DERR-2025-000578

© Copyright 2024 by The ERM International Group Limited and/or its affiliates (‘ERM’). All Rights Reserved.
No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of ERM. Page 1
1050 S.W. 6th Avenue
Suite 1650
Portland, OR, 97204
T [phone]
F [phone]
erm.com
MEMO
TO Mr. Chris Howell
FROM Justin Dauphinais
DATE 02 May 2024
REFERENCE EDO Western Cleanup Site #C069
SUBJECT Addendum to Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment Report, dated
September 16, 2022

Dear Mr. Howell:
Please see the attached addendum in regard to the Supplemental Vapor Intrusion
Assessment Report, dated September 16, 2022. The following changes have been
made to the report.
Section 1.1 Facility Ownership History and Operations
• Update to include the ownership change from LAW Realty Co to DCW-SLC, LLC.
Section 7 Conclusions
• Description of the summa cannister samples at ambient pressure and data
quality details.
Section 8 Recommendations
• Included a recommendation and plan to resample locations IA-3, VP-3, and OA-
1. Included plan to assess the integrity of the facility slab through ongoing
inspections.

Justin Dauphinais
ERM

The business of sustainability

L3Harris EDO Western Corporation
Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment (SVIA) Report
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake
City, Utah, VCP No. C068

16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024)
Project No.: 0600676

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024)
Document details
Document title Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment (SVIA) Report
Document subtitle Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
Project No. 0600676
Date 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024)
Version 1.1
Author ERM-West, Inc.
Client Name L3Harris EDO Western Corporation

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024)
Signature Page

16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024)

Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment (SVIA) Report

Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068

Mike Kraeski
Partner
Justin Dauphinais
Senior Project Manager

ERM-West, Inc.
136 East South Temple
Suite 2150
Salt Lake City, Utah

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Facility Ownership History and Operations ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
2. VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 2
2.1 Constituents of Concern ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Pre-Assessment Survey ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Sample Collection ................................................................................................ 2
2.3.1 Subsurface Utility Clearance ................................................................................................ 3
2.3.2 Vapor Pin Installation ........................................................................................................... 3
2.3.3 Vapor Pin Seal Check .......................................................................................................... 3
2.3.4 Sample Collection ................................................................................................................ 3
2.3.5 Differential Pressure ............................................................................................................ 4
2.4 Indoor Air Sample Collection ................................................................................................................ 5
2.5 Outdoor Ambient Air ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.6 Sample Labeling and Custody .............................................................................................................. 6
2.7 Equipment Calibration .......................................................................................................................... 6
3. LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................................... 7
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL .............................................................................. 8
4.1 Data Validation and Management ......................................................................................................... 8
5. HEALTH AND SAFETY ..................................................................................................................... 9
6. INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 10
6.1 Soil Vapor ........................................................................................................................................... 10
6.2 Indoor Air ............................................................................................................................................ 10
6.3 Outdoor Air ......................................................................................................................................... 10
7. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 12
8. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 13
9. DATA USABILITY REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 14
10. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 15

TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A FIELD SAMPLING FORMS
APPENDIX B DAILY QUALITY CONTROL FORMS
APPENDIX C DATA QUALITY EVALUATION MEMO
APPENDIX D LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS

List of Tables
Table 1: Indoor Air, Ambient Air, Soil Vapor Summary Table

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
CONTENTS
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Sub-Slab Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sample Location Map
Figure 3: Monitoring Well Location Map with Soil Vapor and Outdoor Air Sampling Locations
Figure 4: Typical Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Sample Schematic

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Name Description
ATF acoustic test facility
COC constituent of concern
1,1-DCA 1,1-dichloroethane
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
DERR Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
EDO EDO Western Corporation
EDD electronic data deliverable
EA Environmental Assessment
ERM ERM-West, Inc.
eV electron volt
HASP Health and Safety Plan
LCS laboratory control sample
LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pace Pace Analytical Laboratory
PID photoionization detector
ppm parts per million
RPD relative percent difference
SVIA Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment
PCE tetrachloroethene
TCE trichloroethene
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
VISLs Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
VOC volatile organic compound
VCA Voluntary Cleanup Agreement
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
QA/QC quality assurance / quality control

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 1
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
ERM-West, Inc. (ERM) has prepared this Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment (SVIA) Report for
the L3Harris EDO Western Corporation (EDO) Acoustic Sensors Facility site (Site or Facility), which is
located at 2645 South 300 West, South Salt Lake City, Utah. This report has been prepared in
accordance with the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) agreement, dated January 2011 (VCP No. C069),
between the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and EDO, and is based on the
Groundwater Monitoring and Vapor Intrusion Assessment Work Plan dated 27 August 2019 (ERM 2019).
This SVIA was implemented to address technical comments from the UDEQ Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation (DERR) in a letter, dated 2 April 2021, in regard to ERM’s Vapor Intrusion
Assessment Report (ERM 2020) and subsequent Response to DERR Comments Letter, dated 25 August
2021 (ERM 2021). This SVIA work was completed following discussion with DERR on 2 February 2022
regarding the scope and objectives for additional subsurface vapor sampling. The SVIA work plan, dated
25 February 2022 (ERM 2022), was approved by UDEQ in a letter dated 21 March 2022 (UDEQ 2022).
1.1 Facility Ownership History and Operations
EDO operates its business on a 5.45-acre parcel located at 2645 South 300 West in South Salt Lake City,
Utah. The Site is occupied by an active manufacturing facility (the Facility) comprising two buildings
(Building 1 and Building 2) and currently employs over 100 staff that work up to three shifts a day, five to
seven days per week.
In addition to the Site buildings, the Facility also includes two water-filled, acoustic test facilities (ATF),
which are used to test equipment. ATF1 is an above-grade tank within the south-eastern portion of
Building 1. ATF2 is a lined below-grade testing structure between Buildings 1 and 2. ATF2 is elliptical in
shape and is approximately 105 feet wide by 140 feet long with a depth of approximately 30 to 35 feet.
As of January 20, 2021, LAW Realty Co, a Utah General Partnership sold the property located at 2645
South 330 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 to DCW-SLC, LLC, a Utah limited liability company. DCW-
SLC, LLC assumed and agreed to perform all of the landlord’s obligation under the Lease from and after
such date.
On January 7, 2022, EDO Western Corporation changed its name to L3Harris EDO Western Corporation.
A Site location map is provided as Figure 1.
1.2 Project Background
The VCP Application and Environmental Assessment (EA) (AECOM 2010) document for the Facility was
submitted to UDEQ on 22 February 2010 after the Site was approved for entry into the VCP under the
authorized Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA). This authorization is documented in correspondence
from UDEQ to EDO dated 20 January 2011.
The March 2020 Vapor Intrusion Assessment Report results identified one sub-slab soil vapor result at
sampling point VP-3 within Building 1 that exceeded the tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene
(TCE) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL) for sub-
slab soil gas. The indoor air sample IA-3 collected and analyzed co-located with sub-slab sample VP-3
was non-detect for all volatile organic compounds (VOC). The indoor air sample IA-5, co-located with VP-
5 indicated one detection of PCE below the USEPA VISL for indoor air. The ambient (outdoor) air did not
appear to be a source of VOCs impacting the indoor air quality. Due to the detection of PCE in IA-5, and
absence of detection in IA-3 near VP-3, additional data were recommended, by UDEQ, to further assess

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 2
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN
potential risk to occupants of the building. See Figure 2 showing the SVIA soil vapor sampling points and
co-located indoor air sample locations.

2. VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN
This section outlines the sampling procedures and methods that were employed to assess the potential
vapor intrusion pathway. As stated in the February 2022 SVIA Work Plan approved by UDEQ, the vapor
intrusion assessment included a second round of subsurface soil vapor samples beneath Building 1 and
additional sampling north of the building in a paved storage area (Figures 2 and 3).
The assessment included the collection of sub-slab soil gas samples, indoor air samples, and outdoor air
samples, as described in the following section. During sampling, quality assurance / quality control
(QA/QC) samples were collected in accordance with Section 4.
2.1 Constituents of Concern
Prior to the initial March 2020 Vapor Intrusion Assessment and development of this report, a preliminary
screening was conducted to evaluate constituents of concern (COC) in groundwater that could pose a
potential concern for volatilization to indoor air. The screening was completed to focus the assessment on
the Site-related VOCs that pose a potential risk for vapor intrusion. The screening was conducted by
comparing detected concentrations of VOCs in groundwater to the VISLs developed by the USEPA
(USEPA 2022). The VISLs used in the screening were based on a commercial exposure scenario,
consistent with the land use of the Site and the surrounding properties, and a target cancer risk of 1x10-6
and a hazard quotient of 1.
In accordance with general USEPA guidance (USEPA 2002), only volatile constituents in the uppermost
portions of an aquifer, including the capillary fringe, volatilize into the vadose zone and potentially migrate
into indoor air spaces. It is noted that generally higher concentrations of VOCs are present in the deeper
intermediate groundwater zone in comparison to the shallow groundwater at the Site. However, to be
conservative, VOCs in both zones were screened against the VISLs and any compound that was
detected above the VISLs was included as a COC.
Based on the screening, the sampling during the SVIA (sub-slab soil vapor, indoor air, and outdoor air)
focused on the following compounds: PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCA (1,1-dichloroethane), 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-DCE
(cis-1,2-dichloroethene), and vinyl chloride.
2.2 Pre-Assessment Survey
A pre-assessment survey was completed to evaluate and inventory chemicals that are used and stored
within Building 1. This survey was completed to identify and document potential chemicals that may lead
to sample results and detections unrelated to subsurface sources. However, since the Site contains an
operational manufacturing Facility, it was understood that removing all chemicals is not possible in most
instances, and the potential exists for chemicals to be detected in the indoor air that are unrelated to
subsurface conditions. Chemical inventory data were recorded on the Sub-Slab/Air Sampling Form in
Appendix A.
2.3 Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Sample Collection
Sub-slab soil vapor samples were collected from four locations: two previously installed vapor points
(VP-3 and VP-5) within Building 1, and two newly installed exterior vapor points (VP-6 and VP-7) north of
Building 1 in the paved storage area, as shown on Figures 2 and 3. Vapor samples were collected from

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 3
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN
immediately beneath the foundation slab in Building 1 and asphalt slab north of Building 1. Previously
installed vapor point VP-5 is in the northeastern portion of Building 1, where the highest VOC
concentrations in groundwater have been previously observed. Vapor point VP-3 is near the former
“poling area,” within the central portion of Building 1, as PCE was historically used in this area.
Exterior installed vapor points VP-6 and VP-7 were located based on Site operations and access,
potential subsurface utilities, cracks in the asphalt, or other features that may have limited access or
ability to collect the appropriate samples.
2.3.1 Subsurface Utility Clearance
Prior to installing sub-slab soil vapor sampling points VP-6 and VP-7, the sampling locations were cleared
for potential subsurface utilities. This included interviewing knowledgeable Site personnel (e.g.,
maintenance staff or others as appropriate) and reviewing available as-built drawings. A private
geophysical survey was also conducted using ground penetrating radar, a cable avoidance tool, and a
magnetometer.
2.3.2 Vapor Pin Installation
Sub-slab soil vapor samples were collected from below the Building 1 concrete slab via previously
installed Vapor Pins™ and via the installation of two exterior Vapor Pin™ sampling ports. The exterior
Vapor Pin™ sampling ports were installed using the general steps presented below:
 A pilot 1.5-inch-diameter hole was drilled to a depth of approximately 1.75 inches deep into the
asphalt slab using an electric hammer drill.
 A 5/8-inch-diameter hole was drilled through the remaining thickness of the slab and approximately
1 inch into the sub-slab material to form a void.
 The hole was cleaned of concrete cuttings and dust using a pipe brush.
 A Vapor Pin™ with a silicone sleeve was placed over the hole and tapped into place using a dead
blow hammer (the silicone sleeve forms a water and airtight seal with the asphalt).
 A syringe was used to conduct a purge check of the sample point. Sub-slab sampling points were left
in place for at least two hours to allow for re-equilibration with the surrounding soil prior to soil vapor
sampling.
 After installation of the Vapor Pin™, sampling ports were secured with a flush mount cover.
2.3.3 Vapor Pin Seal Check
After installation of the Vapor Pin™ sampling point, a water dam test was conducted to check the
installation integrity. The water dam test was performed by filling the outer 1.5-inch diameter annulus
around the Vapor Pin with distilled water. The water was monitored for five minutes to check for leaks in
the seal between the concrete and the Vapor Pin™. Although the water level may decrease slightly due
to absorption into the asphalt, a sudden drop in the water level, or other indication of water entering the
sub-slab would have prompted the sampling point to be extracted, moved, and reset. Water dam tests
were passed for all sampling points. The results of the leak test were recorded on the sampling form in
Appendix A.
2.3.4 Sample Collection
Sub-slab soil vapor samples were collected using laboratory-supplied 1-liter Summa® canisters equipped
with flow controllers, limiting the flow to approximately 200 milliliters per minute (approximate 5-minute

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 4
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN
total sampling time). Using the sampling train setup shown on Figure 4, the Summa® canisters were
connected to the Vapor Pin™ sampling port with 0.25-inch Teflon (or Teflon-lined or nylon) tubing.
Prior to sampling, a “shut-in” check was completed to determine the integrity of the sampling train
between the sampling port and the Summa® canister. The shut-in test was performed by generating a
vacuum inside the sample tubing while keeping the sampling port and the sampling canister closed.
During the test, a vacuum of approximately 100 inches of water (approximately 7.3 inches of mercury) is
generated using a plastic syringe, and the vacuum is monitored for 1 minute. If vacuum is maintained for
the observed period, then the sampling train is deemed adequate and sampling can begin. If vacuum was
lost during the observation period, then tubing connections were tightened or altered until there was no
observable loss in vacuum during the test. The results of the shut-in test were recorded on the Sub-
Slab/Air Sampling Form in Appendix A. After the shut-in test was validated, the sampling train was not
altered or moved.
After completion of the shut-in test, the valve to the syringe was closed and sampling began using the
following steps. During sampling, field data were recorded on the Sub-Slab/Air Sampling Form in
Appendix A.
1. Prior to air sampling, a photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 11.7 electron volt (eV) lamp
was used as a general check for the presence of potential sources of VOC vapors in the vicinity of
the sampling location. The readings were recorded.
2. The regulator number and Summa® canister serial number were recorded.
3. The sample date and temperature were recorded.
4. The valve to the Vapor Pin™ was opened.
5. The valve to Summa® canister was opened to initiate sample collection. The time that sampling
began and initial canister pressure were recorded. (Note: if the initial canister vacuum was
significantly less than the vacuum recorded by the laboratory, sampling would have been stopped
and a backup sampling canister would have been used).
6. The Summa canister vacuum was monitored during sample collection. Sampling was complete when
the vacuum measurement decreased to approximately 5 inches of mercury.
7. Sample collection was stopped by closing the Summa® canister valve. Final vacuum and time were
recorded.
8. The flow controller was removed from the canister and the protective brass cap on the canister intake
was replaced.
9. Completed sample labels and tags were attached to the canister as directed by the laboratory and
the required information was entered on the chain-of-custody form.
10. A photo was taken and the PID reading from the sample port was recorded on the sampling form.
11. Sample tubing was disconnected and the Vapor Pin™ cap and flush mount cover were replaced.
Sub-slab soil gas vapor samples were analyzed for VOCs using USEPA Method TO-15 as outlined in
Section 3. The laboratory reported the vapor intrusion COCs identified in Section 2.1.
2.3.5 Differential Pressure
Differential pressure readings were collected to evaluate whether the building is negatively or positively
pressurized compared to the subsurface. Using a digital micro manometer (capable of reading to at least
0.001 inch of water), differential pressure was measured at each sub-slab soil vapor sampling location

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 5
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN
(Figures 2 and 3) following soil vapor sample collection. The digital micro manometer was connected to
the sub-slab sampling point and differential pressure readings were collected as follows:
 A length of 1/4-inch Teflon (or similar) tubing was connected to the top of the previously installed
Vapor Pin™.
 Tubing was connected to the digital micro manometer set to reference indoor air building pressure.
The differential pressure was recorded at each sub-slab sampling location on the Sub-Slab/Air
Sampling Form in Appendix A.
 Readings were collected following approximately 1 minute of equilibration and recorded on the Sub-
Slab/Air Sampling Form in Appendix A. If there was variability in the readings obtained, the minimum
and maximum readings were recorded as a range.
2.4 Indoor Air Sample Collection
Indoor air samples were collected the day prior to the sub-slab soil gas sampling activities to evaluate
indoor conditions. Indoor air sample locations were co-located with the previously installed sub-slab soil
vapor sample locations as shown on Figure 2.
Prior to indoor air sampling, a PID equipped with an 11.7 eV lamp was used as a general check for the
presence of VOC vapors in the vicinity of the sampling location.
Six-liter Summa® canisters equipped with calibrated 8-hour flow regulators were used to collect the indoor
air samples. An 8-hour sampling period was selected to reflect the typical 8-hour shifts of the buildings.
The canisters were certified clean by the laboratory prior to use. The air intake to each canister was
located at a breathing zone height of approximately three to five feet above the floor surface.
Indoor air samples (IA-3 and IA-5) were collected using the following procedures. During sampling, field
data were recorded on the Sub-Slab/Air Sampling Form in Appendix A.
1. The regulator number and Summa® canister serial number were recorded.
2. Sample date and temperature were recorded.
3. The valve to Summa® canister was opened to initiate sample collection. The time that sampling
began and the initial canister pressure were recorded.
4. The vacuum level of the canister was periodically checked and recorded during sample collection
and any changes in the vicinity of the sample location (changes in activities or Facility operations,
use of potential VOC containing chemicals by the Facility, etc.) were noted.
5. Sample collection was stopped after the scheduled sampling duration and when the canister still had
residual vacuum. The residual vacuum in the canisters was approximately 5 inches of mercury.
6. Sample collection was stopped by closing the Summa® canister valve. The final vacuum and time
were recorded.
7. The flow controller from the canister was removed and the protective brass cap on the canister intake
was replaced.
8. Sample labels and tags were attached to the canister and the required information was entered on
the chain-of-custody form.
Indoor air sample results were reported for constituents detected above laboratory reporting limits in any
of the sub-slab soil vapor samples. Indoor air samples were analyzed for the same targeted list of VOCs
identified above using USEPA Method TO-15.

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 6
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PLAN
2.5 Outdoor Ambient Air
An outdoor ambient air sample (OA-1) was collected concurrent with the indoor air sampling to evaluate
for the potential presence of VOCs in ambient air. The outdoor ambient air sample was collected upwind
of Building 1, as recorded on the day of the sampling event. The air intake of the sample canister was at a
breathing zone height of approximately three to five feet above the ground surface. To the extent allowed
by Site features, the outdoor air sample was collected approximately 10 to 15 feet away from Building 1
and away from wind obstructions, such as trees or other structures. The sampling location was also
determined to facilitate security of the canister during sampling.
To facilitate that the entire indoor air sampling period was covered by the outdoor ambient air sampling
period, the outdoor ambient air sample collection was commenced up to one hour prior to initiating the
indoor air samples and continued a minimum of 30 minutes after the indoor air monitoring was complete.
The outdoor ambient air sample was collected in 6-liter Summa® canister equipped with a 9.5-hour flow
regulator (to capture the full indoor air sampling period). Deployment, documentation, and vacuum
monitoring of the outdoor air sample followed the same procedures detailed for indoor air sample
collection in Section 2.4.
The outdoor air sample was analyzed concurrent with the indoor air samples. Analytes reported for in the
outdoor air sample was the same as the indoor air samples.
2.6 Sample Labeling and Custody
Upon sample collection, sub-slab soil gas and indoor/outdoor air sample canisters were individually
labeled. Each sample canister was given a unique sample identification based on the location name. For
example, a sub-slab sample collected from location VP-3 was identified as “VP-3.” Similarly, the indoor air
and outdoor air samples were identified using their unique sample location identifier (e.g., “IA-3” for indoor
air and “OA-1” for outdoor air).
2.7 Equipment Calibration
Prior to sampling, the PID used to measure ambient VOC concentrations in air during the vapor intrusion
sampling activities was calibrated daily in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The
calibration is documented on the field forms in Appendix B.

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 7
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
3. LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
Summa® canister (sub-slab, indoor air, and outdoor air) samples were submitted to Pace Analytical
Laboratory (Pace) in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Pace is certified by the State of Utah Department of Health
and accredited by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). The specific
analytical methods that were used during the project are presented below.

Parameter Sample Media Analytical Methods
VOCs (PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCA 1,1-
DCE, 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-DCE, and
vinyl chloride only)
Soil Gas Vapor, Indoor
Air, and Outdoor Air
USEPA Method TO-15

The project used standard laboratory method detection limits for analytical methods. The method
detection limits do not account for potential dilutions that may have been required on the samples.

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 8
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL
The quality of the laboratory data was evaluated through the collection of project-specific QA/QC samples
and validation of the analytical results. Specific QA/QC samples collected during the vapor intrusion
assessment activities are presented below.
4.1 Data Validation and Management
Sample results and laboratory QC summaries were reviewed and validated to verify the overall precision,
accuracy, and completeness of the laboratory data. The data quality was assessed and any necessary
qualifiers were applied following the USEPA National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund
Methods Data Review (USEPA 2020).and includes a review of internal laboratory QA/QC and project-
specific QA/QC samples. The results of data validation are documented in a data evaluation memo
prepared by ERM, attached to this report as Appendix C and summarized in Section 9. The laboratory
provided analytical data in the form of electronic data deliverables (EDD). Data were uploaded into the
project EQuIS™ database that is used to store and manage the analytical data for the Site.

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 9
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
HEALTH AND SAFETY
5. HEALTH AND SAFETY
Vapor intrusion assessment activities were performed in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and ERM’s general health and safety policies and
procedures. A Site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) was prepared and reviewed by safety
professionals prior to initiating field work. ERM field staff onsite reviewed and signed the HASP during a
safety meeting prior to initiating any field activities.

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 10
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
INVESTIGATION RESULTS
6. INVESTIGATION RESULTS
This section summarizes analytical results of the soil vapor, indoor air, and outdoor air investigation.
Laboratory analytical reports are included as Appendix D. Data results are summarized in Table 1.
6.1 Soil Vapor
Four soil vapor samples were analyzed for potential COCs at the Site. Samples VP-3 and VP-5 were
collected on 14 June 2022 from sub-slab locations in Building 1. Samples VP-6 and VP-7 were collected
on 15 June and 16 June 2022, respectively. Soil vapor sample locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3.
A summary of the results is provided below:
 PID readings collected from the sub-slab vapor through the installed vapor pins ranged from 0.0 parts
per million (ppm) in VP-7 to 0.3 ppm in VP-3 and VP-5.
 PCE was detected in four soil vapor samples at concentrations ranging from 0.835 micrograms per
cubic meter (µg/m3) in VP-6 in the lot north of Building 1 to 5,810 µg/m3 in VP-3 in the central area of
Building 1. VP-3 was the only soil vapor sample to exceed the USEPA VISL of 1,570 for sub-slab soil
gas.
 TCE was detected in three of the four soil vapor samples, at a concentration of 3.51 µg/m3 in VP-5
and 521 µg/m3 in VP-3. The soil vapor concentration in the sample collected from location VP-3
exceeds the USEPA VISL for sub-slab soil gas of 100 µg/m3.
 1,1-DCA was detected in two of the four soil vapor samples, at a concentration of 0.842 µg/m3, in the
sample from VP-5 and at a concentration of 44.1 µg/m3 in the sample from VP-3. The detected
concentrations of 1,1-DCA are below the USEPA VISL for sub-slab soil gas of 256 µg/m3.
 cis-1,2-DCE was detected in one (VP-3) of the four soil vapor samples at a concentration of 2.09
µg/m3. There is no sub-slab soil gas standard for cis-1,2-DCE.
 No other VOC constituents were detected in sub-slab soil vapor.
6.2 Indoor Air
To evaluate indoor air quality at the Site, ERM collected two indoor air samples (IA-3 and IA-5) on 13
June 2022. Indoor air sample locations were co-located with the sub-slab sampling locations shown on
Figure 2. Sample analytical data are presented in Table 1 and summarized below:
 PID readings for indoor air were 0.0 ppm at sample locations IA-3 and IA-5.
 PCE was detected in indoor air samples IA-3 and IA-5 at concentrations of 0.663 µg/m3 and 1.43
µg/m3, respectively. The detected concentrations of PCE were significantly below the USEPA VISL of
47 µg/m3 for indoor air.
 TCE was detected in indoor air sample IA-5 at a concentration of 1.02 µg/m3. The detected
concentration of TCE in this sample was below the USEPA VISL of 3.0 µg/m3 for indoor air.
 No other VOC constituents were detected in the indoor air samples.
6.3 Outdoor Air
To establish a baseline of ambient outdoor air concentrations, ERM collected one outdoor air sample
(OA-1) on 14 June 2022. The sample was collected north of the eastern portion of Building 1,
approximately 17 feet north of the building (see Figure 3). The results are summarized below:

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 11
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
INVESTIGATION RESULTS
 Wind speed was recorded on the day of sampling from the north-northeast at approximately 5 miles
per hour. Therefore, the outdoor air sample was placed northeast of Building 1.
 The initial PID readings as well as periodic readings collected during sample collection were 0.0 ppm.
 PCE and TCE was detected in outdoor air sample OA-1 at concentrations of 0.671 µg/m3 and 2.30
µg/m3, respectively. The detected concentrations of PCE and TCE were below the USEPA VISLs for
indoor air.

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 12
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
CONCLUSIONS
7. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results obtained from the sub-slab, indoor air, and ambient air samples, ERM offers the
following conclusions:
 The analytical results of the exterior sub-slab soil vapor sampling showed that all COCs were either
not detected or detected at concentrations below VISLs. This indicates that the potential risks from
soil vapor to offsite occupants of buildings north and northwest of Building 1 is low.
 Indoor air sampling analytical results showed that detections are below VISLs, indicating a low risk of
exposure to COCs for occupants of Building 1. Outdoor sample results also indicate detection levels
below VISLs. The ambient (outdoor) air sample results for PCE and TCE, although below VISLs,
were very similar in magnitude to the indoor air detections, indicating that indoor air quality at the
time of sampling may have been reflective of ambient conditions.
 One sub-slab soil vapor result at sampling point VP-3 exceeded the PCE and TCE USEPA VISLs for
sub-slab soil gas; however, the indoor air sample (IA-3) that was co-located with sub-slab sample
VP-3 indicated a detected concentration of PCE below VISLs for indoor air.
 Sub-slab soil vapor and indoor air results are consistent with the March 2020 soil vapor investigation
results.
 The sub-slab soil vapor analytical results indicate the presence of COCs beneath the concrete slab in
the central portion of Building 1 near the poling area but does not appear to have affected the indoor
air quality. The samples from the sub-slab sample farther east (VP-5) identified much lower
concentrations of COCs in soil vapor. As such, the area of soil vapor with COC concentrations above
the USEPA VISL for sub-slab soil vapor appears to be limited.
 Recorded summa cannister pressures were negative at monitoring points VP-3, VP-5, VP-6, VP-7,
and IA-5. The recorded Summa canister pressures for samples IA-3 and OA-1 were at ambient
pressure at the time of collection. While this does not represent an overall data quality issue, the
samples may not be representative of the conditions for the entire recorded sampling time as it is
uncertain when the canisters reached ambient pressures. The resulting data was qualified (J detects,
UJ non-detects) and limitations should be considered when using the data.

www.erm.com Version: 1.1 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 (Revised 26 April 2024) Page 13
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
RECOMMENDATIONS
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions provided in Section 7, exterior sub-slab soil vapor samples collected did not
indicate vapor intrusion risk to offsite properties and no further vapor intrusion investigation is
recommended north and northwest of Building 1. Indoor air sample results indicate that no additional
vapor intrusion investigation is recommended to assess potential indoor air risk to occupants of the
building due to the presence of COCs in the sub-slab soil gas.
However, due to that fact that some samples were allowed to reach atmospheric pressures, the L3Harris
Corporation intends to resample IA-3, VP-3, and OA-1 at a later date. A tech memo report will be
submitted summarizing the resampling event. The L3Harris Corporation intends to assess the integrity of
the slab and perform maintenance if deficiencies are observed. Any noticeable cracks or imperfections
deemed to be a potential pathway for sub-slab volatiles will be repaired and sealed. Ongoing slab
inspections will be completed on a biannual cadence. Inspections will be documented using a slab
maintenance checklist and if repairs are completed a repair log will be updated and maintained.

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 14
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
DATA USABILITY REVIEW
9. DATA USABILITY REVIEW
ERM reviewed the laboratory narratives associated with the samples collected and discussed within this
report to evaluate the data’s usability, which included reviewing detection limits and surrogate recoveries
for each sample.
The laboratory received and analyzed samples within the method-prescribed time period from the date
and time of collection. The sample shipment was received at the laboratory in good condition. No
qualifications were necessary. The recorded Summa canister pressures for samples IA-3 and OA-1 were
at ambient pressure at the time of sampling. While this does not represent an overall data quality issue
the samples may not be representative of the conditions for the entire recorded sampling time as it is
uncertain when the canisters reached ambient pressures. Consequently, the sample results have been
qualified as estimates (J detects, UJ non-detects) due to the uncertainty in sampling time. The method
blank sample results were non-detect for each of the target analytes with one exception. TCE was
detected in a method blank sample; however, this analyte was not detected in the associated samples,
and qualifications were not necessary. The laboratory control sample (LCS) / laboratory control sample
duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and relative percent differences (RPD) were within the laboratory’s limits of
acceptance. The LCS and LCSD recoveries and RPDs indicate acceptable laboratory accuracy and
precision. The surrogate recoveries were within acceptable limits. No qualifications were required based
on surrogate recoveries. The surrogate recoveries indicate minimal matrix interference in the samples. No
field duplicates were submitted.
Overall, no results were rejected. All the data, including qualified data, can be used for decision-making
purposes; however, the limitations indicated by the applied qualifiers should be considered when using
the data. The quality of the data generated during this investigation is acceptable for the preparation of
technically defensible documents.

www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022 Page 15
SUPPLEMENTAL VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT (SVIA) REPORT
Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah, VCP No. C068
REFERENCES
10. REFERENCES
AECOM. 2010. Environmental Assessment Supporting VCP Application. EDO Western Corp. Facility,
South Salt Lake City, Utah. 22 February 2010.
ERM (ERM-West, Inc.). 2019. Groundwater Monitoring and Vapor Intrusion Assessment Work Plan. EDO
Western Corp. Acoustic Sensors Facility, South Salt Lake City, Utah. August 2019.
ERM. 2020. Vapor Intrusion Assessment Report. EDO Western Corporation Acoustic Sensors Facility
South Salt Lake City, Utah VCP No. C068. March 2020.
ERM. 2021. Response to Department of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) Comments
Letter. April 2021.
ERM. 2022. Supplemental Vapor Intrusion Assessment Work Plan. Voluntary Cleanup Program
Agreement C069. L3Harris EDO Western Corporation Site. 2645 South 300 West South Salt
Lake City, Utah. February 2022.
UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality). 2022. Acceptance Letter. Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation. March 2022.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL)
Calculator. Accessed August 2022. https://epa-visl.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/visl_search.
USEPA. 2002. Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils
(Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance). EPA530-D-02-004.
USEPA. 2020 National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review. November
2020.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation 16 September 2022
FIGURES
Asael Farr & Sons Company
(Farr Better Ice Cream)
Hale 220
West, LLC
Property Investment
Group (Tire World)
EDO WesternCorp
11223344
Legend
EDO Western Property
Parcel Boundary
0 370 740
Feet
FILE: M:\Projects\EDO Western\Site Location Map.mxd, REVISED: 08/01/2022 , SCALE: 1:4,000 when printed at 11x17
DRAWN BY: Jimmy Holcomb
0 330 660165
Feet
¯
¯
Environmental Resources Managementwww.erm.com
Source: Esri - World Topoographic Map; GCS WGS 1984
ERM
Figure 1Site Location Map
EDO Western Corp.
South Salt Lake City, Utah
0 2.5 51.25
Miles
¯
2700 South Street
300 West Street
«#«#
«#«#
VP-3
TCE = 521
PCE = 5,810
1,1,DCA = 44.1
cis-1,2-DCE = 2.09
cis-1,2-DCE = NS
IA-3
PCE = 0.663
cis-1,2-DCE = NS
VP-5
TCE = 3.51
PCE = 396
1,1,DCA = 0.842
cis-1,2-DCE = NS
IA-5
TCE = 1.02
PCE = 1.43
cis-1,2-DCE = NS
Hale 220
West, LLC
Property Investment
Group (Tire World)
EDO WesternCorp
Legend
«#Soil Vapor/Indoor Air Sample
Locations
Parcel Boundary
0 60 120
Feet
FILE: M:\US\Projects\D-F\EDO_Western\EDO Western\Figure 2 SVIA_new.mxd, REVISED: 08/16/2022 , SCALE: 1:715 when printed at 11x17
DRAWN BY: GIS
0 50 10025
Feet
¯
¯
Environmental Resources Managementwww.erm.com
Source: Esri - World Topoographic Map; GCS WGS 1984
ERM
Figure 2Sub-Slab Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sample Location Map
June 2022
EDO Western Corp.
South Salt Lake City, Utah
Notes:
VISL Sub-Slab Soil Gas - Ind/Com
1,1-DCA = 256 ug/mg3
PCE = 1,600 ug/mg3
TCE= 100 ug/mg3
VISL Indoor Air - Ind/Com
1,1,-DCA = 7.7 ug/mg3
PCE = 47 ug/mg3
TCE = 3.0 ug/mg3
NS = No Standard
0 2.5 51.25
Miles
¯
2700 South Street
300 West Street
Building 1
Building 2
ATF2
'k
'k
'k'k
'k'k
'k'k
'k'k 'k'k'k'k
'k
'k
'k
'k
'k
'k
'k'k
'k
'k
'k'k
'k'k
'k'k
'k'k
'k'k'k
«#«#
«#
VP-6
PCE = 0.835
cis-1,2-DCE = NS VP-7
TCE = 3.73
PCE = 1.72
cis-1,2-DCE = NS
OA-1
TCE = 2.30
PCE = 0.671
cis-1,2-DCE = NS
B-1
B-3
MW-10
MW-10IMW-11MW-11I
MW-13
MW-13I
MW-14
MW-14I
MW-15
MW-15I
MW-16
MW-17I
MW-18I
MW-19I
MW-2
MW-20I
MW-2A
MW-2I
MW-3
MW-3I
MW-4MW-4I
MW-5
MW-5I
MW-6
MW-6I
MW-7
MW-7I
MW-8
MW-9
MW-9I
Asael Farr & Sons Company
(Farr Better Ice Cream)
Hale 220
West, LLC
Property Investment
Group (Tire World)
EDO WesternCorp
Legend
«#Soil Vapor Locations
'k Shallow Groundwater
Monitoring Well'k Intermediate Groundwater
Monitoring Well
Parcel Boundary
0 160 320
Feet
FILE: M:\US\Projects\D-F\EDO_Western\EDO Western\Figure 3 SVIA.mxd, REVISED: 08/16/2022 , SCALE: 1:1,817 when printed at 11x17
DRAWN BY: Jimmy Holcomb
0 150 30075
Feet
¯
¯
Environmental Resources Managementwww.erm.com
Source: Esri - World Topoographic Map; GCS WGS 1984
Figure 3Monitoring Well Location Map withSoil Vapor Sampling Locations
June 2022
EDO Western Corp.
South Salt Lake City, Utah
0 2.5 51.25
Miles
¯
2700 South Street
300 West Street
Notes:
VISL Sub-Slab Soil Gas - Ind/Com
1,1-DCA = 256 ug/mg3
PCE = 1,600 ug/mg3
TCE= 100 ug/mg3
VISL Indoor Air - Ind/Com
1,1,-DCA = 7.7 ug/mg3
PCE = 47 ug/mg3
TCE = 3.0 ug/mg3
NS = No Standard
ERM
Building 1
Building 2
ATF2
4
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation
APPENDIX A FIELD SAMPLING FORMS
16 September 2022
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation
APPENDIX B DAILY QUALITY CONTROL FORMS
16 September 2022
Calibration Certificate rev 8/9/11
1 Eco-rental Solutions 75 Rockwood St. Rochester, NY 14610 1-855-ECO-RENT www.eco-rentalsolutions.com

Work Order No.: SE-104357
Date of Service: 06/08/22
Order Time: 2:01:35 PM
Unit Under Test: RAE MiniRAE 3000 PID
Asset No.: FA04831 Technician: Manuel Del Rio Initials: ___________
Serial No: 592-601573

TEST Specification Result
Standard Calibration Pass/Fail Pass

TEST STANDARDS USED:
DESCRIPTION LOT NO./EXPIRATION DATE QUANTITY
100ppm Isobutylene in Air Lot No. 304-402273078-1 Exp.
11/16/2025
1

TEST EQUIPMENT USED:
DESCRIPTION ASSET NO. SERIAL NO. DATE OF
LAST CAL
DATE CAL
DUE

Test Equipment and standards are traceable to National standards.

*10.6 eV lamp installed.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation
APPENDIX C DATA QUALITY EVALUATION MEMO
16 September 2022
ERM 1050 SW 6th Avenue
Suite 1650
Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

www.erm.com

Page 1 of 2

© Copyright 2022 by ERM Worldwide Group Limited and/or its affiliates (‘ERM’). All Rights Reserved. No part of this work may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of ERM.

Memorandum

To Justin Dauphinais
From Jack James
Date 27 July 2022
Reference 0600676
Subject Data Review of L3Harris Technologies, Inc. June 2022 Soil Vapor, Indoor Air,
and Outdoor Air Samples: Pace Analytical Data Package L1506251.

The data quality was assessed and any necessary qualifiers were applied following the USEPA
National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, November 2020.

HOLDING TIME AND PRESERVATION EVALUATION
The samples were prepared and analyzed within the method-prescribed time period from the date of
collection. The sample shipment was received at the laboratory in good condition. No qualifications
were necessary.
CANNISTER VACUUM EVALUATION
The recorded Summa canister pressures for samples IA-3 and OA-1 were at ambient pressure at
the time of sampling. While this does not represent an overall data quality issue the samples may
not be representative of the conditions for the entire recorded sampling time as it is uncertain when
the cannisters reached ambient pressures. Consequently, the sample results have been qualified as
estimates (J detects, UJ non-detects) due to the uncertainty in sampling time.
BLANK EVALUATION
The method blank sample results were non-detected for each of the target analytes, with one
exception. Trichloroethylene was detected in a method blank sample; however, this analyte was not
detected in the associated samples and qualifications were not necessary. The method blank
detection is presented in Table 1.
BLANK SPIKE EVALUATION
The laboratory control sample (LCS)/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries and
relative percent differences (RPDs) were within the laboratory’s limits of acceptance. The LCS and
LCSD recoveries and RPDs indicate acceptable laboratory accuracy and precision.
ERM 27 July 2022
Justin Dauphinais
Page 2 of 2

MATRIX SPIKE EVALUATION
Matrix spikes are not performed for air samples.
SURROGATE SPIKE EVALUATION
The surrogate recoveries were within acceptable limits. No qualifications were required based on
surrogate recoveries. The surrogate recoveries indicate minimal matrix interference in the samples.
FIELD DUPLICATE EVALUATION
No field duplicates were submitted.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
No results were qualified or rejected. All the data can be used for decision-making purposes. The
quality of the data generated during this investigation is acceptable for the preparation of technically
defensible documents.
Table 1
Blank and Associated Suspect Sample Detections
June 2022 Air Samples
L3Harris Technologies, Inc
South Salt Lake City, Utah
Lab Package Blank ID Associated Sample Detected Analyte
Reported
Blank
Concentration
Blank
Report
Limit
Associated
Sample
Result
Associated
Sample
Report Limit
Units ERM
Qualifier
L1506251 MB R3805398-3 None for qualification Trichloroethylene 0.622 1.07 ----μg/m3 --
Lab package reviewed: L1506251
Notes:
MB = Method blank
μg/m 3 = Micrograms per cubic meter
ERM Page 1 of 1 PN0600676 - 7/27/2022
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0600676 Client: L3Harris EDO Western Corporation
APPENDIX D LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS
16 September 2022
ANALYTICAL REPORT
June 30, 2022
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT
Sample Delivery Group:L1506251
Samples Received:06/17/2022
Project Number:
Description:L3 Harris
Report To:Cyrus Sobhani
136 East South Temple
Suite 2150
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Entire Report Reviewed By:
June 30, 2022
[Preliminary Report]
Chris Ward
Project Manager
Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be
reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace
Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and
ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided,
and as the samples are received.
Pace Analytical National
12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 1 of 18
June 30, 2022
Chris Ward
Project Manager
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 1 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cp: Cover Page 1
Tc: Table of Contents 2
Ss: Sample Summary 3
Cn: Case Narrative 4
Sr: Sample Results 5
VP-7 L1506251-01 5
VP-5 L1506251-02 6
VP-3 L1506251-03 7
VP-6 L1506251-04 8
IA-3 L1506251-05 9
IA-5 L1506251-06 10
OA-1 L1506251-07 11
Qc: Quality Control Summary 12
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 12
Gl: Glossary of Terms 16
Al: Accreditations & Locations 17
Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 18
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 2 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 2 of 18
SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
VP-7 L1506251-01 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/16/22 08:20 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1882205 1 06/20/22 21:08 06/20/22 21:08 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
VP-5 L1506251-02 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/14/22 15:15 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1882205 1 06/20/22 21:48 06/20/22 21:48 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
VP-3 L1506251-03 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/14/22 16:00 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1882205 1 06/20/22 22:30 06/20/22 22:30 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1883520 10 06/22/22 19:59 06/22/22 19:59 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
VP-6 L1506251-04 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/15/22 16:56 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1882205 1 06/20/22 23:12 06/20/22 23:12 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1882812 1.01 06/21/22 15:57 06/21/22 15:57 CEP Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
IA-3 L1506251-05 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/13/22 18:08 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1887585 1 06/29/22 15:58 06/29/22 15:58 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
IA-5 L1506251-06 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/13/22 18:15 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1887585 1 06/29/22 16:41 06/29/22 16:41 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
OA-1 L1506251-07 Air Cyrus Sobhani 06/14/22 07:05 06/17/22 09:00
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1887585 1 06/29/22 17:23 06/29/22 17:23 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 3 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 3 of 18
CASE NARRATIVE
All sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the
appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times, unless qualified or notated within
the report. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples
have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control
are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form
or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my
knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the
quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been
knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data.
[Preliminary Report]
Chris Ward
Project Manager
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 4 of 18
Chris Ward
Project Manager
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 4 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 01
L1506251
VP-7
Collected date/time: 06/16/22 08:20
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.364 1.07 3.73 B 1 WG1882205
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.553 1.36 1.72 1 WG1882205
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 U 1 WG1882205
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1882205
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1882205
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 99.3 60.0-140 WG1882205
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 5 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 5 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 02
L1506251
VP-5
Collected date/time: 06/14/22 15:15
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.364 1.07 3.51 B 1 WG1882205
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.553 1.36 396 1 WG1882205
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 0.842 1 WG1882205
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1882205
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1882205
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 102 60.0-140 WG1882205
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 6 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 6 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 03
L1506251
VP-3
Collected date/time: 06/14/22 16:00
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 3.64 10.7 521 10 WG1883520
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 5.53 13.6 5810 10 WG1883520
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 44.1 1 WG1882205
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1882205
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 2.09 1 WG1882205
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1882205
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 104 60.0-140 WG1882205
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 93.5 60.0-140 WG1883520
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 7 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 7 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 04
L1506251
VP-6
Collected date/time: 06/15/22 16:56
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.368 1.08 U 1.01 WG1882812
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.558 1.37 0.835 J 1.01 WG1882812
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 U 1 WG1882205
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1882205
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 U 1 WG1882205
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1882205
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 101 60.0-140 WG1882205
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 99.5 60.0-140 WG1882812
Sample Narrative:
L1506251-04 WG1882812: Lowest possible dilution due to limited sample volume.
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 8 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 8 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 05
L1506251
IA-3
Collected date/time: 06/13/22 18:08
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.364 1.07 U 1 WG1887585
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.553 1.36 0.663 J 1 WG1887585
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 U 1 WG1887585
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1887585
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1887585
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 U 1 WG1887585
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1887585
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 90.5 60.0-140 WG1887585
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 9 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 9 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 06
L1506251
IA-5
Collected date/time: 06/13/22 18:15
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.364 1.07 1.02 J 1 WG1887585
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.553 1.36 1.43 1 WG1887585
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 U 1 WG1887585
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1887585
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1887585
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 U 1 WG1887585
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1887585
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 74.4 60.0-140 WG1887585
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 10 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 10 of 18
SAMPLE RESULTS - 07
L1506251
OA-1
Collected date/time: 06/14/22 07:05
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15
CAS #Mol. Wt.MDL RDL Result Qualifier Dilution Batch
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.364 1.07 2.30 1 WG1887585
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.553 1.36 0.671 J 1 WG1887585
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.290 0.802 U 1 WG1887585
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.302 0.793 U 1 WG1887585
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.283 0.810 U 1 WG1887585
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.311 0.793 U 1 WG1887585
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.243 0.511 U 1 WG1887585
(S)
1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 91.3 60.0-140 WG1887585
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 11 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 11 of 18
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1882205
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1506251-01,02,03,04
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3805398-3 06/20/22 10:40
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene 0.622 J 0.364 1.07
Tetrachloroethylene U 0.553 1.36
1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.290 0.802
1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.302 0.793
1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.283 0.810
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.311 0.793
Vinyl chloride U 0.243 0.511
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 97.5 60.0-140
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
(LCS) R3805398-1 06/20/22 09:21 • (LCSD) R3805398-2 06/20/22 10:01
Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec.LCSD Rec.Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 %%%%%
Trichloroethylene 20.1 23.7 24.0 118 119 70.0-130 1.35 25
Tetrachloroethylene 25.5 29.4 30.2 115 119 70.0-130 2.73 25
1,1-Dichloroethane 15.0 17.4 17.7 115 118 70.0-130 1.83 25
1,1-Dichloroethene 14.9 17.0 17.2 114 115 70.0-130 0.928 25
1,2-Dichloroethane 15.2 16.8 17.2 111 113 70.0-130 2.15 25
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 14.9 17.0 17.5 115 118 70.0-130 2.75 25
Vinyl chloride 9.59 11.2 11.4 117 119 70.0-130 1.36 25
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 99.2 99.3 60.0-140
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 12 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 12 of 18
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1882812
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1506251-04
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3805845-3 06/21/22 10:11
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene U 0.364 1.07
Tetrachloroethylene U 0.553 1.36
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.4 60.0-140
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
(LCS) R3805845-1 06/21/22 08:47 • (LCSD) R3805845-2 06/21/22 09:29
Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec.LCSD Rec.Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 %%%%%
Trichloroethylene 20.1 23.8 25.0 118 124 70.0-130 4.84 25
Tetrachloroethylene 25.5 30.7 30.1 121 118 70.0-130 1.79 25
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 95.4 96.7 60.0-140
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 13 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 13 of 18
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1883520
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1506251-03
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3806088-3 06/22/22 10:33
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene U 0.364 1.07
Tetrachloroethylene U 0.553 1.36
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 94.0 60.0-140
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
(LCS) R3806088-1 06/22/22 09:08 • (LCSD) R3806088-2 06/22/22 09:51
Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec.LCSD Rec.Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 %%%%%
Trichloroethylene 20.1 23.8 24.1 118 120 70.0-130 1.12 25
Tetrachloroethylene 25.5 30.5 31.4 120 123 70.0-130 2.85 25
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 97.7 97.4 60.0-140
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 14 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 14 of 18
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1887585
Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1506251-05,06,07
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3809236-2 06/29/22 13:38
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3
Trichloroethylene U 0.364 1.07
Tetrachloroethylene U 0.553 1.36
1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.290 0.802
1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.302 0.793
1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.283 0.810
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.311 0.793
Vinyl chloride U 0.243 0.511
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 87.1 60.0-140
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD)
(LCS) R3809236-1 06/29/22 12:56 • (LCSD) R3809236-3 06/29/22 14:21
Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec.LCSD Rec.Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits
Analyte ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 %%%%%
Trichloroethylene 20.1 18.6 18.8 92.8 93.6 70.0-130 0.858 25
Tetrachloroethylene 25.5 25.3 25.5 99.2 100 70.0-130 1.07 25
1,1-Dichloroethane 15.0 13.4 13.4 89.3 89.1 70.0-130 0.299 25
1,1-Dichloroethene 14.9 16.2 14.0 109 93.9 70.0-130 15.2 25
1,2-Dichloroethane 15.2 14.7 14.9 96.8 98.4 70.0-130 1.64 25
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 14.9 12.9 12.8 86.7 85.9 70.0-130 0.927 25
Vinyl chloride 9.59 12.5 12.0 130 125 70.0-130 4.39 25
(S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.6 93.9 60.0-140
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 15 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 15 of 18
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report
The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not
intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative.
Results Disclaimer - Information that may be provided by the customer, and contained within this report, include Permit Limits, Project Name,
Sample ID, Sample Matrix, Sample Preservation, Field Blanks, Field Spikes, Field Duplicates, On-Site Data, Sampling Collection Dates/Times, and
Sampling Location. Results relate to the accuracy of this information provided, and as the samples are received.
Abbreviations and Definitions
MDL Method Detection Limit.
RDL Reported Detection Limit.
Rec.Recovery.
RPD Relative Percent Difference.
SDG Sample Delivery Group.
(S)
Surrogate (Surrogate Standard) - Analytes added to every blank, sample, Laboratory Control Sample/Duplicate and
Matrix Spike/Duplicate; used to evaluate analytical efficiency by measuring recovery. Surrogates are not expected to be
detected in all environmental media.
U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable).
Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes
reported.
Dilution
If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the
standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the
laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the
result reported has already been corrected for this factor.
Limits
These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal
for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or
duplicated within these ranges.
Qualifier
This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result
reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and
potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable.
Result
The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was
no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL”
(Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL
(Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect
or report for this analyte.
Uncertainty
(Radiochemistry)Confidence level of 2 sigma.
Case Narrative (Cn)
A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol
observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will
be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report.
Quality Control
Summary (Qc)
This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or
analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not
being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material.
Sample Chain of
Custody (Sc)
This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and
date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This
chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the
samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis.
Sample Results (Sr)
This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided
by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for
each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported.
Sample Summary (Ss)This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and
times of preparation and/or analysis.
Qualifier Description
B The same analyte is found in the associated blank.
J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 16 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 16 of 18

Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122
Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05
Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN000032021-1
Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975
Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002
California 2932 New Mexico ¹TN00003
Colorado TN00003 New York 11742
Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375
Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹DW21704
Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³41
Georgia ¹923 North Dakota R-140
Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069
Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915
Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002
Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979
Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356
Kentucky ¹ ⁶KY90010 South Carolina 84004002
Kentucky ²16 South Dakota n/a
Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴2006
Louisiana LA018 Texas T104704245-20-18
Maine TN00003 Texas ⁵LAB0152
Maryland 324 Utah TN000032021-11
Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006
Michigan 9958 Virginia 110033
Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847
Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233
Missouri 340 Wisconsin 998093910
Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA
A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789
A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵1461.02 DOD 1461.01
Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234
EPA–Crypto TN00003
ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS

¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable
* Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report.
* Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace Analytical.
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Sr
6 Qc
7 Gl
8 Al
9 Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 08:52 17 of 18
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ERM - Salt Lake City, UT L1506251 06/30/22 13:35 17 of 18
The business of sustainability
ERM has over 160 offices across the following
countries and territories worldwide
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
France
Germany
Ghana
Guyana
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Malaysia
Mexico
Mozambique
Myanmar
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Romania
Russia
Senegal
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
UAE
UK
US
Vietnam
ERM’s Salt Lake City Office
136 East South Temple
Suite 2150
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
www.erm.com