The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17008_Coastal Lumber Weldon_DM_201606221 DECISION MEMORANDUM DATE: 6/22/2016 FROM: Sam Watson TO: BF Assessment File RE: Coastal Lumber - Weldon 1772 Trueblood Road Weldon, Halifax County BF # 17008-13-42 Based on the following information, it has been determined that the above referenced site, whose intended use is for no uses other than commercial/industrial, initially to be used as a sawmill and dry kiln facility, can be made suitable for such uses. Introduction: The site is comprised of one parcel consisting of approximately 121 acres situated on the outskirts of Weldon, Halifax County. The site is adjacent to a few rural residential properties and a commercial wood treatment facility operated by Coastal Treated Prooducts, but is mostly surrounded by undeveloped agricultural and forested land. The site is bisected by Trueblood Road. To the west of Trueblood Road, the Property consists of undeveloped forest land and a stormwater retention pond. To the east of Trueblood Road the Property consists of the former Coastal Lumber lumber mill facility. The property contains numerous buildings collectively providing approximately 108,495 square feet of building area. Some buildings consist of concrete block and steel construction with metal siding on concrete slabs, others are pole buildings with metal roofing and no sides used as storage sheds. The office is a wood framed structure. Eight kilns were operated at the property and a dip tank was located on the property for treating lumber. The site is currently vacant. The Prospective Developer (PD) is Meherrin River Forest Products, Inc. The PD purchased the Property on February 26, 2013. Redevelopment Plans: The PD intends to redevelop the site for use as a sawmill and dry-kiln facility. Site History: The site was developed in the 1940s as a lumber mill and operated as such until idled in 2011. The last known operator on the site was Coastal Lumber. The site was Purchased by Eastern Hardwoods, Inc. in November 2011 but not utilized. The PD purchased the Property in February with plans to reopen the site as sawmill and dry kiln facility. The site has been idle since 2011. Potential Receptors: 2 Potential receptors are: construction workers, onsite workers, visitors, and trespassers. Contaminated Media Summary: DENR has evaluated data collected from the following media at the subject property: groundwater, surface water, soil and sediment. DENR relies on the following data to base its conclusions regarding the subject property and its suitability for its intended reuse. Soil - Soil samples from the Property were analyzed by EPA Methods 8081 for pesticides, 6010C for metals, SM 3500C for hexavalent chromium, 8260B for VOCs, 8270 for SVOCs. Soil sample results at one location (SS-5) collected from a depth of 1.0 – 1.5 feet indicate an arsenic concentration of 5.16 mg/Kg, which is above the DWM Industrial Preliminary Soil Remedial Goal (PSRG) of 3 mg/Kg, but is consistent with naturally occurring concentrations for the State. There were no other soil exceedances indicated at the site. Sediment - Sediment was collected at two sample locations from the retention pond located onsite and analyzed by EPA Methods 7196A for hexavalent chromium, 6010C for metals, 8081B for pesticides, 8260B for VOCs, and 8270 for SVOCs. Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 26.9 mg/Kg to 29.9 mg/Kg in samples SS-10 and SS-11, respectively, exceeding the industrial screening level of 3 mg/Kg. There were no other exceedances detected. Groundwater - Groundwater samples collected from 5 wells were analyzed by EPA Methods 8260 for VOCs, 8270 for SVOCs, 8081 for pesticides, 6010C for metals and by SM 3500C for hexavalent chromium. Groundwater at the site is impacted at three sample locations (MW-13, MW-14, and PW-Old) with hexavalent chromium at concentrations ranging from 11 g/L to 19 g/L, exceeding the 2L Standard for total chromium of 10 g/L. Groundwater was also impacted at one sample location (PW-Old) with lead at a concentration of 427 g/L, exceeding the 2L Standard of 15 g/L. Surface Water - Surface water samples were collected from one location. The sample collected from the retention pond contained bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at a concentration of 22 g/L. No surface water standard is listed for this compound, however the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Human Health for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is listed as 2.2 g/L. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a common plasticizer and can be a laboratory or sample collection contaminant. Soil Gas – Soil gas samples were not collected because groundwater results did not indicate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Indoor Air – 3 Indoor air samples were not collected because groundwater results did not indicate the presence of VOCs. Risk Calculations - Soil and groundwater data were evaluated using a soil risk calculator (Feb. 2016) and a groundwater risk calculator (Jan. 2016) provided by Sandy Mort, BF Toxicologist. The resulting calculated risk ranges for cancer effects and non-cancer effects indicate the following based on available data, including groundwater, sediment, and soil samples: Residential Non-Residential Media LICR HI LICR HI Soil 7.70E-06 1.50E-01 1.75E-06 1.93E-02 Sediment 4.40E-05 8.50E-01 9.97E-06 6.23E-02 VISL-Groundwater 0.00E+00 6.58E-03 0.00E+00 1.57E-03 LICR = Lifetime Incremental Cancer Risk HI = Hazard Index These calculations indicate the following:  The LICR for soil, sediment and VISL-groundwater are within an acceptable risk range of 1E-06 to 1E-04 for non-residential and residential settings.  Hazard indices for soil, sediment and VISL-groundwater are below the hazard index of 1 for non-residential and residential settings. With regards to groundwater risk, the site, and surrounding area, are connected to the municipal water supply. Therefore, risk of ingestion of groundwater is not considered an issue for this site. However, a restriction on exposure to and use of groundwater have been placed on the site as a precautionary measure. With regards to soil, only one soil sample collected at the site contained arsenic at a concentration above industrial screening levels. However, the concentration detected is consistent with those considered naturally occurring within the State. As such, the risk from dermal exposure or ingestion of soil is not considered an issue for the site. With regards to surface water on the site, no surface water standard exists for the bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate detected in the retention pond. However, the concentration detected is one order of magnitude above the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Human Health. Although this compound may be a laboratory contaminant, a restriction has been placed on the use of the surface water as a preventative measure to ensure that any use is pre-approved by DEQ. With regards to sediment contained within the retention pond, though the arsenic levels do not produce a LICR or HI exceeding acceptable ranges, a restriction has been placed 4 on the use of the sediment as a preventative measure to ensure that the sediment, if removed from the pond, are not transported off-site and used in a manner that may not be considered protective of human health or the environment. Required Land Use Restrictions – Land use restrictions will include the standard use, groundwater, surface water, known contaminants, DEQ access, and LURU reporting. A site specific restriction (14.d) preventing the use or disturbance of the pond sediments without DEQ approval has been created by modifying standard soil disturbance language to prevent potentially unsafe off-site disposal/use of the sediment. Based on the site-specific data provided to the Brownfield program, the site reuse, which is restricted to industrial use, is suitable for the site as long as the agreed upon land use restrictions in the BFA are abided by.