with a basement. While pressure differentials are believe to be the driving force behind vapor intrusion, diffusion is also a process by which contaminants enter the home. RESPONSE 70: Revised as suggested. COMMENT 71: Figure 6-1. Incomplete legend. Difficult to read. RESPONSE 71: The figure was enlarged and the legend was revised. COMMENT 72: Section 6.2.1 Air Suggest separating discussion of ambient air from indoor air – exposure. The section was rearranged so that discussions on industrial emissions and ambient air RESPONSE 72: were discussed first. Indoor air was discussed subsequently. Pg 170, line 30 Revise: Texas, indoor homes of communities that sit COMMENT 73: air in – “In above…” RESPONSE 73: Revised as suggested. COMMENT 74: pg 169, line 33-34 - Replace the occurrence of winter, and with homes” with “with winter, and in homes without air conditioners” “during RESPONSE 74: Revised as suggested. COMMENT 75: are additional studies on PCE vapor intrusion to be considered for inclusion in the profile, such as: Folkes, D., Wertz, W., Kurtz, J., & Kuehster, T. (2009). Observed spatial and temporal distributions of CVOCs at Colorado and New York vapor intrusion sites. Groundwater 70-80. Monitoring & Remediation, 29(1), McDonald, G. J., & Wertz, W. E. (2007). PCE, TCE, and TCA vapors in subslab soil gas and indoor air: A case study in upstate New York. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 27(4), 86-92. RESPONSE 75: Papers were reviewed and added. COMMENT 76: Section 6.2.2 Water - Include information about the frequency of detection of PCE among drinking water systems in the US. (Some of the information is presented in a subsequent section) RESPONSE 76: A statement was added regarding water supplies.
with a basement. While pressure differentials are believe to be the driving force behind vapor intrusion, diffusion is also a process by which contaminants enter the home. RESPONSE 70: Revised as suggested. COMMENT 71: Figure 6-1. Incomplete legend. Difficult to read. RESPONSE 71: The figure was enlarged and the legend was revised. COMMENT 72: Section 6.2.1 Air – Suggest separating discussion of ambient air from indoor air exposure. RESPONSE 72: The section was rearranged so that discussions on industrial emissions and ambient air were discussed first. Indoor air was discussed subsequently. COMMENT 73: Pg 170, line 30 – Revise: “In Texas, indoor air in homes of communities that sit above…” RESPONSE 73: Revised as suggested. COMMENT 74: pg 169, line 33-34 - Replace “with the occurrence of winter, and with homes” with “during winter, and in homes without air conditioners” RESPONSE 74: Revised as suggested. COMMENT 75: are additional studies on PCE vapor intrusion to be considered for inclusion in the profile, such as: Folkes, D., Wertz, W., Kurtz, J., & Kuehster, T. (2009). Observed spatial and temporal distributions of CVOCs at Colorado and New York vapor intrusion sites. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 29(1), 70-80. McDonald, G. J., & Wertz, W. E. (2007). PCE, TCE, and TCA vapors in subslab soil gas and indoor air: A case study in upstate New York. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 27(4), 86-92. RESPONSE 75: Papers were reviewed and added. COMMENT 76: Section 6.2.2 Water - Include information about the frequency of detection of PCE among drinking water systems in the US. (Some of the information is presented in a subsequent section) RESPONSE 76: A statement was added regarding water supplies.
Disposition_Peer_Review_Comments_tetrachloroethylene.docx