21004_Taylor_Salt_remedial_Action_Progress_Rpt_2016_08_19

AECOM Techinical Service of North Carolina, Inc. 704.522.0330 tel
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 200 704.5220063 fax
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

August 19, 2016

Mr. Collin Day – Western Unit Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management – Superfund Section
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105

Subject: Remedial Action Progress Report 2014-2015
Former Univar USA, Inc.
Former Taylor Salt & Chemical Facility
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 28208
IHSB Site ID #NONCD0002583
Dear Mr. Day,
Enclosed please find a Remedial Action Progress Report for the subject site. This report is being
submitted by AECOM Technical Services of North Carolina, Inc. on behalf of Univar USA, Inc.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Robbi McKinney at (704) 716-
0758 or [e-mail].

Yours sincerely,

Robbi McKinney
Project Manager

cc: Jack Spicuzza / Univar USA, Inc. (electronic)
Peter Jacobson / AECOM (electronic)

AECOM Techinical Service of North Carolina, Inc. 704.522.0330 tel
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 200 704.5220063 fax
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

August 19, 2016

Mr. Collin Day – Western Unit Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management – Superfund Section
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105

Subject: Remedial Action Progress Report 2014-2015
Former Univar USA, Inc.
Former Taylor Salt & Chemical Facility
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 28208
IHSB Site ID #NONCD0002583
Dear Mr. Day,
Enclosed please find a Remedial Action Progress Report for the subject site. This report is being
submitted by AECOM Technical Services of North Carolina, Inc. on behalf of Univar USA, Inc.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Robbi McKinney at (704) 716-
0758 or [e-mail].

Yours sincerely,

Robbi McKinney
Project Manager

cc: Jack Spicuzza / Univar USA, Inc. (electronic)
Peter Jacobson / AECOM (electronic)

Submitted to
Univar USA Inc.

Submitted by
AECOM Technical Services of
North Carolina, Inc.
6000 Fairview Road
Charlotte, NC 28210

Annual Monitoring Report
2014-2015

Former Univar USA, Inc.
Former Taylor Salt & Chemical Facility
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
IHSB Site ID #NONCD0002583

AECOM Project No. 60478479
June 2016
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report i

6/30/2016

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 REPORT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 SITE LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 SITE HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 REGULATORY HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.6 FACILITY PHYSIOGRAPHY / GEOLOGIC / HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................ 1-4
1.7 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................................ 1-4
2 Sampling and Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLTION AND SAMPLING .................................................................. 2-5
2.1.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment ............................................................................................... 2-5
2.1.2 Groundwater Sampling Methods and Procedures .......................................................................................... 2-5
2.1.2.1 January 2014 Event .................................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.1.2.2 July 2014 Event ........................................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.1.2.3 January 2015 Event .................................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.1.2.4 October 2015 Event .................................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.1.3 Groundwater Analysis Procedures................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.2 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING ................................................................................................................................. 2-7
2.2.1 Surface Water Sampling Methods and Procedures ........................................................................................ 2-7
2.2.2 Surface Water Analysis Procedures .............................................................................................................. 2-7
2.3 SOIL SAMPLING....................................................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.1 Soil Sampling Methods and Procedures ........................................................................................................ 2-7
2.3.2 Soil Analysis Procedures............................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4 SOIL GAS PROBE INSTALLATION AND SAMPLING ................................................................................................ 2-7
2.4.1 Soil Gas Point Installation ............................................................................................................................. 2-7
2.4.2 Soil Gas Sampling Methods and Procedures ................................................................................................. 2-8
2.4.3 Soil Gas Analysis Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5 PASSIVE SOIL GAS SAMPLING ............................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5.1 Passive Soil Gas Sampling Methods and Procedures .................................................................................... 2-8
2.5.2 Passive Soil Gas Analysis Procedures .......................................................................................................... 2-8
2.6 INDOOR AIR SAMPLING .......................................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.6.1 Indoor Air Sampling Methods and Procedures ............................................................................................... 2-8
2.6.2 Indoor Air Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 2-9
3 Remedial Action Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 3-10
3.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.3 SVE EFFLUENT SAMPLING ................................................................................................................................... 3-10
4 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................................................. 4-11
4.1 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 4-11
4.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ...................................................................... 4-11
Table of Contents
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report ii

6/30/2016

4.3 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 4-12
4.4 SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS......................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5 PASSIVE SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 4-13
4.6 INDOOR AIR ANALYTICAL RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 4-13
4.7 SVE EFFLUENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 4-13
5 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 5-14
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-14
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 5-14
6 References ................................................................................................................................................................. 6-16

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report iii

6/30/2016

List of Appendices
Appendix A Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams
Appendix B Waste Manifests
Appendix C Historical Groundwater Elevation Data
Appendix D Historical Groundwater Analytical Data
Appendix E Analytical Laboratory Reports

List of Tables
Table 1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Details
Table 2 Groundwater Elevations Summary Table
Table 3 Summary of Groundwater and Surface Water Field Parameters
Table 4 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 5 Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 6 Soil Analytical Results
Table 7 Soil Gas Point Construction Details
Table 8 Soil Gas Analytical Results
Table 9 Passive Soil Gas Analytical Results
Table 10 Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Results
Table 11 Soil Vapor Extraction Well Construction Details
Table 12 Soil Vapor Extraction System Measurements
Table 13 Soil Vapor Extraction Effluent Analytical Results

List of Figures
Figure 1 Location Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Groundwater and Surface Water Sample Location Map
Figure 4 Permanent and Passive Soil Gas Sample Location Map
Figure 5 Soil Vapor Extraction System Map
Figure 6 July 2014 Groundwater Contour Map
Figure 7 October 2015 Groundwater Contour Map
Figure 8 October 2015 PCE Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 9 PCE Concentrations Along Cross Section A-A’
Figure 10 October 2015 TCE Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 11 October 2015 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 12 October 2015 Vinyl Chloride Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 13 2013 – 2014 Soil Gas Analytical Results Map
Figure 14 2014 PCE Sample Results from Passive & Permanent Soil Gas Locations

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report iv

6/30/2016

List of Acronyms

µg/L micrograms per liter
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
BEI Bascor Environmental Inc.
bgs below ground surface
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
COC constituent of concern
CLP contract laboratory program
DCA dichloroethane
DCE dichloroethene
DO dissolved oxygen
DPT direct push technology
DWQ Division of Water Quality
DWR Division of Water Resources
DWM Division of Waste Management
ft feet
GEX Geologic Explorations
GMI Geraghty & Miller, Inc
IHSB Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
IDW investigation derived waste
kg kilograms
L liter
MCAPCO Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance
mg/kg milligram per kilogram
mg/L milligram per liter
MDL method detection limit
MSL mean sea level
mV millivolt
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NFG National Functional Guidance
NRSL non-residential screening level
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PCE perchloroethene (tetrachloroethene)
PID Photoionization Detector
PIN Parcel Identification Number
PDB passive diffusion bag
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QC quality control
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI remedial investigation
RSL residential screening level
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SF square feet
SIM selective ion mode
SVE soil vapor extraction
TCE trichloroethene
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC volatile organic compound

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 1-1

6/30/2016

1.1 REPORT OVERVIEW
This annual monitoring report has been prepared for the Former Univar USA Inc. (Univar) Glenwood Drive facility (Site) at
3915 Glenwood Drive in Charlotte, North Carolina (Site) by AECOM Technical Services of North Carolina, Inc. (AECOM). This
report presents the remedial system operations and maintenance and sampling events conducted at the Site during December
2013, 2014, and 2015.
1.2 SITE LOCATION
The Site is located at 3915 Glenwood Drive, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (35.24963°, -80.88690°). The
Site is currently a multi-tenant business park. Developed adjacent properties include Carolina’s Window Works/The Blind and
Shutter Pros [the former Boggs and Company (Boggs) dry cleaning chemical supplier] to the north [Dry Cleaning Solvent
Cleanup Act (DSCA) # DC600010], Nexeo Solutions (a former Ashland Chemical facility) to the northeast, a former
SCM/Glidden property to the east, a church/children’s daycare center to the south, and residential areas to the west and
southeast. Two of the ten homes along Glenwood Drive to the west of the site are condemned, and are not occupied. Figure
1 presents a location map of the Site and immediately surrounding areas. Figure 2 presents a Site map with adjacent
properties.
1.3 SITE HISTORY
According to Mecklenburg County Tax Assessor, the former Univar property consists of a single parcel that occupies 3.75
acres of land. The entire parcel is developed and occupied by two buildings with significant concrete/asphalt cover. Prior to
Univar’s purchase, the Site was used as a chemical distribution center known as Taylor Salt and Chemical (Taylor Salt).
Univar purchased the facility in 2002 and the Site was subsequently sold to Glenwood Business Park, LLC in 2003.
Prior to Univar’s purchase of the Site, a Summary of Environmental Assessments, dated May 1997, was prepared by Advent
Environmental Consulting and Design. The 1997 Summary of Environmental Assessments and the follow-on 1998
Environmental Assessment Report I (Advent 1998) contain the full historical summary of activities that have occurred on site.
Between 1960 and 1978, Taylor Salt distributed and re-packaged salts, acids, caustics, and solvents. The facility stored bulk
amounts of acetic acid, sulfuric acid, ammonia, caustic potash, and liquid caustic soda. The solvents that were distributed and
recorded on the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act( SARA) Tier II forms included isopropanol, methyl ethyl
ketone, mineral spirits, synasol®, 2-ethyl hexanol, and methanol (Advent 1997).
Raw materials were received in bulk by rail car and were transferred from the railroad spur on the north side of the property to
the on-site above ground storage tanks (ASTs). Products were drummed in the covered area immediately south of the former
AST area, and were then loaded onto box or tanker tractor trailers that were staged along the south edge of the covered area.
The AST area was equipped with two sump pits on the east and west ends. The area was underlain by gravel and soil until
the early 1980s when dikes and a concrete floor was installed (Advent 1997).
Historical aerial photographs taken from 1978 to 1990 indicated numerous stored drums and trucks in the former gravel area
in the southern portion of the site. Liquids from tanker trucks were drummed in the southwestern side of the property. The
gravel areas were paved in 1989. According to site personnel interviews, solvents including 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),
trichloroethene (TCE), and possibly tetrachloroethene (PCE) were drummed from bulk tanks from 1984 to 1989 (Advent
1997). Seven TCE drums were observed at the site during the first visit, but were not listed on SARA Tier II forms. These
drums were not present during a second visit, and disposal manifests were not available (Advent 1997).
1 Introduction
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 1-2

6/30/2016

Advent also noted review of correspondence between Taylor Salt and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) describing the removal of a 3,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) from the property in 1990. Ten
cubic yards of soil was removed. In 1995, a 10,000 gall on diesel UST was removed. Approximately 450 tons pf petroluem-
contaminated, non-hazardous soil was removed. NCDEQ required no further action after review of correspondence and
associated analytical data (Advent 1997). In 2002, the Site was closed following the property purchase by Univar. The Site
was then sold to Glenwood Business Park, LLC in April of 2003, which currently runs the property as a multitenant business
park.
1.4 REGULATORY HISTORY
Circa 1987, Taylor Salt reported a release to groundwater to the NCDEQ. NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR)
subsequently assigned this release a groundwater incident number, 3203. Univar (then Van Waters and Rogers) entered into
a Consent Decree to clean up the Site. The Site has been assigned to the North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
(IHSB) and given the ID: NONCD0000003. In 2008, a Site Cleanup Questionnaire was completed and submitted to IHSB.
The findings of the questionnaire determined that the Site could be addressed through the Registered Environmental
Consultant (REC) Program without direct oversight by IHSB. However, the site has not formally entered into the REC
program. In 2015, the site was included on the North Carolina IHSB Waste Sites Priority List at rank 307 of over 500 sites.
1.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Prior to Univar’s purchase of the Site, several investigations were completed to adequately define the extent of environmental
impacts. Conclusions from the 1997 Summary of Environmental Assessments (Advent), are as follows:
• Properties surrounding the Site to the north, northeast, and east were known to have groundwater contamination and
were subject to enforcement or corrective action implementation.
• The former Boggs and Company facility, located up-gradient of the Site had released volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) that likely impacted the Site.
• Sensitive receptors are located to the south (church owned daycare center) and southwest (residential neighborhood)
of the Site.
• Estimated groundwater flow direction was to the south-southwest.
• Taylor Salt possessed and re-packaged solvents that were detected in the shallow soil and groundwater at the Site.
• Hazardous constituents have impacted the groundwater at the Site. Activities that occurred offsite (Boggs and
Company) and onsite (Taylor Salt) appear to be the sources of impact.
In 1998, Advent prepared a follow-up report containing the results of samples collected from different environmental media.
Soil gas, soil, and groundwater samples were collected. Advent refined and expanded their conclusions from the 1997
assessment. These changes and new observations are as follows:
• In 1995, a leaking diesel UST was replaced, contamination removed, and was resolved to the satisfaction of NCDEQ.
However, residual soil contamination around the UST was detected above action levels.
• Of the soil samples collected, only SG-22 contained concentrations that would have the possibility to impact shallow
groundwater.
BASCOR Environmental, Inc. (BEI) prepared a multiple investigation report in 2004. BEI collected 15 direct push soil samples,
completed groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling, groundwater grab samples from 11 hydropunch locations
along the northern boundary of the Univar property. In a following phase, BEI collected groundwater grab samples from eight
hydropunch samples along the eastern edge of the property. A geophysical survey to determine the depth to bedrock was
also completed. In September 2004, BEI installed ten additional geoprobe soil and hydropunch locations and completed a soil
vapor extraction (SVE) pilot test. BEI also references indoor air samples that were collected from on-site structures in 2002.
BEI made the following conclusions:
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 1-3

6/30/2016

• The site is impacted with chlorinated VOCs. Analytical data indicate that the Boggs property and the onsite central
western side of the property are the sources of these impacts.
• Hydropunch samples collected along the northern, upgradient edge of the railroad spur support the conclusion that
PCE-impacted water is migrating from the Boggs property onto the site at concentrations exceeding 9,000
micrograms per liter (µg/L).
• BEI stated that a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) would be developed to address the onsite source and portions of the
groundwater plume that have migrated from the up-gradient Boggs property. The RAP would contain
recommendations for a full scale SVE system near the loading dock (BASCOR 2004).
From 2005 to 2009, BEI collected groundwater samples as part of a routine monitoring program. BEI noted that groundwater
levels continued to drop and new replacement wells were installed at depths 9 to 10 feet deeper than their shallow
counterparts. In 2006 BEI used direct push technology to collect five groundwater samples along the east side of the property.
Five temporary monitoring wells were also installed offsite along Kadey Drive in September 2007. This roadway is located to
the southeast of the Site. In February 2008, ten temporary monitoring wells were installed along Fairground Street. In June
2008, 13 new permanent groundwater monitoring wells were installed at select locations after review of the temporary
monitoring well groundwater sample data. BEI completed a soil vapor evaluation based on the United States Environmental
Protection Agency’s (USEPA) three-tiered screening process. Following this, BEI installed five on-site soil gas probes in order
to provide a preliminary assessment for the potential for vapor intrusion in off-site downgradient areas. Soil gas samples were
collected in November 2008 and September 2009. Four new temporary nested monitoring wells were installed along the
southern boundary of the Site in December 2008. Groundwater samples were collected from these locations in the shallow,
intermediate and deep intervals. In February 2009, BEI collected surface water samples along the unnamed tributary to
Stewart Creek located approximately 800 feet southeast of the Site. Samples were collected from five locations, spaced
approximately 100 to 200 ft apart starting at the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Avalon Avenue, and proceeding
downstream toward the northeast. BEI initiated startup of the full-scale SVE system in March 2009. BEI made the following
conclusions:
• Soil assessment activities indicate that VOC impacts on-site are minimal and limited to the shallow soils within the
vadose zone.
• VOC impacts were observed in the unnamed tributary to Stewart Creek.
• Indoor air sampling results demonstrated vapor intrusion risks to human health are very unlikely.
• BEI recommended updating the groundwater and surface water use survey, and completing a sensitive environments
survey would allow for better understanding of the potential for a completed groundwater or surface water ingestion
pathway.
In March 2011, BEI teamed with Shield Engineering, Inc. (Shield) to complete a receptor and environmentally sensitive area
survey. BEI and Shield made the following conclusions:
• NCDEQ’s Request for Water Supply Well form was distributed to all residents within 500 feet of the Site. Six surveys
were returned.
• Two water supply wells were identified within a half-mile radius of the Site. One well (3909 Plainview Road,
Charlotte) was being abandoned by ATC Associates, Inc. & ARM Environmental, Inc. at the time of the survey. The
second well (633 Tennyson Drive, Charlotte) was not in use.
• Municipal water is available and in-use in this area. The nearest known municipal water intake is Mountain Island
Lake, at least eight miles to the north/northwest of the site.
• Pavement and/or concrete and/or structures cover the contaminated soil.
• The unnamed tributaries of surface water that flow to Stewart Creek are considered environmentally sensitive areas.
Stewart Creek flows to Irwin Creek. “Irwin Creek and its tributaries are considered to be an environmentally sensitive
area for the protection and maintenance of aquatic life. Irwin Creek is on the 303(d) Impaired Water List for
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 1-4

6/30/2016

exceeding the state standard for copper, fecal coliform bacteria, lead, turbidity, zinc, and ecological/biological integrity
(fish community),” per Melanie Williams of the NCDENR Division of Water Quality.

• Ron Linville of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission reported that Pale Coneflower is a listed plant species (of
concern) found to the east of the site. Further, the Northern Yellow Bat (NCSC) is known to live within the city.

• The National Parks Services who oversee; National Seashore, Lakeshore, and River Recreational Areas, National
Parks or Monuments, and Federal Designated Wild & Scenic rivers did not respond to the survey. No seashores,
lakeshores, rivers, National Parks or monuments were observed by Shield within a 0.5 mile radius of the
contamination from the site.
1.6 FACILITY PHYSIOGRAPHY / GEOLOGIC / HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The Site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province that is characterized by moderately level interstream areas
separated by broad valleys. Bedrock in the Charlotte, North Carolina area is mapped within the Charlotte Belt lithologic
division of the Piedmont. According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985), the
bedrock consists of metamorphosed mafic rock, including metagabbro, metadiorite, and mafic plutonic-volcanic complexes.
Competent bedrock in the Piedmont province in North Carolina is typically overlain by variable thicknesses of saprolite and
soil, collectively referred to as “overburden”. Groundwater in the Piedmont province occurs in the overburden under
unconfined (i.e., water table) conditions, and in the underlying bedrock under both unconfined and confined conditions.
Groundwater in the overburden occurs within pore spaces of the unconsolidated medium, including relict bedrock structures
(i.e., fractures and foliations). Due to the typical fine-grained nature of saprolite, the formation normally possesses a relatively
low permeability and is not generally used for groundwater production.
Groundwater in the underlying bedrock occurs along zones of secondary porosity, such as fractures, foliations, and solution
voids. Most water supply wells in the Piedmont are completed by extending through the overburden and into bedrock. Aquifer
hydrologic testing was conducted as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Site Assessment. BEI performed slug tests on Site
monitoring wells, and estimated groundwater velocities ranging from 0.008 ft/day to 0.015 ft/day (BEI, 2008b).
1.7 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
As part of the 2008 Limited Site Assessment (LSA) as mentioned in the 2005 to 2009 Site Assessment Activities Report, BEI
performed an updated receptor survey for the vicinity surrounding the Site. The updated receptor survey included a door-to-
door walk-around of all properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the Site and an EDR database search of the Site and
surrounding properties. In addition, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) was contacted for information on public
water usage of several properties within a 1,500-foot radius of the Site. After contacting CMUD it was determined that all
properties within a 1,500-foot radius had a connection to the public water supply (BEI, 2008a). As a result of the 2008
receptor survey, no potential groundwater receptors were identified within 1,500 foot radius of the Site.
Shield and BEI, on behalf of Univar, completed a Receptor and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Survey in 2011. This survey,
completed using guidance documents from NCDEQ, indicated that the both residential and institutional receptors were within a
500-foot radius of the Site. The nearest residential receptor is approximately 300-feet from the source property and the
nearest institutional receptor is a children’s daycare located approximately 250-feet from the source property. In addition to
these potential receptors, several environmentally sensitive sites were noted in proximity to the Site. This includes an
unnamed tributary of Stewart Creek and the potential presence of several endangered species.

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 2-5

6/30/2016

Beginning in late 2013, AECOM began leading operation and maintenance for the SVE system, routine sampling, and
reporting for the Site. This section describes field activities that have occurred from December 2013 to December 2015.
2.1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLTION AND SAMPLING
There are 28 active monitoring wells associated with the Site as listed on Table 1, which includes construction details for all
active and abandoned monitoring wells installed by Univar. The eleven abandoned wells identified in the table were closed in
September 2015, according to North Carolina Well Abandonment Guidelines. Figure 3 displays all active and abandoned
groundwater monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations.
2.1.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment
Six groundwater monitoring wells (MW-3I, MW-4I, MW-8I, MW-11I, MW-22I, MW-24I) were installed in September 2015, each
replacing a former shallow well which had been determined to be dry. The borings for the wells were constructed using a 4¼-
inch inner diameter hollow stem auger. The first 5 feet of each boring were hand cleared in accordance with AECOM policies
and procedures. The borings were advanced to depths between approximately 30 and 40 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Soil was collected via split spoon samplers at 5 foot intervals to facilitate sample collection and lithological characterization.
Soil was screened for VOCs immediately upon opening the split spoon with a photoionization detector (PID). The soil samples
were logged for lithologic descriptions by the AECOM field geologist. The AECOM geologist also recorded field observations
and measurements, including sampling depth interval, PID concentrations, moisture, color, texture, detectable odors,
groundwater or perched water depth, and staining on the soil boring logs. Monitoring wells were constructed with a two-inch
diameter, 0.0010” slot polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen and two-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC riser. Sand filter pack was
added around the annular space of the PVC to a minimum of two feet above the top of the screen. Approximately two to three
feet of thick bentonite seal, followed by cement grout was emplaced to fill the remaining annular space and complete the well
at the surface. Each well was finished with a two-foot by two-foot well pad and a steel, flush-mounted manhole. The wells
were developed by surging and purging with a submersible pump until groundwater flowed clear. Groundwater monitoring well
construction diagrams are included as Appendix A.
All investigation derived waste (IDW) generated during monitoring well installation was managed in accordance with Univar
policies and procedures. All generated IDW was placed in 55-gallon steel drums and labeled as “Non Hazardous Pending
Analysis”. Following sample analyses, the drums were labeled as “Non Hazardous” or “Hazardous” based on analytical
results and were properly disposed of in accordance with Univar policies and all applicable federal, state, and local laws
(Appendix B).

2.1.2 Groundwater Sampling Methods and Procedures
AECOM oversaw four groundwater sampling events from January 2014 to December 2015. Prior to sampling, all monitoring
wells were opened and allowed adequate time to equilibrate. An audible water interface probe was lowered into each well to
gauge the depth to water. These measurements are included in Table 2. Historical water levels are presented in Appendix
C. Site personnel wore new nitrile gloves, changed between each well, for sample collection.

All IDW generated during the sampling event was managed in accordance with Univar policies and procedures. Purge water
was placed in 55-gallon steel drums and labeled as “Non Hazardous Pending Analysis”. Following sample analyses, the
drums were labelled as “Non Hazardous” and were properly disposed of in accordance with Univar policies and all applicable
federal, state, and local laws. Waste manifests from the September 2014 disposal event is contained in Appendix B.
2.1.2.1 January 2014 Event

From January 20-21, 2014, AECOM sampled 21 groundwater monitoring wells located at the Site. Prior to sampling, the
monitoring wells were purged of three volumes of groundwater, or until dry. All two inch monitoring wells were purged with
2 Sampling and Analysis Procedures
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 2-6

6/30/2016

new, bottom-loading, polyethylene disposable bailers and nylon line. Monitoring well MW-9 was obstructed and could not be
sampled. Monitoring wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-10, MW-12 and MW-24S were dry and therefore
were not gauged or sampled. Samples were collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-4A, MW-5A, MW-10A, MW-
12R, MW-13 through MW-21, MW-22D, MW-23S, MW-23I, MW-23D, and MW-24D. Quality control samples included a
duplicate of MW-4A, additional volume for matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) lab quality control procedures and a
field blank. Field measurements were collected for the following parameters: pH, conductivity, and temperature. Water
quality parameters are summarized in Table 3.
2.1.2.2 July 2014 Event

From July 20-21, 2014, AECOM sampled 23 monitoring wells located at the Site. Prior to sampling, the monitoring wells were
purged of three volumes of groundwater, or until dry. All two inch monitoring wells were purged with new, bottom-loading,
polyethylene disposable bailers and nylon line. Monitoring wells MW-3, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, and MW-12
were dry and were not sampled. Samples were collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-4A, MW-5A, MW-10A,
MW-12R, MW-13 through MW-21, MW-22S, MW-22D, MW-23S, MW-23I, MW-23D, MW-24S and MW-24D. Quality control
samples included a duplicate of MW-4A, additional volume for MS\MSD lab quality control procedures from MW-18, an
equipment blank and a field blank. pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation reduction potential
(ORP). Water quality parameters are summarized in Table 3.
2.1.2.3 January 2015 Event

From January 15-16, 2015, AECOM deployed 22 passive diffusion bag (PDB) samplers into the Site monitoring wells. From
January 29-30, 2014, AECOM retrieved the PDBs and collected samples from the 22 monitoring wells. Samples were
collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-4A, MW-5A, MW-10A, MW-12R, MW-13 through MW-21, MW-22S, MW-
22D, MW-23S, MW-23I, MW-23D, and MW-24D. Quality control samples included a duplicate of MW-4A, additional volume
for MS/MSD lab quality control procedures and a field blank. Field measurements were collected for the following parameters:
pH, conductivity, temperature, DO, and ORP. Water quality parameters are summarized in Table 3. Replacement PDBs were
placed in the wells following sample collection.
2.1.2.4 October 2015 Event

From October 5-6, 2015, AECOM deployed PDB samplers into the newly installed Site monitoring wells (MW-3I, MW-4I, MW-
8I, MW-11I, MW-22I, MW-24I). PDBs had already been placed in the previously installed monitoring wells following the
January 2015 event. From October 19-20, 2014, AECOM sampled 21 of the previously existing monitoring wells and the 6
newly installed monitoring wells located at the Site. Samples were collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3I, MW-
4A, MW-4I, MW-5A, MW-8I, MW-10A, MW-11I, MW-12R, MW-13, MW-14, MW-14A, MW-16 through MW-21, MW-22I, MW-
22D, MW-23S, MW-23I, MW-23D, MW-24I and MW-24D. Monitoring well MW-15 was obstructed on the surface and could not
be sampled. Quality control samples included a duplicate of MW-4I, additional volume for MS/MSD lab quality control
procedures and a field blank. Field measurements were collected for the following parameters: pH, conductivity, temperature,
DO, and ORP. Water quality parameters are summarized in Table 3. Well pad damage was noted at monitoring well MW-
10A.
2.1.3 Groundwater Analysis Procedures
All groundwater samples from the four sampling events were collected in laboratory-supplied containers and then immediately
placed in a cooler containing wet ice. The samples were packaged to preclude breakage and shipped via overnight courier
under chain-of-custody to Accutest Laboratories (Accutest) in Orlando, FL 32811. Accutest analyzed groundwater samples for
VOCs by SM Method 6200 in 2014 and EPA Method SW-846 8260B with selective ion mode (SIM) analysis in 2015. For
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes, one trip blank was included for each event, and was also analyzed for
VOCs. Field duplicates and additional volume for MS/MSD were collected as detailed in sampling event description. The
results of the laboratory analyses are summarized in Table 4. Historical groundwater monitoring sample results are included
in Appendix D. Copies of the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E.
2.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
AECOM validated analytical results from the 2014 and 2015 groundwater sampling events associated with the Site. The data
review was modeled after the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) National Functional Guidelines (NFG) for
Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (EPA, June 2008). Qualitative and quantitative limitations associated with the
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 2-7

6/30/2016

analytical results were determined based on the results of specific quality control criteria. Accuracy was determined from the
review of calibration data and spike recoveries. Precision was based on the evaluation of field and laboratory duplicate
results. Representativeness was evaluated from the review of holding times and blank data. Sample results have been
qualified based on the results of the data review process. Qualified data are valid and usable for their intended purpose.
2.2 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
The following section discusses surface water sampling methods, analyses, and procedures that were used in association with
the January and October 2015 sampling events at the Site.
2.2.1 Surface Water Sampling Methods and Procedures
Surface water samples were collected from five (5) discrete locations during the January and October 2015 sampling events.
Sample locations SS-1 though SS-5 are located south of the Site in the unnamed tributary of Stewart Creek (Figure 3). Field
measurements were collected during the October 2015 event for the following parameters: pH, conductivity, temperature, DO,
and ORP. Water quality parameters are summarized in Table 3.
2.2.2 Surface Water Analysis Procedures
Accutest analyzed surface water samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method SW-846 8260B with SIM
analysis. The results of the laboratory analyses are summarized in Table 5. A copy of the laboratory report is provided in
Appendix E.
2.3 SOIL SAMPLING
The following section discusses soil sampling methods, analyses, and procedures that were used in association with the well
installation that occurred at the Site in September 2015.
2.3.1 Soil Sampling Methods and Procedures
Up to two subsurface soil samples were collected from each monitoring well location (MW-3I, MW-4I, MW-8I, MW-11I, MW-
22I, and MW-24I) during the September 2015 well installations. A soil sample was collected from each monitoring well in the
dry soils above the water table interface. The second sample, if appropriate, was collected from the interval observed with the
highest VOC concentration as measured with the PID. Soil samples were collected using a single-use Terra Core™ sampler.
2.3.2 Soil Analysis Procedures
Soil samples were placed into laboratory-supplied containers and submitted to the analytical laboratory for analysis of selected
parameters including VOCs (SW-846 8260B and 8260B-SIM), SVOCs (SW-846 8270D), and metals (SW-846 6010C and
7471B) by Accutest Laboratories in Orlando, Florida. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via overnight
commercial carrier under standard chain-of-custody procedures to the laboratory. The results of the laboratory analyses are
summarized in Table 6. A copy of the laboratory report is provided in Appendix E.
2.4 SOIL GAS PROBE INSTALLATION AND SAMPLING
The following section discusses soil gas point installation that occurred in December 2013 and the sampling and analysis
procedures for the December 18, 2013 and September 2014 soil gas sampling events at the Site.
2.4.1 Soil Gas Point Installation
In 2008, five permanent soil gas sample points (SG-1 – SG-5) were installed on-site. Soil gas points SG-3 and SG-5 were
installed as nested pairs, containing a long and a short sample depth. Four additional permanent soil gas sampling points
were installed by AECOM on December 12, 2013. All of the 2013 soil gas probes were installed as nested pairs. Direct push
technology was used to advance to the target depth for the permanent soil gas point, taking care to avoid saturated soils.
Teflon tubing was attached to a 6” AMS vapor implant, and the assembly was lowered to the desired sampling depth. A
granular filter pack was installed around each implant and a bentonite seal was installed above the filter pack and extending to
the surface. Each vapor point was finished with a 1-foot by 1-foot concrete pad with a locking manhole. Table 7 includes the
construction details for the permanent soil gas points. Their locations are shown on Figure 4.
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 2-8

6/30/2016

2.4.2 Soil Gas Sampling Methods and Procedures
Ten soil gas samples were collected from permanent soil gas points in December 2013, and 13 samples were collected in
September 2014 in accordance with the AECOM soil gas sampling procedures. A hand-held vacuum pump was used to
purge a minimum of one pore volume from the borehole, and a helium leak test was performed. After the helium test has been
satisfactorily completed and soil gas vapor sampler is purged, a 1-liter stainless steel summa canister was connected to the
Teflon tubing using air tight stainless steel fittings. The samples are then collected over the desired time interval, which in this
case was a minimum of five minutes. A 6-liter Summa Canister was used to collect an ambient air sample concurrent to the
soil gas sampling. This sample was collected over a time interval of approximately 30-minutes. The samples were packaged
to preclude breakage and shipped via courier under chain-of-custody to Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc (Eurofins) in Folsom, CA.
2.4.3 Soil Gas Analysis Procedures
Eurofins analyzed soil gas samples for selected VOCs in 2013 and for a full set of VOCs in 2014 using EPA Method TO-15.
The results of the laboratory analyses are summarized in Table 8. A copy of the laboratory report is provided in Appendix E.
2.5 PASSIVE SOIL GAS SAMPLING
The following section discusses the sampling and analysis procedures for the September and October 2014 passive soil gas
installation and sampling at the Site.
2.5.1 Passive Soil Gas Sampling Methods and Procedures
A total of twenty four Beacon BeSure passive soil gas (PSG) samplers were deployed on September 23 and 24, 2014, and
were retrieved on October 9, 2014. To collect soil-gas samples, an approximately one-inch diameter hole was advanced to
the appropriate depth (approximately one to three feet). The PSG sampler was installed in the hole and covered with an
aluminum foil plug and soil to seal the sampler in the ground. For locations covered by asphalt or concrete surfacing, an
approximately 1 ½-inch diameter hole was drilled through the surfacing to the underlying soils. The upper 12 inches of the hole
was sleeved with a sanitized metal pipe provided in the kit. After the sampler was installed inside the metal pipe, the hole was
patched with an aluminum foil plug and a thin concrete patch to effectively protect the sampler. The samplers were exposed
to subsurface gas for approximately 16 days, after which the samplers were retrieved and shipped via courier under chain-of-
custody to Beacon Environmental Services, Inc. (Beacon) of Forest Hill, Maryland.
2.5.2 Passive Soil Gas Analysis Procedures
Beacon analyzed passive soil gas samples for a custom compound list of VOCs using EPA Method 8260C. The results of the
laboratory analyses are summarized in Table 9. Further details are included in the attached Beacon Passive Soil Gas Survey
– Analytical Report, included as Appendix E.
2.6 INDOOR AIR SAMPLING
The following section discusses the sampling and analysis procedures for the November 3, 2014 indoor air sampling event at
the Site.
2.6.1 Indoor Air Sampling Methods and Procedures
Indoor air samples were collected from the Source Property on November 3, 2014 in accordance with URS procedures.
Stainless steel 6-liter Summa Canisters with certified regulators were used to collect the indoor air samples. When possible,
the inlet of the sample was at breathing height (between 3 feet and 5 feet above the floor). An outdoor ambient air sampling
location was chosen to serve as a control sample. Care was taken during placement of all Summa Canisters to ensure that
areas with obstructed air flow were avoided. The summa canisters were attached to flow controllers using the stainless steel
fittings provided by the laboratory. The ambient air or indoor air canister valves were opened and the time and vacuum gauge
readings were recorded. After the 8 hour sampling interval passed, the final times and vacuums were recorded prior to closing
the valves. The samples were packaged to preclude breakage and shipped via courier under chain-of-custody to Accutest in
Orlando, FL 32811. All samples then underwent analysis using method TO-15.
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 2-9

6/30/2016

2.6.2 Indoor Air Analysis Procedures
Accutest analyzed indoor air for selected VOCs [Chloroform, 1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1-Dichloroethene (DCE), cis-1,2-
DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride] using EPA Method TO-15. The results of the laboratory analyses are
summarized in Table 10. A copy of the laboratory report is provided in Appendix E.

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 3-10

6/30/2016

3 Remedial Action Operations and Maintenance

The following section summarizes the operation and maintenance that has occurred involving the active remediation system at
the Site and the associated SVE effluent analytical results.
3.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The Site remediation system is located on the north side of the property just south of the former AST farm within a structure.
All major system components (electrical, mechanical, and gauges) are contained within the system enclosure. The
remediation system consists of one Rotron EN808 blower, associated piping and vapor extraction wells (VEW). The blower
has a maximum flow rate of 212 cubic feet per minute.
The SVE system includes two VEW legs. VEW Leg-1 consists of VEW-1, VEW-2, VEW-3, VEW-4, VEW-9, and VEW-10,
which are located immediately downgradient of the former acid drum storage location. VEW Leg-2 consists of VEW-11, VEW-
12, VEW-13, VEW-14, VEW-15, and VEW-16 which are located around the southern perimeter of the Site. Table 11 provides
system well construction details available in the historical record.
3.2 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Monthly Site O&M visits were performed during the reporting period from January 24, 2014 to December 23, 2015. Visits
included SVE flow measurements, VOC monitoring through the use of a photo-ionization detector (PID), pressure readings,
routine scheduled system maintenance, and well maintenance. PID readings from the Site are summarized in Table 12.
During a site visit on January 9, 2015, maintenance personnel noted that the SVE blower had seized. A new blower was
installed on March 16, 2015.
An assessment of the system at that time indicated that the blower was undersized to serve all of the target extraction wells,
which put a significant strain on the blower motor. However, the blower motor could not be upgraded without replacing system
controls and increasing the electrical service, essentially installing a new SVE system. Instead the blower motor was replaced
in kind, and all extraction is focused on Leg 2, which serves the extraction wells on the southeastern corner of the site. The
objective of concentrating the extraction on this area is to minimize off-site vapor extraction to the south.
Within Leg 2, only VEW-14 and VEW-16 are operating. VEW-13 and VEW-15 are screened within the seasonal water table,
and therefore too deep for effective operation. VEW-11 and VEW-12 have been damaged by truck traffic and are currently not
operational. The location of each of these wells is shown on Figure 5.
3.3 SVE EFFLUENT SAMPLING
SVE effluent air samples were taken quarterly in 2014 and in October 2015. In 2014, air samples were extracted from the SVE
effluent stack via syringe, sent to Vaportech Services, Inc. and analyzed for the 624 compound list. In 2015, an effluent air
sample was extracted via vacuum into a one liter summa canister, sent to Accutest Laboratories. Samples were analyzed for
the standard TO-15 reporting list. The results of the laboratory analyses are summarized in Table 13. A copy of the
laboratory report is provided in Appendix E.

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 4-11

6/30/2016

4.1 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 2. Figure 6 displays the water table surface based on the July 2014
groundwater gauging event. Depth to water in the monitoring wells ranged from 8.75 to 25.10 feet below top of casing (ft-btoc).
Figure 7 displays the water table surface based on the October 2015 event. Depth to water in the monitoring wells ranged
from 8.41 to 28.72 ft-btoc. Based on these measurements, and consistent with historical observations, groundwater flow has
been determined to be generally toward the southeast with an average horizontal groundwater gradient of approximately 0.020
feet/foot between MW-4A and MW-24D. This is consistent with historical groundwater elevation data as provided in Appendix
B.
4.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Table 4 presents a summary of groundwater VOC analytical results that exceeded one or more of the North Carolina 2L
groundwater standards for at least one of the four sampling events. Table 5 presents a summary of the corresponding surface
water VOC analytical results along with the relative North Carolina 2B surface water standards for the four sampling events.
All associated laboratory reports are presented in Appendix E. Figures 8-11 display the spatial and vertical extent of select
COCs in the proximity of the Site in October 2015. The down-gradient southern extent of the plume is established by
monitoring well MW-16, where no COCs were detected above the North Carolina 2L groundwater standards. COCs were
detected in MW-17 and MW-18, as well as in the surface water samples collected from the unnamed tributary of Stewart
Creek (SS-3, SS-4, and SS-5). The appearance of COCs, particularly PCE, in Stewart Creek provide evidence that
groundwater is discharging to surface water in this area, and therefore limiting the migration of the plume to the southeast.
Historical groundwater analytical results contained in previously prepared monitoring reports made available to AECOM are
summarized in Appendix D.
Of the four monitoring events presented in this report, typically the lowest result for each individual monitoring well was the
January 2015 event, which was the first event in which PDBs were deployed, and with typically the greater result occurring in
October 2015. The January PDBs were only deployed in the wells for two weeks before sample collection, while the majority
of PDBs collected in October had been deployed since January, and therefore had a greater time to equilibrate, which may be
a primary reason for more elevated results. PCE results for the majority of these wells were within historical ranges, indicating
that the results are representative. Notable exceptions include wells along the central axis of the plume: MW-4A, MW-12R,
MW-23I, MW-21, MW-17, and MW-18. In October 2015 each of these wells exceeded all prior PCE detections.
As displayed on Figure 8, October 2015 PCE concentrations in groundwater samples exceeded the North Carolina 2L
groundwater standard of 0.7 µg/L at 23 of the 27 monitoring wells sampled. PCE concentrations ranged from 9,450 µg/l at
MW-4A to not detected. PCE concentrations in surface water samples ranged from 194 µg/L (SS-4) to 0.53 µg/L (SS-2). In
order to supplement the understanding of the northern extent of the plume, data collected at the Former Boggs & Company
(Boggs) site has been added to the plan view map on Figure 8, and the cross section on Figure 9. This data was collected in
2014 as part of continuous monitoring collected for the NC DSCA program by ATC Associates of North Carolina. The highest
concentration of PCE for both on and off-site was collected from the well demarcated in this report as Boggs MW-1 (shown as
BMW-1 on Figures 8 and 9 to differentiate from the onsite well MW-1). This concentration of 110,000 µg/L is ten-times the
maximum value that has been collected from on-site wells. The Boggs & Company property is located hydraulically up-
gradient of the site. The maximum PCE concentration on-site of 9,450 micrograms µg/l was detected in MW-4A in October
2015, which is hydraulically downgradient of the former on-site acid-drum storage and AST farm. The detections at MW-4A
appear to be consistent with the historical contents of the ASTs (primarily PCE and TCE), and generally consistent with
historical detections in former adjacent shallow monitoring well MW-4 (Appendix D). However, as indicated on Figure 9, the
only hydraulically up-gradient well with more elevated detections of PCE are on the Boggs site, possibly indicating a significant
contribution from off-site to the PCE detected on the Glenwood Avenue property.
The spatial distribution of October 2015 TCE concentrations in groundwater correspond to the distribution of PCE, as shown
on Figure 10. TCE concentrations in groundwater samples exceeded the North Carolina 2L groundwater standard of 3.0 µg/L
4 Results and Discussion
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 4-12

6/30/2016

at 21 of the 27 monitoring wells sampled. TCE concentrations ranged from 1,840 micrograms per liter (µg/L) at MW-4A to not
detected. TCE concentrations in surface water samples ranged from 25 µg/L (SS-4) to 0.53 µg/L (SS-2). In order to
supplement the understanding of the northern extent of the plume, data collected at the Former Boggs & Company in 2014
site has been added to the plan view map on Figure 10.
October 2015 Groundwater concentration distribution maps have also been provided for cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride in
Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Groundwater sample concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE exceeded the North Carolina 2L
standard of 70 g/L in 11 of 27 wells. The maximum concentration was detected in the sample collected from monitoring well
MW-4 I (3,030 µg/L). No concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE were detected above the North Carolina 2B standard for surface water
in any of the five surface water samples.
Groundwater sample concentrations of vinyl chloride exceeded the North Carolina 2L groundwater standard of 0.03 µg/L in
two of the 27 monitoring wells sampled in October 2015. However, the laboratory’s method detection limit (MDL) for vinyl
chloride was elevated above the North Carolina 2L/2B groundwater/surface water screening level. Therefore, although the
remaining 25 samples were reported as non-detect, the laboratory’s minimum detectable concentration was not low enough to
confirm or reject the presence of vinyl chloride above the appropriate screening level.
1,1-DCA exceeded the North Carolina 2L groundwater standard of 6 µg/L in 12 of the 27 monitoring wells that were sampled in
October 2015. The maximum concentration was detected in MW-4I (337 µg/L). 1,2-DCA was only found to exceed the North
Carolina 2L standard of 0.4 µg/L in one well (MW-23D, 0.73 µg/L) in October 2015. Both of these analytes were detected
above the North Carolina 2B surface water standards in January and October 2015 at SS-4.
Benzene was the only other analyte found to exceed the North Carolina 2L standard during the four sampling events of 2014
and 2015. This exceedance occurred only in the duplicate sample collected from MW-4A in January 2015. The parent sample
result from January 2015, and the subsequent October 2015 results were reported as not detected above the laboratory‘s
MDL.
A historical summary of groundwater analytical results is provided in Appendix D. Based on analytical data, the contaminant
plume appears to be migrating southeast, and discharging to Stewart Creek, consistent with the observed groundwater flow
direction. Additional assessment to better understand the interaction of groundwater and surface water in this area is planned
for 2016. Onsite concentrations appear to be generally stable, although the October 2015 data indicated an increasing trend
in several wells along the central axis of the plume.
4.3 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Table 6 presents a summary of the soil VOC analysis results from soils sampled during new well installations in 2015. The
data was primarily collected to assist in managing the IDW generated during well installation. Since no background data was
collected at the time these of these samples, AECOM is unable to calculate soil screening levels for organics or generate
background comparison criteria for inorganics. Therefore no attempt is made in this report to assess whether the data
generated is indicative of an on-site release. The data will be preserved should such a comparison be warranted in the future.
4.4 SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Soil gas samples have been collected from the permanent locations on up to six occasions since 2008. Table 8 presents a
summary of the 2013 and 2014 soil gas sampling events. During the December 2013 sampling event, PCE was detected in
10 soil gas sampling locations above the residential or non-residential NC Division of Waste Management (DWM) Soil Gas
Screening Levels for PCE. Soil gas point samples collected from SG-3 short, SG-3 long, SG-4, SG-7B, and SG-9B contained
PCE concentrations exceeding the soil gas Non-Residential Screening Level (NRSL) for PCE in December 2013. TCE
concentrations in soil vapor exceeded residential and non-residential screening levels in eight of the sample locations. Soil
gas point samples collected from SG-3 short, SG-3 long, SG-8A, and SG-9B contained TCE concentrations exceeding the
TCE NRSL in December 2013. Other VOCs were present during the December 2013 soil gas sampling event; however, no
other results exceeded their relevant NRSL. The SVE system had been shut off during the time of sampling. These elevated
concentrations of PCE and TCE led to the decision to re-start the system.
In September 2014, soil gas samples were collected again. Analyte levels deceased significantly during the September 2014
as compared to the December 2013 sampling event. PCE was detected above the residential or non-residential screening
levels in eight soil gas sampling locations. However, only one PCE result (SG-7A) exceeded the NRSL in September 2014.
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 4-13

6/30/2016

TCE was detected above the residential or non-residential screening levels in three soil gas sampling locations. However,
only one TCE result (SG-9A) exceeded the NRSL in September 2014. At SG-3 long, along the southern boundary of the site,
PCE and TCE concentrations were both reduced by 99%. The co-located SG-3 short sample concentrations exhibited a
reduction of 94% in PCE and 99% in TCE. However at off-site soil gas sample point location SG-7, PCE and TCE
concentrations increased by more than an order of magnitude. Permanent soil gas sample results are displayed on Figure
13.
4.5 PASSIVE SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Passive soil gas samples were collected from 24 on and off-site locations in October, 2014. PCE, TCE and chloroform
concentrations were detected. The highest concentration of PCE was found in the sample collected from PSG-7, located
approximately 100 feet north of the most elevated PCE concentration found in a permanent soil gas point sample location
(SG-7A/B) during the September 2014 sampling event (Figure 14). PCE was detected in 9 of the sample locations, and was
detected primarily in front of the residential structures on the east side of Glenwood Drive. TCE was detected in only one of
the sample locations. Chloroform was detected in low concentrations at four of the sample locations. Table 9 presents the
analytical results of the PSG Survey conducted in October 2014.
4.6 INDOOR AIR ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Indoor air samples were collected from 15 locations on-site in 2014. Table 10 presents a summary of the indoor air VOC
analysis results from the 2014 sampling event. PCE was detected in nine indoor air samples; however, no sample
concentrations exceeded the DWM Indoor Air Screening Level of 8.34 µg/m3. No other volatile compounds were detected
above the laboratory’s minimum detectable level.
4.7 SVE EFFLUENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Table 13 presents a summary of the SVE effluent analytical results from 2014 and 2015. PCE and TCE were detected in all
effluent samples. Concentrations of COCs in 2014 were much higher in the effluent as a result of combined operation of Legs
1 and 2 of the SVE system. In 2015, effluent concentrations decrease, likely a result of only having Leg 2 in operation.
However, multiple VOCs were detected, verifying recovery influence at the southern border of the property. Operating
efficiency is unknown due to the lack of system components currently installed.
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 5-14

6/30/2016

5.1 CONCLUSIONS
• Groundwater flow is generally toward the southeast which is consistent with the historical trend.
• PCE and its daughter products are present in the groundwater above their respective NCDEQ 2L standards in a majority
of Site monitoring wells. Presence of PCE concentrations in groundwater samples collected in 2014 from Boggs &
Company monitoring wells at up to ten-times the amount detected on-site suggest the presence of a co-mingled plume.
• Based on analytical data, the contaminant plume appears to be migrating southeast, consistent with the observed
groundwater flow direction. Although results for the majority of wells are within historical ranges, groundwater samples
collected from a subset of wells along the primary plume centerline show a general increasing trend in PCE
concentrations as indicated in October 2015.
• Permanent and passive soil gas and indoor air sample results indicate that limited amounts of PCE and other VOCs are
present in soil gas. However, no COCs exceeded its relevant DWM Indoor Air Screening Level. During SVE system
operation, reduced concentrations of PCE were detected along the southern edge of the property. However, PCE
concentrations of soil gas exceeding the NC DWM residential and non-residential screening levels were present to the
southeast of the Site. Two of the offsite residential properties are condemned, and not in use.
• The current SVE system as designed is undersized to conduct extraction on all site extraction wells. Further, AECOM
does not support the continuance of Leg 1 due to the lack of data supporting the presence of a source area in the vicinity
of Leg 1. However, isolating the system to operate on Leg 2 has been demonstrated to be effective for minimizing offsite
vapor migration resulting from off-gassing of the groundwater plume in the transition zone across the southern boundary.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
AECOM recommends continuation of annual groundwater and surface water monitoring at the Site to continue to gather data
consistent with IHSB remedial investigation guidelines. Samples will be analyzed for Site specific COCs by EPA Method
8260B.
It is recommended that further assessment be considered to determine the extent to which PCE releases from the up-gradient
Boggs site have affected groundwater at the Glenwood Avenue site. This will be done by completing slug tests onsite within
the transition zone wells to determine the hydraulic conductivity. A simple groundwater model will then be used to determine
the probability that concentrations exhibited at the Boggs’ wells could have reached the stream in the time that has passed
since the Boggs’ release.
Four additional monitoring wells are recommended to supplement the groundwater investigation. One well is recommended
on-site, adjacent to MW-2, and at a depth that would target the transition zone (approximately 45-55 feet deep). The second
and third wells would be a nested well pair recommended to be installed to the northwest of MW-12R. This would fill a data
gap for understanding a mechanism for the increasing concentrations found in MW-12R since 2008. The fourth well would be
placed in the right of way on the east side of the adjacent daycare facility on Glenwood Drive. This well would also be installed
in the transition zone. During the drilling mobilization, the well pad at monitoring well MW-10A will be repaired.
In order to better delineate impacts to surface water, pore water samples should be taken beneath the unnamed stream
channel on the east side of Glenwood drive. This will allow for better understanding of upwelling contaminant concentrations
versus surface water transport from other potential offsite sources.
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 5-15

6/30/2016

AECOM will continue to collect soil gas samples from the permanent collection points on-site and along Glenwood Drive on an
annual basis. AECOM will also monitor the habitation status of the condemned homes and will note changes in property
ownership should offsite indoor air samples be required.
Although the SVE has demonstrated some effectiveness in reducing the overall mass of chlorinated solvents over time,
several factors are hindering operational effectiveness. Leg 1 of the SVE system focuses treatment on mass in historical
chemical handling areas of the site, while Leg 2 system was designed to effectively prevent offsite migration along the site
boundaries. Priority is given to continued operation of Leg 2, given the demonstrated effectiveness for mitigating vapors at the
property boundary with a sensitive receptor. To return Leg 1 to normal operation would require an upgraded blower system,
as well as re-piping to eliminate low spots where water accumulates. AECOM does not plan on pursuing these changes in
2016.
AECOM does recommend modifications to improve the effectiveness of Leg 2. Four of the six SVE wells on Leg 2 are not-
operational, and the effectiveness of the blower is limited by the long pipe run. AECOM recommends moving the current
blower package to the south side of the property and connect to Leg 2. This will reduce stress on the blower and allow
sufficient vacuum influence on all south and east side VEWs. Following this, the four non-operational wells should be re-
installed and re-connected to the Leg 2 piping. These steps will most effectively assist in the reduction and prevention of off-
site migration.

AECOM Annual Monitoring Report 6-16

6/30/2016

Advent, 1997. Summary of Environmental Assessments. May 1997
Advent, 1998. Summary of Environmental Assessments. March 1998
BEI, 2004. Multiple Plume Investigation Report. Bascor Environmental, Inc., December 10, 2004.
BEI, 2008a. Limited Site Assessment, Bascor Environmental, Inc., August 13, 2008.
BEI, 2008b. Comprehensive Site Assessment, Bascor Environmental, Inc., August 13, 2008.
BEI, 2010. 2005 to 2009 Site Assessment Activities Report. Bascor Environmental, Inc., October 1, 2010.
BEI, 2012. 2012 Monitoring Report, Bascor Environmental, Inc., February 10, 2012.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina
Shield, 2011. Draft Receptor and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Surveys. Reportedly delivered via email to Univar. Shield
Engineering, Inc. and BEI. March 1, 2011.
U.S. EPA, 2008, USEPA National Functional Guidelines (NFG) for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/R-08/01.

6 References
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report

6/30/2016

Tables
Table 1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Details
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Well ID Date Completed*
Total
Depth (1)
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
TOC
Elevation(2)
MW-1* 3/24/1999 23 2 744.84
MW-2* 3/25/1999 21.5 2 744.75
MW-3 (abandoned) 9/13/1998 21 2 744.78
MW-3I 09/28/2015 30.29 2 744.78
MW-4 (abandoned) 5/30/1998 21 2 743.57
MW-4I 09/29/2015 35.12 2 744.33
MW-4A* 6/1/1998 69.9 4 743.55
MW-5* 5/29/1998 21 2 NR
MW-5A* 6/17/1998 55.2 4 743.53
MW-6 (abandoned) 6/12/1998 21 2 745.19
MW-7 (abandoned) 5/29/1998 21 2 743.72
MW-8 (abandoned) 6/12/1998 21 2 742.93
MW-8I 09/28/2015 35.34 2 744.04
MW-9 (abandoned) 5/29/1998 21 2 746.06
MW-10 (abandoned) 5/28/1998 21 2 743.12
MW-10A* 6/25/1998 70.2 4 743.48
MW-11 (abandoned) 5/30/1998 26 2 743.08
MW-11I 09/28/2015 40.29 2 743.78
MW-12 (abandoned) 6/13/1998 26 2 743.90
MW-12R* 2/13/2008 40 2 743.51
MW-13* 11/14/2000 32 2 743.59
MW-14* 11/15/2000 32 2 745.45
MW-14A* 11/16/2000 60 2 745.31
MW-15* 11/15/2000 32 2 746.06
MW-16 6/9/2008 30 2 702.66
MW-17 6/9/2008 30 2 704.69
MW-18 6/9/2008 30 2 703.65
MW-19 6/10/2008 53 2 733.41
MW-20 6/10/2008 48 2 723.04
MW-21 6/10/2008 41 2 712.02
MW-22D 6/26/2008 53 2 740.98
MW-22S (abandoned) 6/26/2008 25 2 741.52
MW-22I 09/29/2015 35.33 2 741.54
MW-23D 6/10/2008 53 2 732.02
MW-23I 6/11/2008 40 2 732.47
MW-23S 6/10/2008 25 2 732.92
MW-24D 6/11/2008 52.5 2 731.43
MW-24I 09/29/2015 40.11 2 730.94
MW-24S (abandoned) 6/11/2008 25 2 731.29
Notes:
*Actual well construction records are not available.
URS Corporation - North Carolina (URS) is not responsible for data generated prior to July
2013. Data included on this table not generated by or on behalf of URS has been taken from
documents prepared and submitted to the NC DENR by others and is included only for ease
of reference; URS does not assume or accept any responsibility or liability for the quality,
accuracy, or completeness of the data included on this table that was not generated by or on
behalf of URS.
(1) = Reported in feet below grade.
(2) Measured in feet relative to mean sea level.
Well screen/casing material in all wells is constructed of polyvinyl chloride
TOC = top of casing
NR = No Record
Table 2
Groundwater Elevation Summary Table
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Table 1
TOC
Elevation(1)
(ft amsl)
Date Depth to Water
(ft btoc)
Groundwater
Elevation
(ft amsl)
1/20/2014 19.00 725.84
7/31/2014 16.53 728.31
1/15/2015 18.98 725.86
10/20/2015 20.97 723.87
1/20/2014 20.02 724.73
7/31/2014 17.10 727.65
1/15/2015 19.81 724.94
10/20/2015 21.38 723.37
09/29/2015 22.29 722.49
10/20/2015 21.94 722.84
1/21/2014 21.33 722.22
7/31/2014 18.93 724.62
1/15/2015 21.17 722.38
10/20/2015 21.94 721.61
09/29/2015 23.10 721.23
10/20/2015 22.67 721.66
1/21/2014 21.52 722.01
7/31/2014 19.53 724.00
1/15/2015 21.19 722.34
10/20/2015 22.60 720.93
09/29/2015 23.32 720.72
10/20/2015 23.08 720.96
1/20/2014 23.37 720.11
7/31/2014 21.50 721.98
1/15/2015 22.98 720.50
10/20/2015 24.55 718.93
09/29/2015 25.70 718.08
10/20/2015 25.11 718.67
1/20/2014 25.10 718.41
7/31/2014 23.19 720.32
1/15/2015 24.60 718.91
10/20/2015 26.50 717.01
1/20/2014 21.79 721.80
7/31/2014 19.34 724.25
1/15/2015 21.44 722.15
10/20/2015 22.80 720.79
1/20/2014 25.15 720.30
7/31/2014 22.99 722.46
1/16/2015 24.72 720.73
10/20/2015 26.12 719.33
1/20/2014 24.97 720.34
7/31/2014 22.94 722.37
1/16/2015 24.62 720.69
10/20/2015 26.00 719.31
MW-11I 743.78
743.51
MW-13
MW-3I 744.78
MW-4I 744.33
MW-8I 744.04
MW-1 744.84
MW-14
MW-12R
743.53
MW-10A
744.75MW-2
MW-4A 743.55
743.48
MW-5A
743.59
MW-14A 745.31
745.45
Table 2
Groundwater Elevation Summary Table
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Table 1
TOC
Elevation(1)
(ft amsl)
Date Depth to Water
(ft btoc)
Groundwater
Elevation
(ft amsl)
1/20/2014 25.77 720.29
7/31/2014 23.65 722.41
1/16/2015 25.43 720.63
10/20/2015 NA NA
1/21/2014 8.26 694.40
7/31/2014 8.75 693.91
1/16/2015 8.39 694.27
10/20/2015 8.41 694.25
1/21/2014 11.63 693.06
7/31/2014 12.59 692.10
1/16/2015 11.86 692.83
10/20/2015 12.25 692.44
1/21/2014 11.52 692.13
7/31/2014 12.71 690.94
1/16/2015 11.96 691.69
10/20/2015 12.74 690.91
1/21/2014 26.50 706.91
7/31/2014 25.10 708.31
1/16/2015 26.38 707.03
10/20/2015 28.72 704.69
1/21/2014 18.95 704.09
7/31/2014 18.80 704.24
1/16/2015 19.12 703.92
10/20/2015 21.14 701.90
1/21/2014 11.41 700.61
7/31/2014 11.84 700.18
1/16/2015 11.99 700.03
10/20/2015 13.31 698.71
09/29/2015 25.57 715.97
10/20/2015 25.52 716.02
1/21/2014 22.60 718.38
7/31/2014 20.73 720.25
1/16/2015 22.08 718.90
10/20/2015 24.09 716.89
1/21/2014 17.55 715.37
7/31/2014 15.64 717.28
1/16/2015 16.93 715.99
10/20/2015 20.20 712.72
1/21/2014 17.78 714.69
7/31/2014 16.42 716.05
1/16/2015 17.35 715.12
10/20/2015 19.50 712.97
1/21/2014 17.45 714.57
7/31/2014 15.99 716.03
1/16/2015 17.00 715.02
10/20/2015 19.15 712.87
MW-22I 741.54
MW-21 712.02
MW-16 702.66
MW-17 704.69
MW-15 746.06
MW-18 703.65
MW-19 733.41
MW-20 723.04
MW-23D
MW-22D 740.98
732.92MW-23S
MW-23I 732.47
732.02
Table 2
Groundwater Elevation Summary Table
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Table 1
TOC
Elevation(1)
(ft amsl)
Date Depth to Water
(ft btoc)
Groundwater
Elevation
(ft amsl)
09/29/2015 26.85 704.09
10/20/2015 25.78 705.16
1/21/2014 24.04 707.39
7/31/2014 23.66 707.77
1/16/2015 23.98 707.45
10/20/2015 26.33 705.10
Notes:
NA = not accessible
MW-24I 730.94
amsl = above mean sea level
btoc = below top of casing relative to site datum
MW-24D 731.43
Table 3
Summary of Groundwater and Surface Water Field Parameters
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
01/20/14 6.91 15.40 0.778 - -
07/31/14 6.65 15.20 0.955 151.7 3.27
10/20/15 6.59 11.46 0.900 57 7.60
01/20/14 9.89 16.30 0.673 - -
07/31/14 6.65 16.20 0.355 133.3 4.77
10/20/15 6.07 11.93 0.529 215 7.55
MW-3I 10/20/15 5.95 12.89 1.260 294 8.76
01/21/14 - - - - -
07/31/14 6.49 19.10 0.316 -5.6 0.47
01/21/14 7.81 19.00 0.269 - -
07/31/14 7.38 19.20 0.259 2.4 1.73
10/20/15 6.30 13.23 1.430 -84 5.31
MW-4I 10/20/15 6.41 13.93 2.360 76 4.97
01/21/14 7.69 19.00 0.055 - -
07/31/14 6.87 19.20 0.059 146.4 3.81
10/20/15 6.33 13.76 0.928 245 6.75
MW-8I 10/20/15 5.03 13.88 3.720 280 6.37
01/20/14 7.16 20.00 0.134 - -
07/31/14 6.85 20.40 0.176 180.6 0.17
10/20/15 6.61 15.21 0.218 180 5.08
MW-11I 10/20/15 5.66 12.78 0.581 233 5.07
01/20/14 6.22 17.70 0.792 - -
07/31/14 6.07 18.00 0.819 169.4 1.25
10/20/15 6.21 13.15 0.954 264 6.90
01/20/14 6.80 21.10 0.813 - -
07/31/14 6.63 21.40 0.478 159.8 1.22
10/20/15 6.52 16.33 0.934 38 4.65
01/20/14 5.89 19.80 0.194 - -
07/31/14 5.86 20.40 0.154 236.7 4.11
10/20/15 5.72 15.26 0.334 291 7.43
01/20/14 7.33 19.70 0.164 - -
07/31/14 7.22 20.60 0.150 210.8 4.54
10/20/15 6.20 15.46 0.694 260 5.67
01/20/14 5.88 19.30 0.239 - -
07/31/14 5.89 20.20 0.196 216.9 3.95
10/20/15 - - - - -
01/21/14 7.08 14.50 0.319 - -
07/31/14 6.39 18.80 0.284 67.2 0.31
10/20/15 6.08 10.99 0.671 192 6.85
01/21/14 6.72 16.10 0.374 - -
07/31/14 6.56 17.30 0.383 119.6 1.04
10/20/15 6.40 12.42 0.477 251 7.70
01/21/14 6.80 15.60 0.113 - -
07/31/14 6.13 15.40 0.482 160.6 0.40
10/20/15 6.42 14.15 0.329 154 7.53
01/21/14 7.36 19.90 0.157 - -
07/31/14 7.07 19.80 0.169 76.1 0.62
10/20/15 6.88 13.79 0.199 213 6.20
MW-2
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L)Table 1 pH
Specific
Conductivity
(mS/cm)
Temperature
(ºC)
MW-4A
Date ORP
MW-4
MW-1
MW-5A
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-13
MW-14
MW-15
MW-16
MW-14A
MW-12R
MW-10A
Table 3
Summary of Groundwater and Surface Water Field Parameters
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L)Table 1 pH
Specific
Conductivity
(mS/cm)
Temperature
(ºC)Date ORP
01/21/14 6.71 19.30 0.443 - -
07/31/14 6.53 18.80 0.385 129.6 5.53
10/20/15 6.39 13.16 0.648 245 7.92
01/21/14 7.15 19.30 0.173 - -
07/31/14 6.71 20.50 0.224 124.6 2.49
10/20/15 6.18 13.43 0.524 259 7.28
01/21/14 6.38 17.80 0.350 - -
07/31/14 5.50 17.20 0.330 214.6 4.18
MW-22I 10/20/15 6.00 12.66 0.259 197 7.45
01/21/14 6.87 17.40 0.074 - -
07/31/14 6.56 17.40 0.097 156.1 0.26
10/20/15 5.87 12.98 0.645 240 7.07
01/21/14 6.13 19.20 0.336 - -
07/31/14 6.05 18.50 0.420 123.3 0.13
10/20/15 6.03 13.87 0.518 22 4.96
01/21/14 6.91 18.80 0.135 - -
07/31/14 6.64 18.60 0.116 -9.1 0.09
10/20/15 6.06 13.74 0.322 87 5.08
01/21/14 6.95 18.60 0.105 - -
07/31/14 6.75 18.60 0.252 25.9 3.21
10/20/15 6.02 13.55 0.737 124 5.54
01/21/14 - - - - -
07/31/14 5.94 18.30 0.243 127.5 2.16
10/20/15 - - - - -
MW-24I 10/20/15 5.97 13.40 0.413 252 5.07
01/21/14 7.15 18.40 0.266 - -
07/31/14 6.37 18.20 0.276 111.8 4.31
10/20/15 5.90 13.30 0.426 268.0 5.77
SS-1 10/19/15 6.63 12.62 0.399 -11.4 2.11
SS-2 10/19/15 7.12 13.30 0.345 43.1 4.48
SS-3 10/19/15 6.68 14.39 0.358 67.5 5.92
SS-4 10/19/15 6.40 16.35 0.403 77.4 5.63
SS-5 10/19/15 6.36 13.75 0.400 69 6.29
Notes:
pH measured in standard units
oC = degrees Celsius
mS/cm = milliSiemens per centimeter
ORP = Oxidation/Reduction Potential
- = not measured
MW-24D
MW-21
MW-22S
MW-22D
MW-23I
MW-23S
MW-23D
MW-24S
MW-20
Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Be
n
z
e
n
e
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Location Date Sampled NC 2L 1 6 0.4 70 100 0.7 3 0.03
1/20/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 0.95 J <0.34 101 6.3 <0.33
7/31/2014 0.86 J <0.26 <0.24 0.91 J <0.34 89.2 5.2 <0.33
1/29/2015 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.22 <0.21 11.4 2.1 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.53 J <0.21 91.6 5.1 <0.25
1/20/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 12.1 <0.34 81.5 6.4 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 10.3 <0.34 85.1 5.5 <0.33
1/29/2015 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 9.6 <0.21 90.7 7 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 0.37 J <0.20 33.7 0.45 J 778 35.6 <0.25
MW-3I 10/20/2015 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 3.6 <0.21 497 4.1 <0.25
1/21/2014 <24 72.7 J <24 1,210 114 7,240 1,740 519
1/21/2014 DUP <24 75.7 J <24 1,330 127 6,870 1,630 445
7/31/2014 0.97 J 116 4.6 1850 117 4080 1500 596 J
7/31/2014 DUP <12 125 12.4 J 1980 123 3500 1600 572
1/29/2015 <5 133 5.6 J 2,150 J 140 1,990 J 1,890 596 J
1/29/2015 DUP 1.1 163 4.8 2,630 J 172 2,450 J 2,280 740 J
10/20/2015 <4.0 54.4 <4.0 1,200 117 9,450 1840 271
10/20/2015 <5.0 333 <5.0 3,030 141 772 958 1,850
10/20/2015 DUP <10 337 <10 2840 133 738 901 1740
1/21/2014 <0.61 7.3 <0.6 449 8.9 190 43.4 <0.81
7/31/2014 <0.24 8.4 <0.24 453 15.7 283 62.5 <0.33
1/29/2015 <1 4.3 J <1 429 6.1 51.8 37.1 <1.3
10/20/2015 <1.0 4.9 J <1.0 440 12.3 393 59.9 <1.3
MW-8I 10/20/2015 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 <0.33 <0.22 <0.25
1/20/2014 <0.24 13.6 0.3 J 160 5.7 157 36.8 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 2.7 <0.34 4.7 0.73 J <0.33
1/29/2015 <0.2 UJ 8.8 J 0.21 J 57.2 1.3 J 81.9 J 19.9 J <0.25 UJ
10/20/2015 <0.20 12.5 <0.20 125 3.2 234 40.4 <0.25
MW-11I 10/20/2015 <0.20 3.9 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 0.84 J <0.22 <0.25
1/21/2014 <6.1 42.6 <6.0 328 <8.6 1,710 111 <8.1
7/31/2014 0.31 J 39.2 8.5 J 249 10.6 1700 78.6 <0.33
1/29/2015 <4.0 33.4 <4.0 302 5.1 J 1,450 105 <5.0
10/20/2015 <4.0 41.5 <4.0 300 <4.2 2140 104 <5.0
1/20/2014 <1.2 31.9 <1.2 953 25.6 349 204 3 J
7/31/2014 0.66 J 51 6.7 J 2060 49 468 218 2.2
1/29/2015 <2.0 25.4 <2.0 790 10.8 159 178 4 J
10/20/2015 <4.0 43.9 <4.0 1190 17.0 J 788 313 <5.0
1/20/2014 <0.24 0.74 J <0.24 3.6 <0.34 22.9 1.6 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.24 0.52 J <0.24 2.5 <0.34 20 1.1 <0.33
1/30/2015 <0.2 0.81 J <0.2 4.7 <0.21 24.2 2.3 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 5.1 <0.20 29 <0.21 115 10.1 <0.25
1/20/2014 <0.61 48.2 0.83 J 439 10 444 95.5 <0.81
7/31/2014 <0.24 48.8 9.3 J 383 8.4 485 84.1 0.43 J
1/30/2015 <2 46.8 <2 436 4.8 J 401 114 <2.5
10/20/2015 <2.0 47.8 <2.0 367 4.5 J 612 97.1 <2.5
1/20/2014 <0.24 13.5 <0.24 61.6 1.8 102 17.5 0.49 J
7/31/2014 <0.24 7.2 <0.24 31.5 .62 J 66 9.6 <0.33
1/29/2015 <0.2 0.34 J <0.2 1.1 <0.21 2.2 0.46 J <0.25
1/21/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 9.7 0.45 J <0.33
7/30/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 32.3 0.62 J <0.33
1/30/2015 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.22 <0.21 <0.33 0.28 J <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 <0.33 <0.22) <0.25
1/21/2014 <0.49 9.7 0.87 J 59.5 0.99 J 225 23.7 <0.65
7/30/2014 <0.24 10.9 1.3 66 1.8 270 29.8 <0.33
1/30/2015 <0.5 10.6 0.91 J 57.4 0.91 J 235 26.5 <0.63
10/20/2015 <1.0 11.1 <1.0 54.1 <1.0 323 26.7 <1.3
1/21/2014 <0.24 0.97 J <0.24 6.1 <0.34 23.9 2.4 <0.33
7/30/2014 <0.24 0.82 J <0.24 5.6 <0.34 22.1 2 <0.33
1/30/2015 <0.2 0.95 J <0.2 7.4 <0.21 9.5 2.5 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 1.7 <0.20 8.1 <0.21 50.1 4 <0.25
MW-1
MW-2
MW-4A
MW-4I
MW-5A
Parameter
MW-10A
MW-12R
MW-13
MW-14
MW-14A
MW-15
MW-16
MW-17
MW-18
Table 4
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Be
n
z
e
n
e
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Location Date Sampled NC 2L 1 6 0.4 70 100 0.7 3 0.03
MW-1 1/21/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 <0.26 <0.3 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 <0.26 <0.3 <0.33
1/30/2015 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.22 <0.21 <0.33 <0.22 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 <0.33 <0.22) <0.25
1/21/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 0.39 J 0.4 J <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.24 <0.26 0.25 J <0.33 <0.34 0.74 J 0.34 J <0.33
1/30/2015 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.22 <0.21 0.4 J 0.42 J <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 0.36 J <0.22 <0.25
1/21/2014 <0.24 24 0.69 J 129 4.1 446 45.6 0.5 J
7/31/2014 <0.24 22 0.83 J 102 4.2 447 43 <0.33
1/30/2015 <1 21.6 <1 120 1.7 J 390 41.8 <1.3
10/20/2015 <1.0 23 <1.0 118 1.7 J 557 41.8 <1.3
1/21/2014 <2.4 24.8 <2.4 205 <3.4 925 56.6 <3.3
7/31/2014 <0.24 27.3 0.61 J 158 6 870 64 0.4 J
1/29/2015 <0.40 18.8 <0.40 145 J 2.2 84.1 J 27.1 <0.50
10/20/2015 <0.20 22.9 <0.20 92.8 2.1 311 41.5 <0.25
MW-22I 10/20/2015 <0.20 1.3 <0.20 0.96 J <0.21 1.3 <0.22) <0.25
1/21/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 1.3 <0.3 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 1.2 <0.3 <0.33
1/29/2015 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.22 <0.21 <0.33 <0.22 <0.25
1/21/2014 <4.9 42.9 <4.8 257 <6.9 1,220 91.3 <6.5
7/31/2014 <4.9 37.8 <4.8 267 <6.9 1050 79.7 <6.5
1/30/2015 <0.5 31.1 <0.5 179 2 J 84.2 34.4 <0.63
10/20/2015 <0.50 40.7 0.73 J 164 2.4 146 195 <0.25
1/21/2014 <0.24 2.6 <0.24 19.2 <0.34 104 11.1 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.49 8.5 <0.48 75.3 1 J 312 J 76.3 <0.65
1/30/2015 <1 9.3 <1 372 J 4.5 J 1.7 J 111 <1.3
10/20/2015 <1.0 15.5 <1.0 108 1.5 J 381 151 <1.3
1/21/2014 <0.24 2.8 <0.24 19.2 <0.34 129 6.2 <0.33
7/31/2014 <0.49 2.2 <0.48 15.1 <0.69 112 5.3 <0.65
1/30/2015 <0.2 2.5 <0.2 13.4 <0.21 36.9 5.3 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 3.3 <0.20 15 <0.21 130 6.5 <0.25
1/21/2014 <1.2 6.8 <1.2 44.8 <1.7 265 15.6 <1.6
7/31/2014 <1.2 5 <1.2 41.2 <1.7 202 12.6 <1.6
1/30/2015 <0.2 5.3 <0.2 36.1 0.5 J 43.3 8.7 <0.25
10/20/2015 <0.20 6.9 <0.20 41.7 0.57 J 185 13.3 <0.25
MW-24I 10/20/2015 <0.20 3 <0.20 16.1 <0.21 36.6 4.5 <0.25
MW-24S 7/31/2014 <0.24 <0.26 <0.24 <0.33 <0.34 21 <0.3 <0.33
Notes:
All values reported in micrograms per liter (µg/L)
DUP - Field duplicate
<# - Not detected at the specified detection limit
J - Estimated value
NC 2L - NC Groundwater quality standard, established under 15A NCAC 02L .0202
SW-846 - Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/index.htm
U - Not present above the associated level; blank contamination exists
UJ - Not detected and the associated detection limit is estimated
VOC - Volatile organic compound
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
This table presents the results of all analytes detected in groundwater in January 2015. Sample results have been qualified by URS based on the results of the data review
process, which is modeled after the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) National Functional Guidelines (NFG) for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (EPA,
June 2008). All results reported in micrograms per liter (µg/L). NC Groundwater quality standards for the protection of the groundwater are specified in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202, effective April 1, 2013.
MW-22S
MW-22D
MW-23D
MW-23I
MW-23S
MW-24D
Ta
b
l
e

5
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Fo
r
m
e
r

U
n
i
v
a
r

U
S
A
,

I
n
c
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ta
b
l
e

1
Sa
m
p
l
e

D
a
t
e
:
1/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
10
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
1/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
10
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
1/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
10
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
1/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
10
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
1/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
10/19/2015 1/30/2015 1/30/2015
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Trip Blank

T
r
i
p

B
l
a
n
k
Be
n
z
e
n
e
ug
/
l
1.
1
9
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0.20 <0.20 <0.20
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
ug
/
l
6
0.
2
8

J
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
0.
7
3

J
6.
8
7.
5
1.
6
2.7 <0.20 <0.20
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
ug
/
l
0.
3
8
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
<0
.
2
0
0.
6
2

J
0.
8

J
<0
.
2
0
0.35 J <0.20 <0.20
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
ug
/
l
33
0
<0
.
2
7
<0
.
2
7
<0
.
2
7
<0
.
2
7
<0
.
2
7
1.
1
11
.
7
13
.
4
2.
4
4.1 <0.27 <0.27
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
ug
/
l
60
1.
7
0.
4
8

J
0.
4
7

J
<0
.
2
2
1.
2
4.
3
36
.
1
48
.
2
8.
6
18.4 <0.22 <0.22
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
ug
/
l
14
0
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
0.
7
6

J
<0
.
2
1
0.33 J <0.21 <0.21
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
ug
/
l
0.
7
8.
9
0.
5
6

J
4
0.
5
3

J
5.
5
19
.
5
11
1
19
4
41
78.8

<
0
.
3
3

<
0
.
3
3
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
ug
/
l
2.
5
0.
9
7

J
0.
9
9

J
0.
5
5

J
<0
.
2
2
0.
7
5

J
2.
7
17
.
7
25
4.
6
9.6 <0.22 <0.22
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
ug
/
l
0.
0
3
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0
.
2
5
<0.25 <0.25 <0.25
* -

To
t
a
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
e
n
z
e
n
e
s
<#

-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
VO
C

-

v
o
l
a
t
i
l
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
J
-

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
ug
/
L

-

m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
NC

2
B

-

N
C

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
,

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

T
i
t
l
e

1
5
A

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
d
e

(
N
C
A
C
)

s
u
b
c
h
a
p
t
e
r

0
2
B
.
EP
A

-

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

E
P
A

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
SS
-
1

S
S
-
2

S
S
-
3

S
S
-
4

S
S
-
5

T
R
I
P

B
L
A
N
K
No
t
e
s
:
NC

2
B

o
r

EP
A

Su
r
f
a
c
e

Wa
t
e
r

Un
i
t
s
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ta
b
l
e

6
So
i
l

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Fo
r
m
e
r

U
n
i
v
a
r

U
S
A
,

I
n
c
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ta
b
l
e

1
MW
-
3
I

(
1
0
-
1
2
)

M
W
-
3
I

(
1
5
-
1
7
)
MW
-
4
I

(
2
5
-
2
7
)
1
MW
-
8
I

(
1
-
2
)

M
W
-
8
I

(
1
5
-
1
7
)

M
W
-
1
1
I

(
1
-
2
)

M
W
-
1
1
I

(
2
0
-
2
2
)

M
W
-
2
2
I

(
2
0
-
2
2
)
MW-24I (25-27)1
Sa
m
p
l
e

D
a
t
e
:
9/
2
8
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
5

9
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
5
VO
C

(
S
W
-
8
4
6

8
2
6
0
B

&

8
2
6
0
B
-
S
I
M
)
An
a
l
y
t
e
µg
/
k
g

<
1
3

<
1
2

<
1
1

<
4
1
.
2

U

<
1
6

<
1
7
.
9

U

<
2
8
.
1

U

<
1
3

<
1
3
Be
n
z
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
8
2

<
0
.
7
1

1
.
5

J

<
1
.
1

<
0
.
6
7

<
0
.
7
3

<
0
.
8
7

<
0
.
8
4
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
8
2

6
.
7

<
1
.
1

<
1
.
1

<
0
.
6
7

<
0
.
7
3

<
0
.
8
7

<
0
.
8
4
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
1
.
2

<
1
.
1

1
.
3

J

<
1
.
4

<
1
.
4

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
9
6

<
1
.
1

<
1
.
1
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
8
2

6
4
.
5

J

1
6

<
1
.
1

<
0
.
6
7

<
0
.
7
3

<
0
.
8
7

<
0
.
8
4
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
8
2

1
.
3

J

<
1
.
1

<
1
.
1

<
0
.
6
7

<
0
.
7
3

<
0
.
8
7

<
0
.
8
4
1,
4
-
D
i
o
x
a
n
e

(
S
I
M
)

µ
g
/
k
g

<
2
.
8

U
J

<
2
.
8

U
J

8
.
1

<
2
.
2

<
2
.
8

<
1
.
3

4
.
6

<
3

U
J

<
1
.
6
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

7
.
7

1
0

1
5
.
6

J

<
1
.
7

<
1
.
7

<
1
.
1

<
1
.
2

<
1
.
4

<
1
.
4
To
l
u
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
8
2

<
0
.
7
1

1
.
4

J

<
1
.
1

<
0
.
6
7

<
0
.
7
3

<
0
.
8
7

<
0
.
8
4
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
8
9

<
0
.
8
2

7
.
3

<
1
.
1

<
1
.
1

<
0
.
6
7

<
0
.
7
3

<
0
.
8
7

<
0
.
8
4
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
1
.
4

<
1
.
3

1
5

<
1
.
7

<
1
.
7

<
1
.
1

<
1
.
2

<
1
.
4

<
1
.
4
SV
O
C

(
S
W
-
8
4
6

8
2
7
0
D
)
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
2
1

<
2
0

<
1
9

3
3

J

<
2
4

<
1
7

<
1
8

<
2
3

<
1
8
Py
r
e
n
e

µ
g
/
k
g

<
2
1

<
2
0

<
1
9

3
6
.
6

J

<
2
4

<
1
7

<
1
8

<
2
3

<
1
8
Me
t
a
l
s

(
S
W
-
8
4
6

6
0
1
0
C

&

7
4
7
1
B
)
An
t
i
m
o
n
y

m
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
0
3
2

<
0
.
0
3
1

<
0
.
0
2
9

0
.
2
0

J

<
0
.
0
3
6

<
0
.
0
2
5

<
0
.
0
2
7

<
0
.
0
3
4

<
0
.
0
2
8

U
J
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

m
g
/
k
g

1
.
1

J

1
.
4

J

1
.
1

J

3

0
.
9
3

J

0
.
9
6

1
.
2

J

1
.
7

0
.
8

J
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

m
g
/
k
g

0
.
3
3

J

0
.
5

J

<
0
.
0
9
7

0
.
4
4

J

0
.
4
8

J

<
0
.
0
8
1

0
.
3
3

J

1
.
9

0
.
2
9
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

m
g
/
k
g

<
0
.
1
3

<
0
.
1
2

<
0
.
0
9
7

0
.
2
6

J

<
0
.
1
5

<
0
.
0
8
1

<
0
.
0
4
4

0
.
1
2

J

0
.
2
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
1
mg
/
k
g

4
9
.
5

2
7
.
7

2
8

1
1
8

5
.
8

3
5
.
6

9
.
7

J

1
0
.
4

6
.
2
Co
p
p
e
r

m
g
/
k
g

8
0

5
9
.
7

1
5
6

7
9
.
3

8
6
.
4

6
7
.
1

5
3
.
3

3
3
.
1

9
.
8
Le
a
d

m
g
/
k
g

4
.
9

1
0

1

1
2
.
8

3

2
.
6

3
.
6

1
.
1

2
.
7
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

m
g
/
k
g

3
3
3

9
4
9

1
,
3
6
0

1
,
2
8
0

1
,
8
1
0

5
4
0

5
1
8

1
,
1
5
0

3
6
9
Me
r
c
u
r
y

m
g
/
k
g

0
.
0
1
4

J

0
.
0
1
6

J

<
0
.
0
0
4
5

0
.
0
3
9

J

<
0
.
0
0
5
7

<
0
.
0
0
4
1

0
.
0
0
4
2

J

<
0
.
0
0
5
3

<
0
.
0
0
4
2
Ni
c
k
e
l

m
g
/
k
g

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
7

3
4
.
3

4
7
.
5

2
7
.
8

2
2
.
2

1
1
.
2

9
.
5

7
.
5
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

m
g
/
k
g

1
.
5

J

1
.
1

J

<
0
.
4
7

2
.
2

J

1
.
5

J

1
.
2

J

0
.
6
9

J

1
.
6

J

0
.
2
7

J
Si
l
v
e
r

m
g
/
k
g

1
.
1

J

1
.
0

J

0
.
9
4

J

1
.
4

J

1
.
3

J

<
0
.
0
3
3

<
0
.
0
3
6

U
J

1
.
4

J

<
0
.
0
3
5
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m

m
g
/
k
g

0
.
1
3

J

0
.
1
8

J

0
.
1
0

J

0
.
1
5

J

0
.
1
8

J

0
.
1
1

J

0
.
1
4

J

0
.
1
7

J

0
.
0
3
3

J
Zi
n
c

m
g
/
k
g

3
7
.
5

5
5
.
6

9
0
.
5

5
3
.
9

5
4
.
3

4
2
.
9

3
5
.
7

1
1
0

4
1
.
3
No
t
e
s
:
<
-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

m
e
t
h
o
d

d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
µg
/
k
g

-

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

k
i
l
o
g
r
a
m
J
-

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

v
a
l
u
e
mg
/
k
g

-

M
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

k
i
l
o
g
r
a
m
NA

-

N
o
t

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
SV
O
C

-

S
e
m
i
v
o
l
a
t
i
l
e

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
SW
-
8
4
6

-
T
e
s
t

M
e
t
h
o
d
s

f
o
r

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e
,

P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
/
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

M
e
t
h
o
d
s

(
S
W
-
8
4
6
)
,

E
P
A

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e
U
-

N
o
t

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

l
e
v
e
l
;

b
l
a
n
k

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

e
x
i
s
t
s
UJ

-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

t
h
e

l
i
m
i
t

i
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
VO
C

-

V
o
l
a
t
i
l
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
1 S
a
m
p
l
e

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
e
d

z
o
n
e

a
n
d

n
o
t

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e

o
f

s
o
i
l
Un
i
t
s
Table 7
Soil Gas Point Construction Details
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Soil Gas
Vapor Point
ID
Date Completed
Total
Depth (ft
bgs)
Tubing
Diameter
(inches)
Screen
Length
(ft)
SG-1 11/18/08 12.0 0.25 0.5
SG-2 11/18/08 12.0 0.25 0.5
SG-3A (short) 11/18/08 6.0 0.25 0.5
SG-3B (long) 11/18/08 12.0 0.25 0.5
SG-4 11/18/08 12.0 0.25 0.5
SG-5A (short) 11/18/08 6.0 0.25 0.5
SG-5B (long) 11/18/08 12.0 0.25 0.5
SG-6A 12/12/2013 6.0 0.25 0.5
SG-6B 12/12/2013 16.0 0.25 0.5
SG-7A 12/12/2013 6.0 0.25 0.5
SG-7B 12/12/2013 12.0 0.25 0.5
SG-8A 12/12/2013 6.0 0.25 0.5
SG-8B 12/12/2013 16.0 0.25 0.5
SG-9A 12/12/2013 6.0 0.25 0.5
SG-9B 12/12/2013 16.0 0.25 0.5
Notes:
U = unknown
ft = feet
bgs = below ground surface
URS Corporation - North Carolina (URS) is not responsible for data
generated prior to July 2013. Data included on this table not
generated by or on behalf of URS has been taken from documents
prepared and submitted to the NC DENR by others and is included
only for ease of reference; URS does not assume or accept any
responsibility or liability for the quality, accuracy, or completeness
of the data included on this table that was not generated by or on
Ta
b
l
e

8
So
i
l

G
a
s

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Fo
r
m
e
r

U
n
i
v
a
r

U
S
A
,

I
n
c
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ta
b
l
e

1
SG
-

2
SG-5 short SG-5 long
Sa
m
p
l
e

D
a
t
e
:
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
3

9
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
3

9
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
3

9
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

9
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

9
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
Me
t
h
o
d

-

E
P
A

T
O
-
1
5
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Be
n
z
e
n
e
ug
/
m
3

1
2
0

1
,
5
7
0

N
D

N
M
ND
NM
0.52 NM

N
D
0.41 0.52
Me
t
h
y
l

e
t
h
y
l

k
e
t
o
n
e
;

M
E
K
;

2
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

3
4
,
8
0
0

4
3
8
,
0
0
0

2
,
4
0
0

E

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M

N
D

N
D

2
.
7
Ca
r
b
o
n

d
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
ug
/
m
3

4
,
8
7
0

6
1
,
3
0
0

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M

N
D

N
D

N
D
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
;

T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

4
0
.
7

5
3
3

N
D

N
D
14
17
0
ND

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

6
9
5

8
,
7
6
0

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

2
.
8

N
M

N
D

3
.
0

2
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
;

E
t
h
y
l
d
i
d
e
n
e

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

u
g
/
m
3

5
8
5

7
,
6
7
0
47
11
0
5.
8
1,
2
0
0
0.15 6.6 1.3

N
D

N
D
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

(
v
i
n
y
l
i
d
e
n
e

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
)

u
g
/
m
3

1
,
3
9
0

1
7
,
5
0
0
42
19
0
ND
2,
0
0
0
0.11 19 2.8

N
D

N
D
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
;

c
i
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

N
S

N
S
73
11
0
ND
23
0
0
0.23 ND 1.0

N
D

N
D
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
;

t
r
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e

u
g
/
m
3

N
S

N
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND

N
D

N
D
Et
h
a
n
o
l
ug
/
m
3

N
S

N
S

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

6
.
5

N
M
ND 6.3

9
.
4
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
ug
/
m
3

3
7
4

4
,
9
1
0
2.
5
NM
ND
NM
0.41 NM ND

0
.
5
5

0
.
6
0
4-
E
t
h
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
ug
/
m
3

N
S

N
S

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M
ND ND

N
D
He
p
t
a
n
e
ug
/
m
3

N
S

N
S

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

0
.
9
4

N
M
ND 1.5

N
D
He
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
u
t
a
d
i
e
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

4
2
.
5

5
5
7

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M
ND ND

N
D
He
x
a
n
e
ug
/
m
3

4
8
7

6
1
,
3
0
0

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

0
.
9
8

N
M

2
.
2

1
.
5

0
.
9
4
Is
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
o
l
ug
/
m
3

1
,
3
9
0

1
7
,
5
0
0

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M

N
D

4
.
8

N
D
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
ug
/
m
3

2
7
8

3
,
5
0
0
78
0
22
,
0
0
0
1,
4
0
0
66
,
0
0
0
5.2 610 410

1
0

0
.
9
4
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n
ug
/
m
3

1
3
,
9
0
0

1
7
5
,
0
0
0

4
2
0
0

E

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
l
u
e
n
e
ug
/
m
3

3
4
,
8
0
0

4
3
8
,
0
0
0
7.
5
NM
ND
NM
2.5 NM 1.8

3
.
8

3
.
5
1,
1
,
1
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
;

m
e
t
h
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m

u
g
/
m
3

3
4
,
8
0
0

4
3
8
,
0
0
0
ND
NM
ND
NM

N
D

N
M
ND

N
D

N
D
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
;

T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
;

T
C
E

u
g
/
m
3

1
3
.
9

1
7
5
51
35
0
2.
5
2,
2
0
0
0.22 21 3.6

N
D

N
D
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
f
l
u
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

N
S

N
S

N
D

N
M
ND
NM

1
.
4

N
M

N
D

1
.
7

1
.
3
1,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

4
8
.
7

6
1
3

1
0

N
M
ND
NM

N
D

N
M

N
D

N
D

N
D
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
;

C
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

u
g
/
m
3

7
6
.
8

2
,
7
9
0
1.
5
NM
ND
NM

N
D

N
M

N
D
0.46

N
D
Xy
l
e
n
e
,

m
-

&

p
-
ug
/
m
3

6
9
5

8
7
6
12
NM
ND
NM
1.4 NM 1.1

2
.
0

2
.
2
Xy
l
e
n
e
,

o
-
ug
/
m
3

6
9
5

8
7
6
4.
8
NM
ND
NM
0.50 NM 0.44

0
.
6
3

0
.
7
2
No
t
e
s
:
(1
)

-

Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
s
t
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
b

S
l
a
b

a
n
d

E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r

S
o
i
l

G
a
s

V
a
p
o
r

I
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n

S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
(1
)

=

Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
s
t
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
4

N
o
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
b

S
l
a
b

a
n
d

E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r

S
o
i
l

G
a
s

V
a
p
o
r

I
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n

S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
SG
-
3

s
h
o
r
t

S
G
-
3

l
o
n
g

S
G
-
4
Un
i
t
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

SG
S
L
No
n
-
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

SG
S
L
Ta
b
l
e

9
Pa
s
s
i
v
e

S
o
i
l

G
a
s

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Fo
r
m
e
r

U
n
i
v
a
r

U
S
A
,

I
n
c
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ta
b
l
e

1
PS
G
-
1

P
S
G
-
2

P
S
G
-
3

P
S
G
-
4

P
S
G
-
4

D
u
p

P
S
G
-
5

P
S
G
-
6

P
S
G
-
7

P
S
G
-
8
Sa
m
p
l
e

D
a
t
e
:
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
10/10/2014 10/10/2014
CO
M
P
O
U
N
D
S
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e

n
g

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

n
g

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

n
g

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

n
g

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

3
9

<
2
5
1,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
1,
1
,
1
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
Ca
r
b
o
n

T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

n
g

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

1
9

<
1
0
1,
1
,
2
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

n
g

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

<
1
0

2
,
4
4
3

5
8
9
1,
1
,
1
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
Ch
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

n
g

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5

<
2
5
1,
1
,
2
,
2
-
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
ng
<2
5
<2
5
<2
5
<2
5
<2
5
<2
5
<2
5
<25 <25
No
t
e
s
:
ng

-

n
a
n
o
g
r
a
m
s
<#

-

N
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
Un
i
t
s
Ta
b
l
e

1
0
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

I
n
d
o
o
r

A
i
r

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Fo
r
m
e
r

U
n
i
v
a
r

U
S
A
,

I
n
c
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ta
b
l
e

1
IA
-
1
IA
-
2
IA
-
3
IA
-
4
IA
-
5
IA
-
6
IA-7 IA-8
Da
t
e

S
a
m
p
l
e
d
:
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
11
/
3
/
2
0
1
4
11/3/2014 11/3/2014
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
:
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
µg
/
m
3
0.
1
2
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0.12 <0.12
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
µg
/
m
3
1.
7
5
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0
.
1
2
<0.12 <0.12
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
µg
/
m
3
41
.
7
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0
.
2
1
<0.21 <0.21
tr
a
n
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
µg
/
m
3
NE
<0
.
2
8
<0
.
2
8
<0
.
2
8
<0
.
2
8
<0
.
2
8
<0
.
2
8
<0.28 <0.28
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
µg
/
m
3
NE
<0
.
0
9
1
<0
.
0
9
1
<0
.
0
9
1
<0
.
0
9
1
<0
.
0
9
1
<0
.
0
9
1
<0.091 <0.091
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
µg
/
m
3
8.
3
4
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
6
0.
4
9
0.
5
5
0.
6
1
<0.25 <0.25
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
µg
/
m
3
0.
4
1
7
<0
.
1
6
<0
.
1
6
<0
.
1
6
<0
.
1
6
<0
.
1
6
<0
.
1
6
<0.16 <0.16
Vi
n
y
l

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg
/
m
3
0.
2
3
0
<0
.
0
7
9
<0
.
0
7
9
<0
.
0
7
9
<0
.
0
7
9
<0
.
0
7
9
<0
.
0
7
9
<0.079 <0.079
(1
)

-

Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
s
t
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
6

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
V
a
p
o
r

I
n
d
o
o
r

A
i
r

I
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n

S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

L
e
v
e
l
NE

-

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

n
o
t

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
µg
/
m
3

-

m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

c
u
b
i
c

m
e
t
e
r
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Un
i
t
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

In
d
o
o
r

A
i
r

Sc
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

Le
v
e
l
s
(1
)
Table 11
Soil Vapor Extraction Well Construction Details
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Well ID Date Completed
Total
Depth (ft)
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
Screen
Length
(ft)
VEW-1 U 14.0 2 10.0
VEW-2 U 14.0 2 10.0
VEW-3 U 14.0 2 10.0
VEW-4 U 14.0 2 10.0
VEW-9 07/02/08 16.0 2 10.0
VEW-10 07/02/08 16.0 2 10.0
VEW-11 U 20.0 U U
VEW-12 U 19.0 U U
VEW-13 U 25.0 U U
VEW-14 U 18.0 U U
VEW-15 U 25.0 U U
VEW-16 U 18.0 U U
Notes:
U = unknown
URS Corporation - North Carolina (URS) is not responsible for data
generated prior to July 2013. Data included on this table not
generated by or on behalf of URS has been taken from documents
prepared and submitted to the NC DENR by others and is included
only for ease of reference; URS does not assume or accept any
responsibility or liability for the quality, accuracy, or completeness
of the data included on this table that was not generated by or on
Well screen/casing in all wells is constructed of polyvinyl chloride.
Ta
b
l
e

1
2
So
i
l

V
a
p
o
r

E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Fo
r
m
e
r

U
n
i
v
a
r

U
S
A
,

I
n
c
39
1
5

G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d

D
r
i
v
e
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ef
f
l
u
e
n
t

V
O
C
s
(p
p
m
)

V
E
W
-
1

V
E
W
-
2

V
E
W
-
3

V
E
W
-
4

V
E
W
-
9

V
E
W
-
1
0

V
E
W
-
1
1

V
E
W
-
1
2

V
E
W
-1
3

V
E
W
-
1
4

V
E
W
-
1
5

V
E
W
-
1
6
01
/
2
4
/
1
4

8
.
7

1
0
7
.
0

2
0
.
6

1
9
.
4

1
5
.
0

1
3
.
6

9
.
6

2
.
1

3
.
6

6
.
8

1
.
7

-

-
02
/
0
5
/
1
4

6
.
3

4
8
.
1

4
.
1

2
1
.
7

1
7
.
2

3
.
8

1
1
.
6

6
.
0

5
.
8

1
1
.
2

6
.
9

6
.
5

7
.
4
02
/
2
8
/
1
4

3
.
8

4
8
.
3

1
4
.
3

7
.
2

6
.
9

1
1
.
7

1
1
.
9

2
.
6

4
.
2

8
.
2

3
.
4

5
.
0

4
.
3
03
/
2
8
/
1
4

2
.
7

6
8
.
9

1
6
.
1

1
3
.
2

7
.
5

-

7
.
1

2
.
6

3
.
4

7
.
1

2
.
2

1
.
4

1
.
3
05
/
2
0
/
1
4

0
.
2

1
6
1
.
7

1
0
4
.
4

3
6
.
2

2
1
.
9

9
.
2

-

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
8

1
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
07
/
1
7
/
1
4

3
.
2

8
4
.
6

3
3
.
3

-

0
.
5

1
1
.
3

1
.
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

7
.
4

1
.
7

0
.
7

0
.
8
08
/
2
2
/
1
4

1
.
4

1
5
5
.
5

-

-

0
.
3

3
.
6

3
.
4

0
.
2

0
.
0

4
.
6

9
.
2

2
.
7

-
09
/
1
0
/
1
4

3
.
4

-

-

-

-

-

9
.
4

2
.
2

0
.
3

0
.
0

1
.
2

0
.
5

-
10
/
1
5
/
1
4

3
.
8

1
6
4
.
8

2
2
.
4

0
.
0

-

0
.
0

-

1
.
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

-
11
/
2
4
/
1
4

1
3
.
1

2
.
3

2
2
7
.
0

4
.
9

1
2
.
5

1
5
.
8

2
0
.
8

6
.
5

5
.
4

9
.
0

2
.
6

4
.
6

2
.5
12
/
2
4
/
1
4

4
.
8

-

-

-

0
.
8

3
.
0

3
.
8

0
.
7

0
.
5

-

0
.
8

-

0
.
3
08
/
3
1
/
1
5

0
.
0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0
.
0

-

0
.
0
09
/
3
0
/
1
5

0
.
0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0
.
0

-

0
.
0
10
/
1
2
/
1
5

0
.
0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0
.
0

-

0
.
0
12
/
2
3
/
1
5

0
.
8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
.
0

-

0
.
7
No
t
e
s
:
Me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

p
h
o
t
o
-
i
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
t
e
ct
o
r

(
P
I
D
)
.
VO
C
s

=

v
o
l
a
t
i
l
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
pp
m

=

p
a
r
t
s

p
e
r

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
VE
W

=

v
a
p
o
r

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

w
e
l
l
-
=

n
o
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
Da
t
e
VO
C
s

(
p
p
m
)
Table 13
Soil Vapor Extraction Analytical Results
Former Univar USA, Inc
3915 Glenwood Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Table 1 Units 7/17/2014 10/15/2014 12/12/2014 10/12/2015
Chloromethane ppmv <1 <1 <1 0.00057 J
3915 Glenwood Drive ppmv 0.006 0.007 0.007 <0.00013
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.00012
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.00014
1,1-Dichloroethane ppmv <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.00059 J
1,1-Dichloroethylene ppmv <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00091
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane ppmv <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0001
1,2-Dichloropropane ppmv <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0002
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 NA
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 NA
Benzene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 0.0019
Bromodichloromethane ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.00013
Bromoform ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.000082
Bromomethane/Chloroethane* ppmv <1 <1 <1 <0.000087
Carbon Tetrachloride ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA
Chlorobenzene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.00013
Chlorodibromomethane ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA
Chloroform ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.00012
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ppmv 0.06 0.08 1.14 0.00
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene ppmv <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.00014
Ethyl Benzene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 0.005
Fluorotrichloromethane ppmv <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA
m&p Xylene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 0.0166
Methylene Chloride ppmv <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.00054
o-Xylene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 0.0032
Tetrachloroethylene ppmv 0.262 0.450 0.473 0.029
Toluene ppmv <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 0.02
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ppmv <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.000081
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene ppmv <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.000082
Trichloroethylene ppmv 0.021 0.038 0.042 0.001
Vinyl Chloride ppmv <1 <1 <1 <0.00013
VOC
AECOM Annual Monitoring Report

6/30/2016

Figures
^
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Document Path: G:\Data\200\Univar\Charlotte (Glenwood Drive)\5 Data\GIS\MapDocuments\2015\F1 Location Map.mxd Date Saved: 5/4/2016 12:57:39 PM User Name: mckinneyr
SURVEY BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
0 2,000
SCALE (FEET)
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. REV.
DONALDSON GARRETT& ASSOCIATES
RGM
AJW
AMT
7/27/2009
5/4/2016
60478479 1
LOCATION MAP
FORMER UNIVAR USAINC.
3915 GLENWOOD DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC
³
CO NFIDENTIAL - ALL RIGHT S RESERVED - PROPERTY OF
AECO M TECHNICAL SERVICES O F NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
5/4/2016
5/4/2016
^SITE LOCATION
FORMER UNIVAR PROPERTY
3915 GLENWOOD DR.
G

L

E

N

W

O

O

D

D

R

I
V

E
F A I R G R O U N D S T .
3801 GLENWOOD DR.
B A H A M A D R I V E
ASHLAND
DISTRIBUTION
FACILITY
THE GLIDDEN COMPANY
FORMER BOGGS &
COMPANY, INC.
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and
the GIS User Community
Document Path: G:\Data\200\Univar\Charlotte (Glenwood Drive)\5 Data\GIS\MapDocuments\2015\F2SiteMap.mxd Date Saved: 5/4/2016 12:49:40 PM User Name: mckinneyr
SURVEY BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
0 200
SCALE (FEET)
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. REV.
Legend
CREEK
TRACKS
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(CHARLOTTE-MECKLENGBURG GIS PARCEL DATA (MAY 2014)
DONALDSON GARRETT& ASSOCIATES
RGM
AJW
AMT
7/27/2009
5/4/2016
60478479 2
SITE MAP
FORMER UNIVAR USAINC.
3915 GLENWOOD DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC
³
CO NFIDENTIAL - ALL RIGHT S RESERVED - PROPERTY OF
AECO M TECHNICAL SERVICES O F NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
5/4/2016
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
FORMER UNIVAR PROPERTY
3915 GLENWOOD DR.
G

L

E

N

W

O

O

D

D

R

I

V

E
F A I R G R O U N D S T .
3801 GLENWOOD DR.
B A H A M A D R I V E
SG-9
SG-5
SG-4
SG-3SG-2
SG-1
SG-6
SG-7
SG-8
THE GLIDDEN COMPANYPSG-1
PSG-2
PSG-3
PSG-4
PSG-5
PSG-6
PSG-7
PSG-8
PSG-9
PSG-10
PSG-12
PSG-11
PSG-13
PSG-14
PSG-15
PSG-16
PSG-22
PSG-23
PSG-24
PSG-19
PSG-20
PSG-21
PSG-17
PSG-18
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
D
a
t
a
\
2
0
0
\
U
n
i
v
a
r
\
C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

(
G
l
e
n
w
o
od

D
r
i
v
e
)
\
5

D
a
t
a
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
2
0
1
5
\
F
4

S
o
i
l

G
a
s

Sa
m
p
l
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
m
x
d

D
a
t
e

S
a
v
e
d
:

5
/
4
/
2
0
1
6

3
:
1
5
:
3
6

PM

U
s
e
r

N
a
m
e
:

m
c
k
i
n
n
e
y
r
SURVEY BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
0 125
SCALE (FEET)
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. REV.
Legend
!AABANDONED SOIL GAS
!APASSIVE SOIL GAS
!ASOIL GAS
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(CHARLOTTE-MECKLENGBURG GIS PARCEL DATA (MAY 2014)
DONALDSON GARRETT& ASSOCIATES
RGM
AJW
AMT
7/27/2009
5/4/2016
60478479 4
PERMANENT & PASSIVE
SOIL GAS SAMPLE
LOCATION MAP
FORMER UNIVAR USA INC.
3915 GLENWOOD DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC
³
CO NFIDENTIAL - ALL RIGHT S RESERVED - PROPERTY OF
AECO M TECHNICAL SERVICES O F NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
5/4/2016
5/4/2016
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?!?
FORMER UNIVAR PROPERTY
3915 GLENWOOD DR.
G

L

E

N

W

O

O

D

D

R

I

V

E
3801 GLENWOOD DR.
FORMER BOGGS &
COMPANY, INC.
VEW-2 VEW-3
VEW-4
VEW-7
VEW-6
VEW-5
VEW-9
VEW-1
VEW-11
VEW-12
VEW-13
VEW-14VEW-15VEW-16
VEW-8
VEW-10
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and
the GIS User Community
Document Path: G:\Data\200\Univar\Charlotte (Glenwood Drive)\5 Data\GIS\MapDocuments\2015\F5 SVE System Layout.mxd Date Saved: 5/5/2016 11:20:16 AM User Name: mckinneyr
SURVEY BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
DAT E
0 100
SCALE (FEET)
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. REV.
Legend
!?SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) LOCATION
SVE PIPING LAYOUT
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(CHARLOTTE-MECKLENGBURG GIS PARCEL DATA (MAY 2014)
DONALDSON GARRETT& ASSOCIATES
RGM
AJW
AMT
7/27/2009
5/5/2016
60478479 5
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
SYSTEM MAP
FORMER UNIVAR USA INC.
3915 GLENWOOD DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC
³
CO NFIDENTIAL - ALL RIGHT S RESERVED - PROPERTY OF
AECO M TECHNICAL SERVICES O F NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
5/5/2016
5/5/2016