23061 Caraustar Mills EMP 20220616

1
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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.

The EMP is valid only for the scope of work described herein and must be updated to be
applicable for new phases of redevelopment or after significant changes in applicable
regulatory guidance.

Voluntary Metrics Tab
The NC Brownfields Program updates estimated capital investment (from the Brownfields
Property Application) and estimated jobs created (from the Brownfields Agreement) whenever
possible. As a voluntary measure, you may opt to complete the below information for capital
investment and jobs created as estimated by your final redevelopment plans for the Brownfields
Property:

1. Estimated capital investment in redevelopment project: Click or tap here to enter
text.
2. Estimated jobs created:
a. Construction Jobs: Click or tap here to enter text.
b. Full Time Post-Redevelopment Jobs: Click or tap here to enter text.

2
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Table of Contents
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................... 1
GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 6
COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 6
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM ............................................................................... 7
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 7
CONTAMINATED MEDIA ....................................................................................................................... 10
PART 1. Soil ....................................................................................................................................... 10
PART 2. GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................. 21
PART 3. SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................. 23
PART 4. SEDIMENT ............................................................................................................................ 23
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR ......................................................................................................................... 24
PART 6. SUB‐SLAB SOIL VAPOR ........................................................................................................ 25
PART 7. INDOOR AIR ......................................................................................................................... 27
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 27
CONTINGENCY PLAN – encountering unknown tanks, drums, or other waste materials ..................... 28
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING ..................................................................................................... 31
APPROVAL SIGNATURES ....................................................................................................................... 32

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 – NCBP Diagram for Temporary Containment of Impacted or Potentially Impacted Soil
Exhibit 2 – Topographic Map
Exhibit 3 – Stewart Creek Redevelopment Plans
Exhibit 4 – Proposed Multi-family Redevelopment Conceptual Plans
Exhibit 5 – Soil and Groundwater Sample Location Map (w/ Redevelopment Overlay)
Exhibit 6 – Soil and Groundwater Exceedances
Exhibit 7 – Location/Depth of Debris & Organic Material Identified during Geotechnical Drilling
Exhibit 8 – Grading / Cut and Fill Plan
Exhibit 9 – Grading Plan with Soil and Groundwater Exceedances
Exhibit 10 – Soil Vapor Sample Locations

Table 1 – Soil Analytical Results (2016)
Table 2 – Soil Analytical Results (2018)
Table 3 – Soil Analytical Results (2020)
Table 4 – Soil Analytical Results (2021)
Table 5 – Groundwater Analytical Results (2016)
Table 6 – Groundwater Analytical Results (2020)
Table 7 – Groundwater Analytical Results (2021)
Table 8 – Soil Vapor Analytical Results

Appendix A – NCDEQ Risk Calculator Summaries – Soil Vapor to Indoor Air Exposure

3
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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.

A data gap assessment report documenting the results of soil, groundwater and soil
vapor sampling completed at the site in August 2020, October 2020 and January 2021
has been submitted to the NC Brownfields Program but has not been reviewed and
approved by the Brownfields Project Manager. At the request of the Brownfields
Project Manager, tabular summaries of the groundwater and soil analytical data and
sample location maps from the above-referenced assessment events have been
provided as attachments to this EMP.

The sampling conducted in January 2021 is limited to soil vapor sampling at the site and
soil and groundwater sampling on an adjacent parcel (the Wikoff Property). The PD has
requested that the Wikoff parcel be added to the proposed Brownfields Property.
Please note that while the site boundaries shown on the attached figures include Parcel
No. 07110502 (currently owned by the Whitehead family), the PD plans to remove the
parcel from the proposed Brownfields Property. As such, no Brownfields-related
redevelopment is proposed on the Whitehead parcel and the protocols outlined in this
EMP do not apply to this parcel.

In Terracon’s opinion, current VOC data for exterior and sub-slab soil vapor at the site
do not indicate a need for vapor mitigation related to VOC-intrusion (see Sections 5 and
6). Methane has been identified in portions of the site and further methane evaluation
activities are on-going. It is not currently known whether vapor/methane mitigation
will be required at the site. Based on the environmental data currently available, the
NC Brownfields Program is allowing site development preparation activities (grading
and utility construction) to proceed; however, a decision regarding the need for building
vapor mitigation and/or additional sampling is pending until the NC Brownfields
Program has reviewed a final environmental assessment report documenting the
sampling activities conducted in 2020 and 2021. The EMP will be updated once the NC
Brownfields Program has reviewed a final report and issued comments pertaining to
vapor mitigation.

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

This EMP is applicable to three separate phases of redevelopment:

1) Mecklenburg County improvements to the portion of the Stewart Creek
Greenway that traverses the southernmost portion of the site, including

4
EMP Version 2, January 2021
the installation of a pedestrian bridge over Stewart Creek.
2) Proposed multi-family development on the site, which currently is
scheduled to occur in two separate phases.
3) Interior renovations of the former Savona Mill building for commercial use
(no ground disturbance).

Conceptual redevelopment plans for the three redevelopment phases are included in
Exhibits 3 and 4. Please note that the parking deck adjacent to the west of the Savona
Mill building, as shown on Exhibit 4, is no longer planned.

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.

The Stewart Creek redevelopment plans are included as Exhibit 3.

The conceptual plans for the multi-family development are included as Exhibit 4. Please
note that while buildings RES 03 and RES 11 shown on Exhibit 4 are labeled as “Townhome
Units,” these units are rental units and will not be individually/privately owned
condominiums. The “Townhome” description simply describes the construction style of
apartment (multi-story ground contact units with shared walls with adjacent rental units
but not other rental units above).

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

An overlay of the proposed multi-family development and soil and groundwater sample
locations within existing contamination for each media is included as Exhibit 5.

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

Grading plans for the Stewart Creek redevelopment are included in Exhibit 3.

The current grading plans for the proposed multi-family redevelopment are provided in
Exhibit 8. The plans call for approximately 66,050 cubic yards of cut and approximately
71,839 cubic yards of fill (net fill/import = 5,788 cubic yards).

☐ 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.).

5
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Since redevelopment plans are currently in their conceptual stage, permits for
redevelopment have not been obtained. Applicable permits will be provided to the
Brownfields Program upon their receipt.

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

The Stewart Creek redevelopment project is projected to begin during the Summer of
2021 (likely June or July). Construction is not anticipated to exceed one year (365 days).

Interior renovations within the Savona Mill building (no ground disturbance) is projected
to begin in late Quarter 3 of 2021 with an anticipated duration of 12 to 14 weeks.

Phase I of the multi-family redevelopment, which consists of the buildings adjacent to
the Savona Mill building, is projected to begin in Quarter 1 of 2022 with an anticipated
duration of 20 to 22 months. Phase 2 of the multi-family redevelopment is projected to
begin 18 months after the start of Phase 1 construction and also has an anticipated
duration of 20 to 22 months.

☒ 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.

6
EMP Version 2, January 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION

Date: 5/10/2021 Revision Date (if applicable): 6/16/2021

Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Caraustar and Savona Mills Brownfields Site

Brownfields Project Number: 23061-19-060

Brownfields Property Address: 326, 400, 401, 404, 408, 410, 411, 412, 418, 420, 428, 432, 440 and 528
South Gardner Avenue; 2425, 2426 and 2636 Chamberlain Avenue; 524 and 536 State Street; and 525
Coxe Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina

Brownfields Property Area (acres): 31.03 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): “Savona II, LLC” and “Savona, LLC”
Contact Person: Greg Pappanastos
Phone Numbers: Office: 704-343-7444 Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.
Email: [e-mail]

Contractor for PD: TBD
Contact Person: Click or tap here to enter text.
Phone Numbers: Office: Click or tap here to enter text. Mobile: Click or tap here to enter text.
Email: Click or tap here to enter text.

Environmental Consultant: Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Contact Person: Will Frazier
Phone Numbers: Office: 704-324-7375 Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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

7
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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:
The Stewart Creek redevelopment will consist of the installation of a pedestrian bridge and
footpath along the southern portion of the site that is part of the proposed Stewart Creek
Greenway.

The renovations at the Savona Mill building will consist of the construction of Class A office space
within the structure.

The proposed multi-family residential redevelopment consists of the construction of 12 multi-
family apartment buildings. The areas surrounding the apartment buildings will consist of paved
surficial parking lots and landscaped areas. Existing concrete slabs remaining at the site will also
be removed as part of the redevelopment project. Additionally, a parking deck will be constructed
in the southern portion of the site and the interior of the existing Savona Mill building will be
renovated to accommodate commercial/office tenant space.

8
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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:
The Stewart Creek redevelopment will consist of the installation of a pedestrian bridge and
footpath along the southern portion of the site. Redevelopment plans for the proposed Stewart
Creek Greenway are provided in Exhibit 3.

The renovations within the Savona mill building will consist of the construction of Class A office
space within the structure.

The proposed multi-family residential redevelopment consists of the construction of 12 multi-
family apartment buildings. The areas surrounding the apartment buildings will consist of paved
surficial parking lots and landscaped areas. The existing structures located at 2425 Chamberlain
Avenue and 2426 Chamberlain Avenue will be demolished and replaced by two multi-family
residential buildings. Existing concrete slabs remaining at the site will also be removed as part of
the redevelopment project. A conceptual plan for the proposed multi-family residential structures
and associated parking areas is included in Exhibit 4.

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.

The existing warehouse buildings at 2425 Chamberlain Avenue and 2426 Chamberlain Avenue
will be demolished.

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.

9
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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: The Stewart Creek redevelopment project is projected to begin during
the Summer of 2021 (likely June or July). The renovations with the Savona mill building are
anticipated to begin in late Quarter 3 of 2021. Phase 1 of the multi-family redevelopment is
projected to begin in Quarter 1 of 2022. Phase 2 of the multi-family redevelopment is projected
to begin approximately 18 months after the start of Phase 1.

b) Anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
The Stewart Creek redevelopment is anticipated to be completed within 1 year from the
beginning of construction.

The renovations within the Savona mill building (no ground disturbance) are anticipated to
take 12 to 14 months.

Each phase of the multi-family redevelopment is expected to be completed by within 20 to 22
months of the beginning of construction of each phase.

c) Additional phases planned? ☒ Yes ☒ No

If yes, specify the start date and/or activities if known:
Start Date: See page 4 for a discussion of the different phases of redevelopment.
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.

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:
Occupancy of the renovated Savona Mill building is anticipated Quarter 2 of 2022. Occupancy of the
multi-family apartment buildings is anticipated as soon as possible after completion of the structures
(anticipated 20 to 22 months after start of construction of each phase).

10
EMP Version 2, January 2021
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Please fill out the sections 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) Contaminated Media on the Brownfields Property
Part 1. Soil: ……………………………………….……………. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 2. Groundwater: .……………………….……..……. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 3. Surface Water: .……………...……..…………… ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 4. Sediment: .……………...……..…………………… ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 5. Soil Vapor: …..…………...……..…………………. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 6. Sub‐Slab Soil Vapor: ……...……..…………….. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 7. Indoor Air: ...……..…………………………………. ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☒ Unknown

2) For the Areas of Proposed Redevelopment on the Brownfields Property, attach tabulated data
summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with sample locations.

PART 1. Soil
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list general groups of contaminants):
Arsenic exceeding its Residential PSRG has been detected between approximately 0 and 5 feet
below land surface (bls) in many areas of the site while concentrations exceeding its Non-
Residential PSRG were also detected at various locations. Hexavalent chromium has been
identified in selected areas between 0 and 5 feet bls above its Residential PSRG. In 2021, barium
was detected above its Residential PSRG and lead above its Non-Residential PSRG on the Wikoff
property. Multiple poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been detected above Residential
and/or Non-Residential PSRGs between 0 and 5 feet bls. Volatile organic compounds
(bromomethane, methylene chloride, naphthalene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone [MIBK], and
tetrachloroethene), semi-volatile organic compounds (2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-methylphenol, 3&4-
methylphenol and phenol), and cadmium have been identified in isolated areas at the site to
depths of 10 feet bls above their Protection of Groundwater PSRGs. Note: the sole
tetrachloroethene detection at the site was identified on the Wikoff parcel (sample 2021-SB-01).

2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet):
Impacts have been identified in shallow soils extending primarily to depths of approximately 0 to
5 feet bls.

3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet):
Stewart Creek redevelopment: 4,988 square feet.

The footprint of the proposed multi-family redevelopment is approximately 800,000 square feet.

11
EMP Version 2, January 2021
4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet):
The Stewart Creek redevelopment will involve the stripping of organic topsoil from the area of
disturbance; as such, the depth of soil to be excavated is not likely to exceed approximately 6 to
12 inches.

For the multi-family redevelopment, the maximum depth of planned cut soils is between
approximately 15 and 20 feet bls, which is to occur in a relatively restricted portion of the site
currently located in the wooded area at the intersection of South Turner Avenue and Chamberlain
Avenue (near proposed Residential Buildings 01A and 01B). Areas of cut beneath other proposed
multi-family buildings will be 10 feet or less, with some multi-family structures located in areas of
fill. The area along the western site boundary, adjacent to Stewart Creek will be cut to depths
ranging from 0.5 foot to 20 feet. See Exhibit 8 for the current cut/fill plan.

5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan):
Stewart Creek redevelopment: Approximately 40 cubic yards of topsoil will be excavated.

Per the current grading plans, approximately 66,050 cubic yards of soil will be cut at the site.

6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
Soil sampling data does not exist within the area of disturbance for the Stewart Creek
redevelopment; however, soils in this area are not anticipated to be impacted based on historical
site usage in this area. Soils excavated in this area will be stockpiled temporarily in accordance
with Exhibit 1. Should these soils be proposed for re-use as dressing of trail shoulders along the
footpath leading to the pedestrian bridge or for off-site disposal, the soils will be characterized via
sampling for VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA 8 metals, and hexavalent chromium. If these soils are proposed
for re-use as beneficial fill beneath hardscape (capped) elsewhere on site, sampling will not be
necessary.

The estimated volume of excavated impacted soil was calculated by assuming that all soils down
to the maximum proposed cut depth at a location at which contaminants have been identified
above a PSRG are impacted. The locations of samples with PSRG exceedances relative to the
proposed cut/fill at the site are shown on Exhibit 9. The aerial extent of impacts at each location
of PSRG exceedance was presumed to extend out in a 30-foot radius from the sample location, or
in the case of “clustered” impacted samples, 30-feet from the “outermost” samples within the
cluster. This radius was adjusted downward if an area of proposed fill was located closer than 30
feet from a sample location. Based on these assumptions, the estimated volume of impacted soils
to be excavated is approximately 7,000 cubic yards. Soils excavated from area previously
determined to be impacted by the contaminants listed above will ultimately be managed via
capping beneath hardscapes or clean, non-impacted soils from other areas of the site.

7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:
As the site is a net fill site (approximately 5,788 cubic yards of fill required), the PD plans to use
excavated soils originating on the site in those areas requiring fill and to complete the

12
EMP Version 2, January 2021
redevelopment with zero export of soils from the site. This is inclusive of soils excavated during
the Stewart Creek redevelopment. Those soils will be reused on the site (as landscaping along the
proposed footpath if analytical data indicates it meets applicable use standards, or capped
beneath hardscapes or clean, non-impacted soils from other portions of the site).

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.
☒ 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)
Concentrations of lead (8,990 mg/kg) and barium (3,330 mg/kg) were
detected within shallow soils (0 to 1 ft bls) at one location (2021-SB-01) on
the Wikoff Parcel at concentrations exceeding 20 times their respective TCLP
limits.

13
EMP Version 2, January 2021
The PD has not determined the redevelopment plans for the Wikoff parcel.
As such, it is not known whether redevelopment will require excavation of
soils at the Wikoff area will be excavated during redevelopment. The soils at
2021-SB-01 will be sampled for TCLP to determine if the soils truly constitute
a characteristic hazardous (rather than relying on the rule of 20 estimate) and
to determine the proper excavation, management, and/or disposal of the
soils in this area.
☐ If no, explain rationale:
Click or tap here to enter text.

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:
Areas where soil impacts have been identified above Residential PSRGs will be managed by
leaving the soils in place or capping with hardscapes or clean, non-impacted soils from other
portions of the site.

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:
Click or tap here to enter text.

☒ Manage soil under impervious cap ☒ or clean fill ☒

14
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☒ Describe cap or fill:
Caps will consist of hardscapes (asphalt and/or concrete pavement and building footprints)
or clean, non-impacted soils from other portions of the site.

☒ 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:
Soils that are dry and have the potential to migrate through air from the site will be managed
in accordance with typical construction practices, which include a periodic light application
of water via tanker truck to moisten soils and reduce airborne dust. Management of fugitive
dust for constituents of concern will not be conducted at the site beyond such typical
construction practices.

☐ 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:
Click or tap here to enter text.

☒ No, explain rationale:
Existing analytical data do not indicate soils will require screening. Soil impacts by VOCs at
concentrations identifiable by standard field screening practices (visual, olfactory, PID, etc.)
have not been identified. If unexpected impacts are encountered during redevelopment,
soils will be screened by an on-call Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) during
grading and site activities. Such screening would include observations for visible
discoloration and detection of odors as well as use of a PID and/or PetroFLAG TPH Analyzer
(PF-MTR-01), as described in the “Contingency for encountering unknown tanks, drums, or
other waste materials” section below.

Soil Sample Collection
☒ Yes, describe the sampling method (e.g., in‐situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.):
If during grading, impacted soils are discovered, procedures for screening and sampling the
soils will be implemented as described in the section for “Contingency for encountering
unknown tanks, drums, or other waste materials.” Laboratory analysis for such soil
Click or tap here to enter text.

15
EMP Version 2, January 2021
sampling will be determined based on the nature of the unexpected impacts identified and
discussion with the Brownfields Program Manager.

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

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):
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ 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):
Click or tap here to enter text.

Laboratory analysis for soil sampling will be determined based on the nature of the
unexpected impacts identified and discussion with the Brownfields Project Manager at
the time those impacts are encountered.
☒ 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:

☒ 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):
Deviations from Figure 1 will not occur during stockpiling of soils. If construction logistics (e.g. schedule,
physical site constraints, etc.) prevent proper stockpiling of soils, the contingency procedures will be to
direct load of soils into trucks for exported and disposal off-site. Should this alternative be required,
the Brownfields Program and disposal facility selected will be contacted to discuss sampling
requirements (analyses, frequency) for export soils.

16
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ 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 via 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, indicate if a work
plan for final grade sampling may be submitted under separate cover.

Stewart Creek: while the redevelopment plan and final locations of exposed soil are
known, a final grade sampling plan will be submitted under separate cover.

Since redevelopment plans for the multi-family redevelopment are still conceptual and
have not been finalized, the areas containing exposed soil post-redevelopment are not
known at this time. A work plan for final grade soil sampling will be submitted under
separate cover once redevelopment plans have been finalized.

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

Part 1.B. IMPORTED FILL SOIL

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

The Stewart Creek redevelopment will require the import of approximately 210 cubic yards of
soil.

The multi-family redevelopment will require approximately 5,788 cubic yards of imported fill
material.

17
EMP Version 2, January 2021
2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported?
The Stewart Creek redevelopment will require import of approximately 210 cubic yards of soil and
stone material. The imported materials will include Class III select granular materials and Class I rip
rap at bridge abutments, #57 stone along the abutment wall, Class III select granular materials and
ABC stone along the bridge approach, and ABC stone along the asphalt footpath leading to the
bridge.

The multi-family redevelopment will require approximately 5,788 cubic yards of import fill material.

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.)
The Stewart Creek redevelopment project will place fill soils along the steep embankment adjacent
to Stewart Creek to provide support for the pedestrian bridge foundations. Along this embankment,
fill soils will be placed approximately 15 feet below the elevation of the proposed pedestrian bridge,
which is approximately the same grade as the land surface at the top of the embankment. At the
top of the embankment, there will be an area where the land surface will be built up from current
grade by approximately 2 feet. The current and proposed grades are shown on page 1 of Exhibit 3
(Stewart Creek plans).

Based on current grading plans for the multi-family development, the maximum depths to which
fill will be placed is approximately 15 feet. The areas of fill are concentrated in the southern portion
of the site, to the west of the Savona Mill building. The majority of the fill will be sourced from soils
originating on-site in areas to be cut.

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:

Stewart Creek redevelopment: The proposed rip-rap, 57 stone, and ABC stone imported for use by
the Stewart Creek redevelopment activities consist of granular materials too large for laboratory
analysis and are thus exempt from pre-import sampling requirements. Class III select granular
materials may contain various grain size distributions but are composed almost entirely of materials
passing a #4 sieve (coarse sand sized particles and smaller) and can thus be sampled. During the
bidding process to procure contractors to conduct the redevelopment work, Mecklenburg County
will recommend that all import soils regardless of grain size be sourced from a quarry pre-approved
by the Brownfields Program. As such, sampling of Class III select granular materials is not expected
to be required. If the contractor ultimately selected to complete the Stewart Creek redevelopment
work is unable to source such materials from a pre-approved quarry, the materials will be sampled
for VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA 8 metals, and hexavalent chromium prior to import. Based on the small
volume of such materials that would be brought onto the site, only one composite sample will be
obtained. If such sampling is necessary, a work plan will be submitted to the Brownfields PM for
approval documenting the sampling and compositing procedures prior to sample collection.

An ultimate borrow source for the planned import of soils has not been finalized for the multi-family
residential redevelopment. Such soils will likely be obtained from the Martin Marietta Charlotte

18
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Quarry (4551 Beatties Ford Road, Charlotte NC 28216), which has been pre-approved by the
Brownfields Program as a suitable fill source and pre-import sampling is not necessary.

If soils from a different source are proposed for import to the site in the future, a work plan for pre-
import sampling would be submitted to the Brownfields PM for approval.

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.
Not applicable, since soils will be imported from an NCDEQ-approved source. If construction
plans/logistics dictate an alternative fill source be selected during the project, a work plan for pre-
import sampling to demonstrate the fill meets acceptable criteria will be submitted to the
Brownfields PM for approval.

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):
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ 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 (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.

A work plan will be prepared and submitted under separate cover if it is determined that import
of soils from a source that has not already by pre-approved by NCDEQ.

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

19
EMP Version 2, January 2021
WRITING PRIOR TO COMPLETING TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES. Please refer to Brownfields IR 15 for
additional details.

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.

Excavated soils are currently planned for re-use at the site and are not expected to be exported
from the site. If soils prove to be geotechnically unsuitable as fill material for other portions of the
site and off-site disposal is required, the disposal facility will be determined based on the existing
analytical data for the portion of the site in which the soils in question are located (or via new
sampling, in the case of soils in the Stewart Creek redevelopment disturbance area). Current
contingency planning indicates that disposal to a permitted landfill would be the likely method of
off-site disposal, if necessary. Soils thought to be impacted would be disposed at a Subtitle D
Landfill (likely the CMS Republic Landfill located at 5105 Morehead Road in Concord, North
Carolina), while soils determined to be “clean” would be disposed at a nearby LCID landfill such as
the Lakeview Road Landfill or Kelly Road Landfill. Additional off-site soil disposal methods
(landfarm, as fill at another Brownfields site, as beneficial fill at a non-Brownfields property) have
also been selected below to provide flexibility in the event the PD wishes to change its contingency
plans, should export of soils be necessary.

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).
See Item 1 above. Transfer of soil to another Brownfields Property or use of soil as beneficial fill
will require pre-approval from the NC Brownfields Program.

20
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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.

During initial site grading activities, workers should use appropriate safety personal protective
equipment (PPE). The on-site Health and Safety Plan will address potential exposure of workers to
constituents of concern (COCs).

Soils will at times be disturbed for the construction of utilities or other structures. With respect to
subsurface utility construction at the site, the general rule will be to remove and stockpiled soils so
that a “last out, first in” process occurs. During excavation, soils in the upper 2 feet will be stockpiled
and segregated as the first materials removed. These soils/fill materials will be the last returned to
the excavation during backfilling.

Soils will typically “bulk” or expand in volume when disturbed by excavation. The contractor will
compact these materials into place according to the compaction requirements of the construction
design. If no specifications for compacted fill exist, the contractor will tamp the materials in place
using the mechanical excavator or equivalent. Utilities or structures will replace a certain volume of
soils in these areas, resulting in excess soils as excavation spoils.

After the initial grading of the site, the worker and contractor should plan from onset of construction
to maintain a cap comprised of either (a) clean fill, or (b) other barrier approved by the NCDEQ for
areas that will not be capped with a building, asphalt, or concrete surface. If excess contaminant
impacted soils/fill are produced from excavation as spoils which cannot be restored to original
depths through the process of “first out, last in”, they must be handled with special care. The worker
or contractor will work with the Brownfields Project Manager to ensure that, if the soils are
contaminated, they are either properly re-used on the site or disposed at an off-site location.

☒ 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 or provide the results of this evaluation in the
Vapor Mitigation Plan. Note that if vapor mitigation is planned for site buildings, utility
corridors will need to be evaluated as part of mitigation designs:
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ If no, include rationale here:
Click or tap here to enter text.

21
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☒ Unknown, details to be provided in the Vapor Mitigation Plan for site buildings

Existing soil vapor data and associated analysis using the NCDEQ Risk Calculator have not identified
elevated levels of VOCs within the subsurface requiring vapor mitigation; however, methane has
been identified at certain portions of the site. Further assessment is currently planned to evaluate
the extent and ramifications of the presence of methane. Should methane impacts at the site require
mitigation, the details will be handled via a Vapor Mitigation Plan submitted under separate cover at
a later date.

Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches:
Concerns and methods for handling impacted soils do not preclude or modify any of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for worker safety
incumbent upon contractors for regular site safety and trenching/excavation activities. OSHA
requirements will dictate adjustments of the soil management methods where necessary.

PART 2. GROUNDWATER

1) What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property?
Depth to groundwater, as measured in temporary monitoring wells, varies from approximately
10 feet bls (in the southern portions of the site) to 28 feet bls (at the Wikoff parcel)

2) Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ☒onsite ☐offsite ☐both or ☐unknown
sources? Describe source(s):
Naphthalene has been detected above its 2L standard within one temporary monitoring well in
the southern portion of the site. Chromium was identified above its 2L standard in one temporary
monitoring well located on the Wikoff parcel. Additional groundwater impacts above the 2L
standard have not been identified.

3) What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property?
Temporary monitoring wells at the site were not surveyed; however, groundwater flow appears
to be west-southwest toward Stewart Creek, which flows along the western and southwestern
property boundaries.

4) Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities?
☒Yes ☐No
If yes, describe these activities:
During the Stewart Creek redevelopment, based on proximity to the creek, discharge groundwater
from the subsurface to the creek may occur within the project area; however, construction
personnel will be located on the banks of the creek. It is not anticipated that the workers will be
in direct contact with groundwater during placement of fill, construction of abutments, or
installation of foundations/piles.

Based on current development plans, temporary dewatering may be necessary during installation
of utilities in portions of the site where final grade is close to the existing water table. Permanent
dewatering will not be necessary.

22
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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).

Excavations in areas where groundwater is encountered will be allowed to re-infiltrate for
approximately 24 hours if it does not affect the construction schedule.

If the groundwater must be removed so that construction activities may proceed, the
groundwater will be discharged on-site. Direct discharge requires an NPDES permit and indirect
discharge (to the municipal sanitary sewer/public owned treatment works) must be negotiated
with the City or County. Discharge must meet the contaminant limits allowed by the permit.
Based on the previously detected naphthalene concentration, groundwater in the area of 2016-
GW-03 may require chemical pretreatment prior to discharge in order to comply with these
limits. It is not anticipated that groundwater requiring discharge from other areas of the site will
require chemical pretreatment, although mechanical treatment may be needed to comply with
total suspended solids (TSS) requirements. Any sampling of discharge will be completed as
required by the permit(s).

Copies of any discharge permit(s) obtained by the PD and of associated approval documentation
will be provided to the Brownfields Program before discharge occurs. The results of any
discharge sampling that occurs under the permit(s) will also be provided to the Brownfields
Program.

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.

Click or tap here to enter text.

23
EMP Version 2, January 2021
PART 3. SURFACE WATER
1) Is surface water present at the property? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
Stewart Creek flows along the western site boundary. Redevelopment of the site will include a
stormwater plan (designed by the civil engineer for the project) to control the accumulation of
stormwater on the construction site. Erosion control methods will be implemented in
accordance with an erosion control plan to prevent stormwater from leaving the site.
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
Stormwater can potentially accumulate in excavations and utility trenches during construction
activities following precipitation events. In the event stormwater management is required, the
applicable excavation activities should cease pending removal and characterization of the
water.
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):
Water is not anticipated to discharge into open excavations. Excavations and trenches shall be
graded, bermed, or provided with an equivalent barrier where necessary to help prevent surface
water and/or stormwater from entering excavations and/or leaving the site boundaries.
Stormwater or water from an unidentified source that collects in excavation areas will be allowed
to infiltrate naturally if construction schedule allows, or removed so that construction activities
may proceed. The water will be containerized or diverted to an on-site stormwater management
basin where the water will be sampled for disposal characterization before it is allowed to leave
the site. Based on the types of contaminants documented on the site, water samples will be
analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs and RCRA 8 metals. If containerized water is determined to be above
regulatory standards, the Brownfields Project Manager will be contacted, and the water will be
disposed in accordance with regulatory requirements.

PART 4. SEDIMENT

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

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

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

Construction workers completing the Stewart Creek redevelopment project will be located on the banks
of the creek during placement of fill, installation of abutments, and installation of foundations/piles.
Additionally, other than a minimal amount of cut of topsoil at bank level, excavation of soils is not
planned, and stream bank soil and sediment will not be encountered. As such, it is not anticipated that

24
EMP Version 2, January 2021
the workers will be in contact with sediment suspended within or located at the bottom of the creek
during redevelopment.

Construction workers are not expected to enter Stewart Creek during the multi-family residential
redevelopment.

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):
If the stream bed is accidentally disturbed during redevelopment, mitigation (restoration) of the
physical impacts must be coordinated via the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), which maintains
jurisdiction of the water body. If stream restoration activities are required by the ACE that result in
the removal of sediment from the creek, the sediment will be stockpiled in accordance with Exhibit
1 (IHSB Stockpiling Protocol) of the EMP including field screening to determine whether the
sediment is impacted. Such sediment would be evaluated for suitability as beneficial fill beneath
hardscapes elsewhere on the site. If sediment is generated that ultimately requires off-site
disposal, a sampling and analysis plan will be submitted to the Brownfields PM for approval to
ensure the sediment is adequately characterized for disposal purposes.

PART 5. SOIL VAPOR

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?
Naphthalene was identified in groundwater 2016-GW-03 (16.9 ug/L) above its residential groundwater
screening level for vapor intrusion (4.6 ug/L).

The following VOCs have been identified at concentrations of above their residential SGSLs within
exterior soil vapor (depths ranging from approximately 4.5 to 7.5 feet bls): benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
chloroform, ethylbenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, naphthalene, and vinyl chloride. A summary of soil
vapor analytical data is provided in Table 8. Concentrations shaded in yellow in the table are those that
exceed a compound’s residential SGSL. Soil vapor sample locations are provided in Exhibit 10.

Terracon has input the maximum concentration of each compound detected in soil vapor from areas of

25
EMP Version 2, January 2021

4) Will workers encounter contaminated soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?

☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown 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:

Based on existing data, it is not anticipated that workers will encounter soil vapor at
concentrations high enough to pose potential health concerns, however, VOCs have been
identified above laboratory method detection limits at the site. During construction, site workers
will be made aware of the possible presence of vapors containing VOCs, particularly in trenches
and other excavations. In particular, workers will be educated on how to identify methane via
smell. If during construction, workers identify evidence of elevated vapor concentrations, work
will be stopped until Terracon can mobilize to the site to complete vapor screening activities. Work
will not begin again until the vapor field screening indicates concentrations have returned to
background levels.

PART 6. SUB‐SLAB SOIL VAPOR
1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the
following vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) in sub-slab soil vapor:
IHSB Residential Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor:………..☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
Groundwater:.….☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown (Groundwater data not collected beneath buildings)
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor:………..☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
2) Groundwater:…..☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown 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:
proposed multi-family buildings into the NCDEQ Risk Calculator to model exposure risk to future site
residents associated with the soil vapor to indoor air exposure pathway. According to the Risk
Calculator, the carcinogenic risk for this residential exposure pathway is 2.3x10^-5 with an associated
hazard index of 0.86. These modeled risk values do not exceed the acceptable risk established risk
thresholds of 1.0x10^-4 and 1. Based on the Risk Calculator results, Terracon does not believe that
vapor mitigation is necessary at the site. However, Terracon understands that a final determination
with regard to the need for vapor mitigation will be made once the forthcoming Data Gap Assessment
report documenting the 2020 and 2021 sampling activities has been submitted and NC Brownfields
Program has reviewed the report. A copy of the Risk Calculator Summary is provided in Appendix A.

Methane has been identified in limited areas of the site. Further methane assessment activities are on-
going at the site.

26
EMP Version 2, January 2021
August 2020 sampling activities identified concentrations of benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, naphthalene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene above their
Residential SGSLs within sub-slab soil vapor in the Savona Mill building (2020-SV-01, 2020-SV-02,
2020-SV-03 and/or 2020-SV-04). The concentrations of naphthalene within 2020-SV-03 and 2020-
SV-04 also exceeded its non-Residential SGSL. Subsequent sampling in the northern end of the mill
building in January 2021 (2021-SV-11 and 2021-SV-12) identified naphthalene above its Residentials
SGSL (2021-SV-11) in sub-slab soil vapor but did not above its non-residential SGL. The follow up
sampling also did not identify the trimethylbenzene compounds above their Residential SGSLs. It
must be noted that the proposed use of the mill is as commercial, Class A office space.

Terracon has input the maximum concentration of each compound detected in soil vapor beneath
the Savona Mill building slab into the NCDEQ Risk Calculator to model exposure risk to future
occupants from the soil vapor to indoor air exposure pathway. According to the Risk Calculator, the
modeled hazard index for residential use in the Savona Mill building (4.8) exceeds the acceptable
risk threshold of 1. Unacceptable risk was not identified in association with future non-residential
use (carcinogenic risk = 4.7x10^-6 with a hazard index of 0.38).

Terracon also input the maximum concentration of each compound detected in soil vapor beneath
the Wikoff building slab into the NCDEQ Risk Calculator to model exposure risk to future occupants
from the soil vapor to indoor air exposure pathway. According to the risk calculator, unacceptable
risk was not identified associated with either residential or non-residential use of the Wikoff
building.

Based on the proposed re-use of the Savona Mill building for commercial use and the modeled risk
results, Terracon does not believe that vapor mitigation is necessary at the Savona Mill building or
at the Wikoff building. However, Terracon understands that a final determination with regard to
the need for vapor mitigation will be made once the forthcoming Data Gap Assessment report
documenting the 2020 and 2021 sampling activities has been submitted and NC Brownfields
Program has reviewed the report.

A summary of soil vapor analytical data is provided in Table 8. Soil vapor sample locations are
provided in Exhibit 10. A copy of the Risk Calculator Summary is provided in Appendix A.

4) Will workers encounter contaminated sub‐slab soil vapor during planned redevelopment
activities? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown

VOCs have not been identified above screening levels in sub-slab vapor.

☒ If no, include rationale here:
Concentrations of VOCs have not been identified above residential screening levels within sub-
slab soil vapor beneath the buildings planned for demolition at the site.
5) In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact

27
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Vapors will be evaluated, as discussed in Part 5.

PART 7. INDOOR AIR

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

☐ If no, include rationale here:
Not applicable.
4) In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact:

VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM
Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) proposed for this Brownfields Property?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown

☐ If no or unknown, include rationale here as well as plans for pre-occupancy sampling, as
necessary:
As discussed in Sections 5 and 6, it is Terracon’s opinion that current VOC data for exterior and
sub-slab soil vapor at the site do not indicate a need for vapor mitigation related to VOC-intrusion.
Methane evaluation activities are on-going. It is not currently known whether vapor/methane
mitigation will be required at the site. Terracon understands that a final determination with regard
to the need for vapor mitigation will be made once the forthcoming Data Gap Assessment report
documenting the 2020 and 2021 sampling activities has been submitted and NC Brownfields
Program has reviewed the report. A copy of the Risk Calculator Summary is provided in Appendix
A.

If yes, ☐ VIMS Plan Attached or ☐ VIMS Plan to be submitted separately
If submitted separately provide date:
If vapor mitigation is necessary, a Vapor Mitigation Plan and the associated VIMS design(s) will
be submitted under separate cover.

If evidence of elevated indoor air concentrations believed to be related to subsurface environmental
impacts are identified during interior renovations within the Savona Mill building, work will cease until
Terracon can mobilize to the site to evaluate the concentrations via field screening via PID. An
evaluation will be made as to the likely source of the vapors and procedures for proper ventilation of
the interior work spaces will be provided as necessary. Please note that this EMP does not apply to
elevated indoor air concentrations associated with the renovation activities (e.g. new building
materials, paints and solvents).

28
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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.

Note that approval of this EMP does not imply approval with any vapor intrusion mitigation land
use restrictions or requirements of the recorded or draft Brownfields Agreement and that
separate approval of mitigation measures will be required.

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 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.

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)
Click or tap here to enter text.

☐ 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 & 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 via EPA Method 7199.

29
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Please provide details on the proposed methods of managing the following commonly
encountered issues during redevelopment of Brownfields Properties.
There is a possibility that materials of unknown type (tanks, drums or impacted soils) could be
present on the site. The worker and contractor will be able to recognize when conditions change at
the site. Field staff will be able to determine if a new discovery of changed chemical conditions has
occurred, and if so, if it is significant. If there is question of the significance of a new discovery or
changed condition, the environmental manager (Terracon) or equivalent qualified environmental
professional should make the determination. The worker or contractor will be alert during
earthwork for the following indications that will trigger the possible identification of a new condition
not addressed by previous investigations and evaluation. All work will be completed in accordance
with applicable regulatory requirements.

Underground Storage Tanks:
Prior assessment has identified a possible orphan UST located at the northwestern corner of the
Savona Mill building based on an observed fill port. A ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey did
not identify evidence of a UST at this location, and it is currently unknown if the observed apparent
fill port is related to a former UST system that was removed or if a remnant UST is not located directly
beneath the fill port. Terracon will be present for grading work completed in this area to provide
support in identifying potential remnant UST system components and/or impacts. Sampling of
impacts in this area will be completed as necessary in general accordance with applicable NCDEQ
UST guidance.
Should USTs be identified elsewhere on the site, the contractor will cease work and contact
Terracon. If USTs are identified, the NC Brownfields Program will be notified within 48-hours of the
discovery. Terracon will provide oversight for the removal of the UST and collect closure samples in
general accordance with NCDEQ UST Program requirements. Documentation of the UST/container
removal activities, UST disposal, and sampling results will be provided to the NC Brownfields
Program project manager upon receipt by the environmental manager.

Sub-Grade Feature/Pit:
If during redevelopment activities, an unknown sub-grade feature/pit is encountered, the
environmental manager (Will Frazier) will be notified immediately. The environmental manager will
supervise exploratory excavation near the feature and soils will be screened for potential impacts.
If potential impacts are identified, the NC Brownfields Program project manager will be notified, and
soil samples will be collected from the area of potential impacts and analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method
8260B), SVOCs (EPA Method 8270D), and RCRA 8 Metals (EPA Methods 6010D and 7471B). The
location of the feature will be recorded for future reference. Soil sampling results will be provided
to the NC Brownfields Program project manager. If water is encountered within a sub-grade pit, the
procedures outlined in Section 6 will be followed.

Buried Waste Material – Note that if buried waste, non-native fill, or any obviously filled materials
is encountered, the DEQ Brownfields Program must be notified to determine if investigation of
landfill gases is required:
The below described protocols apply only to debris that must be excavated. If removal is not
necessary for construction or geotechnical reasons, the below protocols will not apply.
If during redevelopment activities, buried waste materials are encountered, the environmental

30
EMP Version 2, January 2021
manager (Will Frazier) will be notified immediately, and the identified waste should remain as
encountered. The NC Brownfields Program project manager will be notified by the environmental
manager. Following notification of the NC Brownfields Program project manager, the environmental
manager will supervise exploratory excavation activities near the waste and soils will be screened
for potential impacts. The waste will be segregated from surrounding soils, inventoried and
removed from the site for proper disposal. If potential impacts are identified, the NC Brownfields
Program project manager will be notified, and soil samples will be collected from the area of
potential impacts and analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260B), SVOCs (EPA Method 8270D), and
RCRA 8 Metals (EPA Methods 6010D and 7471B). Additional laboratory analyses may be required
based on the types of waste discovered. The location of the feature will be recorded for future
reference. Documentation of the waste removal activities, waste disposal, and sampling results will
be provided to the NC Brownfields Program project manager upon receipt by the environmental
manager.
Prior geotechnical assessment has identified buried construction debris, rubble, and concrete at
select locations if the site (see Exhibit 7) at depths ranging up to 17 feet bls. If construction debris is
identified during site grading, Terracon will evaluate whether the debris is likely to be
environmentally deleterious. If the debris appears to consist solely of former building materials (e.g.
concrete, wood, etc.), with Brownfields Program approval, the debris will be disposed at an off-site
C&D landfill. If the debris appears to consist of impacted materials, a sampling and disposal protocol
will be determined in coordination with the Brownfields Program.

Re-Use of Impacted Soils On-Site:
See Part 1 – Soil and Part 1.A for details regarding the re-use of impacted soils on the site.

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:
If impacted soils are noted at the site, the suspected soils will be isolated as soon as possible from
contact and disturbance from rain and wind until screening identification can be conducted.
Construction flagging tape attached to stakes can be used to prevent accidental movement of the
soils by earthwork operations. Covering of the soils with plastic sheeting anchored by planks,
sandbags, or an equivalent material will occur. The soils will be screened for volatile and semi-
volatile organic compounds. The screening will be conducted by the on-site environmental
manager or other qualified environmental professional. The owner or contractor may
alternatively go directly to laboratory testing for identification purposes.

Screening activities can be conducted on the site and can produce preliminary results quickly. The
field tests do not produce a precise measurement of the amounts of contaminants found in the
soils but indicates whether contaminants are likely present and will generally warrant further
caution and actual measurement. If preliminary screening activities indicate a changed condition
may be present, it may be necessary to conduct laboratory testing to determine if contaminants
are present in the soil and actually pose a significant risk. Laboratory testing requires time that
varies depending on the type of test needed. In general, laboratory testing for VOCs and SVOCs
can be completed in approximately 5 to 7 business days unless special arrangements are made

31
EMP Version 2, January 2021
with the laboratory for more expensive “RUSH” results. During this time, the suspected impacted
soils should be further isolated from worker and public exposure. Special handling and care must
be taken in sampling and transporting soils for the laboratory tests to be accurate. The workers in
physical contact with suspected impacted soils should have training consistent with 29 OSHA
1910.120.

For small volumes, the soils may be placed temporarily in steel open-top drums with bolt-on lids.
After sealing, the drum should be clearly labeled with pertinent information such as “Do Not
Disturb”, sample number, date, and name of sampler. The drums should be placed in an on-site
area protected from general traffic. For larger volumes, it can be effective to place the soils into
commercial roll-off dumpsters which have been previously washed and cleaned of residues or soils
can be stockpiled on plastic sheeting. The containers will not have free-draining bottoms and
stockpiles shall be graded, bermed, or provided with an equivalent barrier where necessary to help
prevent water run-off. The tops of the containers or stockpiles will then be covered with plastic
sheeting and secured against wind and rain. The commercial containers or stockpiles should be
placarded with information similar to the notation on drums.

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
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 1/31/2022

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.

33
EMP Version 2, January 2021

Caraustar and Savona MillSouth Turner Avenue and Chamberlain AvenueCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPCHARLOTTE EAST, NORTH CAROLINA QUADRANGLE (1988)
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0001,000 Feet
CONTOUR INTERVAL: 10FT
EXHIBITNO.
Filename:
Date:
PM:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
Project No.
Scale:
2
2701 Westport Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
1:24,000
Feb 2021
Topographic Map
Site
1 inch = 2,000 feet
³
WOF 71167021
WOF
CLC
CLC
71167021.topo
PC: 327+64.23PC: 324+63.09PT: 327+77.75PT: 323+41.15PT: 324+80.59324+00
325+00
326+00
327+00 328+0
0PC: 327+64.23PC: 324+63.09PT: 327+77.75PT: 323+41.15PT: 324+80.59324+00
325+00
326+00
327+00 328+0
0
(B)(A)FUTURE STATE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
(BY OTHERS)
ST
E
W
A
R
T

C
R
E
E
K
STRUCTURE #1
SEE STRUCTURE PLANS
PROPOSED 12' GREENWAY (-L3-)
S51°52'58"E
283.64'
S32°30
'
5
6
"
E
96.39'
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
SEABOARD COASTLINE
RAILROAD CO
SAVONA II LLC
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
COMMUNITY BUILDING
INVESTMENTS LLC
SAVONA MILLS LLC
SEABOARD COASTLINE
RAILROAD CO
FORSHAW CHEMICALS INC
SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD
REMOVE 20' OF
CHAIN LINK FENCE
S41°51'22"E
121.94'
BEGIN BOARDWALK -L3-
STA: 323+94.49
END BOARDWALK
BEGIN BRIDGE -L3-
STA: 325+82.78
END BRIDGE -L3-
STA: 327+63.95
END CONSTRUCTION -L3-
STA: 328+57.02
TIE TO EXISITNG SIDEWALK
END PROJECT -L3-
STA: 328+67.79
PROPOSED
CONCRETE SIDEWAKPROPOSED 308 SF
CLASS I RIP RAP
PROPOSED 548 SF
CLASS I RIP RAP
BEGIN CONCRETE APPROACH SLAB -L3-
STA: 323+84.49
END CONCRETE APPROACH SLAB -L3-
STA: 327+73.95
PROPOSED 88 LF
FARM FENCE
SEE DETAIL D06
TAPER SHOULDER DOWN TO 2'
TO KEEP TRAIL WITHIN PGE
STEWART CREEK ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT - PHASE I
(BY OTHERS)
Hor. Scale:1"=20'
Vert. Scale: 1"=4'
-L3- PROFILE
323+50 324+00 324+50 325+00 325+50 326+00 326+50 327+00 327+50 328+00 328+50 329+00
END CONSTRUCTION -L3-
STA: 328+57.02
ELEV: 659.97
NORT
H
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 6000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
OFSHEETNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONSTEWART CREEK GREENWAYCORONET WY TO STATE STPlans Prepared By:2000 South Tryon Street, Suite 200Charlotte, NC 28202NC License #F-0102C 202069NORT H CAROLI
NAJAS
O
N LEE CLA UD IO-DIAZE
NGI N E E RPROF E S SIO
N
A
LSEAL
035665
APPROVED BYPREPARED BYCHECKED BYDATEJOB NO.SCALEPLAN AND PROFILE9MATCH LINE STA 323+50 SEE SHEET 8DocuSign Envelope ID: 526A1FA3-0433-42B5-93C9-40D2EDB55C98
5/15/2020
PC: 327+64.23PC: 324+63.09PT: 327+77.75PT: 324+80.59324+00325+00326+00327+00328+00PC: 327+64.23PC: 324+63.09PT: 327+77.75PT: 324+80.59324+00325+00326+00327+00328+00STRUCTURE #1SEE STRUCTURE PLANSPROPOSED 12' GREENWAY (-L3-)S51°52'58"E283.64'S32°30'56"E96.39'SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROADREMOVE 20' OFCHAIN LINK FENCES41°51'22"E121.94'PROPOSED 308 SFCLASS I RIP RAPPROPOSED 548 SFCLASS I RIP RAPPROPOSED 88 LFFARM FENCESEE DETAIL D06TAPER SHOULDER DOWN TO 2'TO KEEP TRAIL WITHIN PGESTEWART CREEK ENHANCEMENTPROJECT - PHASE I(BY OTHERS)Hor. Scale:1"=20'Vert. Scale: 1"=4'-L3- PROFILE323+50 324+00 324+50 325+00 325+50 326+00 326+50 327+00 327+50 328+00 328+50 329+00END CONSTRUCTION -L3-STA: 328+57.02ELEV: 659.97NORTHKnow what'sRMECKLENBURG COUNTY 3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 6000CHARLOTTE, NC 28208   STEWART CREEK GREENWAYCORONET WY TO STATE STPlans Prepared By:2000 South Tryon Street, Suite 200Charlotte, NC 28202NC License #F-0102C 202069NORTH CAROLINA ENGINEERPROFESSIONAL SEAL035665PLAN AND PROFILE9MATCH LINE STA 323+50 SEE SHEET 8







6444.2377.7564+64.+644.4234.23.23333+777+77+77++7+7+7.7577.757.757++7+PC: 327PT: 3273332222: 33CC: 3:CC:C:PCPC: PC:3232322777PT 3PT: 3PT: 3332227327+327+77773332223222233232227277+7000+00+0027++3272+0327+00328+003056"ES32°30'56"E3056"ES3S33233296.39'339'9977777+77+7+++77+77+777777temporary construction easementpermanent greenway easement
TEMPORARY DIVERSION DITCH
SILT FENCE
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL INFO
DISTURBED AREA
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
RIP RAP APRON
PROPOSED CONTOURS
EXISTING CONTOURS
644
SPECIAL SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE
ROCK PIPE INLET SEDIMENT TRAP,
TYPE A, NCDOT STD. 1635.01
SAFETY FENCE,
SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SAFETY
FENCE SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
ROCK CHECK DAM, TYPE B (B)(A)324+00
325+00
326+00
327+00 328+0
0
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE #3PROPOSED 12' GREENWAY (-L3-)
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
SEABOARD COASTLINE
RAILROAD CO
SAVONA II LLC
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
COMMUNITY BUILDING
INVESTMENTS LLC
SAVONA MILLS LLC
SEABOARD COASTLINE
RAILROAD CO
FORSHAW CHEMICALS INC
END CONSTRUCTION -L3-
STA: 328+57.02
STRUCTURE #1
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 6000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
OFSHEETNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONSTEWART CREEK GREENWAYCORONET WY TO STATE STPlans Prepared By:2000 South Tryon Street, Suite 200Charlotte, NC 28202NC License #F-0102C 202069NORT H C AROLI
N
AJAS
O
N LEE CLAU D IO-DIAZE
NGI N E E RPROF E SSIO
N
A
LSEAL
035665
APPROVED BYPREPARED BYCHECKED BYDATEJOB NO.SCALEEROSION CONTROLPLANSEC09MATCH LINE STA 323+50 SEE SHEET EC08NORT
H
DocuSign Envelope ID: 526A1FA3-0433-42B5-93C9-40D2EDB55C98
5/15/2020
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 6000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
OFSHEETNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONSTEWART CREEK GREENWAYCORONET WY TO STATE STPlans Prepared By:2000 South Tryon Street, Suite 200Charlotte, NC 28202NC License #F-0102C 202069NORT H C AROLI
N
AJAS
O
N LEE CLAU D IO-DIAZE
NGI N E E RPROF E SSIO
N
A
LSEAL
035665
APPROVED BYPREPARED BYCHECKED BYDATEJOB NO.SCALECROSS SECTIONXS-07DocuSign Envelope ID: 526A1FA3-0433-42B5-93C9-40D2EDB55C98
5/15/2020
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 6000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
OFSHEETNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONSTEWART CREEK GREENWAYCORONET WY TO STATE STPlans Prepared By:2000 South Tryon Street, Suite 200Charlotte, NC 28202NC License #F-0102C 202069NORT H C AROLI
N
AJAS
O
N LEE CLAU D IO-DIAZE
NGI N E E RPROF E SSIO
N
A
LSEAL
035665
APPROVED BYPREPARED BYCHECKED BYDATEJOB NO.SCALECROSS SECTIONXS-08DocuSign Envelope ID: 526A1FA3-0433-42B5-93C9-40D2EDB55C98
5/15/2020

Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 6000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
OFSHEETNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONSTEWART CREEK GREENWAYCORONET WY TO STATE STPlans Prepared By:2000 South Tryon Street, Suite 200Charlotte, NC 28202NC License #F-0102C 202069APPROVED BYPREPARED BYCHECKED BYDATEJOB NO.SCALEENGINE E RPROFESSIO
N
A
L
SEAL
040384NORTHCAROLINAJ
EF
F
REY C . W ILSONSTRUCTURE #1 PLANAND PROFILES04NOR
T
H
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C4C57EA-AC64-4C46-832A-9A5FE76B8A09
5/18/2020
1
Bennett, Brian
From:Diaz, Jason <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 10:57 AM
To:Bennett, Brian
Cc:Straga, Gina
Subject:RE: [External]FW: Savona II/Brownfields
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  

We have about 210 CY of fill (dirt and stone) coming in and have negligible cut. The abutments will be constructed 
mostly in fill and the piles will be driven. I don’t think the rock has a special requirement but the imported soil will. 

Thanks, 

Jason Claudio-Diaz, P.E., CFM
Kimley-Horn | 200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 954 7464 | Mobile: [phone]

From: Bennett, Brian <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 4:58 PM 
To: Diaz, Jason <Jason.Diaz@kimley‐horn.com> 
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
&>&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>&>
&>
&>&>
&>
&>&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>&>&>&>&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
EXHIBIT NO.
File Path:
Date:
PM:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
1 in = 250 ft
Project No.
Scale:
5
WOF
WOF
CLC
CLC 2701 Westport Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28208Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Soil and Groundwater Sample Location Map
Caruastar and Savona MillsNCBP #23061-19-060South Turner Avenue and Chamberlain AvenueCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina3/2/2021
71167021
³
0 500250Feet
Legend
Site Boundary
&>Soil Sample
@A Groundwater Sample
2020-TW-03/SB-03
2020-GW-02
2020-GW-04
2016-GW-01
2016-GW-02/SB-02
2016-GW-03
2016-GW-05
2016-GW-04/SB-04
@A
2021-GW-01/SB-01
&>2021-SB-02
2016-SB-27
2016-SB-26
2016-SB-07
2016-SB-062016-SB-05
2016-SB-25
2016-SB-20
2016-SB-24
2016-SB-09
2016-SB-08
2016-SB-10
2016-SB-21
2016-SB-22
2016-SB-16
2016-SB-15
2016-SB-01
2016-SB-28
2016-SB-13
2016-SB-12
2016-SB-11
2016-SB-18
2016-SB-17
2016-SB-23
2016-SB-19
2018-SB-02
2018-SB-01
2018-SB-05
2018-SB-04
2018-SB-03
2020-SB-07
2020-SB-09
2020-SB-05
2020-SB-06
2020-SB-04
&>
2020-SB-01
2020-SB-02
2020-SB-08
2016-GW-03 Conc. (ug/L)
Naphthalene 16.9
2021-GW-01 Conc. (ug/L)
Chromium 414
2021-SB-01 Conc. (mg/kg)
MIBK 4.11
PCE 0.0173
Bis(2EH)phthalate 82.8
Arsenic 1.6J
Barium 3,300
Lead 8,990
2018-SB-01 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.8
2018-SB-02 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 3.6
2018-SB-03 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 6.2
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.451
2018-SB-04 Conc.
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 2.5
Benzo(a)anthracene 9.19
Benzo(a)pyrene 8.08
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 11.6
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.32
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3.95
2018-SB-05 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 4.1
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.328J
2018-SB-04 Conc.
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.5
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.807
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.631
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.895
Benzo(g,h)perylene 0.403
2016-SB-25 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 2.3
2016-SB-21 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 19.8
2016-SB-20 Conc. (mg/kg)
Barium 785
2018-SB-08 /DUP-01 Conc.
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 2.0
Cadmium 9.1
Benzo(a)anthracene 4.47
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.57
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.09
Benzo(g,h)perylene 1.73
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.46
Chrysene 0.521
2020-SB-08 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 6.4
Hex. Chromium 1.86
2020-SB-07 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 2.1
Hex. Chromium 1.75
Naphthalene 0.055
2,4-Dimethyphenol 34.1
2-Methylphenol 104
3&4-Methylphenol 59.4
Phenol 30.7
2020-SB-09 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 0.56 J
2020-SB-04 Conc. (mg/kg)
Bromomethane 0.0508
2020-SB-03 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.0
2020-SB-05 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.3
2020-SB-05 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.3
Hex. Chromium 1.19
2020-SB-01 Conc. (mg/kg)
Methylene Chloride 0.0878
Arsenic 5.7
2016-SB-27 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.1
2016-SB-07 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 18.0
2016-SB-06 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 2.4
2020-SB-02 Conc. (mg/kg)
Methylene Chloride 0.0818
2020-GW-02 SOIL Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 5.7
Methylene Chloride 0.0878
2016-SB-14 Conc. (mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.4
Onlycompounds exceeding their 2L Standard or PSRG are shown. Highlighting indicates:
Blue > Protection of Groundwater PSRG; Yellow > Residential PSRG; Pink > Non-Res. PSRG
Legend
Boring Location
500 ft
N➤➤N
© 2020 Google
© 2020 Google
© 2020 Google
EXISTING BUILDING±188,000 S.F.DECK LAYOUT
110 SPACES
635.87
653.20
636.28
652.08
647.49
648.16
640.86
654.368''SS8''SS8''SS 8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS6''SS6''SSS
SS
655.50
663.62
656.50
656.50
637.46
649.38
655.54659.99
663.67
EXISTING BUILDING
±31,590 S.F.
RES.06
RES.03
RES.04
RES.09
RES
.
0
5
RES.08
RES.02
RES.10
RES.01B
RES.01A
RES
.
0
7 PRELIMINARYSAVONA MILLRENOVATIONSPREPARED FORPORTMAN HOLDINGSEARTHWORK EXHIBIT1/1©NOR
T
H
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
&>
@A
&>&>&>&>&>
EXHIBIT NO.
File Path:
Date:
PM:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
1 in = 250 ft
Project No.
Scale:
9
WOF
WOF
CLC
CLC 2701 Westport Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28208Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Grading Plan with Soil and GroundwaterExceedances
Caruastar and Savona MillsNCBP #23061-19-060South Turner Avenue and Chamberlain AvenueCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina4/23/2021
71167021
³
0 500250Feet
Legend
@A Groundwater Sample
&>Soil SampleSite Boundary
2020-TW-03/SB-03
2020-GW-02-SOIL
2016-GW-02/SB-02
2016-GW-03
@A
2021-GW-01/SB-01
2016-SB-27
2016-SB-07
2016-SB-06
2016-SB-25
2016-SB-20
2016-SB-08
2016-SB-21
2018-SB-02
2018-SB-01
2018-SB-05
2018-SB-04
2018-SB-03
2020-SB-07
2020-SB-09
2020-SB-05
2020-SB-06
2020-SB-04
&>
2020-SB-01
2020-SB-08
2016-SB-14
2020-SB-02
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
EXHIBIT NO.
File Path:
Date:
PM:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
1 in = 250 ft
Project No.
Scale:
10
WOF
WOF
CLC
CLC 2701 Westport Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28208Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
2020 and 2021 Soil Vapor Sample Map
NC Brownfields Data Gap AssessmentCaruastar and Savona MillsNCBP #23061-19-060South Turner Avenue and Chamberlain Avenue1/13/2021
71167021
³
0 500250Feet
Legend
#*2021 Soil Vapor SampleSite Boundary
@A Groundwater Sample
#*2020 Soil Vapor Sample
2020-GW-03
2020-GW-02
2020-SV-04
2020-SV-03
2020-SV-02
2020-SV-01
2020-SV-05
2020-SV-06
2020-SV-09
2020-SV-08
2020-SV-07
2020-SV-10
2020-GW-04
2016-GW-01
2016-GW-02
2016-GW-03
2016-GW-05
2016-GW-04
2021-SV-01
2021-SV-02
2021-SV-032021-SV-04
2021-SV-05
2021-SV-06
2021-SV-07
2021-SV-08
2021-SV-09
2021-SV-10
2021-SV-11
2021-SV-12
2021-SV-13
2021-SV-14
#*2020-SV-05
Table 1
Soil Analytical Results (2016)
Caraustar Site
Chamberlain Avenue at Gardner Avenue
Charlotte, Mecklenburg Couny, NC
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:
Sample Date:02/25/16 02/25/16
Sample
Interval (ft
bgs):Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8260)
Acetone 24.0 12,000 100,000 <0.114 <0.0963 <0.0962 <0.0826 <0.132 <0.0920 <0.0988 <0.0933 <0.105 <0.0968 <0.0831 <0.0866 <0.0844 <0.0808 <0.0859
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8270)
Acenaphthene 8.40 720 9,000 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 0.965 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Anthracene 660 3,600 46,000 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 2.45 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.180 0.160 2.90 <0.386 0.807 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 0.475 4.47 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.059 0.016 0.290 <0.386 0.631 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 3.57 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene NS 0.42 1.80 <0.386 0.895 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 0.459 4.09 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.059 0.016 0.290 <0.386 0.403 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 1.73 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.600 0.160 2.90 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 1.46 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Chrysene 18.0 16.0 290 <0.386 0.734 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 3.29 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.190 0.016 0.290 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 0.521 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Dibenzofuran 5.20 15.0 200 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 0.670 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Fluoranthene 330 480 6,000 <0.386 1.66 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 1.00 10.1 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Fluorene 56.0 480 6,000 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 1.32 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.00 0.160 2.90 <0.386 <0.397 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 <0.414 1.80 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Phenanthrene 68.00 NS NS <0.386 1.20 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 0.661 8.08 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
Pyrene 220 360 4,600 <0.386 1.43 <0.429 <0.392 <0.461 <0.389 <0.375 0.789 6.60 <0.413 <0.389 <0.396 <0.384 <0.376 <4.00
RCRA Metals
Arsenic 5.80 0.680 3.00 <0.91 1.5 <0.91 <0.67 <0.87 2.4 18.0 2.0 NA <1.1 <1.1 <0.75 NA <0.71 <3.8
Barium 580 3,000 44,000 149 343 160 37.5 29.6 244 85.5 141 NA 50.2 68.2 29.3 NA 90.2 128
Cadmium 3.00 14.00 200 <0.091 0.77 <0.091 <0.067 <0.087 <0.078 0.09 9.1 NA <0.11 <0.11 <0.075 NA <0.071 <0.38
Chromium 360,000 24,000 100,000 3.0 9.7 7.0 16.0 21.5 6.7 18.4 18.2 NA 38.8 18.5 31.9 NA 13.4 40.0
Lead 270 400 800 2.3 141 3.2 3.4 5.9 38.2 16.6 54.6 NA 36.6 7.2 6.0 NA 1.4 51.6
Mercury 1.00 1.90 3.10 <0.0048 0.016 0.011 0.015 0.025 0.240 0.630 0.075 NA 0.056 0.019 0.011 NA <0.0027 0.030
Selenium 2.10 78.0 1,200 <0.91 <0.71 <0.91 <0.67 <0.87 <0.78 1.4 <0.92 NA <1.1 <1.1 <0.75 NA <0.71 <3.8
Silver 3.40 78.0 1,200 <0.46 <0.35 <0.46 <0.34 <0.44 <0.39 <0.30 <0.46 NA <0.54 <0.55 <0.38 NA <0.36 <1.9
Notes:
Only detected compounds are shown.
Concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
NA - not analyzed
NS - no standard
PoG - Protection of Groundwater
SB-05 (4-5)
2-5 0.5-2 2-5 0.5-2 0.5-2 4-5 0.5-2
02/25/16 02/25/16 02/26/16 02/26/16 02/26/16 02/26/16
SB-10 (2-5) SB-11 (0.5-2)
DUP-02-
02262016 SB-12 (4-5) SB-13 (0.5-2)SB-08 (2-5)
2-5
DUP-01-
02252016 SB-09 (0.5-2)SB-02 (0.5-
5)
2-5
02/25/16
0.5-5
SB-06 (2-5) SB-07 (2-4)
02/25/16
2-4
SB-03 (2-5) SB-04 (4-5)
02/25/16 02/25/1602/25/16
4-5
SB-01 (4-5)
02/25/16 02/25/16
2-5 4-5 4-5
PSRG - NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals,
updated September 2015.
Concentrations highlighted in grey exceed their respective protection of groundwater
PSRG.
Concentrations highlighted in yellow exceed their respective residential health based
PSRG (and PoG in some instances).
Concentrations highlighted in orange exceed their respective PoG, residential, and
industrial health based PSRG.
Analyte PoG PSRG Residential
PSRG
Industrial
PSRG
Page 1 of 2
Table 1
Soil Analytical Results (2016)
Caraustar Site
Chamberlain Avenue at Gardner Avenue
Charlotte, Mecklenburg Couny, NC
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Sample
Interval (ft
bgs):Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8260)
Acetone 24.0 12,000 100,000
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8270)
Acenaphthene 8.40 720 9,000
Anthracene 660 3,600 46,000
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.180 0.160 2.90
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.059 0.016 0.290
Benzo(b)fluoranthene NS 0.42 1.80
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.059 0.016 0.290
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.600 0.160 2.90
Chrysene 18.0 16.0 290
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.190 0.016 0.290
Dibenzofuran 5.20 15.0 200
Fluoranthene 330 480 6,000
Fluorene 56.0 480 6,000
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.00 0.160 2.90
Phenanthrene 68.00 NS NS
Pyrene 220 360 4,600
RCRA Metals
Arsenic 5.80 0.680 3.00
Barium 580 3,000 44,000
Cadmium 3.00 14.00 200
Chromium 360,000 24,000 100,000
Lead 270 400 800
Mercury 1.00 1.90 3.10
Selenium 2.10 78.0 1,200
Silver 3.40 78.0 1,200
Notes:
Only detected compounds are shown.
Concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
NA - not analyzed
NS - no standard
PoG - Protection of Groundwater
PSRG - NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals,
updated September 2015.
Concentrations highlighted in grey exceed their respective protection of groundwater
PSRG.
Concentrations highlighted in yellow exceed their respective residential health based
PSRG (and PoG in some instances).
Concentrations highlighted in orange exceed their respective PoG, residential, and
industrial health based PSRG.
Analyte PoG PSRG Residential
PSRG
Industrial
PSRG
<0.0876 <0.0965 <0.0994 <0.0952 <0.0940 <0.0765 <0.0920 0.177 <0.0930 <0.0978 <0.0963 0.147 <0.0827 <0.102
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
<0.398 <0.390 <0.401 <0.416 <0.404 <0.376 <0.405 <0.405 <0.409 <0.418 <0.427 <0.436 <0.343 <0.344
1.4 <0.95 <4.3 <0.64 <5.8 <0.94 <1.1 19.8 <1.0 <0.70 <0.91 2.3 <0.96 1.1
107 88.5 84.7 29.0 203 64.0 785 119 207 18.6 98.3 157 36.7 38.7
<0.12 <0.095 <0.43 <0.064 <0.58 <0.094 <0.11 <0.080 <0.10 <0.070 <0.091 0.59 <0.096 <0.060
21.7 12.5 24.1 34.3 14.9 15.8 24.0 37.3 6.8 33.6 28.6 21.7 1.2 8.7
63.8 4.8 3.5 3.8 22.4 10.4 7.1 24.9 3.2 8.3 3.8 183 1.2 4.2
0.068 0.014 <0.0052 0.038 0.008 0.012 0.150 0.048 0.0077 0.013 0.027 0.130 <0.0045 0.010
<1.2 <0.95 <4.3 <0.64 <5.8 <0.94 <1.1 1.5 <1.0 0.81 <0.91 <1.0 <0.96 <0.60
<0.59 <0.48 <2.2 <0.32 <2.9 <0.47 <0.53 <0.40 <0.50 <0.35 <0.46 <0.52 <0.48 <0.30
2-4 4-5 2-4 0.5-21-2 2-5 2-5 2-5 4-5
02/25/16 02/25/16 02/25/16 02/25/16
0.5-2 0.5-2 2-4 4-5 4-5
02/26/16 02/25/16 02/25/16 02/25/16 02/25/16
SB-24 (2-4)SB-25 (4-5)SB-26 (2-4) SB-27 (0.5-2)
02/25/16 02/25/16 02/25/16 02/25/16 02/26/16
SB-19 (1-2)SB-20 (2-5)SB-21 (2-5)SB-22 (2-5)SB-23 (4-5)SB-14 (0.5-2) SB-15 (0.5-2) SB-16 (2-4)SB-17 (4-5)SB-18 (4-5)
Page 2 of 2
Table 2
Soil Analytical Results (2018)
Caraustar
Chamberlain Avenue at Gardner Avenue
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Analyte Sample ID:SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5
Sample Date: 03/23/18 03/23/18 03/23/18 03/23/18 03/23/18
Sample
Interval (ft Grab (4-5') Grab (2-3') Grab (2-3') Grab (2-3') Grab (2-3')
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260
Acetone 12000 140000 0.0285J 0.0123J ND 0.0091J ND
p-Isopropyltoluene NS NS 0.002J ND ND ND ND
Naphthalene 4.1 18 ND ND ND 0.0171 ND
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8270
Acenaphthene 720 9000 ND ND ND 1.28 ND
Acenaphthylene NS NS ND ND ND 0.292J ND
Anthracene 3600 45000 ND ND ND 4.03 ND
Benzo(a)anthracene 1.1 21 ND ND 0.505 9.19 0.725
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.11 2.1 ND ND 0.451 8.08 0.328J
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.1 21 ND ND 0.585 11.6 0.535
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 11 210 ND ND ND 3.64 0.268J
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene NS NS ND ND 0.326J 4.2 0.128J
Chrysene 110 2100 ND ND 0.428J 7.83 0.772
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.11 2.1 ND ND ND 1.32 ND
Dibenzofuran 15 210 ND ND ND 1.36 ND
Fluoranthene 480 6,000 ND ND 1.01 21.9 0.49
Fluorene 480 6,000 ND ND ND 2.39 ND
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.1 21 ND ND 0.26J 3.95 0.0985J
1-Methylnaphthalene 18 73 ND ND ND 0.503 ND
2-Methylnaphthalene 48 600 ND ND ND 0.709 ND
Naphthalene 4.1 18 ND ND ND 0.947 ND
Phenanthrene NS NS ND ND 0.442J 15.6 0.166J
Pyrene 360 4,500 ND ND 0.699 10.2 0.406
RCRA Metals by EPA Method 6010 and 7471
Arsenic 0.68 3.0 1.8 3.6 6.2 2.5 4.1
Barium 3,100 47,000 88.5 95.9 112 64.1 87.3
Cadmium 14 200 ND 0.064J 0.065J 1.5 0.15
Chromium 23,000 350,000 9.8 21.6 42.1 35 35.7
Lead 400 800 6.1 8.4 9.3 52.5 45.1
Mercury 2.3 9.7 0.0049 ND ND ND 0.11
Selenium 78 1,200 ND ND 0.49J ND ND
Silver 78 1,200 ND ND ND 1.4 ND
Notes:
All results are shown in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
NS - No Standard
ND-Not Detected
Total chromium is assumed to consist exclusively of trivalent chromium. Historical site operations do not indicate the use of hexavalent chromium.
PSRG - NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals, updated February 2018.
Concentrations highlighted in yellow exceed their respective Residential PSRG.
Concentrations highlighted in orange exceed their respective Industrial PSRG.
Residential
PSRGs
Industrial
PSRGs
Table 3
Soil Analytical Results (2020)
Caraustar and Savona Mills
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:2020-
GW-02 SOIL 2020-SB-01 2020-SB-02 2020-
SB-02 DUP 2020-SB-03 2020-SB-04 2020-SB-05 2020-SB-06 2020-SB-07 2020-SB-08 2020-SB-09
Sample Interval (ft bgs):5-10 0-2.5 0-2.5 0-2.5 2.5-5 2-2.5 2-2.5 0-2.5 2-2.5 0-5 2.5-5.0
Sample Date:10/1/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 10/2/2020 8/13/2020
Bromomethane <0.0133 <0.0087 <0.0091 <0.0089 <0.0093 0.0508 <0.0079 <0.0093 <0.0081 <0.017 <0.0084 0.005 1.4 6.4
Methylene Chloride 0.0878 <0.0082 0.0818 <0.0083 <0.0087 <0.0078 <0.0075 <0.0087 <0.0077 <0.034 <0.0079 0.0025 58 650
Naphthalene <0.0067 <0.0031 <0.0032 <0.0032 <0.0033 <0.0030 <0.0028 <0.0033 0.055 <0.0085 0.034 J 0.39 2.1 8.8
p-Isopropyltoluene 0.499 <0.0031 <0.0032 <0.0031 <0.0032 <0.0029 <0.0028 <0.0033 <0.0028 <0.0085 <0.0029 NE NE NE
Toluene <0.0067 0.047 J 0.048 J 0.036 J 0.044 J 0.042 J 0.043 J 0.043 J 0.088 <0.0085 0.057 8.3 990 9,700
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0067 <0.0033 <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0035 <0.0031 <0.0030 <0.0035 0.0035 J <0.0085 <0.0032 11 56 320
o-Xylene <0.0067 <0.0032 <0.0033 <0.0032 <0.0034 <0.0030 <0.0029 <0.0034 0.038 J <0.0085 <0.0030 9.8 140 590
2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.386 <0.386 <0.382 <0.397 <0.419 NA <0.382 <0.409 34.1 <0.445 <0.369 2.4 250 3,300
2-Methylphenol (o-cresol)<0.386 <0.386 <0.382 <0.397 <0.419 NA <0.382 <0.409 104 <0.445 <0.369 6.5 630 8,200
3&4-Methylphenol (m&p phenol)<0.386 <0.386 <0.382 <0.397 <0.419 NA <0.382 <0.409 59.4 <0.445 <0.369 0.64 630 8,200
Phenol <0.386 <0.386 <0.382 <0.397 <0.419 NA <0.382 <0.409 30.7 <0.445 <0.369 0.34 3,800 49,000
Arsenic 5.7 1.5 <0.41 <0.45 1.0 NA 1.3 1.3 2.1 6.4 0.56 J 5.8 0.68 3.0
Barium 84.3 98.2 171 194 68.5 NA 71.4 89.8 65.4 58.0 73.4 580 3,100 47,000
Cadmium 0.97 0.5 0.5 0.49 0.42 NA 0.42 0.3 0.26 0.27 0.36 3.0 14 200
Chromium (Total)115 55.4 10.1 12.4 60.0 NA 29.3 70.7 162 23.3 64.2 NE NE NE
Chromium VI <0.327 <0.321 <0.278 <0.283 <0.320 NA <0.309 1.19 1.75 1.86 <0.315 3.8 0.31 6.5
Lead 8.2 3 2.5 2.4 4.9 NA 5.4 7.2 3.6 6.0 5.4 400 400 800
Mercury 0.04 0.013 0.022 0.01 0.04 NA 0.067 0.029 0.0083 0.011 0.028 1.0 2.3 9.7
Selenium 2.8 <0.44 <0.41 <0.45 <0.51 NA <0.42 <0.47 <0.42 0.70 J <0.42 2.1 78 1,200
Silver 0.83 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.26 NA <0.21 <0.23 <0.21 <0.20 <0.21 3.4 78 1,200
Notes:
Results are shown in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
ft bgs - Feet Below Ground Surface
ppm - parts per million
Only compounds detected within one or more sample are shown.
NA - Not Analyzed
NE - Not Established
Detections are indicated in bold.
J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
PSRG - NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (January 2021)
Shaded cells indicate the detected concentrations exceed the regulatory threshold of the corresponding color.
RCRA Metals by EPA Method 6020 (Chromium VI by Method 7196A)
Residential
PSRGs
Non-Residential
PSRGs
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8270
PoG PSRG
Table 4
Soil Analytical Results - Wikoff Parcel (2021)
Caraustar and Savona Mills Brownfields Site
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:2021-SB-01 2021-SB-02
Sample Interval (ft bgs):0-1 2-4
Sample Date:1/7/2021 1/7/2021
Acetone 0.679 <0.0523 25 12,000 140,000
Ethylbenzene 0.0277 <0.0038 13 6.1 27
Isopropylbenzene (cumene)0.0493 <0.0028 2.3 410 2,100
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)4.11 <0.0079 0.45 7,000 30,000
Naphthalene 0.437 0.0172 0.39 2.1 8.8
Tetrachloroethylene 0.0173 <0.0026 0.0063 17 82
Toluene 0.0173 <0.0023 8.3 990 9,700
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.070 <0.0022 12 63 370
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.646 <0.0027 11 56 320
m&p-Xylene 0.152 <0.0056 9.8 120 520
o-Xylene 0.132 <0.0036 9.8 140 590
Di-n-butylphthalate 13.8 <0.0911 35 1,300 16,000
Di-n-octylphthalate 7.47 <0.230 560 130 1,600
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 82.8 0.252 J 14 39 160
Arsenic 1.6 J <0.46 5.8 0.68 3.0
Barium 3330 70.2 580 3,100 47,000
Cadmium 0.5 0.063 J 3.0 14 200
Chromium (Total)1960 70.8 NE NE NE
Lead 8990 9.7 400 400 800
Mercury 0.024 2.00 1.0 2.3 9.7
Silver 0.78 0.025 3.4 78 1,200
Notes:
Results are shown in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
ft bgs - Feet Below Ground Surface
ppm - parts per million
Only compounds detected within one or more sample are shown.
NA - Not Analyzed
NE - Not Established
Detections are indicated in bold.
J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
PSRG - NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (January 2021)
Shaded cells indicate the detected concentrations exceed the regulatory threshold of the corresponding color.
Please note that the samples were submitted to the laboratory with 2020 prefixes; however, to avoid confusion with samples
collected in 2020 with similar names, the 2021 prefix is used in this table and throughout the report. These data correspond
to the laboratory analytical report dated January 15, 2021 with Pace Project No. 92515685.
RCRA Metals by EPA Method 6020 (Chromium VI by Method 7196A)
Residential
PSRGs
Non-Residential
PSRGs
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8270
PoG PSRG
Table 5
Groundwater Analytical Results (2016)
Caraustar Site
Chamberlain Avenue at Gardner Avenue
Charlotte, Mecklenburg Couny, NC
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Screen Interval
(ft bls):
Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8260)
Naphthalene 6 <1.0 <1.0 16.9 <1.0 <1.0
Toluene 600 1.8 <1.0 <1.0 1.6 2.7
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA Method 8270)
Notes:
Only detected compounds are shown.
Concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (μg/L)
NCAC 2L GWQS - North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 2L Groundwater Quality Standards (April 1, 2013).
Concentrations highlighted in grey exceed their respective NCAC 2L GWQS.
GW-04 GW-05
14-19 5-10 5-15 15-25 7-17
GW-03GW-01 GW-02
02/26/16 02/26/16 02/26/16
SVOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits.
02/26/16 02/26/16AnalyteNCAC 2L
GWQS
Table 6
Groundwater Analytical Results (2020)
Caraustar and Savona Mills
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Turner Avenue and Chamberlain Avenue
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID: 2020-GW-02 2020-TW-3 2020-TW-03 DUP 2020-GW-04
Sample Date: 10/1/2020 8/14/2020 8/14/2020 10/1/2020
Depth to Water
(DTW):10.6 12.7 12.7 18.00
p-Isopropyltoluene 0.57 J <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 NE
Arsenic <4.7 <4.7 5.3 J <4.7 10
Barium 25.8 19.4 18.5 33.0 700
Chromium (Total)72.8 <3.7 <3.7 6.0 10
Chromium (VI)<0.0060 NA NA <0.0060 NE
Lead 7.2 <4.5 <4.5 <4.5 400
Notes:
All results are shown in micrograms per liter (µg/L).
Only compounds detected in one or more sample are shown.
Detections are indicated in bold.
J - Estimated concentration between method detection limit and reporting limit.
Concentrations highlighted in yellow exceed their respective NCDEQ 2L groundwater standard.
NCDEQ 2L
Groundwater
Standard
Analyte
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8270
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260
RCRA Metals by EPA Method 6020
Compounds not detected above laboratory method detection limits
Table 7
Groundwater Analytical Results (2021)
Caraustar and Savona Mills Brownfields Site
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Wikoff Property
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID: 2021-GW-01
Sample Date: 1/7/2021
Depth to Water (DTW): ~28.0
Barium 232 700
Cadmium 0.53 J 2
Chromium (Total)414 10
Lead 14.4 400
Notes:
All results are shown in micrograms per liter (µg/L).
Only compounds detected in one or more sample are shown.
Detections are indicated in bold.
J - Estimated concentration between method detection limit and reporting limit.
Concentrations highlighted in yellow exceed their respective NCDEQ 2L groundwater standard.
Please note that the samples were submitted to the laboratory with 2020 prefixes; however, to
avoid confusion with samples collected in 2020 with similar names, the 2021 prefix is used in
this table and throughout the report. These data correspond to the laboratory analytical
report dated January 15, 2021 with Pace Project No. 92515685.
NCDEQ 2L
Groundwater
Standard
Analyte
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8270
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260
RCRA Metals by EPA Method 6020
Compounds not detected above laboratory method detection limits
Compounds not detected above laboratory method detection limits
Table 8
Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Savona Mill Building (2020 and 2021)
Caraustar and Savona Mills
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:2020-SV-01 2020-SV-02 2020-SV-03 DUP-01 (SV-03)2020-SV-04 UnAdj.2020-SV-04 Adj.2021-SV-11 2021-SV-12
Sample Date:08/19/20 08/19/20 08/19/20 08/19/20 08/20/20 08/19/20 01/11/21 01/11/21
Sample Depth:Sub-Slab Sub-Slab Sub-Slab Sub-Slab Sub-Slab Sub-Slab Sub-Slab Sub-Slab
Acetone 55 20 240 210 8,700 11,869 130 25 220,000 2,700,000
Benzene 16 3.6 22 15 <0.19 <0.19 1.4 2.6 12 1,600
1,3-Butadiene <0.32 <0.32 12 8.1 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 3.1 160
2-Butanone (MEK)8.8 J <2.0 77 56 42 57 6.2 J 3.5 J 35,000 440,000
Carbon Disulfide <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 4.8 J <1.6 4,900 61,000
Carbon Tetrachloride 75 1.3 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 0.45 J 16 200
Chloroform 4.7 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 0.35 J 4.1 53
Chloromethane <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 1.0 0.63 J 630 7,900
Cyclohexane <0.34 <0.34 <0.34 <0.34 <0.34 <0.34 2.5 1.3 42,000 530,000
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)<0.31 <0.31 <0.31 <0.31 <0.31 <0.31 2.7 2.3 700 8,800
Ethanol 150 59 120 91 650 887 190 54 NE NE
Ethylbenzene 3.2 1.6 4.8 3.7 <0.18 <0.18 6.6 3.7 37 490
4-Ethyltoluene <0.30 <0.30 3.9 2.8 180 246 4.5 3.1 NE NE
Heptane 2.7 <0.35 5.0 4.3 5.0 6.8 5.2 2.6 2,800 35,000
Hexane 2.9 J <1.3 <1.3 33 53 72 3.8 J 3.4 J 4,900 61,000
2-Hexanone (Methyl butyl ketone)<0.46 <0.46 41 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 210 2,600
Isopropanol 72 25 86 59 12,000 16,371 120 13 J 1,400 18,000
Methylene Chloride <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 19 32 44 26 17 3,400 53,000
Naphthalene 12 6.8 42 33 99 135 29 <0.59 2.8 36
Propene <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 2.2 J 6.2 J 21,000 260,000
Styrene 2.0 0.9 5.4 3.6 <0.24 <0.24 0.26 J <0.24 7,000 88,000
Tetrachloroethylene 15 8.4 1.1 J <0.44 69 94 25 0.62 280 3,500
Toluene 17 5.4 22 16 55 75 13 18 35,000 440,000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.36 <0.36 <0.36 <0.36 <0.36 <0.36 1.3 <0.36 35,000 440,000
Trichloroethylene <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 0.84 J 14 180
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1.6 J 1.9 J <0.85 1.6 J <0.85 <0.85 1.1 J 1.3 J NE NE
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.22 3.3 34 26 590 805 6.0 3.1 420 5,300
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 0.87 J 8.8 6.6 690 941 1.8 0.81 J 420 5,300
m&p-xylene 13 6.4 11 9.5 <0.30 <0.30 13 12 700 8,800
o-Xylene 4.3 2.3 5.1 4.5 <0.23 <0.23 4.8 4.7 700 8,800
Notes:
Concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) unless otherwise noted.
Only compounds detected in one or more sub-slab soil vapor sample are shown. Detected concentrations are bolded.
2020-SV-04 did not pass the helium tracer test. During sampling, the helium concentration within the shroud was maintained at approximately 15% helium.
2020-SV-04 was analyzed for helium via EPA Method 3C and determined to have a concentration of 4% helium, indicating breakthrough of approximately 26.7%. VOC concentrations
have been adjusted upward to account for introduction of ambient air into the sample, conservatively assuming that VOC compounds were not present within ambient
air and therefore assuming that the introduced air acted solely to dilute the detected concentrations within the sub-slab. For more information regarding the adjustment
method, see Section 5.3 of the report. Unadjusted concentrations are shown in the left column and adjusted concentrations in the right column.
NE - Standard Not Established
DWM - North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management
SGSL - DWM Sub-slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Level, updated January 2021.
Highlighted concentrations exceed their respective residential SGSL.
J - Estimated concentration between the laboratory method detection and reporting limits.
Residential
Screening Level
SGSL
Non-Residential
Screening Level SGSL
EPA Method TO-15
Table 8
Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Proposed Multi-Family Areas (2020)
Caraustar and Savona Mills
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:2020-SV-05 2020-SV-06 2020-SV-07 2020-SV-08 2020-SV-09*2020-SV-10
Sample Date:10/8/2020 10/6/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 8/13/2020 10/6/2020
Sample Depth:6.5 - 7 Sub-slab 4.5 - 5 4.5 - 5 5.5 - 6 Sub-slab
17 32 180 130 <11 23 220,000 2,700,000
Benzene 0.45 0.2 48 13 68 <0.19 12 1,600
1,3-Butadiene <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 4 <0.32 <0.32 3.1 160
2-Butanone (MEK)2.8 2.8 41 11 J 15 J 3.3 35,000 440,000
Carbon Disulfide 8.5 <1.6 33 5.2 J 59 <1.6 4,900 61,000
Carbon Tetrachloride <0.33 <0.33 2.2 29 <0.33 <0.33 16 200
Chloroethane <0.52 <0.52 1.2 <0.52 3.7 <0.52 70,000 880,000
Chloroform 0.84 <0.24 1.7 1.8 1.7 2.2 4.1 53
Chloromethane <0.32 <0.32 12 0.64 J <0.32 <0.32 630 7,900
Cyclohexane <0.34 <0.34 5.4 21 17 <0.34 42,000 530,000
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 26 14 <0.44 <0.44 <0.44 4.1 NE NE
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.27 <0.27 0.63 J 0.29 J 0.77 J <0.27 8.5 110
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)<0.31 <0.31 11 14 <0.31 110 700 8,800
Ethanol 5.8 220 30 26 18 270 NE NE
Ethyl Acetate <4.3 <4.3 5.4 J 9.9 11 <4.3 490 6,100
Ethylbenzene 2.9 0.42 49 43 71 0.23 37 490
4-Ethyltoluene 1.3 <0.30 80 70 110 <0.30 NE NE
Heptane 2.8 <0.35 81 28 170 <0.35 2,800 35,000
Hexane <1.3 <1.3 22 J 26 J 39 <1.3 4,900 61,000
Isopropanol <4.5 56 26 7.6 J 5.8 J 41 1,400 18,000
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)<0.29 <0.29 <0.29 0.29 J <0.29 <0.29 3,600 47,000
Methylene Chloride <1.6 <1.6 2.9 J 3.6 J 8.5 <1.6 3,400 53,000
Naphthalene <0.59 0.99 16 5.9 3.5 <0.59 2.8 36
Propene <1.2 <1.2 200 30 <1.2 <1.2 21,000 260,000
Styrene <0.24 <0.24 20 0.61 J 14 <0.24 7,000 88,000
Tetrachloroethylene 1.6 5.1 12 53 0.79 J 4.5 280 3,500
Tetrahydrofuran <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 3.9 J <1.5 <1.5 14,000 180,000
Toluene 4.3 1.4 150 130 200 0.63 35,000 440,000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.36 <0.36 0.59 J 11 <0.36 <0.36 35,000 440,000
Trichloroethylene <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 1.9 0.64 J <0.40 14 180
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1.2 1.4 3.3 J 15 <0.85 1.2 NE NE
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113)<1.2 <1.2 1.3 J 2.2 J <1.2 <1.2 35,000 440,000
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.22 <0.22 100 84 120 <0.22 420 5,300
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.71 <0.26 25 26 30 <0.26 420 5,300
Vinyl Chloride <0.29 <0.29 4.4 <0.29 11 <0.29 5.6 280
m&p-xylene 12 1.7 170 160 240 0.89 700 8,800
o-Xylene 4.5 0.75 71 70 94 0.36 700 8,800
Notes:
Concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) unless otherwise noted.
Only compounds detected in one or more soil vapor sample are shown. Detected concentrations are bolded.
NE - Standard Not Established
DWM - North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management
SGSL - DWM Sub-slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Level, updated January 2021.
Highlighted concentrations exceed their respective residential SGSL.
J - Estimated concentration between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and reporting limit.
*Helium concentration within shroud maintained during sample, and sample also analyzed for helium via EPA Method 3C. Helium not detected above MDL.
Residential
Screening Level
SGSL
Non-Residential
Screening Level SGSL
EPA Method TO-15
Acetone
Table 8
Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Proposed Multi-Family Areas (2021)
Caraustar and Savona Mills
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID:2021-SV-01 2021-SV-02 2021-SV-04 2021-SV-05 2021-SV-08 2021-SV-09 2021-SV-10 2021-DUP-01 (2021-
SV-10)
Sample Date:1/12/2021 1/11/2021 01/11/21 01/12/21 01/12/21 01/12/21 01/12/21 01/12/21
Sample Depth:5 - 5.5 6.5 - 7 6.5 - 7 7 - 7.5 7 - 7.5 7 - 8 7 - 7.5 7 - 7.5
78 <11 620 <11 250 290 25 16 J 220,000 2,700,000
Benzene 11 4.4 16 8.8 21 23 12 10 12 1,600
2-Butanone (MEK)5.6 J <2.0 56 2.0 J 15 J 7.7 J 3.9 J 3.0 J 35,000 440,000
Carbon Disulfide 42 13 2.6 20 51 19 41 27 4,900 61,000
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.6 J <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 0.38 J <0.33 16 200
Chloroform 18 0.84 J 1.1 3.6 13 J 2.8 10 10 4.1 53
Chloromethane 3.3 <0.32 10 0.39 J 0.44 0.69 J 0.61 J 0.38 J 630 7,900
Cyclohexane 8.3 1.0 18 0.45 J 10 30 2.2 1.3 42,000 530,000
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.53 J <0.27 0.65 J 0.7 J 0.51 J 0.34 J <0.27 <0.27 8.5 110
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)1.0 2.5 <0.31 3.8 0.57 J 1.2 2.2 2.2 700 8,800
1,2-Dichloroethane 4.0 <0.30 0.31 J <0.30 <0.30 0.42 J <0.30 <0.30 3.6 47
Ethanol 10 J 26 52 4.8 J 93 7.8 J 7.4 J 22 NE NE
Ethylbenzene 38 28 49 86 110 82 33 35 37 490
4-Ethyltoluene 72 48 110 190 190 150 48 53 NE NE
Heptane 78 26 55 9.7 39 160 55 21 2,800 35,000
Hexane 23 J 5.9 J 200 3.5 J 24 J 81 28 8.1 J 4,900 61,000
Isopropanol <4.5 <4.5 15 J <4.5 260 <4.5 <4.5 8.2 J 1,400 18,000
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)0.29 J <0.29 1.4 0.52 J 0.82 0.5 J <0.29 <0.29 3,600 47,000
Methylene Chloride 13 9.4 5.9 J 11 15 15 17 5.5 J 3,400 53,000
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)<0.43 <0.43 6.9 1.8 5.8 <0.43 <0.43 <0.43 21,000 260,000
Naphthalene 2.9 <0.59 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.3 <0.59 3.9 2.8 36
Propene 180 12 J 380 21 120 1,100 330 100 21,000 260,000
Styrene 0.6 J <0.24 1.1 0.90 1.2 0.85 0.6 J 0.58 J 7,000 88,000
Tetrachloroethylene 5.7 4.1 5.1 48 15 11 6.1 5.5 280 3,500
Tetrahydrofuran 1.7 J <1.5 11 <1.5 2.5 J <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 14,000 180,000
Toluene 240 120 170 360 590 400 250 230 35,000 440,000
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1.1 J 38 <0.85 21 <0.85 <0.85 1.1 J 0.94 J NE NE
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 85 55 99 210 200 140 43 49 420 5,300
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 21 14 25 52 54 39 13 14 420 5,300
m&p-xylene 140 110 150 330 390 290 110 120 700 8,800
o-Xylene 53 41 86 120 140 100 35 38 700 8,800
Notes:
Concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) unless otherwise noted.
Only compounds detected in one or more soil vapor sample are shown. Detected concentrations are bolded.
NE - Standard Not Established
DWM - North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management
SGSL - DWM Sub-slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Level, updated January 2021.
Highlighted concentrations exceed their respective residential SGSL.
J - Estimated concentration between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and reporting limit.
*Helium concentration within shroud maintained during sample, and sample also analyzed for helium via EPA Method 3C. Helium not detected above MDL.
Residential
Screening Level
SGSL
Non-Residential
Screening Level SGSL
EPA Method TO-15
Acetone
Table 8
Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Wikoff Parcel (2021)
Caraustar and Savona Mills
Brownfields Site No. 23061-19-060
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 71167021
Sample ID: 2021-SV-13 2021-SV-14
Sample Date:01/11/21 01/11/21
Sample Depth:Sub-Slab Sub-Slab
17 J 37 220,000 2,700,000
Benzene 0.93 0.66 12 1,600
2-Butanone (MEK)2.4 J 2.7 J 35,000 440,000
Carbon Disulfide <1.6 2.7 J 4,900 61,000
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.5 <0.33 16 200
Chloromethane <0.32 0.50 J 630 7,900
Cyclohexane 0.91 0.59 J 42,000 530,000
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)2.3 2.5 700 8,800
Ethanol 66 210 NE NE
Ethylbenzene 3 2.1 37 490
4-Ethyltoluene 3.5 2.8 NE NE
Heptane 1.9 1.4 2,800 35,000
Isopropanol 29 39 1,400 18,000
Methylene Chloride 1.8 J 3.9 J 3,400 53,000
Propene 1.2 J 2.4 J 21,000 260,000
Tetrachloroethylene 0.52 J 6.8 280 3,500
Toluene 12 16 35,000 440,000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.36 0.63 J 35,000 440,000
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1.2 J 1.2 J NE NE
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.7 3.1 420 5,300
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.94 J 0.87 J 420 5,300
m&p-xylene 11 7.8 700 8,800
o-Xylene 4 2.8 700 8,800
Notes:
Concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) unless otherwise noted.
Only compounds detected in one or more sub-slab soil vapor sample are shown. Detected concentrations are bolded.
NE - Standard Not Established
DWM - North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management
SGSL - DWM Sub-slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Level, updated January 2021.
Highlighted concentrations exceed their respective residential SGSL.
J - Estimated concentration between the laboratory method detection and reporting limits.
Residential
Screening Level
SGSL
Non-Residential
Screening Level SGSL
EPA Method TO-15
Acetone
Version Date:
Basis:
Site Name:
Site Address:
DEQ Section:
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Submittal Date:
Reviewed By:
Prepared By:Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Savona Mill Building - Soil Vapor to Indoor Air
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Risk Calculator
Caraustar and Savona Mills
23061-19-060
Brownfields
January 2021
November 2020 EPA RSL Table
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Exposure Point ConcentrationsVersion Date: January 2021Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL TableSite ID: Exposure Unit ID: Savona Mill Building - Soil Vapor to Indoor AirDescription of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:Exposure Point Concentration (ug/m3)Notes: CAS Number ChemicalMinimum Concentration (Qualifier)Maximum Concentration (Qualifier)UnitsLocation of Maximum ConcentrationDetection FrequencyRange of Detection LimitsConcentration Used for ScreeningBackground ValueScreening Toxicity Value (Screening Level) (n/c)Potential ARAR/TBC ValuePotential ARAR/TBC SourceCOPC Flag (Y/N)Rationale for Selection or Deletion11869 67-64-1 Acetoneug/m322 71-43-2 Benzeneug/m312 106-99-0 Butadiene, 1,3-ug/m34.8 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfideug/m375 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachlorideug/m34.7 67-66-3 Chloroformug/m31 74-87-3 Chloromethaneug/m32.5 110-82-7 Cyclohexaneug/m32.7 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethaneug/m36.6 100-41-4 Ethylbenzeneug/m316371 67-63-0 Isopropanolug/m377 78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)ug/m344 75-09-2 Methylene Chlorideug/m3135 91-20-3 ~Naphthaleneug/m36.2 115-07-1 Propyleneug/m35.4 100-42-5 Styreneug/m394 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethyleneug/m375 108-88-3 Tolueneug/m31.3 71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-ug/m30.84 79-01-6 Trichloroethyleneug/m31.9 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethaneug/m3805 95-63-6 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-ug/m3941 108-67-8 Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-ug/m313 106-42-3 Xylene, P-ug/m313 108-38-3 Xylene, m-ug/m35.1 95-47-6 Xylene, o-ug/m3Input Form 2DSoil Gas Exposure Point Concentration TableNote: Chemicals highlighted in orange are non-volatile chemicals. Since these chemicals do not pose a vapor intrusion risk, no risk values are calculated for these chemicals.If the chemical list is changed from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data output sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculationsNorth Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Risk for Individual Pathways Output Form 1A
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID: Savona Mill Building - Soil Vapor to Indoor Air
Receptor Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk Hazard Index Risk exceeded?
Soil NC NC NC
Groundwater Use* NC NC NC
Soil NC NC NC
Groundwater Use* NC NC NC
Construction Worker Soil NC NC NC
Soil NC NC NC
Surface Water* NC NC NC
Receptor Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk Hazard Index Risk exceeded?
Groundwater to Indoor Air NC NC NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air 6.1E-05 4.8E+00 YES
Indoor Air NC NC NC
Groundwater to Indoor Air NC NC NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air 4.7E-06 3.8E-01 NO
Indoor Air NC NC NC
Pathway Source
Source Soil NM
Source Groundwater NM
Source Soil NM
Source Groundwater NM
3. NM = Not Modeled
4. NC = Pathway not calculated
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Resident
Non-Residential Worker
Recreator/Trespasser
2. * = If concentrations in groundwater exceed the NC 2L Standards or IMAC, or concentrations in surface water exceed the
NC 2B Standards, appropriate remediation and/or institutional control measures will be necessary to be eligible for a risk-based
closure.
Surface Water Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Resident
Non-Residential Worker
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION CALCULATORS
Target Receptor Concentrations Exceeded?
Groundwater Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
1. If lead concentrations were entered in the exposure point concentration tables, see the individual calculator sheets for lead
concentrations in comparison to screening levels. Note that lead is not included in cumulative risk calculations.
Notes:
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Version Date:
Basis:
Site Name:
Site Address:
DEQ Section:
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Submittal Date:
Reviewed By:
Prepared By:Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Wikoff Color Building -- Soil Vapor to Indoor Air
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Risk Calculator
Caraustar and Savona Mills
23061-19-060
Brownfields
January 2021
November 2020 EPA RSL Table
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Exposure Point ConcentrationsVersion Date: January 2021Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL TableSite ID: Exposure Unit ID: Wikoff Color Building -- Soil Vapor to Indoor AirDescription of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:Exposure Point Concentration (ug/m3)Notes: CAS Number ChemicalMinimum Concentration (Qualifier)Maximum Concentration (Qualifier)UnitsLocation of Maximum ConcentrationDetection FrequencyRange of Detection LimitsConcentration Used for ScreeningBackground ValueScreening Toxicity Value (Screening Level) (n/c)Potential ARAR/TBC ValuePotential ARAR/TBC SourceCOPC Flag (Y/N)Rationale for Selection or Deletion37 67-64-1 Acetoneug/m30.93 71-43-2 Benzeneug/m32.7 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfideug/m31.5 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachlorideug/m30.5 74-87-3 Chloromethaneug/m30.91 110-82-7 Cyclohexaneug/m32.5 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethaneug/m33 100-41-4 Ethylbenzeneug/m31.9 142-82-5 Heptane, N-ug/m339 67-63-0 Isopropanolug/m32.7 78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)ug/m33.9 75-09-2 Methylene Chlorideug/m32.4 115-07-1 Propyleneug/m36.8 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethyleneug/m316 108-88-3 Tolueneug/m30.63 71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-ug/m31.2 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethaneug/m33.7 95-63-6 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-ug/m30.94 108-67-8 Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-ug/m311 106-42-3 Xylene, P-ug/m311 108-38-3 Xylene, m-ug/m35.1 95-47-6 Xylene, o-ug/m3Input Form 2DSoil Gas Exposure Point Concentration TableNote: Chemicals highlighted in orange are non-volatile chemicals. Since these chemicals do not pose a vapor intrusion risk, no risk values are calculated for these chemicals.If the chemical list is changed from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data output sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculationsNorth Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Risk for Individual Pathways Output Form 1A
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID: Wikoff Color Building -- Soil Vapor to Indoor Air
Receptor Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk Hazard Index Risk exceeded?
Soil NC NC NC
Groundwater Use* NC NC NC
Soil NC NC NC
Groundwater Use* NC NC NC
Construction Worker Soil NC NC NC
Soil NC NC NC
Surface Water* NC NC NC
Receptor Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk Hazard Index Risk exceeded?
Groundwater to Indoor Air NC NC NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air 2.7E-07 2.3E-02 NO
Indoor Air NC NC NC
Groundwater to Indoor Air NC NC NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air 2.1E-08 1.9E-03 NO
Indoor Air NC NC NC
Pathway Source
Source Soil NM
Source Groundwater NM
Source Soil NM
Source Groundwater NM
3. NM = Not Modeled
4. NC = Pathway not calculated
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Resident
Non-Residential Worker
Recreator/Trespasser
2. * = If concentrations in groundwater exceed the NC 2L Standards or IMAC, or concentrations in surface water exceed the
NC 2B Standards, appropriate remediation and/or institutional control measures will be necessary to be eligible for a risk-based
closure.
Surface Water Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Resident
Non-Residential Worker
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION CALCULATORS
Target Receptor Concentrations Exceeded?
Groundwater Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
1. If lead concentrations were entered in the exposure point concentration tables, see the individual calculator sheets for lead
concentrations in comparison to screening levels. Note that lead is not included in cumulative risk calculations.
Notes:
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Version Date:
Basis:
Site Name:
Site Address:
DEQ Section:
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Submittal Date:
Reviewed By:
Prepared By:Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Proposed Multi-Family Buildings - Soil Vapor to Indoor Air
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Risk Calculator
Caraustar and Savona Mills
23061-19-060
Brownfields
January 2021
November 2020 EPA RSL Table
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Exposure Point ConcentrationsVersion Date: January 2021Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL TableSite ID: Exposure Unit ID: Proposed Multi-Family Buildings - Soil Vapor to Indoor AirDescription of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:Exposure Point Concentration (ug/m3)Notes: CAS Number ChemicalMinimum Concentration (Qualifier)Maximum Concentration (Qualifier)UnitsLocation of Maximum ConcentrationDetection FrequencyRange of Detection LimitsConcentration Used for ScreeningBackground ValueScreening Toxicity Value (Screening Level) (n/c)Potential ARAR/TBC ValuePotential ARAR/TBC SourceCOPC Flag (Y/N)Rationale for Selection or Deletion290 67-64-1 Acetoneug/m368 71-43-2 Benzeneug/m34 106-99-0 Butadiene, 1,3-ug/m359 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfideug/m329 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachlorideug/m318 67-66-3 Chloroformug/m312 74-87-3 Chloromethaneug/m330 110-82-7 Cyclohexaneug/m30.77 106-46-7 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-ug/m3110 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethaneug/m34 107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2-ug/m311 141-78-6 Ethyl Acetateug/m33.7 75-00-3 Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane)ug/m3110 100-41-4 Ethylbenzeneug/m311 109-99-9 ~Tetrahydrofuranug/m3170 142-82-5 Heptane, N-ug/m3200 110-54-3 Hexane, N-ug/m3260 67-63-0 Isopropanolug/m341 78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)ug/m36.9 108-10-1 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone)ug/m31.4 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)ug/m317 75-09-2 Methylene Chlorideug/m316 91-20-3 ~Naphthaleneug/m31100 115-07-1 Propyleneug/m320 100-42-5 Styreneug/m353 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethyleneug/m3590 108-88-3 Tolueneug/m32.2 76-13-1 Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-ug/m311 71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-ug/m338 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethaneug/m3210 95-63-6 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-ug/m354 108-67-8 Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-ug/m3390 106-42-3 Xylene, P-ug/m3390 108-38-3 Xylene, m-ug/m3140 95-47-6 Xylene, o-ug/m3Input Form 2DSoil Gas Exposure Point Concentration TableNote: Chemicals highlighted in orange are non-volatile chemicals. Since these chemicals do not pose a vapor intrusion risk, no risk values are calculated for these chemicals.If the chemical list is changed from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data output sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculationsNorth Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
Risk for Individual Pathways Output Form 1A
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID: Proposed Multi-Family Buildings - Soil Vapor to Indoor Air
Receptor Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk Hazard Index Risk exceeded?
Soil NC NC NC
Groundwater Use* NC NC NC
Soil NC NC NC
Groundwater Use* NC NC NC
Construction Worker Soil NC NC NC
Soil NC NC NC
Surface Water* NC NC NC
Receptor Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk Hazard Index Risk exceeded?
Groundwater to Indoor Air NC NC NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air 2.3E-05 8.6E-01 NO
Indoor Air NC NC NC
Groundwater to Indoor Air NC NC NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air 1.8E-06 6.8E-02 NO
Indoor Air NC NC NC
Pathway Source
Source Soil NM
Source Groundwater NM
Source Soil NM
Source Groundwater NM
3. NM = Not Modeled
4. NC = Pathway not calculated
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Resident
Non-Residential Worker
Recreator/Trespasser
2. * = If concentrations in groundwater exceed the NC 2L Standards or IMAC, or concentrations in surface water exceed the
NC 2B Standards, appropriate remediation and/or institutional control measures will be necessary to be eligible for a risk-based
closure.
Surface Water Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Resident
Non-Residential Worker
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION CALCULATORS
Target Receptor Concentrations Exceeded?
Groundwater Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
1. If lead concentrations were entered in the exposure point concentration tables, see the individual calculator sheets for lead
concentrations in comparison to screening levels. Note that lead is not included in cumulative risk calculations.
Notes:
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator