HomeMy WebLinkAbout22040_ Metromont Concrete - Phase II EMP_20230822
Via Email
August 3, 2023
NCDEQ – Division of Waste Management
Brownfields Redevelopment Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Attn: Mr. Bill Schmithorst, PG
Re: Environmental Management Plan - Phase II Redevelopment
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 22040-18-060
H&H Project No. S2K-001
Dear Bill:
On behalf of S2K Charlotte QOZB, LLC, please find the enclosed Environmental Management Plan
(EMP) prepared for Phase II of proposed development planned at the Metromont Concrete Brownfields
property in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.
Should you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at
(704) 586-0007.
Sincerely,
Hart & Hickman, PC
Haley Martin, PG Ralph McGee, PG
Senior Project Geologist Senior Project Manager
Enclosure:
cc: Mr. Dan Wendover, CapRock (via email)
#C-1269 Engineering #C-245 Geology
Environmental Management Plan
Phase II Redevelopment
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 22040-18-060
August 3, 2023
H&H Job No. S2K-001
CONTENTS
Completed EMP Template Form
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Soil Analytical Data
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
Table 3 Summary of Soil Gas Analytical Data
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Sample Location Map
Figure 4 Compound Concentration Map
Appendices
Appendix A Preliminary Site Plan
Appendix B Preliminary Grading and Cut/Fill Analysis
Appendix C Preliminary Construction Schedule
1
EMP Version 3, March 2023
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
This form is to be used to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for projects in the
North Carolina Brownfields Redevelopment Section at the direction of a Brownfields project
manager.
The EMP is a standard requirement of a Brownfields Agreement (BFA). Its purpose is to clarify
actions to be taken during 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 EMP to be valid for use, it must be
completed, reviewed by the Section, 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 recorded 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. Risk characterization of a Brownfields Property to DEQ’s written
satisfaction is required prior to EMP approval.
Voluntary Metrics Tab
The NC Brownfields Redevelopment Section 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: $125,000,000
2. Estimated jobs created:
a. Construction Jobs: 150
b. Full Time Post-Redevelopment Jobs: 7
2
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Table of Contents
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION .................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 4
COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 4
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION ....................................................... 5
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS .......................................................................................................................... 5
CONTAMINATED MEDIA ........................................................................................................................... 7
PART 1. SOIL ........................................................................................................................................ 8
PART 2. GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 19
PART 3. SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................. 22
PART 4. SEDIMENT ............................................................................................................................ 22
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR ......................................................................................................................... 23
PART 6. INDOOR AIR ......................................................................................................................... 24
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 24
CONTINGENCY PLAN ............................................................................................................................... 25
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING ....................................................................................................... 27
APPROVAL SIGNATURES ......................................................................................................................... 29
3
EMP Version 3, March 2023
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 all of the following is premature and may be
returned without comment.
☒ Site sampling and assessment that meets Brownfields’ objectives is complete and has
been reviewed and approved by the Brownfields project manager.
☒ Specific redevelopment plans, even if conceptual, have been developed for the project,
submitted and reviewed by the Brownfields project manager.
Please submit, along with the completed EMP form, the following attachments, as relevant and
applicable to the proposed redevelopment:
☒ A set of redevelopment plans, including architectural/engineering plans, if available; if
not, conceptual plans may suffice if updated when detailed plans are drafted.
☒ A figure overlaying redevelopment plans on a map of the extent of contamination for
each media.
☒ Site grading plans that include a cut and fill analysis.
☒ A figure showing the proposed location and depth of impacted soil that would remain
onsite after construction grading.
☐ Any necessary permits for redevelopment (i.e. demolition, etc.).
☒ A detailed construction schedule that includes timing and phases of construction.
☒ Tabulated data summaries for each impacted media (i.e. soil, groundwater, soil gas, etc.)
applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
☒ Figures with the sampling locations and contamination extents for each impacted media
applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
☐ A full final grade sampling and analysis plan, if the redevelopment plan is final.
☐ If known, information about each proposed potential borrow soil source, such as aerial
photos, historic site maps, historic Sanborn maps, a site history, necessary for
Brownfields approval.
☐ Information and, analytical data if required, for quarries, or other borrow sources,
detailing the type of material proposed for import to the Brownfields Property.
4
EMP Version 3, March 2023
☐ A work plan for the sampling and analysis of soil to be brought onto the Brownfields
Property. Refer to Issue Resolution 15 in Brownfields Redevelopment Section Guidelines.
☐ A map of the Brownfields Property showing the location of soils proposed for export and
sampling data from those areas.
☒ If a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) is required by the Brownfields
Redevelopment Section, the VIMS plan will be signed and sealed by a NC Professional
Engineer. The VIMS Plan may also be submitted under separate cover.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: 8/3/2023 Revision Date (if applicable):
Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Metromont Concrete Facility
Brownfields Project Number: 22040‐18‐080
Brownfields Property Address: 4101 and 4109 Greensboro Street, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Brownfields Property Area (acres): The Brownfields property consists of three parcels (Mecklenburg
County Parcel ID Nos. 09108106, 09108126, and 09108199) totaling approximately 18.49 acres of land.
Note that Parcel ID Nos. 09108126 and 09108199 have been combined into one larger parcel; however,
as of the date of this EMP, Mecklenburg County Polaris has not been updated to reflect this change. A
Site location map is provided as Figure 1, and the Site and surrounding area are shown in Figure 2.
Note that this Environmental Management Plan has been prepared for the western parcel (Parcel No.
09108106) of the Brownfields property for construction of a multi‐story mixed‐use apartment building
and associated parking areas.
Is Brownfields Property Subject to RCRA Permit?.......................☒ Yes ☐ No
If yes enter Permit No.: NCR000011262 (inactive since 2011)
Is Brownfields Property Subject to a Solid Waste Permit….……..☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, enter Permit No.:
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 in an area that is
prominently accessible to site workers. NOTE, THE EMP DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A SITE‐SPECIFIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN.
Prospective Developer (PD): S2K Charlotte QOZB, LLC
Contact Person: Dan Wendover
5
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Phone Numbers: Office: Mobile: 704‐905‐6844
Email: dwendover@caprockinvest.com
Contractor for PD: Clancy & Theys
Contact Person: Tom Planishek
Phone Numbers: Office: 704‐357‐6602 Mobile: 704‐582‐2156
Email: tomplanishek@clancytheys.com
Environmental Consultant: Hart & Hickman, PC
Contact Person: Ralph McGee, PG
Phone Numbers: Office: (704) 887‐4621 Mobile: (704) 840‐4775
Email: rmcgee@harthickman.com
Brownfields Redevelopment Section Project Manager: Mr. Bill Schmithorst, PG
Phone Numbers: Office: (919) 707‐8159 Mobile: (919) 441‐3606
Email: william.schmithorst@deq.nc.gov
Other DEQ Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch,
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste):
Brownfields Property Management Unit
bfpropertymanagement@deq.nc.gov
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION
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
6
EMP Version 3, March 2023
1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply):
☒Residential ☐Townhomes (Prior written DEQ approval REQUIRED regardless of ownership
structure) ☐Recreational ☐Institutional ☒Commercial ☒Office ☒Retail ☐Industrial
☐Other specify:
Phase I of redevelopment included the demolition of Site structures, removing building slabs, and
hardscapes, installation of a sediment pond, and installation of erosion control measures. Phase I of
the redevelopment was included in an EMP dated July 25, 2022, which received DEQ Brownfields
approval on October 6, 2022.
This EMP has been prepared for Phase II of the proposed redevelopment which includes grading a
portion of the western Site parcel and construction of multi‐story mixed‐use apartment building and
associated parking deck. Redevelopment activities also include installation of new access drives,
courtyards, and landscaped areas. The architectural Site plan prepared by BB&M Architecture is
provided as Appendix A.
EMPs for additional redevelopment will be submitted under separate cover at a later date.
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:
As stated above, proposed redevelopment includes grading a portion of the western Site parcel
for construction of multi‐story mixed mixed‐use apartment building and associated parking deck.
Redevelopment activities also include installation of new access drives, courtyards, and
landscaped areas. The architectural Site plan prepared by BB&M Architecture is provided as
Appendix A, and copies of the preliminary grading plan and cut/fill analysis are provided as
Appendix B.
4) Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?:
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
☐ If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements, including without limitation those related to lead and asbestos
abatement that are administered by the Health Hazards Control Unit within the Division of Public
Health of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. If available, please provide
a copy of your demolition permit.
5) Are sediment and erosion control measures required by federal, state, or local regulations?
7
EMP Version 3, March 2023
S&EC requirements can be found at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐mineral‐and‐land‐
resources/erosion‐and‐sediment‐control/erosion‐and‐sediment‐control‐laws‐and‐rules
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☒ If yes, please check here to confirm that earth‐work will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements. If soil disturbance is necessary to install sediment and erosion
control measures, they may not begin until this EMP is approved.
6) Which category of risk‐based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement? Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels shall
be cited in the Brownfields Agreement for comparison purposes.
☒ Residential ☐ Non‐Residential or Industrial/Commercial
7) Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a) Construction start date: 9/1/2023
b) Anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
Demolition of Site structures and Site work began in August 2022. Mass grading and
infrastructure Site work is expected to start in September 2023. The first apartment delivery
is expected in November 2025, the second in January 2026, and the third in March 2026. A
copy of the preliminary construction schedule is provided in Appendix C.
c) Additional phases planned? ☒ Yes ☐ No
If yes, specify the start date and/or activities if known:
Start Date: Unknown
Planned Activity:
Additional phases of construction may include construction of additional mixed‐use multi‐
story apartment buildings with an associated parking deck. Redevelopment activities may also
include installation of new access drives, courtyards, and landscaped areas.
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: 11/1/2025
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.
8
EMP Version 3, March 2023
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 ☒ N/A
Part 4. Sediment: .......................................... ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown ☒ N/A
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 Area of Proposed Redevelopment on the Brownfields Property, attach tabulated data
summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with sample locations.
PART 1. SOIL
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list general groups of contaminants):
Soil samples were collected at the Brownfields property in April 2018 and January 2019 to
evaluate the potential for impacts associated with historical on‐Site and nearby off‐Site
operations. Soil assessment activities completed at the Brownfields property included collection
of twelve (12) soil samples for laboratory analysis. A tabular summary of the soil sample
laboratory analytical results for samples collected at the Brownfields property is included as Table
1. Soil sample locations are shown in Figure 3. A summary of the previously completed soil
assessment results is provided below:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Soil sample analytical results indicate that low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel
range organics (TPH‐DRO) were detected in soil samples collected adjacent to former
underground storage tanks (USTs). The detected concentrations were well below the DEQ UST
Section Action Level of 100 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). In addition, low levels of volatile
petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) and extractable hydrocarbons (EPH) were detected in soil samples
collected adjacent to former USTs, but at concentrations below the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs).
Volatile Organic Compounds
Soil sample analytical results indicate that low levels of acetone were detected at concentrations
above the laboratory method detection limits, but below the DEQ PSRGs in soil samples collected
at the Brownfields property. No VOCs were detected at concentrations above the DEQ PSRGs. No
other VOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits in the
soil samples collected at the Brownfields property.
Semi‐Volatile Organic Compounds
No SVOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits in soil
samples collected at the Brownfields property.
9
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Metals
Detections of metals in soil samples collected at the Brownfields property are consistent with
naturally occurring levels and are considered representative of background conditions.
2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet):
No compounds have been detected at concentrations above the DEQ PSRGs (or background levels in
the case of metals) in soil samples collected at the Site.
3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet):
The entire Site (approximately 805,860 sq ft) is expected to be disturbed by redevelopment. For
Phase II of the proposed redevelopment, approximately 257,440 sq ft is expected to be disturbed
during construction of the multi‐use building. A copy of the cut‐fill analysis map prepared by Cole
Jenest & Stone is provided as Appendix B.
4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet):
Based on review of the cut/fill analysis, planned cut depths in area of the proposed Phase II
redevelopment are expected to range from approximately 1 to 10 ft bgs.
5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan):
Approximately 19,153 cubic yards are expected to be cut to achieve final grade elevations.
6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
No compounds have been detected at concentrations above the DEQ PSRGs (or background levels
in the case of metals) in soil samples collected at the Brownfields property.
7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:
Excess soil generated during installation of the multi‐used building will be stockpiled or thin‐
spread on site for use during mass grading during subsequent phases of redevelopment.
Therefore, off‐Site disposal of excess soil generated during Phase II of the redevelopment is not
anticipated at this time.
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).
10
EMP Version 3, March 2023
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 ONSITE 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)
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ If no, explain rationale:
Although laboratory analytical results for soil samples TW‐3/DUP‐1 detected
concentrations of total chromium which exceed TCLP criteria using the Rule of 20,
the detected concentrations are believed to be naturally occurring and not
indicative of characteristically hazardous waste. Laboratory analysis of the
remaining soil samples collected during assessment activities did not identify
compound concentrations at characteristically hazardous levels or levels which
exceed TCLP criteria using the Rule of 20.
d) NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A CHARACTERISTIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE
SOIL MAY NOT BE RE‐USED ONSITE 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)
11
EMP Version 3, March 2023
☐ Site‐specific risk‐based cleanup level. Please provide details of methods used for
determination/explanation.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Additional comments:
Click or tap here to enter text.
3) If known impacted soil is proposed to be reused within the Brownfields Property boundary, please
check the measures that will be utilized to ensure safe placement and documentation of same.
Please attach a proposed location diagram/site map.
☒ Provide documentation of analytical report(s) to Brownfields project manager.
☒ Provide documentation of final location, thickness and depth of relocated soil onsite 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 ☒
☒ Describe cap or fill:
Documented impacted soils, if encountered during construction, will be covered with
impervious surfaces (asphalt pavement, sidewalks, access roads, buildings, etc.) or a
minimum of 2 ft of demonstrably clean fill during subsequent phases of redevelopment.
☒ 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:
☒ Check to confirm that management of fugitive dust from site activities will be handled in
accordance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements.
Field screening of site soil
At a minimum, contractors shall be made aware of protocols should impacted soils (e.g. staining,
unusual odors, fill materials) be identified.
Describe the field screening method, frequency of field screening, person conducting field
screening:
During soil disturbance at the Site, the workers or contractors will observe soils for evidence
of potential significantly impacted soil. Evidence of potential impacted soil includes a
Click or tap here to enter text.
12
EMP Version 3, March 2023
distinct unnatural color, strong odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of concern
(i.e., chemicals, tanks, drums, etc.). Should the above be noted during Site work, the
contractor will contact the project environmental professional to observe the suspect
condition. If the project environmental professional confirms that the material may be
impacted, then the procedures below will be implemented. In addition, the environmental
professional will contact the DEQ Brownfields project manager within 48‐hours to advise
that person of the condition.
Soil sample collection
☐ Yes
☒ Not anticipated ‐ In order to avoid delays in construction, a plan shall be in place for sampling
of suspect soils should they be encountered during redevelopment. If soil sample collection is not
anticipated but the need to do so is identified during redevelopment, notify the Brownfields
project manager of the anticipated sample and report dates for scheduling purposes.
Describe the sampling method (e.g., in‐situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.) and confirm that all
procedures outlined in applicable DEQ guidance for assessment shall be followed Typically, at least
one representative sample (per 500 yd3 for residential and 1,000 yd3 for commercial) consisting of a
3 to 5‐point composite sample with grab sample for VOCs based on the highest PID reading is
required to determine soil management options:
If potentially impacted soil is encountered during installation of utilities outside of the area
of known impacts east of the main facility, excavation will proceed only as far as needed to
allow grading or other construction‐related activity to continue and/or only as far as
needed to allow alternate corrective measures as described below. Suspect significantly
impacted soil excavated during redevelopment activities may be stockpiled and covered in
a secure area to allow construction to progress. Suspect impacted soil will be stockpiled in
accordance with Figure 1, NCBP Diagram for Temporary Containment of Impacted or
Potentially Impacted Soil.
At least one representative soil sample (no less than 3 aliquot soil samples) at a sample
ratio of 1 soil sample per approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil will be collected for
analysis of total VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA metals, and hexavalent chromium. If the soil sample
laboratory analytical results indicate that the soil could potentially exceed the hazardous
characteristic criteria based on the Rule of 20, then the soil will also be analyzed by toxicity
characteristic leaching potential (TCLP) methods for those compounds that could exceed
the hazardous characteristic criteria. Potentially impacted soil will be managed in the
manner described below based upon the soil sample laboratory analyses:
i. If no organic compounds or metals are detected in a sample (other than those
attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts) above unrestricted use PSRGs, the
TCLP concentrations are below hazardous waste criteria, and the cumulative risk
calculator results are acceptable, then the soil will be deemed suitable for use as
on‐Site fill without conditions or as off‐Site fill. The proposed location(s) for off‐
13
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Site placement of soil (other than a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill [MSWLF]) along
with the receiving facility’s written approval for acceptance of the soil will be
provided to DEQ for approval prior to taking the soil off‐Site.
ii. If detectable levels of compounds are found which do not exceed Residential PSRGs
(other than those attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts) and the TCLP
concentrations are below hazardous waste criteria, then the soil may be used on‐
Site as fill without conditions.
iii. If detectable levels of compounds are found which exceed the Residential PSRGs (other
than those are attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts or which are
consistent with background levels for metals) and the TCLP concentrations are
below hazardous waste criteria, then the soil, may be used on‐Site as fill below
impervious cover, at least 2 ft of compacted demonstrably clean soil, or overlain by
a geotechnical fabric. If the impacted soil with concentrations above
Industrial/Commercial PSRGs is moved to an on‐Site location, its location and
depth will be documented and provided to DEQ.
iv. Impacted soil may be transported to a MSWLF or DEQ permitted landfarm provided
that the soil is accepted at the disposal facility. DEQ Solid Waste Section and DEQ
Brownfields Program approval will be requested for any potential export to an off‐
Site facility other than a MSWLF or DEQ permitted landfarm. If soil is transported
to a MSWLF or DEQ permitted landfarm, the facility’s written approval in the form
of waste manifests or similar will be provided to DEQ. In the unlikely event that
the sample data indicates concentrations above TCLP hazardous waste criteria,
then the soil must be transported off‐Site to a facility permitted to accept
hazardous wastes.
* Please note that should soil be exported to a MSWLF, DEQ permitted landfarm, or to a
DEQ Brownfields pre‐approved receiving facility, soil will be direct‐loaded onto trucks for
transport off‐Site.
Check applicable chemical analytes for soil samples:
☒ Minimum Sample Requirements: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method
8260; Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; and Metals RCRA
List + Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 6020/7199
☐ 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) (e.g. Herbicides):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Check to confirm that by the owner’s signature and the North Carolina Professional
Engineer/Geologist sealing this EMP the consultant understands that no work plan for suspect soil
14
EMP Version 3, March 2023
sample collection will be submitted beyond this EMP, and that it is the responsibility of the sealing
professional and property owner to ensure that all applicable guidelines and methodologies are
followed and reported to DEQ for determination and approval of soil placement prior to final
relocation.
If impacted soils above applicable PSRGs and/or site specific risk thresholds are proposed to be
relocated on‐site, prior to final placement on‐site, the following shall be submitted for DEQ
review/approval
‐ Analytical data that has been sampled in accordance with the above referenced frequency and
following procedures outlined in the most recent Brownfields Redevelopment Section
Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan Minimum Requirements Checklist (Checklist) and in
accordance with DEQ IHSB Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
(Guidelines)
‐ Figure outlining planned soil placement and any future site features including
buildings/hardscape/open areas
‐ A North Carolina PE/PG recommendation of placement
Impacts
Options
Onsite Placement without
conditions
Onsite placement under 2 ft
of cap or clean fill1, 2
All Constituents below applicable
PSRGs X
Constituents3 below applicable
PSRGs; Metals below background
but above PSRGs
X
Constituents3 below applicable
PSRGs; Metals above Background
/PSRGs
X
Constituents above Applicable
PSRGs X
1: Requires Prior Written DEQ Approval
2: VOC impacted soils above applicable PSRGs shall not be placed directly beneath building footprints
without prior written DEQ approval.
3: Constituents indicate any samples evaluated for other than metals.
☒ 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):
☒ Minimum Sample Requirements: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method
8260; Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; and Metals RCRA
List + Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 6020/7199
Click or tap here to enter text.
15
EMP Version 3, March 2023
☐ 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) (e.g. Herbicides):
Click or tap here to enter text.
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.
Following completion of soil disturbance for future Site development (i.e., after grading and
utility construction), an environmental professional will assess the Site for disturbed areas
that will not be covered upon completion of the redevelopment with a minimum of 2 ft of
documented clean fill soil and/or landscaping materials, building foundations, sidewalks,
asphalt or concrete parking areas and driveways, or other similar impervious areas (e.g.,
tightly spaced pavers or bricks). If such uncovered areas exist, a Work Plan will be prepared
for final grade soil sampling for DEQ Brownfields review and approval.
☐ 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 REDEVELOPMENT SECTION. 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 Redevelopment Section), 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:
☒ Check to confirm that the import volumes outlined below have been confirmed based on
geotechnical evaluations.
1) Will fill soil be imported to the site?................................................ ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported?
Based on preliminary grading plans and cut‐fill analysis, the Site is expected to have a net export.
Soil from the cut areas will be reused on‐Site in areas planned for fill. Soil import is not anticipated
for the Site. Limited amounts of virgin organic rich topsoil may be imported from a commercial
landscape material vendor for use in proposed landscaped areas.
16
EMP Version 3, March 2023
3) If yes, what is the anticipated depth that fill soil will be placed at the property? (If a range
of depths, list the range.)
In general, fill areas associated with the proposed redevelopment are located in the northern and
southern portions of the Site (Appendix B). The thickness of the proposed fill ranges from
approximately 1 ft to 5 ft and is planned to be sourced from on‐Site cut areas. Imported fill
material is not anticipated.
PRIOR TO SOIL PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, a Soil Import Request must be
submitted for DEQ Brownfields review and approval. The request shall consist of a data package
that details:
‐ Fill source location/history (Phase I if available, current aerials, etc.)
‐ Analytical data that has been sampled in accordance with the below frequency and
following procedures outlined in the most recent Brownfields Redevelopment Section
Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan Minimum Requirements Checklist (Checklist)
and in accordance with DEQ IHSB Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup of Contaminated
Sites (Guidelines)
‐ A table comparing the import soil to existing site concentrations
‐ A PE/PG recommendation of import
‐ All relevant attachments listed in the Checklist
Soil Import Sampling Requirements:
Source Sample Frequency Sample Analysis
Virgin Material from DEQ
Brownfields Pre‐
approved Quarry
None (Contact Brownfields project manager for list of pre‐
approved Quarries
DEQ Permitted Quarry
(Not Brownfields Pre‐
approved)
At least one
representative sample
from area of planned
import
VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals, any site specific
COCs (e.g. pesticides,
PCBs, etc.)
Other NC DEQ
Brownfields Property
At least one
representative sample
per 1,000 yd3 consisting
of a 3‐point composite
sample with grab sample
for VOCs based on the
highest PID reading
VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals, any site specific
COCs (e.g. pesticides,
PCBs, etc.)
Off‐site
unpermitted/regulated
property
Bulk Landscape Material
from Commercial Vendor
(i.e. topsoil)
No Sampling Required
If other special considerations apply, discuss:
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Check to confirm that by the owner’s signature and the North Carolina Professional
Engineer/Geologist sealing this EMP the consultant understands that no work plan for suspect soil
17
EMP Version 3, March 2023
sample collection will be submitted beyond this EMP, and that it is the responsibility of the sealing
professional and property owner to ensure that all applicable guidelines are followed and reported in
the Soil Import Request for DEQ approval. Failure to meet these requirements could result in
resampling and/or failure to approve import.
PART 1.C. SOIL EXPORT
NO SOIL MAY LEAVE THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION. Failure to obtain approval may violate a brownfields
agreement causing a reopener or jeopardizing eligibility in the Section, endangering liability
protections and making said action possibly subject to enforcement. Justifications provided
below must be approved by the Section in writing prior to completing transport activities. Refer
to Brownfields IR 15 for additional details.
1) If export from the Brownfields Property is anticipated, export soil must be sampled at a
frequency of one sample per 1,000 yd3 consisting of a 3‐point composite sample with a
grab sample for VOCs based on the highest PID reading. Samples shall be analyzed at a
minimum for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals plus any site specific COCs.
PRIOR TO EXPORT FROM THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, a Soil Export Request must be
submitted for DEQ Brownfields review and approval. The request shall consist of a Data
Package that details:
‐ Proposed Receiving Facility
‐ Analytical data that has been sampled in accordance with the above referenced
frequency and following procedures outlined in the most recent Brownfields
Redevelopment Section Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan Minimum
Requirements Checklist (Checklist) and in accordance with DEQ IHSB Guidelines for
Assessment and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites (Guidelines)
‐ A table comparing the export soil to concentrations on the receiving site concentrations
including risk comparison (Note that calculated risk cannot be increased on the receiving
site)
‐ A North Carolina PE/PG recommendation of export
‐ Written approval from the receiving site property owner representative for export
‐ All relevant attachments listed in the Checklist
18
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Soil Export Options
Impacts
Options
Use as
Beneficial
Fill
Off‐site disposal at
other Brownfields
Property2,6,7
Off‐site disposal
at LCID/CD
Landfill1, 3
Off‐site disposal at
Subtitle D
MSW/Permitted
Landfarm4
All Constituents below
applicable PSRGs X X X X
Constituents5 below
applicable PSRGs;
Metals below
background but above
PSRGs
X X X
Constituents5 below
applicable PSRGs;
Metals above
Background /PSRGs
X X X
Constituents above
Applicable PSRGs X X
1: Requires Prior Written DEQ Approval
2: VOC impacted soils above applicable PSRGs shall not be placed directly beneath building footprints
without prior written DEQ approval.
3: Requires comparison to site specific metals concentrations.
4: Facility to determine if they can accept soil within their permit.
5: Constituents indicate any samples evaluated for other than metals.
6: Requires written approval from receiving site property owner representative.
7. Site COCs must be in comparable concentrations to receiving site and not significantly raise risk of the
receiving site.
☒ Check to confirm that by the owner’s signature and the North Carolina Professional
Engineer/Geologist sealing this EMP the consultant understands that no work plan for suspect soil
sample collection will be submitted beyond this EMP, and that it is the responsibility of the sealing
professional and property owner to ensure that all applicable guidelines are followed and reported in
the Soil Export Request for DEQ approval. Failure to meet these requirements could result in
resampling and/or failure to approve export.
If other special considerations apply, discuss:
Click or tap here to enter text.
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
19
EMP Version 3, March 2023
from which it was excavated.
☒ Evaluate whether necessary to install barriers in conduits to prevent soil vapor transport,
and/or degradation of conduit materials due to direct impact with contaminants.
☒ If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials 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:
The developer plans to install a passive vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) during
construction of the building. As part of the VIMS design, the locations of sub‐grade utilities will be
evaluated to determine if utility trench dams may be warranted to mitigate potential
contaminated vapor migration. The Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan will be submitted under
separate cover.
☐ If no, include rationale here:
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ Unknown, details to be provided in the Vapor Mitigation Plan for site buildings
Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches:
The contractor and workers will observe soil for potential impacts during initial utility installation
activities. Evidence of potential significant impacted soil includes a distinct unnatural color,
strong odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of concern (i.e., chemicals, tanks, drums,
etc.). Should the above be noted during utility work, the contractor will contact the project
environmental professional to observe the suspect condition. If the project environmental
professional confirms that the material may be impacted, then the procedures outlined in
Managing On‐Site Soil above will be implemented.
Should impacted soil be discovered during trenching activities, appropriate safety screening will
be performed to protect workers during installation activities. Safety screening activities include
monitoring the worker breathing zone with a calibrated photoionization detector or similar
instrument at all times when in utility trenches. If safety screening results indicate further action
is warranted, the work zone will be evacuated until appropriate engineering controls (such as use
of industrial fans) are implemented.
PART 2. GROUNDWATER
1) What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property?
During previously completed groundwater assessment activities, the depth to groundwater was
measured at depths ranging from approximately 7 ft bgs in the northwestern portion of the
Brownfields property to approximately 10 ft bgs at higher topographic elevations located in the
southeastern portion of the Brownfields property. Note that proposed redevelopment covered
in this EMP is planed for the southern portion of the Site and in an area of higher topographic
elevation.
20
EMP Version 3, March 2023
2) What is the maximum depth of soil disturbance onsite?
Shallow soil disturbance associated with mass grading activities is not anticipated to exceed 10 ft
bgs during redevelopment. Redevelopment plans include installing aggregate piers for structural
improvement of soil to support shallow foundations and will extend to depths greater than 10 ft.
Auger cuttings associated with aggregate pier installation will be managed in accordance with
Part 1.A. above.
3) Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ☒onsite ☐offsite ☐both or ☐unknown sources?
Describe source(s):
Previous groundwater assessment at the Brownfields property included collection of twelve (12)
groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. Locations of previous groundwater samples are
shown in Figure 3. A tabular summary of groundwater sample laboratory analytical results is
included as Table 2. Compound concentrations exceeding DEQ NCAC 15A 2L Groundwater Quality
Standards (2L Standards) and/or the DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion
Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) are shown in Figure 4. A brief summary of the
groundwater assessment results is provided below.
Volatile and Semi‐Volatile Organic Compounds
Groundwater sample results indicate that the chlorinated VOC tetrachloroethene (PCE) was
detected in Site groundwater (up to 2.6 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) in the southeastern portion
of the Site and downgradient for a former gasoline underground storage tank (UST) at
concentrations exceeding the DEQ 2L Groundwater Quality Standards (2L Standards). The
chlorinated VOC compounds cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene (up to 170 µg/L ), trichloroethene or TCE (up
to 24 µg/L), and vinyl chloride (up to 27.3 µg/L) were also detected in Site groundwater at
concentrations exceeding the 2L Standard and the DEQ DMW Vapor Intrusion Residential and/or
Non‐Residential GWSLs in groundwater samples (GW‐1 and TW‐7) collected in the northwestern
and downgradient portions of the Site. No other organic compounds were detected at
concentrations above the DEQ 2L Standards or DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion GWSLs.
VPH/EPH
Groundwater sample results indicate that total C9‐C18 aliphatics (up to 27 J µg/L) were detected
at concentrations above the DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion Residential and Non‐Residential GWSLs in
samples collected adjacent to former and abandoned USTs located in the northwestern, western,
and southeastern portions of the Site. Groundwater analytical results also indicated C5‐C8
aliphatics (8.1 J µg/L) was detected at a concentration above the DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion
Residential and Non‐Residential GWSLs in a sample (TW‐4) collected adjacent to an abandoned
heating oil UST located in the northwestern portion of the Site.
Metals
Groundwater analytical results indicate that arsenic, barium, lead, total chromium, and silver
were detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits, but below the 2L
Standards.
4) What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property?
Shallow groundwater is expected to mimic surface topography which slopes generally northwest
towards Little Sugar Creek located along the northwestern Site boundary (see Figure 1).
21
EMP Version 3, March 2023
5) Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities (e.g.
footer/utility construction or helical pilings?)
☐Yes ☒No
If yes, describe these activities:
Depth to groundwater in the area of the proposed redevelopment was measured at
approximately 10 ft bgs during previous assessment activities. Groundwater is not anticipated to
be encountered during grading activities associated with the redevelopment in the southern
portion of the Site. If groundwater is encountered during redevelopment activities, the
procedures outlined below will be implemented.
In the event that 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).
Based on previous assessment activities, contractors will be made aware of areas at the Site
where groundwater is impacted and an environmental professional shall be contacted to
conduct safety screening if groundwater is encountered in these predetermined areas. Should
groundwater be encountered outside of areas of known impacts, the contractor will contact an
environmental professional to observe conditions to determine if there are impacts that may
pose a potential risk to workers.
Although limited groundwater may be encountered during excavations for certain utilities, based
on the depth of groundwater at the Site and the depths of planned excavations, management of
groundwater is not anticipated at this time. In the unlikely event groundwater gathers in an
open excavation, the accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate to the extent
that time for dissipation does not disrupt the construction schedule or be used on the
Brownfields property for dust control purposes. Should the time needed for the natural
dissipation of accumulated water be deemed inadequate, an environmental professional will be
contacted and the water will be sampled in situ or pumped into a container to allow for work to
continue. The water will be tested and disposed of off‐Site (if impacted), or tested and
discharged to the storm sewer (if not impacted above DEQ surface water standards) in
accordance with applicable municipal and State regulations for erosion control and construction
stormwater control. Appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken if groundwater
gathers in an open excavation within an area determined to be impacted during construction
activities.
6) 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
7) 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 Redevelopment Section’s intent to allow proper abandonment of
well(s) as specified in the Brownfields Agreement, except if required for active
22
EMP Version 3, March 2023
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.
8) Please provide additional details as needed:
Please note, disturbance of existing site monitoring wells without approval by DEQ is not
permissible. If monitoring wells are damaged and/or destroyed, DEQ may require that the PD
be responsible for replacement of the well.
PART 3. SURFACE WATER
1) Is surface water present at the property? ☒ Yes ☐ No
2) If yes, 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 ☒ Unknown
4) Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment
activities or as part of the final redevelopment? ☐ Yes ☒ No
5) In the event that contaminated surface water is encountered during redevelopment activities,
or clean surface water enters open excavations, list activities for management of such events
(e.g. flooding, contaminated surface water run‐off, stormwater impacts):
Little Sugar Creek is present along the northwestern Brownfields property boundary.
Redevelopment activities that include disturbance to the creek are not anticipated at this time.
If surface water run‐off gathers in an open excavation within an area determined to be impacted
during construction activities, appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken. The
accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate within an excavation to the extent time
for dissipation does not disrupt the construction schedule. Should the time needed for natural
dissipation of accumulated water be deemed inadequate, an environmental professional will be
contacted and the water will be sampled in situ or pumped into a container to allow for work to
continue. The water will be tested and disposed off‐Site (if impacted) or tested and discharged to
the storm sewer (if not impacted above DEQ surface water standards) in accordance with
applicable municipal and State regulations for erosion control and construction stormwater
control.
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
The PD is not aware of existing monitoring wells located on the Brownfields property. DEQ will be
notified if newly identified monitoring wells are found on the Brownfields property.
23
EMP Version 3, March 2023
3) Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment
activities? ☐ Yes ☒ No
4) Attach a map showing the 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):
Redevelopment plans that will include disturbance to Little Sugar Creek are not planned at this
time.
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR
1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the
vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) in the following media:
Groundwater Exterior Soil Vapor Sub‐Slab Soil Vapor
Residential ☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
☐ Yes ☐ No
☒ Unknown
Commercial ☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
☐ Yes ☒ No
☐ Unknown
☐ Yes ☐ No
☒ Unknown
2) Attach a map showing the locations of all soil vapor samples including any soil vapor
contaminants that exceeds screening levels and overlays planned site development features.
3) If applicable, at what depth(s) is exterior soil vapor known to be contaminated?
4) If applicable, at what depth(s) is sub‐slab soil vapor known to be contaminated?
☐0‐6 inches ☐Other, please describe:
Not Applicable
5) Will workers encounter contaminated exterior or sub‐slab soil vapor during planned
redevelopment activities? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
In the event that apparent contaminated soil vapor is encountered (based on elevated PID
readings, unusual odors, etc.) during redevelopment activities (trenches, manways, basements or
other subsurface work,) list activities for management of such contact, INCLUDING notification to
A total of four (4) exterior soil gas samples were collected for laboratory analysis in January and
February 2019. The soil gas samples were collected within the footprint of the proposed residential
building footprints to evaluate the potential for structural vapor intrusion. Soil gas sample locations
are shown in Figure 3, compound concentrations are shown in Figure 4, and a tabular summary of the
laboratory analytical data is provided in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the VOC benzene (up to 23 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) was detected in
select soil gas samples at concentrations above the DEQ DWM Residential Vapor Intrusion Soil Gas
Screening Levels (SGSLs). No other VOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding the DEQ DWM
Residential SGSLs.
24
EMP Version 3, March 2023
DEQ within 48 hours of identification of the issue for determination of additional requirements:
If contaminated soil vapors are suspected during redevelopment (based on unusual or strong
odors, dizziness, lightheadedness, coughing, difficulty breathing, etc.), the excavation area will
immediately be evacuated, and the environmental professional will be called to perform
appropriate safety screening of the vapors. Safety screening activities include monitoring the
worker breathing zone with a calibrated multi‐gas monitor (or similar instrument[s] capable of
detecting VOCs and combustible gases) for VOCs, methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen
sulfide photoionization detector. If results indicate further action is warranted, appropriate
engineering controls (such as the use of industrial fans) will be implemented. In addition, the
environmental professional will contact the DEQ Brownfields project manager within 48 hours
regarding the condition.
PART 6. INDOOR AIR
1) Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ☐ Yes ☒ No
2) If applicable, 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 ☐ N/A
☒ If no, include rationale here:
No indoor air samples have been collected within the existing Site building. The Site building and
all other on‐Site features were razed as part of Phase I of redevelopment.
4) In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact:
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM
1) 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:
Click or tap here to enter text.
If yes, ☐ VIMS Plan Attached or ☒ VIMS Plan to be submitted separately
In the unlikely event there is evidence of potential indoor air issues (i.e., unusual odors) during the
interior soil excavation, appropriate indoor air monitoring will be performed by the contractor. If
indoor air monitoring results indicate potential indoor air contamination of concern for worker
protection, an environmental professional will be contacted, and the work area will be evacuated until
appropriate engineering controls (such as use of industrial fans) are implemented and follow‐up
sampling is performed to confirm a safe working environment.
25
EMP Version 3, March 2023
If submitted separately provide date:
The developer intends to install a DEQ Brownfields approved passive vapor intrusion mitigation
system designed by a North Carolina licensed Professional Engineer during construction of the
proposed building.
VIMS Plan shall be signed and sealed by a NC Professional Engineer and follow the DEQ
Brownfields Redevelopment Section’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Design Submittal
Requirements.
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
In this section, please provide actions that will be taken to identify or manage unknown potential
new sources of contamination. During redevelopment activities, it is not uncommon that
unknown tanks, drums, fuel lines, landfills, or other waste materials are encountered.
Notification to DEQ Brownfields project manager, UST Section, Fire Department, and/or other
officials, as necessary and appropriate, is required when new potential source(s) of
contamination are discovered. These Notification Requirements were outlined on Page 1 of this
EMP.
Should potentially impacted materials be identified that are inconsistent with known site impacts,
the DEQ Brownfields project manager will be notified, and a sampling plan will be prepared based
on the EMP requirements and site‐specific factors. Samples will generally be collected to
document the location of the potential impacts.
Check the following chemical analysis that are to be conducted on newly identified releases:
☒ Minimum Sample Requirements: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260;
Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; and Metals RCRA List +
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 6020/7199
☐ 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) (e.g. Herbicides)
Please note, if field observations indicate the need for additional analyses, they should
be conducted, even if not listed here.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Please provide details on the proposed methods of managing the following commonly encountered
issues during redevelopment of Brownfields Properties.
26
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Underground Storage Tanks – Note that UST Section guidelines must be followed for sample
frequency during UST closure. Unless damage to onsite structures to remain as part of
redevelopment would occur, USTs shall be removed from the Brownfields Property:
In the event a UST or impacts associated with a UST release are discovered at the Site during
redevelopment activities, the UST and/or UST‐related impacts will be addressed through the
Brownfields Redevelopment Section. DEQ Brownfields will be notified within 48 hours of the
discovery of the UST.
If an undocumented UST is encountered, residual fluids (if present) will be removed, sampled for
VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals, and transported off‐Site for disposal at a suitable facility based on
the laboratory analytical results. Following the removal of residual fluids, the tank will be removed
and closure soil sampling will be performed. The number of soil samples will be consistent with DEQ
UST Section guidelines. The soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs, SVOCs,
and RCRA metals. Impacted soil will be managed in accordance with the Managing On‐Site Soil (Part
1.A.) section outlined above.
If the UST cannot be removed for geotechnical or construction purposes, DEQ will be notified for
approval of in‐place closure. Following DEQ approval, closure soil sampling will be performed in
general accordance with the DEQ UST Section guidelines. Where appropriate, the bottom of the UST
may be penetrated before abandonment to prevent fluid accumulation. If the UST contains residual
fluids, the fluids will be removed, sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals, and transported off‐
Site for disposal at a suitable facility based on the laboratory analytical results.
Sub‐Grade Feature/Pit:
If a sub‐grade feature or pit is encountered and does not require removal for geotechnical or
construction purposes, it will be filled with soil or suitable fill and construction will proceed.
Where appropriate, the bottom may be penetrated before back filling to prevent fluid
accumulation. If the pit has waste in it, the waste may be set aside in a secure area and will be
sampled for waste disposal purposes for TCLP VOCs, TCLP SVOCs, and TCLP metals and disposed
off‐Site at a permitted facility or the waste will be managed in accordance with the Managing On‐
Site Soil (Part 1.A.) section outlined above, whichever is most applicable based on the type of
waste present. If the pit must be removed and the observed waste characteristics indicate the
concrete may potentially be contaminated to a significant degree, the concrete will be sampled
and analyzed by methods specified by the disposal facility.
Buried Waste Material – Note that if buried waste, non‐native fill, or any obviously filled materials is
encountered, the DEQ Brownfields Redevelopment Section must be notified to determine if
investigation of landfill gases is required:
27
EMP Version 3, March 2023
If excavation into buried wastes or significantly impacted soils occurs, the contractor is instructed to
stop work in that location and notify the environmental consultant. The environmental consultant
will observe the suspect materials and collect samples if warranted. In this event, confirmation
sampling will be conducted at representative locations in the base and the sidewalls of the
excavation after the waste or significantly impacted soil is removed. The confirmation samples will
be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals (or other analyses as appropriate based on the type
of waste material). Information will be provided to DEQ Brownfields regarding the permitted facility
used for disposal of the waste or significantly impacted soil. Areas of suspected contaminated soil
that remain at the Site after excavation is complete above the DEQ Industrial/commercial PSRGs will
be managed pursuant to this plan.
Re‐Use of Impacted Soils Onsite:
Please refer to description outlined in the Managing On‐Site Soil section (Part 1.A.) of the EMP
above.
If unknown, impacted soil is identified onsite, management onsite 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 onsite.
If other potential contingency plans are pertinent, please provide other details or scenarios as
needed below:
Click or tap here to enter text.
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING
☒ Check this box to acknowledge that a Redevelopment Summary Report will be required for the
project. If the project duration is longer than one year, an annual update is required and will be 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 1/31/2024
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
28
EMP Version 3, March 2023
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.
30
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Tables
Table 1Summary of Soil Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDSB-1 SB-3 SB-5 SB-6 TW-1 TW-2Depth (ft bgs)4-80-18-124-71010Date4/27/20182/4/20191/28/2019RangeMeanTPH (8015)DRO 10.390.24<0.3NANA----100----GRO <0.62<0.22<0.24<0.3NANA----50----VOCs (8260)AcetoneNA NA NA NA0.15<0.0008414,000 210,000-- -- --SVOCs (8270)NANANANAALL BRLNA--------EPH/VPH (MADEP)C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low) NA NA NA NA <0.64 <0.3844 310-- -- --Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)NANANANA5.5 J1.6 J2093------C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)NANANANA50NA47,000700,000------Total C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)NANANANA13<0.1362370------Metals (6020/7471/7199)ArsenicNA NA NA NA NA NA0.68 3.0--1.0 - 184.8BariumNANANANANANA3,10047,000--50 - 1,000356CadmiumNANANANANANA1.420--1.0 - 104.3Chromium (total)NANANANANANANENE--7.0 - 30065Hexavalent ChromiumNANANANANANA0.316.5--NSNSTrivalent ChromiumNANANANANANA23,000350,000--NSNSLeadNANANANANANA400800--ND - 5016MercuryNANANANANANA4.770--0.03 - 0.520.121SeleniumNANANANANANA781,200--<0.1 - 0.80.42SilverNANANANANANA781,200--ND - 5.0NSNotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) dated July 20232) DEQ Uunderground Storage Tank (UST) Section Action Levels dated July 20163) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005. Background Cd and Ag concentrations were taken from Southeastern and Conterminous US soils.Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; ft bgs= feet below ground surfaceBRL = below laboratory reporting limit; NE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; ND = not detectedJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration. Screening Criteria Residential PSRGs (1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs (1)Action Level (2)Regional Background Metals in Soil (3)Sample Location4/26/2018Northwestern (downgradient)Former UST No. 4 (heating oil tank)Former UST No. 2 (gasoline tank)Former UST No. 3 (heating oil tank)Former UST No. 1(diesel tank)Former UST No. 2(gasoline tank)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Redevelopment EMP/Tables/Metromont Data Tables8/3/2023Table 1 (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 1Summary of Soil Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDTW-4 BGS-1 BGS-2Depth (ft bgs)4-5 DUP-1 (4-5)105-62-40-2Date1/29/2019 1/29/2019 1/29/2019RangeMeanTPH (8015)DRO NA NA NA NA NA NA -- --100-- --GRO NANANANANANA----50----VOCs (8260)Acetone0.0350.021 J<0.00130.062NANA14,000210,000------SVOCs (8270)ALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLALL BRLNANA--------EPH/VPH (MADEP)C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low) NA NA <0.51 <0.49 NA NA44 310-- -- --Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)NANA2.0 J<0.79NANA2093------C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)NANA<3.6<3.5NANA47,000700,000------Total C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)NANA<2.2<2.1NANA62370------Metals (6020/7471/7199)Arsenic2.52.2NANA2.52.10.683.0--1.0 - 184.8Barium3932 JNANA73753,10047,000--50 - 1,000356Cadmium<0.026<0.025NANA0.053 J0.060 J1.420--1.0 - 104.3Chromium (total)130110NANA12067NENE--7.0 - 30065Hexavalent Chromium0.860.85NANA1.370.19 J0.316.5--NSNSTrivalent Chromium129.14109.15NANA118.6366.8123,000350,000--NSNSLead7.27.3NANA157.6400800--ND - 5016Mercury0.026 J0.023 JNANA0.016 J0.012 J4.770--0.03 - 0.520.121Selenium0.87 J0.84 JNANA0.79 J0.69 J781,200--<0.1 - 0.80.42Silver<0.026<0.025NANA0.031 J0.023 J781,200--ND - 5.0NSNotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) dated July 20232) DEQ Uunderground Storage Tank (UST) Section Action Levels dated July 20163) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005. Background Cd and Ag concentrations were taken from Southeastern and Conterminous US soils.Soil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; ft bgs= feet below ground surfaceBRL = below laboratory reporting limit; NE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; ND = not detectedJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration. 1/28/2019Former Acid Wash OperationsFormer UST No. 3(heating oil tank)Sample LocationFormer UST No. 4(heating oil tank)TW-3 / DUP-1Background Screening Criteria Residential PSRGs (1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs (1)Regional Background Metals in Soil (3)Action Level (2)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Redevelopment EMP/Tables/Metromont Data Tables8/3/2023Table 1 (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. S2K-001
Sample ID TW-1 GW-4 TW-2 TW-3 TW-4
Date 2/4/2019 4/27/2018 1/29/2019 1/30/2019 1/30/2019
Sample Location UST No. 1
UST No. 3 &
Former Acid
Wash Operations
UST No. 4
VOCs (8260/6200/602)
Acetone NA 66 <0.31 NA NA <0.31 <0.31 6,000 NE NE
1,1-Dichloroethene NA <0.083 <0.083 NA NA <0.083 <0.083 350 39 160
Chloroform NA <0.076 <0.076 NA NA 0.27 J 0.42 J 70 0.81 3.6
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA <0.056 <0.056 NA NA <0.056 <0.056 70 50 210
Methyl-tert Butyl Ether (MTBE)<0.042 <0.042 1.3 <0.042 <0.042 1.2 1.3 20 450 2,000
Tetrachloroethylene NA <0.098 2.6 NA NA <0.098 <0.098 0.7 12 48
Trichlorofluoromethane NA <0.062 <0.062 NA NA <0.062 <0.062 2,000 NE NE
Toluene <0.044 <0.044 <0.044 3.0 <0.044 1.2 1.4 600 3,800 16,000
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA <0.094 <0.070 NA NA <0.094 <0.094 100 22 91
Trichloroethene NA <0.078 <0.078 NA NA <0.078 <0.078 3 1.0 4.4
Vinyl chloride NA <0.097 <0.097 NA NA <0.097 <0.097 0.03 0.15 2.5
SVOCs (8270/625)
Elcosene (TIC)25 NA NE NE NE
Vanillin (TIC)14 NA NE NE NE
VPH/EPH (MADEP)
C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low)<1.7 NA <1.7 5.3 J 8.1 J NA NA 400 14 57
Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)27 J NA 12 J 12 J 11 J NA NA 700 0.15 0.63
C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)96 J NA NA <85 <75 NA NA 10,000 NE NE
Total C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)<78 NA <0.40 <74 <65 NA NA 200 48 200
Metals (6020/7470)
Arsenic NA NA NA 0.49 J NA 0.18 J 0.18 J 10 ----
Barium NA NA NA 160 NA 80 81 700 ----
Cadmium NA NA NA <0.078 NA <0.078 <0.078 2 ----
Chromium (total)NA NA NA 7.4 NA 1.1 J 0.92 J 10 ----
Lead NA NA <5.0 0.90 J NA 0.28 J 0.33 J 15 ----
Mercury NA NA NA <0.000036 NA <0.000036 <0.000036 1 0.18 0.75
Selenium NA NA NA <0.63 NA <0.63 <0.63 20 ----
Silver NA NA NA <0.063 NA <0.063 0.22 J 20 ----
Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 02L.0202 Groundwater Quality Standard dated April 20222) DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) dated January 2023Compound concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (μg/L).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the table above.
Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.
Bold values indicates concentration exceeds NCAC 2L Groundwater Standard.Underlined values indicates concentration exceeds DWM Residential GWSL.Grey shaded values indicates concentration exceeds the DWM Non-Residential GWSL.UST = underground storage tank; VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compoundsNE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; BRL = below laboratory reporting limitJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration.
Screening Criteria
2L
Standard (1)
Residential
GWSLs (2)
Non-Residential
GWSLs (2)
TW-5 / DUP-1
1/30/2019
Eastern (upgradient)
ALL BRL ALL BRL ALL BRL ALL BRL
UST No. 2
ALL BRL
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Redevelopment EMP/Tables/Metromont Data Tables
5/31/2023
Table 2 (Page 1 of 2)
Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. S2K-001
Sample ID TW-6 GW-1 TW-7 GW-6 TW-8 TW-9
Date 1/30/2019 4/26/2018 1/29/2019 4/26/2018 1/30/2019 1/30/2019
Sample Location Southeastern
(upgradient)
Southwestern
(upgradient)
VOCs (8260/6200/602)
Acetone <0.31 5.1 <0.31 75 <0.31 <0.31 6,000 NE NE
1,1-Dichloroethene <0.083 1.4 1.1 <0.083 <0.083 <0.083 350 39 160
Chloroform <0.076 <0.076 <0.076 <0.076 <0.076 <0.076 70 0.81 3.6
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.056 170 160 <0.056 <0.056 <0.056 70 50 210
Methyl-tert Butyl Ether (MTBE)<0.042 <0.042 <0.042 <0.042 <0.042 <0.042 20 450 2,000
Tetrachloroethylene <0.098 <0.098 <0.098 <0.098 <0.098 <0.098 0.7 12 48
Trichlorofluoromethane <0.062 1.1 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.062 2,000 NE NE
Toluene 1.5 <0.044 <0.044 <0.044 0.92 J 2.0 600 3,800 16,000
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.094 <0.094 0.57 J <0.094 <0.094 <0.094 100 22 91
Trichloroethene <0.078 24 2.8 <0.078 <0.078 <0.078 3 1.0 4.4
Vinyl chloride <0.097 3.3 0.95 J <0.097 <0.097 <0.097 0.03 0.15 2.5
SVOCs (8270/625)
Elcosene (TIC)NE NE NE
Vanillin (TIC)NE NE NE
VPH/EPH (MADEP)
C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low)NA NA NA NA NA NA 400 14 57
Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)NA NA NA NA NA NA 700 0.15 0.63
C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)NA NA NA NA NA NA 10,000 NE NE
Total C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)NA NA NA NA NA NA 200 48 200
Metals (6020/7470)
Arsenic NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 ----
Barium NA NA NA NA NA NA 700 ----
Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 ----
Chromium (total)NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 ----
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA 15 ----
Mercury NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 0.18 0.75
Selenium NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 ----
Silver NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 ----
Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 02L.0202 Groundwater Quality Standard dated April 20222) DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) dated January 2023Compound concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (μg/L).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the table above.
Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.
Bold values indicates concentration exceeds NCAC 2L Groundwater Standard.Underlined values indicates concentration exceeds DWM Residential GWSL.Grey shaded values indicates concentration exceeds the DWM Non-Residential GWSL.UST = underground storage tank; VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compoundsNE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; BRL = below laboratory reporting limitJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration.
ALL BRL ALL BRL
Northwestern (downgradient)Southern (upgradient)
ALL BRL ALL BRLALL BRL
Screening Criteria
2L
Standard (1)
Residential
GWSLs (2)
Non-Residential
GWSLs (2)
ALL BRL
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Redevelopment EMP/Tables/Metromont Data Tables
5/31/2023
Table 2 (Page 2 of 2)
Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3
Summary of Soil Gas Analytical Data
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. S2K-001
Sample ID SG-1 SG-3 SG-4
Date 1/31/2019 1/31/2019 2/4/2019
Depth (ft bgs)7 7 7
VOCs (TO-15)
Acetone 51 150 87 <66 78 NE NE
Benzene 12 22 23 15 1.1 J 12 160
2-Butanone (MEK)12 J <2.3 <2.3 <9.2 41 J 35,000 440,000
Carbon Disulfide 320 400 410 150 <0.77 4,900 61,000
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.6 1.9 J 2.0 J <4.1 <0.74 16 200
Cyclohexane <0.49 940 970 <4.9 <0.88 42,000 530,000
Ethanol 6.9 J <17 <17 <67 36 NE NE
Ethyl Acetate <0.54 <1.3 <1.3 <5.4 37 490 6,100
Ethylbenzene 9.5 14 15 16 <0.90 37 490
4-Ethyltoluene 8.6 11 12 <6.0 <1.1 NE NE
Heptane 17 900 920 <4.8 4.0 2,800 35,000
Hexane 49 320 330 <12 <2.2 4,900 61,000
Isopropanol 7.2 J <1.5 <1.5 <6.0 15 J 1,400 18,000
Methylene Chloride 1.1 J <2.1 <2.1 <8.4 <1.5 3,400 53,000
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)4.3 <0.99 <0.99 <3.9 <0.71 21,000 260,000
Tetrachloroethylene 1.2 J 2.2 J <1.9 <7.5 <1.4 280 3,500
Toluene 180 170 170 3,700 140 35,000 440,000
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)2.2 J <1.6 <1.6 <6.5 <1.2 NE NE
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113)1.4 J <2.3 <2.3 <9.3 <1.7 35,000 440,000
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11 15 17 8.1 J <1.1 420 5,300
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 2.4 3.8 <1.5 <6.2 <1.1 420 5,300
m&p-Xylene 39 58 61 51 1.9 J 700 8,800
o-Xylene 13 22 23 18 <0.97 700 8,800
Notes:
1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Sub-slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) datd January 2023
Compound concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).
Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.
Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the table above.
Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.
Bold values indicates concentration exceeds the DWM Residential SGSL.
VOCs = volatile organic compounds; ft bgs= feet below ground surface; NE = not established
J = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration.
SG-2 / DUP-SG
1/31/2019
7
Screening Criteria
Residential
SGSLs (1)
Non-Residential
SGSLs (1)
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Redevelopment EMP/Tables/Metromont Data Tables
5/31/2023
Table 3 (Page 1 of 1)
Hart & Hickman, PC
Figures
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP ElevationProgram, Geographic Names Information System, National HydrographyDataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, andNational Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. CensusBureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S.Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA NationalCenters for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Datarefreshed June, 2022.
SITE LOCATION MAP
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY
4101 GREENSBORO STREETCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 5-31-23
JOB NO: S2K-001
REVISION NO: 0
FIGURE. 1
2923 South Tryon Street - Suite 100Charlotte, North Carolina 28203704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
TITLE
PROJECT
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE IN FEET
Path: S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Figures\Figure-1.mxdN
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP
CHARLOTTE EAST, NORTH CAROLINA 2022DERITA, NORTH CAROLINA 2022
QUADRANGLE7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
SITE
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. S2K-001
DATE: 5-31-23
FIGURE NO. 2
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY4101 GREENSBORO STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE MAP
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100Charlotte, North Carolina 28203704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
GREENSBORO STREE
T EAST SUGAR
CREEK
ROAD
PRE-S
T
R
E
S
S
CONCR
E
T
E
F
O
R
M
STAGIN
G
A
R
E
A
PRE-S
T
R
E
S
S
CONCR
E
T
E
F
O
R
M
STAGIN
G
A
R
E
A
SAND
B
L
A
S
TI
N
G
BUILDI
N
G
N. TR
Y
O
N ST
R
E
ET
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
ABANDONED UST
FORMER UST
TRYON MALL CLEANER(451 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
BINGO TIRE & AUTO(4026 N. TRYON STREET)
PALACE AUTO SALES(4104 N. TRYON STREET)ZOEWEE'S(4111 N. TRYON STREET)
SUGAR CREEK TIRE & AUTO(126 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
EL NOA NOA(215 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
DINO'S(350 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
ESTRAMONTE CHIROPRACTIC
(402 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
CONCRETE SUPPLY COMPANY(3940 GREENSBORO STREET)
CONSOLIDATED PRESS(3900 GREENSBORO STREET)
CONCRETE SUPPLY COMPANY
(3823 RALEIGH STREET)
FORMER TARMAC FACILITY(3934 RALEIGH STREET)
FORMER ACID WASHOPERATIONS
NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA AND AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM
MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS (2023).
2. UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
FORMER GASOLINEUST (TANK NO.2)
FORMER HEATING OILUST (TANK NO.3)
FORMER DIESEL
UST (TANK NO.1)
ABANDONED HEATING
OIL UST (TANK NO.4)
RALEIGH STRE
E
T
CARS TO GO
(3922 N. TRYON STREET)
POPEYE'S
(4050 N. TRYON STREET)
LITTLE S
U
G
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Redevelopment EMP\Figures\S2K.001_20230531.dwg, FIG 2 - SITE MAP, 6/1/2023 8:56:01 AM, shaynes
SB-3
SB-6
MW-1
SB-5/GW-4
MW-3
MW-5
MW-4
GW-6
MW-2
N. TR
Y
O
N
ST
R
E
ET
TW-8
TW-9
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3
SG-4
BGS-1
TW-3
TW-7
TW-6
TW-5
BGS-2
TW-4
TW-1
TW-2
GREENSBORO STRE
E
T EAST SUGAR
CREEK
ROAD
RALEIGH STRE
E
T
TW-3
SB-1/GW-1
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. S2K-001
DATE: 5-31-23
FIGURE NO. 3
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY4101 GREENSBORO STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100Charlotte, North Carolina 28203704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
NOTES:
1. PROPOSED SITE PLAN BASED ON CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COLEJENEST & STONEDATED 6/24/2022.
2. LOCATIONS FOR MONITORING WELLS MW-1 THROUGH
MW-5 ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON REVIEW OF THEPHASE III GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REPORT
PREPARED BY ROGER AND COLLCOTT IN MAY 1996.
3. SOIL BORING (SB-3 THROUGH SB-6) AND TEMPORARYMONITORING WELL (GW-1, GW-4, AND GW-6)LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON REVIEW OFTHE PHASE II ESA REPORT PREPARED BY ECS IN MAY2018.
4. BROWNFIELDS SOIL AND GROUNDWATER BORINGSTW-1 THROUGH TW-9 WERE ADVANCED AND SAMPLED1/28/2019 THROUGH 1/30/2019 AND 2/4/2019. SG-1
THROUGH SG-4 WERE SAMPLED 1/31/2019 AND 2/4/2019.
5. UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
ABANDONED UST
FORMER UST
HISTORICAL MONITORING WELL
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING / TEMPORARYMONITORING WELL
SOIL BORING LOCATION
SOIL GAS SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION
PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW INTO THESEDIMENT POND
PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR BUILDINGFOOTPRINT
FORMER ACID WASHOPERATIONS
FORMER GASOLINEUST (TANK NO.2)
FORMER HEATING OIL
UST (TANK NO.3)
FORMER DIESELUST (TANK NO.1)
ABANDONED HEATING
OIL UST (TANK NO.4)
EXISTINGSEDIMENT BASIN
LITTLE
S
U
G
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
PARKINGDECK
POOLCOURTYARD
S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Redevelopment EMP\Figures\S2K.001_20230531.dwg, FIG 3 - SAMPLES, 6/1/2023 9:00:41 AM, shaynes
N. TR
Y
O
N
ST
R
E
ET
GREENSBORO STRE
E
T EAST SUGAR
CREEK
ROAD
RALEIGH STRE
E
T
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. S2K-001
DATE: 5-31-23
FIGURE NO. 4
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY4101 GREENSBORO STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION MAP
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100Charlotte, North Carolina 28203704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
NOTES:
1. BOLD VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDSTHE 2L GROUNDWATER STANDARD.
2.UNDERLINED VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATIONEXCEEDS THE DEQ DWM VAPOR INTRUSIONRESIDENTIAL GWSL.
3. SHADED VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDSTHE DEQ DWM VAPOR INTRUSION NON-RESIDENTIAL
GWSL.
4.ITALICIZED VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATIONEXCEEDS THE DEQ DWM VAPOR INTRUSIONRESIDENTIAL SGSL.
5. J = COMPOUND WAS DETECTED ABOVE THELABORATORY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT BUT BELOWTHE LABORATORY REPORTING LIMIT, RESULTING IN ALABORATORY ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION.
6. cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENEPCE = TETRACHLOROETHYLENETCE = TRICHLOROETHYLENEGWSL = GROUNDWATER SCREENING LEVELSSGSL = SOIL GAS SCREENING LEVELSUST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
ABANDONED UST
FORMER UST
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING / TEMPORARYMONITORING WELL
SOIL GAS SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION
PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW INTO THESEDIMENT POND
PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR BUILDINGFOOTPRINT
FORMER ACID WASHOPERATIONS
FORMER GASOLINEUST (TANK NO.2)
FORMER DIESELUST (TANK NO.1)
ABANDONED HEATING
OIL UST (TANK NO.4)
TW-1
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 27 µg/L
TW-7
cis-1,2-DCE 160 μg/L
TCE 2.8 μg/L
VC 0.95 J μg/L
TW-3
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 12 J μg/L
TW-2
PCE 2.6 μg/L
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 12 J μg/L
TW-4
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 11 J μg/L
GW-1
cis-1,2-DCE 170 μg/L
TCE 24 μg/L
VC 3.3 µg/L
SG-2 / DUP-SG
BENZENE 22 / 23 μg/m3
SG-2
TW-3
SB-1/GW-1
TW-7
TW-4
TW-1
TW-2
TW-7
cis-1,2-DCE 160 μg/L
TCE 2.8 μg/L
VC 0.95 J μg/L
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION
SAMPLE ID
FORMER HEATING OIL
UST (TANK NO.3)
EXISTINGSEDIMENT BASIN
LITTLE
S
U
G
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
PARKINGDECK
POOLCOURTYARD
SG-3
SG-3
BENZENE 15 μg/m3 S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Redevelopment EMP\Figures\S2K.001_20230531.dwg, FIG 4 - CONC MAP, 6/1/2023 9:06:29 AM, shaynes
Appendix A
Preliminary Site Plan
SSS
S SVANVAN
VANGREENSBORO STREET PUBLIC STREET CPUBLIC STREET APRIVATE STREET B
PARCEL 1-B
PARCEL 2-A
PARCEL 2-B
PARCEL 3
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED PUBLIC
SIDEWALK & UTILITY
EASEMENT
10'-0" BUILD-TO LINE
FUTURE STREET
STUB STREET FOR
FUTURE CONNECTION
PARKING DECK ENTRY +
LOADING ZONE ACCESS
COURTYARD
PARKING DECK
PROPOSED ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS AND
BUS ENCLOSURE TO BE
LOCATED REMOTELY
ON PARCEL 1-B, FINAL
EQUIPMENT COUNT TBD
CENTER OF OVERHEAD
POWER LINES8' - 0"8' - 0"T T
T
B
16' - 0"10' - 0"1. REFER TO GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET G8.01
2. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN IS FOR GENERAL
INFORMATION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE SITE
ONLY. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SPECIFIC SITE PLAN INFORMATION.
3. SEE CIVIL/LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE AMENITY LOCATIONS AND
DETAILS.
4. ALL ACCESSIBLE PATHS TO SLOPE MAXIMUM OF 5%
WITH A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2%.
5. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL TRANSFORMERS, METERS,
ETC.
6. ALL TRANSFORMERS TO BE LOCATED AT LEAST 4 FEET
AWAY FROM ANY BUILDING WALL.
7. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN A REPORT INCLUDED IN
SPECIFICATIONS.
GENERAL NOTES
ACCESSIBLE PATH
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE LOCATION
ACCESSIBLE START POINT
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE LEGEND:
PROJECT # /
1900 WEST MOREHEAD STREET
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
704.334.1716
BEACHAM BUNCE + MANLEY ARCHITECTURE PLLC
COPYRIGHT 2023 BB+M ARCHITECTURE PLLC.
WWW.BBM-ARCH.COM
LOCATION /
DATE /
DRAWN /
5/5/2023 4:43:17 PM C:\Users\chall\Documents\Revit Local Files\Metromont MF_CENTRAL_R22_challN2PGS.rvt
SUGAR CREEK MF
PARCEL 1-A
50% CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS
ARCHITECTURAL SITE
PLAN
22CAP380
05.05.2023
CM
A0.01
CHARLOTTE, NC
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"A0.011 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
TRUE NORTHPROJECTNORTH
Revisions
No.Description Date
Appendix B
Preliminary Grading and Cut/Fill Analysis
FH1"EIP1/2"EIR(BENT)LPPPWVTBM= 715.55TOP BOLT FHSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSGGU
E
UE
U
E
W W WWWWWG G GGGGGGGGWWWW715GWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXX1/2"NIRSD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSS
710
710705PROJECT NO:REVISIONS:FILE NO.:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:SCALE:S2KQOZB LLC5950 HAZELTINE NATIONAL DRIVESUITE 305ORLANDO, FL 32822SUGAR CREEKMIXED USE - TRACT 14101 GREENSBORO STREETCHARLOTTE, NC 282064821.02SEE SHEET03/31/2023CJSCJSCMJd/b/a ColeJenest
& Stone 200 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 1400CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202Phone: (704) 376-1555Email: info@colejeneststone.comwww.bolton-menk.comNSCALE:020'10'40'1"=20'C-400GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANLEVEL 1 - PRIVATE STREET 'B' LEVELLEVEL 2 - GREENSBORO STREET LEVEL
GDPGDPECM1"EIP1/2"EIR1/2"EIR1/2"EIRSIGNSIGNWWW715' - 8"8.33%713' - 8"8.33%715' - 8"RISER255LOBBY254712' - 0"712' - 0"715' - 8"FITNESS775CORRIDOR200
8.33%FEETSCALE0HORZ.4080SUGAR CREEK MIXED-USEEARTHWORK ANALYSISCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA5.12.2023THIS EXHIBIT IS SCHEMATIC IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VARIATION.N
Appendix C
Preliminary Construction Schedule
Preliminary Construc�on Schedule
Start Mass Grading & Infrastructure Sitework: September 2023
Start Foo�ngs & Founda�ons: November 2023
Start Parking Deck Precast Erec�on: January 2024
First Apartment Delivery: November 2025
Second Apartment Delivery: January 2026
Third Apartment Delivery & Project Comple�on: March 2026