ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
Chandler Airport
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California 93706
January 6, 2026
Prepared for:
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076
Fresno, California 99201
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2250 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 260
Roseville, California 95661
Project Number: 203724380
USEPA Brownfields Coalition
Assessment Grant Cooperative
Agreement No. 4B98T50501
Property ID: 266686
This document entitled Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives – Chandler Airport, 716 West Kearney Boulevard, Fresno, California 93706 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of the City of Fresno (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client.
The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.
Prepared by
(signature)
Kristin Stout
Reviewed by
(signature)
Neil Doran
Reviewed by
(signature)
Graeme Taylor, Project Manager
Project Number: 203723502 i
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Subject Property Location and Description .................................................................................. 1
1.2 Subject Property History .............................................................................................................. 1 2 REGULATED BUILDING MATERIALS RESULTS SUMMARY .................................... 3
2.1 Asbestos Containing Materials Findings ...................................................................................... 3
2.2 Lead-Based Paint Findings.......................................................................................................... 5 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS ................................... 6
3.1 Cleanup Oversight Responsibility ................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Applicable Cleanup Standards for Asbestos and Lead ................................................................ 6
3.3 Laws and Regulations Applicable to Cleanup for Asbestos and Lead ......................................... 6
3.4 Potential Receptors and Exposure Pathways .............................................................................. 7
3.5 Cleanup Standards for Lead-Impacted Soil ................................................................................. 8
3.6 Cleanup Goals ............................................................................................................................. 8 4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 9
4.1 Remedial Action Objectives ......................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Cleanup Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................. 10
4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Abatement/Soil Removal Alternative .............................................................. 10
4.2.2 Alternative 2: Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Capping Lead-Impacted soil ........... 11
4.2.3 Alternative 3: Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Treatment of Contaminated Soil within Chemically Stablized On-Site Containment Cell ........................................................................ 11
4.2.4 Alternative 4: Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Impacted Soil ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.3 Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives ............................................................................................ 13
4.3.1 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.3.2 Ability to Implement ................................................................................................................... 15
4.3.3 Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.4 Green Remediation Considerations ........................................................................................... 17
4.4 Recommended Cleanup Alternative .......................................................................................... 17 5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 2.1: Asbestos Containing Materials and Locations
Table 2.2: Lead Paint Samples and Locations
FIGURES:
Figure 1 Property Location Map
Figure 2 Property Area Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Asbestos and Lead Paint Survey
Appendix B Draft Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix C Cost Estimate for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
1 Introduction
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 1
1 Introduction
This Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) was prepared for the City of Fresno for the property located at Chandler Airport, 716 West Kearney Boulevard, Fresno, California 93706 (Subject Property). This ABCA and proposed cleanup alternative would be funded by the City’s revolving loan fund (RLF) grant (Cooperative Agreement Number 4B98T50501). The purpose of the ABCA is to present options and costs for the abatement of regulated building materials (RBM) (e.g., asbestos-containing materials [ACM] and lead-based paint [LBP]) as well as cleanup of lead impacted soils. Regulated Building Materials (RBMs) were identified during the completion of an Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey dated December 13, 2024 (Group Delta 2024) and lead impacted soil was identified in a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment dated May 22, 2025 (Group Delta 2025). The redevelopment plans for the approximate 11,000 square foot (SF) Subject Property include abatement of identified RBMs in the building, demolition of the hangar building, cleanup of lead-impacted soil, and replacement of the hangar with a new building suitable for a future intended use as a classroom. Building demolition and construction of a new Subject Property building would be completed using other funding sources.
1.1 Subject Property Location and Description
The Subject Property is comprised of a 3.34-acre portion of a larger 55.860-acre parcel of land (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 646-220-43T) which is part of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, a regional airport. The Site is currently improved with a Fuselage Trainer (FUT) hangar building with an assigned address of 716 West Kearney Boulevard. The building is approximately 11,000 square feet in size and was built in 1948 (Group Delta 2024). A general location map is provided as Figure 1. A map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property is provided as Figure 2.
1.2 Subject Property History
In December 2024, Group Delta completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to document environmental conditions on the Subject Property. At the time of the assessment the Subject Property building was unoccupied. Based on a review of historical sources, the Subject Property appeared to be part of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport since at least 1937. The Subject Property appeared to be in use as aircraft parking, a taxiway and undeveloped land from at least 1937 until approximately 1946, when a hangar and associated storage buildings appear to have been developed. According to historical city directories, the building was occupied by several tenants including Lambe Piper Aircraft Sales, Ruiz Frank X Avionics, Buchner Aero Specialties, and Tom’s Flying Service. Group Delta identified three recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the Subject Property (Group Delta 2024), summarized below.
• REC1 - A letter issued by the County of Fresno Department of Health to the City of Fresno dated August 29, 1991, confirmed the completion of a site inspection and/or remedial action regarding the release of hazardous substances or waste in relation to underground storage tanks (USTs).
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
1 Introduction
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 2
No further action was required, and UST closure documentation does not include documentation indicating the presence or absence of a petroleum discharge. • REC2 - Evidence of an exterior wash down area with a drain and single-chamber oil/water separator (OWS) was observed adjacent to the west side of the hangar building. The installation date of the washdown area and drain is unknown. The OWS drain is used to collect washdown water and separates oil, sludge, and debris collected into the drain prior to entering the municipal sewer system. The potential exists that the OWS may be breached, allowing oil and sludge to leak into subsurface media.
• REC3 - Evidence of a spray booth was observed within the interior northwestern portion of the hangar building. The installation date of the spray booth is unknown. An oil stain was observed on the floor of the spray booth, and an oily odor was noted.
Group Delta also identified two ‘other environmental considerations’ (OECs) which are items of environmental interest that do not qualify as a REC but warrant further discussion:
• OEC1 – Group Delta completed a lead-based paint (LBP) survey to test for lead in building materials and to document concentrations of lead within the paint. Samples were collected from various interior and exterior areas that may be impacted by renovation/demolition. The survey results confirmed the presence of LBP at the hangar. The final survey report is provided in Appendix A.
• OEC2 - Group Delta completed an asbestos survey to test potential asbestos-containing materials (ACM) for the presence of asbestos and the relative concentrations where present. The survey results confirmed that ACM was present in nine samples analyzed at the hangar. The final survey report is provided in Appendix A.
Group Delta recommended obtaining additional documentation regarding the historical on-site UST, including the former UST location, subsequent removal, and associated remedial activities. In addition, Group Delta recommended a limited subsurface investigation (soil and/or soil vapor sampling) in the area of the former UST, a limited subsurface investigation (soil and soil vapor sampling) to assess the shallow soil conditions in the areas of the OWS and spray booth at 716 West Kearney Boulevard, and assessment of lead in soil sourced from lead-based paint in areas of exposed soil based on the lead XRF results (Group Delta 2024).
Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, Group Delta conducted a Phase II ESA to evaluate the RECs and the potential presence of lead in soil. Based on the anticipated future use as an educational facility, Group Delta expanded the investigation to evaluate potential soil impacts from organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in accordance with guidance published by California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The investigation included soil vapor sampling to assess the potential presence of volatile organic compound (VOCs) and evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion from soil vapor into indoor air. A copy of the Phase II ESA report is provided in Appendix B.
Two soil borings were advanced on either side of the wash down drain OWS, two soil borings were advanced within the paint booth area, six soil borings were advanced along the south and east sides of Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
2 REGULATED BUILDING MATERIALS RESULTS SUMMARY
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 3
the hangar building, and two soil borings were advanced on each side of the pole-mounted stepdown transformer servicing the Subject Property. Soil borings were advanced to 5 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) with samples collected at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 5.0 ft bgs. Eight soil borings were advanced inside and outside the hangar building for the installation of dual nested soil vapor probes (SV-1 through SV-8) at depths of 5 and 10 feet bgs.
The only soil samples exceeding regulatory screening levels were those analyzed for total lead that were collected within the dripline of the existing hangar building. Five of the twelve samples collected within the dripline exceed the DTSC Screening Level (SL) of 80 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for unrestricted site use. Based on soluble lead concentrations, several of the soil samples would qualify as California hazardous waste if the soils are excavated (Group Delta 2025). Stantec developed a preliminary estimate of the potential volume of lead-impacted soil based on the impacted area depicted on the Group Delta Soil Sample Location Map and assuming concentrations exceeding the DTSC SL (80 mg/kg) extend to an average depth of 3 feet bgs. This estimated volume is 3,780 cubic feet or 140 cubic yards. This would equal approximately 210 tons (assuming an average soil density of 1.5 tons per cubic yard). 2 REGULATED BUILDING MATERIALS RESULTS SUMMARY
On December 13, 2024, Group Delta prepared an Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey report. The asbestos survey included collection of 71 samples of suspect ACM materials and analysis of 74 painted surfaces for LBP using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) (Group Delta 2024). A copy of the RBM survey is included in Appendix A.
2.1 Asbestos Containing Materials Findings
Suspect ACM materials identified during the onsite survey conducted by Group Delta were grouped and classified as homogeneous materials based on their appearance, usage, and age of the building.
Representative samples of each homogeneous material were sampled in accordance with federal regulations. ACM was identified in 25 of the 71 samples collected.
ACM was identified in the following building materials:
• Door window putty
• Roof core
• Walking mat with adhesive
• 12x12 floor tile and mastic
• Drywall with joint compound (painted blue)
• Texture coat
• Drywall with joint compound
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
2 REGULATED BUILDING MATERIALS RESULTS SUMMARY
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 4
• Sprayed on acoustic ceiling
• 9x9 floor tile
• Electrical switch blocks (assumed)
No ACM was detected in the following materials:
• Unfinished drywall
• Roof penetration mastic
• Vapor barrier paper
• Exterior seal
• Window putty
• Concrete
• Pebble path and adhesive
• Electrical outlet
• Desktop
• Electrical tape
• 12x12 ceiling tile and mastic
• Ceramic tile and mortar
• White and gray sheet flooring
Table 2.1 below presents sample number, material description, sample location, the ACM content, material condition and estimated quantity of the material.
Table 2.1: Asbestos Containing Materials and Locations
Sample
Number Material Description Building /
Location
Asbestos
(Type/Percentage) Condition
Friable /
Non-
Friable
Quantity
01-03 Door window putty FUT Hangar –
Exterior Doors Chrysotile – trace (<1%)* Good Non-friable 800 SF 07-09 Roof core FUT Hangar –
Roof Chrysotile – 40-60% Good Non-friable 9,375 SF
13-15 Walking mat with adhesive FUT Hangar –
Roof Chrysotile – 2% Good Non-friable 20 SF
31-33 12x12 floor tile and mastic
FUT Hangar –
Northwest
Office
Chrysotile – 3-4% Good Non-friable 125 SF
36 Drywall with joint compound (painted
blue)
FUT Hangar –
Northwest
Office
Chrysotile – trace (<1%)* Good Friable 500 SF
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
2 REGULATED BUILDING MATERIALS RESULTS SUMMARY
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 5
Sample
Number Material Description Building /
Location
Asbestos
(Type/Percentage) Condition
Friable /
Non-
Friable
Quantity
37-39 Texture coat
FUT Hangar –
Northwest
Office
Chrysotile – trace (<1%)* Good Friable 500 SF
44-46 Drywall with joint compound FUT Hangar –
Shop Kitchen Chrysotile – 2% Good Friable 500 SF
47-49 Sprayed on acoustic ceiling FUT Hangar –
South Wall Chrysotile – 2% Good Non-friable 500 SF
51-53 9x9 floor tile
FUT Hangar –
Ladies’
Restroom
Chrysotile – 5% Good Non-friable 25 SF
Assumed Electrical switch blocks
FUT Hangar –
Electrical
Panels
Assumed Good Non-friable 12 SF
Notes and Abbreviations:
SF = Square Feet; NF = Non-Friable; * Materials with <1% asbestos reported are considered ACM unless PLM 400 or 1,000-point count analysis is conducted to confirm material is <1%
Previously undiscovered asbestos may be present within wall cavities (e.g., asbestos in electrical wire wrapping, insulation materials, vapor barrier paper, etc.), and some underground utility piping has been known to contain asbestos (e.g., transite pipe). If discovered during abatement or renovation, suspect ACMs that are not identified within this report should be assumed positive for asbestos unless additional sampling, analysis, and/or assessment indicates otherwise.
2.2 Lead-Based Paint Findings
The LBP survey consisted of a visual inspection and sampling of painted surfaces throughout the two surveyed buildings on the Subject Property. The purpose of the inspection was to provide information regarding lead in paint as it pertains to employee exposure and demolition debris disposal.
Representative areas of the painted surfaces were analyzed for lead using XRF. Additional suspect painted surfaces may be present in areas that were inaccessible, unsafe to inspect, or obscured from view during the sampling process. The following is a summary of building components tested by XRF and found to be positive for lead.
Table 2.2: Lead Paint Samples and Locations
Sample
Number Color Building
Component
Sample
Location Square Feet Lead Content
mg/cm2 Condition
36 White Metal V Beam FUT Hangar
(Hangar 2) Exterior 250 SF 1.7 Intact
38 White Wood V Beam FUT Hangar
(Hangar 2) Exterior 250 SF 2.2 Poor
40 Red Metal Beam FUT Hangar
(Hangar 2) Exterior 100 SF 2.7 Intact
Assumed Red Metal Beam FUT Hangar
(Hangar 2) Interior 1,800 SF Assumed Intact
Notes and Abbreviations:
SF = square feet. Mg/cm2 = milligrams per square centimeter Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 6
3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
3.1 Cleanup Oversight Responsibility
Subject Property cleanup and redevelopment should be conducted in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures outlined below.
3.2 Applicable Cleanup Standards for Asbestos and Lead
Cleanup standards for key contaminants at the Subject Property include the following:
Asbestos – Cleanup standard for asbestos are based on the USEPA Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools, Final Rule and Notice (USEPA, 1987). Although this rule is in place primarily to protect child- occupied facilities, following the guidelines within the rule is encouraged for all building renovations for the overall protection of human health.
LBP – Building materials containing lead in paint or other surface coating material containing lead are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and USEPA as greater than or equal to 5,000 parts per million or 0.5% by weight (HUD, 1997). This threshold (0.5% by weight) is considered the applicable cleanup standard for LBP.
3.3 Laws and Regulations Applicable to Cleanup for Asbestos and Lead
This section is provided for informational purposes only and the property owner (or contractor implementing the cleanup) is responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Cleanup activities at the Subject Property should be conducted by contractors operating in accordance with the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard codified at 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120. The HAZWOPER standard applies to cleanup operations required by federal, state, local, or other governmental bodies involving hazardous substances. Additionally, the California OSHA “Lead in Construction Standard” codified in Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, is applicable to construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) are outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40 Chapter I Subchapter C Part 61 Subpart M. OSHA regulations regarding asbestos exposure during construction activities (i.e., renovation and demolition) are outlined in CFR Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter XVII Part 1926.1101, whereas OSHA regulations regarding respiratory protection are outlined in CFR Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter XVII Part 1910.134. A NESHAP notification form must be submitted at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of renovation or demolition activities involving ACMs. This notification form must include information regarding the company that performed the ACM Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 7
survey, the analytical laboratory, the company performing the demolition or renovation activities, the company transporting waste that contains asbestos, and the landfill where the waste that contains asbestos will be disposed.
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) was designed to address the presence of asbestos in school buildings. AHERA also tasked the USEPA with developing a plan for accrediting individuals responsible for performing asbestos surveys and remediation. AHERA protocols are considered the best industry practice for asbestos surveys and remediation, and these protocols are typically applied to non-school buildings. Although no school buildings are located at the Subject Property, it is recommended that remediation be performed by a company that utilizes AHERA-certified personnel for asbestos demolition and remediation activities. AHERA is outlined in CFR Title 40 Chapter I Subchapter R Part 763 Subpart E.
Permitting for abatement of asbestos in Fresno County is subject to the requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Written notice must be submitted to the SJVAPCD at least 10 working days prior to beginning abatement. During removal, there are required emission control techniques and engineering controls to prevent asbestos fibers from becoming airborne. SJVAPCD will issue permit release forms certifying that the asbestos regulatory requirements have been met. The Subject Property owner and/or contractor are likely to be required to obtain these permit release forms before the local building or demolition permits can be granted.
The USEPA has adopted the Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule (40 CFR 745.80) to minimize exposure from LBP dust by training contractors to make sure they follow lead-safe work practices during renovation of a structure. Although this rule is in place primarily to protect child-occupied facilities, following the guidelines within the rule is encouraged for all building renovations for the overall protection of human health. In addition to this rule, contractors are required to follow the HUD Lead Safe House Rule and all local and state specific requirements. The RRP Rule requires that renovators be USEPA- certified, accredited, and follow specific work practices.
The RRP Rule does not apply to the total demolition of structures. It is recommended that a certified lead inspector be on-site to oversee demolition activities and appropriate disposal of materials. Demolition work should be conducted by a lead-certified company trained to handle and dispose of LBP-containing materials.
Federal laws and regulations applicable to this cleanup include the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. Federal, state, and local laws regarding procurement of contractors to conduct the cleanup are also applicable. Adherence to laws and regulations associated with abatement and removal of RBMs is the responsibility of individual contractors performing cleanup activities.
3.4 Potential Receptors and Exposure Pathways
Based on the findings of the Phase II ESA for the Subject Property (Group Delta 2025), the contaminants of concern in soil for the Subject Property have been determined to be limited to lead.
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 8
Considering that remedial excavation and potential redevelopment activities are expected at the Subject Property, construction workers, excavation workers, and trespassers have been identified as the most applicable potential human receptors. The redevelopment plans for the approximate 11,000 square foot (SF) Subject Property includes abatement and demolition of the building and replacement of the structure.
Five of the twelve samples collected within the dripline exceed the DTSC SL of 80 mg/kg for unrestricted site use and some of the soils may qualify as California hazardous waste if excavated. Exposure to contaminated soil by occupational workers on the Subject Property could occur during future redevelopment or other subsurface activities (utility installation, maintenance and repairs) through inhalation, ingestion, and/or dermal contact.
Potential exposure during the remedial work would be managed with a Health and Safety Plan designed to protect site workers and the public from contaminants of concern during remedial activities. An exclusion zone in the form of a perimeter fence would be in place during remedial work to prevent the public from accessing the excavation area. Potential future exposures to residual contamination, if any, would be mitigated using institutional and engineering controls and a Site Management Plan. No potential impacts are anticipated to ecological receptors as part of this remedial effort; although, if the Subject Property is to be designated as habitat or ecological receptors are anticipated to be impacted by remedial activities, then the applicable cleanup standards and remedial action objectives presented below should be revised accordingly.
3.5 Cleanup Standards for Lead-Impacted Soil
The risk-based screening level (DTSC-SL) for unrestricted site use is (80 mg/kg); therefore, this value will serve as the cleanup standard for lead in soil. The DTSC-SL is protective of human health via the ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation pathways.
Should soils containing lead exceeding the lead DTSC-SL be left in place, they would be documented and managed with a Site Management Plan and with environmental engineering and institutional controls (e.g., placement of concrete encapsulation and recordation of a land use covenant that would be attached to the deed).
Relevant regulations and cleanup standards for the Subject Property are listed below:
• California Code of Regulations (CCR) 22 § 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity. • Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels, June 2020, revised April 2025.
3.6 Cleanup Goals
The redevelopment plans for the approximate 11,000 SF Subject Property include abatement of ACM and LBP, demolition of the building, and its replacement with a new building to be used by the Fresno Unified School District. As such, the intention of the remedial alternatives presented herein is to achieve Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 9
compliance with applicable state cleanup regulations and remediate Subject Property soils to levels appropriate for unrestricted land use.
The remedial action objectives are:
• Remove RBMs to allow for future demolition of the existing hangar building because this building has reached the end of service life.
• Prevent direct contact between human receptors and soil exceeding occupational DTSC-SLs. • Remediate/remove source-area soils to the extent feasible (estimated 140 cubic yards).
The resultant cleanup criteria are summarized in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Cleanup Criteria for Residential Land Uses
Analyte Remedial Action Objective
Lead 80 mg/kg
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Remedial Action Objectives
The remedial action objective for ACMs and other hazardous materials at the Subject Property is to prevent these materials from causing unacceptable risk to human health and to allow the Subject Property to be reused by the Fresno Unified School District. The following formula is commonly used to represent risk:
RISK = EXPOSURE x CONCENTRATION
As indicated by this common formula, risk can be reduced by limiting exposure or by reducing the magnitude of contaminant concentration. The human exposure pathway of concern for ACMs is inhalation. ACM exposure can be limited by isolating ACMs from human contact or by maintaining ACMs in good condition so that asbestos fibers would not be released into indoor air where exposure via inhalation could occur. The only way to reduce the ACM concentration is to abate the ACMs, which would reduce the concentration to zero. If the concentration is zero, then risk also would be zero.
The human exposure pathway of concern for lead is ingestion and inhalation. Lead exposure can be limited by isolating the paint and/or soil containing lead from human contact. The only way to reduce the lead in soil concentration is to encapsulate the lead impacted soil or remove the lead impacted soil.
Encapsulation of the lead impacted soil would include mitigation measures if disturbance was expected, such as a utility repair. Removal would reduce the concentration to zero. Similar to ACMs, LBP can be stabilized and maintained to reduce the potential for exposure or removed to eliminate potential exposure.
If the concentration is zero, then risk also would be zero.
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 10
4.2 Cleanup Alternatives Considered
Four alternatives were considered for the remedial action at the Subject Property:
1) No Abatement/Soil Removal;
2) Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Capping of Lead-Impacted Soil; 3) Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Treatment of Contaminated Soil within Chemically Stabilized On-Site Containment Cell; and
4) Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Impacted Soils.
These four options are described below. Demolition of the hangar building would be conducted under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, however these costs would not be reimbursable under the City’s RLF grant program and would be funded by other sources. The cost estimates presented in this document are based on quotes obtained from local vendors and based on professional judgement but should be independently verified and updated based on additional information identified during project implementation. A description of each alternative and the results of the comparative analysis are presented below.
4.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ABATEMENT/SOIL REMOVAL ALTERNATIVE The No Abatement/Soil Removal Alternative, or No Action Alternative, is included as a baseline to which the other proposed alternatives are compared. The No-Action Alternative assumes that all ACM and LBP within the building and lead-impacted would remain in place.
Under this alternative, the owner must continue to secure the building to eliminate trespassing and minimize uses of the building that require City employees and others to enter the building as it is considered a hazardous environment.
To prevent ACM releases to the exterior areas surrounding the Subject Property building, the building envelope must be maintained. Windows are the most obvious weak link in maintaining the building envelope. As a result, any broken windows should be addressed to maintain a secure building envelope.
This might include window replacement or using plywood to “board up” a broken window. This is particularly important if there are known ACMs in poor condition near a broken window.
Roofing is a significant component of the building envelope and is known to contain ACMs. Periodic and ongoing roof maintenance and repair will be required to ensure the building envelope does not fail and release ACM to the surrounding environment.
Lastly, under the No Action Alternative, the Subject Property owner must 1) limit access to the building interiors, if there is a potential exposure to RBMs using security measures, including limiting access to authorized personnel, 2) ensure that the hazards of building entry are properly communicated to authorized personnel that may enter the building, 3) establish an entry protocol for other authorized personnel that may enter the building, and 4) limit access to the lead impacted soil located south and east of 716 West Kearny Boulevard.
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 11
4.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: COMPLETE ABATEMENT OF ACM AND LBP AND CAPPING
LEAD-IMPACTED SOIL
The complete abatement alternative includes the following activities to address hazardous building materials:
1. Permitting and notifications for ACM and LBP abatement activities.
2. Site preparation by establishing security fencing, drop boxes, decontamination areas, appropriate containment, barrier, and air -filtration systems and other work area preparations necessary for workers in appropriate protective clothing to work in areas where RBMs are present.
3. Abating known ACM in other areas of the building (not including ACM in the ceiling or roof).
4. Disposing of waste at an appropriately licensed landfill under applicable waste manifests at a facility that can receive ACM and LBP impacted building materials.
This alternative includes the following activities to address lead-impacted soils:
Lead-impacted soils would be addressed by capping the soils to eliminate the exposure pathway. The area surrounding the cap would be graded so that when covered it would match the necessary grade for desired redevelopment. A typical soil capping scenario would involve covering soils with a minimum of 6 inches of stone base (typically ¾-inch minus gravel) followed by a 4-inch asphalt or concrete layer.
Approximately 1,260 square feet of the Subject Property are anticipated to be covered by the cap.
Because the impacted soil would be contained on the Subject Property, institutional and engineering controls would be used to mitigate residual risk. An institutional control in the form of a land use covenant, or deed restriction, may be required by DTSC. Long-term operation & maintenance (O&M) in the form of routine inspection to document conditions would also be required. Repairs need to be implemented when issues are identified during inspections.
A portion of the cap would cover an area that is currently prone to collection of stormwater runoff, which could compromise the long-term durability of the cap. It is Stantec’s understanding that stormwater management improvements are planned for the Subject Property; therefore, estimates and opinions for this alternative assume that ponding in the vicinity of the cap would be rectified by stormwater improvements prior to, or concurrent with, the installation of the cap.
4.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: COMPLETE ABATEMENT OF ACM AND LBP AND TREATMENT
OF CONTAMINATED SOIL WITHIN CHEMICALLY STABLIZED ON-SITE
CONTAINMENT CELL
Alternative 3 includes the same activities as Alternative 2 to address hazardous building materials:
1. Permitting and notifications for ACM and LBP abatement activities.
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 12
2. Site preparation by establishing security fencing, drop boxes, decontamination areas, appropriate containment, barriers, and air-filtration systems and other work area preparations necessary for workers in appropriate protective clothing to work in areas subject to ACM.
3. Disposing of waste at an appropriately licensed landfill under applicable waste manifests at a facility that can receive ACM and LBP impacted building materials.
Alternative 3 would utilize a different approach to address lead-impacted soil, which would be excavated at the Subject Property and mixed with a suitable solid phosphate blend amendment to bind metals. Treated soils would be backfilled into the excavation. Under this alternative, an estimated 140 cubic yards of lead- impacted soil would be excavated and mixed on the Subject Property with a suitable chemical admixture to stabilize metals of concern that may be leachable. Treatability testing would be required before remedy implementation to determine the most appropriate chemical admixture for stabilizing metals by creating insoluble compounds and creating a preference for metals compounds to sorb to soil particles. The estimated costs included in this ABCA are based on a single application of a solid phosphate blend amendment. Treated soil would be placed into an engineered containment cell that would be constructed south of the hangar building. Before material placement, the base of the engineered containment cell would also be amended with a blended phosphate-based material to fixate the metals to reduce their leachability.
Confirmation sampling would be conducted to demonstrate that the lead- impacted soil was effectively mitigated.
Because contaminated material would be contained on the Site, institutional and engineering controls may be required to mitigate residual risk if contaminants cannot be effectively sorbed using the phosphate admixture. More specifically, an institutional control in the form of a land use covenant may be required.
Long-term O&M in the form of routine inspection to document conditions may also be required.
4.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: COMPLETE ABATEMENT OF ACM AND LBP AND
EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF IMPACTED SOIL
Alternative 4 includes the same activities as Alternatives 2 and 3 to address hazardous building materials:
1. Permitting and notifications for ACM and LBP abatement activities.
2. Site preparation by establishing security fencing, drop boxes, decontamination areas, appropriate containment, barriers, and air-filtration systems and other work area preparations necessary for workers in appropriate protective clothing to work in areas subject to ACM.
3. Abating known ACM in other areas of the building (not including ACM materials in the ceiling or roof).
4. Disposing of waste at an appropriately licensed landfill under applicable waste manifests at a facility that can receive ACM and LBP impacted building materials.
Alternative 4 would utilize a different approach to address lead- impacted soil, which would be excavation and disposal of the area where lead is present at concentrations exceeding 80 mg/kg. During excavation, soil would be separated and stockpiled according to whether it is anticipated to be classified as a non- hazardous waste, a RCRA-hazardous waste, or a California non-RCRA hazardous waste based on Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 13
previous sampling data. Prior to disposal, the waste classifications would be confirmed via waste characterization sampling conducted at the direction of the selected disposal facility.
Based on the available data, it is estimated that a total of 140 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and disposed of off-site. Soils in the areas south and east of the building would be excavated to 3 feet bgs. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the previous environmental investigation, it was assumed that all of the soil removed will be classified as California non-RCRA hazardous waste. A 10% contingency was applied to the estimated volume.
Collection of confirmation soil samples from the floor and sidewalls would be screened using an X -Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer and/or submitted for laboratory analyses when excavations are deemed complete. Excavation areas would not be backfilled until laboratory confirmation samples are received to ensure that remedial action objectives are met. Backfill material would be sourced from on- site soils that are not impacted above DTSC -SLs where possible and/or imported clean fill from a local source. It is anticipated that the required backfill soil volume would be approximately 140 cubic yards.
4.3 Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives
To satisfy EPA requirements, three characteristics of each alternative -- effectiveness, implementability, and cost -- must be considered prior to selecting a recommended cleanup alternative. These characteristics are considered for each alternative in the following sections.
4.3.1 EFFECTIVENESS
Effectiveness has both short-term and long-term components. The short-term effectiveness of a remedial alternative is evaluated relative to its effect on human health and the environment during the implementation of the remedial action. Potential risks to the community, potential impacts on workers, the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures, potential environmental impact of the remedial action and the effectiveness/reliability of the mitigation measures during implementation, etc. are some of the factors that are typically considered. Long-term effectiveness and permanence of a remedial alternative are evaluated with respect to the following factors: magnitude of residual risk to human health and environment from the untreated or residual waste at the completion of remedial activities; an assessment of type, degree, and adequacy of long- term management (engineering controls, monitoring, maintenance, etc.) required for untreated or residual waste; an assessment of the long-term reliability of long-term management practices to provide continued protection from the untreated/residual waste; and the potential need for replacement of the remedy and continuing need for repairs to maintain the performance of the remedy.
4.3.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
The No Action Alternative would use engineering and institutional controls (e.g., locked doors, signage) to manage identified ACMs and other hazardous materials in- place within the Subject Property building.
Various engineering and institutional controls, if properly implemented, would be effective in mitigating the risk associated with ACM and LBP by minimizing or eliminating human exposure to these materials. The effectiveness of this alternative requires initial measures to isolate hazards, and continued management to maintain hazard isolation and maintain fair condition of the roof. The overall effectiveness of Alternative 1 Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 14
is considered poor as the long -term reliability of on -going management is considered challenging.
Alternative 1 has low effectiveness because there is no action implemented and thus no protection to ecological receptors is provided. It is also not protective of current or future receptors at the Subject Property. In addition, Alternative 1 would not allow the Subject Property to be redeveloped.
4.3.1.2 Alternative 2 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP, Demolition of Hangar Building and Capping Impacted Soil
The Complete Abatement of ACM Alternative would use abatement to remove all identified ACM and LBP within the building. With all ACMs and hazardous materials abated from the building, the risk to human health associated with exposure would be eliminated. There would be no need for ongoing engineering and institutional controls for RBMs on the Subject Property.
This alternative eliminates the potential for direct contact with the lead-impacted soils located on the Subject Property and reduces a potential secondary exposure pathway of stormwater runoff. A concrete or asphalt cap would mitigate the direct exposure risk posed by the impacted soil however the lead- impacted soil would remain on the Subject Property and may be encountered during future maintenance or redevelopment activities and would need to be managed accordingly . The overall effectiveness of this alternative is considered good-moderate.
4.3.1.3 Alternative 3 ( Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Treatment of Contaminated Soil within Chemically Stabilized On-Site Containment Cell) The Complete Abatement of ACM Alternative would use abatement to remove all identified ACM and LBP within the building. With all ACMs and hazardous materials abated from the building the risk to human health associated with exposure would be eliminated. There would be no need for ongoing engineering and institutional controls for RBMs on the Subject Property.
Alternative 3 eliminates the potential for direct contact with the most contaminated materials and reduces a potential secondary source of stormwater. Residual risk of excavated contaminated material would be managed by the designed containment with stabilized soil. The phosphate admixture is a proven remedy for lead-impacted soils however the effectiveness of this alternative is not guaranteed until a bench study is completed. This alternative would be a more effective solution for a larger volume of soil. The overall effectiveness of this alternative is considered moderate.
4.3.1.4 Alternative 4 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP, and Excavation and Off - Site Disposal of Impacted Soils)
The Complete Abatement of ACM Alternative would use abatement to remove all identified ACM and LBP within the building. With all ACMs and hazardous materials abated from the building the risk to human health associated with exposure would be eliminated. There would be no need for ongoing engineering and institutional controls for RBMs on the Subject Property.
Comprehensive soil excavation and off -site disposal is an effective remedial method because it removes impacted soils and utilizes an approved off -site disposal facility for final disposition. This alternative Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 15
effectively eliminates potential future exposure to c ontaminated soils at the Property through comprehensive source removal . This alternative effectively eliminates all future contact, human or environmental, with contaminated soils on- site. This a lternative would achieve the cleanup goal of unrestricted residential land use for the future development of the Subject Property . The overall effectiveness of Alternative 4 is considered good.
4.3.2 ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT
An assessment of implementability is intended to evaluate whether, or with how much difficulty, the cleanup alternative can be implemented and whether the alternative’s continued effectiveness can be assessed and verified.
4.3.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
Alternative 1 has already been implemented by the Subject Property owner. If the no action alternative is selected, Stantec recommends that additional measures be taken to ensure the isolation of ACM in poor condition from the Subject Property owner and authorized personnel that may enter the building.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of Alternative 1 may be verifiable depending on the condition of the building through the collection and analysis of air samples for ACM fibers. Alternative 1 is considered moderately easy to implement as it will require monitoring of institutional and engineering controls to mitigate exposure to and further release of ACM and lead impacted soil. However, Alternative 1 would not allow for the Subject Property to be redeveloped.
4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Capping Impacted Soil and Managing In-Place)
Abatement is considered relatively easy to implement and would provide advantages (over Alternative 1) because of the area above the ceiling up to the roof becoming fully visible and accessible. Implementation of this alternative would be feasible using relatively routine construction methods (asphalt or concrete capping). The cap and required maintenance of the south and east areas of the Subject Property may restrict future redevelopment activities. Construction of the cap would require engineering design and field oversight and is expected to take 1-2 weeks to implement in the field. Therefore, the overall implementability of this alternative is considered good-moderate.
4.3.2.3 Alternative 3 ( Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Treatment of Contaminated Soil within Chemically Stabilized On-Site Containment Cell) Complete abatement of RBMs from the Hangar Building is considered relatively easy to implement.
However, soil stabilization is considered to be moderately difficult to implement. While the equipment, materials, and services are readily available and the process is not complicated, excavation and mixing of lead-impacted soils with a phosphate admixture may not be effective until demonstrated by a bench test so there is no guarantee that the process would be effective. Furthermore, this alternative may be challenging to implement because of space limitations on the Subject Property and performing excavation and soil mixing may be challenging during the wet season with wind and rain potentially causing erosion Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 16
of stockpiled materials and potentially creating track off. Construction of the onsite containment cell would require engineering design and field oversight and is expected to take 1-2 weeks to implement in the field.
4.3.2.4 Alternative 4 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Excavation and Off- Site Disposal of Impacted Soil)
Removal of ACM is considered relatively easy to implement for the Hangar Building as discussed in pervious sections. To excavate the lead -impacted soils, this alternative would require more trucking, transportation and disposal than the other considered alternatives. Confirmation sampling would be conducted to demonstrate that lead-impacted soils on the Subject Property have been adequately removed.
Multiple mobilizations may be necessary to properly profile the waste after it is excavated and prior to offsite transport and disposal at a certified landfill licensed to receive California hazardous waste. Overall, these procedures are relatively easy to implement.
4.3.3 COSTS
Estimated costs were prepared for each of the four alternatives as presented in Appendix C. These costs are considered to be rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates based on subcontractor bids from three regional qualified asbestos abatement contractors, professional judgement and experience, and in consideration of several key assumptions as described in the subsections above. These costs should be refined once an alternative is selected.
4.3.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
The ROM cost associated with Alternative 1 is difficult to quantify and therefore is assigned a ROM cost of $0. There are likely costs associated with 1) added isolation measures for ACMs in poor condition; 2) continued monitoring to evaluate whether materials that are presently intact deteriorate over time; and 3) maintaining the building envelope; 4) inevitabl e demolition of the building if it is not maintained; and 5) restricting access to the lead impacted soil . These broad considerations have not been incorporated into the ROM cost estimate as there are many other building management and maintenance considerations if the No Action Alternative is implemented. This also does not account for the considerable lost opportunity cost of leaving the Subject Property unfit for community use.
4.3.3.2 Alternative 2 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Capping Impacted Soil and Managing In-Place)
The ROM cost estimate to implement Alternative 2 would be approximately $479,100. This includes the removal of all identified ACMs and LBP in the building. This estimate includes oversight during abatement activities for a period of 4 weeks and closeout reporting to be submitted to various regulatory agencies once the project is complete. This alternative includes capping of the lead impacted soil around the hangar building’s dripline. This alternative would be the most cost effective of the alternatives involving cleanup actions. Due to the requirement to maintain the cap, this alternative would require routine annual monitoring and reporting. The overall cost effectiveness of this alternative is considered good-moderate.
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 17
4.3.3.3 Alternative 3 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LB P and Treatment of Contaminated Soil within Chemically Stabilized On-Site Containment Cell) The ROM cost estimate to implement Alternative 3 would be approximately $746,400. This includes the removal of all identified ACMs and LBP in the building. This estimate includes oversight during abatement activities for a period of 4 weeks and closeout reporting to be submitted to various regulatory agencies once the project is complete. This alternative also includes construction of a chemically stabilized containment cell on the Subject Property. Costs associated with this alterative are largely based on 1) volume of excavated material, 2) containment cell construction, and 3) site restoration. The overall cost effectiveness of this alternative is considered moderate.
4.3.3.4 Alternative 4 (Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP Excavation and Off -Site Disposal of Impacted Soil)
The ROM cost estimate to implement Alternative 4 would be approximately $385,500. This includes the removal of all identified ACMs and LBP in the building. This estimate includes oversight during abatement activities for a period of 4 weeks and closeout reporting to be submitted to various regulatory agencies once the project is complete. This alternative also includes removal and disposal of the lead impacted soil where the excavation would be backfilled with structural fill. The cost for this alternative assumes disposal of soils as California non-RCRA hazardous waste.
4.3.4 GREEN REMEDIATION CONSIDERATIONS
The carbon footprint associated with asbestos and other hazardous abatement is relatively small. ACM and lead-impacted waste requires disposal in an appropriately licensed landfill. The American Avenue Landfill is located 25 miles from the Subject Property so the carbon footprint associated with non- friable ACM transport for disposal will be relatively small. Excavation and disposal of lead-impacted soils (Alternative 4) would entail the most truck traffic and therefore, when compared to the other alternatives, would generate the most greenhouse gas emissions. However, the lead-impacted soils are limited in volume and there is no significant difference in predicted greenhouse gas emissions for the four remedial alternatives considered. No site-specific risk factors were identified under this alternative with respect to climate change considerations. So overall adaptive reuse of existing brownfield structures is considered a form of green remediation.
4.4 Recommended Cleanup Alternative
To quantitatively evaluate the four cleanup alternatives, the following point system is utilized:
• Good – 5 points
• Good-Moderate – 4 points
• Moderate – 3 points
• Moderate-Poor – 2 points
• Poor – 1 point
• Not Applicable (N/A) – 0 points
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
4 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
January 6, 2026
Project Number: 203723502 18
Alternative Effectiveness Implementability Cost Score
Alternative 1 Poor: 1 N/A: 0 Good: 5 6
Alternative 2 Good-Moderate: 4 Good-Moderate: 4 Good-Moderate: 4 12 Alternative 3 Moderate: 3 Moderate: 3 Moderate: 3 9
Alternative 4 Good: 5 Good: 5 Good-Moderate: 4 14
Based upon this quantitative scoring system for, Alternative 4: Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Impacted Soil is the recommended remedial action for the Subject Property. This alternative is effective, relatively easy to implement and is the most cost-effective remedial action considered for the project.
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
Project Number: 203723502 19
5 References
Group Delta. 2024. "Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey, Fresno Chandler Airport, FUT and T Hangars, 510 West Kearney Boulevard, Fresno, California." December 13.
—. 2024. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Title IV Hazard Review, Proposed Aviation Academy, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, 640 and 716 West Kearney Boulevard, Portion of APN 464-220-43T, Fresno, Fresno County, California 93706." December 13.
—. 2025. "Draft Phase II Enviornmental Site Assessment, Proposed Aviation Academy, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, 716 West Kearney Boulevard, Fresno, California." May 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1987. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763; Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools; Final Rule. October.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1997. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing. Chapter 7: Lead-Based Paint Inspection.
Figures
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Fresno
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Subject Property Boundary
Notes
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N
2. Background: USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S.
Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Data refreshed July 22, 2025., Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:10,000
0 500 1,000
Feet Client/Project
Figure No.
Project Location
Title
Chandler Airport
716 West Kearney
Fresno, California 93706
203724380
City of Fresno
EPA Coalition Assessment Grant
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
Property Location Map
1 716
W KEARNEY BLVD
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
C:\working\203724380_fresno\gis\pro\west_kearney_abca_20251003.aprx Revised: 2025-10-17 By: awisher Lead Impacted Soil
Subject Property Boundary
Notes
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N
2. Background: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-
BY-SA
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:400
0 25 50
Feet
Client/Project
Figure No.
Project Location
Title
203724380
Property Area Map
2 Chandler Airport
716 West Kearney
Fresno, California 93706
City of Fresno
EPA Coalition Assessment Grant
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
Appendix A – Asbestos and Lead
Based Paint Survey
ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY
Fresno Chandler Airport
FUT and T Hangars
510 W. Kearney Blvd.
Fresno, CA
Submitted to
City of Fresno
4995 E. Clinton Way
Fresno, CA 93727
Prepared by
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, CA 92618
Project No. EN8461A
December 13, 2024
32 Mauchly Suite B, Irvine, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 450-2100 Anaheim – Irvine – Ontario – San Diego – Torrance
www.GroupDelta.com
December 13, 2024
City of Fresno
4995 E. Clinton Way
Fresno, CA 93727
Attention: Ms. Cristal De La Torre
Subject: Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey
Fresno Chandler Executive Airport
FUT and T Hangars
510 W. Kearney Blvd., Fresno, CA
Group Delta Project No. EN8461A
Dear Ms. De La Torre:
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta ) is pleased to submit this Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey report for the Fresno Chandler Airport, FUT (Hangar 2) and T (Hangar 1) Hangars, 510 W. Kearney Blvd., Fresno, CA.
The purpose of the testing and this report is to provide locations of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), and lead-based paint (LBP) at the structures within the scope of work.
We appreciate your selection of Group Delta for this project and look forward to assisting you further on this and other projects. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jerry Sherman, CAC, CDPH, HAZWOPER Supervisor Certified Hazardous Materials Division Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. 1
3.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Asbestos – Survey Methodology .............................................................................. 1
3.2 Asbestos Analytical Methodology ............................................................................ 2
3.3 Lead Testing – Survey and Analytical Methodology ................................................ 2
4.0 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Asbestos Survey ........................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Lead Containing Paints, Coatings, and Materials ..................................................... 4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 5
5.1 Asbestos Containing Materials ................................................................................. 5
5.2 Lead Containing Paints and Coatings ....................................................................... 6
6.0 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................. 7
7.0 CLOSING ..................................................................................................................... 7
8.0 SIGNATURES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ................ 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures- Positive XRF and Bulk Sample Location Maps
Appendices
Appendix A - Asbestos Analytical Data and Sample Chain of Custody Record Forms Appendix B - XRF Download for Lead-based Paint Testing
Appendix C - Consultant Certificates
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 1
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) performed an asbestos and lead-based paint (LBP) survey at the Fresno Chandler Airport, FUT and T Hangars, 510 W. Kearney Blvd., Fresno, CA (site).
The purpose of this survey was to test for asbestos and lead in building materials and to quantify these amounts. Samples were collected throughout the interior and exterior areas including the roof. All work completed is compliant with federal, state, and local air quality regulations.
Group Delta’s on -site asbestos and LBP survey was performed on October 10 th-11th, and November 19,
2024. On-site survey work was completed by Group Delta employees, Mr. David Raver, and Mr. Jerry Sherman. Mr. Raver and Mr. Sherman are Cal/OSHA Certified Asbestos Consultants (CAC) and California Department of Public Health ( CDPH) Lead Inspector/Assessors and/or Lead Sampling Technicians . This report summarizes our assessment findings.
2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The FUT Hangar is a concrete and metal/wood framed building on concrete slab finished with paint on the exterior. The building construction typically consists of a concrete foundation, wood or metal framing with wood, sheet vinyl, vinyl floor tiles and ceiling tiles. The roof is built up roofing material.
The T Hangars are a metal framed and metal finished building on a concrete foundation. Interior walls are unfinished drywall and the roof is metal.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The survey was based on sampling of suspect asbestos -containing materials ( ACMs) and a screening of representative painted surfaces and coatings for LBP. Specific survey procedures followed by Group Delta for this survey are provided in the following paragraphs. Laboratory reports for the samples collected are included in Attachment A.
3.1 Asbestos – Survey Methodology
Identification of suspect ACM was performed by visually surveying accessible structural and architectural components and finishes at the site. No excavation or subsurface investigation was conducted to discover buried insulated piping and/or asbestos cement pipes concealed below the surface. All findings, conclusions, and analytical data presented in this report are based on visual inspection and the results of the sampling and analysis of suspected ACM discovered during the survey.
Suspect ACM identified during this survey was bulk sampled using sampling guidelines established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by generally following the methods described in Appendix K of Title 8, CCR, Section 1529 of the California Code of Regulations for sample collection. The following summarizes the sampling procedures utilized.
• Visually identified suspect ACM were categorized into homogeneous material areas. A homogeneous material is defined as being a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material which is uniform in color and texture. • A sampling scheme was developed based upon the location and quantity of the various Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 2
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
homogeneous materials.
• Trained and certified personnel using appropriate sampling tools and leak -tight containers collected bulk samples.
• Bulk sample collection tools were decontaminated after the collection of each bulk sample to prevent the spread of secondary contamination to subsequent bulk samples. • Each bulk sample was labeled with a unique sample identification number and recorded on a bulk sample log.
• Bulk samples collected were submitted to a laboratory with a chain of custody record.
All material quantities reported herein are rough order of magnitude estimates and should not be used for bidding purposes without review of available record drawings and on -site field verification by the bidder. The information provided in this report should be used in conjunction with construction documents and the contractor’s own field verification of the abatement scope of work including location and extent of removal required for the renovation/demolition project being undertaken at the site. In the event concealed suspect ACMs not previously identified are discovered, the contractor is obligated to stop and notify the owner immediately in compliance with applicable regulations.
3.2 Asbestos Analytical Methodology
Bulk samples of suspect ACM were sent to AmeriSci in Carson, California and EMSL in San Diego, California.
AmeriSci and EMSL are laboratory’s accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (Cal- ELAP) for bulk asbestos sample analysis. The sam ples were submitted for analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) utilizing dispersion staining techniques in accordance with the EPA’s “Method for the Determination of Asbestos in B ulk Building Materials” U.S.
EPA/600/R-93/116, dated July 1993 and adopted by the NVLAP as Test Method Code 18/A01.
The standard PLM analytical method has a limit of quantification of 1% asbestos. For materials with asbestos detected at trace levels or below 1% by standard PLM, the material must be considered above 1% (ACM) unless re-analyzed and found to be less than 1% by the PLM point count method (400 points minimum but recommended at 1,000 points ). Each sample of a homogeneous area material with trace result(s) must be re-analyzed by point count and found to be less than 1% or assumed to be an ACM per EPA regulation.
3.3 Lead Testing – Survey and Analytical Methodology
LBP is defined as any painted surface with lead levels exceeding 5,000 parts per million (ppm), 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm²) or greater than 0.5 percent by weight (wt%), as set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regulations. Lead-Containing Paints (LCPs) are paints and coatings that contain any amount of detectable lead as defined by Cal/OSHA. It is likely LBPs are present at the site due to the age of construction. Most paints and coatings on pre -1978 buildings contain some detectable lead subject to Cal/OSHA regulation. Therefore, the exhaustive testing required to prove painted coatings do not contain lead is not practical or cost effective. Consequently, all paints and architectural coatings must be considered to contain some detectable levels of lead unless proven otherwise by laboratory analysis.
This survey was based on screening level LBP testing for charac terizing the general presence of lead in
existing paints and coatings. A n XR
F Analyzer direct read lead testing instrument was used for paint Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 3
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
analysis. The results presented herein are anticipated to be representative of typical conditions but are not inclusive of all painted/coated surfaces present at the buildings. The results of this survey should assist with compliance to the Cal/OSHA L ead in C onstruction Standard and preliminary evaluation of potential construction waste streams.
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Asbestos Survey
Group Delta collected 71 bulk samples of suspect ACM which were analyzed by PLM analysis. The suspect ACM sampled during this survey are summarized below. The analytical laboratory results for sampled suspect ACMs are listed in Appendix A – Analytical Laboratory Reports. Material sample locations can be found in the attached Figures.
Materials Sampled with Asbestos Reported:
Sample # Material Building/Location Asbestos
(Type/Percentage) Condition
Friable /
Non-
Friable
Approx.
Qnty.
01-03 Door window
putty
FUT Hanger- Exterior
doors
Chrysotile-
Trace <1% * Good Non-friable 800 SF
07-09 Roof core FUT Hanger- Roof Chrysotile-
40-60% Good Non-friable 9,375SF
13-15 Walking mat w/
adhesive FUT Hanger- Roof Chrysotile-
2% Good Non-friable 20 SF
31-33 12x12 Floor tile
and mastic
FUT Hanger- NW office
floor
Chrysotile-
3-4% Good Non-friable 125 SF
36 Drywall w/ joint
compound
(painted blue)
FUT Hanger- NW office Chrysotile-
Trace <1% * Good Friable 500 SF
37-39 Texture coat FUT Hanger- NW office
walls
Chrysotile-
Trace <1% * Good Friable 500 SF
44-46 Drywall w/ joint
compound
FUT Hanger- Shop
kitchen
Chrysotile-
2% Good Friable 500 SF
47-49 Sprayed on
acoustic ceiling FUT Hanger- South wall Chrysotile-
2% Good Non-friable 500 SF
51-53 9x9 Floor tile FUT Hanger- Ladies
restroom
Chrysotile-
5% Good Non-friable 25 SF
Assumed Electrical switch
blocks
FUT Hanger- electrical
panels Assumed Good Non-friable 12 SF
SF = square foot
* = Materials with <1% asbestos reported are considered ACM unless PLM 400 or 1,000-point count analysis is conducted to confirm material is <1%.
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 4
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
Materials sampled with no asbestos reported FUT Hangar:
• Unfinished drywall
• Roof penetration mastic
• Vapor barrier paper
• Exterior seal
• Window putty (Windows, not door windows)
• Concrete
• Pebble path and adhesive
• Electrical outlet
• Desktop
• Electrical tape
• 12x12 Ceiling tile and mastic
• Ceramic tile and mortar
• White and gray sheet flooring
Materials sampled with no asbestos reported T Hanga r:
• Drywall
Refer to Attachments for a complete set of the laboratory results and Figures for sample locations.
4.2 Lead Containing Paints, Coatings, and Materials
Group Delta performed a total of 74 XRF lead tests including calibrations from the areas that may be impacted by renovation/demolition. The following is a summary of building components tested and found to be positive for LBP by XRF:
Component Location, Result and Approx.
Quantity
Color, Substrate, & Condition
V Beam
XRF Sample # 36
FUT Hangar (Hangar 2)
Exterior
(250 SF) 1.7 mg/cm²
White,
Metal, Intact
V Beam
XRF Sample # 38
FUT Hangar (Hangar 2)
Exterior
(250 SF) 2.2 mg/cm²
White,
Wood, Poor
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 5
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
Beam
XRF Sample # 40
FUT Hangar (Hangar 2)
Exterior
(100 SF) 2.7 mg/cm²
Brown,
Wood, Poor
Beam
Assumed, (Inaccessible)
FUT Hangar (Hangar 2)
Interior
(1,800 SF) Assumed
Red,
Metal, Intact
Note: red metal structural beams were not tested for lead due to height restrictions. They are assumed to be LBP.
Materials tested tha t are not lead-based paint can be found in the attached XRF table.
General Interpretations of Lead-Containing Paint (LCP) and LBP Findings Reported:
All painted components must be presumed to contain some detectable levels of lead regardless of non – detection by the XRF method unless exhaustively tested by paint chip analysis. Untested painted/coated components must be presumed to contain some lead at detectable levels. Limited surfaces tested contained high levels of lead considered to be LBP and most of the remaining surfaces contained some detectable lead. The tested surfaces that reported low levels of detected lead must be considered LCP and coatings in the absence of exhaustive testing by wet chemistry methods.
Paint Condition Findings:
The condition of paint at this site is generally in intact and poor condition. Since even low levels of paint may exhibit hazardous waste characteristics, care must be taken to eliminate loose and peeling paint prior to general building demolition. Any loose, peeling or flaking paint should be removed and disposed of as lead-containing waste.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Asbestos Containing Materials
Prior to renovation acti
vities, known or assumed ACMs and asbestos-containing construction materials (ACCMs) that are likely to be disturbed by those activities must be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations including but not limited to the federal National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) and Cal/OSHA regulations. A Cal -OSHA registered, and State licensed,
registered asbestos contractor (abatement/demolition/roofing) is required for removal of ACM prior to general demolition.
Where known or suspected asbestos contaminated spaces must be accessed and entered, the Contractor shall either abate the contamination throughout the space or employ a contractor assist type approach using asbestos qualified and protected trades personnel assisted by a registered asbestos contractor to access the area safely to perform the work and leave the contaminated area through a decontamination containment in a manner that does not allow the exposure of personnel or spread of contamination outside the contaminated work space.
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 6
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
Where removal is unavoidable, the contractor’s abatement sub -contractor should remove all friable regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) under Class 1 removal requirements and dispose of waste as hazardous asbestos waste at a landfill permitted for asbestos hazardous waste disposal. The contractor’s abatement sub-contractor should also remove all category I & II non-friable ACM in a manner that does not produce friable ACM under Cal/OSHA Class II removal requirements and dispose of removed materials as non-hazardous asbestos waste at a landfill permitted for asbestos waste disposal.
The following additional requirements should be adhered to for any maintenance, renov ation, or demolition projects requiring asbestos disturbance and/or removal:
• All asbestos-containing wastes shall be manifested as either hazardous or non- hazardous based on asbestos content, friability, and actual waste stream classification. • All asbestos removal should be overseen by a qualified independent third party , retained by the building owner or manager of the building to ensure proper removal, clean up, work area clearance, and review waste shipping and disposal documentation. • Contractor should perform all work in compliance with contract documents and the most recent edition of all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, standards, and codes governing abatement, transport, and disposal of asbestos.
5.2 Lead Containing Paints and Coatings
The painted components tested at the subject building typically had detectable levels of lead and should be considered LCP coated. LBP was detected at several areas of the building. All paints and coatings should be considered LCP or coatings in the absence of exhaustive sampling and laboratory analysis. The disturbance of these components during demolition activities will require use of personnel trained in lead hazards for construction and will require compliance with applicable Cal/OSHA and Cal/EPA regulation.
At the present time, there is no state or federal regulation requiring mandatory lead removal or abatement prior to disturbance, demolition or renovation of structures with identified lead materials.
However, prior to hot work on painted metal, the paint either needs to be removed or supplied air respirators worn during welding or cutting operation. In addition, there are applicable lead specific Cal/OSHA worker protection requirements and Cal/EPA waste disposal requirements that do apply to lead-related construction activities and associated wastes:
♦ Cal/OSHA: The Cal/OSHA regulation, Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1 Lead governs occupation exposure to lead. This regulation requires that any task that may potentially expose workers to any
concentration of lead, be monitored to determine workers eight-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure to lead. Prior to initiation of certain activities, referred to as “trigger tasks”, that are believed to have the capability of creating an excessive lead exposure, such workers must be properly fitted with respiratory protection and protective clothing until personal eight-hour TWA results reveal exposures within acceptable levels. Pertinent examples of trigger tasks are manual demolition, manual paint scraping and power tool removal, and hot work involving lead - containing coatings or materials. Cal/OSHA also has agency pre -start notification requirements and worker training and certification depending on exposure levels. Clearly these requirements will apply to demolition, patch and repair, paint removal, and surface preparation work at this site.
♦ Cal/E
PA: Cal/EPA regulates disposal of lead hazardous waste (22 CCR Division 4.5, Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste ). The Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 7
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
Substance Control (DTSC) has issued guidance indicating that architectural debris with intact lead paint is normally anticipated to be handled as general construction waste. Since detected LCP was g
enerally in fair to good condition and most paint coatings tested had low to moderate lead content, it is unlikely that most of the demolition debris will be hazardous as a composite sample.
However, all lead containing waste streams should be considered potentially lead hazardous pending waste tes ting. Further, all surface preparation and paint removal wastes must be considered hazardous wastes due to the likelihood of paint chip lead levels exceeding 1,000 total lead or 5 ppm soluble lead.
All con
struction activities impacting lead must be performed in compliance with the most recent edition of all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, standards, and codes governing abatement, transport, and disposal of lead containing/contaminat ed materials. Selective and general demolition activities will involve disturbing lead and possibly creating lead hazardous wastes. These construction activities must be controlled to prevent uncontrolled release of lead contamination and for environmental protection.
The Contractor conducting building renovation and selective demolition controls the means and methods used and therefore should be required by the contract document to ensure that the renovation and demolition processes are conducted in a manner that creates the minimum amount of hazardous waste and leaves the site free of lead contamination exceeding regulatory levels.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Group Delta conducted this asbestos and lead survey of above ground conditions . No excavation or subsurface investigation was conducted to discover buried insulated piping and/or asbestos cement pipes concealed below the surface.
7.0 CLOSING
Group Delta Consultants performed the hazardous materials survey services in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances.
Conclusions and recommendations made regarding hazardous materials were based upon information obtained from samples and tests collected at specific locations, review of information provided to us, and professional judgment. Recommendations in this report were made based on conditions that Group Delta reasonably infer to exist between sampling points.
This report is intended as an informational resource for UCSD. Any contractor using this document assumes all responsibility for reviewing all available information and for verifying existing site conditions including location and extent of hazardous materials present at the Site.
Should any significant discrepancy between this report and existing conditions be discovered, the contractor shall notify the project manager, contracting officer, or inspector immediately.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this document, please do not hesitate to call Jerry Sherman at 619-348-9145.
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey 8
Fresno Chandler Airport
Fresno, CA
8.0 SIGNATURES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS Report prepared for Report reviewed for
City of Fresno by: City of Fresno by:
Jerry Sherman, LEED AP, CAC, CDPH David Raver, CAC, CDPH Hazardous Materials Division Manager Hazardous Materials Project Manager Certified Asbestos Consultant #97-2324 Certified Asbestos Consultant #18-6221 CDPH Lead I/A, #LRC00004015 CDPH Lead Sampling Tech., #LRC00005894
Figures
Customer: City of Fresno
Project# EN8461A
Location: Chandler Executive Airport
Area: Large Hanger (FUT)
Sampled by: David Raver
Sample Date: 10-10-2024 & 11-19-2024
ASBESTOS & POSITIVE XRF SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
= Roof Sample
39 38
37 31-3330 36
35 34
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
19 16-18
10 13-15
12 11
09 08
07 50 47-49
46 45
44 41-43
40 21
20 Assumed
Lead Based
Paint on
Structural
Beams
51-56 57-62
65 6463
POS
XRF
#38
POS
XRF
#40
POS
XRF
#36
D
C
B
A
C
D
A
B
XRF Orientation
11/19 - 01
11/19 - 02
11/19 - 03
SECOND FLOOR OFFICE
Customer: City of Fresno
Project# EN8461A
Location: Chandler Executive Airport
Area: Ex Hanger
Sampled by: David Raver
Sample Date: 10-10-2024 & 11-19-2024
ASBESTOS SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
11/19 - 04
01-03
11/19 - 05
11/19 - 06
0405
06 11
12 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 App endix A Asbestos Analytical Data and Sample Chain of Custody Record Forms
Ap pendix B - XRF Download for Lead-based Paint Testing
Viken Detection
Model Pb200i
Type XRF Lead Paint Analyzer
Serial Num. 1396
App Version Pb200i-5.3.1
# Concentration Units Date Quantity Component Substrate Side Condition Color INT/EXT Building 1 1.1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Calibrate
2 1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Calibrate
3 1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Calibrate
4 0.1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Door Metal C Intact Red Exterior Hanger 1 5 0.2 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Wall Metal C Intact White Exterior Hanger 1 6 0.1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Door Metal C Intact Red Exterior Hanger 1 7 0 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Door Casing Metal C Intact Red Exterior Hanger 1 8 0.3 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Floor Metal C Intact Red Interior Hanger 1 9 0.3 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Elec. Box/Panel Metal B Intact Red Interior Hanger 1 10 0.1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Wall Metal B Intact White Interior Hanger 1 11 0.1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Vertical Beam Metal A Intact Red Interior Hanger 1 12 0 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Horizontal Beam Metal A Intact Red Interior Hanger 1 13 0.2 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Shelf Metal B Intact Green Interior Hanger 1 14 0.1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Door Metal C Intact Brown Interior Hanger 1 15 1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Calibrate
16 1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Calibrate
17 1 mg/cm2 10/10/2024 Calibrate
18 0.9 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Calibrate
19 1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Calibrate
20 1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Calibrate
21 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Roof Metal West Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 22 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Flashing Metal West Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 23 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Wood West Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 24 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Rain Gutter Plastic West Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 25 0 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Winow Casing Wood West Poor White Exterior Hanger 2 26 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Window Metal West Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 27 0 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Window Sill Wood West Poor White Exterior Hanger 2 28 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Pipe Metal West Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 29 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Roll up door Metal A Poor White Exterior Hanger 2 30 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Metal A Poor White Exterior Hanger 2 31 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Metal B Poor White Exterior Hanger 2 32 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Metal A Intact Brown Exterior Hanger 2 33 0.7 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Conduit Metal A Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 34 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Elec. Box/Panel Metal A Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 35 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Wood A Intact Brown Exterior Hanger 2 36 1.7 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 250SF V Beam Metal C Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 37 0 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Hanger Door Metal C Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 38 2.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 250SF V Beam Wood C Poor White Exterior Hanger 2 39 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 V Beam Wood C Intact White Exterior Hanger 2 40 2.7 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 100SF Beam Wood C Poor Brown Exterior Hanger 2 41 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Flashing Metal C Intact Brown Exterior Hanger 2 42 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Metal C Intact Brown Exterior Hanger 2 43 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Metal C Intact Green Interior Hanger 2 44 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Floor Concrete Middle Intact Green Interior Hanger 2 45 0.4 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Metal C Poor Yellow Interior Hanger 2 46 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Metal C Intact Clear (Stain Interior Hanger 2 47 0 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Casing Wood B Intact Blue Interior Hanger 2 48 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Drywall B Intact White Interior Hanger 2 49 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Wood B Intact Brown Interior Hanger 2 50 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Jamb Wood B Intact White Interior Hanger 2 51 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Jamb Drywall B Intact Blue Interior Hanger 2 52 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Baseboard Wood B Intact White Interior Hanger 2 53 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 V Beam Wood C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 54 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Winow Casing Wood C Intact Blue Interior Hanger 2 55 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Wood C Intact Clear (Stain Interior Hanger 2 56 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Drywall B Intact White Interior Hanger 2 57 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Drywall C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 58 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Drywall D Intact White Interior Hanger 2 59 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Wood C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 60 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Jamb Wood C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 61 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Metal C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 62 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Wood C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 63 0 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Drywall C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 64 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Shelf Wood C Intact Blue Interior Hanger 2 65 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Shelf Wood C Intact White Interior Hanger 2 66 0.3 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Ceiling Wood Middle Intact White Interior Hanger 2 67 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Ceiling Wood Middle Intact White Interior Hanger 2 68 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Handrail Metal D Intact Tan Interior Hanger 2 69 0.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Wood C Intact Red Interior Hanger 2 70 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Door Casing Wood C Intact Red Interior Hanger 2 71 0.2 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Wall Wood C Intact Red Interior Hanger 2 72 1.1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Calibrate
73 1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Calibrate
74 1 mg/cm2 10/11/2024 Calibrate
Appendix C - Consultant Certificates
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
LEAD-RELATED CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
Disclaimer: This document alone should not be relied upon to confirm certification status. Compare the individual’s photo and name to another valid form of government issued photo identification. Verify the individual’s certification status by searching for Lead-Related Construction Professionals at ***.cdph.ca.gov/programs/clppb or calling (800) 597-LEAD INDIVIDUAL: CERTIFICATE TYPE: NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE:
Lead Inspector/Assessor LRC-00004015 1/7/2026
Jerry Sherman
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
LEAD-RELATED CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
Disclaimer: This document alone should not be relied upon to confirm certification status. Compare the individual’s photo and name to another valid form of government issued photo identification. Verify the individual’s certification status by searching for Lead-Related Construction Professionals at www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/clppb
or calling (800) 597-LEAD
INDIVIDUAL: CERTIFICATE TYPE: NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE:
Lead Sampling Technician LRC-00005894 3/30/2025
David Raver
Appendix B – Draft Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment
DRAFT PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED AVIATION ACADEMY
FRESNO CHANDLER EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
716 WEST KEARNEY BOULEVARD
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of Fresno Airports Department
4995 East Clinton Way
Fresno, California 93727
Prepared by:
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
133 Technology Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92681
Tel: (949) 419-3030
Group Delta Project No. EN8461A
May 22, 2025
133 Technology Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 419-3030 www.GroupDelta.com
City of Fresno, Airports Department May 22, 2025
4995 East Clinton Way Project No. EN8461A
Fresno, California 93727
Attention: Ms. Cristal De La Torre
SUBJECT: DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy
Fresno Chandler Executive Airport
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
Dear Ms. Cristal De La Torre,
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) is pleased to submit to City of Fresno , Airports Department (Client), this Phase I I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I I ESA) for the subject property in Fresno, California. The Client requested the Phase II ESA based on the findings and recommendations from the Phase I ESA and Title V Hazard Review , in anticipation of proposed construction of an Aviation Academy. The Academy plans to construct a new conference center building within the footprint of the existing hangar building located at 716 West Kearney Boulevard.
We appreciate your selection of Group Delta for this project and look forward to assisting you further on this and other projects. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
Ryan Seelbach, CPESC, QSD Terry Otis, PG, CEG Associate Geologist Associate Geologist
A report prepared for:
City of Fresno Airports Department
4995 East Clinton Way
Fresno, California 93727
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy, Fresno Unified School District Fresno Chandler Executive Airport
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
Prepared by:
Ryan Seelbach
Associate Geologist
Reviewed by:
Terry Otis, PG, CEG
Associate Geologist
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
133 Technology Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92681
Group Delta Project No. EN8461A
May 22, 2025
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025
Proposed Aviation Academy Page i 716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Site Description 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Project Objectives 2
1.4 Site Geology 2
1.5 Site Hydrogeology 3
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 4
2.1 Utility Clearance 4
2.2 Soil Sampling 4
2.2.1 Field Sampling Equipment 5
2.2.2 Sampling Procedures 5
2.3 Soil Vapor Sampling 6
2.3.1 Soil Vapor Probe Installation 6
2.3.2 Soil Vapor Probe Sampling 7
2.4 Waste Disposal 7
3.0 RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING 9
3.1 Soil Analyses 9
3.2 Soil Vapor Analyses 9
3.3 Screening Criteria 9
3.4 Soil Analytical Results 11
3.4.1 Metals 11
3.4.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) 12
3.4.3 Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 12
3.4.4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 12
3.4.5 Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) 12
3.4.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 13
3.5 Soil Vapor Analytical Results 13
3.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) 14
4.0 DISCUSSION – LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR VAPOR INTRUSION RISKS 16
4.1 Site History 16
4.2 Soil Type and Chemical Data 16
4.3 Groundwater 17
4.4 Proposed Building Construction 17
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS 18
6.0 REFERENCES 19
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025
Proposed Aviation Academy Page ii 716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Plan
Figure 2 – Soil Vapor and Soil Sample Location Map
TABLES
Table 1 – Soil Analytical Results for Title 22 Metals
Table 2 - Soil Analytical Results for Lead Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) Table 3 - Soil Analytical Results for Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) Table 4 - Soil Analytical Results for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Table 5 - Soil Vapor Analytical Results for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Boring Log and Soil Vapor Probe Log (Typical) Appendix B – Waste Disposal Manifest
Appendix C1 – Laboratory Analytical Reports – Soil Samples Appendix C2 – Laboratory Analytical Reports – Soil Vapor Samples
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 1 716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Fresno Airports Department (Client) engaged Group Delta to conduct a Phase II ESA following the completion of a Phase I ESA, Title V Hazard Review. The assessment focuses on the two buildings located at 640 and 716 West Kearney Boulevard, a portion of APN 464-220-43T, in Fresno, California (Site). The location of the Site is shown on Figure 1. The Phase II ESA includes a soil and soil vapor investigation to evaluate potential chemical impacts to soil and soil vapor below the existing hangar building located at 716 West Kearney Boulevard.
1.1 Site Description
The Site is located in a mixed use aviation and residential area of Fresno and comprises approximate 3.34 -acres within a larger 55.86 -acre parcel of land that is part of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, a regional airport (Figure 1). The Site includes a corrugated metal T- hangar building built in 1960 at 640 West Kearney Boulevard, as well as an older hangar building at 716 West Kearney Boulevard built in 1948. The 1948 hangar consists of a concrete slab -on- grade foundation, painted wood and corrugated steel walls , and a pitched wood-shingled roof with composite shingles. This site has been occupied by multiple tenants including Lambe Piper Aircraft Sales, Ruiz Frank X Avionics, Buchner Aero Specialties, and Tom’s Flying Service. The remainder of the site consists of concrete-pavement, asphalt-pavement, landscaping areas with trees, shrubs, grass, and vacant land covered in grass.
1.2 Background
In preparation of construction of the proposed Aviation Academy , Group Delta conducted a Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials E1527-21 (ASTM, 2021) (Group Delta, 2025). The Phase I ES A identified several environmental conditions related to current and past land use , including three recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and two other environmental considerations (OECs) associated with the existing 1948 hangar building outlined below:
• REC1 – A letter issued by the County of Fresno Department of Health to the City of Fresno dated August 29, 1991, confirmed the completion of a site inspection and/or remedial action regarding the release of hazardous substances or waste in relation to underground storage tanks ( USTs). No further action was required, and UST closure documentation does not include documentation indicating the presence or absence of a petroleum discharge.
• REC2 - Evidence of an exterior wash down area with a drain and single-chamber oil/water separator (OWS) was observed adjacent to the west side of the hangar building. The installation date of the washdown area and drain is unknown. The OWS drain is used to collect washdown water and separates oil, sludge , and debris collected into the drain DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 2
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
prior to entering the municipal sewer system. T he potential exists that the OWS may be breached, allowing oil and sludge to leak into subsurface media.
• REC3 - Evidence of a spray booth was observed within the interior northwestern portion of the hangar building. The installation date of the spray booth is unknown. An oil stain was observed on the floor of the spray booth, and an oily odor was noted.
• OEC1 – Group Delta completed a Lead-Based Paint (LBP) survey to test for lead in building materials and to assess concentrations. Samples were collected from various interior and exterior areas that may be impacted by renovation/demolition. T he survey results confirmed the presence of LBP at the hangar.
• OEC2 - Group Delta completed an Asbestos Survey to test asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and to assess concentrations. The survey results confirmed that ACM was present in nine samples analyzed at the hangar.
Due to the historical nature of the hangar building, the RECs and OECs identified in the Phase I ESA, and the proposed redevelopment of the site for an Aviation Academy , the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) requires a Phase II ESA in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead from LBP, Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) dated June 2006, to assess potential impacts.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of this subsurface investigation was to evaluate the RECs, OEC1, OCPs, and PCBs identified in the Phase I ESA and to address DTSC’s Interim Guidance for School Sites specifically related to hazardous materials, petroleum products , and other potential contaminants commonly found at airports and industrial sites . This assessment was conducted in accordance with the Interim Guidance for School Sites (DTSC, 2006). The investigation also included soil vapor sampling to detect the presence of volatile organic compound concentrations (VOC) concentrations and evaluate the potential for soil vapor intrusion into the indoor air of the proposed development. To achieve this objective, a comprehensive soil vapor investigation was conducted withi n the proposed building footprint to characterize the human health risks associated with vapor intrusion. The detected VOC concentrations in soil vapor, along with applicable regulatory screening criteria were used to estimate the potential health risks from vapor intrusion.
1.4 Site Geology
Based on the review of the Geologic Map of California, the Site is situated in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California (United States Geological Survey, 1977). The Great Valley is DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 3
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
an alluvial plain about 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central part of California. Its northern part is the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River , and its southern part is the San Joaquin Valley drained by the San Joaquin River. The Great Valley is a trough in which sediments have been deposited almost continuously since the Jurassic (about 160 million years ago) (Group Delta, 2024).
During Group Delta’s soil sampling event, a dark brown to reddish brown sandy silt to silty sand soil was encountered during drilling and sampling activities to a depth of 10 feet. The soil was firm and moist; however, no groundwater was encountered during the sampling event.
1.5 Site Hydrogeology
According to the California Department of Water Resources website referenced in 2024, the Site is in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kings Subbasin.
The San Joaquin Valley is bordered by the Coast Ranges to the west, the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the Sierra Nevada to the east, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley to the north.
The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the Site is Dry Creek, located approximately 0.50-mile northwest of the Site. According to conversations with airport staff, the City of Fresno operates a public water system that serves the Site vicinity. Additionally, the shallow groundwater beneath the Site is used for domestic purposes Based on data obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, the depth to groundwater beneath the Site is approximately 100 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs) and flows in a southwesterly direction (SWRCB, 2024).
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 4
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of concrete coring, hand auger borings, direct push drilling, and soil vapor probe installation for the collection of soil and soil vapor samples.
2.1 Utility Clearance
Prior to conducting the Site investigation, an initial site reconnaissance was performed to ensure accessibility and safety of sampling locations. Boring locations were marked in the field with white paint. Underground Service Alert of Northern California was notified of the field work at least 48 hours prior to the start to identify potential subsurface utility conflicts at the boring locations. BESS Utility Solutions of Freno, California cleared each marked boring location for subsurface utilities in advance of the field work.
2.2 Soil Sampling
Using hand augers and/or a truck mounted direct push drill rig, each boring was advanced to depths ranging from three to ten feet. A photo Ionization detector (PID) was used to screen soil samples retrieved from the borings for VOCs. Soil samples for analysis were selected based on PID readings, visual observations, and olfactory detection at various depths.
Soil borings were advanced at the following locations:
• REC2: Two soil borings were advanced on either side of the wash down drain OWS. • REC3: Two soil borings were advanced within the paint booth area. • OEC1: Six soil borings were advanced along the south and east sides of the hangar building and two borings on each side of the power pole.
Boring locations are shown in Figure 2. Soil borings were advanced to 5 ft bgs, with samples collected at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 5.0 ft bgs. Discrete, composite and duplicate samples were collected during the investigation. Samples for assessing l ead-based paint (LBP) in soil were collected in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 69105 (DTSC, 2006).
Group Delta assigned boring names based on the type of sample followed by sequential boring numbers. The letters “B” for borings and “SV” for soil vapor samples followed by a dash and the depth the sample was collected from in ft bgs (e.g., B4-1.5, SV3-5, etc.). Duplicate samples were collected during soil vapor sampling and labeled with the same sample name as the primary sample followed by “REP” (e.g., SV6-5 REP).
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 5
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
2.2.1 Field Sampling Equipment
The following equipment was used:
1. A direct push rig was utilized to drill the soil vapor probe borings, All other borings were drilled using a hand auger.
2. Enough 8-ounce (oz) sealed glass jars with Teflon lined lids were provided by the analytical laboratory;
3. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE);
4. Deionized water;
5. Box cooler with ice for storage of the collected samples, and;
6. Self-adhesive labels and chain of custody sheets.
2.2.2 Sampling Procedures
Presented below is the sampling and decontamination methodology followed in the field:
1. The soil vapor borings were advanced using a direct-push drill rig. The direct -push drill rig used a percussion hammer to drive a 5- foot-long hollow steel rod lined with an acetate sleeve into the ground. As the rod was advanced into the ground, soil filled the acetate sleeve for sample collection. All other borings were advanced using a hand auger.
2. Borings were advanced to the first sampling depth.
3. All soil samples from hand -augered borings were collected in 8 -ounce glass jars. For the direct- push borings, soil samples were obtained by retrieving the acetate sleeve from the drill rod and cutting a 0.5 -foot-long section of the sleeve. Teflon sheets were placed at each end, and the sleeve was sealed with polyethylene end caps.
4. All soil samples were appropriately label with the boring number, sample depth, time, and date of collection;
5. Place samples on ice in the cooler box;
6. Decon equipment, utilizing deionized water and a concentrated detergent;
7. Repeat the procedure for remaining sample depths for each boring location;
8. Record a summary of the observations and general soil conditions for each boring;
9. Backfill borings with soil cuttings and native soil to meet the existing grade;
10. Patch boring with concrete and asphalt patch to match existing finish; DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 6
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
11. Collected a rinsate/equipment blank by pouring deionized water over the decontaminated sampling equipment and collecting it in a sample container at the end of each day for analysis;
12. Fill out chain-of-custody (COC) form, and;
13. Transport the samples on ice to a certified chemical testing laboratory.
2.3 Soil Vapor Sampling
The following is a description of the field activities including boring advancement and soil vapor probe installation and sampling. During all Site investigation activities, a Group Delta geologist, working under the direction of a California Professional Geologist, monitored the work and classified the soil types encountered according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
2.3.1 Soil Vapor Probe Installation
On February 5, 2025, Group Delta engaged Millennium Environmental Inc. of Anaheim, California, to advance eight borings inside and outside the hangar building for the installation of duel nested soil vapor probes (SV-1 through SV-8). Soil vapor probe SV-7 was installed in the western portion of the Site, to evaluate potential soil gas contamination associated with the use of the former exterior wash down area drain and single-chamber OWS. The soil vapor probes were installed to depths of 5 ft and 10 ft bgs except for vapor probe SV-6, which was installed at depths of 5 ft and 8 ft bgs due to overhead clearance restrictions. The location of the eight temporary dual-nested vapor probes are shown in Figure 2.
During boring advancement, soil was collected at depths of approximately 1.5, 3, 5 and 10 ft bgs.
The retrieved soil was placed in Ziploc baggies and prescreened for VOCs using a photoionization detector (PID). Soil types, PID values, and other pertinent geologic data were recorded on boring logs.
At each location, soil vapor probes were installed at 5 ft bgs and 10 ft bgs (8 ft bgs in SV-6). The vapor probes were constructed using a one-inch long airstone filter connected to ¼-inch diameter Teflon® tube. To ensure that the probe tips were placed at the target depths, a PVC rod was used to temporarily support the probes and tubing within the borehole. A one -foot thick sand pack was placed around each probe, followed by six inches of dry bentonite. To seal the annular space, hydrated bentonite was placed to either the next probe depth or to the ground surface.
To protect the vapor probes and provide access for future sampling, each probe tip was sealed within a Ziploc baggie using tape and coiled within the borehole. Clean No. 3 sand was placed around the probes followed by a thin layer of concrete at the ground surface. The vapor probe completion details are provided on the boring log in Appendix A.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 7
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
The soil generated during the drilling activities was temporarily stored on -site until transportation and disposal to an off-site treatment facility was determined.
2.3.2 Soil Vapor Probe Sampling
On February 20, 2025, soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with DTSC’s Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations (DTSC, 2015). Sampling was conducted a minimum of 48 hours after probe installation to allow subsurface conditions to equilibrate. Vapor probe purging and sample collection was conducted by Jones Environmental Inc. (Jones) of Santa Fe Springs, California.
Initially, a shut -in test was conducted to check for leaks in the above -ground sampling system following the assemblage of the above-ground valves, lines, and fittings to the top of each of the vapor probes. With the valve at the top of the vapor probe placed in the closed position, the system was evacuated to a minimum of 100 inches of water using a purge pump. A vacuum gauge connected to the system was observed for at least one minute to ensure no observable loss of vacuum.
Once the shut- in test was completed, each of the newly installed nested vapor probes was purged. Approximately three purge volumes were removed from each vapor probe using a constant flow rate between 100 and 200 milliliters per minute at a vacuum less tha n 100 inches of water. One purge volume is defined as the combined internal volume of the tubing, the void space of the sand pack around the probe, and void space of the dry bentonite in the annular space.
After removing the three purge volumes from each vapor probe, a vapor sample was collected from each location with a syringe. During sample collection, the vacuum pressure was recorded and samples were not collected if the vacuum pressure exceeded 136 inches of water column (10 inches of mercury).
Leak testing was performed using tracer compounds (n- pentane, n-hexane, n-heptane). A rag sprayed with the compounds and placed at the surface of the boring around all connections. The tracer compounds were re-applied every 10 minutes during purging and sampling. The soil vapor samples were analyzed for the presence of the tracer compounds, and corrective action s were implemented if the tracer compounds were detected at a concentration more than or equal to 10 times the method reporting limits.
2.4 Waste Disposal
Soil cuttings generated during drilling activities were placed in two 55-gallon metal drums , labeled, and stored on -site. A soil sample was collected and analyzed, with results confirming DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 8
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
that the soil could be disposed of as non-hazardous waste. The drums were transported off site on April 18, 2025. The non-hazardous waste disposal documentation is provided as Appendix B.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 9
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
3.0 RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
The results of the laboratory analysis are presented in the laboratory analytical reports provided as Appendix C1 and C2 . The reports include copies of the completed COC forms, laboratory analytical results, the quality control sample (field and laboratory) results, and a narrative of any deviations and corrective actions taken.
3.1 Soil Analyses
All s oil samples collected during the investigation were transported to Eurofins Environment Testing (Eurofins) located in Tustin, California for laboratory analysis. Eurofins is a laboratory certified by the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP). The s oil samples were analyzed for the following combination of analyses depending upon the type of environmental condition that was being investigated. The analysis for each soil sample is listed in Tables 1 through 4.
• Title 22 Metals by EPA Method 6010B/7471A [3 samples from REC2, 4 samples from REC3] • Total lead by EPA Method 6010B [12 samples from OEC1] • California Waste Extraction Test (CA- WET) test was conducted to determine the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) [4 samples from OEC1] • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) by EPA Method 8015B [3 samples from REC2, 4 samples from REC3]
• Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270C [3 samples from REC2, 4 samples from REC3]
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B [4 samples from REC2, 4 samples from REC3]
• Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) by EPA Method 8081A [4 composite samples for DTSC, 2006]
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082A [4 samples for DTSC, 2006]
3.2 Soil Vapor Analyses
The soil vapor samples were collected and analyzed by Jones Environmental, Inc. (Jones) on February 20 , 202 5. All vapor samples were analyzed for TPH gasoline (TPHg) and VOCs in accordance with EPA Method 8260 on-site using their mobile laboratory, which is certified by the SWRCB ELAP.
3.3 Screening Criteria
The following criteria were used to assist with the review of the analytical data for soil and soil vapor. The screening criteria cited in this section were compared to the laboratory results. The most applicable criteria were selected for each media and analyte.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 10
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
• The Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) modified screening levels (DTSC-SLs) in soil are screening concentrations used to evaluate the exposure risk of chemicals to human health during a human health risk assessment (HHRA). The DTSC-SLs were most recently updated in May 2022. DTSC-SLs developed for residential land use were applied to metal, OCP, and VOC concentrations in soil, as well as VOC concentrations in soil vapor (DTSC, 2022).
• The DTSC Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of lead from LBP was revised on June 9, 2006. The screening value for lead in soil from LBP at proposed school sites was changed in 2007. According to the most recent version of the Lead Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (dated 2011), the recommended residential soil lead screening level (DTSC -SL) is 80 milligrams per kilogram ( mg/kg), as stated in the DTSC HHRA Note 3 (DTSC, 2011a).
• The EPA Regional Screening Levels ( RSLs) are screening concentrations of chemicals in soil, water, and ambient air and represent thresholds of concern for risks to human health developed by the EPA. The thresholds of concern used to develop the RSLs for soil equate to lifetime cancer risk of one in a million and a hazard quotient of 1.0 for non -cancer health effects. The EPA RSLs were developed using exposure information assumptions combined with EPA toxicity data. The EPA RSLs were most recently updated in November 2024. The EPA RSLs developed for residential land use were applied to metal, OCP, and VOC concentrations in soil, as well as VOC concentrations in soil vapor (EPA, 2024). • Detected lead concentrations in soil were compared to State and Federal criteria for hazardous waste provided in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Section 66261.24, to determine the appropriate waste classification and disposal requirements.
Total concentrations were compared to the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) criteria for California hazardous waste. Total concentrations were also compared to 10 times the STLC and 20 times Federal TCLP concentration to determine if further waste extraction laboratory analyses were warranted to properly characterize the material as California or Federal hazardous waste.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 11
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
3.4 Soil Analytical Results
The soil analytical results of this investigation are summarized in Tables 1 through 4 and described in the following subsections. The laboratory reports for all soil samples are provided as Appendix C1.
3.4.1 Metals
A total of 7 soil samples were collected and analyzed for metals. Soil analytical results for metals are presented in Table 1. All 7 samples contained detectable concentrations of one or more metals (other than lead) including barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, vanadium, and zinc.
All detected concentrations for these metals were below the residential EPA RSLs and the residential DTSC-SLs. Arsenic and lead results are discussed below.
Arsenic
Arsenic was not detected in any of the samples collected; however, it should be noted that the residential EPA RSLs and residential DTSC-SLs are below the laboratory reporting limits (RLs).
Arsenic was not detected above the maximum laboratory RL of less than 3.27 mg/kg in any of the soil samples collected. However, b ecause arsenic is naturally occurring in soil in California, the DTSC has determined the upper -bound background arsenic concentration to be 12 mg/kg and generally accepts this concentration as a useful screening value for evaluating arsenic as a chemical of potential concern. Accordingly , a screening level of 12 mg/kg was used to evaluate arsenic concentrations at the Site, and no samples exceeded this screening level.
Lead
A total of 19 soil samples collected were analyzed for lead. Soil analytical results for lead are also presented in Table 1. L ead was detected above the laboratory RL in 14 of the 19 samples analyzed. Lead concentrations ranged from 3.07 mg/kg in SV7-1’ to 543 mg/kg in B2-0.5’ with an average detected concentration of approximately 103.3 mg/kg.
The DTSC-SL for lead in residential soil is 80 mg/kg. This screening level was exceeded in five samples: B1-1.5’, B2-0.5’, B2-1.5’, B3-0.5’, and B6-0.5’.
Soluble Lead – Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC)
A total of 4 soil samples contained total lead concentrations that were greater than or equal to the 50 mg/kg threshold, which requires the samples to be analyzed for soluble lead using the CA- WET method. A summary of these results is presented in Table 2.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 12
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
Detectable concentrations using CA -WET ranged from 2.31 mg/L in sample B1 -1.5’ at 1.5 ft bgs to 23.1 mg/L in sample B2-0.5’ at 0.5 ft bgs, with an average concentration of approximately
10.17 mg/L. Three of the 4 samples exceeded the STLC threshold of 5 mg/L, meeting the criteria for non-RCRA California hazardous waste.
The California total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) is the threshold used as criteria for non- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (non -RCRA) California hazardous waste. No lead concentrations were detected in any of the soil samples above the California TTLC of 1,000 mg/kg.
It should be noted that 4 samples contained total lead concentrations that were greater than or equal to the 100 mg/kg threshold which requires samples to be analyzed for soluble lead using the EPA TCLP method. However, due to a sample holding time discrepancy, these samples could not be analyzed using the EPA TCLP method. As a result, it could not be determined whether the samples exceeded the TCLP threshold of 5 mg/L , which is used as criteria for RCRA Federal hazardous waste.
3.4.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs)
A total of 7 soil samples were collected and analyzed for TPHs. None of the samples exceeded the laboratory RLs.
3.4.3 Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
A total of 7 soil samples were collected and analyzed for SVOCs . None of the samples exceeded the laboratory RLs.
3.4.4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
A total of 8 soil samples collected were analyzed for VOCs. Soil analytical results for VOCs are presented in Table 4. Acetone was the only VOC detected above the laboratory’s RL in 3 of 8 samples collected and ranged from 21 µg/kg in B9-5’ to 76 µg/kg in SV8-5’. All three detections of acetone were from 5 ft bgs. None of the samples collected exceeded the residential screening levels.
3.4.5 Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs)
A total of 4 composite soil samples were collected and analyzed for OCPs from 0.5 and 3.0 ft bgs.
Soil analytical results for OCPs are presented in Table 3. A total of 11 OCPs were detected above the laboratory’s RLs in the 2-0.5 ft bgs composite soil samples collected. The OCPs included 4,4’- Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (4,4’ -DDD), 4,4’ -Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (4,4’ -DDE), 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4’-DDT), alpha-Chlordane, Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 13
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
(beta-BHC), Chlordane, Endosulfan II, Endrin ketone, gamma -Chlordane, Methoxychlor, and Toxaphene. None of the samples collected exceeded the residential screening levels. It should be noted sample COMP (B4-B-6-0.5’) exceeded its holding time.
3.4.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
A total of 4 soil samples were collected and analyzed for PCBs . None of the samples exceeded the laboratory RLs.
3.5 Soil Vapor Analytical Results
Soil vapor samples were collected at 5, 8and 10 feet bgs (8 ft bgs probe in SV-6 due to an overhead clearance issue) were analyzed for TPHg and VOCs by EPA Method 8260. A total of 16 primary and 2 duplicate soil vapor samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs by EPA 8260. A total of 5 VOC compounds were reported with “J” flag s indicating concentrations were above the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) but below the laboratory RLs. A summary of the detected compounds is provided below.
• Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in 7 of the 18 vapor probes sampled at concentrations ranging from 2 to 8 µg/m3 in borings SV3, SV7, and SV8. • Toluene was detected in 3 of the 18 vapor probes sampled at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 µg/m3 in borings SV3 and SV6.
• 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene was detected in 2 of the 18 soil vapor probes sampled at concentrations ranging from 5 to 6 µg/m3 in boring SV6. • 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene was detected in 1 of the 28 soil vapor samples (SV -5-5’) at a concentration of 4 µg/m3 in boring SV6.
• o-Xylene was detected in 2 of the 18 soil vapor probes sampled at concentrations ranging from 4 to 5 µg/m3 in boring SV6.
Soil vapor analytical results for VOCs are presented in Table 5 and the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix C2.
3.5.1 Future Potential Soil Vapor Intrusion Risks
Potential future vapor intrusion risks are assessed by utilizing DTSC’s modified Johnson & Ettinger screening model. The DTSC model estimates indoor air concentrations resulting from the migration of subsurface vapors into indoor air. DTSC updated the mode l to ensure consistent assumptions across various state agencies and republished it in October 2024 (DTSC, 2024). In February 2023, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Vapor Intrusion Workgroup, which includes members from the DTSC, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCBs), and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 14
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
released the Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion (Final Draft Supplemental Guidance) (DTSC and SWRCBs, 2023). Practitioners are encouraged to use this supplemental guidance alongside the existing DTSC Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC, 2011b).
The attenuation factor (AF) is defined as the ratio between indoor air and subsurface soil vapor concentrations. Therefore, a larger AF applied to a given subsurface soil vapor concentration will result in a larger estimated indoor air concentration.
The potential risks to human health from vapor intrusion of VOCs to indoor air were evaluated by applying the USEPA 2012 AF of 0.03 to the soil vapor results and comparing directly with the State and Federal screening levels for residential indoor air for c ancer and non-cancer risks. The AF of 0.03 represents the current recommended value for screening soil vapor results in the Final Draft Supplemental Guidance (DTSC and SWRCB, 2023).
3.5.2 Predicted Indoor Air
By applying the AF of 0.03, the predicted indoor air concentrations were compared to the appropriate residential DTSC-SLs and EPA RSLs for direct exposure to indoor air as an initial step for site screening criteria. The five VOCs detected in soil vapor were all below the s oil vapor screening levels (SVSLs) calculated assuming the lowest residential indoor air screening value divided by the DTSC -recommended AF of 0.03 as a conservative approach for this initial evaluation to assess the potential for vapors entering the hangar building ( DTSC and SWRCB, 2023). None of the five detected VOC compounds exceeded this initial step for site screening criteria.
3.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
Group Delta , Eurofins , and Jones Environmental applied Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures to minimize and control errors associated with field and laboratory methods.
A review of the laboratory QA/QC results indicates satisfactory data reporting, and the data is of sufficient quality for the purposes of this report.
Soil Sample QA/QC
An equipment blank sample (EQB-0205) was collected and analyzed as a measure of accuracy of the field techniques and to determine if any contamination was introduced through sample collection or decontamination procedures. Sample EQB-0205 was collected by pouring deionized water over or through the decontaminated sampling equipment at the end of the day . The equipment blank was analyzed for metals, TPHs, and VOCs. There was no detection of metals or TPHs in the equipment blank sample ; however, four VOCs were detected slightly above the laboratory RLs. A summary of the detected compounds is provided below.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 15
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
• Acetone was detected at a concentration of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L) with a RL of 10 µg/L.
• Bromodichloromethane was detected at a concentration of 5.6 µg/L with a RL of 1.0 µg/L. • Chloroform was detected at a concentration of 4.3 µg/L with a RL of 1.0 µg/L. • Dibromochloromethane was detected at a concentration of 6.4 µg/L with a RL of 2.0 µg/L.
Since acetone was detected in three soil samples collected prior to EQB-0205, it is possible some level of cross -contamination may have occurred during the investigation. The other three VOC compounds were not detected in soil samples. These VOCs are typically related to disinfectant byproducts found in chlorinated water. It is possible that the equipment blank had trace levels of disinfectant byproducts. Since only trace acetone concentrations were detected in the soil samples at several orders of magnitude below screening levels, these equipment blank detections did not interfere with the data quality.
Soil Vapor Sample QA/QC
Duplicate soil vapor samples were collected at a rate of approximately one duplicate per ten primary soil vapor samples. Analytical results for duplicate samples were generally consistent with the results for the associated primary samples and indicated there was an acceptable correlation between these two data sets for the detected analytes. The results of duplicate soil vapor samples are presented in Table 5.
A review of the Jones Analytical laboratory’s internal QA/QC analysis of continuing calibration verification (CCV), analytical method blanks, laboratory control standards (LCS), and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples indicate no deviations from internal laboratory QC limits. Laboratory QA/QC data are presented in Appendix C2.
A tracer gas (leak check) 1,1 -DFA was used as a leak detection compound during soil vapor sampling. Soil vapor samples were analyzed for the presence of 1,1-DFA by EPA Method 8260.
The tracer gas was not detected in the soil vapor samples.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 16
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
4.0 DISCUSSION – LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR VAPOR INTRUSION RISKS
The DTSC recommends using multiple lines of evidence to provide a better understanding of the vapor intrusion risks (DTSC and SWRCB, 2023). Lines of evidence available for a site may include site history information, subsurface sampling data, contaminant subsurface source, soil type, and proposed building construction. The multiple lines of evidence are discussed below.
4.1 Site History
The Phase I ESA identified three RECs in connection with the hangar building at the Site that could potentially impact the soil vapor conditions; 1) a former UST without proper closure documentation, including its location and contents, was reportedly removed from the hangar building’s address in 1991; 2) a wash down area with a drain and single -chamber OWS was observed west of the building; and 3) a spray paint booth was observed within the northwest portion of the building. Based on the results of this investigation, none of these potential sources appear to have impacted subsurface soil vapor conditions at the Site
4.2 Soil Type and Chemical Data
Soils encountered during this Site investigation consisted mainly of a brown sandy silt to silty sand that was observed to a maximum depth of 10 ft bgs (total depth drilled). In general, coarse- grained soils (e.g., sands, gravels) allow for greater vapor migration than fine-grained soils (e.g., silts, clays) (DTSC and SWRCB, 2023). The soils present a moderate degree of vapor migration potential at the Site.
VOCs were not detected in headspace of all soil samples collected, as measured in the field with the PID. Acetone was the only VOC detected in 3 of 8 soil samples at concentrations of several orders of magnitude below their representative residential EPA RSL and DTSC-SL.
Seven soil vapor probes were installed inside the hangar building to evaluate the subsurface soil vapor conditions at a rate of one probe for every 1,400 square feet, representing a high frequency of sampling. Samples were collected at approximately 5 and 10 feet bgs at each probe location.
Consequently, residual soil vapor VOCs were delineated both laterally and vertically. Additionally, the five VOCs detected in soil vapor were all reported below the laboratory reporting limits but above the method detect ion limits (J- flag). SVSLs were calculated using the lowest residential indoor air screening value divided by the DTSC -recommended attenuation factor (AF) of 0.03 as a conservative approach for this evaluation to assess the potential for vapors entering the hangar building (DTSC and SWRCB, 2023). None of the five detected VOC compounds exceeded this initial step for site screening criteria.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 17
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater sampling was not conducted as part of this investigation and no prior groundwater sampling data is available. Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation and is reportedly present at approximately 100 feet bgs at the Site. Based on the soil vapor data, residual VOC concentrations do not increase with depth, which indicates that a deeper source is not present.
4.4 Proposed Building Construction
Although the details of the proposed construction and renovation of the existing hangar building are unknown, the planned use is for a conference center constructed within the existing building footprint. The current slab-on-grade hangar building features a high ceiling, allowing for optimal indoor ventilation. New building construction with an undamaged slab and proper indoor air ventilation will reduce exposure risk. Unfortunately, building conditions can change over time, and no building should be consid ered inherently safe. Additionally, sanitary sewers, drains, electrical pipes, and other conduits may present preferential pathways for vapor intrusion (DTSC and SWRCB, 2023). However, based on the initial site screening, there is no significant risk of vapor intrusion in the building subsurface.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 18
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
Group Delta performed a Phase I ESA for the proposed redevelopment to an Aviation Academy.
The Phase I ES A identif ied several RECs associated with current or past land use and recommended further investigation of the existing 1948 hangar building located at 716 West Kearney Blvd ( Group Delta, 2024 ). This Phase II ESA assessed RECs identified in the hangar building that is being considered for restoration and use as a conference center.
Soil samples were analyzed for lead (12 samples), metals (7 samples), TPHs (7 samples), SVOCs (7 samples), VOCs (8 samples), OCPs (4 composite samples), and PCBs (4 samples). The only soil samples exceeding regulatory screening levels were those analyzed for total l ead that were collected within dripline of the existing hangar building . Five of the twelve samples collected within the dripline exceed the DTSC -SL of 80 mg/kg for residential soil and several of these samples met the criteria for California hazardous waste. Further action is warranted as part of the proposed site redevelopment to remove soils around the dripline that exceed 80 mg/kg of lead. The potential presence of lead in soil within the dripline will be retained as a REC. All other soil samples were below regulatory screening levels.
A total of 16 primary and 2 field duplicate soil vapor samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA 8260. Five VOCs were detected in soil vapor at low concentrations below the laboratory RL and did not exceed SVSLs calculated assuming the lowest residential indoor air screening value divided by the DTSC -recommended AF of 0.03 as a conservative approach for this initial evaluation of the potential for vapors entering the hangar building (DTSC and SWRCB, 2023).
Based on the Phase II ESA inve
stigation results and the multiple lines of evidence, the Site
presents a low vapor intrusion risk, and no additional characterization is recommended to assess the potential for future soil vapor intrusion at this time . In addition, Group Delta does not recommend mitigation measures to reduce the risks associated with the residual VOCs detected in shallow soil vapor based on current data.
DRAFT Phase II Environmental Site Assessment May 22, 2025 Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Page 19
716 West Kearney Boulevard
Fresno, California
6.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). E1527-21 – Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. November 1.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 69105, “Sampling for Lead in Soil from Lead-based Paint.” June 2006.
DTSC, 2006. Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead from lead based paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls, June.
DTSC, 2011a. Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of lead from lead-based paint.
DTSC, (2011b). Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, October.
DTSC (2015). Advisory – Active Soil Gas Investigations, July.
DTSC, 2022. Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO), Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels, May.
DTSC and State Water Resources Control Board , (2023). Final Draft, Supplemental Guidance:
Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion, February.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2024 www.dwr.ca.gov/
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) , 2024, GeoTracker Database. www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2024. Region 9 Regional Screening Level Summary Table.
November.
United States Geologic Survey, 1977. Geologic Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Title V Hazard Review, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, 640 and 716 West Kearny Blvd, Fresno, California , December 13.
Figures
GDC Project No. EN8461A
Site Location Map
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy
Fresno, California
Figure 1
Reference: Google Earth
Project Site
Site boundary
Multi-Family Apartment Complex
(621-809 W. Kearney Blvd.)
Dwelling
(883 W. Kearney Blvd.)
Aircraft Parking
Hangar Buildings
(548, 612, 648 and 668 W. Kearney Blvd.)
Hangar Building
(540 W. Kearney Blvd.)
Hangar Buildings
(716 ½, 760 and
800 W. Kearney Blvd.
716
640
SV1 SV3
SV5
SV2 SV4
SV7
SV6
SV8
B9
B7 B8
B1 B2 B3
B4
B5
B6
FILE PATH: \\10.75.80.6\Files$\Projects\_EN\EN8400\EN8461A City of Fresno - Phase I Hazmat\CAD\EN8461A.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 5/13/2025 1:02:16 PM SAVED BY: josemiguelt 0 80'40'
PROJECT NUMBER:
EN8461A
FIGURE NUMBER:
2SOIL VAPOR AND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
DRAFTED BY:
JMT
REVIEWED BY:
RS
GROUP DELTA, AN NV5 COMPANY
1035 S. MILLIKEN AVENUE SUITE G
ONTARIO, CA 91761
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED AVIATION ACADEMY
716 W. KEARNEY BLVD.
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
LEGEND:
SOIL VAPOR LOCATION
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
SOIL VAPOR / SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
REC2 - DRAIN/OIL WATER SEPARATOR
REC3 - PAINT BOOTH
OEC1 - AREA OF LEAD-BASED PAINT
IN EXPOSED SOIL
POWER POLE WITH
TRANSFORMER
Tables
Table 1
Soil Analytical Results for Title 22 Metals
EPA Test Method 6020/7471A
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy at Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Fresno, California
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
B1-0.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B1-1.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 159 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B2-0.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 543 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B2-1.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 304 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B3-0.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 91.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B3-1.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 22.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B4-0.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 64.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B4-1.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <1.78 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B5-0.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 58.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B5-1.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.68 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B6-0.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 171 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B6-1.5' 2/5/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <2.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B9-1' 2/5/2025 <9.32 <2.80* 90.6 <0.373 <0.373 23.2 5.63 9.06 4.77 <0.0833 <3.73 22.3 <2.80 <1.86 <9.32 23.4 20.4 SV6-1' 2/5/2025 <10.9 <3.26* 49.1 <0.434 <0.434 16.0 3.50 5.71 <2.17 <0.0801 <4.34 15.0 <3.26 <2.17 <10.9 17.3 12.8 SV6-5' 2/5/2025 <9.70 <2.91* 82.7 <0.388 <0.388 32.1 6.25 12.1 3.45 <0.0801 <3.88 33.5 <2.91 <1.94 <9.70 42.6 30.2 SV7-1' 2/5/2025 <8.82 <2.65* 74.9 <0.353 <0.353 23.5 5.57 8.36 3.07 <0.0850 <3.53 21.7 <2.65 <1.76 <8.82 24.6 19.0 SV7-5' 2/5/2025 <8.41 <2.52* 55.4 <0.337 <0.337 26.6 4.76 7.08 <1.68 <0.0868 <3.37 23.8 <2.52 <1.68 <8.41 23.2 16.6 SV8-1' 2/5/2025 <10.9 <3.27* 88.2 <0.436 <0.436 24.7 4.76 7.77 <2.18 <0.0850 <4.36 21.1 <3.27 <2.18 <10.9 22.8 17.9 SV8-5' 2/5/2025 <8.65 <2.59* 81.0 <0.346 <0.346 26.2 6.97 10.8 3.16 <0.0817 <3.46 32.0 <2.59 <1.73 <8.65 32.8 26.0 31 0.68 15,000 160 7.1 120,000 23 3,100 200 7.1 390 1,400 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 470 3.0 220,000 2,300 100 1,800,000 350 47,000 800 30 5,800 17,000 5,800 5,800 12 5,800 350,000 NL 0.41 NL 16 7.1 NL NL NL 80 1 NL 820 NL NL NL NL NL
NL 12** NL 230 79 NL NL NL 500 4.4 NL 11,000 NL NL NL NL NL 500 500 10,000 75 100 2,500 8,000 2,500 1,000 20 3,500 2,000 100 500 700 2,400 5,000 150 50 1,000 7.5 10 50 800 250 50 2.0 3,500 200 10 50 70 240 2,500 NL 100 2,000 NL 20 100 NL NL 100 4.0 NL NL 20 100 NL NL NL Notes:
EPA RSL = US Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level (November 2024) DTSC SL = Department of Toxic Substance Control - Screening Level (May 2022) mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
<0.0* = Laboratory reporting limit exceeds EPA RSL and/or DTSC SL for Residential Soil NL = not listed regulatory screening limit for constituent ** = Arsenic concentrations were evaluated using the DTSC-accepted upper-bound background level of 12 mg/kg X Indicates an exceedance of either the EPA RSL and/or the DTSC SL for residential soil X Indicates an exceedance of the EPA RSL for Commercial/Industrial Soil X Indicates an exceedance of the DTSC Background Concentration 20 x TCLP
BOLD = indicates detected concentration exceeding the laboratory reporting limit <0.0 = not detected above laboratory reporting limit
Sample ID Sample Date
Units: mg/kg
EPA RSL for Residential Soil
EPA RSL for Commercial/Industrial Soil
DTSC SL for Residential Soil
DTSC SL for Commercial/Industrial Soil
TTLC*
10 x STLC
TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentration
STLC = Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Table 2
Soil Analytical Results for Lead Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) EPA Test Method 6010B and CA-WET
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy at Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Fresno, California
Sample ID Sample
Date
Total Lead
(mg/kg)
Lead-STLC
CA-WET
(mg/L)
B1-1.5' 2/5/2025 159* 2.31
B2-0.5' 2/5/2025 543* 23.1
B2-1.5' 2/5/2025 304* 5.80
B6-0.5' 2/5/2025 171* 9.46
1,000 5.0
Notes:
Lead-STLC Lead Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations
CA-WET California- Waste Extraction Test
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
Bold indicates a detection
* greater than 50 mg/kg threshold requires additional waste characterization X indicates an exceedance of Hazardous Waste Criteria
Hazardous Waste Criteria
2 of 5
Table 3
Soil Analytical Results for Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) EPA Test Method 8081A
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy at Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Fresno, California
4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT alpha-
Chlordane beta-BHC Chlordane Endosulfan II Endrin
ketone
gamma-
Chlordane Methoxychlor Toxaphene
COMP (B1-B3-0.5') 2/5/2025 17 62 320 21 44 p 150 14 8.9 28 6.6 p <75 COMP (B1-B3-3') 2/5/2025 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 COMP (B4-B6-0.5') 2/5/2025 <5.0 6.8 H 64 H 58 H <5.0 290 H <5.0 <5.0 59 H <5.0 150 H, p COMP (B4-B6-3') 2/5/2025 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 2,300 2,000 1,900 36,000 300 1,700 NL NL 36,000 320,000 490 9,600 9,300 8,500 500,000 1,300 7,700 NL NL 500,000 4,100,000 2,100 1,900 2,000 1,900 NL NL 1,700 NL NL NL 320,000 450
6,200 9,300 7,100 NL NL 6,100 NL NL NL 2,600,000 1,200
Notes:
EPA RSL = US Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level (November 2024) DTSC SL = Department of Toxic Substance Control - Screening Level (May 2022) µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
BOLD = indicates detected concentration exceeding the laboratory reporting limit <0.0 = not detected above laboratory reporting limit
Analytes not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit were excluded from the results table Sample ID Sample Date
Units: µg/kg
p = the relative percent difference between the primary and confirmation column/detec COMP = composite soil sample
EPA RSL for Residential Soil
DTSC SL for Commercial/Industrial Soil
DTSC SL for Residential Soil
EPA RSL for Commercial/Industrial Soil
NL = no listed regulatory screening limit for constituent H = the sample was prepared or analyzed beyond the specified holding time and does no
Table 4
Soil Analytical Results for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) EPA Test Method 8260B
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy at Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Fresno, California
Sample ID Sample Date Units Acetone
B9-1' 2/5/2025 µg/kg <19
B9-5' 2/5/2025 µg/kg 21
SV6-1' 2/5/2025 µg/kg <19
SV6-5' 2/5/2025 µg/kg <25
SV7-1' 2/5/2025 µg/kg <20
SV7-5' 2/5/2025 µg/kg 31
SV8-1' 2/5/2025 µg/kg <19
SV8-5' 2/5/2025 µg/kg 76
µg/kg 70,000,000
µg/kg 1,100,000,000
µg/kg NL
µg/kg NL
Notes:
µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
Bold = detected concentration at or above the laboratory reporting limit <0.0 = not detected above reporting limit
NL = not listed regulatory screening limit for constituent EPA RSL for Residential Soil
DTSC SL for Commercial/Industrial Soil
EPA RSL = US Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level (November 2024) DTSC SL = Department of Toxic Substance Control - Screening Level (May 2022) EPA RSL for Commercial/Industrial Soil
DTSC SL for Residential Soil
Table 5
Soil Vapor Analytical Results for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) EPA Test Method 8260B
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Aviation Academy at Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Fresno, California
Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-
Trimethylbenzene o-Xylene
SV1-5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV1-9.5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV2-5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV2-9.5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV3-5' 2/20/2025 2 J <8 <8 <8 <8
SV3-5' REP 2/20/2025 8 J 4 J <8 <8 <8
SV3-9.5' 2/20/2025 3 J <8 <8 <8 <8
SV4-5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV4-9.5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV5-5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV5-9.5' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV6-5' 2/20/2025 <8 2 J 6 J <8 4 J
SV6-5' REP 2/20/2025 <8 3 J 5 J 4 J 5 J
SV6-8' 2/20/2025 <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
SV7-5' 2/20/2025 2 J <8 <8 <8 <8
SV7-9.5' 2/20/2025 6 J <8 <8 <8 <8
SV8-5' 2/20/2025 2 J <8 <8 <8 <8
SV8-9.5' 2/20/2025 6 J <8 <8 <8 <8
11 NL NL NL NL
NL 5,200 63 63 100
0.46 NL NL NL NL
42 310 NL NL NL
15 10,333 2,100 2,100 3,333
Notes:
AF = Attenuation Factor
SL = Screening Level
µg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meters
BOLD = indicates detected concentration exceeding the method detection limit (MDL) <0.0 = not detected above laboratory reporting limit
J = Value less then practical quantitation limit (PQL) but greater than the MDL NL = not listed regulatory screening limit for constituent Analytes not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit were excluded from the results tables Indicates lowest screening value of the DTSC-SLs and EPA RSLs for residential air Sample ID Sample Date
Units: µg/m³
EPA RSL = US Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level for Residential Air, TR=1E-06, HQ=1.0 (November 2024) DTSC Hero Note 3 = Department of Toxic Substance Control - Screening Level for Residential Air (May 2022) Cancer SL: DTSC Hero Note 3 - SL for Residential Air
Cancer SL: EPA RSL for Residential Air
Non-cancer SL: DTSC Hero Note 3 - SL for Residential Air Non-cancer SL: EPA RSL for Residential Air
Calculated SVSL (DTSC-Recommended AF = 0.03)
SVSL = Soil Vapor Screening Level calculated assuming the lowest residential indoor air screening value divided by the DTSC-recommended AF of 0.03 used for this initial evaluation of the potential for vapors entering the building per the DTSC Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Guidance (February 2023).
Appendix A
Boring Log and Soil Vapor Probe Log (Typical)
SOIL VAPOR PROBE BORING Boring No. SV-1 (Typical) Sheet 1 of 1 Site Fresno Chandler Airport Date February 5, 2025
Address 716 Kearney Blvd Driller Millenium Environmental, Inc.
Fresno, CA Drilling Foreman
Project No. EN8461A Method Geoprobe 6011 DT hole diam.: 2.25 inches Logged By: Kevin Hall 9.5 feet bgs
casing: 1/4" Tubing screen: 1" air stone filter casing diam.: N/A screen slot: N/A NA
5' & 9.5'
Blow Descriptions of Materials PID
Type No. Count Time Recov. and Conditions (PPM)
- 4 to 5" of concrete
1 2
SM
3 4
SV1-5 0900 5 0
6 SM
7 8
9 SV1-9.5 0905 0
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Comments:
Well Pack (#3
Sand): 4.5' to 5.5' & 8.5' to 9.5' Well Construction:
Total depth of boring:
Depth LITHO
COLUMN
Depth to Groundwater:
Probe Depths:
0.5' to 4.0' and 6.0' to 8.0'
4.0' to 4.5', 8.0' to 8.5'
Hydrated Bent.:
Granular Bentonite
Silty Sand, Dark Brown (10YR 3/3), fine to coarse grained, loose, no odor
Sandy Silt, Dark Brown (10YR 3/3), moist, stiff, fine grained, no odor
On 2-5-25, temporary vapor probes were installed at depths of 5- and 9.5-feet bgs using a Geoprobe Driect-Push drillrig.
Probe construction as shown, tubing for deeper probe has greater stick-up above ground. PID readings taken from
headspace inside Ziploc baggie. Two soil samples collected from each boring, but only selected samples were analyzed by the laboratory. Soil vapor samples were collected and anlayzed on 5-20-25.
Sample Sample
Scale
#3 Sand
Granular #8 Bentonite
Hydrated #8 Bentonite
Concrete Slab
Appendix B
Waste Disposal Manifest
Appendix C1
Laboratory Analytical Reports – Soil Samples
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR
Attn: Mr. Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc
32 Mauchly
Suite B
Irvine, California 92618
Generated 3/26/2025 11:08:49 AM
JOB DESCRIPTION
Fresno Airport
JOB NUMBER
570-217080-2
See page two for job notes and contact information.
Tustin CA 92780
2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100
Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Eurofins Calscience
Eurofins Calscience is a laboratory within Eurofins Environment Testing Southwest, LLC, a company within Eurofins Environment Testing Group of Companies Job Notes
T
his report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. The results relate only to the samples tested. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page.
The test results in this report relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory and will meet all requirements of the methodology, with any exceptions noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the express written approval of the laboratory. All questions should be directed to the Eurofins Calscience Project Manager.
Authorization
Generated
3/
26/2025 11:08:49 AM
Authorized for release by
Carla
Hollowell, Project Manager I
[email protected]
(714)895-5494
P
age 2 of 14 3/26/2025
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Table of Contents
Client
: Group Delta Consultants, Inc
Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Laboratory Job ID: 570-217080-2
Eurofins Calscience
3/26/2025
Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Definitions/Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 QC Association Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lab Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Definitions/Glossary
Job ID: 570-217080-2Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Glossary
These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. ☼ Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis Abbreviation
%R Percent Recovery
CFL Contains Free Liquid
CFU Colony Forming Unit
CNF Contains No Free Liquid
DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor
DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE)
DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re-analysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry)
EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin)
LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE)
LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE)
MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level"
MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry)
MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry)
MDL Method Detection Limit
ML Minimum Level (Dioxin)
MPN Most Probable Number
MQL Method Quantitation Limit
NC Not Calculated
ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent
POS Positive / Present
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
PRES Presumptive
QC Quality Control
RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry)
RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry)
RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin)
TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin)
TNTC Too Numerous To Count
Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Job Narrative
570-217080-2
Analytical test results meet all requirements of the associated regulatory program listed on the Accreditation/Certification Summary Page unless otherwise noted under the individual analysis. Data qualifiers and/or narrative comments are included to explain any exceptions, if applicable.
· Matrix QC may not be reported if insufficient sample is provided or site-specific QC samples were not submitted. In these situations, to demonstrate precision and accuracy at a batch level, a LCS/LCSD may be performed, unless otherwise specified in the method.
· Surrogate and/or isotope dilution analyte recoveries (if applicable) which are outside of the QC window are confirmed unless attributed to a dilution or otherwise noted in the narrative.
Regulated compliance samples (e.g. SDWA, NPDES) must comply with the associated agency requirements/permits.
Receipt
The samples were received on 2/6/2025 1:37 PM. Unless otherwise noted below, the samples arrived in good condition, and, where required, properly preserved and on ice. The temperatures of the 2 coolers at receipt time were 2.9°C and 3.9°C.
Metals
No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/ Glossary page.
Case Narrative
Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Job ID: 570-217080-2 Project: Fresno Airport
Eurofins Calscience
Job ID: 570-217080-2 Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Detection Summary
Job ID: 570-217080-2Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Client Sample ID: B1-1.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-6
Lead
RL
1.00 mg/L
Analyte Result Qualifier Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type STLC Citrate12.31 6010B
Client Sample ID: B2-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-8
Lead
RL
1.00 mg/L
Analyte Result Qualifier Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type STLC Citrate123.1 6010B
Client Sample ID: B2-1.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-9
Lead
RL
1.00 mg/L
Analyte Result Qualifier Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type STLC Citrate15.80 6010B
Client Sample ID: B6-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-20
Lead
RL
1.00 mg/L
Analyte Result Qualifier Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type STLC Citrate19.46 6010B
Eurofins Calscience
This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Client Sample Results
Job ID: 570-217080-2Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Method: SW846 6010B - Metals (ICP) - STLC Citrate
Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-6Client Sample ID: B1-1.5
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:12
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
RL
2.31 1.00 mg/L 03/24/25 10:08 03/24/25 12:29 1
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier
Lead
Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-8Client Sample ID: B2-0.5
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:16
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
RL
23.1 1.00 mg/L 03/24/25 10:08 03/24/25 12:36 1
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier
Lead
Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-9Client Sample ID: B2-1.5
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:18
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
RL
5.80 1.00 mg/L 03/24/25 10:08 03/24/25 12:39 1
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier
Lead
Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-20Client Sample ID: B6-0.5
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:50
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
RL
9.46 1.00 mg/L 03/24/25 10:08 03/24/25 12:41 1
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier
Lead
Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 QC Sample Results
Job ID: 570-217080-2Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP)
Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: LB 570-547366/1-C Matrix: Solid Prep Type: STLC Citrate
Analysis Batch: 548859 Prep Batch: 548626
RL
Lead ND 1.00 mg/L 03/24/25 10:08 03/24/25 12:20 1
LB LB
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResult Qualifier
Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 570-547366/2-C Matrix: Solid Prep Type: STLC Citrate
Analysis Batch: 548859 Prep Batch: 548626
Lead 20.0 19.58 mg/L 98 80 - 120
Analyte
LCS LCS
DUnitResult Qualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
%Rec
Limits
Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample DupLab Sample ID: LCSD 570-547366/3-C Matrix: Solid Prep Type: STLC Citrate
Analysis Batch: 548859 Prep Batch: 548626
Lead 20.0 19.53 mg/L 98 80 - 120 0 20
Analyte
LCSD LCSD
DUnitResult Qualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
%Rec
Limits LimitRPD
RPD
Client Sample ID: B1-1.5Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-6 MS
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: STLC Citrate
Analysis Batch: 548859 Prep Batch: 548626
Lead 2.31 20.0 21.86 mg/L 98 84 - 120
Analyte
MS MS
DUnitResult Qualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
Sample
Result
Sample
Qualifier
%Rec
Limits
Client Sample ID: B1-1.5Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-6 MSD Matrix: Solid Prep Type: STLC Citrate
Analysis Batch: 548859 Prep Batch: 548626
Lead 2.31 20.0 21.84 mg/L 98 84 - 120 0 7
Analyte
MSD MSD
DUnitResult Qualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
Sample
Result
Sample
Qualifier
%Rec
Limits LimitRPD
RPD
Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 QC Association Summary
Job ID: 570-217080-2Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Metals
Leach Batch: 547366
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Solid CA WET Citrate570-217080-6 B1-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid CA WET Citrate570-217080-8 B2-0.5 STLC Citrate
Solid CA WET Citrate570-217080-9 B2-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid CA WET Citrate570-217080-20 B6-0.5 STLC Citrate
Solid CA WET CitrateLB 570-547366/1-C Method Blank STLC Citrate Solid CA WET CitrateLCS 570-547366/2-C Lab Control Sample STLC Citrate Solid CA WET CitrateLCSD 570-547366/3-C Lab Control Sample Dup STLC Citrate Solid CA WET Citrate570-217080-6 MS B1-1.5 STLC Citrate Solid CA WET Citrate570-217080-6 MSD B1-1.5 STLC Citrate Prep Batch: 548626
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Solid Dilution 547366570-217080-6 B1-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid Dilution 547366570-217080-8 B2-0.5 STLC Citrate
Solid Dilution 547366570-217080-9 B2-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid Dilution 547366570-217080-20 B6-0.5 STLC Citrate
Solid Dilution 547366LB 570-547366/1-C Method Blank STLC Citrate Solid Dilution 547366LCS 570-547366/2-C Lab Control Sample STLC Citrate Solid Dilution 547366LCSD 570-547366/3-C Lab Control Sample Dup STLC Citrate Solid Dilution 547366570-217080-6 MS B1-1.5 STLC Citrate Solid Dilution 547366570-217080-6 MSD B1-1.5 STLC Citrate Analysis Batch: 548859
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Solid 6010B 548626570-217080-6 B1-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid 6010B 548626570-217080-8 B2-0.5 STLC Citrate
Solid 6010B 548626570-217080-9 B2-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid 6010B 548626570-217080-20 B6-0.5 STLC Citrate
Solid 6010B 548626LB 570-547366/1-C Method Blank STLC Citrate Solid 6010B 548626LCS 570-547366/2-C Lab Control Sample STLC Citrate Solid 6010B 548626LCSD 570-547366/3-C Lab Control Sample Dup STLC Citrate Solid 6010B 548626570-217080-6 MS B1-1.5 STLC Citrate
Solid 6010B 548626570-217080-6 MSD B1-1.5 STLC Citrate
Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Lab Chronicle
Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Job ID: 570-217080-2 Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Client Sample ID: B1-1.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-6
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:12
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
Leach CA WET Citrate VCN703/20/25 12:30 EET CAL 4547366 Type
Batch
Method
Batch
Prep Type LabAnalystRun
Prepared
or Analyzed
Initial
Amount Amount
Final Batch
NumberFactor
Dil
STLC Citrate 50.14 g 500 mL
Prep Dilution 548626 03/24/25 10:08 UFLE EET CAL 4STLC Citrate 0.6 mL 12 mL Analysis 6010B 1 548859 03/24/25 12:29 P1R EET CAL 4STLC Citrate ICP10Instrument ID:
Client Sample ID: B2-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-8
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:16
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
Leach CA WET Citrate VCN703/20/25 12:30 EET CAL 4547366 Type
Batch
Method
Batch
Prep Type LabAnalystRun
Prepared
or Analyzed
Initial
Amount Amount
Final Batch
NumberFactor
Dil
STLC Citrate 50.01 g 500 mL
Prep Dilution 548626 03/24/25 10:08 UFLE EET CAL 4STLC Citrate 0.6 mL 12 mL Analysis 6010B 1 548859 03/24/25 12:36 P1R EET CAL 4STLC Citrate ICP10Instrument ID:
Client Sample ID: B2-1.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-9
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:18
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
Leach CA WET Citrate VCN703/20/25 12:30 EET CAL 4547366 Type
Batch
Method
Batch
Prep Type LabAnalystRun
Prepared
or Analyzed
Initial
Amount Amount
Final Batch
NumberFactor
Dil
STLC Citrate 50.06 g 500 mL
Prep Dilution 548626 03/24/25 10:08 UFLE EET CAL 4STLC Citrate 0.6 mL 12 mL Analysis 6010B 1 548859 03/24/25 12:39 P1R EET CAL 4STLC Citrate ICP10Instrument ID:
Client Sample ID: B6-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-217080-20
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 02/05/25 08:50
Date Received: 02/06/25 13:37
Leach CA WET Citrate VCN703/20/25 12:30 EET CAL 4547366 Type
Batch
Method
Batch
Prep Type LabAnalystRun
Prepared
or Analyzed
Initial
Amount Amount
Final Batch
NumberFactor
Dil
STLC Citrate 50.17 g 500 mL
Prep Dilution 548626 03/24/25 10:08 UFLE EET CAL 4STLC Citrate 0.6 mL 12 mL Analysis 6010B 1 548859 03/24/25 12:41 P1R EET CAL 4STLC Citrate ICP10Instrument ID:
¹ This procedure uses a method stipulated length of time for the process. Both start and end times are displayed.
Laboratory References:
EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Accreditation/Certification Summary
Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Job ID: 570-217080-2 Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience
The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report.
Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date California State 3082 07-31-25
Oregon NELAP 4175 02-02-26
Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Method Summary
Job ID: 570-217080-2Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Method Method Description LaboratoryProtocol
SW8466010B Metals (ICP) EET CAL 4
CA-WETCA WET Citrate California - Waste Extraction Test with Citrate Leach EET CAL 4 NoneDilution Preparation / Dilution Process EET CAL 4
Protocol References:
CA-WET = California Waste Extraction Test, from Title 22 None = None
SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates.
Laboratory References:
EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Sample Summary
Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Job ID: 570-217080-2 Project/Site: Fresno Airport
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 570-217080-6 B1-1.5 Solid 02/05/25 08:12 02/06/25 13:37 570-217080-8 B2-0.5 Solid 02/05/25 08:16 02/06/25 13:37 570-217080-9 B2-1.5 Solid 02/05/25 08:18 02/06/25 13:37 570-217080-20 B6-0.5 Solid 02/05/25 08:50 02/06/25 13:37 Eurofins Calscience
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Login Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: Group Delta Consultants, Inc Job Number: 570-217080-2 Login Number: 217080
Question Answer Comment
Creator: Ovalle, Erick
List Source: Eurofins Calscience
List Number: 1
N/ARadioactivity wasn't checked or is </= background as measured by a survey meter.
TrueThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact.
TrueSample custody seals, if present, are intact.
TrueThe cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or tampered with.
TrueSamples were received on ice.
TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable.
TrueCooler Temperature is recorded.
TrueCOC is present.
TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible.
TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information.
TrueIs the Field Sampler's name present on COC?
TrueThere are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC.
TrueSamples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate HTs)
TrueSample containers have legible labels.
TrueContainers are not broken or leaking.
TrueSample collection date/times are provided.
TrueAppropriate sample containers are used.
TrueSample bottles are completely filled.
TrueSample Preservation Verified.
TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested MS/MSDs
TrueContainers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is <6mm (1/4").
TrueMultiphasic samples are not present.
TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing.
N/AResidual Chlorine Checked.
Eurofins Calscience
This receipt checklist is generated for all samples received in this Login. It may not be applicable to all Jobs associated with this Login.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Appendix C2
Laboratory Analytical Reports – Soil Vapor Samples
Logo
25 February 2025
Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Re: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph. 2
Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 02/20/25. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received SV3-5' J250588-001 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 07:53 02/20/2025 08:03 SV3-5' REP J250588-002 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 08:01 02/20/2025 08:03 SV3-9.5' J250588-003 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 08:26 02/20/2025 08:03 SV4-5' J250588-004 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 08:46 02/20/2025 08:03 SV4-9.5' J250588-005 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 08:59 02/20/2025 08:03 SV5-5' J250588-006 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 09:18 02/20/2025 08:03 SV5-9.5' J250588-007 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 09:34 02/20/2025 08:03 SV2-5' J250588-008 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 09:50 02/20/2025 08:03 SV2-9.5' J250588-009 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 10:08 02/20/2025 08:03 SV1-5' J250588-010 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 10:27 02/20/2025 08:03 SV1-9.5' J250588-011 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 10:43 02/20/2025 08:03 SV6-5' J250588-012 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 10:58 02/20/2025 08:03 SV6-5' REP J250588-013 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 11:03 02/20/2025 08:03 SV6-8' J250588-014 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 11:32 02/20/2025 08:03 SV8-5' J250588-015 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 11:57 02/20/2025 08:03 SV8-9.5' J250588-016 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 12:03 02/20/2025 08:03 SV7-5' J250588-017 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 12:27 02/20/2025 08:03 SV7-9.5' J250588-018 Soil Vapor 02/20/2025 12:30 02/20/2025 08:03 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV3-5' J250588-001
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 82 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV3-5' REP J250588-002
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 88 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Toluene 84 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV3-9.5' J250588-003
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 83 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV4-5' J250588-004
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV4-9.5' J250588-005
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV5-5' J250588-006
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV5-9.5' J250588-007
No Results Detected
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV2-5' J250588-008
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV2-9.5' J250588-009
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV1-5' J250588-010
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV1-9.5' J250588-011
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV6-5' J250588-012
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 86 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
o-Xylene 84 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Toluene 82 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV6-5' REP J250588-013
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 85 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 84 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
o-Xylene 85 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Toluene 83 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV6-8' J250588-014
No Results Detected
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV8-5' J250588-015
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 82 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV8-9.5' J250588-016
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 86 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV7-5' J250588-017
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 82 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
Sample ID: Laboratory ID:SV7-9.5' J250588-018
Analyte Result
Reporting
Limit Units Method Notes
Tetrachloroethene 86 µg/m3 EPA 8260 J
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV3-5'
J250588-001(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 2 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV3-5'
J250588-001(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 98.88 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 107.09 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.97 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV3-5' REP
J250588-002(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 8 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene 4 8 µg/m3 J""""4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV3-5' REP
J250588-002(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.87 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 102.04 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.11 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV3-9.5'
J250588-003(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 3 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV3-9.5'
J250588-003(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.34 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 102.79 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.86 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV4-5'
J250588-004(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV4-5'
J250588-004(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103.71 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 100.70 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 89.78 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV4-9.5'
J250588-005(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV4-9.5'
J250588-005(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 97.19 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 102.49 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.92 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV5-5'
J250588-006(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV5-5'
J250588-006(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.98 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 100.29 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.15 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV5-9.5'
J250588-007(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV5-9.5'
J250588-007(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 96.35 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 100.98 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.37 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV2-5'
J250588-008(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV2-5'
J250588-008(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 103.07 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 98.06 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 88.07 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV2-9.5'
J250588-009(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV2-9.5'
J250588-009(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 102.00 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 96.92 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 88.73 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV1-5'
J250588-010(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV1-5'
J250588-010(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 98.83 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 100.00 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 95.17 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV1-9.5'
J250588-011(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV1-9.5'
J250588-011(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 98.92 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 98.32 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.12 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV6-5'
J250588-012(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene 2 8 µg/m3 J""""4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV6-5'
J250588-012(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 6 8 µg/m3 J""""5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene 4 8 µg/m3 J""""5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 99.98 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 97.21 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.53 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV6-5' REP
J250588-013(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene 3 8 µg/m3 J""""4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV6-5' REP
J250588-013(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5 8 µg/m3 J""""5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 4 8 µg/m3 J""""4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene 5 8 µg/m3 J""""5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 101.19 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 97.40 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.78 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV6-8'
J250588-014(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV6-8'
J250588-014(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.81 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 98.38 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.77 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV8-5'
J250588-015(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 2 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV8-5'
J250588-015(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 99.62 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 97.52 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.95 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV8-9.5'
J250588-016(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 6 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV8-9.5'
J250588-016(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 98.35 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 101.61 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.98 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV7-5'
J250588-017(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 2 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV7-5'
J250588-017(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 99.76 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 99.92 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.74 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV7-9.5'
J250588-018(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Benzene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
Bromodichloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Bromoform ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
n-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
sec-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"5
tert-Butylbenzene ND 12 µg/m3 """"4
Carbon tetrachloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Chlorobenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
Chloroform ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
Dibromochloromethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 8 µg/m3 """"2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 16 µg/m3 """"11
Freon 12 ND 16 µg/m3 """"4
Freon 11 ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Freon 113 ND 16 µg/m3 """"2
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"6
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Ethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Isopropylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
4-Isopropyltoluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Methylene chloride (TIC) ND 16 µg/m3 """"5
Naphthalene ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
n-Propylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Styrene ND 8 µg/m3 """"8
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 16 µg/m3 """"3
Tetrachloroethene 6 8 µg/m3 J""""3
Toluene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
SV7-9.5'
J250588-018(Soil Vapor)
Result
Rep.
Limit Units Method NotesAnalyte Dil. Batch Prepared Analyzed Det.
Limit
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260
Trichloroethene ND 8 µg/m3 EPA 826002/20/25QC250230814
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 8 µg/m3 """"4
Vinyl chloride ND 8 µg/m3 """"3
m,p-Xylene ND 16 µg/m3 """"7
o-Xylene ND 8 µg/m3 """"5
Methyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Ethyl-tert-butylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"2
Di-isopropylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"4
tert-amylmethylether ND 40 µg/m3 """"3
tert-Butylalcohol ND 400 µg/m3 """"118
Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12) ND 2000 µg/m3 """"
n-Hexane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
n-Pentane (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
Acetone (LCC) ND 80 µg/m3 """"
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.58 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 99.34 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 89.85 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260 - Quality Control
Result
Reporting
Limit Units RPD NotesAnalyte
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits
%REC
Limits
Batch QC2502308 - EPA 8260
CCV 1
9.49 8 %1,1,1-Trichloroethane 10 94.86 80 - 120 120
8.38 8 %1,1-Dichloroethene 10 83.83 80 - 120 120
8.86 8 %1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 10 88.61 80 - 120 120
9.74 8 %Benzene 10 97.40 80 - 120 120
9.79 8 %Chlorobenzene 10 97.90 80 - 120 120
9.38 8 %cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 10 93.79 80 - 120 120
9.41 8 %Ethylbenzene 10 94.07 80 - 120 120
9.00 8 %Tetrachloroethene 10 90.01 80 - 120 120
9.87 8 %Toluene 10 98.68 80 - 120 120
9.03 8 %Trichloroethene 10 90.28 80 - 120 120
8.07 8 %Vinyl chloride 10 80.66 80 - 120 120
LCS 1
1.95 8 %1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.5 78.17 70 - 130
1.98 8 %1,1-Dichloroethene 2.5 79.02 60 - 140
1.93 8 %1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2.5 77.21 70 - 130
2.32 8 %Benzene 2.5 92.71 70 - 130
2.54 8 %Chlorobenzene 2.5 101.45 70 - 130
2.11 8 %cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.5 84.41 70 - 130
2.27 8 %Ethylbenzene 2.5 90.86 70 - 130
2.54 8 %Tetrachloroethene 2.5 101.49 70 - 130
2.46 8 %Toluene 2.5 98.23 70 - 130
2.25 8 %Trichloroethene 2.5 90.19 70 - 130
1.88 8 %Vinyl chloride 2.5 75.10 60 - 140
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 101.25 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 96.70 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.59 %
LCSD 1
2.12 8 %1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.5 84.98 8.35
2.36 8 %1,1-Dichloroethene 2.5 94.48 17.82
2.17 8 %1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2.5 86.87 11.77
2.73 8 %Benzene 2.5 109.05 16.20
2.81 8 %Chlorobenzene 2.5 112.27 10.12
2.49 8 %cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.5 99.59 16.50
2.41 8 %Ethylbenzene 2.5 96.53 6.06
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260 - Quality Control
Result
Reporting
Limit Units RPD NotesAnalyte
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits
%REC
Limits
Batch QC2502308 - EPA 8260
LCSD 1
2.65 8 %Tetrachloroethene 2.5 105.98 4.33
2.66 8 %Toluene 2.5 106.28 7.87
2.63 8 %Trichloroethene 2.5 105.02 15.19
2.07 8 %Vinyl chloride 2.5 82.98 9.97
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.91 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 94.35 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.40 %
Method Blank 1
ND 8 µg/m31,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1,1-Trichloroethane
ND 16 µg/m31,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1-Dichloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1-Dichloroethene
ND 8 µg/m31,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ND 8 µg/m31,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ND 16 µg/m31,2-Dichlorobenzene
ND 8 µg/m31,2-Dichloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ND 16 µg/m31,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND 16 µg/m31,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND 8 µg/m34-Isopropyltoluene
ND 80 µg/m3Acetone (LCC)
ND 8 µg/m3Benzene
ND 8 µg/m3Bromodichloromethane
ND 8 µg/m3Bromoform
ND 8 µg/m3Carbon tetrachloride
ND 8 µg/m3Chlorobenzene
ND 8 µg/m3Chloroform
ND 8 µg/m3cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND 40 µg/m3Di-isopropylether
ND 8 µg/m3Dibromochloromethane
ND 40 µg/m3Ethyl-tert-butylether
ND 8 µg/m3Ethylbenzene
ND 16 µg/m3Freon 11
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260 - Quality Control
Result
Reporting
Limit Units RPD NotesAnalyte
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits
%REC
Limits
Batch QC2502308 - EPA 8260
Method Blank 1
ND 16 µg/m3Freon 113
ND 16 µg/m3Freon 12
ND 2000 µg/m3Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12)
ND 8 µg/m3Isopropylbenzene
ND 16 µg/m3m,p-Xylene
ND 40 µg/m3Methyl-tert-butylether
ND 16 µg/m3Methylene chloride (TIC)
ND 12 µg/m3n-Butylbenzene
ND 80 µg/m3n-Hexane (LCC)
ND 80 µg/m3n-Pentane (LCC)
ND 8 µg/m3n-Propylbenzene
ND 40 µg/m3Naphthalene
ND 8 µg/m3o-Xylene
ND 12 µg/m3sec-Butylbenzene
ND 8 µg/m3Styrene
ND 40 µg/m3tert-amylmethylether
ND 400 µg/m3tert-Butylalcohol
ND 12 µg/m3tert-Butylbenzene
ND 8 µg/m3Tetrachloroethene
ND 8 µg/m3Toluene
ND 8 µg/m3trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND 8 µg/m3Trichloroethene
ND 8 µg/m3Vinyl chloride
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 102.21 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 102.37 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.08 %
Sample Blank 1
ND 8 µg/m31,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1,1-Trichloroethane
ND 16 µg/m31,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1-Dichloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,1-Dichloroethene
ND 8 µg/m31,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ND 8 µg/m31,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260 - Quality Control
Result
Reporting
Limit Units RPD NotesAnalyte
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits
%REC
Limits
Batch QC2502308 - EPA 8260
Sample Blank 1
ND 16 µg/m31,2-Dichlorobenzene
ND 8 µg/m31,2-Dichloroethane
ND 8 µg/m31,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ND 16 µg/m31,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND 16 µg/m31,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND 8 µg/m34-Isopropyltoluene
ND 80 µg/m3Acetone (LCC)
ND 8 µg/m3Benzene
ND 8 µg/m3Bromodichloromethane
ND 8 µg/m3Bromoform
ND 8 µg/m3Carbon tetrachloride
ND 8 µg/m3Chlorobenzene
ND 8 µg/m3Chloroform
ND 8 µg/m3cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND 40 µg/m3Di-isopropylether
ND 8 µg/m3Dibromochloromethane
ND 40 µg/m3Ethyl-tert-butylether
ND 8 µg/m3Ethylbenzene
ND 16 µg/m3Freon 11
ND 16 µg/m3Freon 113
ND 16 µg/m3Freon 12
ND 2000 µg/m3Gasoline Range Organics (C4-C12)
ND 8 µg/m3Isopropylbenzene
ND 16 µg/m3m,p-Xylene
ND 40 µg/m3Methyl-tert-butylether
ND 16 µg/m3Methylene chloride (TIC)
ND 12 µg/m3n-Butylbenzene
ND 80 µg/m3n-Hexane (LCC)
ND 80 µg/m3n-Pentane (LCC)
ND 8 µg/m3n-Propylbenzene
ND 40 µg/m3Naphthalene
ND 8 µg/m3o-Xylene
ND 12 µg/m3sec-Butylbenzene
ND 8 µg/m3Styrene
ND 40 µg/m3tert-amylmethylether
ND 400 µg/m3tert-Butylalcohol
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
Standard ug/m3 by EPA 8260 - Quality Control
Result
Reporting
Limit Units RPD NotesAnalyte
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits
%REC
Limits
Batch QC2502308 - EPA 8260
Sample Blank 1
ND 12 µg/m3tert-Butylbenzene
ND 8 µg/m3Tetrachloroethene
ND 8 µg/m3Toluene
ND 8 µg/m3trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND 8 µg/m3Trichloroethene
ND 8 µg/m3Vinyl chloride
60 - 140Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100.52 %
60 - 140Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 100.33 %
60 - 140Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.20 %
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
11007 FOREST PLACE
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
714-449-9937 PHONE
562-646-1611 FAX
Project Manager: Kevin Hall
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
370 Amapola Avenue, Ste 212
Torrance, CA 90501
Project Number: EN8461A
Project: Fresno Chandler Exec. Airport Ph.
Reported
02/25/25 11:23
Notes and Definitions
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit RPD Relative Percent Difference
E Estimated Concentration; concentration exceeds calibration range.
LCC Leak Check Compound
MDL Compound Reported to Method Detection Limit
1 Recovery outside of acceptable limits. LCS/LCSD recoveries and %RSD were within QC limits, therefore data was accepted.
SMSR Sample matrix prevented adequate surrogate recovery.
J Value less then PQL but greater than MDL.
HHSR High hydrocarbon concentration in this sample prevented adequate surrogate recovery.
OV Sample was filtered in the lab before extraction.
HHTAR High hydrocarbon concentration prevented in-range recovery of target analytes.
IHRPD Target analyte recoveries were outside of range but accepted due to passing RPDs AROL Target analyte recovery exceeded recovery range but was accepted due to ND of that analyte in MB and sample(s).
Isomers could not be sufficiently chromatographically resolved according to method requirements due to hydrocarbon interference or other matrix effects. The isomers' reported individual concentrations were each calculated as the average of each of the individual isomers' concentrations.
ISO-H
2 Recovery outside of acceptable limits for either LCS or LCSD. CCV and LCS or LCSD recoveries were within limits; therefore data was accepted.
RPD outside of acceptable limits. Target analyte recoveries were within QC limits; therefore, data was accepted.3 4 LCS and/or LCSD recoveries exceeded acceptability ranges. Target analyte recoveries were accepted due to passing CCV, in-range LCS/LCSD RPDs, and a clean MB in which all target analytes were < RL.
SMTAR Sample matrix prevented adequate recovery of target analytes.
SMTAR Sample matrix prevented adequate recovery of target analytes.
RV Surrogate recovery outside of control limits due to required dilution.
ASP Hydrocarbons in this sample most closely resemble asphalt. @ Surrogate is outside acceptable limits. All other QC parameters in control, therefore data was accepted.
S Sample was subjected to elemental sulfur cleanup by EPA 3660B.
TIC Tentatively Identified Compound. Compound is not in the calibration mix and does not have a valid calibration. All reported detections are estimated 5 MS and/or MSD recoveries exceeded acceptability ranges. Target analyte recoveries were accepted due to passing CCV, in-range LCS/LCSD RPDs, and a clean MB in which all target analytes were < RL.
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Jones Environmental, Inc.
Colby Wakeman
Lab Director
Appendix C – Cost Estimate for
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
Appendix C: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cleanup Costs Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives - Chandler Airport 11/14/2025
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Notes/Assumptions Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 2 LS 5,000.00$ 10,000$ Project experience, mulitple mobilizations for two specialty contractors
Permitting 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Project experience Site Preparation and Security fencing 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500$ Project experience Asbestos Abatement 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ Av erage from Subcontractor Bids Third Party clearance sampling/oversight 4 Week 7,000.00$ 28,000$ Estimated at $150 per hour for 40 hours per week plus $1,000 for equipment/expenses per week.
Engineering design 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Project experience Capping of Lead Impacted Soil with asphalt or concrete 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$ Project experience Annual Reporting to DTSC 30 Year 2,000.00$ 60,000$ Average cost from DTSC 5-year Periodic Review from DTSC 6 Event 7,500.00$ 45,000$ 5-year reviews from DTSC for 30-year period Operations and Maintenance Requirements 30 Year 1,000.00$ 30,000$ Assumed to require $1,000 in annual maintenance and repairs (annual average) for a 30 year period
Closure Reporting 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Pr oject experience 435,500$
10%
479,100$
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 3 LS 5,000.00$ 15,000$ Project experience, mulitple mobilizations for three specialty contractors
Permitting 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Project experience Site Preparation and Security fencing 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500$ Project experience Asbestos Abatement 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ Av erage from Subcontractor Bids Third Party clearance sampling/oversight 4 Week 7,000.00$ 28,000$ Estimated at $150 per hour for 40 hours per week plus $1,000 for equipment/expenses per week.
Treatability bench testing 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500$ Project experience Engineering design 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Project experience Excavation and backfill of lead-impacted soil 140 CY 50.00$ 7,000$ Project Experience Phosphate mixing 200 Per ton 1,200.00$ 240,000$ Pr oject Experience Confirmation sampling 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Project experience Import fill, Grading and Compaction 140 CY 25.00$ 3,500$ Project Experience Annual Reporting to DTSC 30 Year 2,000.00$ 60,000$ Average cost from DTSC 5-year Periodic Review from DTSC 6 Event 7,500.00$ 45,000$ 5-year reviews from DTSC for 30-year period Operations and Maintenance Requirements 30 Year 1,000.00$ 30,000$ Assumed to require $1,000 in annual maintenance and repairs (annual average) for a 30 year period
Closure Reporting 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Pr oject experience 678,500$
10%
746,400$
Abatement Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Project experience Permitting 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Project experience Site Preparation and Security fencing 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500$ Project experience Asbestos Abatement 1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$ Av erage from Subcontractor Bids Third Party Clearance Sampling/Oversight 4 Week 7,000.00$ 28,000$ Estimated at $150 per hour for 40 hours per week plus $1,000 for equipment/expenses per week.
Soil Excavation Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500$ Subcontractor Bid Excavating, Stockpiling and Loading of Lead-Impacted
Soil 140 CY 123.00$ 17,220$ Subcontractor Bid Confirmation Soil Sampling 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000$ Project experience Transportation and Disposal of Lead-Impacted Soil 200 Tons 175.00$ 35,000$ Subcontractor Bid, assumes California Hazardous Waste Import fill, Grading and Compaction 140 CY 144.00$ 20,160$ Project Experience Closure Reporting 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Pr oject experience 350,380$
10%
385,500$
Alternative Subtotal
Alternative Total
Alternative 2 - Complete Abatement of ACM/LBP and Capping Impacted Soil and Managing In-Place Alternative 4 - Complete Abatement of ACM/LBP and Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Impacted Soils Alternative Subtotal
Alternative Total
Contingency
Contingency
Alternative 3 - Complete Abatement of ACM and LBP and Placement of Contaminated Soil within Chemically Stabilized On-Site Containment Cell Alternative Subtotal
Contingency
Alternative Total
\\us0318-ppfss03\shared_projects\203724380\203724380 Fresno Supp RLF\05_report_deliv\deliverable\Fresno Chandler Airport\ABCA\Appendix C_tbl_chandler_ABCA_DRAFT_111025.xlsx