22016 Environmental Management Plan_Quality Products Co_(BPN 22016-18-060)_20201029

#1269 Engineering
#C-245 Geology

Environmental Management Plan

Quality Products Co.
1513, 1515, 1521, 1525, 1529, & 1537 S. Mint Street and
404 Westwood Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 22016-18-060

October 29, 2019
H&H Job No. LEH-004

CONTENTS
Completed EMP Template Form

Tables

Table 1A Summary of Soil Analytical Results (January 2018)
Table 1B Summary of Soil Analytical Results (December 2018)
Table 1C Summary of Soil Analytical Results (July 2019)
Table 2A Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results (December 2018)
Table 2B Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results (July 2019)
Table 3A Summary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Analytical Results (January 2018)
Table 3B Summary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Analytical Results (July 2019)
Table 4 Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Results (December 2018)

Figures

Figure 1 Soil Compound Concentration Map
Figure 2 Groundwater Concentration Map
Figure 3 Sub-Slab Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Concentration Map

Appendices

Appendix A Redevelopment Plan
Appendix B Grading Plan
Appendix C Detailed Construction Schedule

1 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM 
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

This form is to be used to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for projects in 
the North Carolina Brownfields Program at the direction of a Brownfields project manager. 

The EMP is a typical requirement of a Brownfields Agreement (BFA).  Its purpose is to clarify 
actions to be taken during the demolition and construction at Brownfields properties in an 
effort to avoid delays in the event of the discovery of new contamination sources or other 
environmental conditions.  The EMP provides a means to document redevelopment plans and 
environmental data for each applicable environmental medium to inform regulatory‐compliant 
decision‐making at the site.  As much detail as possible should be included in the EMP, 
including contingency planning for unknowns.  Consult your project manager if you have 
questions. 

Prospective Developers and/or their consultants must complete and submit this form and all 
pertinent attachments, see checklist below, to their Brownfields project manager prior to any 
earthmoving or other development‐related activities that have the potential to disturb soil at 
the Brownfields Property, including demolition.  For the resultant EMP to be valid for use, it 
must be completed, reviewed by the program, signed by all parties working on the project, 
and approved by the Brownfields project manager.  Failure to comply with the requirements of 
the EMP could jeopardize project eligibility, or in the event of a completed agreement, be 
cause for a reopener   

So that the EMP provides value in protecting brownfields eligibility and public health, the 
preparer shall ensure that the following steps have been completed prior to submitting the 
EMP for review.  Any EMP prepared without completing these steps is premature.   

☒ Site sampling and assessment that meets Brownfields’ objectives is complete and has 
been reviewed and approved by the Brownfields Project Manager. 

☒ Specific redevelopment plans, even if conceptual, have been developed for the project, 
submitted and reviewed by the Brownfields Project Manager. 

2 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Please submit, along with the completed EMP form, the following attachments, as relevant 
and applicable to the proposed redevelopment:      

☒ A set of redevelopment plans, including architectural/engineering plans, if available; if 
not conceptual plans may suffice if updated when detailed plans are drafted. 

☒ A figure overlaying redevelopment plans on a map of the extent of contamination for 
each media. 

☒ Site grading plans that include a cut and fill analysis. 

☐ A figure showing the proposed location and depth of impacted soil that would remain 
on site after construction grading. 

☐ Any necessary permits for redevelopment (i.e. demolition, etc.). 

☒ A detailed construction schedule that includes timing and phases of construction. 

☒ Tabulated data summaries for each impacted media (i.e. soil, groundwater, soil gas, 
etc.) applicable to the proposed redevelopment. 

☒ Figures with the sampling locations and contamination extents for each impacted media 
applicable to the proposed redevelopment. 

☐ A full final grade sampling and analysis plan, if the redevelopment plan is final. 

☐ If known, information about each proposed potential borrow soil source, such as aerial 
photos, historic site maps, historic Sanborn maps, a site history, necessary for 
brownfields approval. 

☒ Information and, analytical data if required, for quarries, or other borrow sources, 
detailing the type of material proposed for importation to the Brownfields Property. 

☐ A work plan for the sampling and analysis of soil to be brought onto the Brownfields 
Property.  Refer to Issue Resolution 15 in Brownfields Program Guidelines. 

☐ A map of the Brownfields Property showing the location of soils proposed for export 
and sampling data from those areas. 

☒ If a Vapor Mitigation System is required by the Brownfields Program, the Vapor 
Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) plan will be signed and sealed by a NC Professional 
Engineer.  The VIMS Plan may also be submitted under separate cover. 

3 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
GENERAL INFORMATION 

Date: 10/28/2019 Revision Date (if applicable): Click or tap to enter a date. 

Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Quality Products Co. 

Brownfields Project Number: 22016‐18‐060 

Brownfields Property Address: 1513, 1515, 1521, 1525, 1529, and 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 
Westwood Ave, Charlotte, NC 28203 

Brownfields Property Area (acres): 1.36 acres 
Is Brownfields Property Subject to RCRA Permit?.......................☐ Yes   ☒ No 
If yes enter Permit No.: Click or tap here to enter text. 
Is Brownfields Property Subject to a Solid Waste Permit….……..☐ Yes   ☒ No 
If yes, enter Permit No.: Click or tap here to enter text. 

COMMUNICATIONS 

A copy of this EMP shall be distributed to all the parties below as well as any contractors or site workers 
that may be exposed to site vapors, soil, groundwater, and/or surface water.  Additionally, a copy of the 
EMP shall be maintained at the Brownfields Property during redevelopment activities.  NOTE, THE EMP 
DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A SITE‐SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN. 

Prospective Developer (PD): LEH NC Mint, LLC   
Contact Person: Nikolaus M. Lischerong  
Phone Numbers:   Office: 864‐590‐6478 Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.   
Email: nick@le‐h.com   

Contractor for PD: Colliers International   
Contact Person: Jason Oriol 
Phone Numbers:   Office: 704‐777‐8498 Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.   
Email: [e-mail]    

Environmental Consultant: Hart & Hickman, PC    
Contact Person: Ralph McGee 
Phone Numbers:   Office: 704‐586‐0007 Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.   
Email: [e-mail]  

Brownfields Program Project Manager:  Bill Schmithorst 
Phone Numbers:   Office: 919‐707‐8159 Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.   
Email: [e-mail]   

4 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Other DEQ Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch, 
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste):  
Click or tap here to enter text. 

NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM   

Written advance Notification Times to Brownfields Project Manager: Check each box to accept 
minimum advance notice periods (in calendar days) for each type of onsite task: 

On‐site assessment or remedial activities:……………………………………….…… 10 days Prior        ☒ 

Construction or grading start:……………………………………….………………………. 10 days Prior       ☒

Discovery of stained soil, odors, USTs, buried drums or waste, landfill, or other signs of previously 
unknown contamination: ……………………………….……………………………………. Within 48 hours   ☒

Implementation of emergency actions (e.g. dewatering, flood or soil erosion control measures in 
area of contamination, ventilation of work zones):…………….……….……… Within 48 hours  ☒ 

Installation of mitigation systems:………………………….………………….……….. 10 days Prior         ☒

Other notifications as required by local, state or federal agencies to implement redevelopment 
activities: (as applicable): ……………………….…………………………………………..… Within 30 days     ☒ 

REDEVELOPMENT PLANS 

1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply): 
☐Residential  ☐Recreational  ☐Institutional  ☒Commercial  ☒Office  ☒Retail  ☐Industrial 
☐Other specify: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

2) Check the following activities that will be conducted prior to commencing earth‐moving activities 
at the site: 
☒ Review of historic maps (Sanborn Maps, facility maps) 
☐ Conducting geophysical surveys to evaluate the location of suspect UST, fuel lines, utility 
lines, etc. 
☐ Interviews with employees/former employees/facility managers/neighbors 

3) Summary of Redevelopment Plans (MANDATORY: attach detailed plans or conceptual plans, if 
detailed plans are not available. EMP review without such information would be premature): 
  Provide brief summary of redevelopment plans, including demolition, removal of building 
slabs/pavement, grading plans and planned construction of new structures:  
5 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Redevelopment plans include upfit and renovations for adaptive re‐use of the existing Site 
buildings.  The renovations will include redesigning the building interiors to maximize tenant 
space and aesthetic improvements on the building exteriors.  The southeastern portion of the 
1513 S. Mint Street building will be demolished and removed.  The remainder of the Site will 
generally be covered with impervious surfaces including parking areas and sidewalks.  Grading is 
expected to result in a net balance of soil on‐Site.  A site redevelopment plan and grading plan is 
included as Appendix A.  
4)Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?:
☒Yes  ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☒If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements, including without limitation those related to lead and asbestos
abatement that are administered by the Health Hazards Control Unit within the Division of Public
Health of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.  If available, please
provide a copy of your demolition permit.
5)Are sediment and erosion control measures required by federal, state, or local regulations?
☒Yes    ☐ No    ☐ Unknown
☒If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements.  If soil disturbance is necessary to install sediment and erosion
control measures, they may not begin until this EMP is approved.
6)Which category of risk‐based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement?  Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels shall
be cited in the Brownfields Agreement for comparison purposes.
☐ Residential    ☒ Non‐Residential or Industrial/Commercial
7)Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a)Construction start date: 4/1/2020
b)Anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
See detailed construction schedule included as Appendix B.  The expected construction 
completion date is December 1, 2020. 
c)Additional phases planned? ☐ Yes  ☐ No
If yes, specify the start date and/or activities if known:
Start Date:  Click or tap to enter a date.
Planned Activity:
Click or tap here to enter text. 
Start Date:  Click or tap to enter a date. 
Planned Activity: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 
6 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Start Date: Click or tap to enter a date. 
Planned Activity: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 
d)Provide the planned date of occupancy for new buildings: 12/1/2020
CONTAMINATED MEDIA 
1)Contaminated Media on the Brownfields Property
Part 1. Soil:……………………………………….……………. ☒  Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Suspected  
Part 2. Groundwater:.……………………….……..……. ☒  Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Suspected  
Part 3. Surface Water:.……………...……..…………… ☐  Yes   ☒ No   ☐ Suspected  
Part 4. Sediment:.……………...……..…………………… ☐  Yes   ☒ No   ☐ Suspected  
Part 5. Soil Vapor:…..…………...……..…………………. ☐  Yes   ☐ No   ☒ Suspected  
Part 6. Sub‐Slab Soil Vapor:……...……..…………….. ☒  Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Suspected 
Part 7. Indoor Air:...……..…………………………………. ☒  Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Suspected 
2)For the Area of Proposed Redevelopment on the Brownfields Property, attach tabulated data
summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with sample locations.
PART 1. Soil – Please fill out the information below, using detailed site plans, if available, or estimate 
using known areas of contaminated soil and a conceptual redevelopment plan.  Provide a figure 
overlaying new construction onto figure showing contaminated soil and groundwater locations.
1)Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list general groups of contaminants):
Tabular summaries of soil analytical data results are included as Tables 1A through Table 1C.  The
soil sample locations are depicted on Figure 1.   
1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint Street: 
During Phase II ESA and Brownfields assessment activities, H&H collected soil samples at the Site 
in areas of potential concern including in the former machine shop, former paint booth, and in 
areas of visible staining.  As shown in Table 1B and Figure 1, no volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) or semi‐VOCs (SVOCs) were detected above PSRGs in soil.  Metals were detected at 
concentrations above background levels including arsenic, mercury, and lead.  Arsenic was 
detected in soil at concentrations up to 28.5 mg/kg in the southeastern portion of the Site.  In 
addition, mercury (up to 9.02 mg/kg) and lead (up to 704 mg/kg) were detected at elevated 
concentrations in the southern and southeastern portions of the Site (Figure 1). 
1525, 1529, and 1537 S. Mint Street: 
Soil samples were collected in areas of concern for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals.  Sample locations 

7 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
are shown in Figure 1 and the laboratory analytical results are summarized in Table 1C.  Soil 
sample SB‐1 was collected adjacent to an out of use UST located in the northern portion of the 
1525 S. Mint Street Site building (Figure 1) and was analyzed for VPH, EPH, and total petroleum 
hydrocarbons as gasoline range organics (TPH GRO) and as diesel range organics (TPH‐DRO).  
Analytical results indicated TPH‐GRO and TPH‐DRO exceed the DEQ UST Section Action Levels 
and risk‐based VPH/EPH aliphatic and aromatic fractions exceed the PSRGs.  Analytical results for 
soil samples SB‐1 and SB‐2 indicate that several VOC and/or SVOC concentrations exceed PSRGs 
in the area of the out of use UST and a floor drain in the 1525 S. Mint Street Site building (Figure 
1).  No other soil samples contained VOC or SVOC concentrations that exceed PSRGs.  The metals 
arsenic (up to 68.2 mg/kg) and mercury (up to 30.2 mg/kg) were detected at concentrations 
above background levels in the area of the floor drain, the UST and/or beneath the slab in the 
paint booth located in the 1525 S. Mint Street building.  No compounds were detected at levels 
above the PSRGs or background metals concentrations in soil samples collected on the 1529 and 
1537 S. Mint Street portions of the Brownfields property.  In addition, no obvious evidence of a 
release was observed in soil samples collected in other portions of the Brownfields property 
including soil samples collected adjacent to the potential in‐ground hydraulic lift systems located 
within the 1537 S. Mint Street building. 

2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet): 
Compounds detected at concentrations exceeding PSRGs and background levels for metals were 
generally detected in shallow soil at depths between approximately 0‐5 feet below ground 
surface (bgs).  Soil sample SB‐1 collected within the 1525 S. Mint Street building approximately 8‐
10 feet bgs at a depth corresponding to the base of an out of use UST.   

3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet): 
Approximately 20,000 square feet of soil will be disturbed to level areas proposed for new paved 
parking areas and access roads.  In addition, it is anticipated that small areas of soil will be 
disturbed as part of existing utility abandonment and new utility installation activities. 

4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet): 
Estimated excavation depths will be shallow (no greater than 5 ft bgs) as part of new utility 
installations during building renovations and shallow grading (no deeper than 2 ft bgs) for new 
paved parking areas and access drives.  

5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan): 
The proposed grading plan is included as Appendix A.  The grading plan indicates that the Site 
will be a net balance with no import soil or export soil needed to achieve final grade elevations.  

6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:             
Excavated soil will be predominantly in shallow soil.  Impacted soil in the southeastern portion of 
the Brownfields property that is disturbed during grading activities will be placed beneath 
impervious cover.  Impacted soil in the area of the out of use UST, floor drain, and beneath the 
paint booths in the 1525 S. Mint Street building is not expected to be disturbed during 

8 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
redevelopment activities. 

7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:   
Approximately 200 to 300 cubic yards of vegetation, organics, and topsoil expected to be 
generated during grading activities on the 404 Westwood Avenue parcel that may need to be 
disposed off‐Site.  Based on historical uses in this portion of the Brownfields property and results 
of previous assessment activities, discovery of significantly impacted soil is not expected.  Should 
excess soil be generated during grading at the Brownfields property, the soil will be managed in 
accordance with the export soil section below and includes soil sampling and disposal at an off‐
Site location based on soil sample analytical results.  

Part 1.A. MANAGING ONSITE SOIL 
If soil is anticipated to be excavated from the Brownfield Property, relocated on the Brownfields 
Property, or otherwise disturbed during site grading or other redevelopment activities, please 
provide a grading plan that clearly illustrates areas of cut and fill (approximate areas & volumes are 
acceptable, if only preliminary data available).   

1) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION:  
a) Does the soil contain a LISTED WASTE as defined in the North Carolina Hazardous 
Waste Section under 40 CFR Part 261.31‐261.35?....................................... ☐Yes   ☒No 
☐ If yes, explain why below, including the level of knowledge regarding processes 
generating the waste (include pertinent analytical results as needed). 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

☐ If yes, do the soils exceed the “Contained‐Out” levels in Attachment 1 of the 
North Carolina Contained‐In Policy?................................................. ☐ Yes   ☐ No 

b) NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND EXCEEDS 
THE CONTAINED‐OUT LEVELS IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE NORTH CAROLINA 
CONTAINED‐IN POLICY THE SOIL MAY NOT BE RE‐USED ON SITE AND MUST BE 
DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND 
REGULATIONS.     
c)  Does the soil contain a CHARACTERISTIC WASTE?.................................... ☐ Yes   ☒ No 
☐ If yes, mark reason(s) why below (and include pertinent analytical results). 
☐ Ignitability  Click or tap here to enter text.               
☐ Corrosivity Click or tap here to enter text. 
☐ Reactivity Click or tap here to enter text. 
☐ Toxicity Click or tap here to enter text. 
☐ TCLP results Click or tap here to enter text. 

9 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
☐ Rule of 20 results (20 times total analytical results for an individual 
hazardous constituent on TCLP list cannot, by test method, exceed regulatory 
TCLP standard)   
Click or tap here to enter text. 

☒ If no, explain rationale:  
Shallow soil samples collected under the slab of the 1525 S. Mint Street Site 
buildings contain concentrations of mercury and lead that exceed the Rule of 20.  
However, soil in these areas will remain in‐place beneath the building slab 
following redevelopment.  Soil in the southeastern portion of the Site contains 
concentrations of arsenic, mercury and lead that exceed the Rule of 20.  Soil in 
this area of the Site is not planned to be disturbed and will be beneath 
impervious cover upon completion of redevelopment.  

d) NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A CHARACTERISTIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE 
SOIL MAY NOT BE RE‐USED ON SITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS. 

2) Screening criteria by which soil disposition decisions will be made (e.g., left in place, capped in 
place with low permeability barrier, removed to onsite location and capped, removed offsite): 
      ☐ Preliminary Health‐Based Residential SRGs  
      ☒ Preliminary Health‐Based Industrial/Commercial SRGs  
           ☒ Division of Waste Management Risk Calculator (For Brownfields Properties Only) 
    ☐ Site‐specific risk‐based cleanup level. Please provide details of methods used for 
determination/explanation.  
Click or tap here to enter text. 

Additional comments:  
Click or tap here to enter text. 

3) If known impacted soil is proposed to be reused within the Brownfields Property Boundary, 
please check the measures that will be utilized to ensure safe placement and documentation of 
same.   Please attach a proposed location diagram/site map.        
☒ Provide documentation of analytical report(s) to Brownfields Project Manager 
☒ Provide documentation of final location, thickness and depth of relocated soil on site map 
to Brownfields Project Manager once known 
☒ Geotextile to mark depth of fill material.  
Provide description of material:  
Should impacts above the DEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial PSRGs be relocated on Site, the 
material will be covered with a high visibility demarcation geotextile fabric prior to 
placement of a cap or clean fill (see below for cap and clean fill details) 

10 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   

☒ Manage soil under impervious cap ☒  or clean fill ☒  
☒ Describe cap or fill:  
Documented impacted soil will be covered with impervious surface such as parking lot or 
building slab, or below a minimum of two feet of documented clean fill.   

☒ Confer with NC BF Project Manager if Brownfield Plat must be revised (or re‐recorded if 
actions are Post‐Recordation).         
☒ GPS the location and provide site map with final location. 
☐ Other. Please provide a description of the measure:  

4) Please describe the following action(s) to be taken during and following excavation and 
management of site soils: 
Management of fugitive dust from site 
☒ Yes, describe the method will include: 
Significant areas of contaminated soil are not expected to be encountered or disturbed 
during future Site redevelopment activities.  However, the grading contractor will take into 
account conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and moisture content of soil during 
soil grading and stockpiling activities to minimize dust generation.  Particular attention will 
be paid by contractors to implement dust control measures as needed based on Site and 
atmospheric conditions (i.e., by controlled water application, hydro‐seeding, and/or mulch, 
stone, or plastic cover). Potentially impacted soil will be managed as described below. 

☐ No, explain rationale: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

Field Screening of site soil 
☒ Yes, describe the field screening method, frequency of field screening, person conducting 
field screening:  
During soil disturbance at the Site, the workers or contractors will observe soils for 
evidence of potential significantly impacted soil.  Evidence of potential significantly 
impacted soil includes a distinct unnatural color, strong odor, or filled or previously 
disposed materials of concerns (i.e., chemicals, tanks, drums, etc.).  Should the above be 
noted during Site work, the contractor will contact the project environmental engineer to 
observe the suspect condition.  If the project environmental engineer confirms that the 
material may be impacted, then the procedures below will be implemented.  In addition, 
the environmental engineer will contact the DEQ Brownfields project manager within two 
business days to advise that person of the condition. 

☐ No, explain rationale:    
Click or tap here to enter text. 

Click or tap here to enter text. 

11 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Soil Sample Collection 
☒ Yes, describe the sampling method (e.g., in‐situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.):  
Although no obvious evidence of a release was observed based on results of previous 
assessment activities, soil samples will be collected adjacent to the potential in‐ground 
hydraulic lifts located within the 1537 S. Mint Street to evaluate the potential for impacts 
associated with a release of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) containing hydraulic oil.  
The soil samples will be collected during future in‐ground hydraulic lift abandonment 
activities and will include collection of one soil sample at each lift system at depths 
corresponding to the base of the hydraulic oil reservoirs.  Soil samples selected for 
laboratory analysis will be placed directly into laboratory supplied glassware, labeled with 
the sample identification, date, time, and requested analysis and submitted to a North 
Carolina certified laboratory under standard chain of custody protocols for analysis of 
PCBs by EMP Method 8082. 

☒ No, explain rationale:  
Aside from the soil samples associated with the in‐ground lifts described above, collection 
of additional soil samples is not anticipated based on results of previous Site assessment 
activities.  If significant soil impact is encountered during grading and/or installation or 
removal of utilities, excavation will proceed only as far as needed to allow grading and/or 
construction of the utility to continue and/or only as far as needed to allow alternate 
corrective measures described below.  Suspect significantly impacted soil excavated 
during grading and/or utility line installation or removal may be stockpiled and covered in 
a secure area to allow construction to progress.  Suspect impacted soil will be underlain 
by and covered with minimum 10‐mil plastic sheeting.  At least one representative sample 
of the soil will be collected at a ratio of 1 soil sample for every approximately 1,000 cubic 
yards of potentially impacted soil and submitted for analysis of total VOCs, SVOCs, and 
RCRA metals plus hexavalent chromium.  If the results of analysis of the soil sample 
indicate that the soil could potentially exceed toxicity characteristic hazardous waste 
criteria, then the soil will also be analyzed by TCLP for those compounds that could 
exceed the toxicity characteristic hazardous waste criteria.                                           
Impacted soil will be managed in the manner described below based upon the laboratory 
analyses:                                                                                                                                                   
i.       If no organic compounds are detected in a sample (other than which are 
attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts) and metals are below the lowest of the 
PSRGs (Protection of Groundwater or Residential) or are consistent with Site‐specific 
background levels, then the soil will be deemed suitable for use as on‐Site fill or as off‐Site 
fill.  The proposed location(s) for off‐Site placement of soil (other than a permitted 
facility) along with the receiving facility’s written approval for acceptance of the soil will 
be provided to DEQ for approval prior to transporting the soil off‐Site.                                      
ii.         If detectable levels of compounds are found which do not exceed the DEQ IHSB 
Industrial/Commercial PSRGs (other than which are attributable to sampling or laboratory 
artifacts or which are consistent with Site‐specific background levels for metals) and the 
TCLP concentrations are below hazardous waste criteria, then the soil may be used on‐

12 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Site as fill without conditions.                                                                                                              
iii.        If detectable levels of compounds are found which exceed the DEQ IHSB 
Industrial/Commercial PSRGs (other than which are attributable to sampling or laboratory 
artifacts or which are consistent with background levels for metals) and the TCLP 
concentrations are below hazardous waste criteria, then the soil, with DEQ written 
approval, may be used on‐Site as fill below an impervious surface, or at least 2 ft of 
compacted clean soil.  If the impacted soil with concentrations above 
Industrial/Commercial PSRGs is moved to an on‐Site location, its location and depth will 
be documented, and its location will be provided to DEQ.                                                             
iv.        Impacted soil may be transported to a permitted facility such as a landfill provided 
that the soil is accepted at the disposal facility.  If soil is transported to a permitted 
facility, the permitted facility’s written approval to dispose of soil from the Site will be 
included with the final redevelopment report.  In the unlikely event that the sample data 
indicates concentrations above TCLP hazardous waste criteria, then the soil must be 
transported off‐Site to a permitted disposal facility that can accept or treat hazardous 
waste.                                                                                                                                                   
*Please note that should the PD elect to transport export soil to a permitted facility or to 
a DEQ Brownfields pre‐approved receiving facility, soil will be direct loaded onto trucks 
for transport off‐Site. 

If soil samples are collected for analysis, please check the applicable chemical analytes: 
☒ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 
☒ Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 
☒ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, selenium 
and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s): 
EPA Methods 6020/7471

☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):  
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):  
Click or tap here to enter text.

☒ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium, 
Herbicides, etc.): Specify Analytical Method Number(s): 
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199

☒ Check to confirm that stockpiling of known or suspected impacted soils will be conducted 
in accordance with Figure 1 of this EMP.  Stockpile methodology should provide erosion 
control, prohibiting contact between surface water/precipitation and contaminated soil, 
and preventing contaminated runoff.  Explain any variances or provide additional details as 
needed: 
 Click or tap here to enter text. 

13 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   

☒ Final grade sampling of exposed native soil (i.e., soil that will not be under buildings or 
permanent hardscape). Select chemical analyses for final grade samples with check boxes 
below (Check all that apply): 
☒ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 
☒ Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 
☒ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, 
selenium and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s): 
EPA Methods 6020/7471

☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):    
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):  
Click or tap here to enter text.

☒ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent 
Chromium, Herbicides, etc.):  
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199

Please provide a scope of work for final grade sampling, including a diagram of soil 
sampling locations, number of samples to be collected, and brief sampling methodology.  
Samples should be collected from 0‐2 ft below ground surface, with the exception of VOCs 
which should be taken from 1‐2 ft below ground surface.  Alternatively, a work plan for 
final grade sampling may be submitted under separate cover. 
Following completion of soil disturbance for future Site development (i.e., after grading, 
utility installation, and installation of landscaping green space), an environmental 
professional will be contracted to assess the Site for areas that will not be covered upon 
completion of the redevelopment with a minimum of 2 ft of documented clean fill soil, 
building foundations, sidewalks, asphalt, or concrete parking areas and driveways, or other 
similar impervious areas (e.g., pavers).  If such areas exist, a Work Plan will be prepared for 
final grade soil sampling for DEQ Brownfields review and approval.  

Based on the current Site redevelopment plan, one final grade soil sample will be collected 
for laboratory analysis for each approximately 100 ft of linear landscape area or every 
approximately 1,000 sq ft of open area.  If no such areas exist, documentation will be 
provided to the DEQ Brownfields project manager 

☐ If final grade sampling was NOT selected please explain rationale: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

Part 1.B. IMPORTED FILL SOIL 

14 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
NO SOIL MAY BE BROUGHT ONTO THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL 
FROM THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM.  According to the Brownfields IR 15, “Documenting 
imported soil (by sampling, analysis, and reporting in accordance with review and written 
approval in advance by the Brownfields Program), will safeguard the liability protections provided 
by the brownfields agreement and is in the best interest of the prospective developer/property 
owner.” 

Requirements for importing fill: 

1) Will fill soil be imported to the site?................................................ ☐ Yes  ☒ No  ☐ Unknown 

2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported?  
Not applicable 

3) If yes, what is the anticipated depth that fill soil will be placed at the property? (If a range 
of depths, please list the range.) 
Not applicable 

4) Provide the source of fill, including: location, site history, nearby environmental concerns, 
etc. Attach aerial photos, maps, historic Sanborn maps and a borrow source site history: 
A large amount of soil disturbance is not expected to occur during redevelopment activities and 
soil moved during grading or levelling activities will be re‐used on Site.  If import soil is needed to 
achieve final grade elevations, upon determination of the borrow source, DEQ will be notified and 
the procedures outlined below will be implemented. 

5) PRIOR TO ITS PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, provide a plan to analyze fill 
soil to demonstrate that it meets acceptable standards applicable to the site and can be 
approved for use at the Brownfields property. 
The PD plans to import limited amounts of organic rich topsoil from a commercial landscape 
material vendor for use in proposed landscaped areas.  The PD does not plan to collect samples 
of landscaping materials obtained from commercial landscape material vendors prior to 
placement at the Site. 

6) Please check the applicable chemical analytes for fill soil samples.  (Check all that apply): 
☒ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 
☒ Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 
☒ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, 
selenium and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s): 
EPA Methods 6020/7471

☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):    
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):  
Click or tap here to enter text.

15 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
☒ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent 
Chromium, Herbicides, etc.):  
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199

7) The scope of work for import fill sampling may be provided below or in a Work Plan 
submitted separately for DEQ review and approval.  Attach specific location maps for in‐situ 
borrow sites.  If using a quarry, provide information on the type of material to be brought 
onto the Brownfields Property. 
If import soil becomes necessary during redevelopment of the Site, the PD will follow the 
procedures outlined below to demonstrate import soil meets acceptable standards applicable to 
the Site. 

If the PD plans to import virgin fill material from Vulcan Materials Company quarry located near 
Pineville, NC or from the Martin Marietta quarry located on Beatties Ford Road in Charlotte, NC, 
no samples of the import material will be collected as adequate analytical data is available in the 
DEQ Brownfields database to demonstrate material from these facilities is suitable for use as 
structural fill at a Brownfields property. 

If fill soil is obtained from an off‐Site property that is not a known permitted quarry or is recycled 
material from the Vulcan Materials Company quarry or the Martin Marietta quarry, a sampling 
plan will be developed and submitted for DEQ review.  DEQ approval of the sampling plan and 
analytical results will be obtained prior to transporting import soil to the Site.   

The specific sampling rate will be outlined in the aforementioned sampling plan.  However, if the 
proposed borrow source has not been previously developed (i.e., virgin land), soil samples will be 
collected for laboratory analyses indicated above at a general rate of one per 1,000 cubic yards.  If 
the borrow source property has been previously developed, soil samples will be collected for 
laboratory analyses indicated above at a general rate of approximately one per 500 cubic yards.   

Fill soil will be considered suitable for use at the Site if it does not contain compound 
concentrations above DEQ IHSB Residential PSRGs, DWM Risk Calculator risk thresholds, or typical 
metals concentrations which are consistent with background levels identified at the Site  

Part 1.C. EXPORTED SOIL 

NO SOIL MAY LEAVE THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE 
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM.  FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL MAY VIOLATE A BROWNFIELDS 
AGREEMENT CAUSING A REOPENER OR JEOPARDIZING ELIGIBILITY IN THE PROGRAM, 
ENDANGERING LIABILITY PROTECTIONS AND MAKING SAID ACTION POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO 
ENFORCEMENT.  JUSTIFICATIONS PROVIDED BELOW MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROGRAM IN 
WRITING PRIOR TO COMPLETING TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES.  Please refer to Brownfields IR 15 for 
additional details.  

16 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
1) If export from a Brownfields Property is anticipated, please provide details regarding the 
proposed export actions.  Volume of exported soil, depths, location from which soil will 
be excavated on site, related sampling results, etc. Provide a site map with locations of 
export and sampling results included. 
Minimal soil disturbance will occur as part of grading and leveling activities, however at this time 
the majority of the soil is expected to be re‐used on Site.  As noted above, approximately 200 to 
300 cubic yards of vegetation, organics, and topsoil is expected to be generated during grading in 
the 404 Westwood Avenue portion of the Brownfields property and may need to be disposed 
off‐Site.  Based on historical uses in this portion of the Brownfields property and results of 
previous assessment activities, discovery of significantly impacted soil is not expected.  Should 
excess soil be generated at the Site that cannot be re‐used and will be exported, Prior to 
transporting the soil off‐Site, a sampling plan will be developed and submitted to DEQ 
Brownfields for review and approval.  Generally, soil samples will be collected from export soil at 
a rate of 1 sample per every 1,000 cubic yards of export.   

DEQ approval of the sampling plan and analytical results will be obtained prior to transporting 
export soil from the Site.  Based on analytical results of soil samples collected from the export 
soil, the soil will be transported off‐Site to a suitable location.  The PD will notify DEQ 
Brownfields of the location receiving the export soil.  If not a permitted facility, DEQ Brownfields 
approval and written approval from the receiving facility will be obtained prior to transporting 
the soil off‐Site 

2) To what type of facility will the export Brownfields soil be sent?  
☒ Subtitle D/Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (analytical program to be determined by 
landfill) 
☒ Permitted but Unlined Landfill (i.e. LCID, C&D, etc.) Analytical program to be 
determined by the accepting Landfill;  
☒ Landfarm or other treatment facility  
☒ Use as fill at another suitable Brownfields Property – determination that a 
site is suitable will require, at a minimum, that similar concentrations of the same or 
similar contaminants already exist at both sites, use of impacted soil will not increase 
the potential for risk to human health and the environment at the receiving Brownfields 
property, and that a record of the acceptance of such soil from the property owner of 
the receiving site is provided to Brownfields.  Please provide additional details below.  
☒ Use as Beneficial Fill off‐site at a non‐Brownfields Property ‐ Please provide 
documentation of approval from the property owner for receipt of fill material.  This will 
also require approval by the DEQ Solid Waste Section.  Additional information is 
provided in IR 15.  Please provide additional details below.  

3) Additional Details: (if transfer of soil to another property is requested above, please provide 
details related to the proposed plans). 
The environmental engineer will contact DEQ Brownfields to obtain DEQ Brownfields and DEQ 
Solid Waste approval prior to exporting soil to a non‐Brownfields property or non‐permitted 

17 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
disposal facility. 

Part 1.D. MANAGEMENT OF UTILITY TRENCHES 

☒ Install liner between native impacted soils and base of utility trench before filling with clean fill 
(Preferred) 

☒ Last out, first in principle for impacted soils (if soil can safely be reused onsite and is not a 
hazardous waste), i.e., impacted soils are placed back at approximately the depths they 
were removed from such that impacted soil is not placed at a greater depth than the original 
depth from which it was excavated. 

☐ Evaluate whether necessary to install barriers in conduits to prevent soil vapor transport, 
and/or degradation of conduit materials due to direct impact with contaminants? 
☐ If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

☒ If no, include rationale here: 
A vapor intrusion mitigation system will be installed within the 1513, 1515, and 1525 S. Mint 
Street buildings.  The vapor mitigation system will be installed above the utility trenches and will 
mitigate potential soil vapor transport from the utility conduits. 

Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches:  
The contractor and workers will observe soil for potential impacts during removal of existing utilities 
and new utility installation activities.  Evidence of potential significant impacted soil includes a distinct 
unnatural color, strong odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of concerns (i.e. chemicals, 
tanks, drums, etc.).  Should the above be noted during utility work, the contractor will contact the 
project environmental engineer to observe the suspect condition.  If the project environmental 
engineer confirms that the material may be impacted, then the procedures outlined Managing On‐
Site Soil above will be implemented.  In addition, the environmental engineer will contact the DEQ 
Brownfields project manager within two business days to advise that person of the condition. 

In the event potentially impacted soil is discovered during existing utility removal activities or 
installation of new utilities during redevelopment, appropriate safety screening will be performed to 
protect workers.  Safety screening activities include monitoring the worker breathing zone with a 
calibrated photoionization detector or similar instrument.  If safety screening results indicate further 
action is warranted, the work zone will be evacuated until appropriate engineering controls (such as 
use of industrial fans) are implemented. 

PART 2. GROUNDWATER – Please fill out the information below. 

18 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
1) What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property? 
During Brownfields assessment activities and Phase II ESA sampling activities conducted at the 
Site in December 2018 and July 2019, respectively, the potentiometric groundwater surface was 
measured at depths ranging from approximately 5‐15 ft bgs. 

2) Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ☐onsite  ☐offsite   ☒both or ☒unknown 
sources?  Describe source(s):  
A tabular summary of groundwater analytical results is included as Table 2A and Table 2B.  The 
locations of the temporary monitoring wells installed on Site are depicted in Figure 2.  

1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint Street: 
During groundwater sampling completed in December 2018, TCE was detected in upgradient 
temporary monitoring well TMW‐3 at a concentration of 6.6 µg/L, which exceeds the NC 2L 
Standard as well as the Residential and Non‐Residential Groundwater Vapor Intrusion Screening 
Levels.  No VOCs, SVOCs or metals were detected above the respective screening levels in any of 
the other temporary groundwater monitoring wells. 

1525, 1529, and 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 Westwood Ave: 
During Phase II ESA sampling activities completed in July 2019, 1,2‐Dichloroethane was detected 
above the NC 2L Standard in temporary monitoring well TMW‐4, which was located 
downgradient of the 1537 S. Mint Street building.  No other VOCs, SVOCs, or metals were 
detected above NC 2L Standards during the Phase II ESA groundwater sampling activities. 

3) What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property?  
Results of groundwater assessment activities indicate groundwater flow is generally to the 
southwest.  

4) Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities?    
☐Yes    ☒No  
If yes, describe these activities: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

Regardless of the answer; in the event that contaminated groundwater is encountered 
during redevelopment activities (even if no is checked above), list activities for contingent 
management of groundwater (e.g., dewatering of groundwater from excavations or 
foundations, containerizing, offsite disposal, discharge to sanitary sewer, NPDES permit, or 
sampling procedures).  
Although not anticipated at this time, appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken if 
groundwater gathers in an open excavation within an area determined to be impacted during 
construction activities.  The accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate to the 
extent that sufficient time for dissipation does not disrupt the construction schedule.  Should 
the time needed for natural dissipation of accumulated water be deemed inadequate, the 
water will be tested and disposed off‐Site (if impacted), or tested and discharged to the storm 
sewer (if not impacted above DEQ surface water standards) in accordance with applicable 
municipal and state regulations for erosion control and construction stormwater control. 

19 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
5) Are monitoring wells currently present on the Brownfields Property?.................☐Yes   ☒No    
If yes, are any monitoring wells routinely monitored through DEQ or other 
agencies?..................................................................................................................☐Yes   ☐No  

6) Please check methods to be utilized in the management of known and previously 
unidentified wells.   
☒ Abandonment of site monitoring wells in accordance with all applicable regulations.  It 
is the Brownfields Program’s intent to allow proper abandonment of well(s) as 
specified in the Brownfields Agreement, except if required for active monitoring 
through another section of DEQ or the EPA.   
☐ Location of existing monitoring wells marked 
☐ Existing monitoring wells protected from disturbance  
☒ Newly identified monitoring wells will be marked and protected from further 
disturbance until notification to DEQ Brownfields can be made and approval for 
abandonment is given. 

7) Please provide additional details as needed:   

Please note, disturbance of existing site monitoring wells without approval by DEQ is not 
permissible.  If monitoring wells are damaged and/or destroyed, DEQ may require that the PD 
be responsible for replacement of the well.   

PART 3. SURFACE WATER ‐Please fill out the information below. 
1) Is surface water present at the property?  ☐ Yes ☒ No 
2) Attach a map showing the location of surface water at the Brownfields Property. 
3) Is surface water at the property known to be contaminated? ☐ Yes  ☒ No 
4) Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment 
activities?    ☐ Yes  ☒ No 
5) In the event that contaminated surface water is encountered during redevelopment 
activities, or clean surface water enters open excavations, list activities for management of 
such events (e.g. flooding, contaminated surface water run‐off, stormwater impacts): 
If surface water run‐off gathers in an open excavation within an area determined to be impacted 
during construction activities, appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken.  The 
accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate to the extent that sufficient time for 
dissipation does not disrupt the construction schedule.  Should the time needed for natural 
dissipation of accumulated water be deemed inadequate, the water will be tested and disposed 
off‐Site (if impacted), or tested and discharged to the storm sewer (if not impacted above DEQ 
surface water standards) in accordance with applicable municipal and State regulations for 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

20 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
erosion control and construction stormwater control. 

PART 4. SEDIMENT – Please fill out the information below. 

1) Are sediment sources present on the property?  ☐ Yes  ☒ No 

2) If yes, is sediment at the property known to be contaminated: ☐ Yes  ☒ No 

3) Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment 
activities?   ☐ Yes ☒ No 

4) Attach a map showing location of known contaminated sediment at the property. 

5) In the event that contaminated sediment is encountered during redevelopment activities, list 
activities for management of such events (stream bed disturbance): 
Not applicable 

PART 5.  SOIL VAPOR – Please fill out the information below. 

1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the 
following vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) in the following media: 
IHSB Residential Screening Levels: 
Soil Vapor:………..☒ Yes ☐ No  ☐ Unknown 
Groundwater:.….☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown 
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Screening Levels: 
Soil Vapor:………..☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown 
Groundwater:…..☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown 
2) Attach a map showing the locations of soil vapor contaminants that exceed site 
screening levels.  
3) If applicable, at what depth(s) is soil vapor known to be contaminated?  

4) Will workers encounter contaminated soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities? 
  ☒ Yes  ☐ No ☐ Unknown 
5) In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities 
(trenches, manways, basements or other subsurface work,) list activities for management 
of such contact:  
Sub‐slab soil vapor is impacted beneath the slabs of the 1513, 1515, and 1525 S. Mint Street buildings 
as discussed in Part 6 below.  

21 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
Appropriate safety screening will be performed to protect workers during redevelopment 
activities.  Safety screening activities include monitoring the worker breathing zone with a 
calibrated photoionization detector or similar instrument.  If safety screening results indicate 
further action is warranted, the work zone will be evacuated until appropriate engineering 
controls (such as use of industrial fans) are implemented. 

PART 6.  SUB‐SLAB SOIL VAPOR – Please fill out the information below if existing buildings or 
foundations will be retained in the redevelopment. 
1) Are sub‐slab soil vapor data available for the Brownfields Property? ☒ Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Unknown 
2) If data indicate that sub‐slab soil vapor concentrations exceed screening levels, attach a map 
showing the location of these exceedances. 
3) At what depth(s) is sub‐slab soil vapor known to be contaminated? ☒0‐6 inches ☐Other, please 
describe:   
A tabular summary of sub‐slab soil vapor analytical data is included as Table 3A and Table 3B.  
The sub‐slab soil vapor sample locations are shown in Figure 3.   

1513 and 1515 S. Mint Street: 
H&H collected four sub‐slab soil vapor samples in January 2018.  VOCs including chloroform 
(SSV‐1 and SSV‐2), naphthalene (SSV‐3), and tetrachloroethylene or PCE (SSV‐4) were detected at 
concentrations exceeding the DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion Residential Sub‐slab and Exterior Soil 
Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) in at least one sub‐slab soil vapor sample collected.  
Trichloroethylene or TCE was detected exceeding the Residential SGSL in each sub‐slab soil vapor 
sample collected.  TCE concentrations detected in the SSV‐1 and SSV‐2 samples also exceeded 
the Non‐Residential SGSL.  No other VOCs detected at concentrations exceeding the Residential 
or Non‐Residential SGSLs in the sub slab soil vapor samples.  

Gainey Property (1525, 1529, and 1537 S. Mint Street) 
H&H collected six sub‐slab soil vapor samples in July 2019.  No VOCs were detected at 
concentrations exceeding the Residential or Non‐Residential SGSLs, with the exception of 
concentrations detected in SSV‐1.  Sub‐slab soil vapor sample SSV‐1 was collected in the 1525 S. 
Mint Street building.  Concentrations of the petroleum related compounds benzene (338 µg/m3), 
1,2,4‐trimethylbenzene (3,020 µg/m3), and 1,3,5‐trimethylbenzene (1,820 µg/m3) exceeded the 
Residential SGSLs.  Naphthalene was detected at a concentration of 390 µg/m3 which exceeds the 
Residential and Non‐Residential SGSLs.   

4) Will workers encounter contaminated sub‐slab soil vapor during planned redevelopment 
activities? ☒ Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Unknown 
5) In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities, list 

22 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
activities for management of such contact 
Appropriate safety screening will be performed to protect workers during redevelopment 
activities.  Safety screening activities include monitoring the worker breathing zone with a 
calibrated photoionization detector or similar instrument.  If safety screening results indicate 
further action is warranted, the work zone will be evacuated until appropriate engineering 
controls (such as use of industrial fans) are implemented.  The contractor will complete slab 
removal activities in the 1513, 1515, and 1525 S. Mint Street after window removal and other 
renovation activities have been completed to increase ventilation.  H&H will monitor the 
breathing zone and assist in the implementation of engineering controls as necessary during slab 
removal activities proposed in the 1513, 1515, and 1525 S. Mint Street buildings. 

PART 7. INDOOR AIR – Please fill out the information below. 

1) Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ☒ Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Unknown 
2) Attach a map showing the location(s) where indoor air contaminants exceed site screening levels. 
3) If the structures where indoor air has been documented to exceed risk‐based screening levels will 
not be demolished as part of redevelopment activities, will workers encounter contaminated 
indoor air during planned redevelopment activities? ☒ Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Unknown 
4) In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list 
activities for management of such contact: 

 A tabular summary of indoor air analytical results is included in Table 4 and the indoor air sample 
locations are depicted on Figure 3.   

Indoor air samples were collected within the 1513 and 1515 S Mint Street buildings in December 
2018.  Multiple VOCs were detected above the laboratory method detection limits in each indoor air 
sample.  TCE was detected above the DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion Residential Indoor Air Screening 
Level (IASL) in each sample, and above the Non‐Residential IASL in samples IAS‐1, IAS‐2/DUP‐1, and 
IAS‐3.  Other constituents including benzene, chloroform, heptane, naphthalene, and toluene were 
detected at concentrations exceeding the Residential IASL in at least one sample.  Heptane was 
detected exceeding the Non‐Residential IASL in IAS‐4 at a concentration of 500 µg/m3.  No other VOCs 
were detected at concentrations exceeding the Residential or Non‐Residential IASLs.  

Appropriate safety screening will be performed to protect workers during redevelopment activities.  
Safety screening activities include monitoring the worker breathing zone with a calibrated 
photoionization detector or similar instrument.  If safety screening results indicate further action is 
warranted, the work zone will be evacuated until appropriate engineering controls (such as use of 
industrial fans) are implemented. 

23 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   

VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM – Please fill out the information below. 
Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) proposed for this Brownfields Property? 
☒ Yes   ☐ No   ☐ Unknown 
If yes, ☐ VIMS Plan Attached or ☒ VIMS Plan to be submitted separately   
If submitted separately provide date:  
A VIMS plan will be submitted under separate cover for the 1513, 1515, and 1525 S. Mint Street 
buildings. 

VIMS Plan shall be signed and sealed by a NC Professional Engineer 

If no, please provide a brief rationale as to why no vapor mitigation plan is warranted:  
Click or tap here to enter text. 

CONTINGENCY PLAN – encountering unknown tanks, drums, or other waste materials 

In this section please provide actions that will be taken to identify or manage unknown 
potential new sources of contamination.   During redevelopment activities, it is not uncommon 
that unknown tanks, drums, fuel lines, landfills, or other waste materials are encountered.  
Notification to DEQ Brownfields Project Manager, UST Section, Fire Department, and/or other 
officials, as necessary and appropriate, is required when new potential source(s) of 
contamination are discovered.  These Notification Requirements were outlined on Page 1 of this 
EMP.   

Should potentially impacted materials be identified that are inconsistent with known site 
impacts, the DEQ Brownfields Project Manager will be notified and a sampling plan will be 
prepared based on the EMP requirements and site‐specific factors.  Samples will generally be 
collected to document the location of the potential impacts.   

Check the following chemical analysis that are to be conducted on newly identified releases: 
☒ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 
☒ Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 
☒ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, selenium and 
silver) 
EPA Methods 6020/7471 

☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):  
Click or tap here to enter text. 

☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):  
Click or tap here to enter text. 

24 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   

☒ Other Constituents & Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium, Herbicides, etc.) 
Please note, if field observations indicate the need for additional analyses, they should 
be conducted, even if not listed here.  
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199 

Please provide details on the proposed methods of managing the following commonly 
encountered issues during redevelopment of Brownfields Properties. 
During construction activities, contractors may encounter unknown sub‐surface environmental 
conditions (i.e., tanks, drums, waste materials, etc.) that if encountered, will require proper 
management.  Prior to beginning Site work, H&H will attend a pre‐construction kick‐off meeting 
with the PD and the redevelopment contractors to discuss the DEQ approved EMP and various 
scenarios when it would be appropriate and necessary to notify H&H of the discovery of unknown 
subsurface features or potentially impacted media at the Site. 

In the event that such conditions are encountered during Site development activities, the 
environmental actions noted below will be used to direct environmental actions to be taken during 
these activities and sampling data for potentially impacted soil and the disposition of impacted soil 
will be provided to DEQ when the data becomes available. 

Underground Storage Tanks:  
An out of use heating oil UST is located beneath the slab of the 1525 S. Mint Street building that 
may be accessible following removal of the concrete building slab.  If structural integrity of the Site 
building will not be compromised, the UST will be emptied of fluids and removed for off‐Site 
disposal at a suitable facility.  If there is a potential for removal of the UST to compromise the 
structural integrity of the Site building, it will be abandoned in‐place.  Potentially impacted soil 
discovered in the vicinity of the UST will be managed in accordance with the Managing On‐Site Soil 
section outlined above.  

Three underground lifts are located in the southeastern portion of the 1537 S. Mint Street 
warehouse which will be closed in place during redevelopment.   

In the event an unknown UST or impacts associated with a UST release are discovered at the Site 
during redevelopment activities, the UST and/or UST related impacts will be addressed through the 
Brownfields Program.  DEQ Brownfields will be notified within 48‐hours of discovery of the UST. 

If an unknown UST is encountered, the UST will be removed, if possible and the UST will be 
transported off‐Site for disposal at a suitable facility.  If the UST contains residual fluids, the fluids 
will be sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals as needed for disposal purposes, and 
transported off‐Site for disposal at a suitable facility prior to removing the UST from the ground.  If a 
UST is encountered that cannot be removed or does not require removal for geotechnical or 
construction purposes, it may be abandoned in‐place with prior DEQ approval and construction will 
proceed.  Where appropriate, the bottom may be penetrated before abandonment to prevent fluid 

25 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
accumulation.  Impacted soil in the vicinity of the UST will be managed in accordance with the 
Managing On‐Site Soil section outlined in this EMP. 

Sub‐Grade Feature/Pit: 
If a sub‐grade feature or pit is encountered and does not require removal for geotechnical or 
construction purposes, it will be filled with soil or suitable fill and construction will proceed.  Where 
appropriate, the bottom may be penetrated before back filling to prevent fluid accumulation.  If the 
pit has waste in it, the waste may be set aside in a secure area and will be sampled for waste 
disposal purposes for TCLP VOCs, TCLP SVOCs, and TCLP metals and disposed off‐Site at a permitted 
facility or the waste will be managed in accordance with the Managing On‐Site Soil section outlined 
above in the EMP, whichever is most applicable based on the type of waste present.  If the pit must 
be removed and the observed waste characteristics indicate the concrete may potentially be 
contaminated to a significant degree, the concrete will be sampled and analyzed by methods 
specified by the disposal facility. 

Buried Waste Material: 
If excavation into buried wastes or significantly impacted soils occurs, the contractor is instructed to 
stop work in that location and notify the project environmental engineer.  The environmental 
engineer will observe the suspect materials and collect samples for laboratory analysis, if 
warranted.  Confirmation sampling will be conducted at representative locations in the base and the 
sidewalls of the excavation after the waste or significantly impacted soil is removed.  The 
confirmation samples will be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals (or other analyses as 
appropriate based on the type of waste material).  Areas of suspected contaminated soil that 
remain at the Site after excavation is complete above the DEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial PSRGs 
will be managed pursuant to this plan. 

Re‐Use of Impacted Soils On‐Site: 
Please refer to description outlined in the Managing On‐Site Soil section of the EMP above. 

If unknown, impacted soil is identified on‐site, management on‐site can be considered after the 
project team provides the necessary information, outlined in Part 1.A. Item 11, for Brownfields 
Project Manager approval prior to final placement on‐site.  

If other potential contingency plans are pertinent, please provide other details or scenarios as 
needed below: 
Click or tap here to enter text. 

POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING 

☒  Check this box to acknowledge that a Redevelopment Summary Report will be required for the 
project.  If the project duration is longer than one year, an annual update is required and will be 

26 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   
due by January 31 of each year, or 30 days after each one‐year anniversary of the effective date of 
this EMP (as agreed upon with the Project Manager).  These reports will be required for as long as 
physical redevelopment of the Brownfields Property continues, except that the final 
Redevelopment Summary Report will be submitted within 90 days after completion of 
redevelopment.  Based on the estimated construction schedule, the first Redevelopment Summary 
Report is anticipated to be submitted on 1/31/2020  

The Redevelopment Summary Report shall include environment‐related activities since the last 
report, with a summary and drawings, that describes:  
1. actions taken on the Brownfields Property;   
2. soil grading and cut and fill actions;  
3. methodology(ies) employed for field screening, sampling and laboratory analysis of 
environmental media;  
4. stockpiling, containerizing, decontaminating, treating, handling, laboratory analysis and 
ultimate disposition of any soil, groundwater or other materials suspected or confirmed 
to be contaminated with regulated substances; and  
5. removal of any contaminated soil, water or other contaminated materials (for example, 
concrete, demolition debris) from the Brownfields Property (copies of all legally required 
manifests shall be included). 

☒ Check box to acknowledge consent to provide a NC licensed P.G. or P.E. sealed, Redevelopment 
Summary Report in compliance with the site’s Brownfields Agreement. 

28 
EMP Version 2, June 2018   

Tables
Table 1ASummary of Soil Analytical ResultsJanuary 2018 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AveCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-0041513, 1515, & 1521 S. Mint StreetSample IDSB-1Date1/26/2018Sample LocationArea of Observed StainingDepth (ft bgs)0 - 0.5UnitsVOCs (8260B)All BRL------SVOCs (8270D) Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate8.61439160Di-n-butylphthalate0.17 J351,30016,000Pyrene0.089 J4403604,500Notes1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) (October 2017).Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds-- = not applicable; BRL = below laboratory reporting limitsJ = compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in an estimated concentration.ft bgs= feet below ground surfacemg/kgResidential PSRGs (1) Industrial PSRGs (1)Protection of Groundwater (1) S:\AAA‐Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\Oil Stained Soil Sample10/15/2019Table 1A (Page 1 of 1)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 1B Summary of Soil Analytical ResultsDecember 2018 Brownfields AssessmentQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample LocationNorthwest of Warehouse Former Machine Shop Sample IDSB-1 SB-2 Depth (ft bgs)3-4 4-5 2 Sample Date12/20/201812/20/201812/20/2018RangeRange Mean UnitsVOCs (8260)Acetone<0.00940.0136 JNA <0.0115 <0.011712,000 140,000--NA NA1,1-Dichloroethylene<0.0017<0.0018NA0.1270.06148210--NANAMethylene Chloride<0.0028<0.0030NA<0.0340.0038 J58650--NANA1,1,1-Trichloroethane<0.0017<0.0018NA0.07470.03711,7007,600--NANATrichloroethylene<0.0020<0.0021NA0.01280.00830.874.0--NANASVOCs (8270)ALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLALL BRL----------PCBs (8082)ALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLALL BRL----------Metals (6020/7471/7199)Arsenic1.592.381.380.9761.080.683.01.94 - 28.5 1.0 - 18 4.8Barium92.413417670.653.63,10047,000 133 - 159 50 - 1,000 356Cadmium<0.0980<0.1080.152 J<0.121<0.10114200 0.103 - 2.49 1.0 - 10 4.3Chromium (total)10167.944.170.781.9NENE59.7 - 174 7.0 - 300 65Hexavalent Chromium<0.3120.414 J<0.3071.761.530.316.5 0.331 - 0.837 NENETrivalent Chromium10167.544.169.080.423,000 350,000 59.4 - 173NENELead11.768.020.14.864.9640080012.2 - 296 BRL - 50 16Mercury1.748.480.06770.1030.07922.39.7 0.0541 - 0.615 0.03 - 0.52 0.121Selenium0.8231.050.482 J0.476 J0.496781,200 0.594 - 0.831 <0.1 - 0.8 0.42Silver<0.1900.403 J<0.187<0.235<0.196781,200 0.200 - 0.716 BRL - 5.0 NENotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) (May 2019).2) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005. Background Cd and Ag concentrations were taken from Southeastern and Conteminous US Soils.With the exception of metals, only compounds detected in at least one sample are shown.Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.Bold values indicate compounds detected above Residential PSRGs (and above site specific and regional background mean concentrations for metals)VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; PCBs = polychlorinated biphenylsNA = not analyzed; NE = not established; BRL = below reporting limit; ft bgs = feet belowground surface; -- = not applicableJ = compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in an estimated concentration1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint Street5-6Regional Background Metals In Soil2mg/kgResidential PSRGs(1) Industrial/ CommercialPSRGs(1)Site-Specific Background Metals in SoilFormer Paint BoothSB-3 / DUP-212/20/2018S:\AAA‐Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\Soil and Groundwater Tables ‐ am10/15/2019Table 1B (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 1B Summary of Soil Analytical ResultsDecember 2018 Brownfields AssessmentQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample LocationSoutheast of Warehouse Vicinity of Observed Staining Vicinity of Observed Staining Sample IDSB-4 SB-5 SB-6 BG-1 BG-2 Depth (ft bgs)3-5 2 2-3 3-5 2-3 Sample Date12/20/201812/20/201812/20/201812/20/201812/20/2018RangeRange Mean UnitsVOCs (8260)Acetone<0.0099 NA0.0652 JNA NA12,000 140,000--NA NA1,1-Dichloroethylene<0.0018NA<0.0018NANA48210--NANAMethylene Chloride<0.0030NA<0.0030NANA58650--NANA1,1,1-Trichloroethane<0.0018NA<0.0018NANA1,7007,600--NANATrichloroethylene0.0031 JNA0.0696NANA0.8704.0--NANASVOCs (8270)ALL BRLNAALL BRLNANA----------PCBs (8082)ALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLNANA----------Metals (6020/7471/7199)Arsenic1.582.3321.81.9428.50.683.01.94 - 28.5 1.0 - 18 4.8Barium71.91151961591333,10047,000 133 - 159 50 - 1,000 356Cadmium<0.09900.149 J6.84<0.1032.4914200 0.103 - 2.49 1.0 - 10 4.3Chromium (total)84.937.127559.4173NENE59.7 - 174 7.0 - 300 65Hexavalent Chromium0.445 J<0.3161.590.331 J0.837 J0.316.5 0.331 - 0.837 NENETrivalent Chromium84.537.1273.459.1172.223,000 350,000 59.4 - 173NENELead9.2270463312.229640080012.2 - 296 BRL - 50 16Mercury9.020.4570.4990.05410.6152.39.7 0.0541 - 0.615 0.03 - 0.52 0.121Selenium0.6920.7460.5970.8310.594781,200 0.594 - 0.831 <0.1 - 0.8 0.42Silver<0.192<0.1920.773<0.2000.716781,200 0.200 - 0.716 BRL - 5.0 NENotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) (May 2019).2) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005. Background Cd and Ag concentrations were taken from Southeastern and Conteminous US Soils.With the exception of metals, only compounds detected in at least one sample are shown.Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.Bold values indicate compounds detected above Residential PSRGs (and above site specific and regional background mean concentrations for metals)VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; PCBs = polychlorinated biphenylsNA = not analyzed; NE = not established; BRL = below reporting limit; ft bgs = feet belowground surface; -- = not applicableJ = compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in an estimated concentration1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint StreetRegional Background Metals In Soil2mg/kgResidential PSRGs(1) Industrial/ CommercialPSRGs(1)Site-Specific Background Metals in SoilBackgroundS:\AAA‐Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\Soil and Groundwater Tables ‐ am10/15/2019Table 1B (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 1CSummary of Soil Analytical ResultsJuly 2019 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample ID SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10Date Sample Collected 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019Sample LocationUST - 1525 S. Mint StreetCentral floor drain - 1525 S. Mint StreetSoutheastern floor drain - 1525 S. Mint StreetMechanical pit -1537 S. Mint StreetDepth (ft bgs)8-10 3-4 0-2 0-2 0-2 2-3 0-2 7-10 7-10 7-10Range MeanUnitsVOCs (8260D)Acetone<0.460.33<0.00850.021J 0.033J 0.024J<0.0092 NA NA NA12,000 140,000-- -- -- --Benzene<0.0740.0045J<0.0014 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 NA NA NA1.2 5.4-- -- -- --2-Butanone (MEK)<0.130.028J<0.0025 <0.0027 <0.0027 <0.0028 <0.0027 NA NA NA5,500 40,000-- -- -- --n-Butylbenzene 1.6<0.0018 <0.0015 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 NA NA NA780 12,000-- -- -- --sec-Butylbenzene 0.71<1.9 <0.0014 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 NA NA NA1,600 23,000-- -- -- --tert-Butylbenzene 0.14J<0.0020 <0.0017 <0.0018 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0018 NA NA NA1,600 23,000-- -- -- --Chlorobenzene<0.088145<0.00160.0022J<0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0017 NA NA NA58 280-- -- --1,2-Dichlorobenzene<0.088159<0.00160.0056<0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0017 NA NA NA380 2,000-- -- -- --1,3-Dichlorobenzene<0.0933.9J<0.0017 <0.0018 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0018 NA NA NANS NS-- -- -- --1,4-Dichlorobenzene<0.07923.6<0.0014 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 NA NA NA2.8 12-- -- -- --Ethylbenzene 1.1 2.9J<0.0015 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 NA NA NA6.1 27-- -- -- --Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 1.3 3.4J<0.0016 <0.0017 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0017 NA NA NA410 2,100-- -- -- --p-Isopropyltoluene (p-Cymene)<0.07918.3<0.0014 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 NA NA NANS NS-- -- -- --Naphthalene5.9 42.0<0.0010 <0.00110.0028J<0.0014 <0.0011 NA NA NA4.1 18-- -- -- --n-Propylbenzene 3.4<2.0 <0.0014 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 NA NA NA780 5,100-- -- --Toluene<0.0830.13<0.0015 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 NA NA NA990 9,700-- -- -- --1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene<0.0740.0075<0.0017 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 NA NA NA12 55-- -- -- --1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene<0.093127<0.00170.0025J<0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0018 NA NA NA63 370-- -- -- --1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene<0.08341.6<0.0015 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 NA NA NA56 320-- -- -- --m&p-Xylene<0.178.2J<0.0030 <0.0033 <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0033 NA NA NA240 1,040-- -- -- --SVOCs (8270E)1,2-Dichlorobenzene<0.08718.5<0.083 <0.091 <0.093 <0.090 <0.090 NA NA NA380 2,000-- -- -- --1,4-Dichlorobenzene<0.0892.8J<0.085 <0.093 <0.095 <0.091 <0.092 NA NA NA2.8 12-- -- -- --1-Methylnaphthalene0.20J4.8<0.10 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 NA NA NA18 73-- -- -- --2-Methylnaphthalene0.36J7.0<0.098 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 NA NA NA48 600-- -- -- --Naphthalene0.505.1<0.092 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 NA NA NA4.1 18-- -- -- --Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) (May 2019) or NC DEQ Underground Storage Tank (UST) Section Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration (MSCCs)2) North Carolina DEQ UST Section Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration Levels (MSCCs)3) North Carolina DEQ UST Section Action Levels (2019) 4) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005.5) Background values reported for soils of the southeastern United States.Compound concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Trivalent chromium calculated as total chromium minus hexavalent chromium.Aside from metals, only constituents detected in at least one sample are shown.Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Bold indicates concentration exceeds DEQ Action Level, DEQ Soil to Water MSCC, or DEQ IHSB Residential PSRG and are above the mean background metals in North Carolina soils for metals as preliminary comparison Underlined indicates concentration exceeds DEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial PSRGs and are above the mean background metals in North Carolina soils for metals as preliminary comparisonPSRGs are listed for comparison to VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. MSCCs are listed for comparison to EPH and VPH. DEQ action levels are listed for comparison to GRO and DRO.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; GRO = gasoline range organics; DRO = diesel range organics; ORO = oil range organicsft bgs= feet below ground surface; NA= Not Analyzed; -- = Not ApplicableJ indicates a detection above the laboratory method detection limit (MDL), but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentrationmg/kgPublished Background Metals Concentrations for North Carolina Soils (4)Paint booth - 1525 S. Mint Street In-ground hydraulic lifts - 1537 S. Mint StreetResidential PSRGs or MSCCs(1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs or MSCCs (1)DEQ Action Levels (3)Soil to Water Maximum Contaminent Concentration MSCCs (2)1525, 1529, & 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 Westwood AvenueS:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\LEH_Data Tables10/14/2019Table 1C (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 1CSummary of Soil Analytical ResultsJuly 2019 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample ID SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10Date Sample Collected 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019Sample LocationUST - 1525 S. Mint StreetCentral floor drain - 1525 S. Mint StreetSoutheastern floor drain - 1525 S. Mint StreetMechanical pit -1537 S. Mint StreetDepth (ft bgs)8-10 3-4 0-2 0-2 0-2 2-3 0-2 7-10 7-10 7-10Range MeanUnitsEPH (MADEP)Aliphatic (C9-C18)12.5NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1,500 40,000540-- -- --VPH (MADEP)Aliphatic (C5-C8)253NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA939 24,52868-- -- --Aliphatic (C9-C12)327NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA1,500 40,000540-- -- --Aromatic (C9-C10)126NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA469 12,26431-- -- --GRO (8015C)C6-C10799NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA---- --50-- --DRO (8015C)C10-C28106NA NA NA NA NA NA <3.2 <3.1 <3.5---- --100-- --ORO (8015C)C28-C40NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <9.4 <9.0 <9.8---- --NS-- --Metals (6020B/7471B/7199)Arsenic2.45 1.88 2.2968.22.26 3.73 3.93NA NA NA0.68 3.0-- --1.0 - 18 4.8Barium195 27.8 44.8 46.3 55.7 294 75.3NA NA NA3,100 47,000-- --50 - 1,000 356Cadmium0.280J 0.584J 0.316J 0.257J<1.07 <0.105 <0.104 NA NA NA14 200-- --1.0 - 10 (5)4.3 (5)Trivalent Chromium43.0 33.1 35.2 40.8 41.5 75.6 35.4NA NA NA23,000 350,000-- --7.0 - 300 65Hexavalent Chromium0.533J 0.372J<0.307 <0.3600.386J 0.451J 0.339JNA NA NA0.31 6.5-- --NS NSTotal Chromium43.5 33.5 35.2 40.8 41.9 76.1 35.7NA NA NA-- ---- -- -- --Lead12.3 21.5 25.6 24.6 14.7 20.1 22.0NA NA NA400 800-- --ND - 50 16Mercury10.530.24.090.207 0.768 0.4565.88NA NA NA2.3 9.7-- --0.03 - 0.52 0.12Selenium1.31 1.17 1.01 0.954 0.83 1.31 0.843NA NA NA78 1,200-- --<0.1 - 0.8 0.42Silver<0.6710.421J<0.187 <0.219 <0.208 <0.204 <0.201 NA NA NA78 1,200-- --ND - 5.0 (5)NSNotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) (May 2019) or NC DEQ Underground Storage Tank (UST) Section Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration (MSCCs)2) North Carolina DEQ UST Section Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration Levels (MSCCs)3) North Carolina DEQ UST Section Action Levels (2019) 4) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005.5) Background values reported for soils of the southeastern United States.Compound concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Trivalent chromium calculated as total chromium minus hexavalent chromium.Aside from metals, only constituents detected in at least one sample are shown.Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Bold indicates concentration exceeds DEQ Action Level, DEQ Soil to Water MSCC, or DEQ IHSB Residential PSRG and are above the mean background metals in North Carolina soils for metals as preliminary comparison Underlined indicates concentration exceeds DEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial PSRGs and are above the mean background metals in North Carolina soils for metals as preliminary comparisonPSRGs are listed for comparison to VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. MSCCs are listed for comparison to EPH and VPH. DEQ action levels are listed for comparison to GRO and DRO.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; GRO = gasoline range organics; DRO = diesel range organics; ORO = oil range organicsft bgs= feet below ground surface; NA= Not Analyzed; -- = Not ApplicablePublished Background Metals Concentrations for North Carolina Soils (4)Paint booth - 1525 S. Mint Street In-ground hydraulic lifts - 1537 S. Mint Streetmg/kgDEQ Action Levels (3)1525, 1529, & 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 Westwood AvenueResidential PSRGs or MSCCs(1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs or MSCCs (1)Soil to Water Maximum Contaminent Concentration MSCCs (2)S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\LEH_Data Tables10/14/2019Table 1C (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2ASummary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsDecember 2018 Brownfields AssessmentQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Woodward AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample IDTMW-1 TMW-2Date12/20/2018 12/20/2018Sample LocationNorthwest of WarehouseFormer Machine ShopUnitsVOCs (8260)Acetone 34.7 32.0<10.0 <10.06,000 4,500,000 19,000,000Benzene 0.65 J 0.60 J<0.25 <0.25116692-Butanone 4.8 J 4.7 J<0.96 <0.964,000 450,000 1,900,000Toluene 1.3 1.3<0.26 <0.26600 3,800 16,0001,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.62 J 0.60 J<0.48 <0.48200 1,500 6,200Trichloroethylene<0.47 <0.476.66.2314.4SVOCs (8270)Benzoic Acid<17.347.2 J<17.3 <17.330,000 -- --Phenol<2.74.2 J 2.7 J 6.2 J 30 -- -- Metals (6020/7471)Arsenic<0.2500.619 J 0.287 J 0.321 J 10 -- --Barium 37.7 58.2 70.4 71.0 700 -- --Cadmium<0.160 <0.160 <0.160 <0.1602-- --Chromium 0.794 J 4.19 1.99 J 3.42 10 -- --Lead 0.280 J 2.89 0.243 J<0.24015 -- --Mercury<0.04900.283<0.0490 <0.04901-- --Selenium 4.36 1.72 J 1.46 J 1.93 J 20 -- --Silver<0.310 <0.310 <0.310 <0.31020 -- --Notes:1) North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standards (NC 2L Standards) (April 2013).2) North Carolina Division of Waste Management (DWM) Groudwater Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) (February 2018)With the exception of metals, only constituents detected in at least one sample are shown.Concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (µg/L).Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.Bold values exceed NC 2L Standard (April 2013).Underline values exceed the DWM Residential Groundwater VISL (February 2018).Highlighted values exceed the DWM Non-Residential Groundwater VISL (February 2018).VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; -- = not applicableJ = compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in an estimated concentration1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint Streetµg/LDWM Non-Residential Groundwater VISL(2)NC 2L Groundwater Standards (1)DWM Residential Groundwater VISL(2)TMW-3 (DUP-1)12/20/2018Former Paint BoothS:\AAA‐Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\Soil and Groundwater Tables ‐ am10/15/2019Table 2A (Page 1 of 1)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2BSummary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsJuly 2019 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample ID TMW-1 TMW-2 TMW-3 TMW-4Date Sample Collected 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019 7/27/2019Location DescriptionUpgradient - 404 Westwood Ave.East of 1529 S. Mint StreetNorthwest of 1529 S. Mint StreetNorthwest of 1537 S. Mint StreetUnitsVOCs (8260D)1,2-Dichloroethane<0.34 <0.34 <0.340.55J0.4 22 981,1-Dichloroethylene0.80J<0.24 <0.24 <0.24350 39 160Toluene0.44J<0.24 <0.24 <0.24600 3,800 16,000SVOCs (8270E)All Below MDLAll Below MDLAll Below MDL All Below MDL-- -- --RCRA Metals (6020A-B, 7470A)Arsenic0.323JNA NA <0.25010-- --Barium30.7NA NA102 700-- --Cadmium0.404JNA NA <0.1602-- --Chromium2.58NA NA0.761J 10-- --Lead1.13JNA NA0.356J 15-- --Mercury<0.0490 NA NA <0.04901 0.18 0.75Selenium<0.380 NA NA <0.38020-- --Silver<0.310 NA NA <0.31020-- --Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 15A NCAC 02L.0202 Groundwater Standards (2L Standards) (April 2013)2) NC DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Residential Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Level (GWSLs) (February 2018)3) NC DEQ DWM Non-Residential Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Level (GWSLs) (February 2018)Compound concentrations reported in micrograms per liter (µg/L)Aside from metals, only constituents detected in at least one sample are shownCompound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limitsBold indicates concentration exceeds DEQ 2L StandardVOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compoundsNA = Not Analyzed; -- = Not ApplicableJ indicates a detection above the laboratory method detection limit (MDL), but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentrationµg/LNon-Residential GWSL(3)NC 2L Groundwater Standards (1) Residential GWSL(2)1525, 1529, & 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 Westwood AvenueS:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\LEH_Data Tables10/15/2019Table 2B (Page 1 of 1)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3ASummary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Analytical Results January 2018 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S.Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH.004AcetoneBenzene2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon DisulfideChlorobenzeneChloroform1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneDichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethylenecis-1,2-Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthanolEthylbenzene4-EthyltolueneHeptaneSSV-1 QPC finished product shipping 8 4 01/26/18600 7.8 56 J 56 J<5.8728.4 J<8.3 <7.5140<5.8260 550 330 6.3 J<6.4430SSV-2 Former die stamping room 6 2-3 01/26/18200<4.118 J<4.2 <5.848<7.2 <8.3 <7.5 <5.7 <5.88.4<6.0150<5.8 <6.4 <5.4SSV-3 Former machine shop 8 4 01/26/18340 4.7 44 J 60 4.4 J<3.6 <3.6 <4.2 <3.734<2.980 46 120<2.97.0 3.8 JSSV-4 QPC finishing room 8 3 01/26/18240 1.0 22 J<0.42 <0.58 <0.712.4 1.7 2.3<0.578.1<0.54 <0.60140 0.73 J<0.640.92220,000 120 35,000 4,900 350 41 NE 85 700 580 1,400 NE NE NE 370 NE 2,8002,700,000 1,600 440,000 61,000 4,400 530 NE 1,100 8,800 7,700 18,000 NE NE NE 4,900 NE 35,000Notes: 1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Residential and Non-Residential Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) dated October 2017Only compounds detected in at least one sample are shownBold indicates concentration exceeds Residential SGSLUnderline indicates concentration exceeds Non-Residential SGSLJ = Detected concentration is above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit. Therefore, the reported concentration is an estimated value.Z = compound fails the United States Environmental Protection Agency method requirement of 70-130% recovery, but passes the Con-Test Laboratory internal standard of 50-150%.µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NE = not established; in = inchesQPC = Quality Products Company, Inc., a metal stamping business that operated on the Site from approximately the 1950s until the 1980s1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint Street Residential Soil Gas Screening Level1 Non-Residential Soil Gas Screening Level1Sample IDSample LocationSampling Date Analytical MethodTO-15Sample Depth (in)Slab Thickness (in)µg/m³File: S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\SubSlab_SoilVapor_TableDate: 10/15/2019Table 3A (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3ASummary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Analytical ResultsJanuary 2018 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Woodward AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH.004Hexane2-Hexanone (MBK)Isopropanol4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)NaphthalenePropeneTetrachloroethylene (PCE)TetrahydrofuranToluene1,1,1-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethylene (TCE)Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneVinyl AcetateTotal XylenesSSV-1 QPC finished product shipping 8 4 01/26/18 320<4.9120 J<7.0 <9.176 J 50 17 22 1,5007,700<9.429 9.4 J<4.335SSV-2 QPC die stamping room 6 2-3 01/26/18<12 <4.945 J<7.0 <9.114 J 21 4.7 J 5.3 J 5412,000<9.4 <6.4 <6.7 <4.3<16.4SSV-3 QPC machine shop 8 4 01/26/18<6.2 <2.456 J<3.522 Z22 J<4.18.8 8.2 18160<4.773 34<2.117.8SSV-4 QPC finishing room 8 3 01/26/18<1.20.84 53 1.4 1.5 Z<1.12904.5 2.6 880381.2 J 3.6<0.671.6 J3.74,900 210 1,400 21,000 21 21,000 280 14,000 35,000 35,000 14 NE 420 420 1,40070061,000 2,600 18,000 260,000 260 260,000 3,500 180,000 440,000 440,000 180NE 5,300 5,300 18,000 8,800Notes: 1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Residential and Non-Residential Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) dated October 2017 Only compounds detected in at least one sample are shown Bold indicates concentration exceeds Residential SGSL Underline indicates concentration exceeds Non-Residential SGSL J = Detected concentration is above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit. Therefore, the reported concentration is an estimated value. Z = compound fails the United States Environmental Protection Agency method requirement of 70-130% recovery, but passes the Con-Test Laboratory internal standard of 50-150%. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NE = not established; in = inchesQPC = Quality Products Company, Inc., a metal stamping business that operated on the Site from approximately the 1950s until the 1980s 1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint StreetTO-15 Residential Soil Gas Screening Level1 Non-Residential Soil Gas Screening Level1µg/m³Sample IDSample LocationSample Depth (in)Slab Thickness (in)Sampling Date Analytical Method File: S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\SubSlab_SoilVapor_TableDate: 10/15/2019Table 3A (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3BSummary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Analytical Results July 2019 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample IDDate Sample CollectedSlab Thickness (in)Sample DateAnalytical MethodAcetoneBenzene2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon DisulfideChlorobenzeneChloromethaneCyclohexane1,3-DichlorobenzeneDichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)cis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthyl AcetateEthylbenzeneHeptaneHexane2-Hexanone (MBK)SSV-14.0 7/27/2019217338<21.312.9J<15.8 <9.0 <20.3 <33.5 <16.9 <12.6 <10.9 <17.6633 35.5J<42.9SSV-24.0 7/27/2019107<0.3211.5 1.1J<0.580.46J 6.1 3.6 2.2<0.46 <0.401.1J 1.3J 4.0 3.2JSSV-34.0 7/27/2019181 0.54J 10.7 12.2<0.561.9<0.712.4J 2.4<0.44 <0.380.66J<0.773.2 3.1JSSV-44.0 7/27/20191,020 26.0 129 15.0<2.1 <1.2 <2.76.5J 3.8J 4.1J<1.5 <2.4 <2.96.2 12.2JSSV-54.5 7/27/201977.9 0.33J 7.8 10.5 0.57J 0.78J<0.683.2 19.7<0.420.67J<0.591.6J 4.0 1.6JSSV-64.5 7/27/201946.9 0.31J 7.9 9.7<0.530.45J 1.2J 3.4 9.8<0.42 <0.37 <0.590.88J 3.6 2.0J220,000 120 35,000 4,900 350 630 42,000 NS 700 NS 490 370 2,800 4,900 2102,700,000 1,600 440,000 61,000 4,400 7,900 530,000 NS 8,800 NS 6,100 4,900 35,000 61,000 2,600Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Residential Sub-slab and Exterior Soil GasScreening Levels (SGSLs) (February 2018)2) North Carolina DWM Non-Residential SGSLs (February 2018)Only constituents detected in at least one sample are shownCompound concentrations and SGSLs are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limitsBold indicates concentration exceeds Residential SGSLBold and Underlined indicates concentration exceeds Non-Residential SGSLGray and underlined values are method detection limits that exceed Residential SGSL or both the Residential SGSL and Non-Residential SGSLJ indicates a detection above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration1525, 1529, & 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 Westwood AvenueDWM Non-Residential SGSL (2)TO-15DWM Residential SGSL (1)1525 S. Mint Street1529 S. Mint Street1537 S. Mint StreetS:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\LEH_Data Tables10/15/2019Table 3B (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3BSummary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Analytical ResultsJuly 2019 Phase II ESAQuality Products Co.S. Mint Street and Woodward AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH-004Sample IDDate Sample CollectedSlab Thickness (in)Sample DateAnalytical MethodMethylene Chloride4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)NaphthalenePropyleneTetrachloroethyleneTetrahydrofuranToluene1,1,1-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTrichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneVinyl Chloridem&p-Xyleneo-XyleneXylenes (total)SSV-14.0 7/27/201981.3<29.839015.5J<18.1 <15.068.2<17.8 <14.8<21.13,020 1,820<7.3273 216 489SSV-24.0 7/27/201919.2<1.1 <2.81.9 3.1<0.555.5<0.65 <0.541.3J 2.4 1.5J 0.28J 2.7J 1.0J 3.7JSSV-34.0 7/27/201917.9 2.3J 3.0J<0.2936.5<0.534.6<0.623.6 1.5J 1.7J 0.88J<0.252.5J 1.5J 4.0JSSV-44.0 7/27/201939.0 11.4J 12.9J 3.5 86.3 3.9J 9.8<2.42.3J<2.84.5J<3.1 <0.98 <5.4 <2.7 <8.1SSV-54.5 7/27/201926.0 1.7J<2.61.6 16<0.512.9 0.89J<0.501.4J 1.6J 0.79J 0.31J 2.1J 0.82J 2.9JSSV-64.5 7/27/201923.2 1.7J<2.67.4 11.2<0.513.8<0.600.82J 1.4J 1.9J 0.86J<0.242.1J 0.90J 3.0J4,200 21,000 21 21,000 280 14,000 35,000 35,000 14 NS 420 420 56 700 700 70053,000 260,000 260 260,000 3,500 180,000 440,000 440,000 180 NS 5,300 5,300 2,800 8,800 8,800 8,800Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Residential Sub-slab and Exterior Soil GasScreening Levels (SGSLs) (February 2018)2) North Carolina DWM Non-Residential SGSLs (February 2018)Only constituents detected in at least one sample are shownCompound concentrations and SGSLs are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limitsBold indicates concentration exceeds Residential SGSLBold and Underlined indicates concentration exceeds Non-Residential SGSLGray and underlined values are method detection limits that exceed Residential SGSL or both the Residential SGSL and Non-Residential SGSLJ indicates a detection above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentrationDWM Non-Residential SGSL (2)1525, 1529, & 1537 S. Mint Street and 404 Woodward Avenue1525 S. Mint StreetTO-151529 S. Mint Street1537 S. Mint StreetDWM Residential SGSL (1)S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\LEH_Data Tables10/15/2019Table 3B (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 4Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Results December 2018 Brownfields Assessment Quality Products Co.S.Mint Street and Westwood AvenueCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. LEH.004Sample IDIAS-1 IAS-3 IAS-4 BKG-1Sample LocationPirtek Lobby/ShowroomRCI Equipment/Storage AreaPirtek WorkshopWestern Property BoundarySampling Date 12/19/18 12/19/18 12/19/18 12/19/18UnitsVOCs (TO-15)Acetone1,900 290 290 350 4,100 296,500 27,000Benzene2.9 2.3 2.3 3.13.91.53.6 162-Butanone (MEK)<0.167.4 J 8.0 J 9.6 J 110 2.9 J1,000 4,400Carbon Disulfide0.72 J<0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.43 <0.075150 610Carbon Tetrachloride<0.0720.33 J 0.40 J 0.53 J<0.410.454.7 20Chloroform<0.0640.36 J 0.40 J 0.562.10.11 J1.2 5.3Chloromethane<0.0491.5 1.9 2.0 3.5 1.519 79Cyclohexane<0.0864.9 5.2 5.6 130 0.761,300 5,300Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)1.6 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.021 881,2-Dichloroethane<0.054 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.310.080 J1.1 4.7Ethanol170 39 40 46 93 12NE NEEthylbenzene3.3 3.6 3.7 4.6 5.1 0.6911 494-Ethyltoluene4.8 3.2 3.3 4.5 5.2 0.80NE NEHeptane22016 16 135002.883 350Hexane19 5.2 J 5.6 J 8.8 J 43 2.7 J150 610Isopropanol<0.114.1 J, L-03 4.4 J, L-03 5.5 J, L-03 4.5 J, L-03 4.3 L-0342 180Methylene Chloride38 2.2 J 3.0 J 8.8 1.3 J 13130 5304-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)4.3<0.20 <0.20 <0.202.9<0.069630 2,600Naphthalene2.51.001.2 1.5<0.800.250.63 2.6Styrene1.2 0.35 J 0.46 0.60<0.530.42210 880Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)1.8<0.38 <0.38 <0.381.2 J 0.358.3 35Tetrahydrofuran<0.0692.4 2.7 4.5<0.390.24420 1,800Toluene1,600130 130 1103,000311,000 4,400Trichloroethylene (TCE)4.415165.01.6<0.0760.42 1.8Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1.9 2.2 J 2.3 2.1 J 1.8 J 1.8NE NE1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113)0.68 J 0.48 J 0.48 J<0.46 <0.930.67 J1,000 4,4001,2,4-Trimethylbenzene6.8 3.9 4.1 5.5 6.8 0.8813 531,3,5-Trimethylbenzene1.7 0.99 1.1 1.4 1.6 0.2513 53m&p-Xylene12 14 14 20 19 2.321 88o-Xylene4.9 5.7 6.0 7.8 6.7 0.9321 88Notes: 1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Indoor Air Screening Levels (IASLs) dated Feburary 2018Only compounds detected in at least one sample are shownLaboratory analytical method shown in parentheses.Bold indicates concentration exceeds Residential IASLUnderline indicates concentration exceeds Non-Residential IASLJ = compound detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in an estimated concentration.L-03 = Laboratory fortified blank/laboratory control sample recovery is outside of control limits. Reported value for this compound is likely to be biased on the low side.µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NE = not established1513, 1515, and 1521 S. Mint Streetµg/m3IAS-2 (DUP-1 ) Residential IASL1 Non-Residential IASL1RCI Demolition Office Space12/19/18File: S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Tables\Indoor Air_Table - amDate: 10/15/2019Table 4 (Page 1 of 1)Hart & Hickman, PC

Figures
BG-1
BG-2
PIRTEK
SOUTHEND
SB-1RCI DEMOL
I
T
IONVACANT
SB-5
SB-6
SB-2
SB-4
SB-5
SB-3
SB-6
SB-8
SB-9
SB-10
SB-7
S. MI
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
WESTWOOD
A
VENUE
SB-4
SB-2
SB-1
SB-3
SB-1
REVISION NO. 0DATE: 10-22-19
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
JOB NO. LEH-004 FIGURE NO. 1
QUALITY PRODUCTS COMPANY
1513, 1515, 1521, 1525, 1529, AND 1537 S. MINT STREET
404 WESTWOOD AVENUE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SOIL CONCENTRATION MAP
NOTES:
1. AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG CO. GIS
(2019).
2. JANUARY 2018 PHASE II ESA SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTED BY
H&H ON JANUARY 26, 2018.
3. DECEMBER 2018 BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT SOIL
SAMPLES COLLECTED BY H&H ON DECEMBER 20, 2018.
4. JULY 2019 PHASE II ESA SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED BY H&H
ON JULY 27, 2019.
5. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN EXCEED THE RESIDENTIAL
PRELIMINARY SOIL REMEDIATION GOALS.
6.UNDERLINE INDICATES CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS THE
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL PSRG.
* = CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS NC DEQ ACTION LIMITS
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FORMER BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SOIL BORING LOCATION (JANUARY 2018)
SOIL BORING LOCATION (DECEMBER 2018)
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING/TEMPORARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
(DECEMBER 2018)
SOIL BORING LOCATION (JULY 2019)
CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
SB-1
NAPHTHALENE 5.9
C5-C8 ALIPHATICS 253
C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 212.5
C9-C22 AROMATICS 126
TPH-GRO* 799
TPH-DRO*106
MERCURY 10.5
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
SB-3
MERCURY 4.09
SB-7
MERCURY 5.88
SB-2
CHLOROBENZENE 145
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 23.6
NAPHTHALENE 42.0
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 127
MERCURY 10.5
SB-4
ARSENIC 68.2
SB-2
MERCURY 8.48
SB-5
LEAD 704
SB-4
MERCURY 9.02
SB-6
ARSENIC 21.8
LEAD 633
BG-2
ARSENIC 28.5
SB-6
ARSENIC 21.8
LEAD 633
S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Brownfields Assessment Maps.dwg, 10/22/2019 10:21:22 AM, amckenzie
TMW-2
PIRTEK
SOUTHEND RCI DEMOL
I
T
IONVACANTTMW-1
TMW-4
TMW-1
TMW-2
TMW-3
S. MI
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
WESTWOOD
A
VENUE
TMW-3/DUP-1
REVISION NO. 0DATE: 10-22-19
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
JOB NO. LEH-004 FIGURE NO. 2
QUALITY PRODUCTS COMPANY
1513, 1515, 1521, 1525, 1529, AND 1537 S. MINT STREET
404 WESTWOOD AVENUE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION MAP
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FORMER BUILDING FOOTPRINT
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING/TEMPORARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
LOCATION (DECEMBER 2018)
TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER MONITORING
WELL LOCATION (JULY 2019)
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION
(μg/L)
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
NOTES:
1. AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG CO. GIS
(2019).
2. DECEMBER 2018 BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED BY H&H ON
DECEMBER 20, 2018.
3. JULY 2019 PHASE II ESA GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED BY H&H ON JULY 27, 2019.
4. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN EXCEED THE NC DEQ 2L
STANDARDS.
5.BOLD AND UNDERLINE INDICATES CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDS THE RESIDENTIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL GROUNDWATER SCREENING
LEVELS.
6. J = CONCENTRATION DETECTED IS AN ESTIMATED
CONCENTRATION
TMW-3/DUP-1
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 6.6/6.2
TMW-4
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.55 J
TMW-4
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.55 J
S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Brownfields Assessment Maps.dwg, 10/22/2019 10:20:16 AM, amckenzie
IAS-3
IAS-4
IAS-2
IAS-1BKG-1
PIRTEK
SOUTHEND
SSV-1
SSV-4
SSV-2
RCI DEMOL
I
T
IONVACANT
SSV-5
SSV-6
S. MI
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
WESTWOOD
A
VENUE
SSV-3
SSV-4
SSV-3
SSV-2
SSV-1
REVISION NO. 0DATE: 10-22-19
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
JOB NO. LEH-004 FIGURE NO. 3
QUALITY PRODUCTS COMPANY
1513, 1515, 1521, 1525, 1529, AND 1537 S. MINT STREET
404 WESTWOOD AVENUE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR AND INDOOR AIR
CONCENTRATION MAP
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FORMER BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE
LOCATION (JANUARY 2018)
INDOOR AIR SAMPLE LOCATION
(DECEMBER 2018)
SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE
LOCATION (JULY 2019)
NOTES:
1. AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG CO. GIS
(2019).
2. JANUARY 2018 PHASE II ESA SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR
SAMPLES COLLECTED BY H&H ON JANUARY 26, 2019.
3. DECEMBER 2018 BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT INDOOR AIR
SAMPLES COLLECTED BY H&H ON DECEMBER 19, 2018.
4. JULY 2019 PHASE II ESA SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR SAMPLES
COLLECTED BY H&H ON JULY 27, 2019.
5. CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN EXCEED THE NC DEQ SOIL
VAPOR OR INDOOR AIR SCREENING LEVELS.
6.UNDERLINE INDICATES CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDS THE
RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SUB-SLAB
SOIL VAPOR OR INDOOR AIR SCREENING LEVELS.
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION
(ug/m3)
SSV-1
CHLOROFORM 72
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 7,700
SSV-2
CHLOROFORM 48
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 12,000
SSV-3
NAPHTHALENE 22
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 160
SSV-4
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 290
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 38
SSV-1
BENZENE 338
NAPHTHALENE 390
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 3,020
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 1,820
IAS-1
HEPTANE 220
NAPHTHALENE 2.5
TOLUENE 1,600
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 4.4 IAS-2/DUP-1
NAPHTHALENE 1.00/1.2
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 15/16
IAS-3
NAPHTHALENE 1.5
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 5.0
IAS-4
CHLOROFORM 2.1
HEPTANE 550
TOLUENE 3,000
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 1.6
IAS-4
CHLOROFORM 2.1
HEPTANE 550
TOLUENE 3,000
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 1.6
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
S:\AAA-Master Projects\Lischerong Enterprises and Holdings (LEH)\S. Mint Street\EMP\Brownfields Assessment Maps.dwg, 10/22/2019 12:39:49 PM, amckenzie
Appendix A
Redevelopment Plan
and Grading Plan
725722724
72
3
726
729 728720717721
724 720719723
724725
726 719SOUTH MINT STREETWESTWOOD AVENUEC CCCC
OOOOOO SS
CCCO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOO
S718.70EX: 718.20EX: 722.17EX: 722.56EX: 718.56EX: 718.99EX: 718.99EX: 719.50EX: 719.08EX: 719.54EX: 720.14EX: 720.71721.80719.38719.02719.50723.38722.90EX: 723.18EX: 722.83EX: 723.17723.63724.00EX: 724.58EX: 726.33EX: 725.68EX: 728.78TC: 724.90BC: 724.40723.80725.20725.27725.25725.25725.27725.27TC: 726.10BC: 725.60725.05723.38EX: 727.91EX: 726.90EX: 726.97EX: 725.14724.65724.02724.60725.50722.60TC: 723.35BC: 722.85722.60TC: 723.58BC: 723.08TC: 725.50BC: 725.00724.60TC: 725.55BC: 725.05725.15PROP. 30 LF ADS DURASLOPETRENCH DRAIN @ 1.00%PROP. 38 LF 15" RCPPROP. 47 LF 15" RCPEX: 722.92723.72721.10EX: 719.27EX: 719.86stamp / seal:REVISIONSDATENO.DESCRIPTIONDisclaimer ©2019:Information contained in this document is the property of Bloc Design, PLLC.and the project client listed on this document.The reproduction, copying, and other use without written consent isprohibited and may be subject to legal action to the fullest extent possible.N.T.S.NS. Mint StreetRedevelopment1513, 1515, 1521 & 1537 S. Mint St.Charlotte, NC 28203CHECKED BY:MPIC: CCB10/14/19DATE:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NUMBER:00658.01SCALE:TITLE:SHEET NO.:VICINITY MAPSURVEY DISCLAIMERTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED AUGUST 25, 2019 PROVIDED BY R.B.PHARR & ASSOSIATES, P.A., 420 HAWTHORNE LANE, CHARLOTTE,N.C. 28204. PHONE: [phone]P-1007C-390S:\Projects\00658 Mint St Redevelopment\Plans\Production DWGs\00658_CG-100 - Grading and Drainage Plan.dwg, 10/14/2019 8:00:51 PM, nic vesely, Bloc DesignISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTIONMANAGING PARTNER (PE): DATE:MANAGING PARTNER (LA):DATE:CIVIL ENGINEER/DESIGNER:DATE:LANDS. ARCHITECT/DESIGNER:DATE:2923 S. Tryon Street, Suite 320Charlotte, NC 28203phone: [phone]www.bloc-nc.comlandscape architecture I planning I civil engineering1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACEMENT OF ALL BARRICADES,SIGNAGE, FLAGGERS, SHORING, ETC., TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF WORKERSAND THE PUBLIC.2. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE REPLACED ACCORDING TO NORTH CAROLINADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CHARLOTTE WATER.PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTHNNOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
NLischerongDevelopment Group310 Arlington AveSuite #402-ACharlotte, NC 28203704-750-0368lischerongdevelopment.comEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED INDEX CONTOURPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED HIGH POINTHPSYMBOLEXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERN625.00625.00LEGENDDETAILPROPOSED INTERIOR CONTOUR625624-/--/--/--/--/--/--/-GRADING NOTES:1. ANY GRADING BEYOND THE DENUDED LIMITS INDICATED ON THE CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS IS A VIOLATION AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE.2. GRADING MORE THAN ONE ACRE WITHOUT AN APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLANIS A VIOLATION AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN 0.50% SLOPE MINIMUM ON THE CURB AND GUTTERS4. THE AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION HAVE NOT REVIEWED AND ASSUME NORESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF ANY EXISTING RETAININGWALLS ONSITE.5. ALL PAVED AREAS (SIDEWALKS, PLAZAS, PATIOS, ETC.) SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROMTHE BUILDING AT 2.00% MINIMUM.6. SPOT GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TAKEN AT FINISHED GRADE (ASPHALT, CONCRETE,TURF) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. TOC = TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONBOC = BOTTOM OF CURB ELEVATION (GUTTER FLOW LINE)HP = HIGH POINTLP = LOW POINTEX = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSCALE:020' 40'10'1"= 20'NTV---1" = 20'GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANCG-100
1 51 5 S o u t h M i nt S t re e t
Charlotte, North Carolina
09 Janua ry 2018 Exterior Rendering
1 51 5 S o u t h M i nt S t re e t
Charlotte, North Carolina
09 Janua ry 2018 Exterior Rendering
Appendix B
Construction Schedule
IDTask ModeTask NameDuration Start Finish1MILESTONES207 daysTue 2/11/20Tue 12/1/202HDC Approval1 dayTue 2/11/20Tue 2/11/203Rezoning Approval1 dayTue 2/11/20Tue 2/11/204Close on 1513 & 15151 dayTue 3/31/20Tue 3/31/205Close on 1525 / 1529 / 15371 dayTue 3/31/20Tue 3/31/206Obtain Site Development Permit1 dayWed 4/22/20Wed 4/22/207Record Brownfield Agreement1 dayMon 3/2/20Mon 3/2/208Obtain Building Permits1 dayWed 3/11/20Wed 3/11/2091513 / 1515 / 1525 Substantial Completion1 dayFri 10/30/20Fri 10/30/20101529 / 1537 Substantial Completion1 dayTue 12/1/20Tue 12/1/2011HDC APPROVAL39 daysMon 9/30/19Thu 11/21/1912Re-Submit Drawings for Approval1 dayMon 9/30/19Mon 9/30/1913HDC Hearing7 daysWed 10/9/19Thu 10/17/1914Re-Submit Drawings for Approval18 daysFri 10/18/19Tue 11/12/1915HDC Hearing7 daysWed 11/13/19Thu 11/21/1916ZONING142 daysMon 7/22/19Tue 2/11/2017File Rezoning Application1 dayMon 7/22/19Mon 7/22/1918City Council Public Hearing65 daysWed 10/9/19Tue 1/14/2019Zoning Committee Recommendation11 daysWed 1/15/20Wed 1/29/2020City Council Decision9 daysThu 1/30/20Tue 2/11/2021BROWNFIELDS APPLICATION PROCESS95 daysTue 10/15/19Mon 3/2/2022Receive Letter of Eligibility for 1525 / 1529 / 15371 dayTue 10/15/19Tue 10/15/1923Issue Brownfields Assessment Report1 dayWed 10/16/19Wed 10/16/1924DEQ Kick-Off Meeting7 daysThu 10/17/19Fri 10/25/1925Prepare & Submit EMP 23 daysWed 10/16/19Fri 11/15/1926Prepare & Submit Vapor Mitigation Plan40 daysWed 10/16/19Thu 12/12/1927DEQ Approval of EMP30 daysMon 11/18/19Fri 1/3/2028DEQ Approval of Vapor Mitigation Plan40 daysFri 12/13/19Tue 2/11/2029Prepare Brownfields Plat Map According to DEQ23 daysWed 10/16/19Fri 11/15/1930DEQ Preparation of Agreement38 daysMon 10/28/19Fri 12/20/1931Brownfields Agreement Negotiation20 daysMon 12/23/19Wed 1/22/2032Receive Written Approval from DEQ to Proceed w/ Public Notice& Pay Final Fee1 dayThu 1/23/20Thu 1/23/203330 Day Public Comment Period22 daysFri 1/24/20Mon 2/24/2034Execute and Record Final Platt & Agreement5 daysTue 2/25/20Mon 3/2/2035CIVIL DESIGN / PERMIT149 daysFri 9/20/19Wed 4/22/2036Complete 50% Drawings1 dayFri 9/20/19Fri 9/20/1937Review & Pricing15 daysWed 10/9/19Tue 10/29/1938Complete Permit Drawings20 daysWed 10/30/19Tue 11/26/192/113/313/3110/3012/19/307/221/239/20JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2020TaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineCriticalCritical SplitProgressManual ProgressMint StreetUPDATED Wed 10/9/19 Page 1
IDTask ModeTask NameDuration Start Finish39Review & Pricing5 daysWed 11/27/19Thu 12/5/1940Submit for Permit20 daysWed 2/12/20Tue 3/10/2041Respond to First Round Comments5 daysWed 3/11/20Tue 3/17/2042Resubmit for Permit20 daysWed 3/18/20Tue 4/14/2043Respond to Second Round Comments5 daysWed 4/15/20Tue 4/21/2044Obtain Permit1 dayWed 4/22/20Wed 4/22/2045BUILDING DESIGN & PERMIT108 daysMon 10/7/19Wed 3/11/2046Complete 50% Drawings1 dayMon 10/7/19Mon 10/7/1947Owner Review / Contractor Pricing15 daysWed 10/9/19Tue 10/29/1948Complete 90% Drawings20 daysWed 10/30/19Tue 11/26/1949Owner Review / Contractor Pricing10 daysWed 11/27/19Thu 12/12/1950Complete Construction Drawings10 daysFri 12/13/19Mon 12/30/1951Submit for Permit20 daysTue 12/31/19Tue 1/28/2052Respond to First Round Comments5 daysWed 1/29/20Tue 2/4/2053Resubmit for Permit20 daysWed 2/5/20Tue 3/3/2054Respond to Second Round Comments5 daysWed 3/4/20Tue 3/10/2055Obtain Permit1 dayWed 3/11/20Wed 3/11/2056CONSTRUCTION171 daysWed 4/1/20Tue 12/1/20571513 / 1515135 daysWed 4/1/20Thu 10/8/2058Demo15 daysWed 4/1/20Tue 4/21/2059Structural Repairs15 daysWed 4/22/20Tue 5/12/2060SOG Removal15 daysWed 5/13/20Wed 6/3/2061Install Sub Grade Utilities10 daysThu 6/4/20Wed 6/17/20621513 Addition40 daysThu 6/18/20Wed 8/12/2063Fill in 1515 Truck Well10 daysThu 6/18/20Wed 7/1/2064Install VIMS & Mud Slab15 daysThu 7/2/20Wed 7/22/2065Install New Roof15 daysThu 8/13/20Wed 9/2/2066Install Windows10 daysThu 8/13/20Wed 8/26/2067Paint10 daysThu 9/3/20Thu 9/17/2068MEP Trim Out10 daysThu 9/3/20Thu 9/17/2069Inspections15 daysFri 9/18/20Thu 10/8/20701525100 daysWed 4/22/20Thu 9/10/2071Demo15 daysWed 4/22/20Tue 5/12/2072Structural Repairs15 daysWed 5/13/20Wed 6/3/2073SOG Removal15 daysThu 6/4/20Wed 6/24/2074Install Sub Grade Utilities10 daysThu 6/25/20Wed 7/8/2075Install VIMS / Mud Slab / Topping Slab10 daysThu 7/9/20Wed 7/22/2076Install New Roof15 daysThu 6/25/20Wed 7/15/2077Install Windows10 daysThu 7/23/20Wed 8/5/2010/7JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2020TaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineCriticalCritical SplitProgressManual ProgressMint StreetUPDATED Wed 10/9/19 Page 2
IDTask ModeTask NameDuration Start Finish78Paint10 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/19/2079MEP Trim Out10 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/19/2080Inspections15 daysThu 8/20/20Thu 9/10/20811513 / 1515 / 1525 - Site Work91 daysThu 6/25/20Fri 10/30/2082Demo15 daysThu 6/25/20Wed 7/15/2083Sitework15 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 8/5/2084Utilities20 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 9/2/2085Paving20 daysThu 9/3/20Thu 10/1/2086Landscaping5 daysFri 10/2/20Thu 10/8/2087Inspections15 daysFri 10/9/20Thu 10/29/2088Occupy Buildings1 dayFri 10/30/20Fri 10/30/2089152995 daysWed 5/13/20Thu 9/24/2090Demo15 daysWed 5/13/20Wed 6/3/2091Structural Repairs15 daysThu 6/4/20Wed 6/24/2092Install Sub Grade Utilities10 daysThu 7/9/20Wed 7/22/2093Install New Roof15 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 8/5/2094Install Windows10 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/19/2095Paint10 daysThu 8/20/20Wed 9/2/2096MEP Trim Out10 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/19/2097Inspections15 daysThu 9/3/20Thu 9/24/2098153790 daysThu 6/4/20Thu 10/8/2099Demo15 daysThu 6/4/20Wed 6/24/20100Structural Repairs15 daysThu 6/25/20Wed 7/15/20101Install Sub Grade Utilities10 daysThu 7/23/20Wed 8/5/20102MEP Trim Out10 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/19/20103Install New Roof15 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/26/20104Install Windows10 daysThu 8/20/20Wed 9/2/20105Paint10 daysThu 9/3/20Thu 9/17/20106Inspections15 daysFri 9/18/20Thu 10/8/201071529 / 1537 SITE WORK96 daysThu 7/16/20Tue 12/1/20108Demo15 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 8/5/20109Sitework15 daysThu 8/6/20Wed 8/26/20110Utilities20 daysThu 9/3/20Thu 10/1/20111Paving20 daysFri 10/2/20Thu 10/29/20112Landscaping5 daysFri 10/30/20Thu 11/5/20113Inspections15 daysFri 11/6/20Mon 11/30/20114Occupy Buildings1 dayTue 12/1/20Tue 12/1/2012/1JulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2020TaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineCriticalCritical SplitProgressManual ProgressMint StreetUPDATED Wed 10/9/19 Page 3