18067_Wurst Property_EMAIL_20170214

Sharon,

I realized that I sent you two tables and no map in the email I sent a
few minutes ago (below). Attached to this email is the map and the
table. Also, the Lufkin Road team has determined that they can, and
will, cordon off the area where the southern composite sample was
collected. They will not be entering this area until we develop a plan
on how to address this area.

Dan

Sharon,

Please find attached the data tabulation and a map showing where soil
samples were collected at the Lufkin Road site. Three samples were
collected: a northern composite/grab and southern composite/grab from
the former land farm area as well as a sample collected from under the
recently identified two drums.

Arsenic was identified in concentrations exceeding both residential and
commercial PSRG. However, the concentrations are well within naturally
occurring concentrations in North Carolina.

The detected chromium concentrations are for ‘total chromium’. The
concentrations do not exceed PSRGs for the trivalent form, but they do
exceed for the hexavalent form. The historical use of this facility
(printing) would not suggest the likely presence of hexavalent chromium.
The detected chromium is likely in the trivalent form.

PAHs were detected in the southern composite sample. Three compounds
were detected in non-estimated concentrations above residential PSRGs.
One compound, benzo (a) pyrene was detected above commercial/industrial
PSRGs. All these compounds have very low PSRGs.

The composite sample exhibiting the PAHs is directly adjacent to the
planned truck back up lane. It is probable that some disturbance of
these soils will take place during construction, although exposure time
would be so short, that risk associated with construction activities
appears minimal. For the foreseeable future, the site will continue to
be used for industrial warehousing.

The Lufkin Road team is evaluating their construction plans and would
value the Program’s input on how to deal with this issue. Would a soil
cover be an appropriate approach assuming these soils are not removed
from the site? Due to land surface elevation constraints, soil may need
to be removed from this area and then clean fill brought in.
Historically this has been an acceptable approach to the Program. Soil
removed from the site in this area (area of composite sample SC) would
be disposed at a petroleum land farm.

We appreciate your input. I understand that construction activities are
continuing in the northern portion of the land farm (shown to be clean)
and the other portions of the site in accordance with the EMP.
Activities are currently suspended in the southern land farm area
pending feedback from the Program.

Thank you,

Dan

Daniel H. Nielsen, PE, RSM, LEED-AP

Vice-President, Principal Engineer

MID-ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES, INC.

409 Rogers View Court | Raleigh, NC 27610

919-250-9918 | 919-250-9950 (Facsimile) | 919-614-3988 (Mobile)

www.MAAONLINE.com <http://www.maaonline.com/> | Outstanding Service
Since 1993

________________________

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail is
intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.Its
contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must
not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you
receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail
and delete and destroy the message.