intrusion
into
the
building.
Examples
include
fractures,
macropores,
utility
conduits,
and
subsurface
drains
that
intersect
vapor
sources
or
vapor
migration
pathways.
Note
that
naturally
occurring
fractures
and
macropores
may
serve
as
preferential
pathways
for
either
vertical
or
horizontal
vapor
migration,
whereas
anthropogenic
features
such
as
utility
conduits
are
relatively
shallow
features
and
would
likely
serve
only
as
a
preferential
pathway
for
horizontal
migration.
In
either
case,
we
recommend
that
buildings
with
significant
preferential
pathways
be
evaluated
even
if
they
are
further
than
100
ft
from
the
contamination.

We
also
recommend
that
the
potential
for
mobile
"
vapor
clouds"
(
gas
plumes)
emanating
from
near­
surface
sources
of
contamination
into
the
subsurface
be
considered
when
evaluating
site
data.
Examples
of
such
mobile
"
vapor
clouds"
include:
1)
those
originating
in
landfills
where
methane
may
serve
as
a
carrier
gas;
and
2)
those
originating
in
commercial/
industrial
settings
(
such
as
dry
cleaning
facilities)
where
vapor
can
be
released
within
an
enclosed
space
and
the
density
of
the
chemicals'
vapor
may
result
in
18
significant
advective
transport
of
the
vapors
downward
through
cracks/
openings
in
floors
and
into
the
vadose
zone.
In
these
cases,
diffusive
transport
of
vapors
is
usually
overridden
by
advective
transport,
and
the
vapors
may
be
transported
in
the
vadose
zone
several
hundred
feet
from
the
source
of
contamination.

Finally,
this
guidance
is
intended
to
be
applied
to
existing
groundwater
plumes
as
they
are
currently
defined
(
e.
g.,
MCLs,
State
Standards,
or
Risk­
Based
Concentrations).
However,
it
is
very
important
to
recognize
that
some
non­
potable
aquifers
may
have
plumes
that
have
been
defined
by
threshold
concentrations
significantly
higher
than
drinking­
water
concentrations.
In
these
cases,
contamination
that
is
not
technically
considered
part
of
the
plume
may
still
pose
significant
risks
via
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and,
consequently,
the
plume
definition
may
need
to
be
expanded.
Similarly,
we
recommend
evaluating
the
technologies
used
to
obtain
soil
gas
and
indoor
air
concentrations
to
determine
if
appropriate
methods
were
used
to
ensure
adequate
data
quality
at
the
time
analyses
were
conducted.

4.
Identify
Inhabited
Buildings
(
or
Areas
With
Potential
for
Future
Residential
Development)
Within
Distances
of
Possible
Concern:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
19
C.
Primary
Screening
Stage­
 
Question
#
3
Q3:
Does
evidence
suggest
immediate
action
may
be
warranted
to
mitigate
current
risks?

_____
If
YES
 
check
here
and
proceed
with
appropriate
actions
to
verify
or
eliminate
imminent
risks.
Some
examples
of
actions
may
include
but
are
not
limited
to
indoor
air
quality
monitoring,
engineered
containment
or
ventilation
systems,
or
relocation
of
people.
The
action(
s)
should
be
appropriate
for
the
site­
specific
situation.

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
4.

1.
What
is
the
goal
of
this
question?

This
question
is
intended
to
help
determine
whether
immediate
action
may
be
warranted
for
those
buildings
identified
in
Question
2
as
located
within
the
areas
of
concern.
For
the
purposes
of
this
guidance,
"
immediate
action"
means
such
action
is
necessary
to
verify
or
abate
imminent
and
substantial
threats
to
human
health.

2.
What
are
the
qualitative
criteria
generally
considered
sufficient
to
indicate
a
need
for
immediate
actions?

Odors
reported
by
occupants,
particularly
if
described
as
"
chemical,"
or
"
solvent,"
or
"
gasoline."
The
presence
of
odors
does
not
necessarily
correspond
to
adverse
health
and/
or
safety
impacts
and
the
odors
could
be
the
result
of
indoor
vapor
sources;
however,
we
believe
it
is
generally
prudent
to
investigate
any
reports
of
odors
as
the
odor
threshold
for
some
chemicals
exceeds
their
respective
acceptable
target
breathing
zone
concentrations.

Physiological
effects
reported
by
occupants
(
dizziness,
nausea,
vomiting,
confusion,
etc.)
may,
or
may
not
be
due
to
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
or
even
other
indoor
vapor
sources,
but,
should
generally
be
evaluated.

Wet
basements,
in
areas
where
chemicals
of
sufficient
volatility
and
toxicity
(
see
Table
1)
are
known
to
be
present
in
groundwater
and
the
water
table
is
shallow
enough
that
the
basements
are
prone
to
groundwater
intrusion
or
flooding.
This
has
been
proven
to
be
especially
important
where
there
is
evidence
of
light,
non­
aqueous
phase
liquids
(
LNAPLs)
floating
on
the
water
table
directly
below
the
building,
and/
or
any
direct
evidence
of
contamination
(
liquid
chemical
or
dissolved
in
water)
inside
the
building.

Short­
term
safety
concerns
are
known,
or
are
reasonably
suspected
to
exist,
including:
a)
measured
or
likely
explosive
or
acutely
toxic
concentrations
of
vapors
in
the
building
or
connected
utility
conduits,
sumps,
or
other
subsurface
drains
directly
connected
to
the
20
building
and
b)
measured
or
likely
vapor
concentrations
that
may
be
flammable/
combustible,
corrosive,
or
chemically
reactive.

3.
Rationale
and
Reference(
s):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
21
V.
TIER
2
­
SECONDARY
SCREENING
The
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
complex
and,
consequently,
we
recommend
that
a
comprehensive
assessment
of
this
pathway
using
all
available
lines
of
evidence
be
conducted
before
drawing
conclusions
about
the
risks
posed
by
this
pathway.
Users
are
encouraged
to
consider
the
evidence
for
vapor
intrusion
in
sequential
steps,
starting
with
the
source
of
vapors
(
contaminated
groundwater
or
unsaturated
soils),
proceeding
to
soil
gas
in
the
unsaturated
zone
above
the
source,
and
upward
to
the
exposure
point
(
e.
g.,
subslab
or
crawlspace
vapor).
Then,
if
indicated
by
the
results
of
previous
steps,
collect
and
evaluate
indoor
air
data.
In
our
judgment,
this
sequential
evaluation
of
independent
lines
of
evidence
provides
a
logical
and
cost­
effective
approach
for
identifying
whether
or
not
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
is
likely
to
contribute
significantly
to
unacceptable
indoor
air
quality.
However,
in
those
cases
where
indoor
air
quality
data
are
available
at
the
beginning
of
an
evaluation,
this
guidance
recognizes
these
data
will
generally
be
considered
early
in
the
process.

Collection
of
indoor
air
quality
data
without
evidence
to
support
the
potential
for
vapor
intrusion
from
subsurface
sources
can
lead
to
confounding
results.
Indoor
air
quality
can
be
influenced
by
`
background'
levels
of
volatile
chemicals.
For
example,
consumer
products
typically
found
in
the
home
(
e.
g.,
cleaners,
paints,
and
glues)
or
occupant
activities
(
e.
g.,
craft
hobbies,
smoking)
may
serve
as
contributory
sources
of
indoor
air
contaminants.
Additionally,
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
in
urban
areas
often
contains
detectable
concentrations
of
many
volatile
chemicals.
In
either
case,
the
resulting
indoor
air
concentrations
can
be
similar
to
or
higher
than
levels
that
are
calculated
to
pose
an
unacceptable
chronic
inhalation
risk
in
screening
calculations.
In
fact,
there
may
be
dozens
of
detectable
chemicals
in
indoor
air
even
absent
subsurface
contributions.
Thus,
we
recommend
focusing
the
evaluation
of
existing
indoor
air
data
on
constituents
(
and
any
potential
degradation
products)
present
in
subsurface
sources
of
contamination.
We
recommend
considering
the
relative
contributions
of
background
sources
(
see
Appendices
E
and
I)
in
order
to
properly
assess
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
risks
that
can
be
attributed
to
the
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

Using
a
sequential
approach,
the
secondary
screening
suggested
in
this
guidance
involves
comparing
available
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
concentrations
of
constituents
of
potential
concern
(
identified
in
Question
1)
in
groundwater
and/
or
soil
gas
to
target
concentrations
identified
in
Questions
4
and
5.
More
detailed
studies,
including
foundation
and/
or
indoor
air
sampling
and
vapor
intrusion
modeling,
are
generally
conducted
in
the
site­
specific
assessment
in
Question
6.
The
sequential
evaluation
approach
is
illustrated
in
flow
diagrams
included
in
Appendix
C.
Question
4
uses
conservative
"
generic"
attenuation
factors
that
reflect
generally
reasonable
worst­
case
conditions
for
a
first­
pass
screening
of
groundwater
and
soil
gas
data.
Question
5
uses
attenuation
factors
(
based
on
a
generally
conservative
use
of
the
Johnson­
Ettinger
mathematical
model)
that
relate
groundwater
and
soil
gas
target
concentrations
to
such
site­
specific
conditions
as
depth
of
contamination
and
soil
type.
In
performing
the
secondary
screening
assessment,
the
user
will
need
to
identify
whether
the
contamination
(
source
of
vapors)
occurs
in
groundwater
or
in
the
unsaturated
zone.
In
our
judgment,
if
22
there
is
a
contaminant
source
in
the
unsaturated
zone,
soil
gas
data
are
needed
to
evaluate
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
in
the
vicinity
of
the
unsaturated
zone
source.
However,
we
recommend
that
groundwater
data
still
be
evaluated,
particularly
if
the
plume
extends
beyond
an
unsaturated
zone
source
of
vapors,
but
only
in
conjunction
with
soil
gas
data.
If
the
secondary
screening
indicates
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
complete,
the
guidance
recommends
the
user
perform
a
site­
specific
assessment
following
the
guidelines
in
Question
6.
If
the
secondary
screening
indicates
this
pathway
is
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health,
then
no
further
assessment
of
the
pathway
is
recommended,
unless
conditions
change.

The
media­
specific
target
concentrations
used
in
Questions
4
and
5
were
developed
considering
a
generic
conceptual
model
for
vapor
intrusion
consisting
of
a
groundwater
and/
or
vadose
zone
source
of
volatile
vapors
that
diffuse
upwards
through
unsaturated
soils
towards
the
surface.
Under
the
model,
the
soil
in
the
vadose
zone
is
considered
to
be
relatively
homogeneous
and
isotropic,
though
horizontal
layers
of
soil
types
can
be
accommodated.
The
receptors
at
the
surface
used
in
the
model
are
residents
in
homes
with
poured
concrete
foundations
(
e.
g.,
basement
or
slab
on
grade
foundations
or
crawlspace
homes
with
a
liner
or
other
vapor
barrier).
The
underlying
assumption
for
this
generic
model
is
that
site­
specific
subsurface
characteristics
will
tend
to
reduce
or
attenuate
vapor
concentrations
as
vapors
migrate
upward
from
the
source
and
into
structures.
Thus,
application
of
the
secondary
screening
target
concentrations
necessitates
at
least
rudimentary
knowledge
of
the
contamination
source,
subsurface
conditions
(
e.
g.,
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
concentrations
of
target
chemicals
in
soil
or
groundwater,
and
depth
of
contamination
and
soil
type),
and
building
construction
at
the
site
(
e.
g.,
foundation
type).
Specific
factors
that
may
result
in
unattenuated
or
enhanced
transport
of
vapors
towards
a
receptor,
and
consequently
are
likely
to
render
the
use
of
the
secondary
screening
target
concentrations
inappropriate,
are
discussed
in
each
question
below.
Factors
such
as
biodegradation
that
can
result
in
accelerated
attenuation
of
vapors
are
not
considered
in
the
conceptual
model.
In
general,
it
is
recommended
that
the
user
consider
whether
the
assumptions
underlying
the
generic
conceptual
model
are
applicable
at
each
site,
and
use
professional
judgment
to
make
whatever
adjustments
(
including
not
considering
the
model
at
all)
are
appropriate.

A.
Secondary
Screening
 
Question
#
4:
Generic
Screening
Q4(
a):
Are
indoor
air
quality
data
available?
(
Collection
of
indoor
air
quality
data
without
evidence
to
indicate
the
potential
for
vapor
intrusion
from
subsurface
sources
is
not
recommended
at
this
level
of
screening,
but
if
such
data
are
available,
we
recommend
they
be
evaluated
along
with
the
available
subsurface
data.)

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
proceed
to
Question
4(
b).

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
proceed
to
Subsurface
Source
Identification
­
Question
4(
c).
23
Q4(
b):
Do
measured
indoor
air
concentrations
of
constituents
of
potential
concern
identified
in
Question
1
(
and
any
degradation
products)
exceed
the
target
concentrations
given
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
representative
indoor
air
concentrations
on
Table
2,
and
initiate
a
site­
specific
assessment
following
the
guidelines
in
Question
6.
(
We
recommend
the
user
also
proceed
with
the
subsurface
evaluation
to
evaluate
whether
there
is
sufficient
evidence
to
indicate
the
elevated
indoor
concentrations
are
due
to
vapor
intrusion
from
subsurface
sources,
and
not
from
background
or
other
sources)

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
proceed
to
Subsurface
Source
Identification
­
Question
4(
c).
(
Here,
the
recommendation
to
proceed
with
the
subsurface
evaluation
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
only
limited
indoor
air
data
are
available
and,
therefore,
the
available
subsurface
data
need
to
be
evaluated
to
ensure
that
all
possible
areas
potentially
affected
by
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
are
evaluated.
However,
in
our
judgment,
if
the
site
has
been
adequately
characterized
and
sufficient
indoor
air
data
are
available
(
see
Question
6
for
a
discussion
of
data
needs),
the
pathway
is
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health,
and
no
further
assessment
of
the
pathway
is
recommended.
Document
the
finding
as
described
in
Question
6.)

Subsurface
Source
Identification:

Q4(
c):
Is
there
any
potential
contamination
(
source
of
vapors)
in
the
unsaturated
zone
soil
at
any
depth
above
the
water
table?
(
In
our
judgment,
if
there
is
a
contaminant
source
in
the
unsaturated
zone,
soil
gas
data
are
needed
to
evaluate
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
in
the
vicinity
of
the
source
and,
consequently,
use
of
the
groundwater
target
concentrations
may
be
inappropriate.
However,
we
recommend
that
groundwater
data
still
be
evaluated,
particularly
if
a
contaminant
plume
extends
beyond
the
unsaturated
zone
source,
but
that
the
evaluation
be
performed
only
in
conjunction
with
an
evaluation
of
soil
gas
data.
Other
vapor
sources
that
typically
make
the
use
of
groundwater
target
concentrations
inappropriate
include:
1)
those
originating
in
landfills
where
methane
may
serve
as
a
carrier
gas;
2)
those
originating
in
commercial/
industrial
settings
(
such
as
dry
cleaning
facilities)
where
vapor
can
be
released
within
an
enclosed
space
and
the
density
of
the
chemicals'
vapor
may
result
in
significant
advective
transport
of
the
vapors
downward
through
cracks/
openings
in
floors
and
into
the
vadose
zone;
and
3)
leaking
vapors
from
underground
storage
tanks.
In
these
cases,
diffusive
transport
of
vapors
is
often
overridden
by
advective
transport
and
the
vapors
may
be
transported
in
the
vadose
zone
several
hundred
feet
from
the
source
of
contamination.)

_____
If
YES­
check
here
and
skip
to
Soil
Gas
Assessment
­
Question
4
(
g)
below.
24
_____
If
NO­
check
here
and
continue
with
Groundwater
Assessment
­
Question
4(
d)
below.

Groundwater
Assessment:

Q4(
d):
Do
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
groundwater
concentrations
exceed
the
generic
target
media­
specific
concentrations
given
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)?
(
For
more
information
on
the
use
of
data
for
this
part,
please
see
the
sections
below
entitled
"
How
should
data
be
used
in
this
question?"
and
"
How
do
you
know
you
have
unusable
data?".)

_____
If
YES
(
or
if
the
detection
limit
for
any
constituents
of
potential
concern
is
above
the
target
concentration)
­
check
here
and
document
representative
groundwater
concentrations
on
Table
2.
If
soil
gas
data
are
available,
proceed
to
Soil
Gas
Assessment
­
Question
4(
g)
below,
otherwise
proceed
to
Question
5.

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
proceed
to
Question
4(
e).

Q4(
e):
Is
the
nature
and
extent
of
groundwater
contamination
adequately
characterized
(
see
Appendices
B
&
E)
in
areas
with
inhabited
buildings
(
or
areas
with
the
potential
for
future
development
of
inhabited
buildings)?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
4(
f)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
go
to
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
We
recommend
the
next
step
be
expeditious
collection
of
the
needed
data
in
accordance
with
proper
DQOs.
Question
4
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

Q4(
f):
Are
there
site
conditions
and/
or
data
limitations
that
make
the
use
of
the
recommended
generic
groundwater
attenuation
factors
inappropriate?
We
recommend
this
consideration
involve
comparison
of
the
generic
conceptual
model
to
an
appropriately
scaled
and
updated
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CSM)
for
vapor
intrusion
(
see
Appendix
B),
as
well
as
the
proper
DQOs
(
see
Appendix
A).
We
also
recommend
evaluation
of
the
generic
attenuation
factors
used
to
develop
the
media­
specific
attenuation
factors
(
see
the
section
below
titled
"
What
is
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
and
2(
c)
and
how
did
we
develop
them?"
and
Appendix
F.)

Factors
that,
in
our
judgment,
typically
make
the
use
of
generic
groundwater
attenuation
factors
inappropriate
include:


Very
shallow
groundwater
sources
(
e.
g.,
depths
to
water
less
than
5
ft
below
foundation
level);
or

Relatively
shallow
groundwater
sources
(
e.
g.,
depths
to
water
less
than
15
ft
below
foundation),
and
one
or
more
of
the
following:
25
o
buildings
with
significant
openings
to
the
subsurface
(
e.
g.,
sumps,
unlined
crawlspaces,
earthen
floors),
or
o
significant
preferential
pathways,
either
naturally­
occurring
and/
or
anthropogenic
(
see
discussion
below
under
"
What
Should
I
Keep
in
Mind
When
Evaluating
Data"),
or
o
buildings
with
very
low
air
exchange
rates
(
e.
g.,
<
0.25/
hr)
or
very
high
sustained
indoor/
outdoor
pressure
differentials
(
e.
g.,
>
10
Pascals).

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
issues
below,
and
proceed
to
Site­
Specific
Assessment
­
Question
6.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
rationale
below
and
document
on
the
Summary
Page
that
the
groundwater
data
indicate
the
pathway
is
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.
In
order
to
increase
confidence
in
the
assessment
that
the
pathway
is
incomplete,
we
recommend
that
soil
gas
data
also
be
evaluated
(
Question
4(
g)).

_____
If
sufficient
data
(
of
acceptable
quality)
are
not
available
­
check
here,
go
to
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
We
recommend
the
next
step
be
expeditious
collection
of
the
needed
data
in
accord
with
proper
DQOs.
Question
4
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
reevaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

Soil
Gas
Assessment:

Q4(
g):
Do
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
soil
gas
concentrations
exceed
the
generic
target
media­
specific
concentrations
given
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)
(
see
Appendix
D)?
For
more
information
on
the
use
of
data
for
this
part,
please
see
the
section
below
entitled
"
How
should
data
be
used
in
this
question?"

_____
If
YES
(
or
if
the
detection
limit
for
any
constituents
of
potential
concern
is
above
the
target
concentration)
­
check
here.
Document
representative
soil
gas
concentrations
on
Table
2
and
proceed
to
Question
5.

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
proceed
to
Question
4(
h).

Q4(
h):
Is
the
nature
and
extent
of
soil
contamination
adequately
characterized
and
has
an
adequate
demonstration
been
made
to
show
that
the
soil
gas
sampling
techniques
used
could
reasonably
detect
an
elevated
concentration
of
vapors
if
they
were
present
in
the
site
setting?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
4(
i)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here.
Skip
to
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
We
recommend
the
next
step
be
expeditious
collection
of
the
needed
26
data
in
accord
with
proper
DQOs.
Question
4
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

Q4(
i):
Are
there
site
conditions
and/
or
data
limitations
that
may
make
the
use
of
generic
soil
gas
attenuation
factors
inappropriate?
(
We
recommend
that
this
consideration
involve
an
appropriately
scaled
and
updated
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CSM)
for
vapor
intrusion
(
see
Appendix
B),
as
well
as
the
proper
DQOs
(
see
Appendix
A).
We
also
recommend
evaluation
of
the
generic
attenuation
factors
used
to
develop
the
media­
specific
attenuation
factors
(
see
the
section
below
titled
"
What
is
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
and
2(
c)
and
how
did
we
develop
them?"
and
Appendix
F.))

Factors
that,
in
our
judgment,
typically
make
the
use
of
generic
soil
gas
attenuation
factors
inappropriate
include:


Shallow
soil
contamination
vapor
sources
(
e.
g.,
less
than
15
ft
below
foundation
level),
and
one
or
more
of
the
following:
o
buildings
with
significant
openings
to
the
subsurface
(
e.
g.,
sumps,
unlined
crawlspaces,
earthen
floors),
or
o
significant
preferential
pathways,
either
naturally­
occurring
and/
or
anthropogenic
(
see
discussion
below
under
"
What
Should
I
Keep
in
Mind
When
Evaluating
Data"),
or
o
buildings
with
very
low
air
exchange
rates
(
e.
g.,
<
0.25/
hr)
or
very
high
sustained
indoor/
outdoor
pressure
differentials
(
e.
g.,
>
10
Pascals).

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
issues
below,
and
proceed
to
Site­
Specific
Assessment
­
Question
6.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
rationale
below
and
document
on
the
Summary
Page
that
the
soil
gas
data
indicate
the
pathway
is
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.
In
this
case,
no
further
assessment
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
recommended.

_____
If
sufficient
data
(
of
acceptable
quality)
are
not
available
­
check
here,
go
to
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
We
recommend
the
next
step
be
expeditious
collection
of
the
needed
data
in
accord
with
proper
DQOs
or
proceed
to
Question
5.
When
additional
data
are
collected,
Question
4
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

1.
What
is
the
goal
of
this
question?

Question
4
is
intended
to
allow
a
rapid
screening
of
available
site
data
using
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
groundwater
and/
or
soil
gas
concentrations.
The
term
"
measured
or
27
reasonably
estimated"
is
used
above
(
and
throughout
this
document)
in
recognition
of
the
fact
that
measurements
adjacent
to
or
in
all
buildings
of
concern
may
not
be
practical
or
necessary.
For
example,
groundwater
concentrations
beneath
buildings
are
commonly
estimated
from
concentrations
collected
in
wells
distributed
about
a
larger
area
of
interest.

2.
How
should
data
be
used
in
this
question?

Question
4
calls
for
comparison
of
site
data
with
generic
target
media­
specific
concentrations
given
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
and
2(
c).
These
target
media­
specific
concentrations
correspond
to
indoor
air
concentrations
associated
with
a
specific
incremental
lifetime
cancer
risk
of
(
a)
10­
4,
(
b)
10­
5,
(
c)
10­
6
or
a
hazard
quotient
greater
than
1
(
whichever
is
more
restrictive).
Under
this
question,
the
user
selects
the
appropriate
screening
risk
level
for
the
site
and
compares
the
soil
gas
and/
or
groundwater
concentrations
observed
at
the
site
to
the
corresponding
target
media
concentrations
in
the
table.
If
the
detection
limit
for
any
constituent
of
potential
concern
is
above
its
target
screening
level,
we
recommend
the
user
continue
the
evaluation
as
though
the
target
level
is
exceeded.

In
order
to
select
the
appropriate
target
media
concentrations
for
comparison,
it
is
important
to
identify
whether
a
source
of
vapors
in
an
area
occurs
in
the
unsaturated
zone
(
contaminated
soil).
This
allows
the
site
data
to
be
segregated
into
two
categories:
a)
data
representing
areas
where
contaminated
groundwater
is
the
only
source
of
contaminant
vapors,
and
b)
data
representing
areas
where
the
underlying
unsaturated
zone
soil
contains
a
source
of
vapors.
In
case
(
a)
either
the
groundwater
or
soil
gas
target
concentrations
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)
are
generally
appropriate
to
use.
In
case
(
b),
we
recommend
that
only
soil
gas
target
concentrations
and
soil
gas
samples
collected
above
the
vapor
source
zone
be
used.
This
is
because
the
groundwater
target
concentrations
have
been
derived
assuming
no
other
vapor
sources
exist
between
the
water
table
and
the
building
foundation.
However,
we
recommend
that
groundwater
data
still
be
evaluated,
particularly
if
a
contaminant
plume
extends
beyond
the
unsaturated
zone
source,
but
the
evaluation
be
performed
only
in
conjunction
with
an
evaluation
of
soil
gas
data.
In
either
case,
because
of
the
complexity
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway,
we
recommend
that
professional
judgment
be
used
when
applying
the
target
concentrations.

This
screening
approach
is
based
on
a
conceptual
model
that
assumes
diffusive
transport
of
vapors
in
the
unsaturated
zone.
Consequently,
we
recommend
the
target
concentrations
used
in
this
secondary
screening
not
be
applied
to
data
from
sites
in
which
advection
significantly
influences
vapor
transport.
Thus,
the
exclusionary
criteria
listed
above
in
Questions
4(
f)
and
4(
i)
are
designed
to
identify
those
situations
in
which
advective
vapor
transport
may
result
in
unattenuated
or
enhanced
vapor
intrusion
(
e.
g.,
shallow
vapor
sources
at
depths
less
than
15
ft
below
foundation
level
and
buildings
with
significant
openings
to
the
subsurface,
or
very
high
sustained
pressure
differentials,
or
significant
vertical
preferential
pathways).
28
3.
What
is
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
and
2(
c)
and
how
did
we
develop
them?

Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)
contain
generally
recommended
target
concentrations
for
indoor
air,
soil
gas,
and
groundwater
for
each
chemical
listed.
A
separate
table
is
provided
for
each
of
the
three
cancer
risk
levels
considered
(
a)
10­
4,
(
b)
10­
5,
and
(
c)
10­
6
including
non­
cancer
risk
values
where
applicable
for
Hazard
Quotient
=
1.
Details
regarding
the
derivation
of
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
and
2(
c)
are
provided
in
Appendix
D.
The
tabulated
indoor
air
concentrations
are
risk­
based
screening
levels
calculated
following
an
approach
consistent
with
EPA's
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Developing
Soil
Screening
Levels
for
Superfund
Sites
(
EPA,
2002).
These
recommended
target
indoor
air
concentrations
were
calculated
using
toxicity
information
current
as
of
the
date
indicated
on
the
tables.
The
user
is
encouraged
to
visit
the
EPA
web­
page
to
determine
whether
updated
tables
are
available.

The
soil
gas
and
groundwater
target
concentrations
were
calculated
to
correspond
to
the
target
indoor
air
concentrations
using
media­
specific
attenuation
factors.
Shallow
soil
gas
(
e.
g.,
subslab
gas
and
soil
gas
measured
at
5
feet
or
less
from
the
base
of
the
foundation)
is
conservatively
assumed
to
intrude
into
indoor
spaces
with
an
attenuation
factor
of
0.1.
Note
that
in
general
samples
taken
less
than
5
feet
below
the
building
foundation
are
not
recommended
unless
the
sample
was
taken
from
directly
under
the
foundation
slab
or
repeated
sampling
is
performed
to
ensure
a
representative
soil
gas
value.
For
deep
soil
gas
(
e.
g.,
soil
gas
samples
taken
at
depths
greater
than
approximately
5
feet
below
the
foundation
level),
an
attenuation
factor
of
0.01
(
generally
considered
reasonably
conservative)
is
used
to
calculate
target
concentrations.
For
groundwater,
an
attenuation
factor
of
0.001
(
generally
considered
reasonably
conservative)
is
used
in
combination
with
the
conservative
assumption
that
the
partitioning
of
chemicals
between
groundwater
and
soil
vapor
is
assumed
to
obey
Henry's
Law.
(
Note
that
if
the
risk­
based
concentration
calculated
for
groundwater
falls
below
the
chemical's
MCL,
the
MCL
is
recommended
as
the
target
concentrations.)
EPA
generally
considers
the
attenuation
factors
used
in
this
guidance
to
be
reasonable
upper
bound
values
based
on
data
from
sites
where
paired
indoor
air,
soil
gas
and
groundwater
samples
were
available
(
see
Appendix
F),
and
also
theoretical
considerations.

4.
How
do
you
know
if
you
have
usable
data?

In
comparing
available
site
data
to
the
target
media­
specific
target
concentrations
in
Table
2,
we
recommend
that
DQOs
used
in
collecting
the
data
be
consistent
with
DQOs
for
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
that
the
sampling
issues
specific
to
evaluating
this
pathway
be
considered
(
see
Appendices
A
and
E).
Some
examples
of
sampling
issues
that
we
recommend
be
considered
are:
1)
groundwater
samples
be
taken
from
wells
screened
(
preferably
over
short
intervals)
across
the
top
of
the
water
table
(
only
volatile
contaminants
in
the
uppermost
portions
of
an
aquifer,
including
the
capillary
fringe,
are
likely
to
volatilize
into
the
vadose
zone
and
potentially
migrate
into
indoor
air
spaces);
2)
fluctuations
in
water
table
elevation
can
lead
to
elevated
source
vapor
concentrations
and
thus,
we
recommend
soil
gas
samples
be
considered
in
these
areas;
3)
we
recommend
soil
29
gas
samples
be
taken
as
close
to
the
areas
of
interest
as
possible
and
preferably
from
directly
underneath
the
building
structure;
and
4)
as
vapors
are
likely
to
migrate
upward
through
the
coarsest
and/
or
driest
material,
we
recommend
that
soil
gas
samples
be
collected
from
these
materials.
More
detail
regarding
considerations
for
using
groundwater
and
soil
gas
data
to
evaluate
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
are
provided
in
Appendix
E.

5.
What
should
I
keep
in
mind
when
evaluating
data?

It
is
important
to
consider
whether
significant
preferential
pathways
could
allow
vapors
to
migrate
farther
and
at
greater
concentrations
than
expected.
For
purposes
of
this
guidance,
a
preferential
pathway
is
a
naturally­
occurring
and/
or
anthropogenic
subsurface
'
pathway'
that
is
expected
to
have
a
high
intrinsic
gas
permeability
(
vadose
zone)
or
high
conductivity
(
saturated
zone)
and
thus
influence
the
flow
or
migration
of
contaminated
vapors
or
groundwater.
A
preferential
pathway
is
likely
to
have
a
significant
influence
on
vapor
intrusion
if
it
is
of
sufficient
volume
and
proximity
to
a
currently
occupied
building
so
that
it
may
be
reasonably
anticipated
to
influence
the
migration
of
contaminants
to,
or
into,
the
building.
Significant
vertical
preferential
pathways
may
result
in
higher
than
anticipated
concentrations
in
the
overlying
near
surface
soils,
whereas
significant
horizontal
preferential
pathways
may
result
in
elevated
concentrations
in
areas
on
the
periphery
of
subsurface
contamination.
Naturally
occurring
preferential
pathways
may
include
fractured
vadose
zone
geology
or
very
permeable
soils
located
between
a
relatively
shallow
source
of
contamination
and
a
building.
Anthropogenic
preferential
pathways
may
include
utility
conduits
or
subsurface
drains
that
are
directly
connected
to
a
building
and
a
source
of
vapors.
In
highly
developed
residential
areas,
extensive
networks
of
subsurface
utility
conduits
could
significantly
influence
the
migration
of
contaminants.
EPA
recommends
that
buildings
with
significant
preferential
pathways
be
evaluated
closely
even
if
they
are
further
than
100
feet
from
the
contamination.

6.
What
if
I
have
bulk
soil
data?

Soil
(
as
opposed
to
soil
gas)
sampling
and
analysis
is
not
currently
recommended
for
assessing
whether
or
not
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
complete.
This
is
because
of
the
large
uncertainties
associated
with
measuring
concentrations
of
volatile
contaminants
introduced
during
soil
sampling,
preservation,
and
chemical
analysis,
as
well
as
the
uncertainties
associated
with
soil
partitioning
calculations.
Thus,
bulk
soil
target
concentrations
were
not
derived
and
the
use
of
bulk
soil
target
concentration
is
not
generally
recommended.
Note
however,
if
a
NAPL
source
is
suspected,
a
soil
sample
may
be
necessary
to
determine
whether
a
NAPL
source
is
present.
Also,
bulk
soil
concentration
data
could
be
used
in
a
qualitative
sense
for
delineation
of
sources,
where
appropriate.
For
example,
high
soil
concentrations
would
indicate
impacted
soils;
unfortunately,
the
converse
is
not
always
true
and
it
is
our
judgment
that
non­
detect
analytical
results
can
not
be
interpreted
to
indicate
the
absence
of
a
vapor
source.
30
7.
Rationale
and
Reference(
s):

Document
Risk
Level
Used
(
Circle
One):
10­
4,
(
b)
10­
5,
or
(
c)
10­
6
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
31
B.
Secondary
Screening
 
Question
#
5:
Semi­
Site
Specific
Screening
Q5(
a):
Do
groundwater
and/
or
soil
gas
concentrations
for
any
constituents
of
potential
concern
exceed
target
media­
specific
concentrations
by
a
factor
greater
than
50?
(
Evaluation
of
limited
site
data
in
Question
5
allows
the
user
to
potentially
screen
sites
using
target
concentrations
that
are
higher
by
a
factor
of
up
to
50
times
greater
than
the
generic
target
concentrations
used
in
Question
4.
If
observed
concentrations
are
greater
than
50
times
the
generic
target
concentrations,
we
recommend
expeditious
site­
specific
evaluation.)

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
briefly
document
the
issues
below
and
go
to
Site­
Specific
Assessment
­
Question
6.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
5(
b).

Q5(
b):
Are
there
site
conditions
and/
or
data
limitations
under
which
we
would
not
recommend
the
use
of
semi­
site
specific
attenuation
factors
(
based
on
the
Johnson­
Ettinger
Model)?
(
To
determine
whether
use
of
the
Johnson­
Ettinger
model
is
appropriate,
we
recommend
the
user
consider
an
appropriately
scaled
and
updated
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CSM)
for
vapor
intrusion
(
see
Appendix
B)
and
DQOs
(
see
Appendix
A).
We
also
recommend
users
refer
to
Appendix
G,
which
lists
the
limitations
of
the
Johnson­
Ettinger
Model.)

Factors
that,
in
our
judgment,
typically
make
the
use
of
semi­
site
specific
attenuation
factors
inappropriate
include:


Very
shallow
vapor
sources
(
e.
g.,
depths
less
than
5
ft
below
foundation
level);
or

Relatively
shallow
vapor
sources
(
e.
g.,
depths
less
than
15
ft
below
foundation
level),
and
one
or
more
of
the
following:
o
buildings
with
significant
openings
to
the
subsurface
(
e.
g.,
sumps,
unlined
crawlspaces,
earthen
floors),
or
o
significant
preferential
pathways,
either
naturally­
occurring
and/
or
anthropogenic
(
see
discussion
in
Question
4),
or
o
buildings
with
very
low
air
exchange
rates
(
e.
g.,
<
0.25/
hr)
or
very
high
sustained
indoor/
outdoor
pressure
differentials
(
e.
g.,
>
10
Pascals),
or
o
soil
types
outside
the
range
shown
in
Table
4,
or

Any
other
situation
for
which
the
Johnson­
Ettinger
Model
is
deemed
inappropriate.

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
briefly
document
the
issues
below
and
go
to
Site­
Specific
Assessment
­
Question
6.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
5(
c).
32
_____
If
sufficient
data
(
of
acceptable
quality)
are
not
available
­
check
here
and
skip
to
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
We
recommend
that
the
next
step
be
expeditious
collection
of
the
needed
data
in
accord
with
proper
DQOs.
Question
5
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

Q5(
c):
Are
the
depth
to
vapor
source
and
the
overlying
unsaturated
zone
soil
type
adequately
characterized
in
areas
with
inhabited
buildings
(
or
areas
with
the
potential
for
future
development
of
inhabited
buildings)?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
5(
d)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
go
to
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
We
recommend
the
next
step
be
expeditious
collection
of
the
needed
data
in
accord
with
proper
DQOs.
Question
5
can
then
be
revisited
with
the
newly
collected
data
to
re­
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

Subsurface
Source
Identification
Q5(
d):
Is
there
any
potential
contamination
(
source
of
vapors)
in
the
unsaturated
zone
soil
at
any
depth
above
the
water
table?
(
In
our
judgment,
if
there
is
a
contaminant
source
in
the
unsaturated
zone,
soil
gas
data
are
needed
to
evaluate
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
in
the
vicinity
of
the
source
and,
consequently,
use
of
the
groundwater
target
concentrations
may
be
inappropriate.
However,
we
recommend
that
groundwater
data
still
be
evaluated,
particularly
if
a
contaminant
plume
extends
beyond
the
unsaturated
zone
source,
but
that
the
evaluation
be
performed
only
in
conjunction
with
an
evaluation
of
soil
gas
data.
Other
vapor
sources
that
we
believe
typically
make
the
use
of
groundwater
target
concentrations
inappropriate
include:
1)
those
originating
in
landfills
where
methane
may
serve
as
a
carrier
gas;
2)
those
originating
in
commercial/
industrial
settings
(
such
as
dry
cleaning
facilities)
where
vapor
can
be
released
within
an
enclosed
space
and
the
density
of
the
chemicals'
vapor
may
result
in
significant
advective
transport
of
the
vapors
downward
through
cracks/
openings
in
floors
and
into
the
vadose
zone;
and
3)
leaking
vapors
from
underground
storage
tanks.
In
these
cases,
diffusive
transport
of
vapors
is
often
overridden
by
advective
transport
and
the
vapors
may
be
transported
in
the
vadose
zone
several
hundred
feet
from
the
source
of
contamination.)

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
skip
to
Soil
Gas
Assessment
 
Question
5(
f)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Groundwater
Assessment
­
Question
5(
e)
below.
33
Groundwater
Assessment:

Q5(
e):
Do
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
groundwater
concentrations
exceed
the
target
media­
specific
concentrations
given
in
Tables
3(
a),
3(
b),
or
3(
c)
for
the
appropriate
attenuation
factor
(
given
that
the
conditions
listed
above
in
5(
b)
are
not
present
and
that
sampling
issues
described
Appendix
E
have
been
considered)?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
the
soil
type,
depth
to
groundwater
and
attenuation
factor
used
in
the
assessment
on
the
summary
page,
and
document
the
representative
groundwater
concentrations
on
Table
3.
If
soil
gas
data
are
available,
proceed
to
Soil
Gas
Assessment
­
Question
5(
f)
below,
otherwise
proceed
to
Site
Specific
Assessment
­
Question
6.

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
document
that
the
groundwater
data
indicate
that
the
pathway
is
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
on
the
Summary
Page.
In
order
to
increase
confidence
in
the
assessment
that
the
pathway
is
incomplete,
EPA
recommends
that
soil
gas
data
also
be
evaluated
following
the
soil
gas
assessment
guidelines
below
(
Question
5(
f)).

Soil
Gas
Assessment:

Q5(
f):
Do
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
soil
gas
concentrations
exceed
the
target
media­
specific
concentrations
given
in
Tables
3(
a),
3(
b),
or
3(
c)
for
the
appropriate
attenuation
factor
(
given
that
the
conditions
listed
above
in
5(
b)
are
not
present,
or
that
other
site
specific
factors
make
consideration
of
this
analysis
inappropriate,
and
that
sampling
issues
described
in
Appendix
E
have
been
considered)?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
the
soil
type,
depth
to
source
and
attenuation
factor
used
in
the
assessment
on
the
summary
page,
document
representative
soil
gas
concentrations
on
Table
3
and
proceed
to
Site
Specific
Assessment
­
Question
6.

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
document
that
the
subsurface
vapor
to
indoor
air
pathway
is
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
on
the
Summary
Page.
In
this
case,
we
recommend
no
further
assessment
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

1.
What
is
the
goal
of
this
question?

The
goal
of
this
question
is
to
provide
a
means
of
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
using
tables
of
generally
recommended
target
media­
specific
concentrations
that
incorporate
limited
site­
specific
information.
Specifically,
Question
5
factors
in
consideration
of
soil
type
and
depth
to
source
in
screening
the
available
groundwater
and
soil
gas
data.
Soil
gas­
and
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
generally
34
depend
(
as
described
in
Appendix
G)
on
building
characteristics,
chemical
type,
soil
type,
and
depth
of
the
source
(
which
is
defined
as
either
a
measured
soil
gas
concentration
at
the
specified
sample
collection
depth
below
the
building,
or
the
ground
water
concentration
at
the
depth
of
the
water
table).
By
using
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Model
(
1991)
and
keeping
all
factors
besides
source
depth
and
soil
type
constant
(
and
reasonably
conservative),
a
set
of
attenuation
factors
can
be
derived
that
allows
for
the
selection
of
semi­
site
specific
target
media
concentrations
that
are
more
representative
of
the
user's
site.
The
semi­
site­
specific
target
values
provided
in
Question
5
are
less
conservative
(
higher
by
a
factor
of
2
to
50
times,
depending
on
soil
type
and
depth
to
source)
than
the
generic
screening
values
used
in
Question
4.
The
increase
in
target
concentrations
corresponds
to
a
decrease
in
the
calculated
attenuation
factors
as
depth
to
source
increases
and
soil
type
becomes
finer
grained
(
see
Figures
3(
a)
and
(
b)
and
Section
3
below).
In
our
judgment,
if
observed
concentrations
are
greater
than
50
times
the
generic
target
concentrations
provided
in
Question
4,
there
is
no
benefit
in
using
the
criteria
in
Question
5
and
we
recommend
expeditious
site­
specific
evaluation.

2.
How
do
you
use
the
Graphs
and
the
Tables?

The
user
selects
a
representative
attenuation
factor
for
soil
gas
from
Figure
3(
a)
and
for
groundwater
from
Figure
3(
b)
based
on
measured
site­
specific
information
about
soil
type
and
depth
to
source.
The
selected
attenuation
factors
are
then
rounded
up
to
the
nearest
attenuation
factor
shown
in
Figure
3.
Then,
the
columns
in
Tables
3(
a),
3(
b),
and
3(
c)
corresponding
to
the
attenuation
factors
selected
from
Figure
3(
a)
or
3(
b)
can
be
used
to
determine
the
appropriate
target
media
concentrations
for
this
level
of
screening.
The
values
in
Tables
3(
a),
3(
b),
and
3(
c)
were
derived
as
discussed
in
Appendix
D.

3.
How
did
we
develop
the
media­
specific
target
concentrations?

The
Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
1991)
Model
was
used
as
described
in
Appendix
G
to
calculate
the
attenuation
factors
shown
in
Figures
3(
a)
and
3(
b).
Generally
reasonable
building
characteristics
were
selected
and
held
constant
in
these
calculations
and
the
chemicals
were
assumed
not
to
degrade.
To
capture
the
effect
of
changes
in
soil
properties,
the
U.
S.
Soil
Conservation
Service
(
SCS)
soil
texture
classifications
were
considered,
and
a
subset
of
these
was
selected.
This
subset
was
chosen
so
that
their
relevant
properties
(
porosity
and
moisture
content)
would
collectively
span
the
range
of
conditions
most
commonly
encountered
in
the
field.
Then,
plots
of
attenuation
factor
versus
depth
were
calculated,
and
these
results
are
presented
in
Figures
3(
a)
and
3(
b).
The
two
graphs
are
different
because
the
soil
gas
attenuation
factors
(
Figure
3(
a))
do
not
have
to
account
for
transport
across
the
capillary
fringe
whereas
the
groundwater
attenuation
factors
(
Figure
3(
b))
do.
Details
of
the
input
parameters
and
calculations
used
to
derive
the
graphs
are
included
in
Appendix
G.

4.
What
should
you
keep
in
mind
when
using
the
graphs?

The
generally
recommended
depth
to
source
used
to
select
a
scenario­
specific
attenuation
factor
is:
1)
the
vertical
separation
between
the
soil
gas
sampling
point
and
the
building
35
foundation
for
use
of
Figure
3(
a),
or
2)
the
vertical
separation
between
the
water
table
and
the
building
foundation
for
use
of
Figure
3(
b).
Note
that
we
recommend
that
groundwater
or
soil
gas
samples
collected
at
depths
less
than
5
feet
(
1.5
m)
below
the
building
foundation
not
be
evaluated
with
these
graphs.
If
contaminated
groundwater
is
within
5
feet
of
the
foundation
level,
or
if
the
only
soil
gas
samples
available
for
screening
were
obtained
from
depths
less
than
5
feet
below
foundation
level
and
the
soil
gas
concentrations
are
greater
than
target
levels,
we
recommend
the
user
perform
a
site
specific
assessment.
If
the
depth
to
source
across
the
site
varies,
we
recommend
that
the
minimum
depth
be
used
in
this
assessment.

We
recommend
that
the
soil
type
used
to
select
a
scenario­
specific
attenuation
factor
represent
the
material
most
permeable
to
vapors
between
the
building
foundation
and
the
contaminant
source
(
e.
g.,
the
coarsest
and/
or
driest
soils).
The
graphs
below
use
the
U.
S.
Soil
Conservation
Service
system
of
soil
classification,
in
which
the
soil
texture
classes
are
based
on
the
proportionate
distribution
of
sand,
silt
and
clay
sized
particles
in
soil.
The
generally
preferred
method
for
determining
the
SCS
soil
class
is
to
use
lithological
information
combined
with
the
results
of
grain
size
distribution
tests
on
selected
soil
samples.
Table
4
below
has
been
developed
to
assist
users
in
selecting
an
appropriate
SCS
soil
type
in
cases
where
lithological
and
grain
size
information
is
limited.
Note
that
in
Table
4
there
is
no
soil
texture
class
represented
as
consisting
primarily
of
clay.
Exclusion
of
clay
was
deliberate
since
homogenous
unfractured
clay
deposits
are
rare.

Table
4.
Guidance
for
selection
of
soil
type
curves
in
Figures
3(
a)
and
3(
b).

If
your
boring
log
indicates
that
the
following
materials
are
the
predominant
soil
types
 
Then
we
recommend
the
following
texture
classification
when
obtaining
the
attenuation
factor.

Sand
or
Gravel
or
Sand
and
Gravel,
with
less
than
about
12
%
fines,
where
"
fines"
are
smaller
than
0.075
mm
in
size.
Sand
Sand
or
Silty
Sand,
with
about
12
%
to
25
%
fines
Loamy
Sand
Silty
Sand,
with
about
25
%
to
50
%
fines
Sandy
Loam
Silt
and
Sand
or
Silty
Sand
or
Clayey,
Silty
Sand
or
Sandy
Silt
or
Clayey,
Sandy
Silt,
with
about
50
to
85
%
fines
Loam
36
5.
Rationale
for
Selecting
Semi­
Site
Specific
Attenuation
Factor
and
Reference(
s):

Document
Risk
Level
Used
(
Circle
One):
10­
4,
(
b)
10­
5,
or
(
c)
10­
6
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
37
Figure
3a­
DRAFT
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
­
Soil
Vapor
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway
Basement
Foundations
1.0E­
05
1.0E­
04
1.0E­
03
1.0E­
02
Depth
to
Contamination
from
Foundation
(
m)
Vapor
Attenuation
Factor
Sand
Sandy
Loam
Loamy
Sand
Loam
2.0E­
03
7.0E­
04
4.0E­
04
2.0E­
04
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Figure
3b­
DRAFT
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
­
Ground
Water
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway
Basement
Foundations
1.0E­
05
1.0E­
04
1.0E­
03
1.0E­
02
Depth
to
Contamination
from
Foundation
(
m)

Sand
Sandy
Loam
Loamy
Sand
Loam
Vapor
Attenuation
Factor
7.0E­
04
5.0E­
04
3.0E­
04
2.0E­
04
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
38
VI.
Tier
3
­
Site­
Specific
Assessment
If
primary
and
secondary
screening
results
do
not
assist
in
excluding
the
existence
of
a
vapor
intrusion
pathway,
we
recommend
a
site­
specific
assessment.
In
this
case,
this
guidance
recommends:
(
1)
direct
measurement
of
foundation
air
concentrations
before
any
indoor
air
measurements;
(
2)
direct
measurement
of
indoor
air
concentrations
coupled
with
a
home
survey
(
see
Appendix
H)
and
sampling
to
identify
background
sources
of
vapor
in
ambient
(
outdoor)
and/
or
indoor
air;
3)
removal
of
all
indoor
air
sources
before
sampling
indoors;
and
(
4)
complementary
site­
specific
mathematical
modeling
as
appropriate.
The
sampling
of
foundation
air
(
e.
g.,
subslab
and
/
or
crawlspace
air)
and
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
in
conjunction
with
indoor
air
is
intended
to
distinguish
the
exposures
that
originate
from
subsurface
contaminant
vapor
intrusion
from
those
due
to
background
sources.

The
recommended
site­
specific
modeling
is
intended
to
be
complementary
to
the
more
direct
building­
related
measurements
collected
from
a
selected
subset
of
the
potentially
impacted
buildings.
Considering
the
complexities
involved
in
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
(
due
to
the
sensitivity
of
attenuation
factors
to
soil
type,
depth
to
source,
and
building
characteristics),
mathematical
modeling
may
be
useful
in
determining
which
combination
of
factors
leads
to
the
greatest
impact
and,
consequently,
aid
in
identifying
appropriate
buildings
to
be
sampled.
However,
if
an
appropriate
model
is
not
available
or
cannot
be
modified
to
represent
the
conceptual
site
model,
the
only
available
option
may
be
a
site­
specific
assessment
that
relies
entirely
on
direct
measures
of
potential
exposures.

We
recommend
that
since
site­
specific
assessments
are
based
on
direct
evidence
(
confirmatory
sampling
of
subslab
or
crawlspace
vapor
concentrations
and/
or
indoor
air
concentrations),
decisions
made
that
"
no
further
action
with
respect
to
vapor
intrusion
is
needed",
are
likely
to
be
"
final
decisions."
Additionally,
we
recommend
that
the
approaches
suggested
in
the
site­
specific
assessment
be
used,
where
appropriate,
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations.
However,
we
do
not
believe
that
confirmatory
sampling
will
generally
be
necessary
in
that
context.
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
are
intended
to
reflect
a
reasonable
conclusion
by
EPA
or
the
State
that
current
human
exposures
are
under
control
with
regard
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
current
land
use
conditions.
We
believe
that
not
recommending
confirmatory
sampling
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
is
appropriate
because
of
the
conservative
nature
of
the
assumptions
made.

If
buildings
are
not
available
or
not
appropriate
for
sampling,
for
example
in
cases
where
future
potential
impacts
need
to
be
evaluated,
we
recommend
mathematical
modeling
be
used
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
unacceptable
inhalation
risks
due
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
Where
modeling
indicates
there
is
the
potential
that
vapor
intrusion
may
result
in
unacceptable
exposures,
other
more
direct
measures
of
potential
impacts,
such
as
emission
flux
chambers
or
soil
gas
surveys,
may
need
to
be
conducted
in
areas
underlain
by
subsurface
contamination.
Alternately,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
reduce
potential
39
exposures
with
a
mechanical
ventilation
system
in
the
event
buildings
are
constructed
over
subsurface
vapor
sources.
EPA
recommends
that
these
sites
be
reevaluated
when
they
are
being
developed,
as
appropriate,
and
that
management
decisions
be
made
based
on
evaluation
results
at
that
time.

The
data
collected
during
site­
specific
evaluations
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
can
also
serve
to
increase
the
level
of
understanding
about
key
issues
and
important
factors
in
the
assessment
of
this
pathway.
Because
the
Agency
is
interested
in
improving
the
understanding
of
the
modeling
approach
to
evaluate
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway,
EPA
requests
that
the
relevant
data
collected
in
site
specific
assessments
be
submitted
electronically
to
an
EPA
repository
that
will
be
established
by
OSWER.
EPA
plans
to
develop
a
database
structure
specific
to
vapor
intrusion
evaluations
to
facilitate
electronic
entry
of
the
relevant
data
and
electronic
submission
to
the
repository.
Once
developed,
EPA
plans
to
make
the
database
structure
accessible
through
OERR's
and
OSW's
web
sites.

EPA
plans
to
review
and
analyze
these
submitted
data
on
an
ongoing
basis
and
consider
appropriately
refining
this
draft
guidance
for
assessing
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
EPA
plans
to
post
any
revisions/
addenda
on
the
OSWER's
website.

A.
Site
Specific
Assessment
 
Question
6
Q6(
a):
Have
the
nature
and
extent
of
contaminated
soil
vapor,
unsaturated
soil,
and/
or
groundwater
as
well
as
potential
preferential
pathways
and
overlying
building
characteristics
been
adequately
characterized
to
identify
the
mostlikely
to­
be­
impacted
buildings?
(
Consider
an
appropriately­
scaled
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CSM)
for
vapor
intrusion
(
see
Appendix
B)
and
DQOs
(
see
Appendix
A)).

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
basis
below
and
proceed
to
Question
6(
b).
If
a
model
was
used,
we
recommend
it
be
an
appropriate
and
applicable
model
that
represents
the
conceptual
site
model.
If
other
means
were
used,
document
how
you
determined
the
potentially
most
impacted
areas
to
sample.

_____
If
NO,
or
if
insufficient
data
(
of
acceptable
quality)
are
available
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
needed
data
below,
and
skip
to
the
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
After
collecting
the
additional
data,
you
can
return
to
this
question.
However,
if
indoor
air
data
are
available
go
to
Question
6(
e).

Q6(
b):
Are
you
conducting
an
EI
determination
and
are
you
using
an
appropriate
and
applicable
model?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
6(
c)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
6(
d).
40
Q6(
c):
Does
the
model
predict
an
unacceptable
risk?
(
EPA
recommends
that
predictive
modeling
can
be
used
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
without
confirmatory
sampling
to
support
this
determination.
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
are
intended
to
reflect
a
reasonable
conclusion
by
EPA
or
the
State
that
current
human
exposures
are
under
control
with
regard
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
current
land
use
conditions.)

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
6(
d)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here
and
document
that
the
Pathway
is
Incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
for
EI
determinations.
However,
this
determination
does
not
necessarily
reflect
a
final
decision
that
the
site
is
clean
without
confirmatory
sampling.

Q6(
d):
Are
subslab
soil
gas
data
available?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
6(
e)
below.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here
and
continue
with
Question
6(
g).

Q6(
e):
Do
measured
subslab
soil
gas
concentrations
exceed
the
target
shallow
soil
gas
concentrations
given
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
representative
subslab
soil
gas
concentrations
on
Table
2,
collect
indoor
air
data
and
go
to
Question
6(
g).

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
continue
to
Question
6(
f).

Q6(
f):
Is
the
subslab
sampling
data
adequate?
(
We
recommend
doing
subslab
sampling
before
indoor
air
sampling)
Some
factors
we
recommend
for
consideration
in
this
question
include:
 
Do
analytical
results
meet
the
required
detection
thresholds?
 
Do
the
data
account
for
seasonal
and/
or
temporal
transience?
 
Do
the
data
account
for
spatial
variability?
 
Is
there
any
reason
to
suspect
random
(
sampling)
or
systematic
(
analytical)
error?
 
How
do
the
data
account
for
the
site
conceptual
model?
 
Was
"
background"
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
or
other
vapor
sources
considered?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here
and
document
that
the
Pathway
is
Incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.

_____
If
NO
or
unsure
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
needed
data
below,
and
skip
to
the
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
After
collecting
the
additional
data,
return
to
Question
6(
e).
41
Q6(
g):
Do
measured
indoor
air
concentrations
exceed
the
target
concentrations
given
in
Tables
2(
a),
2(
b),
or
2(
c)?
(
We
recommend
that
before
any
indoor
air
sampling
occurs:
1)
an
inspection
of
the
residence
be
conducted,
2)
an
occupant
survey
be
completed
to
adequately
identify
the
presence
of
(
or
occupant
activities
that
could
generate)
any
possible
indoor
air
emissions
of
target
VOCs
in
the
dwelling
(
see
appendix
E,
H
and
I),
3)
all
possible
indoor
air
emission
sources
be
removed,
and
4)
that
the
analysis
be
done
only
for
the
constitutes
of
potential
concern
found
on
the
site.)

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
representative
indoor
air
concentrations
on
Table
2,
and
go
to
Question
6(
i).

_____
If
NO
 
check
here
and
continue
to
Question
6(
h).

Q6(
h):
Do
the
indoor
air
concentrations
adequately
account
for
seasonal
variability
and
represent
the
most
impacted
buildings
or
area
(
see
Appendix
E)?
Some
factors
we
recommend
for
consideration
in
this
question
include:
 
Do
analytical
results
meet
the
required
detection
thresholds?
 
Do
the
data
account
for
seasonal
and/
or
temporal
transience?
 
Do
the
data
account
for
spatial
variability?
 
Is
there
any
reason
to
suspect
random
(
sampling)
or
systematic
(
analytical)
error?
 
How
do
the
data
account
for
the
site
conceptual
model?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
that
Pathway
is
Incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.
If
a
model
was
used
to
predict
the
indoor
air
concentrations
also
document
the
relationship
between
the
predicted
concentrations
and
the
measured
concentrations.

_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
go
to
the
summary
page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
If
the
data
do
not
account
for
seasonal
variability,
we
recommend
designing
a
sampling
plan
to
account
for
seasonal
variability,
resample
and
return
to
Question
6(
g).
If
the
data
do
not
represent
most
impacted
building
or
area,
skip
to
the
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
After
collecting
the
additional
data,
you
can
return
to
Question
6(
g).

Q6(
i):
Have
background
sources
of
vapor
in
indoor
air
and
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
been
adequately
accounted
for?

_____
If
YES
­
check
here,
document
results
and
document
that
Pathway
is
Complete.
If
a
model
was
used
to
predict
the
indoor
air
concentrations,
also
document
the
relationship
between
the
predicted
concentrations
and
the
measured
concentrations.
42
_____
If
NO
­
check
here,
briefly
document
the
needed
data
below,
and
skip
to
the
Summary
Page
and
document
that
more
information
is
needed.
After
collecting
the
additional
data,
you
can
return
to
Question
6(
g).

1.
What
is
the
goal
of
this
question?

The
Site­
Specific
Pathway
Assessment
is
designed
to
be
used
where
site­
specific
conditions
warrant
further
consideration
prior
to
concluding
either
that
the
pathway
is
incomplete,
or
that
some
form
of
exposure
control
may
be
needed.
In
general,
this
final
step
recommends
direct
measures
of
potential
impacts
(
e.
g.,
building­
specific
foundation
vapor
concentrations
 
subslab
sampling
and/
or
indoor
air
concentrations)
coupled
with
site­
specific
mathematical
modeling
where
an
appropriate
model
is
available.
However,
EPA
recommends
that
predictive
modeling
can
be
used
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
without
confirmatory
sampling
these
determination.
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
are
intended
to
reflect
a
reasonable
conclusion
by
EPA
or
the
State
that
current
human
exposures
are
under
control
with
regard
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
current
land
use
conditions.
The
purpose
of
this
site­
specific
approach
is
to
help
assess
whether
or
not
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
a
likely
problem.
It
is
not
meant
to
provide
detailed
guidance
on
how
to
delineate
the
extent
of
impacted
buildings.

2.
How
should
you
complete
this
evaluation?

We
recommend
that
the
first
step
in
conducting
the
site­
specific
evaluation
be
to
update
the
site­
specific
conceptual
site
model
and
determine
what
additional
information
(
e.
g.,
direct
sampling)
you
may
need
to
determine
the
most­
likely­
to­
be­
impacted
buildings
(
e.
g.,
professional
judgment
or
a
model
such
as
the
J&
E
model).
Confirmatory
subslab/
crawlspace
and/
or
indoor
air
sampling
is
recommended
at
a
percentage
of
the
buildings
at
each
potentially
affected
site
that
you
have
determined
to
be
the
most­
likelyto
be­
impacted.
If
sampling
confirms
that
unacceptable
inhalation
risks
due
to
vapor
intrusion
do
not
occur
at
the
site,
we
recommend
that
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
be
considered
incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health.
If
sampling
confirms
that
any
building
is
impacted
on
the
site,
we
recommend
that
the
pathway
be
considered
complete.
In
such
case,
we
recommend
that
further
analysis
be
conducted
to
delineate
the
extent
of
the
impacted
building(
s)
and
that
mitigation
or
avoidance
measures
be
considered
for
the
impacted
buildings.
These
tasks
are
critically
important,
but
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
guidance.

3.
Why
do
we
recommend
updating
your
conceptual
site
model?

A
conceptual
model
of
the
site
and
potential
subsurface
vapor
transport
and
vapor
intrusion
mechanisms
will
be
needed
to
adequately
support
the
Site­
Specific
Pathway
Assessment
recommended
in
this
guidance.
We
recommend
that
the
site­
specific
conceptual
model
be
developed
in
the
typical
source­
pathway­
receptor
framework,
and
that
it
identify
how
the
site­
specific
conceptual
model
is
similar
to,
and
different
from,
the
generic
conceptual
model
used
in
this
guidance
(
see
Introduction
and
Secondary
43
Screening).
Under
the
guidance
approach,
key
components
of
the
conceptual
model
need
to
be
justified
with
site­
specific
data,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
source
(
chemical
constituents,
concentrations,
mass,
phase
distribution,
depth,
and
aerial
extent),
pathway
(
soil
texture,
moisture,
and
layering)
and
building
(
building
design,
construction,
and
ventilation).
Some
of
the
necessary
data
might
already
be
available
from
previous
site
characterization
efforts,
but
if
not,
we
recommend
collecting
or
developing
appropriate
site­
specific
data
for
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.

4.
What
should
you
keep
in
mind
when
you
conduct
indoor
air
or
subslab
sampling?

Collection
of
indoor
air
quality
data
without
evidence
to
indicate
the
potential
for
vapor
intrusion
from
subsurface
sources
can
lead
to
confounding
results.
Indoor
air
quality
can
be
influenced
by
`
background'
levels
of
volatile
chemicals
(
e.
g.,
due
to
indoor
and/
or
outdoor
ambient
sources).
For
example,
consumer
products
typically
found
in
the
home
(
e.
g.,
cleaners,
fuels,
paints,
and
glues)
may
serve
as
ancillary
sources
of
indoor
air
contaminants.
Additionally,
ambient
outdoor
air
in
urban
areas
often
contains
detectable
concentrations
of
many
volatile
chemicals.
In
either
case,
the
resulting
indoor
air
concentrations
can
be
similar
to
or
higher
than
levels
that
are
calculated
to
pose
an
unacceptable
chronic
inhalation
risk.
Thus,
we
recommend
the
evaluation
of
existing
indoor
air
data
focus
on
constituents
(
and
any
potential
degradation
products)
present
in
subsurface
sources
of
contamination
and
the
relative
contributions
of
background
sources
be
considered
(
see
Appendix
I).
Additionally,
see
Appendix
E
for
other
items
to
keep
in
mind
when
doing
subslab
sampling.

5.
What
direct
measurements
should
be
considered
and
what
do
they
mean?

Direct
measures
of
indoor
air
and
building
foundation
air
(
e.
g.,
subslab
and/
or
crawlspace
concentrations)
are
recommended
to
verify
whether
or
not
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
complete.
We
recommend
that
the
building
specific
sampling
program
be
designed
to
identify
and
account
for
background
sources.
Prior
to
indoor
air
sampling,
it
is
recommended
that
an
inspection
of
the
residence
be
conducted
and
an
occupant
survey
be
completed
to
adequately
identify
the
presence
of
(
or
occupant
activities
that
could
generate)
any
possible
indoor
air
emission
sources
of
target
VOCs
in
the
dwelling
(
see
discussion
above
and
Appendices
E,
H
&
I)
and
then,
if
possible
remove
these
sources.
The
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
MA
DEP)
has
prepared
a
useful
Indoor
Air
Sampling
and
Evaluation
Guide
(
April
2002)
which
is
available
at
the
following
URL:
http://
www.
state.
ma.
us/
dep/
ors/
files/
indair.
pdf.

In
collecting
indoor
air
samples,
it
is
important
to
recognize
that
indoor
air
quality
can
be
influenced
by
`
background'
levels
of
volatile
chemicals
(
e.
g.,
due
to
indoor
and/
or
outdoor
ambient
sources),
as
discussed
in
the
above
section.
Thus,
we
recommend
the
evaluation
of
existing
indoor
air
data
focus
on
constituents
(
and
any
potential
degradation
products)
present
in
subsurface
sources
of
contamination
and
determine
the
relative
contributions
of
background
sources
(
see
Appendix
I)
in
order
to
properly
assess
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
risks
that
can
be
attributed
to
the
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
44
pathway.
Where
air
concentrations
in
upper
level
living
spaces
are
greater
than
basement
levels,
intrusion
is
not
likely
to
have
occurred.
Indoor
air
quality
data
also
are
subject
to
homeostatic
fluctuations
and
temporal
trends.
Thus,
to
properly
evaluate
the
indoor
air
data,
we
recommend
that
sufficient
information
be
obtained
to
identify
seasonal
and
spatial
variations
in
indoor
air
concentrations.
Additionally,
we
recommend
careful
consideration
of
subsurface
data
from
the
site
in
order
to
determine
whether
the
most
likely
to
be
impacted
structures
were
sampled.

Sampling
of
foundation
air
(
e.
g.,
subslab
and/
or
crawlspace
air)
provides
a
direct
measure
of
the
potential
for
exposures
from
vapor
intrusion.
When
collected
in
conjunction
with
indoor
air
sampling,
foundation
samples
can
be
used
to
identify
the
exposures
that
originate
from
vapor
intrusion
and
distinguish
those
due
to
background
sources.
Subslab
vapor
is
defined
as
the
soil
gas
in
contact
with
the
building
envelope
immediately
beneath
or
within
the
sub­
floor
construction
materials.
Subslab
samples
are
recommended
to
be,
but
do
not
need
to
be,
collected
via
holes
through
the
flooring
as
close
to
the
center
of
the
floor
space
as
possible.
Soil
gas
sampling
using
angled
or
horizontal
borings
from
outside
under
the
foundation
also
may
be
effective.
Appendix
E
provides
more
detailed
recommendations
on
subslab
and
soil
gas
sampling
methodologies.
The
recommended
attenuation
factor
for
sub­
slab
soil
gas
samples
in
this
step
is
0.1
(
see
Appendix
F).
The
recommended
attenuation
factor
to
apply
for
crawl­
space
air
samples
is
1.0
(
i.
e.,
the
same
as
target
indoor
air
concentrations).

6.
Why
should
you
consider
using
site­
specific
modeling
at
this
time?

Site­
specific
modeling
is
intended
to
complement
the
evaluation
of
samples
collected
from
a
subset
of
the
potentially
impacted
buildings.
We
recommend
that
only
models
appropriate
for
the
site
setting
be
used
and
that
the
direct
evidence
from
the
sampled
buildings
be
used
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
model's
site­
specific
predictive
capability.
Where
predictions
and
direct
evidence
from
the
indoor
air
sampling
are
consistent,
the
model
can
be
used
to
direct
the
selection
of
buildings
to
be
sampled.
Considering
the
complex
influence
of
soil
type,
depth
to
groundwater,
and
building
characteristics
on
vapor
attenuation
factors,
the
model
may
help
to
determine
which
combination
of
factors
leads
to
the
greatest
impact.
Additionally,
the
model
may
be
used
to
justify
the
decreased
need
for
more
direct
evidence
from
the
remaining
contaminated
area.
We
recommend
that
site­
specific
modeling
be
performed
with
inputs
derived
from
direct
measurements
at
the
site.
This
may
necessitate
the
collection
of
more
detailed
information
regarding
subsurface
properties,
nature
and
extent
of
contamination,
and
building
construction
characteristics.

EPA
has
developed
a
spreadsheet
version
of
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
JE)
Model
(
1991),
which
is
one
of
the
available
screening
level
models
for
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
As
described
in
Question
5,
the
JE
Model
was
used
to
develop
conservative
attenuation
factors
linked
to
soil
type
and
depth
to
source
at
a
site.
This
model
and
documentation
for
the
model
are
available
at
the
following
web
site:

URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
risk/
airmodel/
johnson_
ettinger.
htm
45
If
the
JE
model
is
used
in
a
site­
specific
assessment
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway,
we
recommend
that
model
inputs
and
assumptions
that
are
different
from
the
generic
assumptions
used
in
Question
5
and
described
in
Appendix
G
be
supported
with
sitespecific
information.
If
a
model
other
than
the
JE
Model
is
used,
EPA
recommends
model
inputs
and
outputs
be
identified
and
appropriately
justified.

7.
How
do
you
appropriately
involve
the
community
when
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway?

Prior
to
conducting
any
direct
sampling
efforts,
we
recommend
appropriately
involving
the
community.
It
has
been
our
experience
that
proper
community
involvement
efforts
are
critical
to
the
effective
implementation
of
this
level
of
screening.
We
recommend
that
users
refer
to
the
Community
Involvement
Guidance
in
Appendix
H.
Under
the
approach
recommended
in
this
guidance,
we
recommend
the
user
consider
the
following:
1)
getting
to
know
the
neighborhood,
key
stakeholders
and
the
concerns
of
the
community;
2)
informing
stakeholders
of
the
situation;
3)
developing
a
community
involvement
plan
that
highlights
key
community
concerns;
4)
obtaining
written
permission,
and
involving
the
property
owner
in
identifying
or
removing
potential
indoor
air
sources,
including
inspection
of
residence
and
completing
an
occupant
survey:
5)
fully
communicating
sampling
results
(
with
visuals,
maps
etc.);
and
6)
a
commitment
to
ongoing
communications
activities
throughout
site
cleanup
efforts.
Appendix
H
contains
and
cites
examples
of
guidance
that
could
be
considered
for
site­
specific
adaptation
for
interaction/
involvement
with
building/
dwelling
occupants
prior
to
indoor
air
sampling.

8.
What
do
you
do
if
the
pathway
is
found
to
be
complete?

If
the
pathway
is
judged
to
be
complete
during
the
Site­
Specific
Screening,
the
next
recommended
step
is
to
identify
the
impacted
buildings
or
areas
of
concern.
This
may
result
in
some
buildings
or
areas
being
included
and
some
being
excluded
from
the
areas
of
concern.
For
these
areas,
we
recommend
that
the
pathway
be
considered
to
remain
complete
unless
some
action
is
taken
to
reduce
occupants'
exposure
to
the
site
contamination.
Possible
actions
include:

o
engineered
containment
systems
(
subslab
de­
pressurization,
soil
vacuum
extraction,
vapor
barriers),
o
ventilation
systems
(
building
pressurization,
indoor
air
purifiers),
o
avoidance
(
temporary
or
permanent
resident
relocation),
or
o
removal
actions
to
reduce
the
mass
and
concentrations
of
subsurface
chemicals
to
acceptable
levels
(
i.
e.,
remediation
efforts).

This
draft
guidance
is
not
intended
to
provide
direction
on
how
to
fully
delineate
the
extent
of
impacted
buildings
or
what
action
should
be
taken
after
the
pathway
is
confirmed.
It
is
intended
to
be
a
quick
screening
process
to
help
guide
the
user
in
determining
if
vapor
intrusion
is
or
is
not
a
problem
on
the
site.
46
9.
Rationale
and
Reference(
s):
Document
Risk
Level
Used
(
Circle
One):
10­
4,
(
b)
10­
5,
or
(
c)
10­
6
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
47
VII.
VAPOR
INTRUSION
PATHWAY
SUMMARY
PAGE
Facility
Name:
_________________________________________________________
Facility
Address:
________________________________________________________

Primary
Screening
Summary

Q1:
Constituents
of
concern
Identified?
_______
Yes
_______
No
(
If
NO,
skip
to
the
conclusion
section
below
and
check
NO
to
indicate
the
pathway
is
incomplete.)


Q2:
Currently
inhabited
buildings
near
subsurface
contamination?
_______
Yes
_______
No
Areas
of
future
concern
near
subsurface
contamination?
_______
Yes
_______
No
(
If
NO,
skip
to
the
conclusion
section
below
and
check
NO
to
indicate
the
pathway
is
incomplete.)


Q3:
Immediate
Actions
Warranted?
_______
Yes
_______
No
Secondary
Screening
Summary

Vapor
source
identified:
_____
Groundwater
_____
Soil
_____
Insufficient
data

Indoor
air
data
available?
_____
Yes
_____
No

Indoor
air
concentrations
exceed
target
levels?
_____
Yes
_____
No
48

Subsurface
data
evaluation:
(
Circle
appropriate
answers
below)

Medium
Q4
Levels
Exceeded?
Q5
Levels
Exceeded?
Data
Indicates
Pathway
is
Complete?
Groundwater
YES
/
NO
/
NA
/
INS
YES
/
NO
/
NA
/
INS
YES
/
NO
/
INS
Soil
Gas
YES
/
NO
/
NA
/
INS
YES
/
NO
/
NA
/
INS
YES
/
NO
/
INS
NA
=
not
applicable
INS
=
insufficient
data
available
to
make
a
determination
Site­
Specific
Summary

Have
the
nature
and
extent
of
subsurface
contamination,
potential
preferential
pathways
and
overlying
building
characteristics
been
adequately
characterized
to
identify
the
most­
likely­
to­
be­
impacted
buildings?
_____
Yes
_____
No
_____
N/
A
EPA
recommends
that
if
a
model
was
used,
it
be
an
appropriate
and
applicable
model
that
represents
the
conceptual
site
model.
If
other
means
were
used,
document
how
you
determined
the
potentially
most
impacted
areas
to
sample.
EPA
recommends
that
predictive
modeling
can
be
used
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
without
confirmatory
sampling
to
support
this
determination.
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations
are
intended
to
reflect
a
reasonable
conclusion
by
EPA
or
the
State
that
current
human
exposures
are
under
control
with
regard
to
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
and
current
land
use
conditions.
Therefore,
if
conducting
evaluation
for
an
EI
determination,
document
that
the
Pathway
is
Incomplete
and/
or
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
for
EI
determinations.


Are
you
making
an
EI
determination
based
on
modeling
and
does
the
model
prediction
indicate
that
determination
is
expected
to
be
adequately
protective
to
support
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
EI
determinations?
_____
Yes
_____
No
_____
N/
A

Do
subslab
vapor
concentrations
exceed
target
levels?
_____
Yes
_____
No
_____
N/
A
49

Do
indoor
air
concentrations
exceed
target
levels?
_____
Yes
_____
No
Conclusion
Is
there
a
Complete
Pathway
for
subsurface
vapor
intrusion
to
indoor
air?

Below,
check
the
appropriate
conclusion
for
the
Subsurface
Vapor
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway
evaluation
and
attach
supporting
documentation
as
well
as
a
map
of
the
facility.

_____
NO
­
the
"
Subsurface
Vapor
Intrusion
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway"
has
been
verified
to
be
incomplete
for
the
______________________________________________
facility,
EPA
ID
#_______________,
located
at
__________________________.
This
determination
is
based
on
a
review
of
site
information,
as
suggested
in
this
guidance,
check
as
appropriate:
_____
for
current
and
reasonably
expected
conditions,
or
_____
based
on
performance
monitoring
evaluations
for
engineered
exposure
controls.
This
determination
may
be
re­
evaluated,
where
appropriate,
when
the
Agency/
State
becomes
aware
of
any
significant
changes
at
the
facility.

_____
YES
 
The
"
Subsurface
Vapor
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway"
is
Complete.
Engineered
controls,
avoidance
actions,
or
removal
actions
taken
include:
_____________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

_____
UNKNOWN
­
More
information
is
needed
to
make
a
determination.

Locations
where
References
may
be
found:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Contact
telephone
and
e­
mail
numbers:

(
name)
_________________________________________

(
phone
#)
_______________________________________

(
e­
mail)
_________________________________________
50
Reminder:
As
discussed
above,
this
is
a
guidance
document,
not
a
regulation.
Therefore,
conclusions
reached
based
on
the
approaches
suggested
in
this
guidance
are
not
binding
on
EPA
or
the
regulated
community.
If
information
suggests
that
the
conclusions
reached
using
the
approaches
recommend
are
inappropriate,
EPA
may
(
on
it's
own
initiative
or
at
the
suggestion
of
interested
parties)
choose
to
act
at
variance
with
these
conclusions.
51
References
Burning
of
Hazardous
Waste
in
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces;
Final
Rule
(
58
FR
7135,
February
21,
1991)

Draft
Exposure
Assessment
Guidance
for
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Combustions
Facilities
(
April/
May
1994)

Guidance
for
the
Data
Quality
Objectives
(
DQO)
Process,
EPA
QA/
G_
4.
(
EPA/
600/
R­
96/
055;
August
2000);(
URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
quality/
qs_
docs/
g4_
final.
pdf)

Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
JE)
Model
(
1991)
(
URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
risk/
airmodel/
johnson_
ettinger.
htm)

Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
MA
DEP)
Indoor
Air
Sampling
and
Evaluation
Guide
­
WSC
Policy#
02­
430
(
April
2002)
(
URL
=
http://
www.
state.
ma.
us/
dep/
bwsc/
finalpol.
htm)

EPA
Strategic
Plan
­
Goal
5:
Better
Waste
Management,
Restoration
of
Contaminated
Waste
Sites,
and
Emergency
Response
(
p.
40­
41)
(
EPA
190­
R­
00­
002);
(
URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ocfo/
plan/
2000strategicplan.
pdf)

RCRA
Corrective
Action
Environmental
Indicator
(
EI)
Guidance
(
Feb
5,
1999)
(
URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
ca/
eis/
ei_
guida.
pdf
)

RCRA
draft
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Vapor
Intrusion
to
Indoor
Air
Pathway
(
EPA/
600/
SR­
93/
140
­
Dec
2001)
(
URL=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
ca/
eis/
vapor.
htm)

Supplemental
Guidance
for
Developing
Soil
Screening
Levels
for
Superfund
Sites
(
Peer
Review
Draft:
March
2001)
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response/
EPA
(
URL
=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
resources/
soil/
ssgmarch01.
pdf
)
[
final
version
will
issue
concurrently
with
the
Subsurface
Vapor
Intrusion
Guidance.]

Use
of
Risk­
Based
Decision
Making
in
UST
Corrective
Action
Programs.
OSWER
Directive
9610.17
(
EPA;
Mar
1,
1995);(
URL=
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
swerust1/
directiv/
od961017.
htm)
52
Table
1
Table
2
Table
3
Appendix
A.
Data
Quality
Assurance
Considerations
Appendix
B.
Development
Of
Conceptual
Site
Model
(
CMS)
For
Assessment
Of
The
Vapor
Intrusion
Pathway
Appendix
C.
Detailed
Flow
Diagrams
Of
The
Evaluation
Approach
Used
In
This
Guidance
Appendix
D.
Development
Of
Tables
1,
2,
And
3
Appendix
E.
Relevant
Methods
and
Techniques
Appendix
F.
Empirical
Attenuation
Factors
And
Reliability
Assessment
Appendix
G.
Considerations
For
The
Use
Of
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Vapor
Intrusion
Model
Appendix
H.
Community
Involvement
Guidance
Appendix
I.
Consideration
of
Background
Indoor
Air
VOC
Levels
In
Evaluating
The
Subsurface
Vapor
Intrusion
Pathway
A
-
1
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
 
A
D
A
T
A
 
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
 
A
S
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
 
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
T
h
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
 
i
f
 
t
h
e
r
e
 
i
s
 
a
 
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
v
o
l
a
t
i
l
e
 
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
 
f
r
o
m
 
t
h
e
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 
w
i
l
l
 
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
d
a
t
a
 
a
n
d
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
 
t
h
e
 
u
s
e
 
o
f
 
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
 
 
a
s
 
p
a
r
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
.
 
 
A
s
 
t
h
e
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
,
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
 
t
o
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
 
o
u
t
 
s
i
t
e
s
 
a
f
t
e
r
 
t
h
e
 
f
i
r
s
t
 
t
i
e
r
 
o
f
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
f
r
o
m
 
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
 
b
a
s
e
d
 
e
i
t
h
e
r
 
u
p
o
n
 
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
v
e
 
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
 
d
a
t
a
 
o
r
 
u
p
o
n
 
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
 
l
i
n
e
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
t
o
 
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
 
i
n
 
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
 
m
e
d
i
a
 
a
n
d
 
t
o
 
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
t
h
e
 
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
a
r
e
 
k
e
y
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
 
 
 
O
S
W
E
R
 
e
x
p
e
c
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
 
t
h
e
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
 
o
f
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
o
n
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
V
O
C
s
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
 
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
 
b
y
 
a
n
 
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
P
l
a
n
 
(
Q
A
P
P
)
.
 
 
T
h
i
s
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
 
i
s
 
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
 
t
o
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
a
 
f
e
w
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
n
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
a
 
Q
A
P
P
,
 
w
h
i
c
h
 
n
e
e
d
 
t
o
f
o
l
l
o
w
 
E
P
A
 
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
f
o
r
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
P
l
a
n
s
 
(
Q
A
/
R
-
5
)
.
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
 
1
:
 
U
s
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
S
i
t
e
 
M
o
d
e
l
,
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
p
l
a
n
 
a
n
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
a
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
p
l
a
n
 
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
 
a
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
 
a
l
l
 
k
e
y
 
p
l
a
y
e
r
s
 
a
n
d
 
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
s
e
 
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
 
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
 
i
n
 
d
r
a
f
t
 
f
o
r
m
 
s
o
 
t
h
a
t
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
s
t
u
d
y
 
w
e
a
k
n
e
s
s
e
s
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
 
e
a
r
l
y
.
T
h
e
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
d
a
t
a
,
 
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
u
s
e
 
o
f
 
a
 
m
o
d
e
l
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
d
a
t
a
,
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
 
t
h
e
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
P
l
a
n
 
a
s
 
p
a
r
t
 
o
f
 
a
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
(
E
P
A
,
 
2
0
0
0
a
,
b
,
 
2
0
0
1
)
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
E
P
A
 
R
e
g
i
o
n
 
1
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
a
n
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
a
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
 
t
h
a
t
 
c
a
n
 
a
i
d
 
s
i
t
e
 
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
 
(
E
P
A
,
 
1
9
9
9
)
.
D
a
t
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
 
(
D
Q
O
s
)
 
p
l
a
y
 
a
 
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
 
r
o
l
e
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
a
s
 
t
h
e
y
h
e
l
p
 
t
o
 
e
n
s
u
r
e
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
d
a
t
a
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
 
o
f
 
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
 
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
t
o
 
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
 
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
 
u
s
e
.
 
D
a
t
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
 
w
i
l
l
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
 
b
e
 
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
 
a
r
e
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
a
 
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
 
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
f
o
r
 
m
u
c
h
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
w
o
r
k
 
t
h
a
t
 
E
P
A
 
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
s
.
T
h
e
 
A
g
e
n
c
y
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
D
Q
O
s
,
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
D
a
t
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
 
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
(
G
-
4
)
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
 
D
Q
O
s
 
(
E
P
A
,
 
2
0
0
0
c
)
.
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
A
-
1
 
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s
 
t
h
e
 
s
t
e
p
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
D
Q
O
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
 
t
h
e
 
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
 
o
f
 
e
a
c
h
 
s
t
e
p
,
 
a
n
d
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
o
m
e
 
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
o
f
 
h
o
w
 
p
l
a
n
s
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
.
 
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
A
-
2
 
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s
 
t
h
e
 
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
/
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
l
i
m
i
t
s
 
o
f
 
a
 
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
 
o
f
 
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
a
l
o
n
g
 
w
i
t
h
 
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
 
c
o
s
t
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
A
-
2
 
 
h
a
s
 
b
e
e
n
 
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
 
t
o
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
 
s
o
m
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
h
a
t
 
c
a
n
 
s
e
r
v
e
 
a
s
 
a
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
 
g
u
i
d
e
 
b
u
t
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
 
a
s
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
 
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
 
a
r
e
 
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
.
 
 
A
-
2
T
h
e
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
 
a
n
d
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
t
o
 
u
s
e
,
 
t
h
e
 
n
u
m
b
e
r
 
o
f
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
,
 
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
t
i
m
i
n
g
 
i
s
 
a
 
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
 
t
a
s
k
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
 
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
t
o
 
a
 
n
u
m
b
e
r
 
o
f
 
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
,
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
 
v
a
l
u
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
r
i
s
k
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
i
l
l
 
u
s
e
 
t
h
e
 
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
.
 
 
T
h
e
s
e
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
i
s
s
u
e
s
 
c
a
n
b
e
 
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
,
 
a
t
 
l
e
a
s
t
 
i
n
 
p
a
r
t
,
 
b
y
 
e
m
p
l
o
y
i
n
g
 
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
 
t
h
a
t
 
h
a
s
 
b
e
e
n
 
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
 
t
o
 
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
s
o
 
t
h
a
t
 
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
 
i
n
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
 
m
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
d
.
 
 
V
i
s
u
a
l
 
S
a
m
p
l
e
 
P
l
a
n
(
V
S
P
)
[
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
q
o
.
p
n
l
.
g
o
v
/
v
s
p
/
]
 
h
a
s
 
b
e
e
n
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
 
t
o
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
 
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
 
t
o
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
 
m
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
 
a
n
d
 
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
 
a
l
g
o
r
i
t
h
m
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
a
 
u
s
e
r
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
 
v
i
s
u
a
l
 
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
,
 
w
h
i
l
e
a
n
s
w
e
r
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
 
t
w
o
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
 
i
n
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
:
•
H
o
w
 
m
a
n
y
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
a
r
e
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
?
T
h
e
 
a
l
g
o
r
i
t
h
m
s
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
 
i
n
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
n
u
m
b
e
r
 
o
f
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
q
u
i
t
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
t
i
m
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
t
h
e
 
n
o
n
-
e
x
p
e
r
t
.
 
V
S
P
 
a
i
d
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
n
u
m
b
e
r
 
o
f
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
o
f
t
e
n
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
 
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
 
a
t
 
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
 
c
o
s
t
s
.
•
W
h
e
r
e
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
t
h
e
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
b
e
 
t
a
k
e
n
?
S
a
m
p
l
e
 
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
 
b
a
s
e
d
 
o
n
 
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
 
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
 
i
s
 
p
r
o
n
e
 
t
o
 
b
i
a
s
.
 
 
V
S
P
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
 
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
 
o
f
 
r
a
n
d
o
m
 
o
r
 
g
r
i
d
d
e
d
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
v
e
r
l
a
i
d
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
m
a
p
.
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
E
P
A
,
 
1
9
9
9
.
 
 
E
P
A
 
N
e
w
 
E
n
g
l
a
n
d
 
C
o
m
p
e
n
d
i
u
m
 
o
f
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
P
l
a
n
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
a
n
d
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
.
 
E
P
A
,
 
R
e
g
i
o
n
 
1
,
 
B
o
s
t
o
n
,
 
M
A
.
 
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
N
E
/
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
/
q
a
p
p
c
o
m
p
e
n
d
i
u
m
.
p
d
f
)
.
E
P
A
,
 
2
0
0
0
a
.
 
 
E
P
A
 
O
r
d
e
r
 
5
3
6
0
.
1
.
A
2
,
 
P
o
l
i
c
y
 
a
n
d
 
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
 
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
M
a
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
A
g
e
n
c
y
-
w
i
d
e
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
S
y
s
t
e
m
.
 
 
E
P
A
,
 
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
 
D
.
C
.
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
q
s
-
d
o
c
s
/
5
3
6
0
-
1
.
p
d
f
)
.
E
P
A
,
 
2
0
0
0
b
.
 
 
E
P
A
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
M
a
n
u
a
l
 
f
o
r
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
 
 
E
P
A
,
 
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
 
D
.
C
.
 
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
q
s
-
d
o
c
s
/
5
3
6
0
.
p
d
f
)
.
E
P
A
,
 
2
0
0
0
c
.
 
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
D
a
t
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
 
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
(
G
-
4
)
.
 
 
E
P
A
,
 
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
 
D
.
C
.
 
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
q
s
-
d
o
c
s
/
g
4
-
f
i
n
a
l
.
p
d
f
)
E
P
A
,
 
2
0
0
1
.
 
 
E
P
A
 
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
f
o
r
 
Q
A
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
P
l
a
n
s
 
(
Q
A
/
R
-
5
)
.
 
 
E
P
A
,
 
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
 
D
.
C
.
 
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
q
s
-
d
o
c
s
/
r
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
.
p
d
f
)
 
a
n
d
(
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
/
q
a
p
p
s
.
h
t
m
l
)
V
i
s
u
a
l
 
S
a
m
p
l
e
 
P
l
a
n
 
(
V
S
P
)
[
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
q
o
.
p
n
l
.
g
o
v
/
v
s
p
/
]
A
-
3
T
a
b
l
e
 
A
-
1
.
 
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
 
o
f
 
S
t
e
p
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
D
Q
O
 
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
u
s
i
n
g
 
Q
5
©
)
 
o
f
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
D
Q
O
 
S
t
e
p
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
D
Q
O
 
S
t
e
p
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
 
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
.
 
 
S
t
a
t
e
 
t
h
e
 
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
i
l
l
 
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
 
n
e
w
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
d
a
t
a
 
(
t
h
e
 
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
h
y
p
o
t
h
e
s
i
s
)
 
a
n
d
 
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
 
(
i
f
 
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
 
i
s
 
t
o
b
e
 
u
s
e
d
)
.
D
o
 
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
 
o
r
 
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
 
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
e
x
c
e
e
d
 
t
h
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
 
m
e
d
i
a
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
g
i
v
e
n
i
n
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
2
 
(
f
r
o
m
 
t
h
e
 
m
a
i
n
 
b
o
d
y
 
o
f
 
 
t
h
e
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
)
?
 
2
.
 
 
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
t
h
a
t
 
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
 
n
e
w
d
a
t
a
/
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
 
t
o
 
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
T
h
e
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
 
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
 
t
o
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
f
r
o
m
 
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
 
s
t
u
d
y
.
3
.
 
 
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
I
n
p
u
t
s
 
t
o
 
t
h
e
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
 
t
o
 
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
 
t
h
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
 
t
h
a
t
 
i
n
p
u
t
s
 
w
i
l
l
 
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
n
e
w
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
G
r
o
u
n
d
 
w
a
t
e
r
 
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
 
d
a
t
a
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
v
a
l
u
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
 
i
n
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
a
l
o
n
g
 
w
i
t
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
 
w
h
a
t
 
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
m
o
s
t
 
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
 
(
e
.
g
.
,
 
s
o
i
l
 
t
y
p
e
,
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
w
e
l
l
s
 
a
t
 
w
a
t
e
r
 
t
a
b
l
e
)
.
4
.
 
 
D
e
f
i
n
e
 
t
h
e
 
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
p
e
c
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
 
a
n
d
 
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
 
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
 
o
f
t
h
e
 
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
m
e
d
i
a
 
o
r
 
e
n
d
p
o
i
n
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
 
m
u
s
t
 
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
 
t
o
 
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
 
t
h
e
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
 
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
t
u
d
y
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
 
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
 
t
h
e
 
e
x
t
e
n
t
 
t
o
 
w
h
i
c
h
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
 
s
i
t
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
 
t
o
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
 
w
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
o
f
 
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
 
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
 
b
u
t
o
t
h
e
r
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
m
a
y
 
p
o
s
e
 
a
 
r
i
s
k
 
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
u
n
i
t
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
D
Q
O
 
S
t
e
p
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
D
Q
O
 
S
t
e
p
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
 
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
V
S
P
 
i
s
 
a
 
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
 
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
 
t
h
a
t
 
i
s
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
f
o
r
 
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
i
n
g
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
 
s
o
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
 
v
a
l
u
e
 
i
n
 
c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
 
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
a
n
 
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
 
o
f
 
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
A
-
4
5
.
 
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
 
a
 
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
R
u
l
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
 
a
 
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
 
“
i
f
.
.
t
h
e
n
”
 
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
 
t
h
a
t
d
e
f
i
n
e
s
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
i
l
l
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
 
t
h
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
m
a
k
e
r
 
t
o
 
c
h
o
o
s
e
 
a
m
o
n
g
 
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
F
o
r
 
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
 
“
I
f
 
a
n
y
 
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
 
V
O
C
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
n
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 
 
i
s
 
a
b
o
v
e
 
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
 
l
e
v
e
l
 
f
o
r
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
i
n
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
 
5
c
,
 
t
h
e
n
 
further
assessment
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
 
s
o
i
l
 
g
a
s
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
 
a
n
d
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
 
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
6
.
 
 
S
p
e
c
i
f
y
 
T
o
l
e
r
a
b
l
e
 
L
i
m
i
t
s
 
o
n
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
E
r
r
o
r
s
S
p
e
c
i
f
y
 
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
 
l
i
m
i
t
s
 
o
n
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
e
r
r
o
r
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
 
a
r
e
 
u
s
e
d
 
t
o
 
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
 
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
g
o
a
l
s
 
f
o
r
 
l
i
m
i
t
i
n
g
 
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
y
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
 
e
r
r
o
r
s
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
 
f
r
o
m
 
f
a
i
l
i
n
g
 
t
o
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
 
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
 
i
n
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
,
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
r
 
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
.
 
 
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
 
g
o
a
l
s
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
i
n
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
 
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
u
s
e
 
o
f
 
a
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
 
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
 
s
u
c
h
 
a
s
 
V
i
s
u
a
l
 
S
a
m
p
l
e
P
l
a
n
 
(
V
S
P
)
 
c
a
n
 
a
i
d
 
i
n
 
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
 
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
i
e
s
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
1
7
.
 
 
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
 
t
h
e
 
D
e
s
i
g
n
 
f
o
r
O
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
 
D
a
t
a
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
m
o
s
t
 
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
 
d
e
s
i
g
n
 
f
o
r
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
 
t
o
 
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
D
Q
O
s
.
A
g
a
i
n
,
 
u
s
i
n
g
 
a
 
t
o
o
l
 
l
i
k
e
 
V
S
P
 
m
a
y
 
p
r
o
v
e
v
e
r
y
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
i
n
 
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
 
i
n
 
t
h
i
s
 
s
t
u
d
y
.
 
 
S
e
e
 
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
V
S
P
.
A
-
5
T
a
b
l
e
 
A
-
2
.
 
 
V
O
C
 
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
,
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
L
i
m
i
t
s
 
a
n
d
 
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
 
C
o
s
t
s
 
(
 
c
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
 
 
J
u
l
y
 
2
0
0
2
)
M
e
d
i
a
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
/
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
i
m
i
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
L
i
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
W
a
t
e
r
O
S
W
 
-
 
S
W
 
8
4
6
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
8
2
6
0
C
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
e
p
a
o
s
w
e
r
/
h
a
z
w
a
s
t
e
/
t
e
s
t
/
m
a
i
n
.
h
t
m
P
u
r
g
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
r
a
p
 
G
C
/
M
S
5
 
u
g
/
L
1
$
 
1
0
0
W
a
t
e
r
O
W
 
D
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
 
W
a
t
e
r
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
5
2
4
.
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
a
f
e
w
a
t
e
r
/
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
/
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
h
t
m
l
P
u
r
g
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
r
a
p
 
G
C
/
M
S
0
.
5
 
u
g
/
L
2
$
 
9
0
W
a
t
e
r
O
E
R
R
/
A
O
C
 
S
O
W
 
O
L
M
0
4
.
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
/
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
/
c
l
p
/
o
l
m
4
2
.
h
t
m
P
u
r
g
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
r
a
p
 
G
C
/
M
S
1
0
 
u
g
/
L
3
$
 
1
3
0
W
a
t
e
r
O
E
R
R
/
A
O
C
 
S
O
W
 
O
L
C
0
3
.
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
/
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
/
c
l
p
/
o
l
c
3
2
.
h
t
m
P
u
r
g
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
r
a
p
G
C
/
M
S
0
.
5
 
u
g
/
L
4
$
 
1
0
0
S
o
i
l
O
S
W
 
-
 
S
W
 
8
4
6
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
8
2
6
0
C
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
e
p
a
o
s
w
e
r
/
h
a
z
w
a
s
t
e
/
t
e
s
t
/
m
a
i
n
.
h
t
m
P
u
r
g
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
r
a
p
 
G
C
/
M
S
5
 
u
g
/
k
g
1
$
 
1
0
0
S
o
i
l
O
E
R
R
/
A
O
C
 
S
O
W
 
O
L
M
0
4
.
2
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
/
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
/
c
l
p
/
o
l
m
4
2
.
h
t
m
P
u
r
g
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
r
a
p
 
G
C
/
M
S
1
0
 
u
g
/
k
g
3
$
1
3
0
 
A
i
r
O
S
W
 
S
W
8
4
6
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
5
0
4
1
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
e
p
a
o
s
w
e
r
/
h
a
z
w
a
s
t
e
/
t
e
s
t
/
p
d
f
s
/
5
0
4
1
a
.
p
d
f
S
o
r
b
e
n
t
 
t
u
b
e
s
/
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
D
e
s
p
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
0
.
1
 
u
g
/
m
3
5
$
1
0
0
A
i
r
N
I
O
S
H
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
1
0
0
3
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d
 
V
O
C
s
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
c
d
c
.
g
o
v
/
n
i
o
s
h
/
n
m
a
m
/
p
d
f
s
/
1
0
0
3
.
p
d
f
C
h
a
r
c
o
a
l
 
T
u
b
e
s
 
/
 
G
C
0
.
0
1
m
g
/
L
6
$
 
5
0
A
i
r
N
I
O
S
H
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
1
5
0
1
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
c
d
c
.
g
o
v
/
n
i
o
s
h
/
n
m
a
m
/
p
d
f
s
/
1
5
0
1
.
p
d
f
C
h
a
r
c
o
a
l
 
T
u
b
e
s
/
 
G
C
0
.
0
0
1
 
m
g
/
L
7
$
 
5
0
A
-
6
A
i
r
O
A
R
 
T
O
-
1
5
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
t
t
n
a
m
t
i
1
/
a
i
r
t
o
x
.
h
t
m
l
C
a
n
i
s
t
e
r
s
/
G
C
/
M
S
0
.
2
-
0
.
5
u
g
/
m
3
 
S
c
a
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
0
.
0
2
 
S
I
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
8
$
 
2
5
0
A
i
r
O
A
R
 
T
O
-
1
7
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
t
t
n
a
m
t
i
1
/
a
i
r
t
o
x
.
h
t
m
l
S
o
r
b
e
n
t
 
T
u
b
e
s
/
G
C
/
M
S
0
.
2
-
0
.
5
u
g
/
m
3
8
?
A
i
r
A
S
T
M
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
D
-
1
9
4
5
(
G
C
/
T
C
D
/
F
I
D
)
 
.
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
 
=
 
1
0
p
p
m
v
,
 
O
2
 
a
n
d
N
2
 
=
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
0
0
0
(
0
.
1
%
)
 
p
p
m
v
,
C
H
4
 
=
 
1
p
p
m
v
.
A
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
g
a
s
e
s
 
p
l
u
s
C
1
-
C
6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
A
i
r
A
S
T
M
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
D
-
1
9
4
6
(
G
C
/
T
C
D
/
F
I
D
)
A
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
 
g
a
s
e
s
O
2
,
 
N
2
,
 
C
O
,
C
O
2
,
 
C
H
4
,
e
t
h
a
n
e
,
 
 
 
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
?
A
i
r
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
T
O
-
5
 
H
P
L
C
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
t
t
n
a
m
t
i
1
/
a
i
r
t
o
x
.
h
t
m
l
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
s
 
a
n
d
k
e
t
o
n
e
s
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
v
i
a
d
i
n
i
t
r
o
p
h
e
n
y
l
h
y
d
r
a
z
i
n
e
(
D
N
P
H
)
 
m
i
d
g
e
t
 
i
m
p
i
n
g
e
r
.
0
.
0
5
 
u
g
-
?
A
i
r
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
T
O
-
1
1
 
H
P
L
C
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
t
t
n
a
m
t
i
1
/
a
i
r
t
o
x
.
h
t
m
l
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
s
 
a
n
d
k
e
t
o
n
e
s
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
 
o
n
 
a
d
i
n
i
t
r
o
p
h
e
n
y
l
h
y
d
r
a
z
i
n
e
(
D
N
P
H
)
 
c
o
a
t
e
d
 
S
e
p
-
P
a
k
c
a
r
t
r
i
d
g
e
0
.
0
5
 
u
g
.
-
?
A
-
7
V
O
C
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
 
L
i
s
t
s
 
L
i
s
t
 
1
 
 
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
S
o
l
i
d
 
W
a
s
t
e
 
S
W
 
8
4
6
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
8
2
6
0
 
C
A
c
e
t
o
n
e
A
c
e
t
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
A
c
r
o
l
e
i
n
 
(
P
r
o
p
e
n
a
l
)
A
c
r
y
l
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
A
l
l
y
l
 
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
A
l
l
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
B
e
n
z
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
B
i
s
(
2
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
)
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
B
r
o
m
o
a
c
e
t
o
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
n
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
l
2
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
 
(
M
E
K
)
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
 
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
t
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
C
h
l
o
r
a
l
 
h
y
d
r
a
t
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
2
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
o
l
2
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
 
v
i
n
y
l
 
e
t
h
e
r
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
C
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
e
n
e
3
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
i
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
C
r
o
t
o
n
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
-
3
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
2
-
b
u
t
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
2
-
b
u
t
e
n
e
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
2
-
p
r
o
p
a
n
o
l
c
i
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
-
D
i
e
p
o
x
y
b
u
t
a
n
e
D
i
e
t
h
y
l
 
e
t
h
e
r
1
,
4
-
D
i
o
x
a
n
e
E
p
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
h
y
d
r
i
n
E
t
h
a
n
o
l
E
t
h
y
l
 
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
o
x
i
d
e
E
t
h
y
l
 
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
y
l
a
t
e
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
u
t
a
d
i
e
n
e
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
2
-
H
e
x
a
n
o
n
e
2
-
H
y
d
r
o
x
y
p
r
o
p
i
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
I
o
d
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
I
s
o
b
u
t
y
l
 
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
M
a
l
o
n
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
M
e
t
h
a
c
r
y
l
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
M
e
t
h
a
n
o
l
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
y
l
a
t
e
4
-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
2
-
p
e
n
t
a
n
o
n
e
 
(
M
I
B
K
)
N
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
n
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
2
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
s
e
c
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
t
e
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
p
-
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
 
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
a
c
r
y
l
a
t
e
1
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
u
t
a
n
e
 
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
t
-
b
u
t
y
l
 
e
t
h
e
r
1
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
 
P
e
n
t
a
f
l
u
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
2
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
 
n
-
P
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
4
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
 
1
,
2
,
3
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
 
1
,
3
,
5
-
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
A
-
8
V
O
C
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
 
L
i
s
t
s
 
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
L
i
s
t
 
2
 
E
P
A
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
W
a
t
e
r
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
 
5
2
4
.
2
L
i
s
t
 
3
 
 
O
E
R
R
 
(
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
)
 
C
L
P
 
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
 
 
W
o
r
k
 
O
L
M
0
4
.
2
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
B
r
o
m
o
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B
r
o
m
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B
r
o
m
o
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
t
e
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
m
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
F
l
u
o
r
o
t
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
u
t
a
d
i
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p
-
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
-
P
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
2
,
3
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
2
,
3
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
,
3
,
5
 
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
1
,
1
,
1
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
-
3
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
,
2
,
2
-
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
2
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
 
[
 
7
8
-
9
3
-
3
 
]
2
-
H
e
x
a
n
o
n
e
4
-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
2
-
p
e
n
t
a
n
o
n
e
A
c
e
t
o
n
e
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
[
5
6
-
2
3
-
5
]
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
 
 
 
[
6
7
-
6
6
-
3
]
C
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
C
y
c
l
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
 
[
1
1
0
-
8
2
-
7
]
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
t
e
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
 
E
t
h
e
r
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
A
c
e
t
a
t
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
c
y
c
l
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
S
t
y
r
e
n
e
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
V
i
n
y
l
 
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
 
(
t
o
t
a
l
)
A
-
9
 
V
O
C
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
 
L
i
s
t
s
 
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
i
s
t
 
4
 
 
O
E
R
R
 
(
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
)
 
C
L
P
 
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
 
W
o
r
k
 
O
L
C
0
3
.
2
 
 
L
i
s
t
 
 
5
 
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
S
o
l
i
d
 
W
a
s
t
e
 
S
W
 
8
4
6
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
5
0
4
1
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
 
1
,
1
,
1
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
1
,
2
,
2
-
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
-
3
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
,
2
,
3
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
2
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
2
-
H
e
x
a
n
o
n
e
4
-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
2
-
p
e
n
t
a
n
o
n
e
A
c
e
t
o
n
e
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
C
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
C
y
c
l
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
 
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
A
c
e
t
a
t
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
t
e
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
 
E
t
h
e
r
M
e
t
h
y
l
c
y
c
l
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
S
t
y
r
e
n
e
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
 
V
i
n
y
l
 
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
 
(
t
o
t
a
l
)
A
c
e
t
o
n
e
A
c
r
y
l
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
t
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
C
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
c
i
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
I
o
d
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
S
t
y
r
e
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
1
,
1
,
1
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
,
3
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
V
i
n
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
A
-
1
0
V
O
C
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
 
L
i
s
t
s
 
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
L
i
s
t
 
6
 
 
 
 
N
I
O
S
H
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
1
0
0
3
L
i
s
t
 
7
 
 
 
N
I
O
S
H
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
1
5
0
1
B
e
n
z
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
t
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
a
b
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
o
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
p
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1
,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
1
,
1
-
t
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1
,
2
,
3
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
1
-
t
e
r
t
-
b
u
t
y
l
-
4
-
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
a
-
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
t
y
r
e
n
e
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
u
m
e
n
e
d
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
(
p
-
x
y
l
e
n
e
)
 
(
m
e
t
a
)
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
i
s
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
i
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
t
y
r
e
n
e
m
e
t
h
y
l
v
i
n
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
(
o
r
t
h
o
)
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
p
-
t
e
r
t
-
b
u
t
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
s
t
y
r
e
n
e
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
v
i
n
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
x
y
l
e
n
e
A
-
1
1
V
O
C
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
A
n
a
l
y
t
e
 
L
i
s
t
s
 
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
L
i
s
t
 
8
 
 
 
E
P
A
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
A
i
r
 
a
n
d
 
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
 
T
O
-
1
5
 
&
 
T
O
-
1
7
 
1
,
1
-
D
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
h
y
d
r
a
z
i
n
e
;
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
;
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
;
1
,
2
-
D
i
b
r
o
m
o
-
3
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
;
1
,
2
-
E
p
o
x
y
b
u
t
a
n
e
 
(
1
,
2
-
b
u
t
y
l
e
n
e
 
o
x
i
d
e
)
;
1
,
2
-
P
r
o
p
y
l
e
n
e
i
m
i
n
e
 
(
2
-
m
e
t
h
y
l
a
z
i
n
d
i
n
e
)
;
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
;
1
,
3
-
B
u
t
a
d
i
e
n
e
;
1
,
3
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
;
1
,
3
-
P
r
o
p
a
n
e
 
s
u
l
t
o
n
e
;
1
,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
 
(
p
-
)
;
1
,
4
-
D
i
o
x
a
n
e
 
(
1
,
4
 
D
i
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
o
x
i
d
e
)
;
2
-
N
i
t
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
;
2
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
 
p
e
n
t
a
n
e
;
A
c
e
t
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
 
(
e
t
h
a
n
a
l
)
;
A
c
e
t
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
 
(
c
y
a
n
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
A
c
e
t
o
p
h
e
n
o
n
e
;
A
c
r
o
l
e
i
n
 
(
2
-
p
r
o
p
e
n
a
l
)
;
A
c
r
y
l
a
m
i
d
e
;
A
c
r
y
l
i
c
 
a
c
i
d
;
A
c
r
y
l
o
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
 
(
2
-
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
n
i
t
r
i
l
e
)
;
A
l
l
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
3
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
e
n
e
)
;
A
n
i
l
i
n
e
 
(
a
m
i
n
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
)
;
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
;
B
e
n
z
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
a
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
)
;
B
e
t
a
-
P
r
o
p
i
o
l
a
c
t
o
n
e
;
B
i
s
(
2
-
C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
)
e
t
h
e
r
;
B
i
s
(
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
y
l
)
 
e
t
h
e
r
;
B
r
o
m
o
f
o
r
m
 
(
t
r
i
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
t
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
;
C
a
r
b
o
n
 
d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
;
C
a
r
b
o
n
y
l
 
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
;
C
a
t
e
c
h
o
l
 
(
o
-
h
y
d
r
o
x
y
p
h
e
n
o
l
)
;
C
h
l
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
i
c
 
a
c
i
d
;
C
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
;
C
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
;
C
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
y
l
 
m
e
t
h
y
l
 
e
t
h
e
r
;
C
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
e
n
e
 
(
2
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
1
,
3
-
b
u
t
a
d
i
e
n
e
)
;
C
r
e
s
y
l
i
c
 
a
c
i
d
 
(
c
r
e
s
o
l
 
i
s
o
m
e
r
 
m
i
x
t
u
r
e
)
;
C
u
m
e
n
e
 
(
i
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
)
;
D
i
a
z
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
;
D
i
e
t
h
y
l
 
s
u
l
f
a
t
e
;
D
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
 
s
u
l
f
a
t
e
;
D
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
a
m
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
;
E
p
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
h
y
d
r
i
n
 
(
l
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
-
2
,
3
-
e
p
o
x
y
 
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
)
;
E
t
h
y
l
 
a
c
r
y
l
a
t
e
;
E
t
h
y
l
 
c
a
r
b
a
m
a
t
e
 
(
u
r
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
E
t
h
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
;
E
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
d
i
b
r
o
m
i
d
e
 
(
1
,
2
-
d
i
b
r
o
m
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
E
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
1
,
2
-
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
E
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
o
x
i
d
e
;
E
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
i
m
i
n
e
 
(
a
z
i
r
i
d
i
n
e
)
;
E
t
h
y
l
i
d
e
n
e
 
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
1
,
1
-
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
F
o
r
m
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
;
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
u
t
a
d
i
e
n
e
;
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
;
H
e
x
a
n
e
;
I
s
o
p
h
o
r
o
n
e
;
m
-
X
y
l
e
n
e
;
M
e
t
h
a
n
o
l
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
y
l
a
t
e
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
i
s
o
b
u
t
y
l
 
k
e
t
o
n
e
 
(
h
e
x
o
n
e
)
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
b
r
o
m
i
d
e
 
(
b
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
e
t
h
y
l
 
k
e
t
o
n
e
 
(
2
-
b
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
)
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
i
s
o
c
y
a
n
a
t
e
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
i
o
d
i
d
e
 
(
i
o
d
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
 
(
1
,
1
,
1
 
t
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
)
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
 
t
e
r
t
-
b
u
t
y
l
 
e
t
h
e
r
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
;
M
e
t
h
y
l
h
y
d
r
a
z
i
n
e
;
N
-
N
i
t
r
o
s
o
d
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
a
m
i
n
e
;
N
-
N
i
t
r
o
s
o
m
o
r
p
h
o
l
i
n
e
;
N
-
N
i
t
r
s
o
-
N
-
m
e
t
h
y
l
u
r
e
a
;
N
i
t
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
;
N
,
N
-
D
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
a
n
i
l
i
n
e
;
N
,
N
-
D
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
f
o
r
m
a
m
i
d
e
;
o
-
C
r
e
s
o
l
;
o
-
X
y
l
e
n
e
;
p
-
X
y
l
e
n
e
;
P
h
e
n
o
l
;
P
h
o
s
g
e
n
e
;
P
r
o
p
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
;
P
r
o
p
y
l
e
n
e
 
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
1
,
2
-
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
)
;
P
r
o
p
y
l
e
n
e
 
o
x
i
d
e
;
S
t
y
r
e
n
e
 
o
x
i
d
e
;
S
t
y
r
e
n
e
;
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
;
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
;
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
;
T
r
i
e
t
h
y
l
a
m
i
n
e
;
V
i
n
y
l
 
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
;
V
i
n
y
l
 
b
r
o
m
i
d
e
 
(
b
r
o
m
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
)
;
V
i
n
y
l
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
)
;
V
i
n
y
l
i
d
e
n
e
 
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
 
(
1
,
1
-
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
)
;
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
 
(
i
s
o
m
e
r
 
&
 
m
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
)
;
B
-
1
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
 
 
B
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
A
 
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
 
S
I
T
E
 
M
O
D
E
L
 
(
C
S
M
)
 
F
O
R
 
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
T
H
E
 
V
A
P
O
R
 
I
N
T
R
U
S
I
O
N
 
P
A
T
H
W
A
Y
 
1
.
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
 
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
s
i
t
e
 
m
o
d
e
l
 
(
C
S
M
)
 
i
s
 
a
 
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
 
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
 
(
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
 
a
n
d
/
o
r
 
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
)
 
o
f
 
a
 
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
r
e
a
l
-
w
o
r
l
d
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
 
 
A
 
C
S
M
 
i
s
 
n
o
t
 
a
n
 
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
 
o
r
 
m
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
 
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
 
m
o
d
e
l
 
(
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
 
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
 
C
S
M
 
m
a
y
 
s
e
r
v
e
 
a
s
 
a
 
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
 
f
o
r
 
s
u
c
h
 
m
o
d
e
l
s
)
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
g
o
a
l
 
f
o
r
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
a
 
C
S
M
 
i
n
t
h
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
 
i
s
 
t
o
 
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
 
a
 
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
 
(
a
s
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
)
t
h
r
e
e
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l
 
“
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
”
 
b
a
s
e
d
 
o
n
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
 
d
a
t
a
 
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
/
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
 
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
,
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
 
a
s
 
w
e
l
l
 
a
s
 
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
 
u
s
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
,
 
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
 
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
 
b
y
 
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
,
 
a
n
d
 
f
u
t
u
r
e
 
l
a
n
d
 
u
s
e
 
p
l
a
n
s
.
 
 
A
l
l
 
t
h
e
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
 
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
a
 
s
i
t
e
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
 
i
n
 
a
 
C
S
M
 
a
n
d
 
a
n
y
 
i
r
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
 
o
n
e
s
 
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
C
S
M
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
b
o
t
h
 
a
 
n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
 
a
n
d
 
a
 
v
i
s
u
a
l
 
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
a
c
t
u
a
l
 
o
r
 
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
 
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
 
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
 
(
h
u
m
a
n
s
 
a
n
d
/
o
r
 
e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
 
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
)
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
,
 
a
s
 
w
e
l
l
 
a
s
 
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
a
n
y
 
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
a
 
C
S
M
 
i
s
 
a
n
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
f
i
r
s
t
 
s
t
e
p
 
i
n
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
 
a
n
y
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
 
t
o
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
n
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
h
e
a
l
t
h
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
 
 
I
n
 
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
 
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
 
s
i
t
e
 
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
 
a
 
C
S
M
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
 
b
y
 
m
a
p
s
,
c
r
o
s
s
 
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
n
d
 
s
i
t
e
 
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
 
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
 
d
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
 
w
h
a
t
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
 
a
r
e
 
k
n
o
w
n
 
o
r
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
 
a
n
d
 
w
h
a
t
 
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
 
h
a
v
e
 
b
e
e
n
 
m
a
d
e
 
i
n
 
i
t
s
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
 
 
T
h
e
C
S
M
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
a
l
l
 
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
 
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
 
a
 
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
f
o
r
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
t
o
 
a
n
y
 
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
a
t
 
a
 
s
i
t
e
.
 
 
A
s
 
s
u
c
h
,
 
i
t
 
s
e
r
v
e
s
 
a
s
 
a
n
 
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
t
o
o
l
 
t
o
 
a
i
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
n
d
 
a
l
s
o
 
s
e
r
v
e
s
 
 
a
s
 
a
 
v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
o
o
l
b
o
t
h
 
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
l
y
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
“
s
i
t
e
 
t
e
a
m
”
 
a
n
d
 
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
l
y
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
 
A
 
w
e
l
l
-
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
,
 
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
 
C
S
M
 
w
i
l
l
 
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
 
t
h
e
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
d
a
t
a
 
n
e
e
d
s
 
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
 
D
a
t
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
 
(
D
Q
O
s
)
 
i
n
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
a
n
y
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
 
t
o
 
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
.
 
 
I
t
 
c
a
n
 
a
l
s
o
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
f
o
r
p
r
o
m
p
t
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
a
 
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
 
f
o
r
 
e
a
r
l
y
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
 
i
f
 
t
h
e
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
 
i
s
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
 
t
o
 
b
e
 
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
 
a
n
d
 
m
a
y
 
p
o
s
e
 
a
n
 
i
m
m
i
n
e
n
t
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
r
i
s
k
 
t
o
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
h
e
a
l
t
h
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
 
t
h
e
 
C
S
M
 
i
s
 
l
i
k
e
l
y
 
t
o
 
e
v
o
l
v
e
 
o
v
e
r
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
u
r
s
e
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
 
i
t
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
 
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
 
i
n
 
n
a
t
u
r
e
.
 
 
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
n
e
w
l
y
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
a
n
 
i
t
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
h
a
t
 
c
a
n
 
o
c
c
u
r
 
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
 
t
h
e
 
e
a
r
l
y
 
s
t
a
g
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
 
 
T
h
i
s
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
 
i
n
p
u
t
 
f
r
o
m
 
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
 
w
h
o
 
a
r
e
 
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
a
n
d
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
 
m
a
y
 
h
a
v
e
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
o
r
 
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
 
 
A
s
 
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
d
a
t
a
b
e
c
o
m
e
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
d
u
r
i
n
g
 
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
D
Q
O
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
 
t
h
e
 
C
S
M
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
 
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
.
 
 
S
u
c
h
 
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
a
l
s
o
 
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
 
i
t
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
 
r
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
D
Q
O
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
 
s
t
e
p
)
,
 
s
i
n
c
e
 
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
C
S
M
 
m
a
y
 
l
e
a
d
 
t
o
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
d
a
t
a
 
o
r
B
-
2
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
n
o
t
 
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
 
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d
 
a
s
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
 
 
A
s
 
a
 
f
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
t
o
o
l
,
 
t
h
e
C
S
M
 
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
 
p
r
o
m
p
t
 
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
 
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
 
d
u
r
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
2
.
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
 
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
 
S
i
t
e
 
D
a
t
a
T
h
e
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
 
t
y
p
e
s
 
o
f
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
r
e
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
f
o
r
 
p
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
 
a
 
C
S
M
:
•
s
i
t
e
 
m
a
p
s
,
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
 
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
m
a
p
s
,
 
a
e
r
i
a
l
 
p
h
o
t
o
s
•
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
 
c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
 
o
f
 
l
a
n
d
 
u
s
e
,
 
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
•
S
t
a
t
e
 
s
o
i
l
 
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
•
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
 
d
a
t
a
 
o
n
 
l
o
c
a
l
 
a
n
d
 
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
 
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
,
 
s
o
i
l
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
h
y
d
r
o
g
e
o
l
o
g
y
 
•
a
n
y
 
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
 
s
i
t
e
 
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
 
a
n
d
 
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
 
(
e
.
g
.
 
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
S
i
t
e
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
)
•
a
n
 
o
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
n
a
t
u
r
e
 
a
n
d
 
e
x
t
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
T
h
e
 
C
S
M
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
,
 
i
n
 
a
s
 
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
 
a
 
m
a
n
n
e
r
 
a
s
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
 
a
l
l
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
o
r
s
u
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
 
(
s
o
i
l
,
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,
 
s
o
i
l
 
g
a
s
,
 
e
t
c
.
)
;
 
t
h
e
 
t
y
p
e
s
 
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
;
 
a
l
l
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
,
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
;
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
 
a
n
d
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
 
w
i
t
h
 
e
a
c
h
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
 
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
 
i
n
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
a
n
 
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
 
C
S
M
 
f
o
r
u
s
e
 
i
n
 
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
 
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
 
a
r
e
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
 
b
e
l
o
w
.
 
3
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
f
o
r
 
C
S
M
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
V
a
p
o
r
 
I
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
 
P
a
t
h
w
a
y
 
•
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
 
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
 
b
u
t
 
n
o
t
 
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
 
t
o
:
-
 
t
h
e
 
e
l
d
e
r
l
y
-
 
 
p
r
e
g
n
a
n
t
 
o
r
 
n
u
r
s
i
n
g
 
w
o
m
e
n
-
 
 
i
n
f
a
n
t
s
-
 
 
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
-
 
 
p
e
o
p
l
e
 
s
u
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
 
f
r
o
m
 
c
h
r
o
n
i
c
 
i
l
l
n
e
s
s
e
s
•
p
e
o
p
l
e
 
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
 
t
o
 
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
 
h
i
g
h
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
•
c
i
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
 
w
h
e
r
e
 
a
 
d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
d
 
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
 
(
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
 
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
)
•
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
 
N
A
P
L
s
-
 
v
e
r
y
 
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
 
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 
o
r
 
s
o
i
l
•
v
a
p
o
r
 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
 
(
s
e
e
 
F
i
g
u
r
e
 
B
-
1
)
-
 
d
i
f
f
u
s
i
o
n
 
u
p
w
a
r
d
s
-
 
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
-
 
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
 
s
u
c
h
 
a
s
 
f
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
d
 
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
 
o
r
 
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
 
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
B
-
3
•
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
n
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
 
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
-
 
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
 
(
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
)
 
a
i
r
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
•
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
 
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
 
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
-
 
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
y
p
e
 
(
b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,
 
s
l
a
b
 
o
n
 
g
r
a
d
e
,
 
c
r
a
w
l
s
p
a
c
e
)
-
 
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
•
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
 
u
s
e
-
 
o
p
e
n
 
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
 
(
e
t
c
.
)
 
4
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
 
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
 
S
i
t
e
 
D
a
t
a
 
f
o
r
 
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
 
i
n
 
a
 
C
S
M
T
h
e
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
S
i
t
e
 
M
o
d
e
l
 
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
 
i
n
 
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
 
A
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
S
o
i
l
 
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
:
 
U
s
e
r
’
s
 
G
u
i
d
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
 
f
o
u
r
 
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
 
f
o
r
m
s
 
f
o
r
 
c
o
m
p
i
l
i
n
g
 
s
i
t
e
 
d
a
t
a
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
i
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
a
 
C
S
M
 
f
o
r
 
s
o
i
l
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
 
 
T
h
e
s
e
 
C
S
M
 
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
 
f
o
r
m
s
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
d
a
t
a
 
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
 
s
i
t
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
s
o
i
l
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
 
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
 
a
n
d
 
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
.
 
 
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
1
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
R
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
:
 
V
o
l
u
m
e
 
I
 
-
 
H
u
m
a
n
 
H
e
a
l
t
h
 
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
 
M
a
n
u
a
l
,
 
P
a
r
t
 
D
 
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
 
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
 
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
,
 
a
n
d
 
R
e
v
i
e
w
 
o
f
 
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
 
R
i
s
k
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
d
 
i
n
a
 
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
 
m
a
n
n
e
r
 
t
o
 
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
/
s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
 
t
h
e
 
C
S
M
.
 
 
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
1
 
i
s
 
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
 
 
t
o
 
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
t
h
e
 
C
S
M
 
a
n
d
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
 
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
 
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
r
o
u
t
e
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
,
 
a
s
 
w
e
l
l
 
a
s
t
h
e
 
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
 
f
o
r
 
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
o
r
 
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
e
a
c
h
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
e
r
e
 
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
 
a
n
d
 
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
 
f
r
o
m
 
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
i
l
l
 
b
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
 
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
 
o
r
 
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
a
r
e
 
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
 
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
w
h
e
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
T
a
b
l
e
 
1
 
i
s
 
u
s
e
d
.
 
 
E
i
t
h
e
r
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
s
e
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
 
s
i
t
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
 
f
o
r
m
a
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
a
r
e
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
f
o
r
 
C
S
M
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
c
a
n
 
a
l
s
o
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
d
 
t
o
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
 
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
 
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
 
E
P
A
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
 
a
n
d
 
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
 
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
 
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
 
b
y
c
o
m
p
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
d
a
t
a
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
s
e
 
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
 
f
o
r
m
a
t
s
,
 
l
i
k
e
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
s
t
e
p
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
 
m
a
y
 
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
 
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
 
r
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
C
S
M
.
•
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
S
i
t
e
 
M
o
d
e
l
 
D
i
a
g
r
a
m
s
 
A
n
 
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
 
o
f
 
a
 
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
 
C
S
M
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
 
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s
 
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
s
o
i
l
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
 
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
 
A
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
 
S
o
i
l
 
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
:
 
U
s
e
r
’
s
 
G
u
i
d
e
.
 
 
A
 
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
 
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
 
c
a
n
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
 
C
S
M
 
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s
 
a
n
d
 
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
 
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
 
s
i
t
e
 
d
a
t
a
 
h
a
s
 
b
e
e
n
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
 
(
D
O
E
)
.
 
 
T
h
e
S
i
t
e
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
M
o
d
e
l
 
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
f
o
u
n
d
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
.
 
(
 
U
R
L
 
=
 
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
t
i
s
-
n
t
.
e
h
.
d
o
e
.
g
o
v
/
o
e
p
a
/
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
/
s
c
e
m
.
c
f
m
)
 
•
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
C
S
M
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
B
-
4
(
1
)
 
T
h
e
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
m
o
r
e
 
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
a
 
C
S
M
 
f
o
r
 
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
 
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
:
 
S
o
i
l
 
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
:
 
U
s
e
r
’
s
 
G
u
i
d
e
.
 
P
a
r
t
 
2
.
1
 
a
n
d
 
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
 
A
;
 
E
P
A
-
5
4
0
-
R
-
9
6
-
0
1
8
.
 
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
 
a
n
d
 
R
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
 
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
/
E
P
A
.
 
 
J
u
l
y
 
1
9
9
6
.
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
S
o
i
l
 
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
L
e
v
e
l
s
 
f
o
r
 
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
 
S
i
t
e
s
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
 
a
n
d
 
R
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
 
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
/
E
P
A
 
R
i
s
k
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
 
(
R
A
G
S
)
:
 
V
o
l
u
m
e
 
I
 
-
 
H
u
m
a
n
 
H
e
a
l
t
h
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
 
M
a
n
u
a
l
,
 
P
a
r
t
 
D
 
-
 
(
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
 
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
 
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
,
 
a
n
d
 
R
e
v
i
e
w
 
o
f
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
 
R
i
s
k
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
)
,
 
F
i
n
a
l
 
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
 
2
0
0
1
.
 
P
u
b
.
 
#
 
-
 
9
2
8
5
.
7
-
4
7
;
 
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
 
2
 
-
R
i
s
k
 
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
i
n
 
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
 
S
c
o
p
i
n
g
;
 
 
E
P
A
 
-
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
 
a
n
d
 
R
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
S
i
t
e
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
 
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
 
M
o
d
e
l
 
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
 
-
 
U
s
e
r
 
M
a
n
u
a
l
 
-
 
f
o
r
 
P
C
 
(
W
i
n
d
o
w
s
 
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
)
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
a
s
s
i
s
t
 
i
n
 
p
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
 
a
 
s
i
t
e
 
m
o
d
e
l
;
 
 
U
.
S
.
 
D
e
p
t
 
o
f
 
E
n
e
r
g
y
,
 
R
C
R
A
/
C
E
R
C
L
A
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
 
J
u
l
y
 
1
9
9
7
.
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
R
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
 
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
n
d
 
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
 
u
n
d
e
r
 
C
E
R
C
L
A
.
 
E
P
A
 
5
4
0
-
G
-
8
9
-
0
0
4
.
 
 
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
 
a
n
d
 
R
e
m
e
d
i
a
l
 
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
/
E
P
A
 
.
1
9
8
9
.
E
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d
 
S
i
t
e
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
T
o
o
l
s
 
f
o
r
 
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
 
T
a
n
k
 
S
i
t
e
s
:
 
A
 
G
u
i
d
e
 
f
o
r
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
s
.
 
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
 
2
.
 
E
P
A
 
5
1
0
-
B
-
9
7
-
0
0
1
;
 
O
f
f
i
c
e
 
o
f
 
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
 
T
a
n
k
s
/
E
P
A
;
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
1
9
9
7
.
(
2
)
 
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
a
n
d
 
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
 
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
 
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
 
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
 
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
a
n
d
 
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
 
p
r
i
o
r
 
t
o
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
a
 
r
i
s
k
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
c
a
n
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
s
o
m
e
 
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
 
t
o
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
 
i
n
 
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
a
 
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
S
i
t
e
 
M
o
d
e
l
.
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
f
o
r
 
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
B
r
o
w
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
 
S
i
t
e
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
,
 
E
P
A
 
5
4
0
-
R
-
9
8
-
0
3
8
;
 
O
S
W
E
R
 
9
2
3
0
.
0
-
8
3
P
;
 
P
B
9
8
-
9
6
3
3
0
7
;
 
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
 
1
9
9
8
.
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
 
R
i
s
k
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
,
 
E
P
A
 
6
3
0
-
R
-
9
5
-
0
0
2
F
,
 
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
 
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
 
V
o
l
6
3
,
 
p
p
.
2
6
8
4
6
-
2
6
9
2
4
;
 
M
a
y
 
1
4
,
 
1
9
9
8
.
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
 
f
o
r
 
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 
R
i
s
k
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
-
 
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
 
R
e
v
i
e
w
 
D
r
a
f
t
,
 
E
P
A
 
6
3
0
-
P
-
0
2
-
0
0
1
A
;
 
R
i
s
k
 
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
F
o
r
u
m
;
 
A
p
r
i
l
 
2
3
,
 
2
0
0
2
.
R
i
s
k
 
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
 
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
,
 
E
P
A
 
1
0
0
-
B
-
0
0
-
0
0
2
,
 
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
 
2
0
0
0
.
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
F
o
r
 
T
h
e
 
D
a
t
a
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
 
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
-
 
E
P
A
 
Q
A
/
G
-
4
;
 
E
P
A
-
6
0
0
-
R
-
9
6
-
0
5
5
;
 
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
 
1
9
9
4
.
APPENDIX
C
DETAILED
FLOW
DIAGRAMS
OF
THE
EVALUATION
APPROACH
USED
IN
THE
GUIDANCE
PRIMARY
SCREENING
1.
Are
chemicals
of
sufficient
volatility
and
toxicity
present?

3.
Does
evidence
suggest
immediate
action
may
be
warranted?
2.
Are
currently
(
or
potentially)
inhabited
buildings
or
areas
of
concern
under
future
development
scenarios
located
near
subsurface
contaminants
of
potential
concern
identified
in
Q1?
Pathway
Is
Incomplete
Pathway
Is
Incomplete
Proceed
with
Appropriate
Action
Proceed
to
Secondary
Screening
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
SECONDARY
SCREENING
Question
4
 
Generic
Screening
(
TL
=
appropriate
media
specific
target
level)

4(
c)
Does
contamination
(
source
of
vapors)
occur
in
unsaturated
zone
soil
at
any
depth
above
the
water
table?

4(
d)
GW
>
TL?
4(
e)
Groundwater
characterization
adequate?

4(
f)
Precluding
factors
present?

4(
g)
SG
>
TL?
Proceed
to
Q6
Site
Specific
Assessment
Acquire
needed
data
and
re­
evaluate.

4(
h)
Soil
gas
data
adequate?
Acquire
needed
data
and
re­
evaluate.

Proceed
to
Q6
Site
Specific
Assessment
4(
i)
Precluding
factors
present?

Soil
Gas
Assessement
Indicates
Pathway
Incomplete
Proceed
to
Q5
Groundwater
Assessment
Indicates
Pathway
Incomplete
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
4(
b)
IA
>
TL?
4(
a)
Indoor
air
data
available?
Proceed
to
Q6
Site
Specific
Assessment
NO
NO
YES
YES
IA
data
adequate?
Pathway
Is
Incomplete
YES
NO
Recommended
If
soil
gas
data
are
available
proceed
to
4(
g),
otherwise
proceed
to
Q5.

Recommended
Recommended.
Check
GW
data
SECONDARY
SCREENING
Question
5
 
Semi­
Site
Specific
Screening
(
TL
=
appropriate
media
specific
target
level)

5(
c)
Depth
to
water
and
soil
type
data
adequate?

5(
d)
Does
contamination
(
source
of
vapors)
occur
in
the
unsaturated
zone
at
any
depth
above
the
water
table?

5(
e)
GW
>
TL?
5(
b)
Precluding
factors
present?

5(
f)
SG
>
TL?
Proceed
to
Q6
Site
Specific
Assessment
Acquire
needed
data
and
re­
evaluate.

Proceed
to
Q6
Site
Specific
Assessment
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
Groundwater
Assessment
Indicates
Pathway
Incomplete
Soil
Gas
Assessement
Indicates
Pathway
Incomplete
NO
Recommended
If
soil
gas
data
are
available
proceed
to
5(
f),
otherwise
proceed
to
Q6
Recommended
5(
a)
For
any
COPC,
are
GW
or
SG
concentrations
>
50x
TL?
Proceed
to
Q6
Site
Specific
Assessment
YES
NO
Recommended.
Check
GW
data
SITE
SPECIFIC
SCREENING
Question
6
(
TL
=
appropriate
media
specific
target
level)

6(
d)
Sublab
vapor
data
available?
6(
e)
Subslab
vapor
>
TL?
6(
f)
Subslab
vapor
data
adequate?

6(
g)
IA
>
TL?

6(
i)
IA
data
adequate
to
account
ambient
and
background
sources?
6(
h)
IA
data
adequate
to
account
for
seasonal
variability
and
represent
most
impacted
areas?
Pathway
Is
Incomplete
Pathway
Is
Complete
Pathway
Is
Incomplete
Acquire
needed
data
and
re­
evaluate.

Acquire
needed
data
and
re­
evaluate.
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
6(
a)
Have
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination,
potential
preferential
and
overlying
building
characteristics
adequately
characterized
to
identify
the
likely­
to­
be­
impacted
buildings?

YES
Acquire
needed
data
and
re­
evaluate.
NO
6(
b)
Conducting
EI
determination
an
appropriate
and
applicatble
6(
c)
Does
the
model
predict
an
unacceptable
risk?

YES
YES
NO
Pathway
Is
Incomplete
for
EI
Determinations
NO
D­
1
APPENDIX
D
DEVELOPMENT
OF
TABLES
1,
2,
AND
3
1.
Introduction
This
appendix
describes
the
data
and
calculations
used
to
develop
Tables
1,
2,
and
3
in
the
guidance.
Table
1
lists
chemicals
that
may
be
present
at
hazardous
waste
sites
and
indicates
whether,
in
our
judgment,
they
are
of
sufficient
toxicity
and
volatility
to
result
in
a
potentially
unacceptable
indoor
inhalation
risk.
Tables
2
and
3
provide
generally
recommended
target
concentrations
for
contaminants
in
indoor
air,
groundwater,
and
soil
gas.
For
non­
carcinogens,
these
values
are
based
on
the
appropriate
reference
concentration,
and
for
carcinogens,
they
are
calculated
using
a
method
consistent
with
the
approach
in
EPA's
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Developing
Soil
Screening
Levels
(
EPA,
to
be
published).
Only
chemicals
that
are,
in
our
judgment,
sufficiently
volatile
and
toxic
to
pose
an
inhalation
risk
are
included
in
Tables
2
and
3.
The
approach
described
here
also
can
be
used,
as
appropriate,
to
evaluate
chemicals
not
listed
in
the
tables.

2.
Description
of
Tables
1,
2
and
3
Table
1
lists
the
chemicals
that
may
be
found
at
hazardous
waste
sites
and
indicates
whether,
in
our
judgment,
they
are
sufficiently
toxic
and
volatile
to
result
in
a
potentially
unacceptable
indoor
inhalation
risk.
It
also
provides
a
column
for
checking
off
the
chemicals
found
or
reasonably
suspected
to
be
present
in
the
subsurface
at
a
site.
Under
this
approach,
a
chemical
is
considered
sufficiently
toxic
if
the
vapor
concentration
of
the
pure
component
(
see
Section
4
below)
poses
an
incremental
lifetime
cancer
risk
greater
than
10­
6
or
results
in
a
non­
cancer
hazard
index
greater
than
one
(
see
Section
5
below).
A
chemical
is
considered
sufficiently
volatile
if
its
Henry's
Law
Constant
is
1
x
10­
5
atm­
m3/
mol
or
greater
(
US
EPA,
1991).
In
our
judgement,
if
a
chemical
does
not
meet
both
of
these
criteria,
it
need
not
be
further
considered
as
part
of
the
evaluation.

Table
2
provides
generic
soil
gas
and
groundwater
screening
concentrations
corresponding
to
riskbased
concentrations
for
indoor
air
in
residential
settings
calculated
using
the
methodology
described
in
Section
5
below.
Blank
columns
are
included
to
allow
the
user
to
enter
measured
or
reasonably
estimated
concentrations
specific
to
a
site.
The
target
soil
gas
and
groundwater
concentrations
are
calculated
using
generic
vapor
intrusion
attenuation
factors
(
see
Appendix
F)
as
described
in
Sections
6
and
7
below.

Table
3
provides
soil
gas
and
groundwater
screening
concentrations
for
a
select
set
of
attenuation
factors.
Guidance
for
selecting
the
appropriate
attenuation
factor
to
use
is
given
in
Question
5.
As
with
Table
2,
the
target
soil
gas
and
groundwater
concentrations
are
calculated
using
the
approach
described
in
Sections
6
and
7
below
and
correspond
to
risk­
based
concentrations
for
indoor
air
in
residential
settings
calculated
using
the
methodology
described
in
Section
5
below.

The
target
concentrations
in
Tables
2
and
3
are
screening
levels.
They
are
not
intended
to
be
used
as
clean­
up
levels
nor
are
they
intended
to
supercede
existing
criteria
of
the
lead
regulatory
authority.
The
lead
regulatory
authority
for
a
site
may
determine
that
criteria
other
than
those
provided
herein
are
appropriate
for
the
specific
site
or
area.
Thus,
we
recommend
that
the
user's
initial
first
step
should
involve
consultation
with
their
lead
regulatory
authority
to
identify
the
most
appropriate
criteria
to
use.
1U.
S.
EPA.
2002.
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS).
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iriswebp/
iris/
index.
html.
November.

2The
oral­
to­
inhalation
extrapolations
assume
an
adult
inhalation
rate
(
IR)
of
20
m3/
day
and
an
adult
body
weight
(
BW)
of
70
kg.
Unit
risks
(
URs)
were
extrapolated
from
cancer
slope
factors
(
CSFs)
using
the
following
equation:

UR
(:
g/
m3)­
1
=
CSF
(
mg/
kg/
d)­
1
*
IR
(
m3/
d)
*
(
1/
BW)
(
kg­
1)
*
(
10­
3
mg/:
g)

Reference
concentrations
(
RfCs)
were
extrapolated
from
reference
doses
(
RfDs)
using
the
following
equation:

RfC
(
mg/
m3)
=
RfD
(
mg/
kg/
d)
*
(
1/
IR)
(
m3/
d)­
1
*
BW
(
kg)

3US
EPA,
Trichloroethylene
Health
Risk
Assessment:
Synthesis
and
Characterization
­
External
Review
Draft,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
EPA/
600/
P­
01/
002A,
August,
2001.

D­
2
3.
Data
Sources
Chemical
Property
Data
­
The
source
of
chemical
data
used
to
calculate
the
values
in
Tables
1,
2,
and
3
is
primarily
EPA's
Superfund
Chemical
Data
Matrix
(
SCDM)
database.
EPA's
WATER9
database
was
used
for
chemicals
not
included
in
the
SCDM
database.

Toxicity
Values
­
EPA's
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS)
is
the
generally
preferred
source
of
carcinogenic
unit
risks
and
non­
carcinogenic
reference
concentrations
(
RfCs)
for
inhalation
exposure.
1
The
following
two
sources
were
consulted,
in
order
of
preference,
when
IRIS
values
were
not
available:
provisional
toxicity
values
recommended
by
EPA's
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment
(
NCEA)
and
EPA's
Health
Effects
Assessment
Summary
Tables
(
HEAST).
If
no
inhalation
toxicity
data
could
be
obtained
from
IRIS,
NCEA,
or
HEAST,
we
derived
extrapolated
unit
risks
and/
or
RfCs
using
toxicity
data
for
oral
exposure
(
cancer
slope
factors
and/
or
reference
doses,
respectively)
from
these
same
sources
utilizing
the
same
preference
order.
2
Target
concentrations
that
were
calculated
using
these
extrapolated
toxicity
values
are
clearly
indicated
in
Tables
2
and
3.
Note
that
for
most
compounds,
extrapolation
from
oral
data
introduces
considerable
uncertainty
into
the
resulting
inhalation
value.
Values
obtained
from
inhalation
studies
or
from
pharmacokinetic
modeling
applied
to
oral
doses
will
be
less
uncertain
than
those
calculated
using
the
equations
below.

EPA's
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS)
currently
does
not
include
carcinogenicity
data
for
TCE,
a
volatile
contaminant
frequently
encountered
at
hazardous
waste
sites.
The
original
carcinogenicity
assessment
for
TCE,
which
was
based
on
a
health
risk
assessment
conducted
in
the
late
1980'
s,
was
withdrawn
from
IRIS
in
1994.
The
Superfund
Technical
Support
Center
has
continued
to
recommend
use
of
the
cancer
slope
factor
from
the
withdrawn
assessment,
until
a
reassessment
of
the
carcinogenicity
of
TCE
is
completed.
In
2001,
the
Agency
published
a
draft
of
the
TCE
toxicity
assessment
for
public
comment.
3
In
this
guidance,
we
have
calculated
TCE
target
concentrations
using
a
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
that
document,
which
is
available
on
the
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment
(
NCEA)
web
site.
We
selected
this
slope
factor
because
it
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology.
However,
because
this
document
is
still
undergoing
review,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentrations
calculated
for
TCE
are
subject
to
change
and
should
be
considered
"
provisional"
values.
D­
3
Table
D­
1
summarizes
the
toxicity
values
used
in
this
guidance
document,
along
with
their
sources.
The
table
also
indicates
which
unit
risks
and
RfCs
have
been
extrapolated
from
oral
toxicity
values
and
whether
the
indoor
air
target
concentration
is
based
on
an
oral
extrapolated
toxicity
value.
Please
note
that
toxicity
databases
such
as
IRIS
are
routinely
updated
as
new
information
becomes
available;
this
table
is
current
as
of
November
2002.
Users
of
this
guidance
are
strongly
encouraged
to
research
the
latest
toxicity
values
for
contaminants
of
interest
from
the
sources
noted
above.
In
the
next
year,
IRIS
reassessments
are
expected
for
several
contaminants
commonly
found
in
subsurface
contamination
whose
inhalation
toxicity
values
today
are
based
upon
extrapolation.

4.
Maximum
Pure
Component
Vapor
Concentration
The
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
is
that
corresponding
to
the
pure
chemical
at
the
temperature
of
interest.
In
this
case,
all
calculations
were
performed
at
the
reference
temperature
of
25C
using
the
equation:

Cmax,
vp
=
S
*
H
*
103
:
g/
mg
*
103
L/
m3
where
Cmax,
vp
=
maximum
pure
component
vapor
concentration
at
25C
[:
g/
m3],
S
=
pure
component
solubility
at
25C
[
mg/
L],
and
H
=
dimensionless
Henry's
Law
Constant
at
25C
[(
mg/
L
 
vapor)/(
mg/
L
 
H2O)].

To
determine
if
a
chemical
is
sufficiently
toxic
to
potentially
pose
an
unacceptable
inhalation
risk,
the
calculated
pure
component
vapor
concentrations
were
compared
to
target
indoor
air
concentrations
corresponding
to
an
incremental
lifetime
cancer
risk
greater
than
10­
6
or
a
non­
cancer
hazard
index
greater
than
one.

5.
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Cancer
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index.

The
target
breathing
zone
indoor
air
concentrations
in
Tables
1,
2,
and
3
are
risk­
based
screening
levels
for
ambient
air.
The
indoor
air
concentrations
for
non­
carcinogens
are
set
at
the
appropriate
reference
concentration,
and
the
concentrations
for
carcinogens
are
calculated
following
an
approach
consistent
with
EPA's
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Developing
Soil
Screening
Levels
(
EPA,
to
be
published).
The
toxicity
values
on
which
the
calculations
are
based
are
listed
in
Table
D­
1,
which
also
shows
the
source
of
the
toxicity
data.
Separate
carcinogenic
and
non­
carcinogenic
target
concentrations
were
calculated
for
each
compound
when
both
unit
risks
and
reference
concentrations
were
available.
When
inhalation
toxicity
values
were
not
available,
unit
risks
and/
or
reference
concentrations
were
extrapolated
from
oral
slope
factors
and/
or
reference
doses,
respectively.
For
carcinogens,
target
indoor
air
concentrations
were
based
on
an
adult
residential
exposure
scenario
and
assume
exposure
of
an
individual
for
350
days
per
year
over
a
period
of
30
years.
For
non­
carcinogens,
target
indoor
air
concentrations
are
set
at
the
corresponding
reference
concentration.
An
inhalation
rate
of
20
m3/
day
and
a
body
weight
of
70
kg
are
assumed
and
have
been
factored
into
the
inhalation
unit
risk
and
reference
concentration
toxicity
values.
4
The
target
indoor
air
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
the
lone
exception.
The
target
concentration
is
based
on
a
carcinogenic
unit
risk
extrapolated
from
an
upper
bound
oral
cancer
slope
factor
of
4x10­
1
per
mg/
kg/
d
cited
in
NCEA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
However,
as
noted
in
that
document,
available
evidence
from
toxicological
studies
suggests
similar
carcinogenic
effects
from
both
the
oral
and
inhalation
routes
of
exposure.
The
existence
of
this
evidence
gives
greater
weight
to
the
extrapolated
unit
risk,
and
given
that
the
unit
risk
produces
a
lower
target
concentration
than
the
non­
extrapolated
RfC,
we
used
the
unit
risk­
based
value
as
the
target
indoor
air
concentration
for
trichloroethylene.
(
As
noted
earlier,
the
trichloroethylene
risk
assessment
is
still
under
review.
As
a
result,
the
cancer
slope
factor
and
extrapolated
unit
risk
values
for
trichloroethylene
are
subject
to
change.)

D­
4
For
carcinogens,

Ccancer
(:
g/
m3)
=
[(
TCR
*
ATc)/(
EF
*
ED
*
URF)]

For
non­
carcinogens,

Cnon­
cancer
(:
g/
m3)
=
(
THQ
*
RfC
*
1000
:
g/
mg)

where
Ccancer
=
target
indoor
air
concentration,
carcinogen,
(:
g/
m3)
Cnon­
cancer
=
target
indoor
air
concentration,
non­
carcinogen,
(:
g/
m3)
TCR
=
target
cancer
risk
(
e.
g.,
1.0
x
10­
5)
THQ
=
target
hazard
quotient
(
e.
g.,
1.0)
URF
=
unit
risk
factor
(:
g/
m3)­
1
RfC
=
reference
concentration
(
mg/
m3)
ATc
=
averaging
time,
carcinogens
(
25,550
days)
EF
=
exposure
frequency
(
350
days/
year)
ED
=
exposure
duration
(
30
years)

For
most
compounds,
the
more
stringent
of
the
cancer­
and
non­
cancer­
based
contaminant
concentrations
is
chosen
as
the
target
indoor
air
concentration
that
satisfies
both
the
prescribed
cancer
risk
level
and
the
target
hazard
quotient.

Ctarget,
ia
=
MIN(
Ccancer,
Cnon­
cancer
)

However,
we
generally
prefer
to
base
the
target
concentration
on
non­
extrapolated
toxicity
values
wherever
possible.
Therefore,
for
compounds
with
one
inhalation­
based
toxicity
value
and
one
oral­
extrapolated
value,
the
screening
level
based
on
the
non­
extrapolated
toxicity
value
is
chosen
as
the
target
indoor
air
concentration.
4
For
ease
in
application
of
the
tables,
the
indoor
air
concentrations
are
given
in
units
of
:
g/
m3
as
well
as
ppbv.
The
conversion
from
ppbv
to
:
g/
m3
is:

C
[
ppbv]
=
C
[:
g/
m3]
*
109
[
ppb/
atm]
*
10­
3
[
m3/
L]
*
R
*
T/(
MW
*
106
[:
g/
g])

where
D­
5
R
=
gas
constant
(
0.0821
L­
atm/
mole­
K),
T
=
absolute
temperature
(
298
K),
and
MW
=
molecular
weight
(
g/
mole).

The
calculated
target
indoor
air
concentrations
are
listed
in
Tables
2
and
3
along
with
a
column
indicating
whether
cancer
or
non­
cancer
risks
drive
the
target
concentration.
A
separate
column
indicates
whether
risks
are
calculated
using
provisional,
oral­
extrapolated
toxicity
values
(
i.
e.,
inhalation
values
extrapolated
from
oral
CSFs
or
RfDs)
(
see
Table
D­
1).

6.
Target
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
The
target
soil
gas
concentration
corresponding
to
a
chemical's
target
indoor
air
concentration
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
indoor
air
concentration
by
an
appropriate
attenuation
factor
(
see
Questions
4
and
5
in
the
guidance
and
Appendix
F).
The
attenuation
factor
represents
the
factor
by
which
subsurface
vapor
concentrations
migrating
into
indoor
air
spaces
are
reduced
due
to
diffusive,
advective,
and/
or
other
attenuating
mechanisms.
The
attenuation
factor
can
be
empirically
determined
or
calculated
using
an
appropriate
vapor
intrusion
model.
Once
the
appropriate
attenuation
factor
was
determined,
the
target
soil
concentration
was
calculated
as:

Csoil­
gas
[:
g/
m3]
=
Ctarget,
ia
[:
g/
m3]
/
 
or
Csoil­
gas
[
ppbv]
=
Ctarget,
ia
[
ppbv]
/
 
where
Csoil­
gas
=
target
soil
gas
concentration
[:
g/
m3]
and
 
=
attenuation
factor
(
ratio
of
indoor
air
concentration
to
source
vapor
concentration)

If
Ctarget,
ia
exceeds
the
maximum
possible
pure
chemical
vapor
concentration,
the
designation
"*"
is
entered
in
the
table.
If
Csoil­
gas
exceeds
the
maximum
possible
pure
chemical
vapor
concentration
at
25C,
but
Ctarget,
ia
does
not,
then
"**"
is
entered
in
the
table.

7.
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
The
target
groundwater
concentration
corresponding
to
a
chemical's
target
indoor
air
concentration
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
target
indoor
air
concentration
by
an
appropriate
attenuation
factor
(
see
Questions
4
and
5
in
the
guidance
and
Appendix
F)
and
then
converting
the
vapor
concentration
to
an
equivalent
groundwater
concentration
assuming
equilibrium
between
the
aqueous
and
vapor
phases
at
the
water
table.
Diffusion
resistances
across
the
capillary
fringe
are
assumed
to
be
accounted
for
in
the
value
of
 .
The
equilibrium
partitioning
is
assumed
to
obey
Henry's
Law
so
that:

Cgw
[:
g/
L]
=
Ctarget,
ia
[:
g/
m3]
*
10­
3
m3/
L
*
1/
H
*
1/
 
D­
6
where
Cgw
=
target
groundwater
concentration,
 
=
attenuation
factor
(
ratio
of
indoor
air
concentration
to
source
vapor
concentration).
H
=
dimensionless
Henry's
Law
Constant
at
25C
[(
mg/
L
 
vapor)/(
mg/
L
 
H2O)].

If
Ctarget,
ia
exceeds
the
maximum
possible
pure
chemical
vapor
concentration,
the
designation
"*"
is
entered
in
the
table.
If
Cgw
exceeds
the
aqueous
solubility
of
the
pure
chemical,
but
Ctarget,
ia
does
not,
then
"**"
is
entered
in
the
table
If
the
calculated
groundwater
target
concentration
is
less
than
the
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL)
for
the
compound,
the
target
concentration
is
set
at
the
MCL.
Target
concentrations
set
at
the
MCL
are
indicated
in
Tables
2
and
3
by
this
symbol
("*").
D­
7
8.
References
US
EPA,
1991,
Risk
Assessment
Guidance
for
Superfund:
Volume
1
 
Human
Health
Evaluation
Manual,
Part
B.

IRIS
­
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
­
US
EPA
Office
of
Research
and
Development
­
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessment.
[
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iriswebp/
iris/
index.
html]
November
2002.

US
EPA,
Supplemental
Guidance
for
Developing
Soil
Screening
Levels,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response,
OSWER
9355.4­
24
(
EPA,
to
be
published).

US
EPA,
Trichloroethylene
Health
Risk
Assessment:
Synthesis
and
Characterization
­
External
Review
Draft,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
EPA/
600/
P­
01/
002A,
August
2001.
D­
8
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

83329
Acenaphthene
NA
NA
2.1E­
01
I
yes
yes
75070
Acetaldehyde
2.2E­
06
I
no
9.0E­
03
I
no
no
67641
Acetone
NA
NA
3.5E­
01
I
yes
yes
75058
Acetonitrile
NA
NA
6.0E­
02
I
no
no
98862
Acetophenone
NA
NA
3.5E­
01
I
yes
yes
107028
Acrolein
NA
NA
2.0E­
05
I
no
no
107131
Acrylonitrile
6.8E­
05
I
no
2.0E­
03
I
no
no
309002
Aldrin
4.9E­
03
I
no
1.1E­
04
I
yes
no
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
1.8E­
03
I
no
NA
NA
no
62533
Aniline
1.6E­
06
I
1.0E­
03
I
no
no
120127
Anthracene
NA
NA
1.1E+
00
I
yes
yes
56553
Benz(
a)
anthracene
2.1E­
04
E
yes
NA
NA
yes
100527
Benzaldehyde
NA
NA
3.5E­
01
I
yes
yes
71432
Benzene
7.8E­
06
I
no
NA
NA
no
50328
Benzo(
a)
pyrene
1.5E­
01
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
2.1E­
04
E
yes
NA
NA
yes
207089
Benzo(
k)
fluoranthene
2.1E­
05
E
yes
NA
NA
yes
65850
Benzoic
Acid
NA
NA
1.4E+
01
I
yes
yes
100516
Benzyl
alcohol
NA
NA
1.1E+
00
H
yes
yes
100447
Benzylchloride
4.9E­
05
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
9
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
NA
NA
2.8E­
01
I
yes
yes
319857
beta­
HCH
(
beta­
BHC)
5.3E­
04
I
no
NA
NA
no
92524
Biphenyl
NA
NA
1.8E­
01
I
yes
yes
111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
3.3E­
04
I
no
NA
NA
no
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
1.0E­
05
H
no
1.4E­
01
I
yes
no
117817
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
NA
NA
7.0E­
02
I
yes
yes
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
6.2E­
02
I
no
NA
NA
no
75274
Bromodichloromethane
1.8E­
05
I
yes
7.0E­
02
I
yes
yes
75252
Bromoform
1.1E­
06
I
no
7.0E­
02
I
yes
no
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
2.8E­
04
I
no
NA
NA
no
71363
Butanol
NA
NA
3.5E­
01
I
yes
yes
85687
Butyl
benzyl
phthalate
NA
NA
7.0E­
01
I
yes
yes
86748
Carbazole
5.7E­
06
H
yes
NA
NA
yes
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NA
NA
7.0E­
01
I
no
no
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
1.5E­
05
I
no
NA
NA
no
57749
Chlordane
1.0E­
04
I
no
7.0E­
04
I
no
no
126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NA
NA
7.0E­
03
H
no
no
108907
Chlorobenzene
NA
NA
6.0E­
02
E
no
no
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
NA
NA
1.4E+
00
H
yes
yes
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
10
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
2.4E­
05
I
yes
7.0E­
02
I
yes
yes
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NA
NA
5.0E+
01
I
no
no
75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
8.3E­
07
E
yes
1.0E+
01
I
no
no
67663
Chloroform
2.3E­
05
I
no
NA
NA
no
95578
2­
Chlorophenol
NA
NA
1.8E­
02
I
yes
yes
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NA
NA
1.0E­
01
H
no
no
218019
Chrysene
2.1E­
06
E
yes
NA
NA
yes
156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
NA
NA
3.5E­
02
H
yes
yes
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
5.4E­
04
H
yes
NA
NA
yes
98828
Cumene
NA
NA
4.0E­
01
I
no
no
72548
DDD
6.9E­
05
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
72559
DDE
9.7E­
05
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
50293
DDT
9.7E­
05
I
no
1.8E­
03
I
yes
no
53703
Dibenz(
a,
h)
anthracene
2.1E­
03
E
yes
NA
NA
yes
132649
Dibenzofuran
NA
NA
1.4E­
02
E
yes
yes
96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
6.9E­
07
H
no
2.0E­
04
I
no
no
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
2.2E­
04
I
no
2.0E­
04
H
no
no
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
1.1E­
01
E
yes
yes
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
2.0E­
01
H
no
no
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
11
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
8.0E­
01
I
no
no
91941
3,3­
Dichlorobenzidine
1.3E­
04
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NA
NA
2.0E­
01
H
no
no
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NA
NA
5.0E­
01
H
no
no
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
2.6E­
05
I
no
NA
NA
no
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NA
NA
2.0E­
01
E
no
no
120832
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
NA
NA
1.1E­
02
I
yes
yes
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
1.9E­
05
H
yes
4.0E­
03
I
no
no
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
4.0E­
06
I
no
2.0E­
02
I
no
no
60571
Dieldrin
4.6E­
03
I
no
1.8E­
04
I
yes
no
84662
Diethylphthalate
NA
NA
2.8E+
00
I
yes
yes
105679
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
NA
NA
7.0E­
02
I
yes
yes
131113
Dimethylphthalate
NA
NA
NA
NA
84742
Di­
n­
butyl
phthalate
NA
NA
3.5E­
01
I
yes
yes
534521
4,6­
Dinitro­
2­
methylphenol
(
4,6­
dinitro­

ocresol
NA
NA
3.5E­
03
E
yes
yes
51285
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
NA
NA
7.0E­
03
I
yes
yes
121142
2,4­
Dinitrotoluene
1.9E­
04
I
yes
7.0E­
03
I
yes
yes
606202
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
1.9E­
04
I
yes
3.5E­
03
H
yes
yes
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
12
117840
Di­
n­
octyl
phthalate
NA
NA
7.0E­
02
H
yes
yes
115297
Endosulfan
NA
NA
2.1E­
02
I
yes
yes
72208
Endrin
NA
NA
1.1E­
03
I
yes
yes
106898
Epichlorohydrin
1.2E­
06
I
no
1.0E­
03
I
no
no
60297
Ethyl
ether
NA
NA
7.0E­
01
I
yes
yes
141786
Ethylacetate
NA
NA
3.2E+
00
I
yes
yes
100414
Ethylbenzene
1.1E­
06
E
no
1.0E+
00
I
no
no
75218
Ethylene
oxide
1.0E­
04
H
no
NA
NA
no
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
NA
NA
3.2E­
01
H
yes
yes
206440
Fluoranthene
NA
NA
1.4E­
01
I
yes
yes
86737
Fluorene
NA
NA
1.4E­
01
I
yes
yes
110009
Furan
NA
NA
3.5E­
03
I
yes
yes
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
3.7E­
04
H
yes
1.1E­
03
I
yes
yes
76448
Heptachlor
1.3E­
03
I
no
1.8E­
03
I
yes
no
1024573
Heptachlor
epoxide
2.6E­
03
I
no
4.6E­
05
I
yes
no
87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
2.2E­
05
I
no
7.0E­
04
H
yes
no
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
4.6E­
04
I
no
2.8E­
03
I
yes
no
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NA
NA
2.0E­
04
I
no
no
67721
Hexachloroethane
4.0E­
06
I
no
3.5E­
03
I
yes
no
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
13
110543
Hexane
NA
NA
2.0E­
01
I
no
no
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NA
NA
3.0E­
03
I
no
no
193395
Indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
pyrene
2.1E­
04
E
yes
NA
NA
yes
78831
Isobutanol
NA
NA
1.1E+
00
I
yes
yes
78591
Isophorone
2.7E­
07
I
yes
7.0E­
01
I
yes
yes
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NA
NA
3.0E­
04
I
no
no
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NA
NA
7.0E­
04
A
no
no
72435
Methoxychlor
NA
NA
1.8E­
02
I
yes
yes
79209
Methyl
acetate
NA
NA
3.5E+
00
H
yes
yes
96333
Methyl
acrylate
NA
NA
1.1E­
01
A
yes
yes
74839
Methyl
bromide
NA
NA
5.0E­
03
I
no
no
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
1.0E­
06
E
no
9.0E­
02
I
no
no
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NA
NA
3.0E+
00
H
no
no
74953
Methylene
bromide
NA
NA
3.5E­
02
A
yes
yes
75092
Methylene
chloride
4.7E­
07
I
no
3.0E+
00
H
no
no
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NA
NA
1.0E+
00
I
no
no
108101
Methylisobutylketone
(
4­
methyl­
2­

pentanone)
NA
NA
8.0E­
02
H
no
no
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NA
NA
7.0E­
01
I
no
no
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
14
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
NA
NA
7.0E­
02
E
yes
yes
108394
3­
Methylphenol
(
m­
cresol)
NA
NA
1.8E­
01
I
yes
yes
95487
2­
Methylphenol
(
o­
cresol)
NA
NA
1.8E­
01
I
yes
yes
106455
4­
Methylphenol
(
p­
cresol)
NA
NA
1.8E­
02
H
yes
yes
99081
m­
Nitrotoluene
NA
NA
7.0E­
02
E
yes
yes
1634044
MTBE
NA
NA
3.0E+
00
I
no
no
108383
m­
Xylene
NA
NA
7.0E+
00
H
yes
yes
91203
Naphthalene
NA
NA
3.0E­
03
I
no
no
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
NA
NA
1.4E­
01
E
yes
yes
98953
Nitrobenzene
NA
NA
2.0E­
03
H
no
no
100027
4­
Nitrophenol
NA
NA
2.8E­
02
E
yes
yes
79469
2­
Nitropropane
2.7E­
03
H
no
2.0E­
02
I
no
no
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
1.6E­
03
I
no
NA
NA
no
621647
N­
Nitrosodi­
n­
propylamine
2.0E­
03
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
86306
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
1.4E­
06
I
yes
NA
NA
yes
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
NA
NA
1.4E­
01
E
yes
yes
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
NA
NA
3.5E­
02
H
yes
yes
95476
o­
Xylene
NA
NA
7.0E+
00
H
yes
yes
106478
p­
Chloroaniline
NA
NA
1.4E­
02
I
yes
yes
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
15
87865
Pentachlorophenol
3.4E­
05
I
yes
1.1E­
01
I
yes
yes
108952
Phenol
NA
NA
2.1E+
00
I
yes
yes
99990
p­
Nitrotoluene
NA
NA
3.5E­
02
H
yes
yes
106423
p­
Xylene
NA
NA
7.0E+
00
I
yes
yes
129000
Pyrene
NA
NA
1.1E­
01
I
yes
yes
110861
Pyridine
NA
NA
3.5E­
03
I
yes
yes
135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
NA
NA
1.4E­
01
E
yes
yes
100425
Styrene
NA
NA
1.0E+
00
I
no
no
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
NA
NA
1.4E­
01
E
yes
yes
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
7.4E­
06
I
no
1.1E­
01
I
yes
no
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
5.8E­
05
I
no
2.1E­
01
E
yes
no
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
3.0E­
06
E
no
NA
NA
no
108883
Toluene
NA
NA
4.0E­
01
I
no
no
8001352
Toxaphene
3.2E­
04
I
no
NA
NA
no
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
NA
NA
7.0E­
02
I
yes
yes
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NA
NA
3.0E+
01
H
no
no
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NA
NA
2.0E­
01
H
no
no
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
1.6E­
05
I
no
1.4E­
02
I
yes
no
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NA
NA
2.2E+
00
E
no
no
Table
D­
1
Toxicological
Values
Used
to
Calculate
Target
Concentrations
in
Indoor
Air,
Soil
Gas,
and
Groundwater
CASN
Chemical
Unit
Risk
Factor
(
URF)

(:
g/
m3)­
1
URF
Source
Is
URF
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

(
mg/
m3)
RfC
Source
Is
RfC
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Value?
Is
Indoor
Air
Target
Concentration
Based
on
Extrapolated
Value?

D­
16
79016
Trichloroethylene
*
1.1E­
04
E
yes
4.0E­
02
E
no
yes
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NA
NA
7.0E­
01
A
no
no
95954
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenol
NA
NA
3.5E­
01
I
yes
yes
88062
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
3.1E­
06
I
no
NA
NA
no
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
5.7E­
04
E
yes
4.9E­
03
E
no
no
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NA
NA
6.0E­
03
E
no
no
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NA
NA
6.0E­
03
E
no
no
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NA
NA
2.00E­
01
I
no
no
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
8.80E­
06
I
no
1.00E­
01
I
no
no
Sources:
Hierarchy
is
as
follows:

I
=
IRIS
E
=
EPA­
NCEA
provisional
value
H
=
HEAST
A
=
HEAST
Alternative
Notes:

If
no
inhalation
data
were
available,
toxicity
data
were
extrapolated
from
oral
studies.

Data
are
current
as
of
November
2002.

*
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
E­
1
APPENDIX
E
 
RELEVANT
METHODS
AND
TECHNIQUES
I.
Introduction
This
appendix
provides
information
on
sampling
and
analysis
methodologies
that
can
be
used
to
help
evaluate
vapor
intrusion
into
indoor
air.
It
should
be
noted
that
not
all
of
these
methods
were
developed
specifically
for
this
purpose.
The
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD)
is
evaluating
the
available
methods
to
determine
their
applicability,
and
when
methods
have
low
reliability
(
e.
g.,
sub­
slab
sampling),
developing
new
protocols.

The
technical
references
provided
in
this
appendix
originate
from
a
variety
of
sources
including
non­
EPA
documents
which
may
provide
regional
and
state
site
managers,
as
well
as
the
regulated
community,
useful
technical
information.
However,
such
non­
EPA
documents
do
not
replace
current
EPA
or
OSWER
guidance
or
policies.

II.
Site
Characterization
Characterization
of
a
site
involves
the
collection
of
data
and
the
development
of
a
conceptual
site
model
(
See
Appendix
B)
to
assist
in
making
decisions
on
the
risks
posed
by
contaminants
to
critical
receptors.
A
variety
of
data
may
be
employed
in
the
process,
and
the
data
should
be
assessed
for
their
quality
and
usefulness
in
making
critical
decisions
on
the
risks
posed
by
a
site.
Different
media
may
be
sampled
with
a
variety
of
methods
and
may
be
analyzed
in
a
variety
of
ways.
We
recommend
that
experts
from
appropriate
disciplines
be
assembled
at
an
early
stage
to
develop
objectives
for
the
site
investigation
and
to
develop
a
sampling
and
analytical
plan
meeting
data
quality
objectives
(
DQOs).

The
Office
of
Research
and
Development's
National
Exposure
Research
Laboratory
(
NERL)
has
prepared
a
Compact
Disk
(
CD)
entitled
"
Site
Characterization
Library,
Volume
1,
Release
2.5,"
which
contains
more
than
20,000
pages
and
84
documents
of
guidance
for
the
characterization
of
sites
that
can
be
searched,
read,
and
printed
(
EPA/
600/
C­
02/
002).
The
documents
are
readable
using
Adobe
Acrobat
software.
Twenty­
five
software
programs
are
also
included.
The
CD
may
be
obtained
from
the
National
Center
for
Environmental
Publications
(
NCEP).
The
CD
identifies
the
following
ASTM
standards
for
site
characterization:

D
5314
Guide
for
Soil
Gas
Monitoring
in
the
Vadose
Zone
D
4696
Guide
for
Pore­
Liquid
Sampling
from
the
Vadose
Zone
D
3404
Guide
to
Measuring
Matric
Potential
in
the
Vadose
Zone
Using
Tensiometers
D
4944
Test
Method
for
Field
Determination
of
Water
(
Moisture)
Content
of
Soil
by
the
Calcium
Carbide
Gas
Pressure
Tester
Methods
E­
2
D
3017
Test
Method
for
Water
Content
of
Soil
and
Rock
In­
Place
by
the
Nuclear
Method
(
Shallow
Depth)

D
5220
Test
Method
for
Water
Content
of
Soil
and
Rock
In­
Place
by
Neutron
Depth
Probe
Method
D
6031
Test
Method
for
Logging
In
Situ
Moisture
Content
and
Density
of
Soil
and
Rock
by
the
Nuclear
Method
in
Horizontal,
Slanted
and
Vertical
Access
Tubes
Other
relevant
ASTM
methods
include:

D
6235
Standard
Practice
for
Expedited
Site
Characterization
of
Vadose
Zone
and
Around
Water
Contamination
at
Hazardous
Waste
Contaminated
Sites
D
5730
Guide
for
Site
Characterization
for
Environmental
Purposes
with
Emphasis
on
Soil,
Rock,
the
Vadose
Zone,
and
Groundwater
III.
Groundwater
Sampling
and
Analysis
for
VOCs
Prior
to
using
groundwater
data
for
evaluating
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway,
we
recommend
that
you
establish
that
LNAPL
is
not
floating
on
the
groundwater,
as
the
VOCs
can
partition
directly
from
the
pure
product
to
the
vapor
phase
rather
than
from
the
dissolved
phase.
This
can
be
indicated
by
analytical
results
from
water
samples
taken
at
the
water
table
having
values
higher
than
the
theoretical
solubility
for
the
specific
LNAPL
compounds
present.

If
possible,
we
recommend
that
groundwater
samples
be
collected
from
wells
screened
at
or
across
the
top
of
the
water
table.
This
point
of
collection
is
necessary
to
be
consistent
with
the
derivation
of
the
target
groundwater
criteria
in
Table
2,
which
assumes
equilibrium
partitioning
between
the
aqueous
and
vapor
phases
and
uses
Henry's
Law
Constant
to
calculate
source
vapor
concentrations
corresponding
to
groundwater
concentrations.
It
should
be
recognized
that
samples
from
groundwater
monitoring
wells
maybe
a
blend
of
groundwater
from
different
levels
across
the
screened
interval.
This
may
result
in
either
under­
or
over­
estimation
of
the
groundwater
contaminant
concentration
at
the
top
of
the
aquifer.
For
example,
at
site
locations
where
concentrations
are
highest
near
the
water
table,
the
in­
well
blending
will
provide
data
with
a
negative
bias
(
concentrations
lower
than
representative).
This
may
occur
at
locations
where
LNAPL
is
found
near
the
water
table,
where
recharge
rates
are
low,
or
sites
where
there
is
an
interface­
zone
plume
(
a
fluctuating
water
table
facilitates
interactions
between
a
vapor
plume
and
the
shallow
groundwater).
At
other
sites,
shallow
groundwater
may
have
relatively
low
concentrations,
and
in­
well
blending
will
provide
data
with
a
positive
bias
(
concentrations
higher
than
representative).
Examples
include
sites
with
a
high
rate
of
recharge
from
above,
which
can
create
a
layer
of
shallow
groundwater
with
little
or
no
contamination
that
acts
as
a
barrier
to
volatilization
of
vapors
from
deeper
groundwater.
[
For
more
information,
see
Fitzpatrick,
N.
A.,
Fitzgerald,
J.
J.
1996.
"
An
Evaluation
of
Vapor
Intrusion
Into
Buildings
Through
a
Study
of
Field
Data,"
Proceedings
of
the
11th
Annual
Conference
on
Contaminated
Soils,
University
of
Massachusetts
at
Amherst.]
E­
3
Confidence
in
the
groundwater
data
can
be
increased
through
the
use
of
a
narrowly
screened
interval
across
the
water
table,
the
use
of
low
flow
sampling
procedures
to
minimize
mixing,
or
a
variety
of
other
depth­
discrete
sampling
protocols.
Methods
of
sampling
such
as
direct
push
using
a
Geoprobe
or
cone
penetrometers
should
concentrate
on
the
upper
few
feet
of
the
ground
water.

There
are
numerous
ASTM
standards
for
groundwater
sampling.
Assuming
wells
already
exist
for
sampling
VOCs,
the
following
standards
are
recommended:

D
5980
Standard
Guide
for
Selection
and
Documentation
of
Existing
Wells
for
Use
in
Environmental
Site
Characterization
and
Monitoring
D
6634
Standard
Guide
for
the
Selection
of
Purging
and
Sampling
Devices
for
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Wells
D
5903
Guide
for
Planning
and
Preparing
a
Ground­
Water
Sampling
Event
D
6452
Guide
for
Purging
Methods
for
Wells
Used
for
Ground­
Water
Quality
Investigations
D
4448
Standard
Guide
for
Sampling
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Wells
D
6771
Standard
Practice
for
Low­
Flow
Purging
and
Sampling
for
Wells
and
Devices
Used
for
Ground­
Water
Quality
Investigations
D
6564
Standard
Guide
for
Field
Filtration
of
Ground
Water
Samples
D
6517
Standard
Guide
for
Field
Preservation
of
Ground
Water
Samples
D
3694
Practices
for
Preparation
of
Sample
Containers
and
for
Preservation
of
Organic
Constituents
D
6089
Guide
for
Documenting
a
Ground­
Water
Sampling
Event
The
following
ASTM
standards
are
useful
if
a
monitoring
system
is
not
already
in
place:

D
5612
Standard
Guide
for
Quality
Planning
and
Field
Implementation
of
a
Water
Quality
Measurement
Program
D
5730
Standard
Guide
for
Site
Characterization
for
Environmental
Purposes
with
Emphasis
on
Soil,
Rock,
the
Vadose
Zone
and
Ground
Water
D
6286
Standard
Guide
for
Selection
of
Drilling
Methods
for
Environmental
Site
Characterization
E­
4
D
6001
Standard
Guide
for
Direct­
Push
Water
Sampling
for
Geoenvironmental
Investigations
D
5092
Standard
Practice
for
Design
and
Installation
of
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Wells
in
Aquifers
D
5521
Standard
Guide
for
Development
of
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
Wells
in
Granular
Aquifers
Other
Related
ASTM
Standards:

D
6312
Standard
Guide
for
Developing
Appropriate
Statistical
Approaches
for
Ground­
Water
Detection
Monitoring
Programs
D
5241
Standard
Practice
for
Micro­
Extraction
of
Water
for
Analysis
of
Volatile
and
Semi­
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
in
Water
D
5314
Standard
Guide
for
Soil
Gas
Monitoring
in
the
Vadose
Zone
D
4696
Standard
Guide
for
Pore­
Liquid
Sampling
from
the
Vadose
Zone
IV.
Indoor
Air
Sampling
and
Analysis
Indoor
air
sampling
and
analysis
provide
the
most
direct
estimate
of
inhalation
exposures.
However,
source
attribution
for
the
many
compounds
typically
present
in
indoor
air
can
be
challenging.
Constituents
of
indoor
air
can
originate
from
indoor
emission
sources,
from
ambient
(
outdoor)
air
contributions,
as
well
as
from
possible
vapor
intrusion
of
contaminated
groundwater.
Each
of
these
sources
can
introduce
concentrations
of
volatile
chemicals
to
the
indoor
environment
sufficient
to
pose
an
unacceptable
health
risk.
In
addition,
concentrations
of
compounds
found
in
indoor
air
are
often
subject
to
temporal
and
spatial
variations,
which
may
complicate
estimates
of
exposure.
If
source
attribution
is
pursued,
then
we
recommend
that
the
various
potential
sources
contributing
to
the
total
concentration
of
a
compound
be
identified.
This
is
typically
very
challenging
and
may
involve
a
series
of
measurements,
or
actions,
whose
purpose
is
to
isolate
the
individual
source
contributions.
Before
conducting
an
indoor
air
sampling
plan,
we
recommend
consideration
be
made
to
other
management
options,
such
as
proactive
exposure
controls,
which
may
be
cost
competitive.
Appendix
A
provides
guidance
in
executing
the
DQO
process
for
planning
an
indoor
air­
monitoring
program.

Prior
to
indoor
air
sampling,
we
recommend
conducting
an
inspection
of
the
residence
and
an
occupant
survey
to
adequately
identify
the
presence
of
any
possible
indoor
air
emission
sources
of
(
or
occupant
activities
that
could
generate)
target
VOCs
in
the
dwelling
(
see
Appendices
H
&
I).
An
indoor
air
quality
survey
has
several
components,
and
we
recommend
that
it
be
consistent
with
data
quality
protocols
appropriate
for
risk
assessment
(
see
Risks
Assessment
Guidance
for
Superfund
Part
B
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
program/
risk/
ragsb/
index.
htm
or
EPA/
540/
R­
E­
5
92/
003).
The
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
MA
DEP)
has
prepared
an
Indoor
Air
Sampling
and
Evaluation
Guide
(
April
2002)
which
is
available
at
the
following
URL:
http://
www.
state.
ma.
us/
dep/
ors/
files/
indair.
pdf.

Many
aspects
of
the
protocols
used
for
ambient
air
can
also
be
applied
to
indoor
air
sampling
(
e.
g.,
EPA
TO­
15
and
TO­
17
methods).
Specially
treated
stainless
steel
evacuated
canisters
or
adsorbent
tubes
are
appropriate
for
sampling
and
we
recommend
that
they
be
combined
with
an
analytical
method
capable
of
obtaining
the
detection
limits
identified
in
the
DQO
process.
To
facilitate
a
reliable
comparison
of
analytical
results,
a
standard
condition
for
sampling
is
recommended.
Some
guidance
in
establishing
a
standard
monitoring
condition
is
given
in
the
following
paragraphs.

We
recommend
that
sampling
units
be
placed
within
the
normal
breathing
zone,
2
to
5
feet
above
the
floor,
in
the
lowest
inhabited
area.
It
is
generally
advisable
to
collect
at
least
one
24­
hour
sample
in
both
the
probable
place
of
highest
concentration
(
e.
g.,
basement)
and
in
the
main
living
area.
Two
or
more
sampling
events
at
each
location
are
desirable.
Typically,
we
recommend
that
the
house
be
closed
(
windows
and
doors
shut)
12
to
24
hours
before
the
measurements
begin
and
the
use
of
appliances
that
induce
large
pressure
differences
(
e.
g.
exhaust
fans,
clothes
dryers,
operating
fireplaces)
be
avoided
during
this
time.
Additionally,
we
recommend
avoiding
sampling
locations
adjacent
to
windows
and
air
supplies.

We
recommend
gas
sampling
that
will
be
used
for
direct
assessment
of
vapor
intrusion
meet
or
exceed
requirements
for
demonstrating
method
acceptability
as
specified
in
EPA
Methods
TO­
15
(
canister­
based
sample
collection)
and
TO­
17
(
sorbent
tube­
based
sample
collection)
or
appropriately
modified
to
achieve
a
lower
method
detection
limit
(
MDL)
corresponding
to
a
given
life­
time
risk
level.
Note:
To
achieve
detection
at
or
below
the
published
10­
5
to
10­
6
risk
levels
for
many
target
compounds,
the
MDLs
for
TO­
15
or
TO­
17,
in
our
judgment,
must
be
considerably
below
0.5
ppbv.

To
achieve
TO­
15
and
TO­
17
method
acceptability,
we
recommend
that
a
sampling
and
analysis
protocol
meet
the
recommended
performance
criteria
for
an
enhanced
method
detection
limit,
replicate
precision,
and
audit
accuracy
at
compound
concentrations
corresponding
to
the
10­
5
or
10­
6
risk
levels,
and
special
attention
be
paid
to
quality
control
measures.
Sufficiently
low
sample
container
blanks,
analytical
system
blanks,
analytical
interferences,
etc.,
are
all
implied
in
the
ability
to
meet
the
technical
acceptance
criteria.

To
ensure
reliable
measurements
are
obtained,
we
recommend
that
multiple
simultaneous
samples
(
more
than
one
canister
or
sorbent
tube)
be
taken
for
every
sampling
event
and
from
the
same
inlet
so
that
variability
in
nominally
identical
samples
can
be
documented.
Also,
we
recommend
that
knowledge
of
the
performance
of
the
analytical
system
be
demonstrated,
including
blank
response,
the
MDLs,
calibration
of
the
target
compounds
at
or
near
the
sample
concentration
range,
and
the
likelihood
of
interferences.
These
are
common
sense
considerations
that
are
covered
in
TO­
15
and
TO­
17,
but
call
for
special
attention
at
the
low
concentration
levels
being
considered.
E­
6
Note:
At
this
point
in
the
development
of
the
best
approach
to
sorbent
tube
sampling
(
TO­
17),
reduction
of
co­
collected
water
on
the
sorbent
tubes
is
sometimes
important
to
achieve
a
linear
analytical
response
such
as
with
ion
trap
mass
spectrometers.
Therefore,
we
recommend
that
preliminary
experiments
be
performed
to
document
the
effect
of
different
water
vapor
levels
on
analytical
performance.
Also,
the
interaction
of
target
compounds
with
reactive
compounds,
e.
g.
ozone,
depends
on
the
extent
to
which
the
reactive
compounds
exist
in
the
indoor
air
and
the
reaction
rates.
Until
this
specific
problem
with
sampling
is
addressed,
we
recommend
that
the
ozone
concentration
be
determined
at
every
sampling
event.
Also,
an
interaction
of
ozone
with
adsorbed
compounds
can
destroy
the
compound.
Certain
target
compounds
have
been
tested
for
this
(
see
McClenny,
W.
A.,
Oliver,
K.
D.,
Jacumin,
H.
H.,
Jr.,
and
Daughtrey,
E.
H.,
Jr.,
2002,
Ambient
volatile
organic
compound
(
VOC)
monitoring
using
solid
adsorbants
­
recent
U.
S.
EPA
developments,
JEM
4(
5)
695
 
705).

Recommended
publications:

Compendium
of
Methods
for
the
Determination
of
Toxic
Organic
Compounds
in
Ambient
Air,
Second
Edition,
EPA/
625/
R­
96/
010b
­
Method
TO­
15,
Determination
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOCs)
in
Air
Collected
in
Specially­
Prepared
Canisters
and
Analyzed
by
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectrometry
(
GC/
MS).
pp.
15­
1
through
15­
62
­
Method
TO­
17,
Determination
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
in
Ambient
Air
using
Active
Sampling
on
Sorbent
Tubes.
pp.
17­
1
through
17­
49
­
Compendium
of
Methods
for
the
Determination
of
Air
Pollutants
in
Indoor
Air,
EPA/
600/
4­
90­
010
V.
Soil
Gas
Sampling
Soil
gas
sampling
and
analysis
results
tend
to
be
more
reliable
at
locations
and
depths
where
high
contaminant
concentrations
are
present
and
where
the
soils
are
relatively
permeable.
Reliability
of
the
results
tends
to
be
lower
in
lower
permeability
settings
and
when
sampling
shallow
soil
gas.
In
both
cases,
leakage
of
atmospheric
air
into
the
samples
is
a
valid
concern.
Consequently,
it
is
recommended
that
samples
collected
at
depths
less
than
5
feet
below
ground
surface
(
bgs)
not
be
used
for
this
analysis,
unless
they
are
collected
immediately
below
the
building
foundation
several
feet
in
from
the
edge
(
e.
g.,
subslab
samples).
Reliability
of
soil
gas
sampling
can
be
assessed
by:
a)
measuring
a
vertical
profile
and
inspecting
to
see
if
measured
concentrations
decrease
with
increasing
distance
from
the
vapor
source,
and
b)
checking
to
see
if
vapor
concentrations
correlate
qualitatively
and
quantitatively
with
available
groundwater
concentration
data.
For
example,
with
groundwater
sources
the
highest
soil
gas
concentrations
should
correlate
with
the
highest
groundwater
concentrations,
and
vapor
concentrations
collected
immediately
above
groundwater
should
not
exceed
the
value
calculated
using
Henry's
Law.
Parallel
analysis
of
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
nitrogen
in
soil
gas
samples
can
often
be
used
to
help
assess
the
reliability
of
a
given
sample
result.
Reliability
is
typically
improved
by
using
E­
7
fixed
probes
and
by
ensuring
that
leakage
of
atmospheric
air
into
the
samples
is
avoided
during
purging
or
sampling.
To
avoid
dilution
of
the
sampling
region,
we
recommend
using
the
minimum
purge
volume
deemed
adequate
to
flush
the
sampling
system.
With
respect
to
the
spatial
distribution
of
sampling
points,
close
proximity
to
the
building(
s)
of
concern
is
generally
preferred;
however,
it
may
be
possible
to
reasonably
estimate
concentrations
based
on
data
from
soil
gas
samples
collected
about
a
larger
area.
Additionally,
as
vapors
are
likely
to
migrate
upward
preferentially
through
the
coarsest
and
driest
material,
we
recommend
soil
gas
samples
be
collected
from
the
most
permeable
zones
in
the
vadose
zone
underlying
the
inhabited
buildings.
Concentrations
should
be
lower
in
the
high
permeability
zones
than
the
low
permeability
zones.

The
velocity
at
which
soil
gas
should
be
sampled
is
influenced
by
the
soil
permeability,
and
the
volume
of
sample
taken
will
determine
the
zone
of
soil
that
is
sampled.
The
effects
of
lowversus
high­
velocity
and
micro­
versus
macro­
volume
soil
gas
sampling
techniques
are
currently
being
evaluated.

Measurement
of
VOCs
in
the
Subslab
Soil
Gas
Subslab
sampling
may
entail
drilling
a
series
(
e.
g.,
3
to
5)
of
small
diameter
(
e.
g.,
9/
16")
holes
in
the
foundation
of
a
residential
building.
It
may
be
advantageous
to
install
flush
mounted
stainless
steel
or
brass
vapor
probes
in
contaminant
free
cement.
We
recommend
sampling
be
performed
using
EPA
Method
TO­
15
or
TO­
17.

The
preferred
measurement
location
is
in
the
central
portion
of
the
slab,
well
away
from
the
edges
where
dilution
is
more
likely
to
occur.
We
recommend
the
hole
be
plugged
with
a
material
such
as
tape
or
pliable
caulk
(
VOC
free)
immediately
after
drilling
the
hole
to
minimize
the
disturbance
of
the
sub
slab
concentrations.
When
drilling
the
hole,
care
should
be
taken
not
to
puncture
the
surface
of
soil
underneath.
In
cases
where
there
is
aggregate
soil
underneath
the
foundation,
this
care
may
not
be
important,
but
if
the
soil
has
a
slightly
compacted
layer
on
top
with
a
slight
subsidence
under
the
slab
this
compacted
layer
may
actually
provide
some
resistance
to
the
entry
of
soil
gas
from
underneath.
In
this
case,
a
subslab
sample
can
be
collected
by
slowly
pulling
a
volume
of
gas
from
the
void
of
the
subsidence.
This
initial
measurement
may
be
representative
of
the
soil
gas
typically
entering
the
house.
After
the
subslab
with
undisturbed
soil
has
been
sampled,
it
may
be
instructive
to
penetrate
the
surface
of
the
soil
and
resample.
We
recommend
the
subslab
samples
be
collected
at
several
locations
to
obtain
representative
values.
It
is
important
to
not
disturb
the
subslab
region
by
applying
excessive
pressures
that
might
induce
dilution
of
vapors
in
this
region.
Significant
pressures
might
result
from
excessive
slamming
of
doors,
or
from
appliances
such
as:
exhaust
fans,
clothes
dryers,
downdraft
grills,
ceiling
or
roof
mounted
attic
fans,
or
certain
combinations
of
open
windows
on
a
windy
day.
If
the
subslab
region
is
disturbed,
it
may
require
many
hours
to
return
to
a
steady
state
condition.

Additional
points
to
consider
before
drilling
into
the
foundation
are
whether
or
not
the
home
has
an
existing
vapor
barrier,
or
is
a
tension
slab.
In
either
case,
alternative
sampling
methods
may
be
preferable.
E­
8
Measurement
of
VOC's
in
soil
gas
using
slam
bar
methods
Slam
bar
methods
have
been
widely
used
to
measure
contaminants
in
soil
gas.
The
results
of
these
measurements
have
been
highly
variable.
Because
this
technique
is
frequently
used
for
relatively
shallow
sampling,
it
is,
in
our
judgment,
prone
to
errors
from
dilution
by
surface
air.
This
is
especially
true
when
the
hole
is
punched
or
drilled
with
one
instrument
that
is
then
replaced
by
a
measurement
probe
(
sometime
of
smaller
diameter).
We
recommend
great
care
be
taken
to
ensure
that
leakage
air
does
not
enter
the
sample.
Only
the
volume
of
air
sufficient
to
flush
the
probe
and
sampling
line
should
be
extracted
before
collecting
the
sample.
The
larger
the
purge/
sample
volume,
the
larger
the
subsurface
area
of
influence;
if
the
contamination
is
contained
within
non­
preferential
flow
paths
or
small
discrete
locations,
a
large
purge/
sample
volume
will
dilute
the
concentration
of
contaminants.

Measurement
of
VOC's
in
soil
gas
using
push
probe
methods
This
approach
seems
to
be
emerging
as
a
powerful
tool
for
conducting
soil
gas
measurements.
OSWER
is
working
with
ORD
and
will
update
this
section
on
the
EPA/
OSWER
website
as
further
refinements
of
these
methods
are
developed.

Recommend
publications:

Soil
Vapor
Extraction
Technology:
Reference
Handbook
­
Soil
Vapor
Extraction
Technology:
Reference
Handbook
March
1990.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Risk
Reduction
Engineering
Lab.
EPA/
540/
2­
91/
003
VI.
Soil
Sampling
and
Analysis
Soil
sampling
and
analysis
is
not
recommended
for
assessing
whether
or
not
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
is
complete.
This
is
because
the
uncertainties
associated
with
soil
partitioning
calculations,
as
well
as
the
uncertainties
associated
with
soil
sampling
and
soil
chemical
analyses
for
volatile
organic
chemicals,
are
so
great
that,
that
in
our
judgment,
use
of
soil
concentrations
for
assessment
of
this
pathway
is
not
technically
defensible.
Thus,
soil
concentration
criteria
were
not
derived
and
the
use
of
soil
criteria
is
not
encouraged
in
this
guidance.
Soil
concentration
data
might,
however,
be
used
in
a
qualitative
sense
for
delineation
of
sources
provided
the
soil
samples
are
preserved
immediately
upon
collection
with
methanol.
For
example,
high
soil
concentrations
(
e.
g.
>
1000
mg/
kg
TPH)
would
definitely
indicate
impacted
soils;
unfortunately,
the
converse
is
not
always
true
and
we
recommend
that
non­
detect
analytical
results
not
be
interpreted
to
conclude
the
absence
of
a
vapor
source.

VII.
Other
Issues
We
recommend
that
detection
limits
be
considered
when
choosing
which
media
to
sample
and
how
to
interpret
the
results.
The
properties
of
some
chemicals
and
the
biases
in
the
analytical
methods
may
be
such
that
the
sensitivity
of
detection
is
higher
in
one
medium
than
another.
For
E­
9
example,
a
high
Henry's
constant
(
H>
1)
chemical
might
be
detectable
in
soil
gas
when
the
concentration
in
groundwater
falls
below
the
detection
limit
(
e.
g.,
vinyl
chloride).

We
recommend
that
transformation
products
also
be
considered
when
selecting
the
chemicals
of
concern.
For
example,
1,1,1­
trichloroethane
(
111TCA)
may
be
abiotically
converted
to
1,1­
dichloroethene
(
11DCE)
in
groundwater,
so
that
we
recommend
looking
for
both
chemicals
at
111TCA
spill
sites.
F­
1
APPENDIX
F
EMPIRICAL
ATTENUATION
FACTORS
AND
RELIABILITY
ASSESSMENT
1.
Introduction
The
empirical
attenuation
factors
used
in
this
guidance
were
derived
through
review
of
data
from
sites
with
paired
indoor
air
and
soil
gas
and/
or
groundwater
concentrations.
These
data
have
been
compiled
into
a
database
with
the
structure
and
elements
illustrated
in
Figure
F­
1.

The
database
contains
information
from
15
sites
(
CO
­
5
Sites;
CA
­
1
Site;
CT
 
1
Site;
MA
 
7
Sites;
and
MI
 
1
Site).
Fifteen
VOCs
are
represented:
BTEX,
Chloroform,
1,1­
Dichloroethane,
1,2­
Dichloroethane,
1,1­
Dichloroethylene,
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene,
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene,
Tetrachloroethylene,
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane,
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane,
Trichloroethylene
and
Vinyl
chloride.
The
result
is
a
database
with
274
total
residence
and
chemical
combinations,
35
of
which
represent
BTEX
compounds
and
the
remaining
239
represent
chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
Groundwater
data
are
available
for
the
entire
set
of
residence
and
chemical
combinations.
Soil
gas
data
are
available
only
for
40
of
the
residence
and
chemical
combinations.

The
information
in
the
database
was
used
to
calculate
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
and
soil
gas­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
for
each
of
the
chemicals
measured
at
each
of
the
residences
monitored.
The
distributions
of
these
calculated
attenuation
factors
were
used
to
define
a
conservative
empirical
attenuation
factor
for
each
medium,
as
described
in
Sections
2,
3,
and
4
below.

An
assessment
was
performed
using
the
same
database
to
determine
the
reliability
of
the
selected
attenuation
factors
for
screening
in
residences
with
indoor
air
concentrations
exceeding
the
target
levels
corresponding
to
a
cancer
risk
of
10­
6
and
10­
5.
The
reliability
assessment
was
performed
by
determining
the
number
of
false
negative
and
false
positives
corresponding
to
the
selected
attenuation
factor
using
the
guidelines
described
in
Section
6
below.

2.
Calculation
of
Attenuation
Factors
The
attenuation
factor
represents
the
ratio
of
the
indoor
air
concentration
measured
in
a
residence
to
the
vapor
concentration
measured
in
the
subsurface
materials
underlying
or
adjacent
to
the
residence.
For
soil
gas,
the
attenuation
factor
(
 )
is
calculated
simply
as:

gas
soil
indoor
C
C
=
 
where
F­
2
Cindoor
=
measured
indoor
air
concentration
[
ug/
m3]
Csoil
gas
=
measured
soil
gas
concentration
[
ug/
m3]

For
groundwater,
the
attenuation
factor
is
calculated
as:

c
r
groundwate
indoor
H
C
C
=
 
where
Cgroundwater
=
measured
groundwater
concentration
[
ug/
L]
x
1000
L/
m3
Hc
=
dimensionless
Henry's
Law
Constant
[­­]

Henry's
Law
Constant
is
used
to
convert
the
measured
groundwater
concentration
to
a
corresponding
equilibrium
soil
gas
concentration.
Field
data
suggest
that
this
conversion
may
result
in
over
prediction
of
the
soil
gas
concentration
(
by
as
much
as
a
factor
of
ten)
directly
above
the
contaminated
groundwater.
However,
this
is
not
always
the
case
and
consequently
Henry's
Constant
is
used
here
without
a
correction
factor.

In
the
database,
attenuation
factors
are
calculated
using
only
those
residences
and
chemicals
for
which
both
the
indoor
air
and
subsurface
measurements
were
above
the
chemical's
method
detection
limit
(
MDL).
Because
the
subsurface
concentrations
are
generally
greater
than
the
measured
indoor
air
concentrations,
the
calculated
attenuation
factors
are
values
less
than
one.

3.
Groundwater­
to­
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
The
distribution
of
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
is
shown
in
Figures
F­
2
and
F­
3.
Figure
F­
2
shows
the
distribution
of
attenuation
factors
for
all
residences
in
the
database
with
associated
measured
indoor
air
and
groundwater
concentrations
above
the
chemicals'
MDLs.
The
calculated
attenuation
factors
range
from
10­
1
to
10­
7.
This
range
includes
attenuation
factors
calculated
for
homes
with
high
indoor
air
concentrations
as
well
as
for
homes
with
indoor
air
concentrations
at
levels
typical
of
background
concentrations
(
Table
F­
1).
Figure
F­
3
compares
the
distribution
shown
in
Figure
F­
2
to
the
distribution
of
the
subset
of
attenuation
factors
corresponding
to
residences
with
indoor
air
concentrations
greater
than
the
typical
background
levels
(
e.
g.,
geometric
mean
of
the
mean
background
values
shown
in
Table
F­
1).
As
can
be
seen
in
Figure
F­
3,
fewer
than
5%
of
the
residences
with
indoor
air
concentrations
above
typical
background
levels
have
attenuation
factors
greater
than
0.001
(
1/
1000).
This
means
that
for
95%
of
the
residences
in
the
database,
the
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
is
less
than
0.001
(
1/
1000)
and,
consequently,
this
value
(
0.001)
is
considered
to
be
a
generally
reasonable
upper­
bound
value.
F­
3
4.
Soil
Gas­
to­
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
The
shallow
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
represents
the
ratio
of
the
indoor
air
concentration
to
the
soil
gas
concentration
at
some
shallow
depth.
For
the
purposes
of
this
guidance,
shallow
soil
gas
samples
are
defined
as
those
obtained
either
from
directly
below
the
foundation
or
from
depths
less
than
5
feet
below
foundation
level.
Figure
F­
4
shows
the
distribution
of
subslab­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
for
the
subset
of
residences
with
indoor
concentrations
greater
than
the
subslab
concentration
measured
below
the
residence's
foundation.
As
can
be
seen
in
the
plot,
approximately
15%
of
the
residences
have
attenuation
factors
greater
than
0.1
(
1/
10),
or
conversely,
about
85%
of
the
residences
have
attenuation
factors
smaller
than
0.1
(
1/
10).
Consequently,
an
attenuation
factor
of
0.1
was
used
to
represent
a
generally
reasonable
upper­
bound
value
for
the
case
where
the
soil
gas
concentration
immediately
beneath
a
foundation
is
used
(
e.
g.,
the
indoor
air
concentration
would
not
be
expected
to
exceed
1/
10
of
the
concentration
immediately
below
the
foundation).
This
value
is
also
supported
by
an
analysis
of
the
dilution
that
occurs
due
to
ventilation
of
a
house.
An
attenuation
factor
of
0.1
suggests
that
10%
or
less
of
the
air
exchanged
in
a
house
originates
from
the
subsurface.
This
value
is
conservatively
assumed
to
apply
to
shallow
soil
gas
samples
(<
5
feet
below
foundation
level)
as
well
as
subslab
samples.

Deep
soil
gas
samples
are
defined
for
the
purposes
of
this
guidance
as
those
obtained
just
above
the
water
table
or
from
depths
greater
than
5
feet
below
foundation
level.
A
smaller
attenuation
factor
than
that
used
for
shallow
soil
gas
is
warranted
as
the
deep
soil
gas
samples
represent
a
more
direct
measurement
of
the
source
vapor
concentration
and
are
subject
to
less
variability
than
is
observed
for
shallow
soil
gas
samples.
On
the
other
hand,
a
more
conservative
value
than
that
used
for
groundwater
is
warranted,
as
there
is
not
the
added
safety
factor
incorporated
in
the
groundwater
attenuation
factor,
which
assumes
equilibrium
partitioning
of
chemicals
between
groundwater
and
soil
vapor
(
Henry's
Law).
Consequently,
a
value
of
0.01
was
selected
for
deep
soil
gas.

5.
BTEX
versus
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon
Attenuation
Factors
To
be
conservative,
the
recommended
criteria
developed
for
this
guidance
have
been
established
assuming
that
the
chemicals
do
not
degrade
as
they
migrate
through
the
vadose
zone.
It
should
be
recognized
that
many
chemicals
of
interest
do
biodegrade.
For
example,
petroleum
hydrocarbon
vapors
will
biodegrade
in
the
presence
of
oxygen,
and
field
studies
have
shown
this
biodegradation
to
be
very
significant
in
some
settings.
In
contrast,
analysis
of
data
from
sites
impacted
with
chlorinated
solvents
suggest
that
degradation
is
insignificant
for
these
compounds.
The
impact
of
biodegradation
can
be
seen
in
the
distribution
of
attenuation
factors
for
BTEX
compounds
versus
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
(
Figure
F­
5).
Figure
F­
5
suggests
a
three­
fold
to
ten­
fold
decrease
in
attenuation
factor
for
BTEX
compounds.

Unfortunately,
the
significance
of
the
biodegradation
has
also
been
highly
variable,
and
the
factors
that
determine
its
significance
are
not
yet
fully
understood.
In
a
very
general
sense,
it
is
expected
that
aerobic
biodegradation
will
have
limited
effect
in
settings
where
F­
4
oxygen
re­
supply
is
limited,
and
also
will
have
little
effect
on
the
attenuation
factors
used
for
soil
gas
samples
collected
near
a
building.
At
this
time,
we
recommend
that
the
significance
of
biodegradation
be
determined
through
collection
of
vertical
soil
gas
profiles
beneath
the
buildings
of
concern.
The
occurrence
of
aerobic
biodegradation
will
be
reflected
qualitatively
in
the
oxygen
and
contaminant
soil
vapor
profiles,
and
the
quantitative
effects
can
be
estimated
by
the
methods
described
in
Johnson
et
al.
(
1999),
or
other
defensible
analysis
methods.
It
is
unlikely
that
the
extensive
site­
specific
information
required
to
determine
the
influence
of
biodegradation
will
be
available
in
the
initial
stages
of
site
characterization.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
it
is
generally
prudent
to
assume
that
biodegradation
is
not
a
factor
when
screening
sites
for
vapor
intrusion
issues.

6.
Reliability
Assessment
The
reliability
of
the
evaluation
approach
used
in
Questions
4,
5,
and
6
of
this
guidance
was
assessed
using
the
database
described
above
in
Section
1
of
this
appendix.
For
the
assessment
at
the
generic
screening
level
(
Question
4),
the
target
levels
in
Tables
2(
a)
and
2(
b)
were
used.
For
the
assessment
of
Question
5,
the
target
levels
in
Tables
3(
a)
and
3(
b)
were
used.
For
Question
6,
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Model
was
applied
as
described
in
Appendix
G
using
the
updated
default
model
parameters.
The
following
sections
briefly
describe
the
analysis
and
results.
This
analysis
shows
that
the
evaluation
approach
used
in
this
guidance
yields
reliable
results
at
both
the
10­
5
and
10­
6
cancer
risk
levels
when
assessing
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
at
all
sites
reviewed.

6.1
Analysis
Approach
Cancer
risk
levels
at
both
the
10­
5
and
10­
6
levels
were
evaluated.
Table
2
was
used
to
select
target
levels
for
evaluation
of
Question
4.
For
Question
5,
the
appropriate
attenuation
factor
to
use
when
selecting
screening
levels
from
Table
3
was
determined
from
the
figures
3a
and
3b
in
Question
5
of
the
guidance
as
a
function
of
site­
specific
SCS
soil
types
and
depth
to
groundwater.
For
the
Question
6
assessment,
information
on
foundation
type
(
either
slab­
on­
grade
or
basement)
and
building
mixing
height
was
incorporated
into
the
analysis
(
basement
defaults
were
used
for
buildings
with
crawl
spaces)
and
a
site­
specific
attenuation
factor
was
calculated.

The
assessment
was
performed
by
determining
the
number
of
false
negative
and
false
positives
obtained
using
the
most
recently
available
toxicity
data.
As
shown
in
Table
F­
2,
a
false
negative
occurs
when
a
chemical's
measured
indoor
air
concentration
exceeds
the
target
level,
but
the
measured
groundwater
(
or
soil
gas)
concentration
does
not.
False
negatives
may
appear
if
indoor
or
ambient
(
outdoor)
sources
of
VOCs
are
present
and
they
exceed
the
indoor
air
target
level
at
the
selected
risk
level.
A
false
positive
occurs
when
a
chemical's
measured
indoor
air
concentration
is
below
the
target
level,
but
the
measured
groundwater
(
or
soil
gas)
concentration
is
above
the
target
level.
Correct
positives
and
correct
negatives
are
defined
in
a
similar
fashion,
as
shown
in
Table
F­
2.
F­
5
6.2
Results
In
order
to
effectively
understand
the
results,
it
is
important
to
differentiate
between
samples,
buildings,
and
sites.
There
are
seven
sites
evaluated
in
this
analysis
(
Alliant,
Eau
Claire,
Hamilton­
Sunstrand,
LAFB,
MADEP,
Mountain
View,
and
Uncasville).
Each
site
has
one
or
more
buildings.
For
example,
the
Alliant
site
has
only
one
building.
LAFB
has
13
buildings
and
Mountain
View
has
seven
buildings.
Each
building
has
its
own
unique
address.
Several
samples
were
taken
at
each
building.
Each
sample
consists
of
paired
indoor
air
and
groundwater
concentrations
for
a
unique
chemical
at
a
certain
building.
The
number
of
samples
and
the
number
of
chemicals
identified
in
these
samples
varies
by
building.

The
results
are
grouped
into
two
types
of
tables.
Tables
F­
3
(
risk
level
10­
5)
and
F­
5
(
risk
level
10­
6)
organize
the
results
by
building
at
each
site.
It
shows
whether
or
not
a
building
has
a
correct
negative,
correct
positive,
false
negative,
or
false
positive
result.
An
important
note
regarding
Tables
F­
3
and
F­
5
is
the
difference
between
buildings
that
are
not
applicable
for
vapor
intrusion
analysis
("
NA"
is
added
to
the
results
of
these
buildings)
and
buildings
with
wet
basements.
Buildings
that
are
not
applicable
are
those
where
the
depth
from
the
bottom
of
the
foundation
(
whether
it
be
a
basement
or
slab­
ongrade
to
groundwater
contamination
is
less
than
1.5
meters
(
5
feet).
This
is
one
of
the
precluding
factors
listed
in
the
guidance.
We
still
included
results
for
these
buildings,
but
marked
their
results
with
an
"
NA"
to
indicate
that
they
would
be
excluded
from
this
analysis
according
to
protocols
set
forth
in
the
guidance.
The
false
negative,
false
positive,
correct
negative,
and
correct
positive
results
for
non­
NA
buildings
are
summed
at
the
bottom
of
each
table.

The
second
set
of
results
presents
outcomes
by
chemical
at
each
site.
Tables
F­
4
(
risk
level
10­
5)
and
F­
6
(
risk
level
10­
6)
show
the
number
of
false
positive
and
false
negative
outcomes
for
each
chemical
at
each
site.
They
do
not
indicate
whether
the
false
results
occur
in
just
one
or
two
buildings
at
the
site,
or
evenly
across
all
buildings.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
numbers
in
these
tables
are
counts
of
samples,
not
of
buildings.
Therefore,
it
is
possible
to
have
a
false
negative
result
for
a
chemical
at
a
particular
site,
but
each
building
at
that
site
can
have
correct
positive
results
based
on
the
outcomes
for
other
chemicals.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
results
for
those
samples
that
are
considered
not
applicable
(
NA)
according
to
the
criteria
discussed
in
the
guidance
are
not
included
in
this
table.

Tables
F­
3
and
F­
5
show
that
the
evaluation
approach
used
in
this
guidance
yields
no
false
negatives
with
respect
to
sites
or
buildings
at
either
the
10­
5
or
10­
6
cancer
risk
level.
Tables
F­
4
and
F­
6
show
that
for
most
chemicals
either
no
or
few
false
negatives
are
obtained,
with
the
exception
of
tetrachloroethene
and
1,2­
dichloroethane.
These
two
chemicals
show
a
number
of
false
negatives,
especially
at
the
10­
6
cancer
risk
level.
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
both
of
these
chemicals
are
typically
found
as
background
contaminants,
which
may
account
for
some
of
the
false
negatives.
Several
of
the
chemical­
specific
false
negative
results
shown
in
Tables
F­
4
and
F­
6
also
appear
to
F­
6
result
from
limiting
the
ground
water
target
concentration
to
the
MCL
if
the
calculated
target
concentration
would
be
less
than
the
MCL.

Table
F­
1.
Background
indoor
air
concentrations
for
selected
volatile
organic
compounds.
All
concentrations
expressed
in
ug/
m3.

Shah
and
Singh
(
1988):
ES&
T,
Vl.
22,
No.
12,
pp.
1381­
1388,
1988
Samfield
(
1992):
EPA­
600­
R­
92­
025,
1992.
Brown
et
al.
(
1994):
Indoor
Air,
4:
123­
134,
1994.
NOPES
(
1990):
EPA/
600/
3­
90/
003,
January
1990.
Sheldon
(
1992):
California
Air
Resources
Board,
Final
Report,
January
1992.
MADEP
(
September
1998):
From:
Background
Documentation
for
the
Development
of
MCP
Numerical
Stds"
April
1994,
Table
4.2,
except
1,1­
dichloroethene
(
EPA
TEAM
study)
and
methylene
chloride
(
Stolwijk,
JAJ,
1990)
EPA
IAQ
Reference
Manual
(
July
1991):
Results
from
Wallace
(
1987),
except
toluene:
Seifert
&
Abraham
(
1982).
Foster
et
al.,
(
2002):
Foster,
S.
J,
J.
P.
Kurtz,
and
A.
K.
Woodland,
Background
indoor
air
risks
at
selected
residences
in
Denver,
Colorado,
2002.
F­
7
Table
F­
2.
Evaluation
criteria
for
the
reliability
assessment.

IASL
<
C(
IA)
CORRECT
NEGATIVE
GWSL
<
C(
GW)

IASL
<
C(
IA)
FALSE
POSITIVE
GWSL
>
C(
GW)
IASL
>
C(
IA)
FALSE
NEGATIVE
GWSL
<
C(
GW)
IASL
>
C(
IA)
CORRECT
POSITIVE
GWSL
>
C(
GW)
Condition
Vapor
Intrusion
Screening
Level
Relationship
Measurement
F­
8
Table
F­
3
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Groundwater
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Building
at
Each
Site
R=
1x10­
5
Site
Name
Address
Vapor
Intrusion
Q41
Vapor
Intrusion
Q52
Compound(
s)
Responsible
for
False
Result
3
Alliant
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Eau
Claire
Residence
F
NA(
CP)
WB
Residence
K
NA(
CP)
WB
Residence
S
NA(
CP)
WB
Hamilton­
Sunstrand
6800
Fern
Dr.
CP
CP
6800
Osage
St.
CP
CP
6800
Ruth
Way
CP
CP
6801
Avrum
Dr.
CP
CP
6801
Fern
Dr.
CP
CP
6810
Jordan
Dr.
CP
CP
6811
Ruth
Way
CP
CP
6820
Fern
Dr.
CP
CP
6821
Mariposa
St.
CP
CP
6821
Pecos
CP
CP
6831
Navajo
St.
CP
CP
6831
Zuni
St.
CP
CP
6840
Mariposa
CP
CP
LAFB
UA02
CP
CP
UA03
CP
CP
UA04
CP
CP
UA05
CP
CP
UA18
CP
CP
UA19
CP
CP
UA21
CP
CP
UA22
CP
CP
UA23
CP
CP
UA24
CP
CP
UA25
CP
CP
UA26
CP
CP
UA28
FP
FP
Trichloroethylene
MADEP
0907
A
Hull
NA(
CP)
WB
0907
B
Hull
NA(
CP)
WB
1019
Lynnf
NA(
FP)
NA(
FP)
Benzene,
Ethylbenzene,
Toluene
11707
Quincy
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
12092
B
Marble
CP
CP
Benzene
1525
A
Marble
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
1525
B
Marble
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
2797
A
Tewks
NA(
FP)
NA(
FP)
Benzene,
Ethylbenzene,
Toluene
2797
B
Tewks
NA(
FP)
NA(
FP)
Benzene,
Ethylbenzene,
Toluene
Mountain
View
Residence
1
CP
CP
Residence
2
CP
CP
Residence
3
CP
CP
Residence
4
CP
CP
Residence
6
CP
CP
Residence
7
CP
CP
Residence
8
CP
CP
Uncasville
Residence
A
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Residence
B
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Residence
D
NA(
CN)
NA(
CN)
Residence
E
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Key:
CP=
Correct
Positive;
CN
=
Correct
Negative
FP=
False
Positive;
FN=
False
Negative
NA=
Not
applicable
due
to
precluding
factor­­
depth
from
foundation
to
groundwater
contamination
is
less
than
1.5
m.
WB=
Wet
Basement.
This
condition
precludes
the
use
of
Figure
3
(
for
Q5).
Notes:
1
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
2.
2
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
3.
The
appropriate
attenuation
factor
in
this
3
When
false
positive
or
false
negative
outcomes
resulted
with
both
Q4
and
Q5,
the
same
compounds
were
responsible
for
the
false
outcome
in
each
scenario.
F­
9
Table
F­
3
(
continued)
Summary
Table
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Groundwater
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Building
at
Each
Site
R=
1x10­
5
Q4
Q5
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total
CP
and
CN
33
97.1%
33
97.1%
Total
FP
1
2.9%
1
2.9%
Total
FN
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Total
NA
and
WB
16
47.1%
11
32.4%
Total
Number
of
Buildings
34
34
Key:

CP=
Correct
Positive;
CN
=
Correct
Negative
FP=
False
Positive;
FN=
False
Negative
NA=
Not
applicable
due
to
precluding
factor­­
depth
from
foundation
to
groundwater
contamination
is
less
than
1.5
m.
WB=
Wet
Basement.
This
condition
precludes
the
use
of
Figure
3
(
for
Q5).
Notes:

1
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
2.
2
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
3.
The
appropriate
attenuation
factor
in
this
analysis
was
obtained
from
Figure
3.
3
When
false
positive
or
false
negative
outcomes
resulted
with
both
Q4
and
Q5,
the
same
compounds
were
responsible
for
the
false
outcome
in
each
scenario.
F­
10
Table
F­
4
Frequency
of
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Ground
Water
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Chemical1
Risk
=
1x10­
5
Location
Benzene
1,1­
Dichloroethane
1,2­
Dichloroethane
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene2
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene2
Ethyl
Benzene*

Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
VI
Q4
3
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
1
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Total
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
1
26
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
1
0
0
VI
Q5
4
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
1
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Total
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
1
26
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
1
0
0
F­
11
Table
F­
4
(
continued)

Frequency
of
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Ground
Water
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Chemical1
Risk
=
1x10­
5
Location
Tetrachloroethylene*
Toluene
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene*
Vinyl
chloride*
Xylene2
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
VI
Q4
3
Alliant
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
13
0
4
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
1
0
9
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
7
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Total
13
0
4
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
33
1
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
VI
Q5
4
Alliant
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
13
0
4
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
1
0
9
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
7
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Total
13
0
4
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
33
1
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
Key:

FP=
False
Positive;
FN=
False
Negative
Notes:

1
For
each
chemical
we
indicate
the
total
number
of
samples
at
each
site
for
each
chemical
and
the
number
of
samples
with
False
Positive
or
False
Negative
results
at
that
site
across
all
buildings.
"­­"
means
the
chemical
was
not
found
at
any
building
at
that
site.

2
Toxicity
values
from
oral
studies
were
used
to
develop
screening
levels
for
this
chemical.

3
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
ground
water
screening
values
in
Table
2.

4
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
ground
water
screening
values
in
Table
3.

*
Ground
water
target
concentration
for
this
compound
is
based
on
the
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL)
in
drinking
water.
F­
12
Table
F­
5
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Groundwater
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Building
at
Each
Site
R=
1x10­
6
Site
Name
Address
Vapor
Intrusion
Q41
Vapor
Intrusion
Q52
J&
E
Site
Specific
3
Compound(
s)
Responsible
for
False
Result
4
Alliant
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Residence
F
NA(
CP)
WB
WB
Residence
K
NA(
CP)
WB
WB
Eau
Claire
Residence
S
NA(
CP)
WB
WB
6800
Fern
Dr.
CP
CP
CP
6800
Osage
St.
CP
CP
CP
6800
Ruth
Way
CP
CP
CP
6801
Avrum
Dr.
CP
CP
CP
6801
Fern
Dr.
CP
CP
CP
6810
Jordan
Dr.
CP
CP
CP
6811
Ruth
Way
CP
CP
CP
6820
Fern
Dr.
CP
CP
CP
6821
Mariposa
St.
CP
CP
CP
6821
Pecos
CP
CP
CP
6831
Navajo
St.
CP
CP
CP
6831
Zuni
St.
CP
CP
CP
Hamilton­
Sunstrand
6840
Mariposa
CP
CP
CP
UA02
CP
CP
CP
UA03
CP
CP
CP
UA04
CP
CP
CP
UA05
CP
CP
CP
UA18
CP
CP
CP
UA19
CP
CP
CP
UA21
CP
CP
CP
UA22
CP
CP
CP
UA23
CP
CP
CP
UA24
CP
CP
CP
UA25
CP
CP
CP
UA26
CP
CP
CP
LAFB
UA28
CP
CP
CP
0907
A
Hull
NA(
CP)
WB
WB
0907
B
Hull
NA(
CP)
WB
WB
1019
Lynnf
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
11707
Quincy
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
12092
B
Marble
CP
CP
CP
1525
A
Marble
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
FN)
Trichloroethylene
1525
B
Marble
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
FN)
Trichloroethylene
2797
A
Tewks
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
MADEP
2797
B
Tewks
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Residence
1
CP
CP
CP
Residence
2
CP
CP
CP
Residence
3
CP
CP
CP
Residence
4
CP
CP
CP
Residence
6
CP
CP
CP
Residence
7
CP
CP
CP
Mountain
View
Residence
8
CP
CP
CP
Residence
A
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Residence
B
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Residence
D
NA(
FN)
NA(
FN)
NA(
FN)
Tetrachloroethylene
Uncasville
Residence
E
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
NA(
CP)
Key:
CP=
Correct
Positive;
CN
=
Correct
Negative
FP=
False
Positive;
FN=
False
Negative
NA=
Not
applicable
due
to
precluding
factor­­
depth
from
foundation
to
groundwater
contamination
is
less
than
1.5
m.
WB=
Wet
Basement.
This
condition
precludes
the
use
of
Figure
3
(
for
Q5)
and
the
use
of
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Model.
Notes:
1
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
2.
2
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
3.
The
appropriate
attentuation
factor
in
this
analysis
was
obtained
from
Figure
3.
3
Site
specific
soil
type,
depth
to
groundwater,
and
building
foundation
type
were
used
in
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
J&
E)
model.
4
When
false
positive
or
false
negative
outcomes
resulted
with
both
Q4
and
Q5,
the
same
compounds
were
responsible
for
the
false
outcome
in
each
scenario.
F­
13
Table
F­
5
(
continued)
Summary
Table
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Groundwater
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Building
at
Each
Site
R=
1x10­
6
Q4
Q5
J&
E
Site
Specific
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total
CP
and
CN
34
100.0%
34
100.0%
34
100.0%
Total
FP
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Total
FN
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Total
NA
and
WB
16
­­
16
­­
16
­­
Total
Number
of
Buildings
34
34
34
Key:
CP=
Correct
Positive;
CN
=
Correct
Negative
FP=
False
Positive;
FN=
False
Negative
NA=
Not
applicable
due
to
precluding
factor­­
depth
from
foundation
to
groundwater
contamination
is
less
than
1.5
m.
WB=
Wet
Basement.
This
condition
precludes
the
use
of
Figure
3
(
for
Q5)
and
the
use
of
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Model.
Notes:
1
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
2.
2
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
groundwater
screening
values
in
Table
3.
The
appropriate
attentuation
factor
in
this
analysis
was
obtained
from
Figure
3.
3
Site
specific
soil
type,
depth
to
groundwater,
and
building
foundation
type
were
used
in
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
J&
E)
model.
4
When
false
positive
or
false
negative
outcomes
resulted
with
both
Q4
and
Q5,
the
same
compounds
were
responsible
for
the
false
outcome
in
each
scenario.
F­
14
Table
F­
6
Frequency
of
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Ground
Water
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Chemical1
Risk
=
1x10­
6
Location
Benzene*
1,1­
Dichloroethane
1,2­
Dichloroethane*
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
2
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
2
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
13
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

VI
Q4
3
Total
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
13
26
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
13
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

VI
Q5
4
Total
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
13
26
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
13
13
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­
Sunstrand
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

JE
Site
Specific
5
Total
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
13
26
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
0
F­
15
Table
F­
6
(
continued)

Frequency
of
False
Negative
and
False
Positive
Indoor
Air
Predictions
Based
on
Comparison
of
Ground
Water
Concentrations
to
Target
Levels,
by
Chemical
1
Risk
=
1x10­
6
Location
Ethylbenzene*
Tetrachloroethylene*
Toluene
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane*
Trichloroethylene*
Vinyl
chloride*
Xylene
2
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Samples
FP
FN
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
­­
13
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
1
13
0
0
9
0
1
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­

S
t
d
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
1
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
7
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

VI
Q4
3
Total
1
0
1
13
0
13
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
1
33
0
0
9
0
1
1
0
0
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
­­
13
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
1
13
0
0
9
0
1
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­

S
t
d
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
1
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
1
0
1
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
7
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

VI
Q5
4
Total
1
0
1
13
0
13
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
1
33
0
0
9
0
1
1
0
0
Alliant
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

Eau
Claire
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­

LAFB
­­
­­
­­
13
­­
13
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
13
0
1
13
0
0
9
0
1
­­
­­
­­

Uncasville
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

Hamilton­

S
t
d
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
13
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

MADEP
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
0
0
0
­­
­­
­­
1
0
0
Mountain
View
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
7
0
0
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­
­­

JE
Site
Specific
5
Total
1
0
0
13
0
13
1
0
0
13
0
0
13
0
1
33
0
0
9
0
1
1
0
0
Key:

FP=
False
Positive;
FN=
False
Negative
Notes:

1
For
each
chemical
we
indicate
the
total
number
of
samples
at
each
site
for
each
chemical
and
the
number
of
samples
with
False
Positive
or
False
Negative
results
at
that
site
across
all
buildings.
"­­"
means
the
chemical
was
not
found
at
any
building
at
that
site.

2
Toxicity
values
extrapolated
from
oral
studies
were
used
to
develop
screening
levels
for
this
chemical.

3
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
ground
water
screening
values
in
Table
2.

4
Site
data
was
compared
to
indoor
air
and
ground
water
screening
values
in
Table
3.

5
Site
specific
soil
type,
depth
to
groundwater,
and
building
foundation
type
were
used
in
the
J&
E
model.

*
Ground
water
target
concentration
for
this
compound
is
based
on
the
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL)
in
drinking
water.
Figure
F­
1.
Schematic
Diagram
of
Empirical
Database
Structure
and
Element
F­
16
Relationships
for
LAFB
Saturday,
May
18,
2002
1
Site
Info
Site
MDLs
2
Bldg
Const
6
FA
Data
4
IA
Data
7
OA
Data
5
GW
Data
3
Bldg
Samp
Chem
Acronyms
ID
Site
Name
State
Source
Media
Vert
DTS
Min
(
m)

Vert
DTS
Max
(
m)

Soil
Description
SCS
Type
Reference
Site
Name
COC
Acronym
IA
MDL
(
ug/
m3)

OA
MDL
(
ug/
m3)

FA
MDL
(
ug/
m3)

GW
MDL
(
ug/
L)

SG
MDL
(
ug/
m3)

SB
MDL
(
ug/
kg)

Site
Name
Address
Bldg
Use
Bldg
Type
Found
Type
Site
Name
Address
COC
Acronym
FA
(
ug/
m3)

FA
Stat
FA
n
FA
n
>
DL
Site
Name
Address
COC
Acronym
IA
(
ug/
m3)

IA
Stat
IA
n
IA
n
>
DL
Site
Name
Address
COC
Acronym
OA
(
ug/
m3)

OA
Stat
OA
n
OA
n
>
DL
Site
Name
GW
Well
ID
COC
Acronym
GW
(
ug/
L)

GW
Stat
GW
n
GW
n
>
DL
Site
Name
Address
IA
Location
IA
Date
First
IA
Date
Last
IA
Sample
Method
IA
Sample
Time
OA
Location
OA
Date
First
OA
Date
Last
OA
Sample
Method
OA
Sample
Time
FA
Location
FA
Date
First
FA
Date
Last
FA
Sample
Method
FA
Sample
Time
GW
Well
ID
GW
Horiz
Dist
(
m)
COC
Acronym
Chemical
Name
Chemical
Class
F­
17
Measured
Attenuation
Factors
Groundwater
to
Indoor
Air
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

Cumulative
%
Attenuation
Factor
>
MDL
Figure
F­
2.
Distribution
of
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
for
all
residences
in
the
empirical
database
with
indoor
air
and
groundwater
measurements
above
their
respective
method
detection
limits
(
MDLs).

Measured
Attenuation
Factors
Groundwater
to
Indoor
Air
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

Cumulative
%
Attenuation
Factor
>
MDL
>
IA
Background
Figure
F­
3.
Distribution
of
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
for
residences
with
concentrations
above
MDLs
and
above
typical
background
levels.
F­
18
Lowry
Air
Force
Base
Attenuation
Factors
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

Cumulative
%
Attenuation
Factor
Subslab
/
Indoor
Air
Figure
F­
4.
Distribution
of
subslab­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
for
residences
for
the
subset
of
residences
with
indoor
concentrations
greater
than
the
subslab
concentrations
measured
below
the
residence's
foundation.
Subslab
data
were
available
for
only
one
site
 
the
Lowry
Air
Force
Base
in
Colorado.

Measured
Attenuation
Factors
Groundwater
to
Indoor
Air
0.0000001
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

Cumulative
%
Attenuation
Factor
>
IA
Background,
CHC
only
>
IA
Background,
BTEX
only
Figure
F­
5.
Comparison
of
groundwater­
to­
indoor
air
attenuation
factors
for
BTEX
and
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
(
CHC).
G­
1
APPENDIX
G
CONSIDERATIONS
FOR
THE
USE
OF
THE
JOHNSON
AND
ETTINGER
VAPOR
INTRUSION
MODEL
1.
Introduction
At
sites
where
soils
or
groundwater
contain
volatile
or
semi­
volatile
chemicals
of
concern,
there
is
the
potential
for
chemical
vapors
to
migrate
from
the
subsurface
into
indoor
air
spaces.
Assessment
of
this
potential
indoor
inhalation
exposure
pathway
requires
an
understanding
of
the
processes
influencing
vapor
transport
in
the
vadose
zone
and
into
buildings.

Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
1991)
introduced
a
screening­
level
model
for
estimating
the
transport
of
contaminant
vapors
from
a
subsurface
source
into
indoor
air
spaces.
The
model
is
a
onedimensional
analytical
solution
to
diffusive
and
convective
transport
of
vapors
formulated
as
an
attenuation
factor
that
relates
the
vapor
concentration
in
the
indoor
space
to
the
vapor
concentration
at
the
source.
To
facilitate
use
of
the
Johnson­
Ettinger
Model
(
JEM),
EPA
in
1997
developed
spreadsheet
versions
of
the
model
that
calculate
indoor
air
concentrations
and
associated
health
risks.
A
total
of
six
spreadsheets
were
developed:
a
first
tier
and
a
more
advanced
version
for
each
potential
vapor
source
 
groundwater,
bulk
soil,
and
soil
gas.
The
spreadsheets
were
later
updated
in
2000
and
2002.
The
current
spreadsheets
may
be
downloaded
from
the
web
site:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
risk/
airmodel/
johnson_
ettinger.
htm
This
appendix
addresses
the
assumptions
and
limitations
that
we
recommend
be
considered
when
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
model
as
implemented
by
EPA
is
employed
in
the
evaluation
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway.
This
appendix
also
provides
guidance
for
the
model's
use
both
as
a
first­
tier
screening
level
tool
to
identify
sites
needing
further
assessment
and
as
a
site­
specific
tool
to
estimate
indoor
air
impacts
resulting
from
vapor
intrusion.

2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
of
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Model
The
Johnson­
Ettinger
Model
(
JEM)
was
developed
for
use
as
a
screening
level
model
and,
consequently,
is
based
on
a
number
of
simplifying
assumptions
regarding
contaminant
distribution
and
occurrence,
subsurface
characteristics,
transport
mechanisms,
and
building
construction.
The
assumptions
of
the
JEM
as
implemented
in
EPA's
spreadsheet
version
are
listed
in
Table
G­
1
along
with
the
implications
of
and
limitations
posed
by
the
assumptions.
Also
provided
in
the
table
is
an
assessment
of
the
likelihood
that
the
assumptions
can
be
verified
through
field
evaluation.
The
JEM
assumptions
are
typical
of
most
simplified
models
of
subsurface
contaminant
transport
with
the
addition
of
a
few
assumptions
regarding
vapor
flux
into
buildings.
G­
2
The
JEM
as
implemented
by
EPA
assumes
the
subsurface
is
characterized
by
homogeneous
soil
layers
with
isotropic
properties.
The
first
tier
spreadsheet
versions
accommodate
only
one
layer;
the
advanced
spreadsheet
versions
accommodate
up
to
three
layers.
Sources
of
contaminants
that
can
be
modeled
include
dissolved,
sorbed,
or
vapor
sources
where
the
concentrations
are
below
the
aqueous
solubility
limit,
the
soil
saturation
concentration,
and/
or
the
pure
component
vapor
concentration.
The
contaminants
are
assumed
to
be
homogeneously
distributed
at
the
source.
All
but
one
of
the
spreadsheets
assumes
an
infinite
source.
The
exception
is
the
advanced
model
for
a
bulk
soil
source,
which
allows
for
a
finite
source.
For
the
groundwater
and
bulk
soil
models,
the
vapor
concentration
at
the
source
is
calculated
assuming
equilibrium
partitioning.
Vapor
from
the
source
is
assumed
to
diffuse
directly
upward
(
one­
dimensional
transport)
through
uncontaminated
soil
(
including
an
uncontaminated
capillary
fringe
if
groundwater
is
the
vapor
source)
to
the
base
of
a
building
foundation,
where
convection
carries
the
vapor
through
cracks
and
openings
in
the
foundation
into
the
building.
Both
diffusive
and
convective
transport
processes
are
assumed
to
be
at
steady
state.
Neither
sorption
nor
biodegradation
is
accounted
for
in
the
transport
of
vapor
from
source
to
the
base
of
the
building.

The
assumptions
described
above
and
in
Table
G­
1
suggest
a
number
of
conditions
that
under
most
scenarios
would
preclude
the
application
of
the
JE
model
as
implemented
by
EPA.
These
include:

 
The
presence
or
suspected
presence
of
residual
or
free­
product
nonaqueous
phase
liquids
(
LNAPL,
DNAPL,
fuels,
solvents,
etc)
in
the
subsurface.

 
The
presence
of
heterogeneous
geologic
materials
(
other
than
the
three
layers
in
the
advanced
spreadsheets)
between
the
vapor
source
and
building.
The
JE
model
does
not
apply
to
geologic
materials
that
are
fractured,
contain
macropores
or
other
preferential
pathways,
or
are
composed
of
karst.

 
Sites
where
significant
lateral
flow
of
vapors
occurs.
These
can
include
geologic
layers
that
deflect
contaminants
from
a
strictly
upward
motion
and
buried
pipelines
or
conduits
that
form
preferential
paths.
Permeability
contrasts
between
layers
greater
than
1000
times
also
are
likely
to
cause
lateral
flow
of
vapors.
The
model
assumes
the
source
of
contaminants
is
directly
below
the
potential
receptors.

 
Very
shallow
groundwater
where
the
building
foundation
is
wetted
by
the
groundwater.

 
Very
small
building
air
exchange
rates
(
e.
g.,
<
0.25/
hr)

 
Buildings
with
crawlspace
structures
or
other
significant
openings
to
the
subsurface
(
e.
g.,
earthen
floors,
stone
buildings,
etc.).
The
EPA
spreadsheet
only
accommodates
either
slab
on
grade
or
basement
construction.

 
Contaminated
groundwater
sites
with
large
fluctuations
in
the
water
table
elevation.
In
these
cases,
the
capillary
fringe
is
likely
to
be
contaminated,
whereas
in
the
groundwater
source
spreadsheets,
the
capillary
fringe
is
assumed
to
be
uncontaminated.

 
Sites
with
transient
(
time­
varying)
flow
rates
and/
or
concentrations
and
for
which
a
steady
state
assumption
is
not
conservative.
G­
3
In
theory,
the
above
limitations
are
readily
conceptualized,
but
in
practice
the
presence
of
these
limiting
conditions
may
be
difficult
to
verify
even
when
extensive
site
characterization
data
are
available.
Conditions
that
are
particularly
difficult
to
verify
in
the
field
include
the
presence
of
residual
NAPLs
in
the
unsaturated
zone
and
the
presence
and
influence
of
macropores,
fractures
and
other
preferential
pathways
in
the
subsurface.
Additionally,
in
the
initial
stages
of
evaluation,
especially
at
the
screening
level,
information
about
building
construction
and
water
table
fluctuations
may
not
be
available.
Even
the
conceptually
simple
assumptions
(
e.
g.,
onedimensional
flow,
lack
of
preferential
pathways)
may
be
difficult
to
assess
when
there
are
limited
site
data
available.

3.
Guidance
for
Application
of
the
JEM
as
a
First­
Tier
Screening
Level
Tool
Use
of
the
JEM
as
a
first­
tier
screening
tool
to
identify
sites
needing
further
assessment
necessitates
careful
evaluation
of
the
assumptions
listed
in
the
previous
section
to
determine
whether
any
conditions
exist
that
would
render
the
JEM
inappropriate
for
the
site.
If
the
model
is
deemed
applicable
at
the
site,
we
recommend
that
care
be
taken
to
ensure
reasonably
conservative
and
self­
consistent
model
parameters
are
used
as
input
to
the
model.
Considering
the
limited
site
data
typically
available
in
preliminary
site
assessments,
the
JEM
can
be
expected
to
predict
only
whether
or
not
a
risk­
based
exposure
level
will
be
exceeded
at
the
site.
Precise
prediction
of
concentration
levels
is
not
possible
with
this
approach.

The
suggested
minimum
site
characterization
information
for
a
first­
tier
evaluation
of
the
vapor
intrusion
pathway
includes:
site
conceptual
model,
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
distribution,
soil
lithologic
descriptions,
groundwater
concentrations
and/
or
possibly
near
source
soil
vapor
concentrations.
The
number
of
samples
and
measurements
needed
to
establish
this
information
varies
by
site,
and
it
is
not
possible
to
provide
a
hard
and
fast
rule.
We
do
not
recommend
use
of
bulk
soil
concentrations
unless
appropriately
preserved
during
sampling.

Based
on
the
conceptual
site
model,
the
user
can
select
the
appropriate
spreadsheet
corresponding
to
the
vapor
source
at
the
site
and
determine
whether
to
use
the
screening
level
spreadsheet
(
which
accommodates
only
one
soil
type
above
the
capillary
fringe)
or
the
more
advanced
version
(
which
allows
up
to
three
layers
above
the
capillary
fringe).
As
most
of
the
inputs
to
the
JEM
are
not
collected
during
a
typical
site
characterization,
conservative
inputs
are
typically
estimated
or
inferred
from
available
data
and
other
non­
site­
specific
sources
of
information.

The
uncertainty
in
determining
key
model
parameters
and
sensitivity
of
the
JEM
to
those
key
model
parameters
is
qualitatively
described
in
Table
G­
2.
As
shown
in
the
table,
buildingrelated
parameters
with
moderate
to
high
uncertainty
and
model
sensitivity
include:
Qsoil,
building
crack
ratio,
building
air­
exchange
rate,
and
building
mixing
height.
Building
related
parameters
with
low
uncertainty
and
sensitivity
include:
foundation
area,
depth
to
base
of
foundation,
and
foundation
slab
thickness.
Of
the
soil­
dependent
properties,
the
soil
moisture
parameters
clearly
are
of
critical
importance
for
the
attenuation
value
calculations.

A
list
of
generally
reasonable
conservative
model
input
parameters
for
building­
related
parameters
is
provided
in
Table
G­
3,
which
also
provides
the
practical
range,
typical
or
mean
G­
4
value
(
if
applicable),
and
most
conservative
value
for
these
parameters.
For
building
parameters
with
low
uncertainty
and
sensitivity,
only
a
single
"
fixed"
value
corresponding
to
the
mean
or
typical
value
is
provided
in
Table
G­
3.
Soil­
dependent
properties
are
provided
in
Table
G­
4
for
soils
classified
according
to
the
US
SCS
system.
If
site
soils
are
not
classified
according
to
the
US
SCS,
Table
G­
5
can
be
used
to
assist
in
selecting
an
appropriate
SCS
soil
type
corresponding
to
the
available
site
lithologic
information.
Note
that
the
selection
of
the
soil
texture
class
should
be
biased
towards
the
coarsest
soil
type
of
significance,
as
determined
by
the
site
characterization
program.

The
recommended
values
provided
in
Tables
G­
3
and
G­
4
were
used
in
the
advanced
versions
of
the
JEM
spreadsheet
to
develop
the
graphs
of
attenuation
factors
provided
in
Question
5
of
this
draft
guidance.
These
input
parameters
were
developed
considering
soil­
physics
science,
available
studies
of
building
characteristics,
and
expert
opinion.
Consequently,
the
input
parameters
listed
in
Tables
G­
3
and
G­
4
are
considered
default
parameters
for
a
first­
tier
assessment,
which
should
in
most
cases
provide
a
reasonably
(
but
not
overly)
conservative
estimate
of
the
vapor
intrusion
attenuation
factor
for
a
site.
Justification
for
the
building­
related
and
soil­
dependent
parameter
values
selected
as
default
values
for
the
JEM
is
described
below.

3.1.
Justification
of
Default
Soil­
Dependent
Properties
The
default
soil­
dependent
parameters
recommended
for
a
first
tier
assessment
(
Table
G­
4)
represent
mean
or
typical
values,
rather
than
the
most
conservative
value,
in
order
to
avoid
overly
conservative
estimates
of
attenuation
factors.
Note,
however,
that
the
range
of
values
for
some
soil
properties
can
be
very
large,
particularly
in
the
case
of
moisture
content
and
hydraulic
conductivity.
Consequently,
selecting
a
soil
type
and
corresponding
typical
soil
property
value
may
not
accurately
or
conservatively
represent
a
given
site.
Also,
Table
G­
4
does
not
provide
estimates
of
soil
properties
for
very
coarse
soil
types,
such
as
gravel,
gravelly
sand,
and
sandy
gravel,
etc,
which
also
may
be
present
in
the
vadose
zone.
Consequently,
in
cases
where
the
vadose
zone
is
characterized
by
very
coarse
materials,
the
JEM
may
not
provide
a
conservative
estimate
of
attenuation
factor.

As
discussed
above,
the
JEM
is
sensitive
to
the
value
of
soil
moisture
content.
Unfortunately,
there
is
little
information
available
on
measured
moisture
contents
below
buildings;
therefore,
the
typical
approach
is
to
use
a
water
retention
model
(
e.
g.,
van
Genuchten
model)
to
approximate
moisture
contents.
For
the
unsaturated
zone,
the
selected
default
value
for
soil
moisture
is
a
value
equal
to
half­
way
between
the
residual
saturation
value
and
field
capacity,
using
the
van
Genuchten
model­
predicted
values
for
U.
S.
SCS
soil
types.
For
the
capillary
transition
zone,
a
moisture
content
corresponding
to
the
air
entry
pressure
head
is
calculated
using
the
van
Genuchten
model.
When
compared
to
other
available
water
retention
models,
the
van
Genuchten
model
yields
somewhat
lower
water
contents,
which
results
in
more
conservative
estimates
of
attenuation
factor.
However,
the
soil
moisture
contents
listed
in
Table
G­
4
are
based
on
agricultural
samples,
which
are
likely
to
have
higher
water
contents
than
soils
below
building
foundations
and,
consequently,
result
in
less
conservative
estimates
of
attenuation
factor.
G­
5
3.2.
Justification
of
Default
Building­
Related
Properties
Building
Air
Exchange
Rate
(
Default
Value
=
0.25
hr­
1)

Results
from
22
studies
for
which
building
air
exchange
data
are
available
are
summarized
in
Hers
et
al.
(
2001).
There
is
a
wide
variation
in
ventilation
rates
ranging
from
about
0.1
air
exchanges
per
hour
(
AEH)
for
energy
efficient
"
air­
tight"
houses
(
built
in
cold
climates)
(
Fellin
and
Otson,
1996)
to
over
2
AEH
(
AHRAE
(
1985);
upper
range).
In
general,
ventilation
rates
will
be
higher
in
summer
months
when
natural
ventilation
rates
are
highest.
One
of
the
most
comprehensive
studies
of
U.
S.
residential
air
exchange
rates
(
sample
size
of
2844
houses)
was
conducted
by
Murray
and
Burmaster
(
1995).
The
data
set
was
analyzed
on
a
seasonal
basis,
and
according
to
climatic
region.
When
all
the
data
was
analyzed,
the
10th,
50th
and
90th
percentile
values
were
0.21,
0.51
and
1.48
AEH.
Air
exchange
rates
varied
depending
on
season
and
climatic
region.
For
example,
for
the
winter
season
and
coldest
climatic
area
(
Region
1,
Great
Lakes
area
and
extreme
northeast
US),
the
10th,
50th
and
90th
percentile
values
were
0.11,
0.27
and
0.71
AEH.
In
contrast,
for
the
winter
season
and
warmest
climatic
area
(
Region
4,
southern
CA,
TX,
Florida,
Georgia),
the
10th,
50th
and
90th
percentile
values
were
0.24,
0.48
and
1.13
AEH.
While
building
air
exchange
rates
would
be
higher
during
the
summer
months,
vapor
intrusion
during
winter
months
(
when
house
depressurization
is
expected
to
be
most
significant)
would
be
of
greatest
concern.
For
this
draft
guidance,
a
default
value
of
0.25
for
air
exchange
rate
was
selected
to
represent
the
lower
end
of
these
distributions.

Crack
Width
and
Crack
Ratio
(
Default
Value
=
0.0002
for
basement
house;
=
0.0038
for
slabon
grade
house)

The
crack
width
and
crack
ratio
are
related.
Assuming
a
square
house
and
that
the
only
crack
is
a
continuous
edge
crack
between
the
foundation
slab
and
wall
("
perimeter
crack"),
the
crack
ratio
and
crack
width
are
related
as
follows:

(
)
Area
Foundation
ubsurface
Area
Foundation
ubsurface
h
Crack
Widt
4
Ratio
Crack
S
S
=

Crack
Ratio
=
Crack
Width
x
4
x
(
Subsurface
Foundation
Area)^
0.5/
Subsurface
Foundation
Area
There
is
little
information
available
on
crack
width
or
crack
ratio.
One
approach
used
by
radon
researchers
is
to
back
calculate
crack
ratios
using
a
model
for
soil
gas
flow
through
cracks
and
the
results
of
measured
soil
gas
flow
rates
into
a
building.
For
example,
the
back­
calculated
values
for
a
slab/
wall
edge
crack
based
on
soil
gas­
entry
rates
reported
in
Nazaroff
(
1992),
Revzan
et
al.
(
1991)
and
Nazaroff
et
al.
(
1985)
range
from
about
0.0001
to
0.001.
Another
possible
approach
is
to
measure
crack
openings
although
this,
in
practice,
is
difficult
to
do.
Figley
and
Snodgrass
(
1992)
present
data
from
ten
houses
where
edge
crack
measurements
were
made.
At
the
eight
houses
where
cracks
were
observed,
the
cracks
widths
ranged
from
hairline
G­
6
cracks
up
to
5
mm
wide,
while
the
total
crack
length
per
house
ranged
from
2.5
m
to
17.3
m.
Most
crack
widths
were
less
than
1
mm.
The
suggested
defaults
for
crack
ratio
in
regulatory
guidance,
literature
and
models
also
vary.
In
ASTM
E1739­
95,
a
default
crack
ratio
of
0.01
is
used.
The
crack
ratios
suggested
in
the
VOLASOIL
model
(
developed
by
the
Dutch
Ministry
of
Environment)
range
from
0.0001
to
0.000001.
The
VOLASOIL
model
values
correspond
to
values
for
a
"
good"
and
"
bad"
foundation,
respectively.
The
crack
ratio
used
by
Johnson
and
Ettinger
(
1991)
for
illustrative
purposes
ranged
from
0.001
to
0.01.
The
selected
default
values
fall
within
the
ranges
observed.

Building
Area
and
Subsurface
Foundation
Area
(
Default
Value
=
10
m
by
10
m)

The
default
building
area
is
based
on
the
following
information:
 
default
values
used
in
the
Superfund
User's
Guide
(
9.61
m
by
9.61
m
or
92.4
m2),
and
 
default
values
used
by
the
State
of
Michigan,
as
documented
in
Part
201,
Generic
Groundwater
and
Soil
Volatilization
to
Indoor
Air
Inhalation
Criteria:
Technical
Support
Document
(
10.5
m
by
10.5
m
of
111.5
m2).

The
Michigan
guidance
document
indicates
that
the
111.5
m2
area
approximately
corresponds
to
the
10th
percentile
floor
space
area
for
residential
single
family
dwellings,
based
on
statistics
compiled
by
the
U.
S.
DOC
and
U.
S.
HUD.
The
typical,
upper
and
lower
ranges
presented
in
Table
G­
3
are
subjectively
chosen
values.
The
subsurface
foundation
area
is
a
function
of
the
building
area,
and
depth
to
the
base
of
the
foundation,
which
is
fixed.

Building
Mixing
Height
(
Default
Value
=
2.44
m
for
slab­
on­
grade
scenario;
=
3.66
m
for
basement
scenario)

The
JEM
assumes
that
subsurface
volatiles
migrating
into
the
building
are
completely
mixed
within
the
building
volume,
which
is
determined
by
the
building
area
and
mixing
height.
The
building
mixing
height
will
depend
on
a
number
of
factors
including
the
building
height,
the
heating,
ventilation
and
air
conditioning
(
HVAC)
system
operation,
environmental
factors
such
as
indoor­
outdoor
pressure
differentials
and
wind
loading,
and
seasonal
factors.
For
a
singlestory
house,
the
variation
in
mixing
height
can
be
approximated
by
the
room
height.
For
a
multistory
house
or
apartment
building,
the
mixing
height
will
be
greatest
for
houses
with
HVAC
systems
that
result
in
significant
air
circulation
(
e.
g.,
forced­
air
heating
systems).
Mixing
heights
would
likely
be
less
for
houses
with
electrical
baseboard
heaters.
It
is
likely
that
mixing
height
is,
to
some
degree,
correlated
to
the
building
air
exchange
rate.

There
are
little
data
available
that
provide
for
direct
inference
of
mixing
height.
There
are
few
sites,
with
a
small
number
of
houses
where
indoor
air
concentrations
were
above
background,
and
where
both
measurements
at
ground
level
and
the
second
floor
were
made
(
CDOT,
Redfields,
Eau
Claire).
Persons
familiar
with
the
data
sets
for
these
sites
indicate
that
in
most
cases
a
fairly
significant
reduction
in
concentrations
(
factor
of
two
or
greater)
was
observed,
G­
7
although
at
one
site
(
Eau
Claire,
"
S"
residence),
the
indoor
TCE
concentrations
were
similar
in
both
the
basement
and
second
floor
of
the
house.
For
the
CDOT
site
apartments,
there
was
an
approximate
five­
fold
reduction
between
the
concentrations
measured
for
the
first
floor
and
second
floor
units
(
Mr.
Jeff
Kurtz,
EMSI,
personal
communication,
June
2002).
Less
mixing
would
be
expected
for
an
apartment
since
there
are
less
cross­
floor
connections
than
for
a
house.
The
value
chosen
for
a
basement
house
scenario
(
3.66
m)
would
be
representative
of
a
two­
fold
reduction
or
attenuation
in
vapor
concentrations
between
floors.

Qsoil
(
Default
Value
=
5
L/
min)

The
method
often
used
with
the
JEM
for
estimating
the
soil
gas
advection
rate
(
Qsoil)
through
the
building
envelope
is
an
analytical
solution
for
two­
dimensional
soil
gas
flow
to
a
small
horizontal
drain
(
Nazaroff
1992)
("
Perimeter
Crack
Model").
Use
of
this
model
can
be
problematic
in
that
Qsoil
values
are
sensitive
to
soil­
air
permeability
and
consequently
a
wide
range
in
flows
can
be
predicted.

An
alternate
empirical
approach
is
to
select
a
Qsoil
value
on
the
basis
of
tracer
tests
(
i.
e.,
mass
balance
approach).
When
soil
gas
advection
is
the
primary
mechanism
for
tracer
intrusion
into
a
building,
we
recommend
the
Qsoil
be
estimated
by
measuring
the
concentrations
of
a
chemical
tracer
in
indoor
air,
outdoor
air
and
in
soil
vapor
below
a
building,
and
measuring
the
building
ventilation
rate
(
Hers
et
al.
2000a;
Fischer
et
al.
1996;
Garbesi
et
al.
1993;
Rezvan
et
al.
1991;
Garbesi
and
Sextro,
1989).
The
Qsoil
values
measured
using
this
technique
are
compared
to
predicted
rates
using
the
Perimeter
Crack
model,
for
sites
with
coarse­
grained
soils.
The
Perimeter
Crack
model
predictions
are
both
higher
and
lower
than
the
measured
values,
but
overall
are
within
one
order
of
magnitude
of
the
measured
values.
Although
the
Qsoil
predicted
by
models
and
measured
using
field
tracer
tests
are
uncertain,
the
results
suggest
that
a
"
typical"
range
for
houses
on
coarse­
grained
soils
is
on
the
order
of
1
to
10
L/
min.
A
disadvantage
with
the
tracer
test
approach
is
that
there
are
only
limited
data,
and
there
do
not
appear
to
be
any
tracer
studies
for
field
sites
with
fine­
grained
soils.

It
is
also
important
to
recognize
that
the
advective
zone
of
influence
for
soil
gas
flow
is
limited
to
soil
immediately
adjacent
to
the
building
foundation.
There
is
some
data
on
pressure
coupling
that
provides
insight
on
the
extent
of
the
advective
flow
zone.
For
example,
Garbesi
et
al.
(
1993)
report
a
pressure
coupling
between
soil
and
experimental
basement
(
i.
e.,
relative
to
that
between
the
basement
and
atmosphere)
equal
to
96
%
directly
below
the
slab,
between
29
%
and
44
%
at
1
m
below
the
basement
floor
slab,
and
between
0.7
%
and
27
%
at
a
horizontal
distance
of
2
m
from
the
basement
wall.
At
the
Chatterton
site
in
Canada,
the
pressure
coupling
immediately
below
the
building
floor
slab
ranged
from
90
%
to
95
%
and
at
a
depth
of
0.5
m
was
on
the
order
of
50
%.
These
results
indicate
that
the
advective
zone
of
influence
will
likely
be
limited
to
a
zone
within
1
m
to
2
m
of
the
building
foundation.

Since
the
advective
flow
zone
is
relatively
limited
in
extent,
the
soil
type
adjacent
to
the
building
foundation
is
of
importance.
In
many
cases,
coarse­
grained
imported
fill
is
placed
below
foundations,
and
either
coarse­
grained
fill,
or
disturbed,
loose
fill
is
placed
adjacent
to
the
G­
8
foundation
walls.
Therefore,
a
conservative
approach
for
the
purposes
of
this
draft
guidance
is
to
assume
that
soil
gas
flow
will
be
controlled
by
coarse­
grained
soil,
and
not
to
rely
on
the
possible
reduction
in
flow
that
would
be
caused
by
fine­
grained
soils
near
the
house
foundation.
For
these
reasons,
a
soil
gas
flow
rate
of
5
L/
min
(
midpoint
between
1
and
10
L/
min)
was
chosen
as
the
input
value.

4.
Guidance
for
Application
of
JEM
as
a
Site­
Specific
Tool
We
generally
recommend
use
of
the
JE
model
as
a
site­
specific
tool
only
where
the
site
conceptual
model
matches
the
restrictive
assumptions.
When
these
assumptions
cannot
be
met,
we
recommend
that
other
models
or
direct
measurement
be
substituted,
because
there
is
no
a
priori
scientific
reason
to
believe
that
the
model
is
adequate
to
represent
complex
site
conditions.
If
the
JE
model
is
deemed
applicable
to
the
site,
critical
model
parameters
from
site
data
are
needed.
We
recommend
that
site­
specific
information
include
soil
moisture,
soil
permeability,
building
ventilation
rate,
and
subslab
as
well
as
deep
vapor
concentrations.

In
order
to
ensure
the
model
can
reproduce
observed
field
observations,
we
recommend
the
model
output
be
compared
with
measured
concentrations,
fluxes
and/
or
other
model
outputs.
Calibration
has
been
developed
as
a
process
for
minimizing
the
differences
between
model
results
and
field
observations.
Through
model
calibration
a
parameter
set
is
selected
that
causes
the
model
to
best
fit
the
observed
data.
When
done
properly,
this
process
establishes
that
the
conceptualization
and
input
parameters
are
appropriate
for
the
site.
Because
of
the
number
of
parameters
to
be
identified,
calibration
is
known
to
produce
non­
unique
results.
This
is
particularly
the
case
in
heterogeneous
environments
where
every
parameter
of
the
model
can
vary
from
point
to
point.
Confidence
in
the
model,
however,
is
increased
by
using
the
calibrated
model
to
predict
the
response
to
some
additional
concentration
or
flux
data
(
i.
e.,
that
were
not
previously
used
in
calibration).
At
each
step
in
this
process,
additional
site
investigation
data
improve
knowledge
of
the
behavior
of
the
system.

From
a
regulatory
standpoint,
the
JE
model
when
used
as
a
site­
specific
tool
typically
should
be
calibrated
to
predict
within
an
order
of
magnitude
the
indoor
air
concentrations
resulting
from
intrusion
of
vapors
from
the
subsurface.
Consequently,
prior
to
its
use,
we
recommend
an
evaluation
of
the
critical
input
parameters
be
performed.
If
the
uncertainty
in
the
critical
parameters
cannot
be
reduced
to
yield
an
order
of
magnitude
estimate
of
indoor
air
concentrations,
it
may
not
be
practical
to
perform
the
modeling.
G­
9
5.
References
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM).
1995.
Standard
Guide
for
Risk­
Based
Corrective
Action
Applied
at
Petroleum
Release
Sites.
E­
1739­
95.

American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating,
and
Air­
Conditioning
Engineers,
ASHRAE
Handbook­
1985
Fundamentals,
chap.
22,
Atlanta,
GA.

Fellin,
P.
and
R.
Otson.
1996.
The
Effectiveness
of
Selected
Materials
in
Moderation
of
Indoor
VOC
Levels,
In
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
in
the
Environment,
ASTM
STP
1261,
W.
Wang,
J.
Schnoor,
and
J.
Doi,
Eds.,
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials,
1996,
pp.
135­
146.

Figley,
D.
A.,
Snodgrass,
L.
J.
June
21­
26,
1992.
"
Comparative
Foundation
Air
Leakage
Performance
of
Ten
Residential
Concrete
Basements",
Proceedings
of
the
85th
Annual
Meeting
of
Air
and
Waste
Management
Association.

Fischer,
M.
L.,
Bentley,
A.
J.,
Dunkin,
K.
A.,
Hodgson,
A.
T.,
Nazaroff,
W.
W.,
Sextro,
R.
G.,
Daisey,
J.
M.
1996.
Factors
Affecting
Indoor
Air
Concentrations
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
at
a
Site
of
Subsurface
Gasoline
Contamination.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
30
(
10),
2948­
2957.

Garbesi,
K.,
Sextro,
R.
G.,
Fisk,
W.
J.,
Modera,
M.
P.,
Revzan,
K.
L.
1993.
Soil­
Gas
Entry
into
an
Experimental
Basement:
Model
Measurement
Comparisons
and
Seasonal
Effects.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
27(
3),
466­
473.

Garbesi,
K.
and
Sextro,
R.
G.
1989.
Modeling
and
Field
Evidence
of
Pressure­
Driven
Entry
of
Soil
Gas
into
a
House
through
Permeable
Below­
Grade
Walls.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
23(
12),
1481­
1487.

Hers,
I.,
Evans,
D,
Zapf­
Gilje,
R.
and
Li,
L.
2002.
Comparison,
Validation
and
Use
of
Models
for
Predicting
Indoor
Air
Quality
from
Soil
and
Groundwater
Contamination.
J.
Soil
and
Sediment
Contamination,
11
(
4),
491­
527.

Hers,
I.,
R.
Zapf­
Gilje,
L.
Li,
L.
and
J.
Atwater.
2001.
The
use
of
indoor
air
measurements
to
evaluate
exposure
and
risk
from
subsurface
VOCs.
J.
Air
&
Waste
Manage.
Assoc.
51:
174­
185.

Johnson,
P.
C.
and
R.
Ettinger
1991.
"
Heuristic
Model
for
Predicting
the
Intrusion
Rate
of
Contaminant
Vapours
into
Buildings"
Environmental
Science
and
Technology,
25
#
8,
1445­
1452.
G­
10
Murray,
D.
M.;
Burmaster,
D.
E.
Residential
air
exchange
rates
in
the
United
States:
empirical
and
estimated
parametric
distributions
by
season
and
climatic
region.
Risk
Anal.
1995,
15,
459­
465.

Nazaroff,
W.
W.
May
1992.
"
Radon
Transport
from
Soil
to
Air",
Review
of
Geophysics,
30
#
2,
137­
160.

Nazaroff,
W.
W.,
Feustel,
H.,
Nero,
A.
V.,
Revzan,
K.
L.,
Grimsrud,
D.
T.,
Essling,
M.
A.,
Toohey,
R.
E.
1985.
"
Radon
Transport
into
a
Detached
One­
Story
House
with
a
Basement"
Atmospheric
Environment,
19(
1)
31­
46.

Revzan,
K.
L.,
Fisk,
W.
J.,
Gadgil,
A.
J.
1991.
"
Modelling
Radon
Entry
into
Houses
with
Basements:
Model
Description
and
Verification"
Indoor
Air,
2,
173­
189.
G­
11
Table
G­
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
of
the
Johnson
and
Ettinger
Vapor
Intrusion
Model
Assumption
Implication
Field
Evaluation
Contaminant
No
contaminant
free­
liquid/
precipitate
phase
present
JEM
not
representative
of
NAPL
partitioning
from
source
NAPL
presence
 
easier
to
evaluate
for
floating
product
or
soil
contamination
sites.
Most
DNAPL
sites
with
DNAPL
below
the
water
table
defy
easy
characterization.
Contaminant
is
homogeneously
distributed
within
the
zone
of
contamination
No
contaminant
sources
or
sinks
in
the
building.
Indoor
sources
of
contaminants
and/
or
sorption
of
vapors
on
materials
may
confound
interpretation
of
results.
Survey
building
for
sources,
assessment
of
sinks
unlikely
Equilibrium
partitioning
at
contaminant
source.
Groundwater
flow
rates
are
low
enough
so
that
there
are
no
mass
transfer
limitations
at
the
source.
Not
likely
Chemical
or
biological
transformations
are
not
significant
(
model
will
predict
more
intrusion)
Tendency
to
overpredict
vapor
intrusion
for
degradable
compounds
From
literature
Subsurface
Characteristics
Soil
is
homogeneous
within
any
horizontal
plane
Stratigraphy
can
be
described
by
horizontal
layers
(
not
tilted
layers)
Observe
pattern
of
layers
and
unconformities.
Note:
In
simplified
JEM
layering
is
not
considered
All
soil
properties
in
any
horizontal
plane
are
homogeneous
The
top
of
the
capillary
fringe
must
be
below
the
bottom
of
the
building
floor
in
contact
with
the
soil.
EPA
version
of
JE
Model
assumes
the
capillary
fringe
is
uncontaminated.
Transport
Mechanisms
One­
dimensional
transport
Source
is
directly
below
building,
stratigraphy
does
not
influence
flow
direction,
no
effect
of
two­
or
threedimensional
flow
patterns.
Observe
location
of
source,
observe
stratigraphy,
pipeline
conduits,
not
likely
to
assess
two­
and
threedimensional
pattern.

Two
separate
flow
zones,
one
diffusive
one
convective.
No
diffusion
(
disperson)
in
the
convective
flow
zone.
Plug
flow
in
convective
zone
Not
likely
Vapor­
phase
diffusion
is
the
dominant
mechanism
for
transporting
contaminant
vapors
from
contaminant
sources
located
away
from
the
foundation
to
the
soil
region
near
the
foundation
Neglects
atmospheric
pressure
variation
effects,
others?
Not
likely
G­
12
Straight­
line
gradient
in
diffusive
flow
zone.
Inaccuracy
in
flux
estimate
at
match
point
between
diffusive
and
convective
sections
of
the
model.
Not
likely
Diffusion
through
soil
moisture
will
be
insignificant
(
except
for
compounds
with
very
low
Henry's
Law
Constant
Transport
through
air
phase
only.
Good
for
volatiles.
Only
low
volatility
compounds
would
fail
this
and
they
are
probably
not
the
compounds
of
concern
for
vapor
intrusion
From
literature
value
of
Henry's
Law
Constant.

Convective
transport
is
likely
to
be
most
significant
in
the
region
very
close
to
a
basement,
or
a
foundation,
and
vapor
velocities
decrease
rapidly
with
increasing
distance
from
a
structure
Not
likely
Vapor
flow
described
by
Darcy's
law
Porous
media
flow
assumption.
Observations
of
fractured
rock,
fractured
clay,
karst,
macropores,
preferential
flow
channels.
Steady
State
convection
Flow
not
affected
by
barometric
pressure,
infiltration,
etc.
Not
likely
Uniform
convective
flow
near
the
foundation
Flow
rate
does
not
vary
by
location
Not
likely
Uniform
convective
velocity
through
crack
or
porous
medium
No
variation
within
cracks
and
openings
and
constant
pressure
field
between
interior
spaces
and
the
soil
surface
Not
likely
Significant
convective
transport
only
occurs
in
the
vapor
phase
Movement
of
soil
water
not
included
in
vapor
impact
Not
likely
All
contaminant
vapors
originating
from
directly
below
the
basement
will
enter
the
basement,
unless
the
floor
and
walls
are
perfect
vapor
barriers.
(
Makes
model
over
est.
vapors
as
none
can
flow
around
the
building)
Model
does
not
allow
vapors
to
flow
around
the
structure
and
not
enter
the
building
Not
likely
Contaminant
vapors
enter
structures
primarily
through
cracks
and
openings
in
the
walls
and
foundation
Flow
through
the
wall
and
foundation
material
itself
neglected
Observe
numbers
of
cracks
and
openings.
Assessment
of
contribution
from
construction
materials
themselves
not
likely
G­
13
Table
G­
2.
Uncertainty
and
Sensitivity
of
Key
Parameters
for
the
Johnson
&
Ettinger
Model.

Parameter
Parameter
Sensitivity
Uncertainty
Shallower
Contami­
Deeper
Contami­
Shallower
Contami­
Deeper
Contamior
Variability
nation
Building
nation
Building
nation
Building
nation
Building
Input
Parameter
Variability
Underpressurized
Underpressurized
Not
Underpressurized
Not
Underpressurized
Total
Porosity
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Unsaturated
Zone
Water­
filled
Porosity
Moderate
to
High
Low
to
Moderate
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Capillary
Transition
Zone
Water­
filled
Porosity
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Capillary
Transition
Zone
Height
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Moderate
to
High
Soil
Bulk
Density
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Qsoil
High
Moderate
to
High
Low
to
Moderate
N/
A
N/
A
Soil
air
permeability
High
Moderate
to
High
Low
to
Moderate
N/
A
N/
A
Building
Depressurization
Moderate
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
N/
A
N/
A
Henry's
Law
Constant
(
for
single
chemical)
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Free­
Air
Diffusion
Coefficient
(
single
chemical)
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Building
Air
Exchange
Rate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Building
Mixing
Height
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Subsurface
Foundation
Area
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Low
to
Moderate
Depth
to
Base
of
Foundation
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Building
Crack
Ratio
High
Low
Low
Moderate
to
High
Low
to
Moderate
Crack
Moisture
Content
High
Low
Low
Moderate
to
High
Low
to
Moderate
Building
Foundation
Slab
Thickness
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Table
G­
3.
Building­
Related
Parameters
for
the
Johnson
&
Ettinger
Model
­
First
Tier
Assessment.

Typical
or
Conservative
Input
Parameter
Units
Mean
Value
Range
Value
Modeled
Total
Porosity
cm3/
cm3
***************
Specific
to
soil
texture,
see
Table
G­
4
*************************
Unsaturated
Zone
Water­
filled
Porosity
cm3/
cm3
***************
Specific
to
soil
texture,
see
Table
G­
4
*************************
Capillary
Transition
Zone
Water­
filled
Porosity
cm3/
cm3
***************
Specific
to
soil
texture,
see
Table
G­
4
*************************
Capillary
Transition
Zone
Height
cm3/
cm3
***************
Specific
to
soil
texture,
see
Table
G­
4
*************************
Qsoil1
L/
min
5
1­
10
10
5
Soil
air
permeability
m2
***************
Specific
to
soil
texture,
see
Table
G­
4
*************************
Building
Depressurization
Pa
4
0­
15
15
N/
A
Henry's
Law
Constant
(
for
single
chemical)
­
***********************
Specific
to
chemical
*************************************
Free­
Air
Diffusion
Coefficient
(
single
chemical)
­
***********************
Specific
to
chemical
*************************************
Building
Air
Exchange
Rate
hr­
1
0.5
0.1­
1.5
0.1
0.25
Building
Mixing
Height
­
Basement
scenario
m
3.66
2.44­
4.88
2.44
3.66
Building
Mixing
Height
­
Slab­
on­
grade
scenario
m
2.44
2.13­
3.05
2.13
2.44
Building
Footprint
Area
­
Basement
Scenario
m2
120
80­
200+
80
100
Building
Footprint
Area
­
Slab­
on­
Grade
Scenario
m2
120
80­
200+
80
100
Subsurface
Foundation
Area
­
Basement
Scenario
m2
208
152­
313+
152
180
Subsurface
Foundation
Area
­
Slab­
on­
Grade
Scenario
m2
127
85­
208+
85
106
Depth
to
Base
of
Foundation
­
Basement
Scenario
m
2
N/
A
N/
A
2
Depth
to
Base
of
Foundation
­
Slab­
on­
Grade
Scenario
m
0.15
N/
A
N/
A
0.15
Perimeter
Crack
Width
mm
1
0.5­
5
5
1
Building
Crack
Ratio
­
Slab­
on­
Grade
Scenario
dimensionless
0.00038
0.00019­
0.0019
0.0019
0.00038
Building
Crack
Ratio
­
Basement
Scenario
dimensionless
0.0002
0.0001­
0.001
0.001
0.00020
Crack
Dust
Water­
Filled
Porosity
cm3/
cm3
Dry
N/
A
N/
A
Dry
Building
Foundation
Slab
Thickness
m
0.1
N/
A
N/
A
0.1
1
The
values
given
for
Qsoil
are
representative
of
sand,
but
are
recommended
for
other
soil
types
as
well
because
coarse­
grained
soil
or
disturbed
fine­
grained
soil
often
is
found
below
and
adjacent
to
foundations.
G­
14
Table
G­
4.
Soil­
Dependent
Properties
for
the
Johnson
&
Ettinger
Model
­
First
Tier
Assessment.

Unsaturated
Zone
Capillary
Transition
Zone
U.
S.
Soil
Saturated
Saturated
Conservation
Water
Residual
Water­
Filled
Porosity
Water
 w,
cap
Height
Service
(
SCS)
Content
Water
Mean
or
Typical
Content
Cap
Cap
Zone
Soil
Texture
Total
Porosity
Content
(
FC1/
3bar+
 r)/
2
Range
Conservative
Modeled
Total
Porosity
@
air­
entry
Fetter
(
94)
 s
(
cm3/
cm3)
 r
(
cm3/
cm3)
 w,
unsat
(
cm3/
cm3)
 w,
unsat
(
cm3/
cm3)
 w,
unsat
(
cm3/
cm3)
 w,
unsat
(
cm3/
cm3)
 s
(
cm3/
cm3)
(
cm)

Clay
0.459
0.098
0.215
0.098­
0.33
0.098
0.215
0.459
0.412
81.5
Clay
Loam
0.442
0.079
0.168
0.079­
0.26
0.079
0.168
0.442
0.375
46.9
Loam
0.399
0.061
0.148
0.061­
0.24
0.061
0.148
0.399
0.332
37.5
Loamy
Sand
0.39
0.049
0.076
0.049­
0.1
0.049
0.076
0.39
0.303
18.8
Silt
0.489
0.05
0.167
0.05­
0.28
0.050
0.167
0.489
0.382
163.0
Silt
Loam
0.439
0.065
0.180
0.065­
0.3
0.065
0.180
0.439
0.349
68.2
Silty
Clay
0.481
0.111
0.216
0.11­
0.32
0.111
0.216
0.481
0.424
192.0
Silty
Clay
Loam
0.482
0.09
0.198
0.09­
0.31
0.090
0.198
0.482
0.399
133.9
Sand
0.375
0.053
0.054
0.053­
0.055
0.053
0.054
0.375
0.253
17.0
Sandy
Clay
0.385
0.117
0.197
0.117­
0.28
0.117
0.197
0.385
0.355
30.0
Sandy
Clay
Loam
0.384
0.063
0.146
0.063­
0.23
0.063
0.146
0.384
0.333
25.9
Sandy
Loam
0.387
0.039
0.103
0.039­
0.17
0.039
0.103
0.387
0.320
25.0
Loamy
Sand
0.39
0.049
0.076
0.049­
0.1
0.049
0.076
0.39
0.303
18.8
Table
G­
5.
Guidance
for
Selection
of
US
SCS
Soil
Type
Based
on
Site
Lithologic
Information.

If
your
boring
log
indicates
that
the
following
materials
are
the
predominant
soil
types
 
Then
use
the
following
texture
classification
when
obtaining
the
attenuation
factor.

Sand
or
Gravel
or
Sand
and
Gravel,
with
less
than
about
12
%
fines,
where
"
fines"
are
smaller
than
0.075
mm
in
size.
Sand
Sand
or
Silty
Sand,
with
about
12
%
to
25
%
fines
Loamy
Sand
Silty
Sand,
with
about
25
%
to
50
%
fines
Sandy
Loam
Silt
and
Sand
or
Silty
Sand
or
Clayey,
Silty
Sand
or
Sandy
Silt
or
Clayey
with
about
50
to
85
%
fines
Loam
H
 
-
 
1
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
 
 
H
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
 
I
N
V
O
L
V
E
M
E
N
T
 
G
U
I
D
A
N
C
E
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
 
F
O
R
 
W
H
A
T
 
T
O
 
D
O
 
I
F
 
Y
O
U
 
H
A
V
E
 
A
 
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
N
E
E
D
I
N
G
 
I
N
D
O
O
R
 
A
I
R
 
S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G
 
 
D
U
E
 
T
O
 
 
S
U
B
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
 
 
V
A
P
O
R
 
 
I
N
T
R
U
S
I
O
N
A
s
 
i
n
 
a
n
y
 
e
f
f
o
r
t
 
t
h
a
t
 
s
t
r
i
v
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
g
o
o
d
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
 
t
h
e
s
e
 
f
i
v
e
 
k
e
y
 
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
 
a
r
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
•
B
e
 
p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
 
i
n
 
e
n
g
a
g
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
 
 
•
L
i
s
t
e
n
 
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
 
t
o
 
w
h
a
t
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
 
a
r
e
 
s
a
y
i
n
g
.
 
•
T
a
k
e
 
t
h
e
 
t
i
m
e
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
 
t
o
 
d
e
a
l
 
w
i
t
h
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
 
•
C
h
a
n
g
e
 
p
l
a
n
s
 
w
h
e
r
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
 
h
a
v
e
 
m
e
r
i
t
.
 
•
E
x
p
l
a
i
n
 
t
o
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
w
h
a
t
 
i
s
 
b
e
i
n
g
 
d
o
n
e
,
 
b
y
 
w
h
o
m
 
a
n
d
 
w
h
y
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
 
a
n
 
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
 
o
f
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
 
w
i
t
h
 
E
P
A
’
s
 
1
9
9
6
 
R
C
R
A
 
P
u
b
l
i
c
 
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
 
M
a
n
u
a
l
 
(
E
P
A
 
5
3
0
-
R
-
9
6
-
0
0
7
S
)
 
O
S
W
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
 
1
9
9
6
(
U
R
L
 
=
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
e
p
a
o
s
w
e
r
/
h
a
z
w
a
s
t
e
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
/
p
u
b
p
a
r
t
/
m
a
n
u
a
l
.
h
t
m
)
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
 
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
 
(
 
E
P
A
 
5
4
0
-
K
-
0
1
-
0
0
3
)
 
O
E
R
R
 
A
p
r
i
l
 
2
0
0
2
 
(
 
U
R
L
 
=
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
/
t
o
o
l
s
/
c
a
g
/
c
i
_
h
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
.
p
d
f
 
)
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
 
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
 
f
o
r
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
 
 
T
h
e
s
e
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
m
a
y
 
o
c
c
u
r
 
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
 
o
r
 
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
.
1
.
G
e
t
 
t
o
 
k
n
o
w
 
t
h
e
 
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
 
k
e
y
 
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
•
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
•
E
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
 
(
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
 
l
o
c
a
l
,
 
a
n
d
 
s
t
a
t
e
)
•
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
 
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
 
(
H
O
A
)
 
b
o
a
r
d
•
L
o
c
a
l
 
s
c
h
o
o
l
 
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
 
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
,
 
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
s
,
 
e
t
c
.
•
L
o
c
a
l
 
c
h
u
r
c
h
 
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
•
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
 
•
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s
 
-
 
 
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
-
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
 
o
r
 
n
o
t
;
 
w
i
l
l
 
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
b
e
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
?
 
•
M
e
d
i
a
 
(
 
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
 
w
i
l
l
 
s
e
e
k
 
y
o
u
 
o
u
t
;
 
a
t
 
l
e
a
s
t
 
s
o
m
e
 
s
e
n
s
e
 
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
 
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
 
c
a
n
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
.
 
P
r
e
s
s
 
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
a
r
e
 
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
 
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
a
n
n
o
u
n
c
i
n
g
m
a
j
o
r
 
m
i
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
s
 
o
r
 
f
o
r
 
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
 
h
o
t
 
b
u
t
t
o
n
 
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
)
•
L
o
c
a
l
 
h
e
a
l
t
h
 
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
•
L
o
c
a
l
 
o
r
 
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
 
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
•
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
m
o
s
t
 
k
e
y
 
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
 
(
f
a
c
e
-
t
o
-
f
a
c
e
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
 
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
,
b
u
t
 
n
o
t
 
a
l
w
a
y
s
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
•
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
 
(
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
 
s
o
m
e
 
n
u
m
b
e
r
 
t
o
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
)
 
•
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
 
t
o
 
l
i
s
t
e
n
 
t
o
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
’
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
 
e
.
g
.
h
o
t
l
i
n
e
,
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
H
 
-
 
2
.
2
.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
a
 
m
a
i
l
i
n
g
 
l
i
s
t
 
o
f
 
a
l
l
 
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
 
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
I
n
 
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
 
a
 
m
a
i
l
i
n
g
 
l
i
s
t
,
 
i
t
 
i
s
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
 
t
h
a
t
 
a
n
y
b
o
d
y
 
c
a
n
 
s
i
g
n
 
u
p
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
a
t
n
o
 
c
o
s
t
 
i
s
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
.
3
.
 
 
I
n
f
o
r
m
 
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
r
t
 
o
f
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
i
s
 
t
h
e
 
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
E
a
s
y
t
o
 
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
 
a
n
d
 
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
 
f
l
y
e
r
s
 
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
p
i
l
l
 
o
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
t
h
e
 
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
,
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
r
i
s
k
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
p
o
s
e
d
,
 
a
n
d
 
w
h
o
t
o
 
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
 
f
o
r
 
m
o
r
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
r
e
 
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
 
w
e
l
l
 
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
 
b
y
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
 
 
A
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
 
p
e
o
p
l
e
 
w
i
l
l
 
w
a
n
t
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
 
b
e
 
r
e
a
d
y
 
t
o
 
g
i
v
e
 
i
t
 
t
o
 
t
h
e
m
.
 
 
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
 
u
s
e
 
o
f
 
w
e
b
p
a
g
e
s
 
a
n
d
 
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
 
a
 
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
 
p
e
r
s
o
n
 
a
s
 
a
 
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
 
t
o
 
c
a
l
l
 
f
o
r
 
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•
S
e
n
d
 
a
 
l
e
t
t
e
r
/
n
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
 
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
n
e
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
v
i
t
e
 
t
h
e
m
 
t
o
 
a
n
 
o
p
e
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
/
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
•
H
o
l
d
 
a
n
 
o
p
e
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
/
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
:
-
 
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
;
 
-
 
 
h
e
a
l
t
h
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
;
 
-
 
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
;
 
 
-
 
 
w
h
a
t
 
l
e
v
e
l
 
o
f
 
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
s
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
;
 
a
n
d
 
 
-
 
t
h
e
 
t
y
p
e
(
s
)
o
f
 
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
 
 
(
h
a
v
e
 
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
 
o
f
 
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
)
(
N
o
t
e
:
 
w
e
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
h
a
v
i
n
g
 
t
o
x
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
,
 
h
e
a
l
t
h
 
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
,
 
o
r
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
i
s
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
)
•
D
e
v
o
t
e
 
o
n
e
 
b
o
o
t
h
 
t
o
 
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
i
n
g
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
,
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
 
a
 
S
U
M
M
A
 
c
a
n
n
i
s
t
e
r
•
D
e
v
o
t
e
 
o
n
e
 
b
o
o
t
h
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
o
p
e
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
/
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
•
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
a
n
 
e
x
i
t
 
p
o
l
l
 
o
f
 
p
e
o
p
l
e
 
a
s
 
t
h
e
y
 
l
e
a
v
e
 
t
h
e
 
o
p
e
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
 
t
o
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
 
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
 
i
t
 
m
e
t
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
n
e
e
d
s
 
N
o
t
e
:
 
 
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
 
m
a
n
y
 
v
i
s
u
a
l
s
/
m
a
p
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
i
s
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
4
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
 
a
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
/
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
 
p
l
a
n
 
 
-
 
W
e
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
p
l
a
n
 
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
 
k
e
y
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
,
 
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
g
o
a
l
s
 
a
n
d
 
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
a
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
 
t
o
 
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
 
 
A
t
 
R
C
R
A
 
s
i
t
e
s
,
 
a
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
 
p
l
a
n
 
t
h
a
t
 
i
s
 
a
 
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
a
 
R
C
R
A
 
3
0
0
8
(
h
)
 
o
r
d
e
r
 
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
i
n
g
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
a
 
r
e
m
e
d
y
 
i
s
 
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
a
b
l
e
.
H
 
-
 
3
5
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
 
t
h
e
 
P
u
b
l
i
c
 
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
 
P
l
a
n
•
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
a
n
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
r
e
p
o
s
i
t
o
r
y
;
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
 
u
s
i
n
g
 
w
e
b
 
p
a
g
e
s
•
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
 
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
 
w
h
o
 
c
a
n
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
s
 
k
e
y
p
o
i
n
t
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
•
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
a
 
h
o
t
l
i
n
e
 
t
h
a
t
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
 
a
 
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
 
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
 
o
f
 
k
e
y
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
w
e
e
k
o
r
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
 
p
e
r
i
o
d
 
o
f
 
t
i
m
e
 
a
n
d
 
a
l
l
o
w
s
 
c
a
l
l
e
r
 
t
o
 
l
e
a
v
e
 
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
/
a
s
k
 
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
 
b
e
 
s
u
r
e
 
t
o
 
c
a
l
l
 
t
h
e
m
 
b
a
c
k
•
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
 
a
 
m
a
i
l
i
n
g
 
l
i
s
t
 
o
f
 
a
l
l
 
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
 
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
•
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
 
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
 
s
t
a
t
u
s
 
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
/
n
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
•
O
t
h
e
r
 
i
t
e
m
s
 
a
s
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
F
o
r
 
a
r
e
a
s
 
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
:
•
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
 
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
 
v
i
a
 
p
h
o
n
e
 
a
n
d
 
m
a
i
l
 
a
n
d
 
s
e
e
k
 
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
 
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
•
I
f
 
n
o
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
 
t
h
e
n
 
s
e
n
d
 
a
 
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
 
l
e
t
t
e
r
 
•
I
f
 
s
t
i
l
l
 
n
o
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
 
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
 
t
h
a
t
 
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
 
w
a
s
 
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
e
d
 
b
u
t
 
d
i
d
 
n
o
t
 
g
i
v
e
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
•
I
f
 
a
t
 
a
l
l
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
 
t
r
y
 
t
o
 
v
i
s
i
t
 
h
o
m
e
s
 
n
o
t
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
t
a
l
k
 
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
 
w
i
t
h
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
6
.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
•
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
 
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
 
t
o
 
1
)
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
a
n
 
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
,
 
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
 
a
n
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
 
s
u
r
v
e
y
 
t
o
 
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
 
o
f
 
(
o
r
 
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
)
 
a
n
y
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
t
a
r
g
e
t
 
V
O
C
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
2
)
 
r
e
m
o
v
e
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
3
)
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
•
B
e
 
p
r
o
m
p
t
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
d
a
y
 
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
•
S
e
n
d
 
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
 
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
 
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
b
l
e
 
a
n
d
 
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
 
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
 
f
o
l
k
s
 
w
h
o
 
d
o
 
t
h
e
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
;
 
i
f
 
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
 
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
o
r
7
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
•
S
e
n
d
 
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
 
t
o
 
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
•
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
 
p
h
o
n
e
 
c
a
l
l
 
t
o
 
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
•
H
o
l
d
 
a
n
 
o
p
e
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
/
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
s
h
a
r
e
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
 
a
n
d
 
a
n
s
w
e
r
a
n
y
 
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
N
o
t
e
:
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
 
m
a
p
 
o
f
 
a
r
e
a
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
d
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
 
t
h
e
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
 
f
o
u
n
d
8
.
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
 
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
 
w
h
a
t
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
a
r
e
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
 
t
o
 
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
 
H
 
-
 
4
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
T
o
o
l
s
 
-
 
 
t
o
 
 
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
 
 
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
 
 
o
f
 
 
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
 
 
w
i
t
h
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
T
h
e
 
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
 
a
r
e
 
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
o
f
 
 
p
r
e
-
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
 
f
o
r
m
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
 
b
y
 
o
t
h
e
r
s
 
f
o
r
s
i
t
e
 
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
u
s
e
 
t
o
 
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
 
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
/
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
 
w
i
t
h
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
/
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
 
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
 
p
r
i
o
r
 
t
o
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
:
 
 
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
 
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
 
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
 
b
y
 
t
h
e
 
O
E
R
R
 
 
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
 
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
 
T
e
a
m
(
b
e
l
o
w
)
.
 
 
 
M
a
s
s
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
s
 
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
-
 
I
n
d
o
o
r
 
A
i
r
 
S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
G
u
i
d
e
 
(
 
A
p
r
i
l
 
2
0
0
2
 
)
 
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
 
2
 
o
f
 
t
h
i
s
 
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
 
a
n
 
I
n
d
o
o
r
 
A
i
r
 
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
 
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
u
r
v
e
y
 
f
o
r
m
 
a
n
d
 
a
 
s
e
t
 
o
f
 
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
 
f
o
r
 
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
 
o
f
 
H
o
m
e
s
 
t
o
 
B
e
 
S
a
m
p
l
e
d
.
 
 
T
h
e
s
e
 
c
a
n
b
e
 
f
o
u
n
d
 
a
t
:
 
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
m
a
.
u
s
/
d
e
p
/
b
w
s
c
/
f
i
n
a
l
p
o
l
.
h
t
m
H
­
5
OCCUPIED
DWELLING
QUESTIONNAIRE
Indoor
Air
Assessment
Survey
Date:
_______________

1.
Name:__________________________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Home
Phone:_______________________
Work
Phone:__________________________

2.
What
is
the
best
time
to
call
to
speak
with
you?________
At:
Work
ë
or
Home
ë?

3.
Are
you
the
Owner
ë,
Renter
ë,
Other
ë
(
please
specify)_________________________
of
this
Home/
Structure?

4.
Total
number
of
occupants/
persons
at
this
location?___________
Number
of
children?
_______
Ages?_________

5.
How
long
have
you
lived
at
this
location?
___________

General
Home
Description
6.
Type
of
Home/
Structure
(
check
only
one):
Single
Family
Home
ë,
Duplex
ë,
Condominiumë,
Townhouse
ë,
Other
ë______________________

7.
Home/
Structure
Description:
number
of
floors
________
Basement?
Yes
ë
No
ë
Crawl
Space?
Yes
ë
No
ë
If
Yes,
under
how
much
of
the
house's
area?
____%

8.
Age
of
Home/
Structure:
________
years,
Not
sure/
Unknown
ë
9.
General
Above­
Ground
Home/
Structure
construction
(
check
all
that
apply):
Wood
ë,
Brick
ë,
Concrete
ë,
Cement
block
ë,
Other
ë_____________

10.
Foundation
Construction
(
check
all
that
apply):
Concrete
slab
ë
Fieldstone
ë
Concrete
block
ë
H
­
6
Elevated
above
ground/
grade
ë
Other_____________________________
11.
What
is
the
source
of
your
drinking
water
(
check
all
that
apply)?
Public
water
supply
ë
Private
well
ë
Bottled
water
ë
Other,
please
specify
________________________________

12.
Do
you
have
a
private
well
for
purposes
other
than
drinking?
Yes
ë
No
ë
If
yes,
please
describe
what
you
use
the
well
for:___________________________
__________________________________________________________________

13.
Do
you
have
a
septic
system?
Yes
ë
No
ë
Not
used
ë
Unknown
ë
14.
Do
you
have
standing
water
outside
your
home
(
pond,
ditch,
swale)?
Yes
ë
No
ë
Basement
Description,
please
check
appropriate
boxes.
If
you
do
not
have
a
basement
go
to
question
23.

15.
Is
the
basement
finished
ë
or
unfinished
ë?
16.
If
finished,
how
many
rooms
are
in
the
basement?__________
How
many
are
used
for
more
than
2
hours/
day?__________
17.
Is
the
basement
floor
(
check
all
that
apply)
concrete
ë,
tile
ë,
carpeted
ë,
dirt
ë,
otherë(
describe)_________________________?
18.
Are
the
basement
walls
poured
concrete
ë,
cement
block
ë,
stone
ë,
wood
ë,
brick
ë,
otherë__________________________________________________________?
19.
Does
the
basement
have
a
moisture
problem
(
check
one
only)?
Yes,
frequently
(
3
or
more
times/
yr)
ë
Yes,
occasionally
(
1­
2
times/
yr)
ë
Yes,
rarely
(
less
than
1
time/
yr)
ë
No
ë
20.
Does
the
basement
ever
flood
(
check
one
only)?
Yes,
frequently
(
3
or
more
times/
yr)
ë
Yes,
occasionally
(
1­
2
times/
yr)
ë
Yes,
rarely
(
less
than
1
time/
yr)
ë
No
ë
21.
Does
the
basement
have
any
of
the
following?
(
check
all
that
apply)
Floor
cracks
ë,
Wall
cracks
ë,
Sump
ë,
Floor
drain
ë,
Other
hole/
opening
in
floor
ë
(
describe)_______
H
­
7
22.
Are
any
of
the
following
used
or
stored
in
the
basement
(
check
all
that
apply)
Paint
ë
Paint
stripper/
remover
ë
Paint
thinner
ë
Metal
degreaser/
cleaner
ë
Gasoline
ë
Diesel
fuel
ë
Solvents
ë
Glue
ë
Laundry
spot
removers
ë
Drain
cleaners
ë
Pesticides
ë
23.
Have
you
recently
(
within
the
last
six
months)
done
any
painting
or
remodeling
in
your
home?
Yes
ë
No
ë
If
yes,
please
specify
what
was
done,
where
in
the
home,
and
what
month:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

24.
Have
you
installed
new
carpeting
in
your
home
within
the
last
year?
Yes
ë
No
ë
If
yes,
when
and
where?____________________________________________________

25.
Do
you
regularly
use
or
work
in
a
dry
cleaning
service
(
check
only
one
box)?
Yes,
use
dry­
cleaning
regularly
(
at
least
weekly)
ë
Yes,
use
dry­
cleaning
infrequently
(
monthly
or
less)
ë
Yes,
work
at
a
dry
cleaning
service
ë
No
ë
26.
Does
anyone
in
your
home
use
solvents
at
work?
Yes
ë
If
yes,
how
many
persons__________
No
ë
If
no,
go
to
question
28
27.
If
yes
for
question
26
above,
are
the
work
clothes
washed
at
home?
Yes
ë
No
ë
28.
Where
is
the
washer/
dryer
located?
Basement
ë
Upstairs
utility
room
ë
Kitchen
ë
Garage
ë
Use
a
Laundromat
ë
Other,
please
specify
ë____________________________________

29.
If
you
have
a
dryer,
is
it
vented
to
the
outdoors?
Yes
ë
No
ë
30.
What
type(
s)
of
home
heating
do
you
have
(
check
all
that
apply)
Fuel
type:
Gas
ë,
Oil
ë,
Electric
ë,
Wood
ë,
Coal
ë,
Other______________________
Heat
conveyance
system:
Forced
hot
air
ë
Forced
hot
water
ë
Steam
ë
Radiant
floor
heat
ë
Wood
stove
ë
Coal
furnace
ë
Fireplace
ë
Other_________________________
H
­
8
31.
Do
you
have
air
conditioning?
Yes
ë
No
ë.
If
yes,
please
check
the
appropriate
type(
s)
Central
air
conditioning
ë
Window
air
conditioning
unit(
s)
ë
Other
ë,
please
specify_____________________________________
32.
Do
you
use
any
of
the
following?
Room
fans
ë,
Ceiling
fans
ë,
Attic
fan
ë
Do
you
ventilate
using
the
fan­
only
mode
of
your
central
air
conditioning
or
forced
air
heating
system?
Yes
ë
No
ë
33.
Has
your
home
had
termite
or
other
pesticide
treatment:
Yes
ë
No
ë
Unknown
ë
If
yes,
please
specify
type
of
pest
controlled,
___________________________________
and
approximate
date
of
service
_____________________________________________

34.
Water
Heater
Type:
Gas
ë,
Electric
ë,
By
furnace
ë,
Other
ë_____________________
Water
heater
location:
Basement
ë,
Upstairs
utility
room
ë,
Garage
ë,
Other
ë
(
please
describe)
________________________________________________________________

35.
What
type
of
cooking
appliance
do
you
have?
Electric
ë,
Gas
ë,
Other
ë____________

36.
Is
there
a
stove
exhaust
hood
present?
Yes
ë
No
ë
Does
it
vent
to
the
outdoors?
Yes
ë
No
ë
37.
Smoking
in
Home:
None
ë,
Rare
(
only
guests)
ë,
Moderate
(
residents
light
smokers)
ë,
Heavy
(
at
least
one
heavy
smoker
in
household)
ë
38.
If
yes
to
above,
what
do
they
smoke?
Cigarettes
ë
Cigars
ë
Pipe
ë
Other
ë
39.
Do
you
regularly
use
air
fresheners?
Yes
ë
No
ë
40.
Does
anyone
in
the
home
have
indoor
home
hobbies
of
crafts
involving:
None
ë
Heating
ë,
soldering
ë,
welding
ë,
model
glues
ë,
paint
ë,
spray
paint,
wood
finishing
ë,
Other
ë
Please
specify
what
type
of
hobby:
_______________________
___________________________________________________________________

41.
General
family/
home
use
of
consumer
products
(
please
circle
appropriate):
Assume
that
Never
=
never
used,
Hardly
ever
=
less
than
once/
month,
Occasionally
=
about
once/
month,
Regularly
=
about
once/
week,
and
Often
=
more
than
once/
week.

Product
Frequency
of
Use
Spray­
on
deodorant
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
H
­
9
Aerosol
deodorizers
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
Insecticides
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
Disinfectants
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
(
Question
41,
continued)
Product
Frequency
of
Use
Window
cleaners
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
Spray­
on
oven
cleaners
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
Nail
polish
remover
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
Hair
sprays
Never
Hardly
ever
Occasionally
Regularly
Often
42.
Please
check
weekly
household
cleaning
practices:
Dusting
ë
Dry
sweeping
ë
Vacuuming
ë
Polishing
(
furniture,
etc)
ë
Washing/
waxing
floors
ë
Other
ë_______________________

43.
Other
comments:
_________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
I
 
-
 
1
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
 
 
I
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
 
O
F
 
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
 
I
N
D
O
O
R
 
A
I
R
 
V
O
C
 
L
E
V
E
L
S
 
I
N
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
N
G
 
T
H
E
 
S
U
B
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
 
V
A
P
O
R
 
I
N
T
R
U
S
I
O
N
 
P
A
T
H
W
A
Y
1
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
W
e
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
 
o
f
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
a
t
 
a
 
s
i
t
e
 
b
e
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
 
i
n
 
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
 
t
o
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
.
 
 
T
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
 
i
n
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
m
a
y
 
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
t
e
 
f
r
o
m
 
t
h
e
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
/
o
r
 
t
h
e
y
 
m
a
y
 
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
a
t
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
 
f
r
o
m
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
 
C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
,
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
 
t
o
 
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
 
w
h
e
n
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
s
a
m
e
 
V
O
C
s
 
e
m
i
t
t
e
d
 
f
r
o
m
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
a
r
e
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
,
 
i
f
 
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
 
a
r
e
 
n
o
t
 
m
a
d
e
t
o
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
a
n
d
 
q
u
a
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
P
r
i
o
r
 
t
o
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
,
 
i
t
 
i
s
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
a
n
 
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
 
a
n
 
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
 
s
u
r
v
e
y
 
t
o
 
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
 
o
f
 
(
o
r
 
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
c
o
u
l
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
)
 
a
n
y
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
t
a
r
g
e
t
 
v
o
l
a
t
i
l
e
 
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
 
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
 
(
V
O
C
s
)
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
 
(
s
e
e
 
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
 
H
)
.
 
 
F
o
r
 
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
h
o
m
e
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
 
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
 
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
 
(
e
.
g
.
,
 
c
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
,
 
p
a
i
n
t
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
g
l
u
e
s
)
,
 
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
 
c
r
a
f
t
 
h
o
b
b
i
e
s
,
 
s
m
o
k
i
n
g
)
,
 
a
n
d
 
s
o
m
e
 
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
 
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
 
 
V
O
C
s
 
i
n
 
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
 
(
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
)
 
a
i
r
m
a
y
 
a
l
s
o
 
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
 
t
o
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
 
t
h
o
u
g
h
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
t
h
e
 
m
a
i
n
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
i
n
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
a
r
i
s
e
 
f
r
o
m
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
 
o
r
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
 
u
s
e
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
s
.
 
 
A
n
y
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
s
e
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
m
a
y
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
 
i
n
 
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
 
h
i
g
h
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
t
 
i
s
 
a
l
s
o
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
t
h
e
r
e
 
i
s
 
h
i
g
h
 
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
i
n
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
V
O
C
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
b
o
t
h
 
w
i
t
h
i
n
 
a
n
d
 
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
 
s
o
 
t
h
a
t
 
s
m
a
l
l
 
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
 
o
f
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
 
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d
.
 
 
I
f
 
t
h
e
r
e
 
i
s
 
m
o
r
e
 
t
h
a
n
 
o
n
e
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
,
 
w
e
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
r
a
t
i
o
s
 
o
f
 
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
d
 
t
o
d
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
-
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
 
V
O
C
s
 
f
r
o
m
 
t
h
o
s
e
 
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
 
b
y
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
n
o
n
-
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
(
i
.
e
,
 
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
a
n
d
/
o
r
 
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
 
(
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
)
 
a
i
r
 
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
.
 
 
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
 
p
a
i
r
e
d
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
 
(
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
l
y
 
a
n
d
 
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
l
y
)
 
o
f
 
b
o
t
h
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
a
n
d
 
s
o
i
l
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
d
a
t
a
 
m
a
y
 
a
l
s
o
 
a
s
s
i
s
t
 
w
i
t
h
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
.
 
 
C
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
 
r
e
v
i
e
w
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
 
t
a
k
e
n
 
i
n
 
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
 
p
a
r
t
s
 
o
f
 
a
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
 
m
a
y
 
r
e
v
e
a
l
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
s
 
o
r
 
h
o
t
 
s
p
o
t
s
 
a
m
o
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
 
f
l
o
o
r
s
 
o
r
 
r
o
o
m
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
 
 
S
u
c
h
 
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
s
 
o
r
 
h
o
t
 
s
p
o
t
s
 
s
h
o
w
n
 
i
n
 
u
p
p
e
r
 
f
l
o
o
r
s
 
m
a
y
 
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
V
O
C
l
e
v
e
l
s
 
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
t
e
d
 
f
r
o
m
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
r
a
t
h
e
r
 
t
h
a
n
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
h
e
r
e
a
s
,
 
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
s
 
o
r
 
h
o
t
 
s
p
o
t
s
 
i
n
 
b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
o
r
 
l
o
w
e
r
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
 
a
 
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
 
t
h
a
t
 
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
 
w
i
t
h
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
v
a
p
o
r
 
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
 
o
r
 
a
 
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
.
 
 
A
 
c
o
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
n
e
o
u
s
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
 
(
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
)
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
f
u
l
 
t
o
 
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
 
f
o
r
 
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
 
t
o
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
 
a
i
d
 
i
n
 
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
i
n
g
 
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
 
f
r
o
m
 
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
 
(
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
)
 
a
i
r
.
 
 
M
o
r
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
 
i
s
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
 
i
n
 
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
 
E
.
I
 
-
 
2
W
e
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
a
l
l
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
n
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
b
e
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
l
l
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
t
h
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
n
a
t
u
r
e
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
e
n
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
a
n
y
 
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
,
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
 
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
 
a
d
v
i
s
i
n
g
 
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
 
v
i
a
 
r
i
s
k
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
 
 
W
e
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
 
f
o
c
u
s
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s
 
a
n
d
 
d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
 
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
 
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
 
 
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
 
w
h
i
l
e
 
i
t
 
i
s
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
t
o
 
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
 
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
t
h
e
y
 
n
o
t
 
b
e
 
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
 
w
h
e
n
 
m
a
k
i
n
g
 
a
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
r
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
s
i
t
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
 
a
n
d
/
o
r
 
r
i
s
k
.
2
.
C
E
R
C
L
A
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
R
o
l
e
 
o
f
 
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
E
P
A
 
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
 
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
 
t
h
e
 
“
R
o
l
e
 
o
f
 
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
C
E
R
C
L
A
 
C
l
e
a
n
u
p
 
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
”
(
O
S
W
E
R
 
9
2
8
5
.
6
-
0
7
P
;
 
A
P
R
 
2
0
0
2
;
 
U
R
L
 
=
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
/
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
/
r
i
s
k
/
r
o
l
e
.
p
d
f
)
o
u
t
l
i
n
i
n
g
 
a
 
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
 
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
 
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
,
 
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
 
i
n
 
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
 
s
t
e
p
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
m
e
d
y
 
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
 
a
t
 
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
 
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
a
n
d
 
L
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
A
c
t
 
(
C
E
R
C
L
A
o
r
 
“
S
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
”
)
 
s
i
t
e
s
.
 
 
T
h
i
s
 
p
o
l
i
c
y
 
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
w
h
e
n
 
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
 
t
o
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
n
o
t
 
b
e
 
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
 
f
r
o
m
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
s
i
n
c
e
 
i
t
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
l
o
s
s
 
o
f
 
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
 
r
i
s
k
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
f
o
r
 
t
h
o
s
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
 
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
,
 
e
v
e
n
 
t
h
o
u
g
h
 
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
 
m
a
y
 
o
r
 
m
a
y
 
n
o
t
 
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
 
a
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
 
o
f
 
r
i
s
k
s
 
c
a
u
s
e
d
 
b
y
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
 
 
T
h
i
s
 
p
o
l
i
c
y
 
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
 
a
 
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
 
t
h
a
t
 
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
e
x
c
e
e
d
 
r
i
s
k
-
b
a
s
e
d
 
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
n
d
 
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
 
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
 
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
s
s
u
e
s
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
e
n
d
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
p
h
a
s
e
.
 
 
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
 
V
O
C
s
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
a
i
r
 
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
 
a
r
e
 
n
o
t
 
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
C
E
R
C
L
A
 
“
R
o
l
e
 
o
f
 
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
.
.
.
”
 
i
t
 
s
e
e
m
s
 
t
o
 
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
 
t
h
a
t
V
O
C
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
b
o
t
h
 
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
a
n
d
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
 
i
n
 
a
n
y
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
i
s
k
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
.
 
 
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
C
E
R
C
L
A
 
“
R
o
l
e
 
o
f
 
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
.
.
.
”
i
t
 
i
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
a
n
y
 
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
b
e
 
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
r
i
s
k
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
n
 
a
 
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
 
m
a
n
n
e
r
 
a
l
o
n
g
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
n
y
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
d
a
t
a
 
d
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
 
f
r
o
m
 
s
i
t
e
 
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
V
O
C
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
3
.
S
t
a
t
e
 
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
 
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
S
o
m
e
 
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
h
a
v
e
 
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
 
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
 
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
 
t
o
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
V
O
C
s
 
 
w
h
e
n
 
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
 
a
 
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
 
s
i
t
e
.
 
 
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
o
f
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
V
O
C
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
t
a
k
e
n
 
b
e
f
o
r
e
 
a
n
y
 
s
i
t
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
m
a
y
 
h
a
v
e
 
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
a
r
e
 
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
 
i
d
e
a
l
.
 
 
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
 
t
h
i
s
 
t
y
p
e
 
o
f
 
d
a
t
a
 
i
s
 
r
a
r
e
l
y
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
 
 
G
i
v
e
n
 
t
h
e
 
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
i
n
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
i
n
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
 
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
V
O
C
s
a
r
e
 
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
.
 
 
I
n
 
s
o
m
e
 
c
a
s
e
s
,
 
d
a
t
a
 
m
a
y
 
b
e
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
f
r
o
m
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
h
a
v
e
 
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
 
i
n
 
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
 
“
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
”
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
 
o
u
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
z
o
n
e
 
o
r
 
i
n
 
n
e
a
r
b
y
 
“
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
”
 
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
 
 
T
h
e
 
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
 
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
P
u
b
l
i
c
 
H
e
a
l
t
h
 
a
n
d
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
 
(
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
 
A
u
g
u
s
t
 
2
0
0
2
)
 
h
a
s
 
s
t
a
t
e
d
 
t
h
a
t
 
p
o
s
t
-
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
 
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
 
o
f
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
V
O
C
s
 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
 
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
 
d
a
t
a
.
I
 
-
 
3
T
h
e
 
M
a
s
s
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
s
 
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
 
(
M
A
 
D
E
P
)
 
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
i
n
d
o
o
r
 
a
i
r
 
s
a
m
p
l
e
 
V
O
C
 
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
t
o
 
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
 
v
a
l
u
e
s
 
c
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
c
e
n
t
 
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
 
a
r
e
 
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
 
f
o
r
 
u
s
e
 
i
n
 
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
i
n
g
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
V
O
C
s
 
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
 
 
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
 
M
A
 
D
E
P
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
 
u
s
i
n
g
 
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
s
 
t
h
e
 
s
o
l
e
 
b
a
s
i
s
 
f
o
r
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
 
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
 
t
h
e
r
e
 
i
s
a
 
s
i
t
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
 
a
n
d
 
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
c
o
m
p
e
l
l
i
n
g
 
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
 
o
f
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
f
r
o
m
 
a
 
s
i
t
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
n
o
t
 
b
e
 
i
g
n
o
r
e
d
.
 
 
M
A
 
D
E
P
 
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
 
t
h
a
t
 
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
 
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
 
s
h
o
u
l
d
 
b
e
 
u
s
e
d
 
t
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
a
n
d
 
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
 
c
o
m
e
 
t
o
 
a
 
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
s
i
t
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
 
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
 
 
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
u
s
i
n
g
 
a
l
l
 
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
(
M
A
 
D
E
P
 
I
n
d
o
o
r
 
A
i
r
 
S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
 
G
u
i
d
e
 
(
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
0
2
)
 
 
U
R
L
 
=
 
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
m
a
.
u
s
/
d
e
p
/
b
w
s
c
/
f
i
n
a
l
p
o
l
.
h
t
m
)
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
 
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
P
u
b
l
i
c
 
H
e
a
l
t
h
 
a
n
d
 
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
 
 
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
 
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
 
E
d
g
a
r
E
t
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
.
 
A
u
g
u
s
t
 
2
0
0
2
.
 
M
A
 
D
E
P
 
I
n
d
o
o
r
 
A
i
r
 
S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
 
a
n
d
 
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
 
G
u
i
d
e
 
(
A
p
r
i
l
 
2
0
0
2
)
 
 
U
R
L
 
=
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
m
a
.
u
s
/
d
e
p
/
b
w
s
c
/
f
i
n
a
l
p
o
l
.
h
t
m
R
o
l
e
 
o
f
 
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
C
E
R
C
L
A
 
C
l
e
a
n
u
p
 
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
”
 
 
(
O
S
W
E
R
 
9
2
8
5
.
6
-
0
7
P
;
 
A
p
r
i
l
 
2
0
0
2
;
U
R
L
 
=
 
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
s
u
p
e
r
f
u
n
d
/
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
/
r
i
s
k
/
r
o
l
e
.
p
d
f
)
Table
1:
Question
1
Summary
Sheet.

CAS
No.
Chemical
Is
Chemical
Sufficiently
Toxic?
1
Is
Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile?
2
Check
Here
if
Known
or
Reasonably
Suspected
To
Be
Present
3
83329
Acenaphthene
YES
YES
75070
Acetaldehyde
YES
YES
67641
Acetone
YES
YES
75058
Acetonitrile
YES
YES
98862
Acetophenone
YES
YES
107028
Acrolein
YES
YES
107131
Acrylonitrile
YES
YES
309002
Aldrin
YES
YES
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
YES
YES
62533
Aniline
YES
NO
NA
120127
Anthracene
NO
YES
NA
56553
Benz(
a)
anthracene
YES
NO
NA
100527
Benzaldehyde
YES
YES
71432
Benzene
YES
YES
50328
Benzo(
a)
pyrene
YES
NO
NA
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
YES
YES
207089
Benzo(
k)
fluoranthene
NO
NO
NA
65850
Benzoic
Acid
NO
NO
NA
100516
Benzyl
alcohol
YES
NO
NA
100447
Benzylchloride
YES
YES
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
YES
YES
319857
beta­
HCH
(
beta­
BHC)
YES
NO
NA
92524
Biphenyl
YES
YES
111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
YES
YES
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
YES
YES
117817
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
NO
NO
NA
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
YES
YES
75274
Bromodichloromethane
YES
YES
75252
Bromoform
YES
YES
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
YES
YES
71363
Butanol
YES
NO
NA
85687
Butyl
benzyl
phthalate
NO
NO
NA
86748
Carbazole
YES
NO
NA
75150
Carbon
disulfide
YES
YES
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
YES
YES
57749
Chlordane
YES
YES
126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
YES
YES
108907
Chlorobenzene
YES
YES
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
YES
YES
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
YES
YES
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
YES
YES
75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
YES
YES
67663
Chloroform
YES
YES
95578
2­
Chlorophenol
YES
YES
75296
2­
Chloropropane
YES
YES
218019
Chrysene
YES
YES
156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
YES
YES
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
YES
YES
98828
Cumene
YES
YES
72548
DDD
YES
NO
NA
72559
DDE
YES
YES
50293
DDT
YES
NO
NA
53703
Dibenz(
a,
h)
anthracene
YES
NO
NA
132649
Dibenzofuran
YES
YES
96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
YES
YES
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
YES
YES
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
YES
YES
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
YES
YES
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
YES
YES
91941
3,3­
Dichlorobenzidine
YES
NO
NA
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
YES
YES
DRAFT
Table
1
November
20,
2002
Table
1:
Question
1
Summary
Sheet.

CAS
No.
Chemical
Is
Chemical
Sufficiently
Toxic?
1
Is
Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile?
2
Check
Here
if
Known
or
Reasonably
Suspected
To
Be
Present
3
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
YES
YES
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
YES
YES
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
YES
YES
120832
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
YES
NO
NA
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
YES
YES
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
YES
YES
60571
Dieldrin
YES
YES
84662
Diethylphthalate
YES
NO
NA
105679
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
YES
NO
NA
131113
Dimethylphthalate
NA
NO
NA
84742
Di­
n­
butyl
phthalate
NO
NO
NA
534521
4,6­
Dinitro­
2­
methylphenol
(
4,6­
dinitro­
o­
cresol)
YES
NO
NA
51285
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
YES
NO
NA
121142
2,4­
Dinitrotoluene
YES
NO
NA
606202
2,6­
Dinitrotoluene
YES
NO
NA
117840
Di­
n­
octyl
phthalate
NO
YES
NA
115297
Endosulfan
YES
YES
72208
Endrin
YES
NO
NA
106898
Epichlorohydrin
YES
YES
60297
Ethyl
ether
YES
YES
141786
Ethylacetate
YES
YES
100414
Ethylbenzene
YES
YES
75218
Ethylene
oxide
YES
YES
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
YES
YES
206440
Fluoranthene
NO
YES
NA
86737
Fluorene
YES
YES
110009
Furan
YES
YES
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
YES
YES
76448
Heptachlor
YES
YES
1024573
Heptachlor
epoxide
YES
NO
NA
87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
YES
YES
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
YES
YES
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
YES
YES
67721
Hexachloroethane
YES
YES
110543
Hexane
YES
YES
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
YES
YES
193395
Indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
pyrene
NO
NO
NA
78831
Isobutanol
YES
YES
78591
Isophorone
YES
NO
NA
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
YES
YES
126987
Methacrylonitrile
YES
YES
72435
Methoxychlor
YES
YES
79209
Methyl
acetate
YES
YES
96333
Methyl
acrylate
YES
YES
74839
Methyl
bromide
YES
YES
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
YES
YES
108872
Methylcyclohexane
YES
YES
74953
Methylene
bromide
YES
YES
75092
Methylene
chloride
YES
YES
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
YES
YES
108101
Methylisobutylketone
YES
YES
80626
Methylmethacrylate
YES
YES
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
YES
YES
108394
3­
Methylphenol
(
m­
cresol)
YES
NO
NA
95487
2­
Methylphenol
(
o­
cresol)
YES
NO
NA
106455
4­
Methylphenol
(
p­
cresol)
YES
NO
NA
99081
m­
Nitrotoluene
YES
NO
NA
1634044
MTBE
YES
YES
108383
m­
Xylene
YES
YES
91203
Naphthalene
YES
YES
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
YES
YES
DRAFT
Table
1
November
20,
2002
Table
1:
Question
1
Summary
Sheet.

CAS
No.
Chemical
Is
Chemical
Sufficiently
Toxic?
1
Is
Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile?
2
Check
Here
if
Known
or
Reasonably
Suspected
To
Be
Present
3
98953
Nitrobenzene
YES
YES
100027
4­
Nitrophenol
YES
NO
NA
79469
2­
Nitropropane
YES
YES
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
YES
YES
621647
N­
Nitrosodi­
n­
propylamine
YES
NO
NA
86306
N­
Nitrosodiphenylamine
YES
NO
NA
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
YES
YES
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
YES
YES
95476
o­
Xylene
YES
YES
106478
p­
Chloroaniline
YES
NO
NA
87865
Pentachlorophenol
YES
NO
NA
108952
Phenol
YES
NO
NA
99990
p­
Nitrotoluene
YES
NO
NA
106423
p­
Xylene
YES
YES
129000
Pyrene
YES
YES
110861
Pyridine
YES
NO
NA
135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
YES
YES
100425
Styrene
YES
YES
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
YES
YES
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
YES
YES
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
YES
YES
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
YES
YES
108883
Toluene
YES
YES
8001352
Toxaphene
YES
NO
NA
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
YES
YES
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
YES
YES
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
YES
YES
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
YES
YES
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
YES
YES
79016
Trichloroethylene
YES
YES
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
YES
YES
95954
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenol
YES
NO
NA
88062
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
YES
NO
NA
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
YES
YES
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
YES
YES
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
YES
YES
108054
Vinyl
acetate
YES
YES
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
YES
YES
1
A
chemical
is
considered
sufficiently
toxic
if
the
vapor
concentration
of
the
pure
component
(
see
Appendix
D)
poses
an
incremental
lifetime
cancer
risk
greater
than
10­
6
or
a
non­
cancer
hazard
index
greater
than
1.

2
A
chemical
is
considered
sufficiently
volatile
if
its
Henry's
Law
Constant
is
1
x
10­
5
atm­
m3/
mol
or
greater
(
US
EPA,
1991).

3
Users
should
check
off
compounds
that
meet
the
criteria
for
toxicity
and
volatility
and
are
known
or
reasonably
suspected
to
be
present.

DRAFT
Table
1
November
20,
2002
Table
2a:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
2.1E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.1E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.1E+
04
3.3E+
03
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
NC
9.0E+
00
5.0E+
00
9.0E+
01
5.0E+
01
9.0E+
02
5.0E+
02
2.8E+
03
67641
Acetone
X
NC
3.5E+
02
1.5E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
1.5E+
04
2.2E+
05
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
6.0E+
01
3.6E+
01
6.0E+
02
3.6E+
02
6.0E+
03
3.6E+
03
4.2E+
04
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
3.5E+
02
7.1E+
01
3.5E+
03
7.1E+
02
3.5E+
04
7.1E+
03
8.0E+
05
107028
Acrolein
NC
2.0E­
02
8.7E­
03
2.0E­
01
8.7E­
02
2.0E+
00
8.7E­
01
4.0E+
00
107131
Acrylonitrile
NC
2.0E+
00
9.2E­
01
2.0E+
01
9.2E+
00
2.0E+
02
9.2E+
01
4.7E+
02
309002
Aldrin
C
5.0E­
02
3.3E­
03
5.0E­
01
3.3E­
02
5.0E+
00
3.3E­
01
7.1E+
00
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
1.4E­
01
1.1E­
02
1.4E+
00
1.1E­
01
1.4E+
01
1.1E+
00
3.1E+
02
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
3.5E+
02
8.1E+
01
3.5E+
03
8.1E+
02
3.5E+
04
8.1E+
03
3.6E+
05
71432
Benzene
C
3.1E+
01
9.8E+
00
3.1E+
02
9.8E+
01
3.1E+
03
9.8E+
02
1.4E+
02
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
1.2E+
00
1.1E­
01
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
5.0E+
00
9.7E­
01
5.0E+
01
9.7E+
00
5.0E+
02
9.7E+
01
3.0E+
02
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
2.8E+
02
4.2E+
01
2.8E+
03
4.2E+
02
2.8E+
04
4.2E+
03
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
1.8E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.8E+
03
2.8E+
02
1.8E+
04
2.8E+
03
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
7.4E­
01
1.3E­
01
7.4E+
00
1.3E+
00
7.4E+
01
1.3E+
01
1.0E+
03
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
2.4E+
01
3.5E+
00
2.4E+
02
3.5E+
01
2.4E+
03
3.5E+
02
5.1E+
03
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
3.9E­
03
8.4E­
04
3.9E­
02
8.4E­
03
3.9E­
01
8.4E­
02
4.5E­
01
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
1.4E+
01
2.1E+
00
1.4E+
02
2.1E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.1E+
02
2.1E+
02
75252
Bromoform
C
2.2E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.2E+
03
2.1E+
02
2.2E+
04
2.1E+
03
8.3E­
01
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
8.7E­
01
3.9E­
01
8.7E+
00
3.9E+
00
8.7E+
01
3.9E+
01
2.9E­
01
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
7.0E+
02
2.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
2.2E+
03
7.0E+
04
2.2E+
04
5.6E+
02
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
1.6E+
01
2.6E+
00
1.6E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.6E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.3E+
01
57749
Chlordane
NC
7.0E­
01
4.2E­
02
7.0E+
00
4.2E­
01
7.0E+
01
4.2E+
00
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
7.0E+
00
1.9E+
00
7.0E+
01
1.9E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.9E+
02
1.4E+
01
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
6.0E+
01
1.3E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
3.9E+
02
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
1.4E+
03
3.7E+
02
1.4E+
04
3.7E+
03
1.4E+
05
3.7E+
04
2.0E+
03
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
1.0E+
01
1.2E+
00
1.0E+
02
1.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.2E+
02
3.2E+
02
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
5.0E+
04
1.4E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
1.0E+
04
3.8E+
03
1.0E+
05
3.8E+
04
1.0E+
06
3.8E+
05
2.8E+
04
67663
Chloroform
C
1.1E+
01
2.2E+
00
1.1E+
02
2.2E+
01
1.1E+
03
2.2E+
02
8.0E+
01
*

95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
1.8E+
01
3.3E+
00
1.8E+
02
3.3E+
01
1.8E+
03
3.3E+
02
1.1E+
03
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
1.0E+
02
3.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
3.2E+
02
1.0E+
04
3.2E+
03
1.7E+
02
218019
Chrysene
X
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.5E+
01
8.8E+
00
3.5E+
02
8.8E+
01
3.5E+
03
8.8E+
02
2.1E+
02
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
4.5E­
01
1.6E­
01
4.5E+
00
1.6E+
00
4.5E+
01
1.6E+
01
5.6E+
02
98828
Cumene
NC
4.0E+
02
8.1E+
01
4.0E+
03
8.1E+
02
4.0E+
04
8.1E+
03
8.4E+
00
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
4,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
DRAFT
Table
2a
November
20,
2002
Table
2a:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
4,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
72559
DDE
X
C
2.5E+
00
1.9E­
01
2.5E+
01
1.9E+
00
**
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
1.4E+
01
2.0E+
00
1.4E+
02
2.0E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
02
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
2.0E­
01
2.1E­
02
2.0E+
00
2.1E­
01
2.0E+
01
2.1E+
00
3.3E+
01
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
NC
2.0E­
01
2.6E­
02
2.0E+
00
2.6E­
01
2.0E+
01
2.6E+
00
6.6E+
00
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
01
1.1E+
03
1.7E+
02
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
03
8.3E+
02
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
2.0E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.0E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.6E+
03
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
8.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
8.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
8.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.2E+
03
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
2.0E+
02
4.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.0E+
04
4.0E+
03
1.4E+
01
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
5.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
2.2E+
03
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
9.4E+
00
2.3E+
00
9.4E+
01
2.3E+
01
9.4E+
02
2.3E+
02
2.3E+
02
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
2.0E+
02
5.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.0E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.0E+
03
1.9E+
02
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
4.0E+
00
8.7E­
01
4.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
4.0E+
02
8.7E+
01
3.5E+
01
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
NC
2.0E+
01
4.4E+
00
2.0E+
02
4.4E+
01
2.0E+
03
4.4E+
02
2.8E+
01
60571
Dieldrin
C
5.3E­
02
3.4E­
03
5.3E­
01
3.4E­
02
5.3E+
00
3.4E­
01
8.6E+
01
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
2.1E+
01
1.3E+
00
2.1E+
02
1.3E+
01
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
1.0E+
00
2.6E­
01
1.0E+
01
2.6E+
00
1.0E+
02
2.6E+
01
8.0E+
02
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
7.0E+
02
2.3E+
02
7.0E+
03
2.3E+
03
7.0E+
04
2.3E+
04
5.2E+
02
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
3.2E+
03
8.7E+
02
3.2E+
04
8.7E+
03
3.2E+
05
8.7E+
04
5.6E+
05
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
2.2E+
02
5.1E+
01
2.2E+
03
5.1E+
02
2.2E+
04
5.1E+
03
7.0E+
02
*

75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
2.4E+
00
1.4E+
00
2.4E+
01
1.4E+
01
2.4E+
02
1.4E+
02
1.1E+
02
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
3.2E+
02
6.8E+
01
3.2E+
03
6.8E+
02
3.2E+
04
6.8E+
03
9.1E+
03
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.1E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.1E+
02
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
3.5E+
00
1.3E+
00
3.5E+
01
1.3E+
01
3.5E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.6E+
01
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
6.6E­
01
5.5E­
02
6.6E+
00
5.5E­
01
6.6E+
01
5.5E+
00
1.1E+
03
76448
Heptachlor
C
1.9E­
01
1.2E­
02
1.9E+
00
1.2E­
01
1.9E+
01
1.2E+
00
4.0E­
01
*

87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
1.1E+
01
1.0E+
00
1.1E+
02
1.0E+
01
1.1E+
03
1.0E+
02
3.3E+
01
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
5.3E­
01
4.5E­
02
5.3E+
00
4.5E­
01
5.3E+
01
4.5E+
00
**

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
2.0E­
01
1.8E­
02
2.0E+
00
1.8E­
01
2.0E+
01
1.8E+
00
5.0E+
01
*

67721
Hexachloroethane
C
6.1E+
01
6.3E+
00
6.1E+
02
6.3E+
01
6.1E+
03
6.3E+
02
3.8E+
02
110543
Hexane
NC
2.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.7E+
03
2.9E+
00
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
3.0E+
00
2.7E+
00
3.0E+
01
2.7E+
01
3.0E+
02
2.7E+
02
5.5E+
02
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
1.1E+
03
3.5E+
02
1.1E+
04
3.5E+
03
1.1E+
05
3.5E+
04
2.2E+
06
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
3.0E­
01
3.7E­
02
3.0E+
00
3.7E­
01
3.0E+
01
3.7E+
00
6.8E­
01
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
7.0E­
01
2.6E­
01
7.0E+
00
2.6E+
00
7.0E+
01
2.6E+
01
6.9E+
01
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
1.8E+
01
1.2E+
00
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
3.5E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.5E+
04
1.2E+
04
3.5E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.2E+
05
96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
1.1E+
02
3.0E+
01
1.1E+
03
3.0E+
02
1.1E+
04
3.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
DRAFT
Table
2a
November
20,
2002
Table
2a:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
4,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
5.0E+
00
1.3E+
00
5.0E+
01
1.3E+
01
5.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
2.0E+
01
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
NC
9.0E+
01
4.4E+
01
9.0E+
02
4.4E+
02
9.0E+
03
4.4E+
03
2.5E+
02
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
3.0E+
03
7.5E+
02
3.0E+
04
7.5E+
03
3.0E+
05
7.5E+
04
7.1E+
02
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
3.5E+
01
4.9E+
00
3.5E+
02
4.9E+
01
3.5E+
03
4.9E+
02
9.9E+
02
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
5.2E+
02
1.5E+
02
5.2E+
03
1.5E+
03
5.2E+
04
1.5E+
04
5.8E+
03
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
1.0E+
03
3.4E+
02
1.0E+
04
3.4E+
03
1.0E+
05
3.4E+
04
4.4E+
05
108101Methylisobutylketone
NC
8.0E+
01
2.0E+
01
8.0E+
02
2.0E+
02
8.0E+
03
2.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
7.0E+
02
1.7E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.7E+
04
5.1E+
04
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
7.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.3E+
03
1634044
MTBE
NC
3.0E+
03
8.3E+
02
3.0E+
04
8.3E+
03
3.0E+
05
8.3E+
04
1.2E+
05
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
2.3E+
04
91203
Naphthalene
NC
3.0E+
00
5.7E­
01
3.0E+
01
5.7E+
00
3.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
1.5E+
02
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.6E+
02
98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
2.0E+
00
4.0E­
01
2.0E+
01
4.0E+
00
2.0E+
02
4.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
9.0E­
02
2.5E­
02
9.0E­
01
2.5E­
01
9.0E+
00
2.5E+
00
1.8E+
01
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
1.5E­
01
2.4E­
02
1.5E+
00
2.4E­
01
1.5E+
01
2.4E+
00
1.2E+
01
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.8E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.8E+
03
3.2E+
02
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
3.5E+
01
6.2E+
00
3.5E+
02
6.2E+
01
3.5E+
03
6.2E+
02
6.8E+
04
95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
3.3E+
04
106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
2.2E+
04
129000
Pyrene
X
NC
1.1E+
02
1.3E+
01
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.5E+
02
100425
Styrene
NC
1.0E+
03
2.3E+
02
1.0E+
04
2.3E+
03
1.0E+
05
2.3E+
04
8.9E+
03
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.9E+
02
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
3.3E+
01
4.8E+
00
3.3E+
02
4.8E+
01
3.3E+
03
4.8E+
02
3.3E+
02
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.2E+
00
6.1E­
01
4.2E+
01
6.1E+
00
4.2E+
02
6.1E+
01
3.0E+
02
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
8.1E+
01
1.2E+
01
8.1E+
02
1.2E+
02
8.1E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.1E+
02
108883
Toluene
NC
4.0E+
02
1.1E+
02
4.0E+
03
1.1E+
03
4.0E+
04
1.1E+
04
1.5E+
03
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
7.0E+
01
1.8E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.8E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.8E+
03
1.8E+
02
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
3.0E+
04
3.9E+
03
3.0E+
05
3.9E+
04
3.0E+
06
3.9E+
05
1.5E+
03
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
2.0E+
02
2.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
2.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
2.7E+
03
3.4E+
03
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
1.5E+
01
2.8E+
00
1.5E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.5E+
03
2.8E+
02
4.1E+
02
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
2.2E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.2E+
04
4.0E+
03
2.2E+
05
4.0E+
04
3.1E+
03
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
2.2E+
00
4.1E­
01
2.2E+
01
4.1E+
00
2.2E+
02
4.1E+
01
5.3E+
00
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
7.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.8E+
02
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
4.9E+
00
8.1E­
01
4.9E+
01
8.1E+
00
4.9E+
02
8.1E+
01
2.9E+
02
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
6.0E+
00
1.2E+
00
6.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
01
DRAFT
Table
2a
November
20,
2002
Table
2a:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
4,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
6.0E+
00
1.2E+
00
6.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.5E+
01
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
2.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.7E+
03
9.6E+
03
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
2.8E+
01
1.1E+
01
2.8E+
02
1.1E+
02
2.8E+
03
1.1E+
03
2.5E+
01
1
AF
=
0.1
for
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Target
Concentration
AF
=
0.01
for
Deep
Soil
Gas
Target
Concentration
AF
=
0.001
for
Groundwater
Target
Concentration
**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
The
target
groundwater
concentration
is
the
MCL.
(
The
MCL
for
chloroform
is
the
MCL
for
total
Trihalomethanes.
The
MCL
listed
for
m­
Xylene,
o­
Xylene,
and
p­
Xylene
is
the
MCL
for
total
Xylenes.)

DRAFT
Table
2a
November
20,
2002
Table
2b:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
2.1E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.1E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.1E+
04
3.3E+
03
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
NC
9.0E+
00
5.0E+
00
9.0E+
01
5.0E+
01
9.0E+
02
5.0E+
02
2.8E+
03
67641
Acetone
X
NC
3.5E+
02
1.5E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
1.5E+
04
2.2E+
05
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
6.0E+
01
3.6E+
01
6.0E+
02
3.6E+
02
6.0E+
03
3.6E+
03
4.2E+
04
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
3.5E+
02
7.1E+
01
3.5E+
03
7.1E+
02
3.5E+
04
7.1E+
03
8.0E+
05
107028
Acrolein
NC
2.0E­
02
8.7E­
03
2.0E­
01
8.7E­
02
2.0E+
00
8.7E­
01
4.0E+
00
107131
Acrylonitrile
C
3.6E­
01
1.7E­
01
3.6E+
00
1.7E+
00
3.6E+
01
1.7E+
01
8.5E+
01
309002
Aldrin
C
5.0E­
03
3.3E­
04
5.0E­
02
3.3E­
03
5.0E­
01
3.3E­
02
7.1E­
01
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
1.4E­
02
1.1E­
03
1.4E­
01
1.1E­
02
1.4E+
00
1.1E­
01
3.1E+
01
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
3.5E+
02
8.1E+
01
3.5E+
03
8.1E+
02
3.5E+
04
8.1E+
03
3.6E+
05
71432
Benzene
C
3.1E+
00
9.8E­
01
3.1E+
01
9.8E+
00
3.1E+
02
9.8E+
01
1.4E+
01
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
1.2E­
01
1.1E­
02
1.2E+
00
1.1E­
01
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
5.0E­
01
9.7E­
02
5.0E+
00
9.7E­
01
5.0E+
01
9.7E+
00
3.0E+
01
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
2.8E+
02
4.2E+
01
2.8E+
03
4.2E+
02
2.8E+
04
4.2E+
03
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
1.8E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.8E+
03
2.8E+
02
1.8E+
04
2.8E+
03
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
7.4E­
02
1.3E­
02
7.4E­
01
1.3E­
01
7.4E+
00
1.3E+
00
1.0E+
02
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
2.4E+
00
3.5E­
01
2.4E+
01
3.5E+
00
2.4E+
02
3.5E+
01
5.1E+
02
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
3.9E­
04
8.4E­
05
3.9E­
03
8.4E­
04
3.9E­
02
8.4E­
03
4.5E­
02
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
1.4E+
00
2.1E­
01
1.4E+
01
2.1E+
00
1.4E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.1E+
01
75252
Bromoform
C
2.2E+
01
2.1E+
00
2.2E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.2E+
03
2.1E+
02
8.3E­
02
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
8.7E­
02
3.9E­
02
8.7E­
01
3.9E­
01
8.7E+
00
3.9E+
00
2.9E­
02
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
7.0E+
02
2.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
2.2E+
03
7.0E+
04
2.2E+
04
5.6E+
02
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
1.6E+
00
2.6E­
01
1.6E+
01
2.6E+
00
1.6E+
02
2.6E+
01
5.0E+
00
*

57749
Chlordane
C
2.4E­
01
1.5E­
02
2.4E+
00
1.5E­
01
2.4E+
01
1.5E+
00
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
7.0E+
00
1.9E+
00
7.0E+
01
1.9E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.9E+
02
1.4E+
01
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
6.0E+
01
1.3E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
3.9E+
02
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
1.4E+
03
3.7E+
02
1.4E+
04
3.7E+
03
1.4E+
05
3.7E+
04
2.0E+
03
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
1.0E+
00
1.2E­
01
1.0E+
01
1.2E+
00
1.0E+
02
1.2E+
01
3.2E+
01
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
5.0E+
04
1.4E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
1.0E+
04
3.8E+
03
1.0E+
05
3.8E+
04
1.0E+
06
3.8E+
05
2.8E+
04
67663
Chloroform
C
1.1E+
00
2.2E­
01
1.1E+
01
2.2E+
00
1.1E+
02
2.2E+
01
8.0E+
01
*

95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
1.8E+
01
3.3E+
00
1.8E+
02
3.3E+
01
1.8E+
03
3.3E+
02
1.1E+
03
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
1.0E+
02
3.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
3.2E+
02
1.0E+
04
3.2E+
03
1.7E+
02
218019
Chrysene
X
C
1.2E+
01
1.2E+
00
**
**
**
**
**

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.5E+
01
8.8E+
00
3.5E+
02
8.8E+
01
3.5E+
03
8.8E+
02
2.1E+
02
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
4.5E­
02
1.6E­
02
4.5E­
01
1.6E­
01
4.5E+
00
1.6E+
00
5.6E+
01
98828
Cumene
NC
4.0E+
02
8.1E+
01
4.0E+
03
8.1E+
02
4.0E+
04
8.1E+
03
8.4E+
00
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
5,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
DRAFT
Table
2b
November
20,
2002
Table
2b:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
5,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
72559
DDE
X
C
2.5E­
01
1.9E­
02
2.5E+
00
1.9E­
01
2.5E+
01
1.9E+
00
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
1.4E+
01
2.0E+
00
1.4E+
02
2.0E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
02
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
2.0E­
01
2.1E­
02
2.0E+
00
2.1E­
01
2.0E+
01
2.1E+
00
3.3E+
01
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
C
1.1E­
01
1.4E­
02
1.1E+
00
1.4E­
01
1.1E+
01
1.4E+
00
3.6E+
00
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
01
1.1E+
03
1.7E+
02
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
03
8.3E+
02
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
2.0E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.0E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.6E+
03
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
8.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
8.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
8.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.2E+
03
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
2.0E+
02
4.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.0E+
04
4.0E+
03
1.4E+
01
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
5.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
2.2E+
03
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
9.4E­
01
2.3E­
01
9.4E+
00
2.3E+
00
9.4E+
01
2.3E+
01
2.3E+
01
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
2.0E+
02
5.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.0E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.0E+
03
1.9E+
02
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
4.0E+
00
8.7E­
01
4.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
4.0E+
02
8.7E+
01
3.5E+
01
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
C
6.1E+
00
1.3E+
00
6.1E+
01
1.3E+
01
6.1E+
02
1.3E+
02
8.4E+
00
60571
Dieldrin
C
5.3E­
03
3.4E­
04
5.3E­
02
3.4E­
03
5.3E­
01
3.4E­
02
8.6E+
00
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
2.1E+
01
1.3E+
00
2.1E+
02
1.3E+
01
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
1.0E+
00
2.6E­
01
1.0E+
01
2.6E+
00
1.0E+
02
2.6E+
01
8.0E+
02
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
7.0E+
02
2.3E+
02
7.0E+
03
2.3E+
03
7.0E+
04
2.3E+
04
5.2E+
02
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
3.2E+
03
8.7E+
02
3.2E+
04
8.7E+
03
3.2E+
05
8.7E+
04
5.6E+
05
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
2.2E+
01
5.1E+
00
2.2E+
02
5.1E+
01
2.2E+
03
5.1E+
02
7.0E+
02
*

75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
2.4E­
01
1.4E­
01
2.4E+
00
1.4E+
00
2.4E+
01
1.4E+
01
1.1E+
01
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
3.2E+
02
6.8E+
01
3.2E+
03
6.8E+
02
3.2E+
04
6.8E+
03
9.1E+
03
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.1E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.1E+
02
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
3.5E+
00
1.3E+
00
3.5E+
01
1.3E+
01
3.5E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.6E+
01
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
6.6E­
02
5.5E­
03
6.6E­
01
5.5E­
02
6.6E+
00
5.5E­
01
1.1E+
02
76448
Heptachlor
C
1.9E­
02
1.2E­
03
1.9E­
01
1.2E­
02
1.9E+
00
1.2E­
01
4.0E­
01
*

87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
1.1E+
00
1.0E­
01
1.1E+
01
1.0E+
00
1.1E+
02
1.0E+
01
3.3E+
00
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
5.3E­
02
4.5E­
03
5.3E­
01
4.5E­
02
5.3E+
00
4.5E­
01
1.0E+
00
*

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
2.0E­
01
1.8E­
02
2.0E+
00
1.8E­
01
2.0E+
01
1.8E+
00
5.0E+
01
*

67721
Hexachloroethane
C
6.1E+
00
6.3E­
01
6.1E+
01
6.3E+
00
6.1E+
02
6.3E+
01
3.8E+
01
110543
Hexane
NC
2.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.7E+
03
2.9E+
00
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
3.0E+
00
2.7E+
00
3.0E+
01
2.7E+
01
3.0E+
02
2.7E+
02
5.5E+
02
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
1.1E+
03
3.5E+
02
1.1E+
04
3.5E+
03
1.1E+
05
3.5E+
04
2.2E+
06
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
3.0E­
01
3.7E­
02
3.0E+
00
3.7E­
01
3.0E+
01
3.7E+
00
6.8E­
01
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
7.0E­
01
2.6E­
01
7.0E+
00
2.6E+
00
7.0E+
01
2.6E+
01
6.9E+
01
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
1.8E+
01
1.2E+
00
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
3.5E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.5E+
04
1.2E+
04
3.5E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.2E+
05
96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
1.1E+
02
3.0E+
01
1.1E+
03
3.0E+
02
1.1E+
04
3.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
DRAFT
Table
2b
November
20,
2002
Table
2b:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
5,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
5.0E+
00
1.3E+
00
5.0E+
01
1.3E+
01
5.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
2.0E+
01
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
C
2.4E+
01
1.2E+
01
2.4E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
03
1.2E+
03
6.7E+
01
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
3.0E+
03
7.5E+
02
3.0E+
04
7.5E+
03
3.0E+
05
7.5E+
04
7.1E+
02
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
3.5E+
01
4.9E+
00
3.5E+
02
4.9E+
01
3.5E+
03
4.9E+
02
9.9E+
02
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
5.2E+
01
1.5E+
01
5.2E+
02
1.5E+
02
5.2E+
03
1.5E+
03
5.8E+
02
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
1.0E+
03
3.4E+
02
1.0E+
04
3.4E+
03
1.0E+
05
3.4E+
04
4.4E+
05
108101Methylisobutylketone
NC
8.0E+
01
2.0E+
01
8.0E+
02
2.0E+
02
8.0E+
03
2.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
7.0E+
02
1.7E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.7E+
04
5.1E+
04
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
7.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.3E+
03
1634044
MTBE
NC
3.0E+
03
8.3E+
02
3.0E+
04
8.3E+
03
3.0E+
05
8.3E+
04
1.2E+
05
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
2.3E+
04
91203
Naphthalene
NC
3.0E+
00
5.7E­
01
3.0E+
01
5.7E+
00
3.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
1.5E+
02
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.6E+
02
98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
2.0E+
00
4.0E­
01
2.0E+
01
4.0E+
00
2.0E+
02
4.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
9.0E­
03
2.5E­
03
9.0E­
02
2.5E­
02
9.0E­
01
2.5E­
01
1.8E+
00
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
1.5E­
02
2.4E­
03
1.5E­
01
2.4E­
02
1.5E+
00
2.4E­
01
1.2E+
00
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.8E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.8E+
03
3.2E+
02
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
3.5E+
01
6.2E+
00
3.5E+
02
6.2E+
01
3.5E+
03
6.2E+
02
6.8E+
04
95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
3.3E+
04
106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
2.2E+
04
129000
Pyrene
X
NC
1.1E+
02
1.3E+
01
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.5E+
02
100425
Styrene
NC
1.0E+
03
2.3E+
02
1.0E+
04
2.3E+
03
1.0E+
05
2.3E+
04
8.9E+
03
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.9E+
02
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
3.3E+
00
4.8E­
01
3.3E+
01
4.8E+
00
3.3E+
02
4.8E+
01
3.3E+
01
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.2E­
01
6.1E­
02
4.2E+
00
6.1E­
01
4.2E+
01
6.1E+
00
3.0E+
01
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
8.1E+
00
1.2E+
00
8.1E+
01
1.2E+
01
8.1E+
02
1.2E+
02
1.1E+
01
108883
Toluene
NC
4.0E+
02
1.1E+
02
4.0E+
03
1.1E+
03
4.0E+
04
1.1E+
04
1.5E+
03
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
7.0E+
01
1.8E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.8E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.8E+
03
1.8E+
02
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
3.0E+
04
3.9E+
03
3.0E+
05
3.9E+
04
3.0E+
06
3.9E+
05
1.5E+
03
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
2.0E+
02
2.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
2.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
2.7E+
03
3.4E+
03
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
1.5E+
00
2.8E­
01
1.5E+
01
2.8E+
00
1.5E+
02
2.8E+
01
4.1E+
01
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
2.2E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.2E+
04
4.0E+
03
2.2E+
05
4.0E+
04
3.1E+
03
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
2.2E­
01
4.1E­
02
2.2E+
00
4.1E­
01
2.2E+
01
4.1E+
00
5.0E+
00
*

75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
7.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.8E+
02
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
4.9E+
00
8.1E­
01
4.9E+
01
8.1E+
00
4.9E+
02
8.1E+
01
2.9E+
02
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
6.0E+
00
1.2E+
00
6.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
01
DRAFT
Table
2b
November
20,
2002
Table
2b:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
5,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
6.0E+
00
1.2E+
00
6.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.5E+
01
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
2.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.7E+
03
9.6E+
03
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
2.8E+
00
1.1E+
00
2.8E+
01
1.1E+
01
2.8E+
02
1.1E+
02
2.5E+
00
1
AF
=
0.1
for
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Target
Concentration
AF
=
0.01
for
Deep
Soil
Gas
Target
Concentration
AF
=
0.001
for
Groundwater
Target
Concentration
**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
The
target
groundwater
concentration
is
the
MCL.
(
The
MCL
for
chloroform
is
the
MCL
for
total
Trihalomethanes.
The
MCL
listed
for
m­
Xylene,
o­
Xylene,
and
p­
Xylene
is
the
MCL
for
total
Xylenes.)

DRAFT
Table
2b
November
20,
2002
Table
2c:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
2.1E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.1E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.1E+
04
3.3E+
03
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
C
1.1E+
00
6.1E­
01
1.1E+
01
6.1E+
00
1.1E+
02
6.1E+
01
3.4E+
02
67641
Acetone
X
NC
3.5E+
02
1.5E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
1.5E+
04
2.2E+
05
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
6.0E+
01
3.6E+
01
6.0E+
02
3.6E+
02
6.0E+
03
3.6E+
03
4.2E+
04
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
3.5E+
02
7.1E+
01
3.5E+
03
7.1E+
02
3.5E+
04
7.1E+
03
8.0E+
05
107028
Acrolein
NC
2.0E­
02
8.7E­
03
2.0E­
01
8.7E­
02
2.0E+
00
8.7E­
01
4.0E+
00
107131
Acrylonitrile
C
3.6E­
02
1.7E­
02
3.6E­
01
1.7E­
01
3.6E+
00
1.7E+
00
8.5E+
00
309002
Aldrin
C
5.0E­
04
3.3E­
05
5.0E­
03
3.3E­
04
5.0E­
02
3.3E­
03
7.1E­
02
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
1.4E­
03
1.1E­
04
1.4E­
02
1.1E­
03
1.4E­
01
1.1E­
02
3.1E+
00
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
3.5E+
02
8.1E+
01
3.5E+
03
8.1E+
02
3.5E+
04
8.1E+
03
3.6E+
05
71432
Benzene
C
3.1E­
01
9.8E­
02
3.1E+
00
9.8E­
01
3.1E+
01
9.8E+
00
5.0E+
00
*

205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
1.2E­
02
1.1E­
03
1.2E­
01
1.1E­
02
1.2E+
00
1.1E­
01
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
5.0E­
02
9.7E­
03
5.0E­
01
9.7E­
02
5.0E+
00
9.7E­
01
3.0E+
00
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
2.8E+
02
4.2E+
01
2.8E+
03
4.2E+
02
2.8E+
04
4.2E+
03
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
1.8E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.8E+
03
2.8E+
02
1.8E+
04
2.8E+
03
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
7.4E­
03
1.3E­
03
7.4E­
02
1.3E­
02
7.4E­
01
1.3E­
01
1.0E+
01
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
2.4E­
01
3.5E­
02
2.4E+
00
3.5E­
01
2.4E+
01
3.5E+
00
5.1E+
01
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
3.9E­
05
8.4E­
06
3.9E­
04
8.4E­
05
3.9E­
03
8.4E­
04
4.5E­
03
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
1.4E­
01
2.1E­
02
1.4E+
00
2.1E­
01
1.4E+
01
2.1E+
00
2.1E+
00
75252
Bromoform
C
2.2E+
00
2.1E­
01
2.2E+
01
2.1E+
00
2.2E+
02
2.1E+
01
8.3E­
03
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
8.7E­
03
3.9E­
03
8.7E­
02
3.9E­
02
8.7E­
01
3.9E­
01
2.9E­
03
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
7.0E+
02
2.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
2.2E+
03
7.0E+
04
2.2E+
04
5.6E+
02
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
1.6E­
01
2.6E­
02
1.6E+
00
2.6E­
01
1.6E+
01
2.6E+
00
5.0E+
00
*

57749
Chlordane
C
2.4E­
02
1.5E­
03
2.4E­
01
1.5E­
02
2.4E+
00
1.5E­
01
1.2E+
01
126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
7.0E+
00
1.9E+
00
7.0E+
01
1.9E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.9E+
02
1.4E+
01
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
6.0E+
01
1.3E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
3.9E+
02
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
1.4E+
03
3.7E+
02
1.4E+
04
3.7E+
03
1.4E+
05
3.7E+
04
2.0E+
03
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
1.0E­
01
1.2E­
02
1.0E+
00
1.2E­
01
1.0E+
01
1.2E+
00
3.2E+
00
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
5.0E+
04
1.4E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
1.0E+
04
3.8E+
03
1.0E+
05
3.8E+
04
1.0E+
06
3.8E+
05
2.8E+
04
67663
Chloroform
C
1.1E­
01
2.2E­
02
1.1E+
00
2.2E­
01
1.1E+
01
2.2E+
00
8.0E+
01
*

95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
1.8E+
01
3.3E+
00
1.8E+
02
3.3E+
01
1.8E+
03
3.3E+
02
1.1E+
03
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
1.0E+
02
3.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
3.2E+
02
1.0E+
04
3.2E+
03
1.7E+
02
218019
Chrysene
X
C
1.2E+
00
1.2E­
01
1.2E+
01
1.2E+
00
**
**
**

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.5E+
01
8.8E+
00
3.5E+
02
8.8E+
01
3.5E+
03
8.8E+
02
2.1E+
02
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
4.5E­
03
1.6E­
03
4.5E­
02
1.6E­
02
4.5E­
01
1.6E­
01
5.6E+
00
98828
Cumene
NC
4.0E+
02
8.1E+
01
4.0E+
03
8.1E+
02
4.0E+
04
8.1E+
03
8.4E+
00
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
6,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
DRAFT
Table
2c
November
20,
2002
Table
2c:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
6,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
72559
DDE
X
C
2.5E­
02
1.9E­
03
2.5E­
01
1.9E­
02
2.5E+
00
1.9E­
01
2.9E+
01
132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
1.4E+
01
2.0E+
00
1.4E+
02
2.0E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
02
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
2.0E­
01
2.1E­
02
2.0E+
00
2.1E­
01
2.0E+
01
2.1E+
00
3.3E+
01
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
C
1.1E­
02
1.4E­
03
1.1E­
01
1.4E­
02
1.1E+
00
1.4E­
01
3.6E­
01
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
01
1.1E+
03
1.7E+
02
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
03
8.3E+
02
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
2.0E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.0E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.6E+
03
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
8.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
8.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
8.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.2E+
03
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
2.0E+
02
4.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.0E+
04
4.0E+
03
1.4E+
01
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
5.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
2.2E+
03
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
9.4E­
02
2.3E­
02
9.4E­
01
2.3E­
01
9.4E+
00
2.3E+
00
5.0E+
00
*

75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
2.0E+
02
5.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.0E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.0E+
03
1.9E+
02
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
4.0E+
00
8.7E­
01
4.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
4.0E+
02
8.7E+
01
3.5E+
01
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
C
6.1E­
01
1.3E­
01
6.1E+
00
1.3E+
00
6.1E+
01
1.3E+
01
8.4E­
01
60571
Dieldrin
C
5.3E­
04
3.4E­
05
5.3E­
03
3.4E­
04
5.3E­
02
3.4E­
03
8.6E­
01
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
2.1E+
01
1.3E+
00
2.1E+
02
1.3E+
01
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
1.0E+
00
2.6E­
01
1.0E+
01
2.6E+
00
1.0E+
02
2.6E+
01
8.0E+
02
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
7.0E+
02
2.3E+
02
7.0E+
03
2.3E+
03
7.0E+
04
2.3E+
04
5.2E+
02
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
3.2E+
03
8.7E+
02
3.2E+
04
8.7E+
03
3.2E+
05
8.7E+
04
5.6E+
05
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
2.2E+
00
5.1E­
01
2.2E+
01
5.1E+
00
2.2E+
02
5.1E+
01
7.0E+
02
*

75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
2.4E­
02
1.4E­
02
2.4E­
01
1.4E­
01
2.4E+
00
1.4E+
00
1.1E+
00
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
3.2E+
02
6.8E+
01
3.2E+
03
6.8E+
02
3.2E+
04
6.8E+
03
9.1E+
03
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.1E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.1E+
02
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
3.5E+
00
1.3E+
00
3.5E+
01
1.3E+
01
3.5E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.6E+
01
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
6.6E­
03
5.5E­
04
6.6E­
02
5.5E­
03
6.6E­
01
5.5E­
02
1.1E+
01
76448
Heptachlor
C
1.9E­
03
1.2E­
04
1.9E­
02
1.2E­
03
1.9E­
01
1.2E­
02
4.0E­
01
*

87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
1.1E­
01
1.0E­
02
1.1E+
00
1.0E­
01
1.1E+
01
1.0E+
00
3.3E­
01
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
5.3E­
03
4.5E­
04
5.3E­
02
4.5E­
03
5.3E­
01
4.5E­
02
1.0E+
00
*

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
2.0E­
01
1.8E­
02
2.0E+
00
1.8E­
01
2.0E+
01
1.8E+
00
5.0E+
01
*

67721
Hexachloroethane
C
6.1E­
01
6.3E­
02
6.1E+
00
6.3E­
01
6.1E+
01
6.3E+
00
3.8E+
00
110543
Hexane
NC
2.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.7E+
03
2.9E+
00
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
3.0E+
00
2.7E+
00
3.0E+
01
2.7E+
01
3.0E+
02
2.7E+
02
5.5E+
02
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
1.1E+
03
3.5E+
02
1.1E+
04
3.5E+
03
1.1E+
05
3.5E+
04
2.2E+
06
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
3.0E­
01
3.7E­
02
3.0E+
00
3.7E­
01
3.0E+
01
3.7E+
00
6.8E­
01
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
7.0E­
01
2.6E­
01
7.0E+
00
2.6E+
00
7.0E+
01
2.6E+
01
6.9E+
01
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
1.8E+
01
1.2E+
00
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
3.5E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.5E+
04
1.2E+
04
3.5E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.2E+
05
96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
1.1E+
02
3.0E+
01
1.1E+
03
3.0E+
02
1.1E+
04
3.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
DRAFT
Table
2c
November
20,
2002
Table
2c:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
6,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
5.0E+
00
1.3E+
00
5.0E+
01
1.3E+
01
5.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
2.0E+
01
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
C
2.4E+
00
1.2E+
00
2.4E+
01
1.2E+
01
2.4E+
02
1.2E+
02
6.7E+
00
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
3.0E+
03
7.5E+
02
3.0E+
04
7.5E+
03
3.0E+
05
7.5E+
04
7.1E+
02
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
3.5E+
01
4.9E+
00
3.5E+
02
4.9E+
01
3.5E+
03
4.9E+
02
9.9E+
02
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
5.2E+
00
1.5E+
00
5.2E+
01
1.5E+
01
5.2E+
02
1.5E+
02
5.8E+
01
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
1.0E+
03
3.4E+
02
1.0E+
04
3.4E+
03
1.0E+
05
3.4E+
04
4.4E+
05
108101Methylisobutylketone
NC
8.0E+
01
2.0E+
01
8.0E+
02
2.0E+
02
8.0E+
03
2.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
7.0E+
02
1.7E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.7E+
04
5.1E+
04
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
7.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.3E+
03
1634044
MTBE
NC
3.0E+
03
8.3E+
02
3.0E+
04
8.3E+
03
3.0E+
05
8.3E+
04
1.2E+
05
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
2.3E+
04
91203
Naphthalene
NC
3.0E+
00
5.7E­
01
3.0E+
01
5.7E+
00
3.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
1.5E+
02
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.6E+
02
98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
2.0E+
00
4.0E­
01
2.0E+
01
4.0E+
00
2.0E+
02
4.0E+
01
2.0E+
03
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
9.0E­
04
2.5E­
04
9.0E­
03
2.5E­
03
9.0E­
02
2.5E­
02
1.8E­
01
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
1.5E­
03
2.4E­
04
1.5E­
02
2.4E­
03
1.5E­
01
2.4E­
02
1.2E­
01
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.8E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.8E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.8E+
03
3.2E+
02
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
3.5E+
01
6.2E+
00
3.5E+
02
6.2E+
01
3.5E+
03
6.2E+
02
6.8E+
04
95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
3.3E+
04
106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
7.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.6E+
05
2.2E+
04
129000
Pyrene
X
NC
1.1E+
02
1.3E+
01
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.5E+
02
100425
Styrene
NC
1.0E+
03
2.3E+
02
1.0E+
04
2.3E+
03
1.0E+
05
2.3E+
04
8.9E+
03
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
1.4E+
02
2.6E+
01
1.4E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.9E+
02
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
3.3E­
01
4.8E­
02
3.3E+
00
4.8E­
01
3.3E+
01
4.8E+
00
3.3E+
00
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.2E­
02
6.1E­
03
4.2E­
01
6.1E­
02
4.2E+
00
6.1E­
01
3.0E+
00
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
8.1E­
01
1.2E­
01
8.1E+
00
1.2E+
00
8.1E+
01
1.2E+
01
5.0E+
00
*

108883
Toluene
NC
4.0E+
02
1.1E+
02
4.0E+
03
1.1E+
03
4.0E+
04
1.1E+
04
1.5E+
03
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
7.0E+
01
1.8E+
01
7.0E+
02
1.8E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.8E+
03
1.8E+
02
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
3.0E+
04
3.9E+
03
3.0E+
05
3.9E+
04
3.0E+
06
3.9E+
05
1.5E+
03
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
2.0E+
02
2.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
2.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
2.7E+
03
3.4E+
03
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
1.5E­
01
2.8E­
02
1.5E+
00
2.8E­
01
1.5E+
01
2.8E+
00
5.0E+
00
*

71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
2.2E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.2E+
04
4.0E+
03
2.2E+
05
4.0E+
04
3.1E+
03
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
2.2E­
02
4.1E­
03
2.2E­
01
4.1E­
02
2.2E+
00
4.1E­
01
5.0E+
00
*

75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
7.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.8E+
02
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
4.9E+
00
8.1E­
01
4.9E+
01
8.1E+
00
4.9E+
02
8.1E+
01
2.9E+
02
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
6.0E+
00
1.2E+
00
6.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
01
DRAFT
Table
2c
November
20,
2002
Table
2c:
Question
4
Generic
Screening
Levels
and
Summary
Sheet
1
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor
=

0.001
and
Partitioning
Across
the
Water
Table
Obeys
Henry's
Law
Measured
or
Reasonably
Estimated
Groundwater
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
[
if
available]
Cgw
[
if
available]

CAS
No.
Chemical
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
specify
units)
(
ug/
L)
(
specify
units)

Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
to
Satisfy
Both
the
Prescribed
Risk
Level
and
the
Target
Hazard
Index
[
R=
10­
6,
HI=
1)
Target
Shallow
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.1
Target
Deep
Soil
Gas
Concentration
Corresponding
to
Target
Indoor
Air
Concentration
Where
the
Soil
Gas
to
Indoor
Air
Attenuation
Factor=
0.01
Ctarget
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
6.0E+
00
1.2E+
00
6.0E+
01
1.2E+
01
6.0E+
02
1.2E+
02
2.5E+
01
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
2.0E+
02
5.7E+
01
2.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
2.0E+
04
5.7E+
03
9.6E+
03
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
2.8E­
01
1.1E­
01
2.8E+
00
1.1E+
00
2.8E+
01
1.1E+
01
2.0E+
00
*

1
AF
=
0.1
for
Shallow
Soil
Gas
Target
Concentration
AF
=
0.01
for
Deep
Soil
Gas
Target
Concentration
AF
=
0.001
for
Groundwater
Target
Concentration
**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
The
target
groundwater
concentration
is
the
MCL.
(
The
MCL
for
chloroform
is
the
MCL
for
total
Trihalomethanes.
The
MCL
listed
for
m­
Xylene,
o­
Xylene,
and
p­
Xylene
is
the
MCL
for
total
Xylenes.)

DRAFT
Table
2c
November
20,
2002
Table
3a­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
NC
4.5E+
03
2.5E+
03
9.0E+
03
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
04
7.1E+
03
2.2E+
04
1.2E+
04
4.5E+
04
2.5E+
04
67641
Acetone
X
NC
1.8E+
05
7.4E+
04
3.5E+
05
1.5E+
05
5.0E+
05
2.1E+
05
8.8E+
05
3.7E+
05
1.8E+
06
7.4E+
05
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
3.0E+
04
1.8E+
04
6.0E+
04
3.6E+
04
8.6E+
04
5.1E+
04
1.5E+
05
8.9E+
04
3.0E+
05
1.8E+
05
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
1.8E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
7.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.0E+
05
8.8E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.8E+
06
3.6E+
05
107028
Acrolein
NC
1.0E+
01
4.4E+
00
2.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
2.9E+
01
1.2E+
01
5.0E+
01
2.2E+
01
1.0E+
02
4.4E+
01
107131
Acrylonitrile
NC
1.0E+
03
4.6E+
02
2.0E+
03
9.2E+
02
2.9E+
03
1.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
2.3E+
03
1.0E+
04
4.6E+
03
309002
Aldrin
C
2.5E+
01
1.7E+
00
5.0E+
01
3.3E+
00
7.1E+
01
4.8E+
00
**
**
**
**

319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
6.8E+
01
5.7E+
00
1.4E+
02
1.1E+
01
1.9E+
02
1.6E+
01
3.4E+
02
2.8E+
01
6.8E+
02
5.7E+
01
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
1.8E+
05
4.0E+
04
3.5E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
8.8E+
05
2.0E+
05
1.8E+
06
4.0E+
05
71432
Benzene
C
1.6E+
04
4.9E+
03
3.1E+
04
9.8E+
03
4.5E+
04
1.4E+
04
7.8E+
04
2.4E+
04
1.6E+
05
4.9E+
04
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
2.5E+
03
4.8E+
02
5.0E+
03
9.7E+
02
7.2E+
03
1.4E+
03
1.3E+
04
2.4E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.8E+
03
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
1.4E+
05
2.1E+
04
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
8.8E+
04
1.4E+
04
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
3.7E+
02
6.3E+
01
7.4E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.8E+
02
1.8E+
03
3.2E+
02
3.7E+
03
6.3E+
02
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
1.2E+
04
1.7E+
03
2.4E+
04
3.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
5.0E+
03
6.1E+
04
8.7E+
03
1.2E+
05
1.7E+
04
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
2.0E+
00
4.2E­
01
3.9E+
00
8.4E­
01
5.6E+
00
1.2E+
00
9.8E+
00
2.1E+
00
2.0E+
01
4.2E+
00
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
6.9E+
03
1.0E+
03
1.4E+
04
2.1E+
03
2.0E+
04
2.9E+
03
3.4E+
04
5.1E+
03
6.9E+
04
1.0E+
04
75252
Bromoform
C
1.1E+
05
1.1E+
04
2.2E+
05
2.1E+
04
3.2E+
05
3.1E+
04
5.5E+
05
5.4E+
04
1.1E+
06
1.1E+
05
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
4.3E+
02
2.0E+
02
8.7E+
02
3.9E+
02
1.2E+
03
5.6E+
02
2.2E+
03
9.8E+
02
4.3E+
03
2.0E+
03
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
3.5E+
05
1.1E+
05
7.0E+
05
2.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.2E+
05
1.8E+
06
5.6E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.1E+
06
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
8.1E+
03
1.3E+
03
1.6E+
04
2.6E+
03
2.3E+
04
3.7E+
03
4.1E+
04
6.5E+
03
8.1E+
04
1.3E+
04
57749
Chlordane
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
3.5E+
03
9.7E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.9E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.8E+
03
1.8E+
04
4.8E+
03
3.5E+
04
9.7E+
03
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
3.0E+
04
6.5E+
03
6.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.5E+
04
1.8E+
04
1.5E+
05
3.2E+
04
3.0E+
05
6.5E+
04
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
7.0E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.4E+
06
3.7E+
05
2.0E+
06
5.3E+
05
3.5E+
06
9.2E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.8E+
06
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
5.1E+
03
6.0E+
02
1.0E+
04
1.2E+
03
1.4E+
04
1.7E+
03
2.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
5.1E+
04
6.0E+
03
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
5.0E+
06
1.9E+
06
1.0E+
07
3.8E+
06
1.4E+
07
5.4E+
06
2.5E+
07
9.5E+
06
5.0E+
07
1.9E+
07
67663
Chloroform
C
5.3E+
03
1.1E+
03
1.1E+
04
2.2E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.1E+
03
2.6E+
04
5.4E+
03
5.3E+
04
1.1E+
04
95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
8.8E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.8E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.8E+
03
4.4E+
04
8.3E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.7E+
04
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
5.1E+
04
1.6E+
04
1.0E+
05
3.2E+
04
1.5E+
05
4.5E+
04
2.5E+
05
7.9E+
04
5.1E+
05
1.6E+
05
218019
Chrysene
X
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
1.8E+
04
4.4E+
03
3.5E+
04
8.8E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.8E+
04
2.2E+
04
1.8E+
05
4.4E+
04
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
2.2E+
02
7.8E+
01
4.5E+
02
1.6E+
02
6.4E+
02
2.2E+
02
1.1E+
03
3.9E+
02
2.2E+
03
7.8E+
02
98828
Cumene
NC
2.0E+
05
4.1E+
04
4.0E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.7E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.0E+
05
2.0E+
06
4.1E+
05
72559
DDE
X
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
1.0E+
02
1.0E+
01
2.0E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.9E+
02
3.0E+
01
5.0E+
02
5.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.0E+
02
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
NC
1.0E+
02
1.3E+
01
2.0E+
02
2.6E+
01
2.9E+
02
3.7E+
01
5.0E+
02
6.5E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.3E+
02
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
5.3E+
04
8.7E+
03
1.1E+
05
1.7E+
04
1.5E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.6E+
05
4.4E+
04
5.3E+
05
8.7E+
04
Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
2x10­
3
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
DRAFT
Table
3a­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3a­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
2x10­
3
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.3E+
04
2.9E+
05
4.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
8.3E+
04
1.0E+
06
1.7E+
05
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
4.0E+
05
6.7E+
04
8.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.1E+
06
1.9E+
05
2.0E+
06
3.3E+
05
4.0E+
06
6.7E+
05
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
1.0E+
05
2.0E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.0E+
04
2.9E+
05
5.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.0E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.0E+
05
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
2.5E+
05
6.2E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.1E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.3E+
06
3.1E+
05
2.5E+
06
6.2E+
05
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
4.7E+
03
1.2E+
03
9.4E+
03
2.3E+
03
1.3E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.3E+
04
5.8E+
03
4.7E+
04
1.2E+
04
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
1.0E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.0E+
04
2.9E+
05
7.2E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.5E+
05
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
2.0E+
03
4.3E+
02
4.0E+
03
8.7E+
02
5.7E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.2E+
03
2.0E+
04
4.3E+
03
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
NC
1.0E+
04
2.2E+
03
2.0E+
04
4.4E+
03
2.9E+
04
6.3E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.1E+
04
1.0E+
05
2.2E+
04
60571
Dieldrin
C
2.6E+
01
1.7E+
00
5.3E+
01
3.4E+
00
7.6E+
01
4.9E+
00
**
**
**
**

115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
5.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.0E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
03
3.8E+
02
2.5E+
03
6.6E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
3.5E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.0E+
05
2.3E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.3E+
05
1.8E+
06
5.8E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
1.6E+
06
4.4E+
05
3.2E+
06
8.7E+
05
4.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
7.9E+
06
2.2E+
06
1.6E+
07
4.4E+
06
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
1.1E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.2E+
05
5.1E+
04
3.2E+
05
7.3E+
04
5.5E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.1E+
06
2.5E+
05
75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
1.2E+
03
6.8E+
02
2.4E+
03
1.4E+
03
3.5E+
03
1.9E+
03
6.1E+
03
3.4E+
03
1.2E+
04
6.8E+
03
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
1.6E+
05
3.4E+
04
3.2E+
05
6.8E+
04
4.5E+
05
9.6E+
04
7.9E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.6E+
06
3.4E+
05
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
1.8E+
03
6.3E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
1.8E+
03
8.8E+
03
3.1E+
03
1.8E+
04
6.3E+
03
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
3.3E+
02
2.8E+
01
6.6E+
02
5.5E+
01
9.4E+
02
7.9E+
01
1.6E+
03
1.4E+
02
3.3E+
03
2.8E+
02
76448
Heptachlor
C
9.4E+
01
6.1E+
00
1.9E+
02
1.2E+
01
2.7E+
02
1.8E+
01
4.7E+
02
3.1E+
01
9.4E+
02
6.1E+
01
87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
5.5E+
03
5.2E+
02
1.1E+
04
1.0E+
03
1.6E+
04
1.5E+
03
2.8E+
04
2.6E+
03
5.5E+
04
5.2E+
03
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
2.6E+
02
2.3E+
01
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
1.0E+
02
9.0E+
00
2.0E+
02
1.8E+
01
2.9E+
02
2.6E+
01
5.0E+
02
4.5E+
01
1.0E+
03
9.0E+
01
67721
Hexachloroethane
C
3.0E+
04
3.1E+
03
6.1E+
04
6.3E+
03
8.7E+
04
9.0E+
03
1.5E+
05
1.6E+
04
3.0E+
05
3.1E+
04
110543
Hexane
NC
1.0E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.8E+
05
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
1.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
3.0E+
03
2.7E+
03
4.3E+
03
3.9E+
03
7.5E+
03
6.8E+
03
1.5E+
04
1.4E+
04
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
5.3E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.1E+
06
3.5E+
05
1.5E+
06
5.0E+
05
2.6E+
06
8.7E+
05
5.3E+
06
1.7E+
06
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
1.5E+
02
1.8E+
01
3.0E+
02
3.7E+
01
4.3E+
02
5.2E+
01
7.5E+
02
9.1E+
01
1.5E+
03
1.8E+
02
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
3.5E+
02
1.3E+
02
7.0E+
02
2.6E+
02
1.0E+
03
3.6E+
02
1.8E+
03
6.4E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
1.8E+
06
5.8E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
5.0E+
06
1.7E+
06
8.8E+
06
2.9E+
06
**
**

96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
5.3E+
04
1.5E+
04
1.1E+
05
3.0E+
04
1.5E+
05
4.3E+
04
2.6E+
05
7.5E+
04
5.3E+
05
1.5E+
05
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
2.5E+
03
6.4E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
7.1E+
03
1.8E+
03
1.3E+
04
3.2E+
03
2.5E+
04
6.4E+
03
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
NC
4.5E+
04
2.2E+
04
9.0E+
04
4.4E+
04
1.3E+
05
6.2E+
04
2.3E+
05
1.1E+
05
4.5E+
05
2.2E+
05
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
1.5E+
06
3.7E+
05
3.0E+
06
7.5E+
05
4.3E+
06
1.1E+
06
7.5E+
06
1.9E+
06
1.5E+
07
3.7E+
06
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
1.8E+
04
2.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
4.9E+
03
5.0E+
04
7.0E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.8E+
05
2.5E+
04
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
2.6E+
05
7.5E+
04
5.2E+
05
1.5E+
05
7.4E+
05
2.1E+
05
1.3E+
06
3.7E+
05
2.6E+
06
7.5E+
05
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
5.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.4E+
05
1.4E+
06
4.8E+
05
2.5E+
06
8.5E+
05
5.0E+
06
1.7E+
06
108101
Methylisobutylketone
NC
4.0E+
04
9.8E+
03
8.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
1.1E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.9E+
04
4.0E+
05
9.8E+
04
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
3.5E+
05
8.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.4E+
05
1.8E+
06
4.3E+
05
3.5E+
06
8.6E+
05
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
3.5E+
04
6.0E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
04
1.8E+
05
3.0E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.0E+
04
1634044
MTBE
NC
1.5E+
06
4.2E+
05
3.0E+
06
8.3E+
05
4.3E+
06
1.2E+
06
7.5E+
06
2.1E+
06
1.5E+
07
4.2E+
06
DRAFT
Table
3a­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3a­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
2x10­
3
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
91203
Naphthalene
NC
1.5E+
03
2.9E+
02
3.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
4.3E+
03
8.2E+
02
7.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
2.9E+
03
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
1.0E+
03
2.0E+
02
2.0E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.9E+
03
5.7E+
02
5.0E+
03
9.9E+
02
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
03
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
4.5E+
01
1.2E+
01
9.0E+
01
2.5E+
01
1.3E+
02
3.5E+
01
2.3E+
02
6.2E+
01
4.5E+
02
1.2E+
02
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
7.6E+
01
1.2E+
01
1.5E+
02
2.4E+
01
2.2E+
02
3.4E+
01
3.8E+
02
5.9E+
01
7.6E+
02
1.2E+
02
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.4E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.1E+
04
3.5E+
05
7.1E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
1.8E+
04
3.1E+
03
3.5E+
04
6.2E+
03
5.0E+
04
8.9E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.6E+
04
1.8E+
05
3.1E+
04
95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
129000
Pyrene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
100425
Styrene
NC
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.3E+
05
1.4E+
06
3.4E+
05
2.5E+
06
5.9E+
05
5.0E+
06
1.2E+
06
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
1.6E+
04
2.4E+
03
3.3E+
04
4.8E+
03
4.7E+
04
6.8E+
03
8.2E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.6E+
05
2.4E+
04
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
2.1E+
03
3.1E+
02
4.2E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
8.7E+
02
1.0E+
04
1.5E+
03
2.1E+
04
3.1E+
03
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
4.1E+
04
6.0E+
03
8.1E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.2E+
05
1.7E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.0E+
04
4.1E+
05
6.0E+
04
108883
Toluene
NC
2.0E+
05
5.3E+
04
4.0E+
05
1.1E+
05
5.7E+
05
1.5E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.7E+
05
2.0E+
06
5.3E+
05
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.5E+
04
8.8E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.8E+
04
1.0E+
05
2.5E+
04
1.8E+
05
4.4E+
04
3.5E+
05
8.8E+
04
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
1.5E+
07
2.0E+
06
3.0E+
07
3.9E+
06
4.3E+
07
5.6E+
06
7.5E+
07
9.8E+
06
1.5E+
08
2.0E+
07
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
1.0E+
05
1.3E+
04
2.0E+
05
2.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
3.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
6.7E+
04
1.0E+
06
1.3E+
05
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
7.6E+
03
1.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
2.8E+
03
2.2E+
04
4.0E+
03
3.8E+
04
7.0E+
03
7.6E+
04
1.4E+
04
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
1.1E+
06
2.0E+
05
2.2E+
06
4.0E+
05
3.1E+
06
5.8E+
05
5.5E+
06
1.0E+
06
1.1E+
07
2.0E+
06
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
1.1E+
03
2.1E+
02
2.2E+
03
4.1E+
02
3.2E+
03
5.9E+
02
5.5E+
03
1.0E+
03
1.1E+
04
2.1E+
03
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
3.5E+
05
6.2E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
1.8E+
05
1.8E+
06
3.1E+
05
3.5E+
06
6.2E+
05
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
2.5E+
03
4.1E+
02
4.9E+
03
8.1E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.2E+
04
2.0E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.1E+
03
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.0E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
8.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.1E+
03
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.0E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
8.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.1E+
03
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
1.0E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.8E+
05
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
1.4E+
04
5.4E+
03
2.8E+
04
1.1E+
04
4.0E+
04
1.5E+
04
6.9E+
04
2.7E+
04
1.4E+
05
5.4E+
04
**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
at
this
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)
DRAFT
Table
3a­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3b­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
NC
4.5E+
03
2.5E+
03
9.0E+
03
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
04
7.1E+
03
2.2E+
04
1.2E+
04
4.5E+
04
2.5E+
04
67641
Acetone
X
NC
1.8E+
05
7.4E+
04
3.5E+
05
1.5E+
05
5.0E+
05
2.1E+
05
8.8E+
05
3.7E+
05
1.8E+
06
7.4E+
05
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
3.0E+
04
1.8E+
04
6.0E+
04
3.6E+
04
8.6E+
04
5.1E+
04
1.5E+
05
8.9E+
04
3.0E+
05
1.8E+
05
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
1.8E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
7.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.0E+
05
8.8E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.8E+
06
3.6E+
05
107028
Acrolein
NC
1.0E+
01
4.4E+
00
2.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
2.9E+
01
1.2E+
01
5.0E+
01
2.2E+
01
1.0E+
02
4.4E+
01
107131
Acrylonitrile
C
1.8E+
02
8.3E+
01
3.6E+
02
1.7E+
02
5.1E+
02
2.4E+
02
8.9E+
02
4.1E+
02
1.8E+
03
8.3E+
02
309002
Aldrin
C
2.5E+
00
1.7E­
01
5.0E+
00
3.3E­
01
7.1E+
00
4.8E­
01
1.2E+
01
8.3E­
01
2.5E+
01
1.7E+
00
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
6.8E+
00
5.7E­
01
1.4E+
01
1.1E+
00
1.9E+
01
1.6E+
00
3.4E+
01
2.8E+
00
6.8E+
01
5.7E+
00
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
1.8E+
05
4.0E+
04
3.5E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
8.8E+
05
2.0E+
05
1.8E+
06
4.0E+
05
71432
Benzene
C
1.6E+
03
4.9E+
02
3.1E+
03
9.8E+
02
4.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
7.8E+
03
2.4E+
03
1.6E+
04
4.9E+
03
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
2.5E+
02
4.8E+
01
5.0E+
02
9.7E+
01
7.2E+
02
1.4E+
02
1.3E+
03
2.4E+
02
2.5E+
03
4.8E+
02
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
1.4E+
05
2.1E+
04
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
8.8E+
04
1.4E+
04
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
3.7E+
01
6.3E+
00
7.4E+
01
1.3E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.8E+
01
1.8E+
02
3.2E+
01
3.7E+
02
6.3E+
01
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
1.2E+
03
1.7E+
02
2.4E+
03
3.5E+
02
3.5E+
03
5.0E+
02
6.1E+
03
8.7E+
02
1.2E+
04
1.7E+
03
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
2.0E­
01
4.2E­
02
3.9E­
01
8.4E­
02
5.6E­
01
1.2E­
01
9.8E­
01
2.1E­
01
2.0E+
00
4.2E­
01
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
6.9E+
02
1.0E+
02
1.4E+
03
2.1E+
02
2.0E+
03
2.9E+
02
3.4E+
03
5.1E+
02
6.9E+
03
1.0E+
03
75252
Bromoform
C
1.1E+
04
1.1E+
03
2.2E+
04
2.1E+
03
3.2E+
04
3.1E+
03
5.5E+
04
5.4E+
03
1.1E+
05
1.1E+
04
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
4.3E+
01
2.0E+
01
8.7E+
01
3.9E+
01
1.2E+
02
5.6E+
01
2.2E+
02
9.8E+
01
4.3E+
02
2.0E+
02
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
3.5E+
05
1.1E+
05
7.0E+
05
2.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.2E+
05
1.8E+
06
5.6E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.1E+
06
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
8.1E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.6E+
03
2.6E+
02
2.3E+
03
3.7E+
02
4.1E+
03
6.5E+
02
8.1E+
03
1.3E+
03
57749
Chlordane
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
3.5E+
03
9.7E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.9E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.8E+
03
1.8E+
04
4.8E+
03
3.5E+
04
9.7E+
03
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
3.0E+
04
6.5E+
03
6.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.5E+
04
1.8E+
04
1.5E+
05
3.2E+
04
3.0E+
05
6.5E+
04
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
7.0E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.4E+
06
3.7E+
05
2.0E+
06
5.3E+
05
3.5E+
06
9.2E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.8E+
06
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
5.1E+
02
6.0E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.2E+
02
1.4E+
03
1.7E+
02
2.5E+
03
3.0E+
02
5.1E+
03
6.0E+
02
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
5.0E+
06
1.9E+
06
1.0E+
07
3.8E+
06
1.4E+
07
5.4E+
06
2.5E+
07
9.5E+
06
5.0E+
07
1.9E+
07
67663
Chloroform
C
5.3E+
02
1.1E+
02
1.1E+
03
2.2E+
02
1.5E+
03
3.1E+
02
2.6E+
03
5.4E+
02
5.3E+
03
1.1E+
03
95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
8.8E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.8E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.8E+
03
4.4E+
04
8.3E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.7E+
04
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
5.1E+
04
1.6E+
04
1.0E+
05
3.2E+
04
1.5E+
05
4.5E+
04
2.5E+
05
7.9E+
04
5.1E+
05
1.6E+
05
218019
Chrysene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
1.8E+
04
4.4E+
03
3.5E+
04
8.8E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.8E+
04
2.2E+
04
1.8E+
05
4.4E+
04
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
2.2E+
01
7.8E+
00
4.5E+
01
1.6E+
01
6.4E+
01
2.2E+
01
1.1E+
02
3.9E+
01
2.2E+
02
7.8E+
01
98828
Cumene
NC
2.0E+
05
4.1E+
04
4.0E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.7E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.0E+
05
2.0E+
06
4.1E+
05
72559
DDE
X
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
1.0E+
02
1.0E+
01
2.0E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.9E+
02
3.0E+
01
5.0E+
02
5.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.0E+
02
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
C
5.5E+
01
7.2E+
00
1.1E+
02
1.4E+
01
1.6E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.8E+
02
3.6E+
01
5.5E+
02
7.2E+
01
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
5.3E+
04
8.7E+
03
1.1E+
05
1.7E+
04
1.5E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.6E+
05
4.4E+
04
5.3E+
05
8.7E+
04
Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
3
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
DRAFT
Table
3b­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3b­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
3
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.3E+
04
2.9E+
05
4.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
8.3E+
04
1.0E+
06
1.7E+
05
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
4.0E+
05
6.7E+
04
8.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.1E+
06
1.9E+
05
2.0E+
06
3.3E+
05
4.0E+
06
6.7E+
05
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
1.0E+
05
2.0E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.0E+
04
2.9E+
05
5.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.0E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.0E+
05
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
2.5E+
05
6.2E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.1E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.3E+
06
3.1E+
05
2.5E+
06
6.2E+
05
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
4.7E+
02
1.2E+
02
9.4E+
02
2.3E+
02
1.3E+
03
3.3E+
02
2.3E+
03
5.8E+
02
4.7E+
03
1.2E+
03
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
1.0E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.0E+
04
2.9E+
05
7.2E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.5E+
05
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
2.0E+
03
4.3E+
02
4.0E+
03
8.7E+
02
5.7E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.2E+
03
2.0E+
04
4.3E+
03
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
C
3.0E+
03
6.7E+
02
6.1E+
03
1.3E+
03
8.7E+
03
1.9E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.4E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.7E+
03
60571
Dieldrin
C
2.6E+
00
1.7E­
01
5.3E+
00
3.4E­
01
7.6E+
00
4.9E­
01
1.3E+
01
8.5E­
01
2.6E+
01
1.7E+
00
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
5.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.0E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
03
3.8E+
02
2.5E+
03
6.6E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
3.5E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.0E+
05
2.3E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.3E+
05
1.8E+
06
5.8E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
1.6E+
06
4.4E+
05
3.2E+
06
8.7E+
05
4.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
7.9E+
06
2.2E+
06
1.6E+
07
4.4E+
06
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
1.1E+
04
2.5E+
03
2.2E+
04
5.1E+
03
3.2E+
04
7.3E+
03
5.5E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.1E+
05
2.5E+
04
75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
1.2E+
02
6.8E+
01
2.4E+
02
1.4E+
02
3.5E+
02
1.9E+
02
6.1E+
02
3.4E+
02
1.2E+
03
6.8E+
02
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
1.6E+
05
3.4E+
04
3.2E+
05
6.8E+
04
4.5E+
05
9.6E+
04
7.9E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.6E+
06
3.4E+
05
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
1.8E+
03
6.3E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
1.8E+
03
8.8E+
03
3.1E+
03
1.8E+
04
6.3E+
03
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
3.3E+
01
2.8E+
00
6.6E+
01
5.5E+
00
9.4E+
01
7.9E+
00
1.6E+
02
1.4E+
01
3.3E+
02
2.8E+
01
76448
Heptachlor
C
9.4E+
00
6.1E­
01
1.9E+
01
1.2E+
00
2.7E+
01
1.8E+
00
4.7E+
01
3.1E+
00
9.4E+
01
6.1E+
00
87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
5.5E+
02
5.2E+
01
1.1E+
03
1.0E+
02
1.6E+
03
1.5E+
02
2.8E+
03
2.6E+
02
5.5E+
03
5.2E+
02
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
2.6E+
01
2.3E+
00
5.3E+
01
4.5E+
00
7.6E+
01
6.5E+
00
1.3E+
02
1.1E+
01
2.6E+
02
2.3E+
01
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
1.0E+
02
9.0E+
00
2.0E+
02
1.8E+
01
2.9E+
02
2.6E+
01
5.0E+
02
4.5E+
01
1.0E+
03
9.0E+
01
67721
Hexachloroethane
C
3.0E+
03
3.1E+
02
6.1E+
03
6.3E+
02
8.7E+
03
9.0E+
02
1.5E+
04
1.6E+
03
3.0E+
04
3.1E+
03
110543
Hexane
NC
1.0E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.8E+
05
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
1.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
3.0E+
03
2.7E+
03
4.3E+
03
3.9E+
03
7.5E+
03
6.8E+
03
1.5E+
04
1.4E+
04
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
5.3E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.1E+
06
3.5E+
05
1.5E+
06
5.0E+
05
2.6E+
06
8.7E+
05
5.3E+
06
1.7E+
06
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
1.5E+
02
1.8E+
01
3.0E+
02
3.7E+
01
4.3E+
02
5.2E+
01
7.5E+
02
9.1E+
01
1.5E+
03
1.8E+
02
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
3.5E+
02
1.3E+
02
7.0E+
02
2.6E+
02
1.0E+
03
3.6E+
02
1.8E+
03
6.4E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
1.8E+
06
5.8E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
5.0E+
06
1.7E+
06
8.8E+
06
2.9E+
06
**
**

96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
5.3E+
04
1.5E+
04
1.1E+
05
3.0E+
04
1.5E+
05
4.3E+
04
2.6E+
05
7.5E+
04
5.3E+
05
1.5E+
05
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
2.5E+
03
6.4E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
7.1E+
03
1.8E+
03
1.3E+
04
3.2E+
03
2.5E+
04
6.4E+
03
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
C
1.2E+
04
5.9E+
03
2.4E+
04
1.2E+
04
3.5E+
04
1.7E+
04
6.1E+
04
2.9E+
04
1.2E+
05
5.9E+
04
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
1.5E+
06
3.7E+
05
3.0E+
06
7.5E+
05
4.3E+
06
1.1E+
06
7.5E+
06
1.9E+
06
1.5E+
07
3.7E+
06
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
1.8E+
04
2.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
4.9E+
03
5.0E+
04
7.0E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.8E+
05
2.5E+
04
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
2.6E+
04
7.5E+
03
5.2E+
04
1.5E+
04
7.4E+
04
2.1E+
04
1.3E+
05
3.7E+
04
2.6E+
05
7.5E+
04
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
5.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.4E+
05
1.4E+
06
4.8E+
05
2.5E+
06
8.5E+
05
5.0E+
06
1.7E+
06
108101
Methylisobutylketone
NC
4.0E+
04
9.8E+
03
8.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
1.1E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.9E+
04
4.0E+
05
9.8E+
04
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
3.5E+
05
8.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.4E+
05
1.8E+
06
4.3E+
05
3.5E+
06
8.6E+
05
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
3.5E+
04
6.0E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
04
1.8E+
05
3.0E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.0E+
04
1634044
MTBE
NC
1.5E+
06
4.2E+
05
3.0E+
06
8.3E+
05
4.3E+
06
1.2E+
06
7.5E+
06
2.1E+
06
1.5E+
07
4.2E+
06
DRAFT
Table
3b­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3b­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
3
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
91203
Naphthalene
NC
1.5E+
03
2.9E+
02
3.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
4.3E+
03
8.2E+
02
7.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
2.9E+
03
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
1.0E+
03
2.0E+
02
2.0E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.9E+
03
5.7E+
02
5.0E+
03
9.9E+
02
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
03
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
4.5E+
00
1.2E+
00
9.0E+
00
2.5E+
00
1.3E+
01
3.5E+
00
2.3E+
01
6.2E+
00
4.5E+
01
1.2E+
01
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
7.6E+
00
1.2E+
00
1.5E+
01
2.4E+
00
2.2E+
01
3.4E+
00
3.8E+
01
5.9E+
00
7.6E+
01
1.2E+
01
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.4E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.1E+
04
3.5E+
05
7.1E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
1.8E+
04
3.1E+
03
3.5E+
04
6.2E+
03
5.0E+
04
8.9E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.6E+
04
1.8E+
05
3.1E+
04
95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
129000
Pyrene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
100425
Styrene
NC
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.3E+
05
1.4E+
06
3.4E+
05
2.5E+
06
5.9E+
05
5.0E+
06
1.2E+
06
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
1.6E+
03
2.4E+
02
3.3E+
03
4.8E+
02
4.7E+
03
6.8E+
02
8.2E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.6E+
04
2.4E+
03
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
2.1E+
02
3.1E+
01
4.2E+
02
6.1E+
01
6.0E+
02
8.7E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.5E+
02
2.1E+
03
3.1E+
02
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
4.1E+
03
6.0E+
02
8.1E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.2E+
04
1.7E+
03
2.0E+
04
3.0E+
03
4.1E+
04
6.0E+
03
108883
Toluene
NC
2.0E+
05
5.3E+
04
4.0E+
05
1.1E+
05
5.7E+
05
1.5E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.7E+
05
2.0E+
06
5.3E+
05
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.5E+
04
8.8E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.8E+
04
1.0E+
05
2.5E+
04
1.8E+
05
4.4E+
04
3.5E+
05
8.8E+
04
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
1.5E+
07
2.0E+
06
3.0E+
07
3.9E+
06
4.3E+
07
5.6E+
06
7.5E+
07
9.8E+
06
1.5E+
08
2.0E+
07
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
1.0E+
05
1.3E+
04
2.0E+
05
2.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
3.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
6.7E+
04
1.0E+
06
1.3E+
05
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
7.6E+
02
1.4E+
02
1.5E+
03
2.8E+
02
2.2E+
03
4.0E+
02
3.8E+
03
7.0E+
02
7.6E+
03
1.4E+
03
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
1.1E+
06
2.0E+
05
2.2E+
06
4.0E+
05
3.1E+
06
5.8E+
05
5.5E+
06
1.0E+
06
1.1E+
07
2.0E+
06
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
1.1E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.2E+
02
4.1E+
01
3.2E+
02
5.9E+
01
5.5E+
02
1.0E+
02
1.1E+
03
2.1E+
02
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
3.5E+
05
6.2E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
1.8E+
05
1.8E+
06
3.1E+
05
3.5E+
06
6.2E+
05
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
2.5E+
03
4.1E+
02
4.9E+
03
8.1E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.2E+
04
2.0E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.1E+
03
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.0E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
8.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.1E+
03
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.0E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
8.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.1E+
03
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
1.0E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.8E+
05
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
1.4E+
03
5.4E+
02
2.8E+
03
1.1E+
03
4.0E+
03
1.5E+
03
6.9E+
03
2.7E+
03
1.4E+
04
5.4E+
03
*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
at
this
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
(
pathway
incomplete)
DRAFT
Table
3b­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3c­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
C
5.5E+
02
3.1E+
02
1.1E+
03
6.1E+
02
1.6E+
03
8.8E+
02
2.8E+
03
1.5E+
03
5.5E+
03
3.1E+
03
67641
Acetone
X
NC
1.8E+
05
7.4E+
04
3.5E+
05
1.5E+
05
5.0E+
05
2.1E+
05
8.8E+
05
3.7E+
05
1.8E+
06
7.4E+
05
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
3.0E+
04
1.8E+
04
6.0E+
04
3.6E+
04
8.6E+
04
5.1E+
04
1.5E+
05
8.9E+
04
3.0E+
05
1.8E+
05
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
1.8E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
7.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.0E+
05
8.8E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.8E+
06
3.6E+
05
107028
Acrolein
NC
1.0E+
01
4.4E+
00
2.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
2.9E+
01
1.2E+
01
5.0E+
01
2.2E+
01
1.0E+
02
4.4E+
01
107131
Acrylonitrile
C
1.8E+
01
8.3E+
00
3.6E+
01
1.7E+
01
5.1E+
01
2.4E+
01
8.9E+
01
4.1E+
01
1.8E+
02
8.3E+
01
309002
Aldrin
C
2.5E­
01
1.7E­
02
5.0E­
01
3.3E­
02
7.1E­
01
4.8E­
02
1.2E+
00
8.3E­
02
2.5E+
00
1.7E­
01
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
6.8E­
01
5.7E­
02
1.4E+
00
1.1E­
01
1.9E+
00
1.6E­
01
3.4E+
00
2.8E­
01
6.8E+
00
5.7E­
01
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
1.8E+
05
4.0E+
04
3.5E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
8.8E+
05
2.0E+
05
1.8E+
06
4.0E+
05
71432
Benzene
C
1.6E+
02
4.9E+
01
3.1E+
02
9.8E+
01
4.5E+
02
1.4E+
02
7.8E+
02
2.4E+
02
1.6E+
03
4.9E+
02
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
5.8E+
00
5.6E­
01
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
2.5E+
01
4.8E+
00
5.0E+
01
9.7E+
00
7.2E+
01
1.4E+
01
1.3E+
02
2.4E+
01
2.5E+
02
4.8E+
01
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
1.4E+
05
2.1E+
04
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
8.8E+
04
1.4E+
04
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
3.7E+
00
6.3E­
01
7.4E+
00
1.3E+
00
1.1E+
01
1.8E+
00
1.8E+
01
3.2E+
00
3.7E+
01
6.3E+
00
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
1.2E+
02
1.7E+
01
2.4E+
02
3.5E+
01
3.5E+
02
5.0E+
01
6.1E+
02
8.7E+
01
1.2E+
03
1.7E+
02
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
2.0E­
02
4.2E­
03
3.9E­
02
8.4E­
03
5.6E­
02
1.2E­
02
9.8E­
02
2.1E­
02
2.0E­
01
4.2E­
02
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
6.9E+
01
1.0E+
01
1.4E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.0E+
02
2.9E+
01
3.4E+
02
5.1E+
01
6.9E+
02
1.0E+
02
75252
Bromoform
C
1.1E+
03
1.1E+
02
2.2E+
03
2.1E+
02
3.2E+
03
3.1E+
02
5.5E+
03
5.4E+
02
1.1E+
04
1.1E+
03
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
4.3E+
00
2.0E+
00
8.7E+
00
3.9E+
00
1.2E+
01
5.6E+
00
2.2E+
01
9.8E+
00
4.3E+
01
2.0E+
01
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
3.5E+
05
1.1E+
05
7.0E+
05
2.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.2E+
05
1.8E+
06
5.6E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.1E+
06
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
8.1E+
01
1.3E+
01
1.6E+
02
2.6E+
01
2.3E+
02
3.7E+
01
4.1E+
02
6.5E+
01
8.1E+
02
1.3E+
02
57749
Chlordane
C
1.2E+
01
7.3E­
01
2.4E+
01
1.5E+
00
3.5E+
01
2.1E+
00
6.1E+
01
3.6E+
00
**
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
3.5E+
03
9.7E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.9E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.8E+
03
1.8E+
04
4.8E+
03
3.5E+
04
9.7E+
03
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
3.0E+
04
6.5E+
03
6.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.5E+
04
1.8E+
04
1.5E+
05
3.2E+
04
3.0E+
05
6.5E+
04
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
7.0E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.4E+
06
3.7E+
05
2.0E+
06
5.3E+
05
3.5E+
06
9.2E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.8E+
06
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
5.1E+
01
6.0E+
00
1.0E+
02
1.2E+
01
1.4E+
02
1.7E+
01
2.5E+
02
3.0E+
01
5.1E+
02
6.0E+
01
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
5.0E+
06
1.9E+
06
1.0E+
07
3.8E+
06
1.4E+
07
5.4E+
06
2.5E+
07
9.5E+
06
5.0E+
07
1.9E+
07
67663
Chloroform
C
5.3E+
01
1.1E+
01
1.1E+
02
2.2E+
01
1.5E+
02
3.1E+
01
2.6E+
02
5.4E+
01
5.3E+
02
1.1E+
02
95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
8.8E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.8E+
04
3.3E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.8E+
03
4.4E+
04
8.3E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.7E+
04
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
5.1E+
04
1.6E+
04
1.0E+
05
3.2E+
04
1.5E+
05
4.5E+
04
2.5E+
05
7.9E+
04
5.1E+
05
1.6E+
05
218019
Chrysene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
1.8E+
04
4.4E+
03
3.5E+
04
8.8E+
03
5.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
8.8E+
04
2.2E+
04
1.8E+
05
4.4E+
04
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
2.2E+
00
7.8E­
01
4.5E+
00
1.6E+
00
6.4E+
00
2.2E+
00
1.1E+
01
3.9E+
00
2.2E+
01
7.8E+
00
98828
Cumene
NC
2.0E+
05
4.1E+
04
4.0E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.7E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.0E+
05
2.0E+
06
4.1E+
05
72559
DDE
X
C
1.3E+
01
9.6E­
01
2.5E+
01
1.9E+
00
3.6E+
01
2.8E+
00
6.3E+
01
4.8E+
00
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
1.0E+
02
1.0E+
01
2.0E+
02
2.1E+
01
2.9E+
02
3.0E+
01
5.0E+
02
5.2E+
01
1.0E+
03
1.0E+
02
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
C
5.5E+
00
7.2E­
01
1.1E+
01
1.4E+
00
1.6E+
01
2.1E+
00
2.8E+
01
3.6E+
00
5.5E+
01
7.2E+
00
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
5.3E+
04
8.7E+
03
1.1E+
05
1.7E+
04
1.5E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.6E+
05
4.4E+
04
5.3E+
05
8.7E+
04
Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
3
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
DRAFT
Table
3c­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3c­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
3
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.3E+
04
2.9E+
05
4.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
8.3E+
04
1.0E+
06
1.7E+
05
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
4.0E+
05
6.7E+
04
8.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.1E+
06
1.9E+
05
2.0E+
06
3.3E+
05
4.0E+
06
6.7E+
05
75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
1.0E+
05
2.0E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.0E+
04
2.9E+
05
5.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.0E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.0E+
05
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
2.5E+
05
6.2E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.1E+
05
1.8E+
05
1.3E+
06
3.1E+
05
2.5E+
06
6.2E+
05
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
4.7E+
01
1.2E+
01
9.4E+
01
2.3E+
01
1.3E+
02
3.3E+
01
2.3E+
02
5.8E+
01
4.7E+
02
1.2E+
02
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
1.0E+
05
2.5E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.0E+
04
2.9E+
05
7.2E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.5E+
05
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
2.0E+
03
4.3E+
02
4.0E+
03
8.7E+
02
5.7E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.2E+
03
2.0E+
04
4.3E+
03
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
C
3.0E+
02
6.7E+
01
6.1E+
02
1.3E+
02
8.7E+
02
1.9E+
02
1.5E+
03
3.4E+
02
3.0E+
03
6.7E+
02
60571
Dieldrin
C
2.6E­
01
1.7E­
02
5.3E­
01
3.4E­
02
7.6E­
01
4.9E­
02
1.3E+
00
8.5E­
02
2.6E+
00
1.7E­
01
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
5.0E+
02
1.3E+
02
1.0E+
03
2.6E+
02
1.4E+
03
3.8E+
02
2.5E+
03
6.6E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
3.5E+
05
1.2E+
05
7.0E+
05
2.3E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.3E+
05
1.8E+
06
5.8E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
1.6E+
06
4.4E+
05
3.2E+
06
8.7E+
05
4.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
7.9E+
06
2.2E+
06
1.6E+
07
4.4E+
06
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
1.1E+
03
2.5E+
02
2.2E+
03
5.1E+
02
3.2E+
03
7.3E+
02
5.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
1.1E+
04
2.5E+
03
75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
1.2E+
01
6.8E+
00
2.4E+
01
1.4E+
01
3.5E+
01
1.9E+
01
6.1E+
01
3.4E+
01
1.2E+
02
6.8E+
01
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
1.6E+
05
3.4E+
04
3.2E+
05
6.8E+
04
4.5E+
05
9.6E+
04
7.9E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.6E+
06
3.4E+
05
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
1.8E+
03
6.3E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
1.8E+
03
8.8E+
03
3.1E+
03
1.8E+
04
6.3E+
03
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
3.3E+
00
2.8E­
01
6.6E+
00
5.5E­
01
9.4E+
00
7.9E­
01
1.6E+
01
1.4E+
00
3.3E+
01
2.8E+
00
76448
Heptachlor
C
9.4E­
01
6.1E­
02
1.9E+
00
1.2E­
01
2.7E+
00
1.8E­
01
4.7E+
00
3.1E­
01
9.4E+
00
6.1E­
01
87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
5.5E+
01
5.2E+
00
1.1E+
02
1.0E+
01
1.6E+
02
1.5E+
01
2.8E+
02
2.6E+
01
5.5E+
02
5.2E+
01
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
2.6E+
00
2.3E­
01
5.3E+
00
4.5E­
01
7.6E+
00
6.5E­
01
1.3E+
01
1.1E+
00
2.6E+
01
2.3E+
00
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
1.0E+
02
9.0E+
00
2.0E+
02
1.8E+
01
2.9E+
02
2.6E+
01
5.0E+
02
4.5E+
01
1.0E+
03
9.0E+
01
67721
Hexachloroethane
C
3.0E+
02
3.1E+
01
6.1E+
02
6.3E+
01
8.7E+
02
9.0E+
01
1.5E+
03
1.6E+
02
3.0E+
03
3.1E+
02
110543
Hexane
NC
1.0E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.8E+
05
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
1.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
3.0E+
03
2.7E+
03
4.3E+
03
3.9E+
03
7.5E+
03
6.8E+
03
1.5E+
04
1.4E+
04
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
5.3E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.1E+
06
3.5E+
05
1.5E+
06
5.0E+
05
2.6E+
06
8.7E+
05
5.3E+
06
1.7E+
06
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
1.5E+
02
1.8E+
01
3.0E+
02
3.7E+
01
4.3E+
02
5.2E+
01
7.5E+
02
9.1E+
01
1.5E+
03
1.8E+
02
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
3.5E+
02
1.3E+
02
7.0E+
02
2.6E+
02
1.0E+
03
3.6E+
02
1.8E+
03
6.4E+
02
3.5E+
03
1.3E+
03
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
1.8E+
06
5.8E+
05
3.5E+
06
1.2E+
06
5.0E+
06
1.7E+
06
8.8E+
06
2.9E+
06
**
**

96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
5.3E+
04
1.5E+
04
1.1E+
05
3.0E+
04
1.5E+
05
4.3E+
04
2.6E+
05
7.5E+
04
5.3E+
05
1.5E+
05
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
2.5E+
03
6.4E+
02
5.0E+
03
1.3E+
03
7.1E+
03
1.8E+
03
1.3E+
04
3.2E+
03
2.5E+
04
6.4E+
03
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
C
1.2E+
03
5.9E+
02
2.4E+
03
1.2E+
03
3.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
6.1E+
03
2.9E+
03
1.2E+
04
5.9E+
03
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
1.5E+
06
3.7E+
05
3.0E+
06
7.5E+
05
4.3E+
06
1.1E+
06
7.5E+
06
1.9E+
06
1.5E+
07
3.7E+
06
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
1.8E+
04
2.5E+
03
3.5E+
04
4.9E+
03
5.0E+
04
7.0E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.8E+
05
2.5E+
04
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
2.6E+
03
7.5E+
02
5.2E+
03
1.5E+
03
7.4E+
03
2.1E+
03
1.3E+
04
3.7E+
03
2.6E+
04
7.5E+
03
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
5.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.0E+
06
3.4E+
05
1.4E+
06
4.8E+
05
2.5E+
06
8.5E+
05
5.0E+
06
1.7E+
06
108101
Methylisobutylketone
NC
4.0E+
04
9.8E+
03
8.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
1.1E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.9E+
04
4.0E+
05
9.8E+
04
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
3.5E+
05
8.6E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.4E+
05
1.8E+
06
4.3E+
05
3.5E+
06
8.6E+
05
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
3.5E+
04
6.0E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.2E+
04
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
04
1.8E+
05
3.0E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.0E+
04
1634044
MTBE
NC
1.5E+
06
4.2E+
05
3.0E+
06
8.3E+
05
4.3E+
06
1.2E+
06
7.5E+
06
2.1E+
06
1.5E+
07
4.2E+
06
DRAFT
Table
3c­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3c­
SG:
Question
5
Soil
Gas
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )
DRAFT
Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
Data
Extrapolated
C=
cancer
risk
CAS
No.
Chemical
From
Oral
Sources
NC=
noncancer
risk
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)
(
ug/
m3)
(
ppbv)

Target
Soil
Gas
Concentrations
for
Different
Attenuation
Factors
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
Csoil­
gas
 
=
2x10­
3
 
=
1x10­
3
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
4x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
91203
Naphthalene
NC
1.5E+
03
2.9E+
02
3.0E+
03
5.7E+
02
4.3E+
03
8.2E+
02
7.5E+
03
1.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
2.9E+
03
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
1.0E+
03
2.0E+
02
2.0E+
03
4.0E+
02
2.9E+
03
5.7E+
02
5.0E+
03
9.9E+
02
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
03
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
4.5E­
01
1.2E­
01
9.0E­
01
2.5E­
01
1.3E+
00
3.5E­
01
2.3E+
00
6.2E­
01
4.5E+
00
1.2E+
00
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
7.6E­
01
1.2E­
01
1.5E+
00
2.4E­
01
2.2E+
00
3.4E­
01
3.8E+
00
5.9E­
01
7.6E+
00
1.2E+
00
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.4E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
4.1E+
04
3.5E+
05
7.1E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
1.8E+
04
3.1E+
03
3.5E+
04
6.2E+
03
5.0E+
04
8.9E+
03
8.8E+
04
1.6E+
04
1.8E+
05
3.1E+
04
95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
3.5E+
06
8.1E+
05
7.0E+
06
1.6E+
06
1.0E+
07
2.3E+
06
1.8E+
07
4.0E+
06
3.5E+
07
8.1E+
06
129000
Pyrene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
100425
Styrene
NC
5.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.3E+
05
1.4E+
06
3.4E+
05
2.5E+
06
5.9E+
05
5.0E+
06
1.2E+
06
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
7.0E+
04
1.3E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.6E+
04
2.0E+
05
3.6E+
04
3.5E+
05
6.4E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.3E+
05
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
1.6E+
02
2.4E+
01
3.3E+
02
4.8E+
01
4.7E+
02
6.8E+
01
8.2E+
02
1.2E+
02
1.6E+
03
2.4E+
02
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
2.1E+
01
3.1E+
00
4.2E+
01
6.1E+
00
6.0E+
01
8.7E+
00
1.0E+
02
1.5E+
01
2.1E+
02
3.1E+
01
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
4.1E+
02
6.0E+
01
8.1E+
02
1.2E+
02
1.2E+
03
1.7E+
02
2.0E+
03
3.0E+
02
4.1E+
03
6.0E+
02
108883
Toluene
NC
2.0E+
05
5.3E+
04
4.0E+
05
1.1E+
05
5.7E+
05
1.5E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.7E+
05
2.0E+
06
5.3E+
05
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.5E+
04
8.8E+
03
7.0E+
04
1.8E+
04
1.0E+
05
2.5E+
04
1.8E+
05
4.4E+
04
3.5E+
05
8.8E+
04
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
1.5E+
07
2.0E+
06
3.0E+
07
3.9E+
06
4.3E+
07
5.6E+
06
7.5E+
07
9.8E+
06
1.5E+
08
2.0E+
07
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
1.0E+
05
1.3E+
04
2.0E+
05
2.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
3.8E+
04
5.0E+
05
6.7E+
04
1.0E+
06
1.3E+
05
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
7.6E+
01
1.4E+
01
1.5E+
02
2.8E+
01
2.2E+
02
4.0E+
01
3.8E+
02
7.0E+
01
7.6E+
02
1.4E+
02
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
1.1E+
06
2.0E+
05
2.2E+
06
4.0E+
05
3.1E+
06
5.8E+
05
5.5E+
06
1.0E+
06
1.1E+
07
2.0E+
06
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
1.1E+
01
2.1E+
00
2.2E+
01
4.1E+
00
3.2E+
01
5.9E+
00
5.5E+
01
1.0E+
01
1.1E+
02
2.1E+
01
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
3.5E+
05
6.2E+
04
7.0E+
05
1.2E+
05
1.0E+
06
1.8E+
05
1.8E+
06
3.1E+
05
3.5E+
06
6.2E+
05
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
2.5E+
03
4.1E+
02
4.9E+
03
8.1E+
02
7.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
1.2E+
04
2.0E+
03
2.5E+
04
4.1E+
03
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.0E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
8.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.1E+
03
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.0E+
03
6.1E+
02
6.0E+
03
1.2E+
03
8.5E+
03
1.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
3.0E+
03
3.0E+
04
6.1E+
03
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
1.0E+
05
2.8E+
04
2.0E+
05
5.7E+
04
2.9E+
05
8.1E+
04
5.0E+
05
1.4E+
05
1.0E+
06
2.8E+
05
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
1.4E+
02
5.4E+
01
2.8E+
02
1.1E+
02
4.0E+
02
1.5E+
02
6.9E+
02
2.7E+
02
1.4E+
03
5.4E+
02
**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
at
this
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
(
pathway
incomplete)
DRAFT
Table
3c­
SG
November
20,
2002
Table
3a
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
NC
4.0E+
03
5.6E+
03
9.3E+
03
1.4E+
04
2.8E+
04
67641
Acetone
X
NC
3.2E+
05
4.4E+
05
7.4E+
05
1.1E+
06
2.2E+
06
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
6.1E+
04
8.5E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.1E+
05
4.2E+
05
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
1.1E+
06
1.6E+
06
2.7E+
06
4.0E+
06
**

107028
Acrolein
NC
5.7E+
00
8.0E+
00
1.3E+
01
2.0E+
01
4.0E+
01
107131
Acrylonitrile
NC
6.8E+
02
9.5E+
02
1.6E+
03
2.4E+
03
4.7E+
03
309002
Aldrin
C
1.0E+
01
1.4E+
01
**
**
**

319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
4.5E+
02
6.2E+
02
1.0E+
03
1.6E+
03
**

100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
5.1E+
05
7.2E+
05
1.2E+
06
1.8E+
06
**

71432
Benzene
C
2.0E+
02
2.7E+
02
4.6E+
02
6.9E+
02
1.4E+
03
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
4.2E+
02
5.9E+
02
9.8E+
02
1.5E+
03
3.0E+
03
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
1.0E+
04
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
7.3E+
03
1.0E+
04
1.7E+
04
2.5E+
04
5.1E+
04
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
6.4E­
01
9.0E­
01
1.5E+
00
2.3E+
00
4.5E+
00
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
3.0E+
02
4.2E+
02
7.0E+
02
1.1E+
03
2.1E+
03
75252
Bromoform
C
1.2E+
00
1.7E+
00
2.8E+
00
4.2E+
00
8.3E+
00
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
4.1E­
01
5.8E­
01
9.6E­
01
1.4E+
00
2.9E+
00
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
8.1E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.9E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.6E+
03
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
1.9E+
01
2.6E+
01
4.3E+
01
6.5E+
01
1.3E+
02
57749
Chlordane
NC
**
**
**
**
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
2.0E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.8E+
01
7.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
5.6E+
02
7.9E+
02
1.3E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.9E+
03
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
2.9E+
03
4.0E+
03
6.7E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
4.5E+
02
6.3E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
3.2E+
03
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
**
**
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
4.0E+
04
5.5E+
04
9.2E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.8E+
05
67663
Chloroform
C
1.0E+
02
1.4E+
02
2.3E+
02
3.5E+
02
7.0E+
02
95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
1.6E+
03
2.2E+
03
3.6E+
03
5.5E+
03
1.1E+
04
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
2.4E+
02
3.4E+
02
5.7E+
02
8.6E+
02
1.7E+
03
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
DRAFT
Table
3a­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3a
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
218019
Chrysene
X
*
*
*
*
*
*

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.0E+
02
4.2E+
02
7.0E+
02
1.0E+
03
2.1E+
03
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
8.0E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.9E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.6E+
03
98828
Cumene
NC
1.2E+
01
1.7E+
01
2.8E+
01
4.2E+
01
8.4E+
01
72559
DDE
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
4.8E+
01
6.7E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.3E+
02
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
NC
9.4E+
00
1.3E+
01
2.2E+
01
3.3E+
01
6.6E+
01
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
1.2E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.8E+
03
4.1E+
03
8.3E+
03
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
3.7E+
03
5.1E+
03
8.6E+
03
1.3E+
04
2.6E+
04
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
1.2E+
04
1.6E+
04
2.7E+
04
4.1E+
04
**

75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
2.0E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.8E+
01
7.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
3.1E+
03
4.4E+
03
7.3E+
03
1.1E+
04
2.2E+
04
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
3.3E+
02
4.7E+
02
7.8E+
02
1.2E+
03
2.3E+
03
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
2.7E+
02
3.7E+
02
6.2E+
02
9.4E+
02
1.9E+
03
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
5.0E+
01
7.0E+
01
1.2E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.5E+
02
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
NC
3.9E+
01
5.5E+
01
9.2E+
01
1.4E+
02
2.8E+
02
60571
Dieldrin
C
1.2E+
02
1.7E+
02
**
**
**

115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
2.7E+
03
4.0E+
03
8.0E+
03
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
7.4E+
02
1.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.6E+
03
5.2E+
03
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
8.0E+
05
1.1E+
06
1.9E+
06
2.8E+
06
5.6E+
06
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
9.8E+
02
1.4E+
03
2.3E+
03
3.4E+
03
6.9E+
03
75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
1.5E+
02
2.1E+
02
3.6E+
02
5.4E+
02
1.1E+
03
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
1.3E+
04
1.8E+
04
3.0E+
04
4.6E+
04
9.1E+
04
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
2.3E+
01
3.2E+
01
5.3E+
01
7.9E+
01
1.6E+
02
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
1.6E+
03
2.3E+
03
3.8E+
03
5.7E+
03
**

76448
Heptachlor
C
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*

87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
4.7E+
01
6.6E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.3E+
02
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
**
**
**
**
**

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*

67721
Hexachloroethane
C
5.5E+
02
7.6E+
02
1.3E+
03
1.9E+
03
3.8E+
03
DRAFT
Table
3a­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3a
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
110543
Hexane
NC
4.2E+
00
5.9E+
00
9.8E+
00
1.5E+
01
2.9E+
01
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
7.9E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.8E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.5E+
03
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
3.1E+
06
4.4E+
06
7.3E+
06
1.1E+
07
2.2E+
07
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
9.7E­
01
1.4E+
00
2.3E+
00
3.4E+
00
6.8E+
00
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
9.9E+
01
1.4E+
02
2.3E+
02
3.5E+
02
6.9E+
02
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
1.0E+
06
1.4E+
06
**
**
**

96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
2.0E+
04
2.7E+
04
4.6E+
04
6.8E+
04
1.4E+
05
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
2.8E+
01
3.9E+
01
6.5E+
01
9.8E+
01
2.0E+
02
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
NC
3.6E+
02
5.0E+
02
8.3E+
02
1.2E+
03
2.5E+
03
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
1.0E+
03
1.4E+
03
2.4E+
03
3.6E+
03
7.1E+
03
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
9.9E+
03
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
8.3E+
03
1.2E+
04
1.9E+
04
2.9E+
04
5.8E+
04
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
6.2E+
05
8.7E+
05
1.5E+
06
2.2E+
06
4.4E+
06
108101
Methylisobutylketone
NC
2.0E+
04
2.8E+
04
4.7E+
04
7.1E+
04
1.4E+
05
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
7.3E+
04
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
2.5E+
05
5.1E+
05
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
4.7E+
03
6.6E+
03
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
04
**

1634044
MTBE
NC
1.7E+
05
2.3E+
05
3.9E+
05
5.9E+
05
1.2E+
06
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
3.3E+
04
4.7E+
04
7.8E+
04
1.2E+
05
**

91203
Naphthalene
NC
2.2E+
02
3.0E+
02
5.1E+
02
7.6E+
02
1.5E+
03
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
3.7E+
02
5.2E+
02
8.7E+
02
1.3E+
03
**

98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
2.9E+
03
4.1E+
03
6.8E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
2.6E+
01
3.6E+
01
6.0E+
01
9.0E+
01
1.8E+
02
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
1.7E+
01
2.4E+
01
3.9E+
01
5.9E+
01
1.2E+
02
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
4.6E+
02
6.4E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
3.2E+
03
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
9.8E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.3E+
05
3.4E+
05
**

95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
4.7E+
04
6.6E+
04
1.1E+
05
1.6E+
05
**

106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
3.2E+
04
4.5E+
04
7.4E+
04
1.1E+
05
**

129000
Pyrene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
3.5E+
02
4.9E+
02
8.2E+
02
1.2E+
03
2.5E+
03
100425
Styrene
NC
1.3E+
04
1.8E+
04
3.0E+
04
4.4E+
04
8.9E+
04
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
4.1E+
02
5.8E+
02
9.6E+
02
1.4E+
03
2.9E+
03
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.7E+
02
6.6E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.7E+
03
3.3E+
03
DRAFT
Table
3a­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3a
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
4
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.2E+
02
5.9E+
02
9.9E+
02
1.5E+
03
3.0E+
03
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
1.5E+
02
2.2E+
02
3.6E+
02
5.4E+
02
1.1E+
03
108883
Toluene
NC
2.1E+
03
2.9E+
03
4.9E+
03
7.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
2.6E+
02
3.6E+
02
6.1E+
02
9.1E+
02
1.8E+
03
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
2.2E+
03
3.1E+
03
5.1E+
03
7.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
4.9E+
03
6.9E+
03
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
04
3.4E+
04
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
5.8E+
02
8.1E+
02
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
03
4.1E+
03
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
4.5E+
03
6.3E+
03
1.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
3.1E+
04
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
7.5E+
00
1.1E+
01
1.8E+
01
2.6E+
01
5.3E+
01
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
2.5E+
02
3.5E+
02
5.9E+
02
8.8E+
02
1.8E+
03
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
4.2E+
02
5.9E+
02
9.8E+
02
1.5E+
03
2.9E+
03
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.4E+
01
4.7E+
01
7.9E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
02
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.5E+
01
4.9E+
01
8.2E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.5E+
02
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
1.4E+
04
1.9E+
04
3.2E+
04
4.8E+
04
9.6E+
04
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
3.6E+
01
5.0E+
01
8.3E+
01
1.3E+
02
2.5E+
02
**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
at
this
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
The
target
groundwater
concentrations
is
the
MCL.
(
The
MCL
for
chloroform
is
the
MCL
for
total
Trihalomethanes.
The
MCL
listed
for
m­
Xylene,
o­
Xylene,
and
p­
Xylene
is
the
MCL
for
total
Xylenes.

DRAFT
Table
3a­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3b
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
NC
4.0E+
03
5.6E+
03
9.3E+
03
1.4E+
04
2.8E+
04
67641
Acetone
X
NC
3.2E+
05
4.4E+
05
7.4E+
05
1.1E+
06
2.2E+
06
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
6.1E+
04
8.5E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.1E+
05
4.2E+
05
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
1.1E+
06
1.6E+
06
2.7E+
06
4.0E+
06
**

107028
Acrolein
NC
5.7E+
00
8.0E+
00
1.3E+
01
2.0E+
01
4.0E+
01
107131
Acrylonitrile
C
1.2E+
02
1.7E+
02
2.8E+
02
4.2E+
02
8.5E+
02
309002
Aldrin
C
1.0E+
00
1.4E+
00
2.4E+
00
3.6E+
00
7.1E+
00
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
4.5E+
01
6.2E+
01
1.0E+
02
1.6E+
02
3.1E+
02
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
5.1E+
05
7.2E+
05
1.2E+
06
1.8E+
06
**

71432
Benzene
C
2.0E+
01
2.7E+
01
4.6E+
01
6.9E+
01
1.4E+
02
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
4.2E+
01
5.9E+
01
9.8E+
01
1.5E+
02
3.0E+
02
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
1.4E+
02
2.0E+
02
3.3E+
02
5.0E+
02
1.0E+
03
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
7.3E+
02
1.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.5E+
03
5.1E+
03
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
6.4E­
02
9.0E­
02
1.5E­
01
2.3E­
01
4.5E­
01
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
3.0E+
01
4.2E+
01
7.0E+
01
1.1E+
02
2.1E+
02
75252
Bromoform
C
1.2E­
01
1.7E­
01
2.8E­
01
4.2E­
01
8.3E­
01
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
4.1E­
02
5.8E­
02
9.6E­
02
1.4E­
01
2.9E­
01
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
8.1E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.9E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.6E+
03
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
6.5E+
00
1.3E+
01
57749
Chlordane
C
**
**
**
**
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
2.0E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.8E+
01
7.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
5.6E+
02
7.9E+
02
1.3E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.9E+
03
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
2.9E+
03
4.0E+
03
6.7E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
4.5E+
01
6.3E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.6E+
02
3.2E+
02
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
**
**
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
4.0E+
04
5.5E+
04
9.2E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.8E+
05
67663
Chloroform
C
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*

95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
1.6E+
03
2.2E+
03
3.6E+
03
5.5E+
03
1.1E+
04
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
2.4E+
02
3.4E+
02
5.7E+
02
8.6E+
02
1.7E+
03
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
DRAFT
Table
3b­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3b
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
218019
Chrysene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.0E+
02
4.2E+
02
7.0E+
02
1.0E+
03
2.1E+
03
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
8.0E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.9E+
02
2.8E+
02
5.6E+
02
98828
Cumene
NC
1.2E+
01
1.7E+
01
2.8E+
01
4.2E+
01
8.4E+
01
72559
DDE
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
4.8E+
01
6.7E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.3E+
02
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
C
5.2E+
00
7.3E+
00
1.2E+
01
1.8E+
01
3.6E+
01
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
1.2E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.8E+
03
4.1E+
03
8.3E+
03
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
3.7E+
03
5.1E+
03
8.6E+
03
1.3E+
04
2.6E+
04
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
1.2E+
04
1.6E+
04
2.7E+
04
4.1E+
04
**

75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
2.0E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.8E+
01
7.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
3.1E+
03
4.4E+
03
7.3E+
03
1.1E+
04
2.2E+
04
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
3.3E+
01
4.7E+
01
7.8E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.3E+
02
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
2.7E+
02
3.7E+
02
6.2E+
02
9.4E+
02
1.9E+
03
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
5.0E+
01
7.0E+
01
1.2E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.5E+
02
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
C
1.2E+
01
1.7E+
01
2.8E+
01
4.2E+
01
8.4E+
01
60571
Dieldrin
C
1.2E+
01
1.7E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.3E+
01
8.6E+
01
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
2.7E+
03
4.0E+
03
8.0E+
03
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
7.4E+
02
1.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.6E+
03
5.2E+
03
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
8.0E+
05
1.1E+
06
1.9E+
06
2.8E+
06
5.6E+
06
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*

75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
1.5E+
01
2.1E+
01
3.6E+
01
5.4E+
01
1.1E+
02
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
1.3E+
04
1.8E+
04
3.0E+
04
4.6E+
04
9.1E+
04
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
2.3E+
01
3.2E+
01
5.3E+
01
7.9E+
01
1.6E+
02
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
1.6E+
02
2.3E+
02
3.8E+
02
5.7E+
02
1.1E+
03
76448
Heptachlor
C
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*

87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
4.7E+
00
6.6E+
00
1.1E+
01
1.7E+
01
3.3E+
01
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
1.4E+
00
2.0E+
00
3.3E+
00
4.9E+
00
**

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*

67721
Hexachloroethane
C
5.5E+
01
7.6E+
01
1.3E+
02
1.9E+
02
3.8E+
02
DRAFT
Table
3b­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3b
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
110543
Hexane
NC
4.2E+
00
5.9E+
00
9.8E+
00
1.5E+
01
2.9E+
01
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
7.9E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.8E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.5E+
03
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
3.1E+
06
4.4E+
06
7.3E+
06
1.1E+
07
2.2E+
07
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
9.7E­
01
1.4E+
00
2.3E+
00
3.4E+
00
6.8E+
00
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
9.9E+
01
1.4E+
02
2.3E+
02
3.5E+
02
6.9E+
02
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
1.0E+
06
1.4E+
06
**
**
**

96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
2.0E+
04
2.7E+
04
4.6E+
04
6.8E+
04
1.4E+
05
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
2.8E+
01
3.9E+
01
6.5E+
01
9.8E+
01
2.0E+
02
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
C
9.6E+
01
1.3E+
02
2.2E+
02
3.4E+
02
6.7E+
02
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
1.0E+
03
1.4E+
03
2.4E+
03
3.6E+
03
7.1E+
03
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
9.9E+
03
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
8.3E+
02
1.2E+
03
1.9E+
03
2.9E+
03
5.8E+
03
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
6.2E+
05
8.7E+
05
1.5E+
06
2.2E+
06
4.4E+
06
108101
Methylisobutylketone
NC
2.0E+
04
2.8E+
04
4.7E+
04
7.1E+
04
1.4E+
05
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
7.3E+
04
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
2.5E+
05
5.1E+
05
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
4.7E+
03
6.6E+
03
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
04
**

1634044
MTBE
NC
1.7E+
05
2.3E+
05
3.9E+
05
5.9E+
05
1.2E+
06
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
3.3E+
04
4.7E+
04
7.8E+
04
1.2E+
05
**

91203
Naphthalene
NC
2.2E+
02
3.0E+
02
5.1E+
02
7.6E+
02
1.5E+
03
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
3.7E+
02
5.2E+
02
8.7E+
02
1.3E+
03
**

98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
2.9E+
03
4.1E+
03
6.8E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
2.6E+
00
3.6E+
00
6.0E+
00
9.0E+
00
1.8E+
01
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
1.7E+
00
2.4E+
00
3.9E+
00
5.9E+
00
1.2E+
01
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
4.6E+
02
6.4E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
3.2E+
03
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
9.8E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.3E+
05
3.4E+
05
**

95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
4.7E+
04
6.6E+
04
1.1E+
05
1.6E+
05
**

106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
3.2E+
04
4.5E+
04
7.4E+
04
1.1E+
05
**

129000
Pyrene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
3.5E+
02
4.9E+
02
8.2E+
02
1.2E+
03
2.5E+
03
100425
Styrene
NC
1.3E+
04
1.8E+
04
3.0E+
04
4.4E+
04
8.9E+
04
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
4.1E+
02
5.8E+
02
9.6E+
02
1.4E+
03
2.9E+
03
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.7E+
01
6.6E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.3E+
02
DRAFT
Table
3b­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3b
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
5
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.2E+
01
5.9E+
01
9.9E+
01
1.5E+
02
3.0E+
02
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
1.5E+
01
2.2E+
01
3.6E+
01
5.4E+
01
1.1E+
02
108883
Toluene
NC
2.1E+
03
2.9E+
03
4.9E+
03
7.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
2.6E+
02
3.6E+
02
6.1E+
02
9.1E+
02
1.8E+
03
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
2.2E+
03
3.1E+
03
5.1E+
03
7.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
4.9E+
03
6.9E+
03
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
04
3.4E+
04
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
5.8E+
01
8.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
2.0E+
02
4.1E+
02
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
4.5E+
03
6.3E+
03
1.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
3.1E+
04
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.3E+
00
75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
2.5E+
02
3.5E+
02
5.9E+
02
8.8E+
02
1.8E+
03
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
4.2E+
02
5.9E+
02
9.8E+
02
1.5E+
03
2.9E+
03
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.4E+
01
4.7E+
01
7.9E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
02
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.5E+
01
4.9E+
01
8.2E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.5E+
02
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
1.4E+
04
1.9E+
04
3.2E+
04
4.8E+
04
9.6E+
04
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
3.6E+
00
5.0E+
00
8.3E+
00
1.3E+
01
2.5E+
01
**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
at
this
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
The
target
groundwater
concentrations
is
the
MCL.
(
The
MCL
for
chloroform
is
the
MCL
for
total
Trihalomethanes.
The
MCL
listed
for
m­
Xylene,
o­
Xylene,
and
p­
Xylene
is
the
MCL
for
total
Xylenes.

DRAFT
Table
3b­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3c
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

83329
Acenaphthene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

75070
Acetaldehyde
C
4.9E+
02
6.9E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.7E+
03
3.4E+
03
67641
Acetone
X
NC
3.2E+
05
4.4E+
05
7.4E+
05
1.1E+
06
2.2E+
06
75058
Acetonitrile
NC
6.1E+
04
8.5E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.1E+
05
4.2E+
05
98862
Acetophenone
X
NC
1.1E+
06
1.6E+
06
2.7E+
06
4.0E+
06
**

107028
Acrolein
NC
5.7E+
00
8.0E+
00
1.3E+
01
2.0E+
01
4.0E+
01
107131
Acrylonitrile
C
1.2E+
01
1.7E+
01
2.8E+
01
4.2E+
01
8.5E+
01
309002
Aldrin
C
1.0E­
01
1.4E­
01
2.4E­
01
3.6E­
01
7.1E­
01
319846
alpha­
HCH
(
alpha­
BHC)
C
4.5E+
00
6.2E+
00
1.0E+
01
1.6E+
01
3.1E+
01
100527
Benzaldehyde
X
NC
5.1E+
05
7.2E+
05
1.2E+
06
1.8E+
06
**

71432
Benzene
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
6.9E+
00
1.4E+
01
205992
Benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

100447
Benzylchloride
X
C
4.2E+
00
5.9E+
00
9.8E+
00
1.5E+
01
3.0E+
01
91587
beta­
Chloronaphthalene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

92524
Biphenyl
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

111444
Bis(
2­
chloroethyl)
ether
C
1.4E+
01
2.0E+
01
3.3E+
01
5.0E+
01
1.0E+
02
108601
Bis(
2­
chloroisopropyl)
ether
C
7.3E+
01
1.0E+
02
1.7E+
02
2.5E+
02
5.1E+
02
542881
Bis(
chloromethyl)
ether
C
6.4E­
03
9.0E­
03
1.5E­
02
2.3E­
02
4.5E­
02
75274
Bromodichloromethane
X
C
3.0E+
00
4.2E+
00
7.0E+
00
1.1E+
01
2.1E+
01
75252
Bromoform
C
1.2E­
02
1.7E­
02
2.8E­
02
4.2E­
02
8.3E­
02
106990
1,3­
Butadiene
C
4.1E­
03
5.8E­
03
9.6E­
03
1.4E­
02
2.9E­
02
75150
Carbon
disulfide
NC
8.1E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.9E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.6E+
03
56235
Carbon
tetrachloride
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*

57749
Chlordane
C
1.7E+
01
2.4E+
01
4.1E+
01
**
**

126998
2­
Chloro­
1,3­
butadiene
(
chloroprene)
NC
2.0E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.8E+
01
7.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
108907
Chlorobenzene
NC
5.6E+
02
7.9E+
02
1.3E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.9E+
03
109693
1­
Chlorobutane
X
NC
2.9E+
03
4.0E+
03
6.7E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
124481
Chlorodibromomethane
X
C
4.5E+
00
6.3E+
00
1.1E+
01
1.6E+
01
3.2E+
01
75456
Chlorodifluoromethane
NC
**
**
**
**
**

75003
Chloroethane
(
ethyl
chloride)
NC
4.0E+
04
5.5E+
04
9.2E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.8E+
05
67663
Chloroform
C
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*
8.0E+
01
*

95578
2­
Chlorophenol
X
NC
1.6E+
03
2.2E+
03
3.6E+
03
5.5E+
03
1.1E+
04
75296
2­
Chloropropane
NC
2.4E+
02
3.4E+
02
5.7E+
02
8.6E+
02
1.7E+
03
Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
DRAFT
Table
3c­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3c
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
218019
Chrysene
X
C
**
**
**
**
**

156592
cis­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
3.0E+
02
4.2E+
02
7.0E+
02
1.0E+
03
2.1E+
03
123739
Crotonaldehyde
(
2­
butenal)
X
C
8.0E+
00
1.1E+
01
1.9E+
01
2.8E+
01
5.6E+
01
98828
Cumene
NC
1.2E+
01
1.7E+
01
2.8E+
01
4.2E+
01
8.4E+
01
72559
DDE
X
C
4.2E+
01
5.8E+
01
9.7E+
01
**
**

132649
Dibenzofuran
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

96128
1,2­
Dibromo­
3­
chloropropane
NC
4.8E+
01
6.7E+
01
1.1E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.3E+
02
106934
1,2­
Dibromoethane
(
ethylene
dibromide)
C
5.2E­
01
7.3E­
01
1.2E+
00
1.8E+
00
3.6E+
00
541731
1,3­
Dichlorobenzene
X
NC
1.2E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.8E+
03
4.1E+
03
8.3E+
03
95501
1,2­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
3.7E+
03
5.1E+
03
8.6E+
03
1.3E+
04
2.6E+
04
106467
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
NC
1.2E+
04
1.6E+
04
2.7E+
04
4.1E+
04
**

75718
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
2.0E+
01
2.9E+
01
4.8E+
01
7.1E+
01
1.4E+
02
75343
1,1­
Dichloroethane
NC
3.1E+
03
4.4E+
03
7.3E+
03
1.1E+
04
2.2E+
04
107062
1,2­
Dichloroethane
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
7.8E+
00
1.2E+
01
2.3E+
01
75354
1,1­
Dichloroethylene
NC
2.7E+
02
3.7E+
02
6.2E+
02
9.4E+
02
1.9E+
03
78875
1,2­
Dichloropropane
NC
5.0E+
01
7.0E+
01
1.2E+
02
1.7E+
02
3.5E+
02
542756
1,3­
Dichloropropene
C
1.2E+
00
1.7E+
00
2.8E+
00
4.2E+
00
8.4E+
00
60571
Dieldrin
C
1.2E+
00
1.7E+
00
2.9E+
00
4.3E+
00
8.6E+
00
115297
Endosulfan
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

106898
Epichlorohydrin
NC
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
2.7E+
03
4.0E+
03
8.0E+
03
60297
Ethyl
ether
X
NC
7.4E+
02
1.0E+
03
1.7E+
03
2.6E+
03
5.2E+
03
141786
Ethylacetate
X
NC
8.0E+
05
1.1E+
06
1.9E+
06
2.8E+
06
5.6E+
06
100414
Ethylbenzene
C
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*
7.0E+
02
*

75218
Ethylene
oxide
C
1.5E+
00
2.1E+
00
3.6E+
00
5.4E+
00
1.1E+
01
97632
Ethylmethacrylate
X
NC
1.3E+
04
1.8E+
04
3.0E+
04
4.6E+
04
9.1E+
04
86737
Fluorene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

110009
Furan
X
NC
2.3E+
01
3.2E+
01
5.3E+
01
7.9E+
01
1.6E+
02
58899
gamma­
HCH
(
Lindane)
X
C
1.6E+
01
2.3E+
01
3.8E+
01
5.7E+
01
1.1E+
02
76448
Heptachlor
C
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*
4.0E­
01
*

87683
Hexachloro­
1,3­
butadiene
C
4.7E­
01
6.6E­
01
1.1E+
00
1.7E+
00
3.3E+
00
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
C
1.0E+
00
*
1.0E+
00
*
1.0E+
00
*
1.0E+
00
*
1.0E+
00
*

77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NC
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*
5.0E+
01
*

67721
Hexachloroethane
C
5.5E+
00
7.6E+
00
1.3E+
01
1.9E+
01
3.8E+
01
DRAFT
Table
3c­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3c
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
110543
Hexane
NC
4.2E+
00
5.9E+
00
9.8E+
00
1.5E+
01
2.9E+
01
74908
Hydrogen
cyanide
NC
7.9E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.8E+
03
2.8E+
03
5.5E+
03
78831
Isobutanol
X
NC
3.1E+
06
4.4E+
06
7.3E+
06
1.1E+
07
2.2E+
07
7439976
Mercury
(
elemental)
NC
9.7E­
01
1.4E+
00
2.3E+
00
3.4E+
00
6.8E+
00
126987
Methacrylonitrile
NC
9.9E+
01
1.4E+
02
2.3E+
02
3.5E+
02
6.9E+
02
72435
Methoxychlor
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

79209
Methyl
acetate
X
NC
1.0E+
06
1.4E+
06
**
**
**

96333
Methyl
acrylate
X
NC
2.0E+
04
2.7E+
04
4.6E+
04
6.8E+
04
1.4E+
05
74839
Methyl
bromide
NC
2.8E+
01
3.9E+
01
6.5E+
01
9.8E+
01
2.0E+
02
74873
Methyl
chloride
(
chloromethane)
C
9.6E+
00
1.3E+
01
2.2E+
01
3.4E+
01
6.7E+
01
108872
Methylcyclohexane
NC
1.0E+
03
1.4E+
03
2.4E+
03
3.6E+
03
7.1E+
03
74953
Methylene
bromide
X
NC
1.4E+
03
2.0E+
03
3.3E+
03
5.0E+
03
9.9E+
03
75092
Methylene
chloride
C
8.3E+
01
1.2E+
02
1.9E+
02
2.9E+
02
5.8E+
02
78933
Methylethylketone
(
2­
butanone)
NC
6.2E+
05
8.7E+
05
1.5E+
06
2.2E+
06
4.4E+
06
108101
Methylisobutylketone
NC
2.0E+
04
2.8E+
04
4.7E+
04
7.1E+
04
1.4E+
05
80626
Methylmethacrylate
NC
7.3E+
04
1.0E+
05
1.7E+
05
2.5E+
05
5.1E+
05
91576
2­
Methylnaphthalene
X
NC
4.7E+
03
6.6E+
03
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
04
**

1634044
MTBE
NC
1.7E+
05
2.3E+
05
3.9E+
05
5.9E+
05
1.2E+
06
108383
m­
Xylene
X
NC
3.3E+
04
4.7E+
04
7.8E+
04
1.2E+
05
**

91203
Naphthalene
NC
2.2E+
02
3.0E+
02
5.1E+
02
7.6E+
02
1.5E+
03
104518
n­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
3.7E+
02
5.2E+
02
8.7E+
02
1.3E+
03
**

98953
Nitrobenzene
NC
2.9E+
03
4.1E+
03
6.8E+
03
1.0E+
04
2.0E+
04
79469
2­
Nitropropane
C
2.6E­
01
3.6E­
01
6.0E­
01
9.0E­
01
1.8E+
00
924163
N­
Nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
C
1.7E­
01
2.4E­
01
3.9E­
01
5.9E­
01
1.2E+
00
103651
n­
Propylbenzene
X
NC
4.6E+
02
6.4E+
02
1.1E+
03
1.6E+
03
3.2E+
03
88722
o­
Nitrotoluene
X
NC
9.8E+
04
1.4E+
05
2.3E+
05
3.4E+
05
**

95476
o­
Xylene
X
NC
4.7E+
04
6.6E+
04
1.1E+
05
1.6E+
05
**

106423
p­
Xylene
X
NC
3.2E+
04
4.5E+
04
7.4E+
04
1.1E+
05
**

129000
Pyrene
X
NC
**
**
**
**
**

135988
sec­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
3.5E+
02
4.9E+
02
8.2E+
02
1.2E+
03
2.5E+
03
100425
Styrene
NC
1.3E+
04
1.8E+
04
3.0E+
04
4.4E+
04
8.9E+
04
98066
tert­
Butylbenzene
X
NC
4.1E+
02
5.8E+
02
9.6E+
02
1.4E+
03
2.9E+
03
630206
1,1,1,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.7E+
00
6.6E+
00
1.1E+
01
1.7E+
01
3.3E+
01
DRAFT
Table
3c­
GW
November
20,
2002
Table
3c
­
GW:
Question
5
Groundwater
Screening
Levels
for
Scenario­
Specific
Vapor
Attenuation
Factors
(
 )

Risk
=
1
x
10­
6
 
=
7x10­
4
 
=
5x10­
4
 
=
3x10­
4
 
=
2x10­
4
 
=
1x10­
4
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
Cgw
CAS
No.
Chemical
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)
(
ug/
L)

Compounds
with
Provisional
Toxicity
Data
Extrapolated
From
Oral
Sources
Basis
of
Target
Concentration
C=
cancer
risk
NC=
noncancer
risk
Target
Groundwater
Concentrations
at
Different
Attenuation
Factors
79345
1,1,2,2­
Tetrachloroethane
C
4.2E+
00
5.9E+
00
9.9E+
00
1.5E+
01
3.0E+
01
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.4E+
00
1.1E+
01
108883
Toluene
NC
2.1E+
03
2.9E+
03
4.9E+
03
7.4E+
03
1.5E+
04
156605
trans­
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
X
NC
2.6E+
02
3.6E+
02
6.1E+
02
9.1E+
02
1.8E+
03
76131
1,1,2­
Trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
NC
2.2E+
03
3.1E+
03
5.1E+
03
7.7E+
03
1.5E+
04
120821
1,2,4­
Trichlorobenzene
NC
4.9E+
03
6.9E+
03
1.1E+
04
1.7E+
04
3.4E+
04
79005
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
C
5.8E+
00
8.1E+
00
1.4E+
01
2.0E+
01
4.1E+
01
71556
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
NC
4.5E+
03
6.3E+
03
1.0E+
04
1.6E+
04
3.1E+
04
79016
Trichloroethylene
**
X
C
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*
5.0E+
00
*

75694
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
2.5E+
02
3.5E+
02
5.9E+
02
8.8E+
02
1.8E+
03
96184
1,2,3­
Trichloropropane
NC
4.2E+
02
5.9E+
02
9.8E+
02
1.5E+
03
2.9E+
03
95636
1,2,4­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.4E+
01
4.7E+
01
7.9E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.4E+
02
108678
1,3,5­
Trimethylbenzene
NC
3.5E+
01
4.9E+
01
8.2E+
01
1.2E+
02
2.5E+
02
108054
Vinyl
acetate
NC
1.4E+
04
1.9E+
04
3.2E+
04
4.8E+
04
9.6E+
04
75014
Vinyl
chloride
(
chloroethene)
C
2.0E+
00
*
2.0E+
00
*
2.0E+
00
*
2.0E+
00
*
2.5E+
00
**
The
target
concentration
for
trichloroethylene
is
based
on
the
upper
bound
cancer
slope
factor
identified
in
EPA's
draft
risk
assessment
for
trichloroethylene
(
US
EPA,
2001).
The
slope
factor
is
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
methodology,
however
the
TCE
assessment
is
still
undergoing
review.
As
a
result,
the
slope
factor
and
the
target
concentration
values
for
TCE
may
be
revised
further.
(
See
Appendix
D.)

*
Health­
based
target
breathing
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
chemical
vapor
concentration
(
pathway
incomplete)

**
Target
soil
gas
concentration
exceeds
maximum
possible
vapor
concentration
at
this
soil
gas
to
indoor
air
attenuation
factor
(
pathway
incomplete)

*
The
target
groundwater
concentrations
is
the
MCL.
(
The
MCL
for
chloroform
is
the
MCL
for
total
Trihalomethanes.
The
MCL
listed
for
m­
Xylene,
o­
Xylene,
and
p­
Xylene
is
the
MCL
for
total
Xylenes.

DRAFT
Table
3c­
GW
November
20,
2002
