19049_Regal_Mfg_Analysis_Cleanup_Alt_20100930

&Hickman
860 I Si:x Forks Road
Suite 400
Raleigh. NC 27615
919-8~ 7-4:2~ I
29:23 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlou..::, NC 28:203
70~-586-0007
-( -_::..!_~ i ~-, I ..! •.
Analysis of Brownfields
Cleanup Alternatives
Former Regal Manufacturing
212 12th A venue NE
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. HIC-001
September 30, 2010
Section
Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives
Former Regal Manufacturing
Hickory, North Carolina
II&II Job No. IDC-001
September 30, 2010
Table of Contents
Page No.
1.0 Introduction and Background .......... HHUUUHUUUOOOOOOIOUUUUnUUUUU•U•nuu ........... ~u··········· ........... 2
1.1 Site Description .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Site History ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Summary of Site Characterization and Environmental Impacts ........................................... 4
2.1 Previous Enviromnental Investigations ............................................................................... 4
2.2 Site Lithology ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Site Ground Water Flow Direction ...................................................................................... 5
2.4 Characterization of Enviromnental hnpacts ........................................................................ 5
2.4.1 Soillmpacts ............................................................................................................ 6
2.4.2 Ground Water Impacts ........................................................................................... 7
3.0 Cleanup Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Soil Cleanup Goals ............................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Ground Water Cleanup Goals .............................................................................................. 9
4.1 Cleanup Altematives Development ................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Soil Alternatives .................................................................................................. 11
4.1.2 Ground WaterNapor Intrusion Alternatives ....................................................... l2
4.2 Ground Water Encmmtered During Construction ............................................................. l5
4.3 Newly Discovered Impacted SoiL ..................................................................................... 15
4.4 Institutional and Engineering Controls .............................................................................. 15
4.5 Proposed Remedial Actions ............................................................................................... 16
5.0 SchedUICunH•u••••••uuo•o•ouuuuuu .. •••uuuuuuonHI~•u••••••u••••••unuuuoua••nnonuuuuuu,. .... ,. .. ,._. .. ,, ••••••••••••• 20
6.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 1
Table2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Figme 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
List of Tables
Monitoring Well Construction and Water Level Summary
Summary of Soil Analytical Data
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Data
Vapor Intrusion Modeling Results
Cleanup Cost Summary
List o fl;'igures
Site Location Map
Site Plan and Sample Locations Map
Ground Water Potentiometric Map
Soil Analytical Results Map
Ground Water Analytical Results Map
List of Appendices
Appendix A Historical Gaia Tech Assessment Documents
ll
S-\AAA-Master Projcct~\Hickmy I1lOI-llC-OO! BwwnJ'.<JJd A'lse!<sment\Sltes\P!m~e ITs\fu:gal\ABCA\Rxgal ADCAdoc Hart & Hickman, PC
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
Former Regal Manufacturing
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. IDC-001
1.0 Introduction and Back,<>round
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) has prepared this Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
(ABCA) fur the Fonner Regal Manufacturing located in Hickory, Catawba County, North
Carolina on behalf of the City of Hickory under the City's US EPA Region 4 Brownfield
Assessment Grant (BF-96489707). This ABCA report was prepared to identizy and evaluate
cleanup alternatives to mitigate potential risks to human health and the environment from
identified environmental impacts at the site.
1.1 Site Description
The subject site is located at 212 12'h Avenue NE in Hickory, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2).
The property is comprised of four parcels totaling approximately 2.64 acres. Three parcels (2.03
acres) are located between 12'h A venue NE and 11th Avenue l'.'E and they are occupied by the
former manufacturing area. One parcel contains an approximate 47,000 sq ft vacant building,
one parcel contains an asphalt-paved parking area, and one parcel contains an approximate 2,000
sq ft vacant building. The fourth parcel is located south of 11th Avenue NE (306 11 "' Avenue
l\"E) and it contains an asphalt-paved parking area sunounded by a fence. Although no finn
plans have been generated for site redevelopment, it is anticipated the site will be redeveloped
commercial or light industriaL
2
Hart & Hickman, PC
1.2 Site History
The subject site was first developed as a hosiery mill in 1956 and was then comprised of the two
westernmost buildings (former machine shop and former cotton yarn manufacturing buildings),
which are now incorporated into the current manufacturing building (Figure 2). The larger
eastern building (former elastic yarn manufacturing warehouse) was added by Regal sometime in
the 1960s or early 1970s. The former aiT compressor building has been present since at least
1961, and it was formerly operated as an automotive repair facility in the 1960s. The asphalt-
paved parking area was added sometime in the 1960s and has served only as a parking lot.
Various textile companies occupied the manufacturing buildings between the 1950s and 1960s.
The companies included the Reaco Hosiery Mills, Madaris Hosiery Mill, The Elastic
Corporation, and Realspan Corporation before becoming Regal Manufacturing in the 1960s.
Regal used the facility to manufacture hosiery and cover elastic until 1999. The site buildings
have been vacant since 1999.
3
2.0 Summary of Site Characterization and Environmental Impacts
2.1 Previous Environmental Investigations
Recent reports and project plans for the site prepared by H&H as part of the Brownfields
assessment activities include:
• Quality Assurance Project Plan for Brownfields Assessment, October 19,2009.
• Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment Report, June 1, 2010.
ln addition, three previous reports were prepared for the site by Gaia Tech, Inc. (GaiaTech) prior
to the Brownfields assessment activities:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), November 18,2001.
• Focused Phase II Investigation Letter of Findings, January 2, 2002.
• Limited Phase II Site Investigation, June 2007.
2.2 Site Lithology
The description of lithology in this ABCA is based on the subsurface activities conducted during
the Brownfield site assessment activities remedial in January and March 2010 and previous
investigations conducted in 2007 by GaiaTech. During the 2010 Brownfield site assessment
activities, a total of nine soil borings were advanced at locations across the site using a direct
push technology (DPT) rig. Three of the soil borings were converted into monitoring wells (TW-
1 through TW-3). Soil borings and monitoring wells installed by H&H and otl1ers are shown on
Figure 2. The assessment results are discussed in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.
Based on investigation activities conducted at the site, the lithology generally consists of orange
to brown sandy silts to silty sands. The depth to partially weathered rock ranges from
approximately 38 to 45 feet below grmmd surface (bgs). Competent bedrock was not
encountered during the Brownfield site assessment activities. According to the North Carolina
4
Hart & Hickman, PC
Geological Survey 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, bedrock in the area of the subject
property is characterized as mica schist.
2.3 Site Ground Water Flow Direction
Ground water at the site was investigated thorough the installation of three temporary ground
water monitoring wells, and sampling four existing permanent monitoring wells installed by
Gaia Tech in 2007. Well construction details and calculated ground water elevations are provided
in Table 1. Ground water ranged in depth across the site from approximately 31 feet bgs to 41
feet bgs during the water level survey conducted on January 22, 2010.
A ground water elevation contour map was generated from the January 2010 data to evaluate
ground water flow direction at the site (Figme 3). Grotmd water elevations obtained from the
site monitoring wells infer a shallow ground water flow direction to the southwest. This is
consistent with the topographic gradients in the area.
2.4 Characterization of Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts at the site are characterized based on a review of 2007 assessment data
collected by GillaTech and the results of the Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment condueted by
H&H in January and March 2010. Key fmdings of the assessment activities are summarized
below. 1be Brownfield Phase IT assessment sample locations are provided on Figure 2. The
results of the soil analyses are summarized in Table 2 and on Figure 4, and the results of the
grotmd water analyses are summarized in Table 3 and on Figme 5. Copies of pertinent portions
of Gaia Tech's assessment doctm1ents are provided in Appendix A.
5
2.4.1 Soil Impacts
2002 Focused Phase II Investigation Soil Results
The 2001 GaiaTech Phase I ESA indicated that a former gasoline underground storage tank
(UST) was reportedly removed from the western side of the property in the late 1980s. No
closure documentation is available for the removal activities.
To assess site impacts from the former UST, Gaia Tech collected four soil samples in the vicinity
of the former UST during the January 2002 focused Phase II Investigation. Soil samples were
analyzed for gasoline range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-GRO), volatile orgaaic
compounds (VOCs), and lead (no ground water samples were collected). No VOCs or TPH-
GRO concentrations were detected in soil samples above the laboratory detection limits, and lead
was detected at concentrations within the EPA published background concentration range.
2007 Limited Phase lT Site Investigation Soil Results
GaiaTech collected eight soil samples and seven ground water samples at the site as part of the
Limited Phase II Site Assessment activities in 2007. No soil impacts were detected in the soil
samples.
Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment Soil Results
Results of 2010 Brownfield assessment activities indicate PCE and TCE were detected in soil
sample SB-9 (2-4') at concentrations above NCDENR's Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB)
Health-Based Soil Remediation Goals (SRGs), January 2010. In addition, the detected PCE
concentration in SB-9 (2-4') also exceeded the USEPA Industrial Soil Regional Screening Level
(RSL) presented in the USEPA RSL Master Table Update (May 2010). No other VOCs were
detected in SB-9 and no VOC compounds were detected above the soil screening criteria in any
of the remaining soil samples. Additionally, no SVOC compounds were detected above the soil
screening criteria in any of the soil samples.
6
Arsenic was detected at a concentration above its soil screening criteria in the shallow soil
samples (up to 16 mg/kg). However, the detected arsenic concentmtions were within the
published KC background concentration range.
It is important to note that during the Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment, a suspected heating
oil UST was discovered beneath the southwestern buililing walL At the request of the property
owner, no samples were collected in the vicinity of the UST during H&H's Brownfield Phase II
Site Assessment
2.4.2 Ground Water Impacts
2007 Limited Phase II Site Investigation Ground Water Results
GaiaTech's 2007 ground water analytical results inilicated PCE concentrations as high as 280
Jlg/l and TCE concentrations as high as 58 Jlg/1 in the southwestern corner of the property. Ko
grourtd water impacts were detected in the ground water samples collected along the northern,
western, and eastern property boundaries.
Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment Ground Water Results
H&H's 2010 Brownfield assessment results for ground water indicate PCE was detected at
concentrations above the 2L Standard in monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, TW-1, and TW-2.
Additionally, TCE was detected at a concentration above the 2L Standard in monitoring well
MW-2. Ko VOCs were detected in MW-3, MW-4, and TMW-3. Additionally, SVOCs were not
detected in any of the samples analyzed.
Manganese was detected above its 2L Standard in monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-4, TW~
2, and TW-3. The basis for the 2L Standard is the EPA Secondary MCL for manganese.
Secondary MCLs are based on aesthetic qualities such as color, taste, odor, etc. The presence of
manganese in ground water at the site is believed to be naturally occulTing at all well locations
with the possible exception ofTW -2.
7
S;\AA,\.MMter Proj«tz\Hu:i:ul)' HlC\lllC-00 I Browu(eld Assei511ettt\Sii<::$\Plww.lls\Re-.;tal\Al3CA\Regal ABCA.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
3.0 Cleanup Goals and Objectives
The primary cleanup objective for the site in the context of a Brownfields redevelopment is to
reduce or prevent potential risk to future site workers engaged in redevelopment efforts, and
future users of the site after redevelopment. Primary coneems are related to the potential for
exposure of these populations to contaminants identified in site shallow soil, ground water,
and/or vapors.
Although no firm plans have been generated for site redevelopment, it is anticipated the site will
be redeveloped commercial or light industriaL Therefore, H&H has established cleanup
objectives based on available site information and based on conservative assumptions of future
site uses including commercial or light industrial. If residential uses were to be planned for the
site, more stringent cleanup goals will likely apply.
3.1 Soil Cleanup Goals
As previously discussed, a suspected heating oil UST was discovered during H&H's Brownfield
Phase II Site Assessment. The suspected heating oil UST should be assessed and closed in place
or removed in accordance with NC DENR UST Section requirements. The cleanup goals
pertaining to the suspected UST at the site are based on DENR, Underground Storage Tank
Section Guidelines for Site Checks, Tank Closure, and Initial Response and Abatement,
December I, 2008. The UST guidelines address UST closure, release response, and abatement
activities that would apply to UST closure at the site. The UST guidelines also establish
maximum soil contaminant concentrations (NISCCs) for different exposure pathways.
Based on available site data, H&H believes that the DENR UST Section will classify the
potential UST release, if any, as low risk. With a low risk classification of the UST release, the
remedial goals for soil are based on ingestion values for a given site user (i.e., residential or
industriaVcommercial). Since the future site use is anticipated to be commercial, the applicable
8
Hart & Hickman, PC
soil cleanup goals for potential petroleum impacted soil detected at the site are the UST Section
industrial/commercial MSCCs.
As discussed in Section 2.4.1, PCE and TCE exceed the Health-Based SRGs in soil sample SB-9
(2-4'). In addition, PCE also exceeds the USEPA Industrial RSL in SB-9 (2-4'). Based on the
anticipated future land use of commercial or light industrial, the recommended soil cleanup goals
to address the remediation of shallow PCE and TCE impacted soil in the vicinity of soil boring
SB-9 are the USEP A Industrial RSLs. This recommendation is premised on the expectation that
redevelopment at this property will be conducted tmder the NCDENR Brownfields Program.
During site redevelopment, impacted soil also may be encmmtered in other areas. Cleanup goals
for these currently unidentified impacted soil areas should be based on appropriate regulations.
3.2 Ground Water Cleanup Goals
Analytical data for ground water samples collected during the Brownfield Phase II Site
Assessment indicated the presence of PCE, TCE, and manganese in certain monitoring wells in
excess of their respective NC 2L Ground Water standards. Ground water at the site and
surrounding area is not used as a source of drinking water. In addition, due to the depth of
ground water (approximately 31 to 4 I feet bgs), it is not anticipated that ground water would be
encountered during site construction activities. As a result, gronnd water does not pose a
drinking water risk to future site occupants or a dermal contact risk to future site
construction/utility workers.
During the Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment, an evaluation of the risk of vapor intrusion for
the current and future site buildings indicated that concentrations of PCE in ground water in the
vicinity of MW-1, MW-2, and TW-2 are sufficiently elevated to pose a potential vapor intrusion
risk to future site occupants. These findings are summarized on Table 4. The evaluation utilized
the Johnson-Ettinger model, OW-ADVANCED, Version 3.1 dated February 2004. Vapor
9
Hart & Hickman, PC
intn1sion modeling indicated PCE represents a potential vapor intrusion risk of 2.1 x 10-5 to
occupants if a building were constructed above monitoring well MW-2. Alternatives to mitigate
vapor intrusion concerns above MW-2 are discussed in Section 4.0.
To assess potential vapor intrusion concerns within the site buildings situated hydraulically
upgradient of MW -2, a site-specific Acceptable Ground Water Concentration for the former
elastic yam manufacturing building was back -calculated to represent a conservative lifetime
incremental cancer risk (LICR) of 1 x 10-5• The iterative back-calculation indicated a ground
water PCE concentration of 300 Jlg/1 or lower represents an acceptable vapor intnJSion risk for
the building. Because PCE has not been detected above 300 Jlg/1 in any monitoring wells located
inside or immediately outside the site buildings, it is judged that the vapor intmsion risk is at
acceptable levels within the existing site buildings.
10
4.0 Cleanup Alternatives Analysis
4.1 Cleanup Alternatives Development
Based on the evaluation of assessment findings presented in this ABCA and our current
tmderstanding of the future site uses, H&H developed potential cleanup alternatives for the
suspected heating oil UST; shallow PCE impacted soil in the vicinity of soil boring SB-9; and
ground water in the vicinity of MW-2 impacted with PCE (in the event a building were to be
constructed above MW-2). Alternatives for managing these potential sources are discussed
below.
4.1.1 Soil Alternatives
No Action
A no-action alternative must be considered as part of the ABCA process and is a viable option
for impacted soil near soil boring SB-9 as discussed below because this area is currently capped
with asphalt and/or concrete. The no-action alternative is not judged to be a viable alternative for
the suspected heating oil UST because the nature and extent of a release, if any, is not yet !mown.
Source Removal and Off-Site Disposal
Source removal and off-site disposal of impacted shallow soils eliminates the potential for site
worker and future site user exposure to impacted soil and allows for meeting more conservative
residential soil cleanup standards. Source removal and off-site disposal may be a viable remedial
alternative for impacted shallow soil near soil boring SB-9. Due to the isolated occurrence of
PCE and TCE soil impacts, arsenic impacts within the published NC backgTotmd concentrations,
and anticipated future use of the site, somce removal and off-site disposal of impacted soil is not
judged to be the most eost-effective remedial altemative. Separately, excavation and disposal of
impacted soil from cunently unidentified sources may be necessary if such soils are encounteTed
during potential future construction activities.
11
Source removal and off-site disposal may be a viable remedial alternative for potential impacted
soil, if any, beneath the suspected heating oil UST.
Capping
Capping of contaminated soil is a viable remedial alternative that addresses exposure risks by
creating a barrier between the future site user and the contaminated soiL Capping can be used on
its own or in concert with source removal methods. Remedial capping materials can vary
depending upon site considerations, but their design can include asphaltic paving, layers of
geotextile materials, hardscape surfaces, clean subsoil fill materials with a clean soil and
vegetated layer, or buildings. The placement of a remedial cap over contaminated soil minimizes
the surface exposure to the soiL Capping is often an integral component in Brownfield remedial
actions and is considered to be part of sound remedial strategy for this site.
The ground surface in the vicinity of impacted soil boring SB-9 is currently covered with asphalt
and/or concrete. If this area is undisturbed in the redevelopment process, the asphalt and
concrete covered surfaces could be used as a cap for the subject site in lieu of excavating shallow
impacted soil.
In-Situ Remedial Methods for Soil
In-situ soil remedial methods such as soil vapor extraction or in-situ chemical oxidation methods
are not considered viable at this location due to the limited extent of impacted soiL Therefore,
in-situ soil remedial methods are not considered further in this doewnent.
4.1.2 Ground WaterNapor Intrusion Alternatives
No Action
A no-action alternative for addressing grmmd water impacts must be considered as part of the
ABCA process. While the no-action alternative is a low cost alternative, it would not allow
future construction of buildings in the vicinity of monitoring well MW -2 due to the potential
12
Hart & Hickman, PC
vapor intrusion risk posed by PCE in ground water at MW -2. Because of the potential future
redevelopment near MW -2, the no-action alternative was eliminated fi·om further consideration.
In-situ Ground Water Remedial Methods
111-situ ground water remedial methods such as ground water pump and treat, and air sparging, as
well as other remedial actions are not judged to be warranted at this site due to the limited area of
impacted ground water, the absence of grotmd water users, and lack of sensitive receptors within
1,000 feet of the site. Given these factors, the installation and operation of an active ground
water remediation system is not considered to be warranted. Therefore, in-situ ground water
remedial methods are not considered further in this document. This recommendation is premised
on the expectation that redevelopment at this property will be conducted under the NCDENR
Brownfields Program.
Vapor Intrusion
AB discussed in Section 3.2, based on vapor intrusion modeling, it is judged that the vapor
intrusion risk is at acceptable levels within the existing site buildings. Therefore, vapor intrusion
mitigation is not considered to be warranted for the existing buildings.
Should a building be constructed south of the former elastic manufacturing warehouse above
monitoring well MW-2, vapor intrusion mitigation may be required. Mechanical ventilation of
commercial buildings with outdoor air is required in compliance with the most current version of
the Mechanical Ventilation Section of the Ventilation Chapter of the N01th Carolina State
Building Code. In addition, passive ban'iers are required beneath building slabs for new
construction. These technologies are relatively inexpensive to install during building
constmction activities and can effectively mitigate vapor intrusion concerns. Vapor intrusion
mitigation can be addressed with a variety of engineered systems during construction of potential
future buildings above monitoring well MW -2. Three types of vapor barrier systems are
considered below.
13
Hart & Hickman, PC
Passive Barrier
Passive barriers are installed below a building to physically block entry of vapors. Most passive
barriers are synthetic flexible membranes placed beneath the floor slab to prevent subslab soil gas
from entering the structure through cracks or construction joints in the slab. Passive barriers may
not result in complete elimination of vapors due to the high potential for imperfections (e.g.,
penetration, tears, incomplete seals), but in instances where minimal reductions in vapor
intrusion rates are required, passive barriers may be sufficient. As noted above, passive barriers
are required to be installed during building construction as part of the State Building Code.
Furthermore, installation of passive barriers is typically specified in Brownfield agreements. The
installed cost for this type of system ranges from $0.50 to $3 per square foot of building area
depending on the type of material used for the barrier.
Passive Ventilation System
A passive ventilation system involves placing a venting layer below the floor slab to allow soil
gas to move laterally beyond the building footprint. Passive venting systems are placed below
passive barriers to be most effective. The venting layer typically consists of permeable material,
such as sands or pea gravel, with perforated collection pipes routed at the peliphery or through
the venting media to collect soil gas and convey it to an exhaust point outside the building. The
installed costs for these systems range from $1 to $4 per square foot of building area, excluding
the cost of a passive vapor barrier (see above).
Active Ventilation System
An active ventilation system ftmctions by pulling soil gases from beneath the slab and venting
them to the atmosphere at a height well above the outdoor breathing zone and away from
windows and air supply intakes. In new construction, active ventilation systems are similar to
passive venting systems except that a fan is used to draw soil gas through the subslab venting
layer prior to discharging it to the atmosphere. The inBtalled capital costs for these systems range
from $2 to $5 per square foot of building area. In addition, there are annual operation and
maintenance costs associated with mnning the blower.
14
S.\AAA-Mru;tcr l'roj~ls\l:i.iclwry H!C\lliC-001 3rownfw!d Asz.1s:;ruerJ.\S!tes\Phase lls\RcgaJ\ABCA\Regal ABCA.tfut Hart & Hickman, PC
4.2 Ground Water Encountered During Construction
Ground water is not anticipated to be encountered during constmction. However, if ground
water is encountered during constmction activities, it should be properly handled to prevent
exposure of constmction and utility workers at the site to the chlorinated solvent constituents
detected in ground water. Contaminated water from de-watering activities during construction
should be treated to meet discharge levels allowed at a POTW or NPDES permit, or must be
properly containerized and disposed of at a permitted facility.
4.3 Newly Discovered Impacted Soil
Impacted soil not associated with the current kuown extent of soil impacts may be encountered in
other areas of the site during construction activities. Impacted soil that is encoootered should be
characterized and the data compared to appropriate regulatory standards. If conective action is
judged to be necessary, the soil should be managed using ex-situ techniques such as excavation
and off-site disposal, or managed in place with capping and/or institutional controls, as
appropriate.
4.4 Institutional and Engineering Controls
If residual impacted materials are left in place, institutional controls may be required.
Institutional controls are implemented when residual contaminants in excess of regulatory
threshold eleanup values remain at a site. This may inelude a deed restriction for the property,
which would identify areas of residual contamination, and prohibit the future use of site ground
water as a source for potable or non-potable water.
15
Hart & Hickman, PC
4.5 Proposed Remedial Actions
On the basis of effectiveness, technical feasibility, and cost, and assuming potential future
commereial use of the subject site, H&H recommends a combination of remedial approaches as
described below. This recommendation is premised on the expectation that redevelopment at
this property will be conducted 1mder the NCDENR Brownfields Program.
UST and UST-Related Impacted Soil
As previously discussed, the suspected heating oil UST should be assessed and closed in place or
removed in accordance with NC DENR UST Section requirements. However, because the
suspected heating oil UST is located beneath the southwestern wall of the former machine shop
and laboratory building, we do not recommend attempting to remove the UST ·until the site
redevelopment planning is completed.
If the former machine shop and laboratory building is not demolished for redevelopment
purposes, the existing UST may be closed in place with approval of NC DENR. Soil samples
should be collected for chemical analyses during in-place closure. In addition, the installation
and sampling of a monitoring well will be required at the UST location during the in-place
closure. Because gmund water in the site vicinity is not used for drinking water purposes, we
anticipate that NC DENR will classify the site as a low risk site if impacts are detected.
In the event that the UST and impacted soil are removed, soil samples should he collected from
the sidewalls and base of the excavation for chemical analysis, and the excavation should be
backfilled with clean fill. A Limited Site Assessment (LSA) and associated monitoring well may
be required at the UST location if soil excavation does not remove all of the required soil
contamination.
16
Hart & Hickman, PC
Shallow Impacted Soil
PCE and TCE exceed NCDENR's Health-Based SRGs in soil sample SB-91ocated south of the
former elastic yarn manufacturing warehouse. Additionally, PCE also exceeds the USEPA
Industrial RSL in SB-9. This area is currently capped with asphalt and/or concrete. To minimize
worker and future site user exposure to the soil, H&H recommends avoiding redevelopment in
this area of the site and leaving the asphalt and concrete surface cap intact. Should it become
necessary to disturb soil impacts near SB-9 during site redevelopment, the impacted soils should
be managed through excavation and off-site disposal.
Site Ground Water
Due to the likelihood of DENR assigning a low risk classification for the suspected heating oil
UST at this site, H&H does not recommend remediation of contaminated ground water in
association with the suspected heating oil UST. Separately, H&H does not recommend
remediation of PCE, TCE, and manganese detected in ground water exceeding the 2L Standards
because of the limited area of impacted ground water, the absence of ground water users, and
lack of sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the site. H&H recommends that a ground water
use restriction be recorded on the property deed prohibiting ground water use for any purpose at
the property. Additionally, monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-4 should be properly
abandoned during site redevelopment.
In addition, contaminated ground water, if encountered during future construction activities, will
need to be either contained and disposed of off-site, or treated and discharged tmder local
permitting regulations to the local POTW. The appropriate approach will depend upon the
volume and degree of contamination of ground water that 'Will need to be addressed.
Based on vapor intmsion modeling, PCE represents a potential vapor intrusion risk if a building
were to be construrted south of the forrner elastic yam manufacturing warehouse near monitoring
well MW-2. To minimize the risk associated wit11 potential vapor intmsion ofVOC constituents,
17
Hart & Hickman, PC
the installation of a passive banier system beneath future buildings constructed is this area is
recommended.
4.6 Cost Estimate for Proposed Cleanup Alternative
Hart & Hickman has estimated the costs of mitigating the risks posed by site contaminants based
on the recommended cleanup alternative described in Section 4.5. This cost estimate is based on
the assumptions and criteria discussed below.
The estimated costs are presented in Table 5, and assmne the following:
• In place closure or removal and assessment of the suspected heating oil UST;
• Preparation of a Brownfields Property Application and negotiation of a Brownfields
Agreement for the site;
• Impacted soil near soil boring SB-9 will remain nndistarbed and capped. If disturbed, the
impacted soils should be managed through excavation and off-site disposal;
• No active ground water remediation, but a deed restriction will be used to prohibit the use
of gronnd water at the site for any purpose;
• Proper abandonment of the three pelTllanent on-site monitoring wells; and,
• If new buildings are to be constructed south of the former elastic yam manufacturing
•varehouse, passive vapor barrier systems vv:ill be installed and the cost accounted for in
the construction costs.
The estimated costs for the proposed cleanup activities are shown in Table 5 and include a 30%
contingency for unknown conditions that may be encountered during redevelopment activities.
As noted on Table 5, the estimated cost for the proposed cleanup activities at the subject site
ranges from approximately $26,260 to $58,500. The low range cost estimate assumes the UST is
removed from the ground and the UST has not leaked, and the high range cost estimate assumes
the UST is removed from the ground and the UST has leaked. Additionally, the high range eost
I8
Hart & Hickman, PC
estimate also assumes up to 200 tons of impacted soil will be removed from beneath the VST and
an LSA and associated monitoring well will be required.
Separately, the eost estimate addresses non-UST issues under the assumption they will be
managed under the NCDENR Brownfields Agreement.
19
5.0 Schedule
This ABCA will be stored in the City's repository until a perspective developer is located for the
property. When the property owner comes to an agreement with a prospective developer to
purchase and redevelop the site, and if that developer elects to enter the site into the NCDENR
Brownfields program, the perspective developer can submit the ABCA to NCDENR to assist in
negotiating a NC Brownfield Agreement for the property. Once the Brownfields Agreement is
fmalized, the prospective developer can then complete their redevelopment planning and design,
conduct the required corrective actions, and redevelop the property to return it to productive use.
With DENR's review and public comment periods in mind, we anticipate that site activities
could be initiated as soou as three to four mouths followiug NC Brownfields Agreement approval
by DENR. Once begun, site cleanup activities should take approximately tiu·ee to six weeks.
20
6.0 References
Gaia Tech, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), November 18, 2001.
Gaia Tech, Inc., Focused Phase II Investigation Letter of Findings, January 2, 2002.
Gaia Tech, Inc., Limited Phase II Site Investigation, June 2007.
Hart & Hickman, PC, Quality Assurance Project Plan for Brownfields Assessment, October 19,
2009.
Hart & Hickman, PC. Brownfield Phase II Site Assessment Report, June 1, 2010.
21
Table 1
Summary of Ground Water Level Data
Former Regal Manufacturing Facility
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. HIC-001
Well ID TOC Date Installed Total Depth Screen
Elevation (ft) Length (ft)
TW-1 95.42 1122110 38 10
TW-2 99.16 1/22110 45 10
TW-3 100~ 44 10
MW-1 89.00 41.5 NA
MW-2 92.0 45 NA
MW-3 94.74 3/1/07 43.5 NA
MW4 96.49 I 311/07 46 NA
Notes.
TOC"' Top of Casing Elevation
TOC elevation data based on an arbitary reference datum for TW-3 of 100ft.
ft bgs feet below ground surface
NA Not Available
Approximate
Screened
Interval
1ft bas!
28-38
35-45
34-44
NA
NA
NA
NA
Depth to
water from GW Elevation
TOC (ft) (ft)
37.70 57.72
41.37 57.79
41.18. 58.82
31.37 57.63
34.16 57.91
35.50 59.24
37.50 58.99
Table 2
Summary of Soil Analytical Results
Former Regal Manufacturing Facility
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. HIC·001
Former Air Compressor Former Machine Shop Fonner Elastic Yarn Manufacluring Warehouse Room/AutomoHvc Repair Facility
Area of Concern
Sample 10 SB-1
DatB 1!22/2010
Depth (!t) 0-2
VOCs by 8260 (mglkg)
1 ,2,4~ Trimethylbenzene <0.0048
cis~ 1 ,2-Dic:hloroelhene <0.0048
n-Butylbenzene <0.0048
n~Propyll:>enzene <0.0048
Naph1halene <0.0096
p~lsopropylloluene <0.0048
sec-Butylbenzene <0.0048
Tetrach!oroethene <0.0045
trans-1 ,2-D!ch!oroethene <0.0048
Trichloroethene <0.0048
SVOCs by 8270C (rng/kgl
Ruoranthene <0.42
Mercury by 7471A rnalkol 0.12
HSL Metals b~ 601GB (mg/kg)
~Aoumony <0.25
~senic 7.4
Beryllium 0.91
Cadmium 0.83
Chromium 32
Copper 14
Lead 18
Manganese 26
Nickel 5.0
Zinc 17
Notes:
Bold concentrations equal or exceed the IHSB SRG
Shaded values exceed the USEPA Industrial RSLs.
SB-1 Duplicate
(DUP-3)
! 1/2212010
0-2
<0.0050
<0.0050
<0.0050
<0.0050
<0.010
<0.0050
<0.0050
<0.0045
<0.0050
<0.0050
<0.42
0.13
0.25
7.2
0.89
0.88
38
14
17
26
44
14
Only detected compounds are listed. Refer to Appendix A for the full analyte list.
Laboratory analytical method sho'>vn in parentheses following parameter
SB-2 Duplicate
SB-2 (OUP-2) SB-3 88-4 SB-5
112012010 112012010 1120/?010 1/20/2010
0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.0095 <0.0097 <0.0090 <0.010 <0.0086
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
0-012 0.0064 <0.0045 0.0058 <0.0043
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.0048 <0.0049 <0.0045 <0.0051 <0.0043
<0.38 <0.38 0.55 <0.39 <0.40
0.063 0.062 0.091 0.037 0.034
0.29 0.41 0.31 0.72 0.36
5.0 4.5 5.9 3.7 4.2
0.53 0.51 0.70 2.4 0.95
<0.28 <0.28 0.50 1.9 0.71
18 17 26 63 33
9.4 9.3 11 36 18
37 46 25 35 17
80 87 80 280 100
3.6 3.5 4.2 12 7.3
38 38 43 84 26
{1i NCDENR lnactlve Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB), Health Based Soil Remediation Goals (SRG}, January, 2010, "Adapted from the 2008 USEPA Regional Screening Tables"
i'l EPA RSL =Regional Screening Level (from USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) 1or Chemical Contaminants at Supenund Sites. RSL Master Table Update (May 2010).
!3} Background metal concentrations obtained from Elements in North American Soils, 2005,
James Dragun, Ph.D. and Khaled Chekiri, Ph.D. Cadmium and manganese values are for southeastern US soils.
VOCs =volatile organic compounds; SVOCs =semi-volatile organic compounds
HSL = hazardous substance list
BOL =below laboratory practicaf quantitation limit for all anatytes; NA not analyzed; NS ~ not specified
B =Also detected in method blank.
E = Estimated concentration greater than the instrument cal1bration range. Al a 50x dilution, the compound was diluted out.
SB-7 SB-8
3/412010 31412010 3/4/2010
14-16 5-7 13-15
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0083 <0.0076 <0.010
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 <0.0050
<0.0042 <0.0038 i <0.0050
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Former Cotton Yam
Manufacturing EPA RSL Building/Off4 Sile IHSBSRG for Impacts ,,, Industrial
(mglkg) Soil(<') Background Metals
SB-9 SB-6 Concentrations iSJ
314/2010 ~/4/7010 1122/2010 (mglkg) Statewide Statewide
2-4 8-10 0-2 RaMe Averaoe
---
0.034 <0.0045 <0.0051 12 260 ----
1.5 E <0.0045 <0.0051 160 10,000 ----
0.040 <0.0045 <0.0051 NS NS ---
0.0063 <0.0045 <0.0051 260 21,000 ----
0.026 B <0.0090 <0.010 3.6 18 ----
0.023 <0.0045 <0.0051 NS NS ----
0.016 <0.0045 <0.0051 NS NS --
4.5E <0.0045 <0.0045 0.55 2.6 --
0.087 <0.0045 <0.0051 31 690 --
4.1 E <0.0045 <0.0051 2.8 14 ----
<0.44 <OAO <0.42 460 22,000 -·
0.097 <0.024 0.11 1.1 34 O.D3 -0.52: 0.121
;
<0.26 <0.24 0.37 6.3 410 --
16 5.5 8.8 4.4 2 2-18 5.8
1.6 1.6 0.65 31 2,000 0-2 0.11
1.7 1.4 0.84 14 800 1 -10 4.3
64 27 40 23,000 1,500,000 7-300 65
23 19 14 630 41,000 3-100 34
21 26 14 400 800 0-50 16
45 89 24 370 NS 8-3,394 594
8.4 5.0 5.2 310 20,000 0-150 23
28 32 24 4,700 310,000 25-124 56
Area of Concern
Sample ID
Dare
VOCs by 82608 (~g/1)
Chloroform
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
Trich!oroethene
SVOCs by 8270C (~gil)
Mercury by 7471A (pgll)
Mercury
HSL Metals by 60108 {U~II
Arsenic (unfiltered)
Arsenic (lab filtered)
Beryllium (unfiltered)
Beryllium (lab filtered)
Chromium (unfiltered)
Chromium (lab filtered)
Copper (unfittered)
Coooer ilab filtered)
Lead (unfiltered)
Lead (lab filtered)
Manganese (unfiltered)
Manganese (lab filtered)
Nickel (unfiltered)
Nickel (lab filtered)
Zinc (unfiltered)
Zinc (lab filtered)
Notes:
Table 3
Summary of Ground Water Analytical Results
Former Regal Manufacturing Facility
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. HIC-001
Former Cotton Yarn
Existing Permanent Monitoring Wells Manufacturing Building/Off-site
Impacts
MW-2
i Duplicate
MW-1 ('l MW-2 (DUP-01) MW-3 MW-4 TW-1
1/1912010 1/1912010 111912010 1/1912010: 1/19/2010 1/22/2010
<1.0 1.5 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 2.7
<1.0 42 44 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
76 600 610 <1.0 -:;1,0 7.9
<2.0 77 79 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
All BQL All BQL AIIBQL AIIBQL AIIBQL NA
<0.2 <0.2 0.29 <0.2 <0.2 NA
57 <10 <10 35 12 NA
<10 NA NA <10 <10 NA
12 <2.0 <2.0 2.4 2.0 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
91 <5.0 <5.0 7.9 21 NA
<5.0 NA NA NA <5.0 NA
220 11 <10 14 17 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA •..
190 5.1 9.3 29 24 NA
<5,0 NA NA 6 <5.0 NA
3,200 170 300 550 570 NA
:160 52 52 26 99 NA
92 <10 <10 <10 22 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
250 <30 <30 <30 46 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
(>>Arsenic, chromium, lead, and m.anganese laboratory filtered samples collected from MW-1 on March 4, 2010.
Former Elastic Yam
Manufacturing
Warehouse
TW-2 TW-3
1/22/2010 1/22/2010
<1,0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
35 <1.0
2.1 <2.0
AIIBQL AIIBQL
<0.2 <0.2
<10 16
NA <10
<2.0 3.6
NA NA
8.6 34
NA <5.0
14 26
NA NA
15 36
<5.0 <5.0
3,200 770
3,700 210
17 26
NA NA
38 93
NA NA
(ll NC DENR 2L Standard= Maximum Contaminant Concentration defined by North Carolina Administrafive Code (NCAC)
Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Section .0202 (Water Quality Standards for Class GA Groundwater)
Bold value indicates that the analyte concentration exceeds the 2L Standard,
On!y detected compounds are listed. Refer to Appendb< A for the full analyte list.
Laboratory analytical method shown in parentheses following parameter
VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semt~valat.He organic compounds
HSL :=:hazardous substance list: BQL =below laboratory practical quantitation limit for all analytes
NA = not analyzed
NC 2L Ground
Water Standard
(~giL) (2;
70
70
0.7
3 -
1
10
NS
10
1,000
15
50
100
1,000
Maximum Concentration Calculated Site Specific
Aiiowabie Concentration in Shallow Ground Water in Shallow from MW-2 Ground Water4
(pgn) (Jlgll)
Tetrachloroethene 610 NIA
Tetrachloroethene NIA 300
Notes:
Table 4
Vapor Intrusion Modeling Results
Former Regal Manufacturing Facility
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. HIC-001
Step 2 Screening
Step 1 Screening Is Ground Water
Is Constituent IHSB Acceptable Concentration
GW Concentration Above IHSB Sufficiently Volatile (Risk= 1x1 0-5)2 Acceptable GW and Toxic?1
Concentration?
(YIN) (JJgiL) (YIN)
y 29 y
y 29 y
1. Table 1 of EPA's Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Ground Water and Soils, November 2002.
2. NCDENR Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB), JndustriaVCommercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Table, updated January 25,2010.
3. Risk and hazard quotient calculated using Johnson-Ellinger Model, GW-ADV, February 2004.
Step 3 Screening'
Incremental risk Hazard quotient
from vapor intrusion from vapor intrusion Risk Exceeds 10.,or
to indoor airJ to indoor air1 Hazard Quotient
carcinogen noncarcinogen Exceeds 0.2
(unitless) (unitless) (YIN)
2.1E-05 1.4E-02 y
1.0E-05 6.8E-03 N
4. Utilizing Johnson-E!tinger Model, GW-ADV, February 2004, this value was derived by back-calculating to represent a conservative lifetime incremental cancer risks (LICRs) of 1 x 10-5. The iterative back-
calculation indicated a ground water PCE concentration of 300 ~gil or lower represents an acceptable vapor intrusion risk for the site building.
~gil= micrograms per liter; Y =Yes; N = No; NIA = Nol Applicable
S.\.1\AA-B:Ias:cr Pro).eets\fli dwry HfD.HfC.COl Bro\vntield AMessment\Siles\PJuw: ITs\Regai\ABCA \ABCA fahles
Result
Does Constituent
Pose a Potential
Vapor Intrusion Risk
at the Slte?
(YIN)
y
N
Table5
Summary of Estimated Cleanup Costs
Former Regal Manufacturing
Hickory, North Carolina
H&H Job No. HIC-001
Estimated Costs
Task Low High
Suspected Heating Oil UST Actions 1 $10,000 to $32,000
Brownfields Actions:
Brownfields Property Application and Agreement $8,000 to $10,000
Monitoring Well Abandonment $2,200 to $3,000
Total Tasks: $20,200 to $45,000
Contingency (30% ): $6,060 to $13,500
Total Estimated Cost: $26,260 to $58,500
Notes:
1. Low estrmate assumes the suspected heating all UST is removed from the ground and the
UST has not teaked. High estimate assumes the suspected heating oil UST is removed from
ground, up to 200 tons of impacted soils are excavated, and a Limited Site Assessment and
associated monitoring well are required.
S:IAAA"Mi!!SlM PJljjoo~s'.h1clo;y KIC\HIC-001 Browrtll«d M•B5&meoi\S1let\Phll!ie IISIRI!flai\ABCA'ABCA T11blas
Seplember 13, XI:»'
0
APPROXIMATE
2000
SCALE IN FEET
4000
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP
HICKORY, NC 1993
QUADRANGLE
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
TITLE
PROJECT
DATE:
SITE LOCATION MAP
FORMER REGAL MANUFACTURING
212 12TH AVENUE NE
HICKORY. NORTH CAROLINA
art & Hickman 2923 South Tr;on S<zect-Sui<e 100
O.arlone, North U!oh= 28203
A PRCF"E519JCNAL C:CRPCIOA"f>CN 7(}4..586-0007 (p) 7(}4..586-0373 (t)
04-21·1 0 REVISION NO: 0
JOB NO: HIC-001 FIGURE NO:
-----------
FORMER
TCBY
lJNDEVELOP!:D LAND
(FORME~ DUNMORE
FURNITURE)
DUKE POWE~
FACTORY BUILDING AS SHOWN ON SUBSTA:IQN
1961 SANBORN MAP
ORIGINAL HOSIERY MILU ELASTIC [:ELECTRICAL -----------·-----12thAVENUENE ---~ ;:::--=-==-~--~~~--
HYDRAUL!
LIFT
EXXON GAS STATION
A?PROXIMA TE
FORMER LOCATION
OF GASOLINE L:ST
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF~
SUSPECT!:D 1
HEATING OIL UST
EXXON AL:TO REPAIR
GARAGE
! ~ MW~---~-=~ ~
OFFICE 1Tl
11
LULU
IRCLl.UP SPACE 1"1~~;:1-----.lf!_O~ ---I ~
I' ~ ® ®
I' <") I JMW-3,
@ SS-3 • @ e ® FORMER MACHINE ® ® ! SHOP AND i @
LABORATORY FORMER ELASTIC YARN
MANUFACTURING ® e s I """ SB-2• WAREHOUSE
® ® @
FORMER YARN
MANUFACTURING ® ~ e
BUILDING 6 ss-9 ® ~ ®
LOADING
DOCK
-----
~\~-;-....-.==.. SERVCO
GAS STATION I
SERVCO MW~ I CARWASH ~
SOIL DRUMS
MEDICAL
OFFiCE
TMVV-2 •
FROM PREVIOUS i
ASSESSMENT ( TMW~ ASPHALT
11th A VENUE NE ----.re__
55-GALLON DRUM
CL-450 COOLING WATER
TREATMENT
HICKORY
HIGI-! SCHOOL
---------------------.------------------
HICKORY HIGH SCHOOL
PARKING AREA
~---------------~~~~~~~F~O~R~~;;IE~R~N~R~i---------~====================:------
CONDITIONING ROOM FORMER NR r----_-_-_-_::-_-l ___ -~ ··.·.. ·.
COMPRESSOR ROOM &
AUTO REPAIR FACILITY
' ' I ' ,
I I ;'I
M::DICAL
OF."ICE BUILDING YOUSS!:rr 242
RESTAURANT
ASPHALT PARKING AREA , I 1 • FOR FORMER REGAL .,
/
1
1
.: MANUFACTURING •
1
!j
RESIDENCE
MEDICAL
OFFIC::
0
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOU~IDARY
FENCE LINE
_@ OIL STAINS
QJ PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
CD POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
® FLOOR CRA!N CONNECTED TO
AIR WASH SYSTEM
~ EXISTING MONITORING WELL
LOCATION
• APPROXIMATE 2002 TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
.. APRPOXIMATE 2007 SOIL
BORINGfTEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
2010 SOIL BORING LOCATION
2010 SOIL BORINGfTEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
®
AC~ROXIMA~£
80 150
SCALE IN FE:::T
SITE PLAN AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS MAP
FORMeR R:::GAL MANUFACTURING
212 12th AVENUE NE
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA
O.AE: ~-21-1 0 REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO: HIC-001 FIGURE: 2
~ 1 ~
! §
l
~
)::; ~ ;,;
0 ;; ::;:
~ I 't '< g
~ I
"' I ~ ~ I
a I
s i I ~ g
~-I
~ I ~ ~
j I
' " :>! ' i e I "' & g I
:> ~ I
j
.'!i I :> ~ 0 <t
I
~ " 1.
1 :.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ h. tij
{!:
Cl)
\::;
~
I
I
I
I
' ' I
'
FORMER
TCBY
UNDEVELOPED LAND
(FORMER DUNMORE
FURNITURC:)
--------·-----------------------~ ------· ----------~-------===_ ~th A VENUE;:;E----------___.-
~ ----. --1 ---' _!~1yY-1:,J.. =-
I ----------~=~~-~--~----------~ ~
' EXXON GAS STATION
·1--:. r-'-:::~=~---' C. l ----m i ~
SB-101-A~ ; : 'j ----~(I;-;;~ -: ~
i i ! ~ss-s;rw-3 s ® ® I: "' :
: ,' i Q ' ' ; : : ~('~ _o '
EXXON AUTO REPAIR { SS-4fT'N-2 ~ ® ~ ! r
1
GARAGE ~ ® @ @ --· :
SERVCO
GAS STAT!ON
r-Jss-6/ ASB-9 ~ ~ I ~~~--~ ""' ® II :--
TMW-4 -, L_l J · 1 f ~~2 ~ ~1;]~ ~-...:. ___ _J \'
SERVCO MW-6,. r -i MEDICAL :5 ~ , \
CAR WASH y I OFFICE
TMW-~ .__ ___ .&.TMW-2 ---___ 1_1l __ h_A_V.-=E~N.'::.U.':.E~N'5_E L __ ;: __ j . ..,
------~------
-------
-----------------
HICKORY
HIG~ SCHOOL
:-~----------------------------
HICKORY HIGH SCHOOL
PARKING AREA
----------_-;::-1 , --'·, ',
-"
"· ... ,
I
I :ASPHALT PARKING ARC:A ; ~
r
r r !
MECJICAL
OFFICE BUILDING YOUSSE;:F 242
RESTAURANT 1 . FOR FORMER R::GAL r , 'j
I '
; MANUFACTURING :
~I ,,
r
L_~,
11 r .
.: I
:I
'I ,j .
b-1 -~
RESIDENCE
MEDICAL
OFFICE
LEGEND
------PROPERTY BOUNDARY
.@
m
0
®
~
...
•
-
.:.~ --
~
0
FENCE LINE
OIL STAINS
PAD-MOUNTeD TRANSFORMER
POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
FLOOR DRAIN CONNECTED TO
AIR WASH SYSTEM
APPROXIMATE EXISTING
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
APPROXIMATE 2002 TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
APRPOXIMATE 2007 SOIL
BORINGfTEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
APPROXIMATE 2010 SOIL
BORINGfTEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
RELATIVE GROUND WATER
ELEVATION (FT)
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
APPROXIMATE GROUND WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
NOTE: GROUND WATER
ELEVATION DATA BASED ON AN
ARBITRARY REFERENCE DATUM
A??RCXI ~1A ~E
80
S(:ALE IN FE::T
160
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP
FORMER REGAL MANUFACTURING
212 12th AVENUE NE
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 4-21-10 REVISION NO 0
JOB NO: HIC 001 FIGURE: 3
f iii ~ E §
.:2
:12 ~ i "' g
~ ~
2: ~ ~ 0 0:
~
~ "'
-------
FORME~
TCBY
--------------
/------
UNDEVELOPED LAND
(FORMER DUNMORE
FURNITURE)
' !
HICKORY
HIGH SCHOOL
12th A VENUE NE __________ ....----
---------------------------~----------~-----------,1 ~~--=~ I SB-3 I I ·=------------
! I 0-2' : f MW~ ~ ~~ -----A~R~s=~N~~c~,4~)----~~~5.~9~! I /r----------~---------------------'\
•XXON GAS STATION'' , CJ ' _jj ---OJ i
IL ""',: ! ---
-J-'"" I S6-1Q1A I "' SB-3 .
J f : • :
I SB-2 ~ ~-----------2~------~,-0--2~.~
--- ----I
f ,.
c~T'
--
@ ® ®
S8-5fT\N-3 ® $ @
@ e ®
@ @ ®
SB-7 @ @ ® ~ SB-4fTW-2
® @ ~
r ARScNIC(4) I 5.0 : ~
f ·~ . s~
EXXON AUTO REPAIR 1 -1
GARAGE I I
SB-6/ ... ieSB-8 @ ~ ®
-,_nY-1 SB-9 1
TMW~ \\ sst \-j @/w@ 1 _____ _j,
4J '
<' ,.____
i w ~ I
\
----------
HICKORY HIGH SCHOOL
PARKING AREA
,-------------l Mw-fi-r---~ I
1---------____:::::__.___ ____ ,1---::-~--:~~-:--1. MW~ i \ ~ ~~~B1J[l!----N-~-EFD-FI-I~-~-L -~,-\ -------~---====A=R=S=E=NJI:~:~-l1c=====~~==~-~-!=1
I \ 'MW-1 1
(/) I SB-1 I (::) r
I ~ I ARScNIC(4)
I
I I
I
!
.ATMW-2 TMW-,... L--___j --S--8---9-------------,
________ 1_1_th_A_Vc=-~':....:.V~UE NE ---------------,--,--,--:-=---+1_2=---4::-' ~l--:-;;-s-;;-;;1o::-:· ~~
... _________ _
MEDICAL
OFi=ICE BUILDING
---------TETRACHLOROETHENE I 4.5 i <0.0045 f---___.
r TRICHLORORTHENE I 4.1 I <0.0045 I
ARSEN>C(') l 16 I 5.5 t ---~ :::----~.,. ',
I . ~
f ' I
I ASPHALT PARKING AREA ;:
YOUSSEFF 242
RESTAURANT
1 • FOR FORMER REGAL if
I
I . MANUFACTURING '
J ,
• I f
L~-~. }
I
L __ -d
MEDICAL
OFFICE
LEGE1'1D
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FENCE LINE
f;} OIL ST..:.\INS
W PAD-MOUNTEQ TRANSFORMER
CD POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORME~
~ FLOOR DRAIN CONNECTED TO
AIR WASH SYSTEM
~ EXISTING MONITORING WE.L
LOCATION
A APPROXIMATE 2002 TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
A APRPOXiMATE 2007 SOIL
BORINGfTEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
2010 SOIL BORiNG LOCATION
2010 SOIL BORINGfTEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
NOTES:
1. ONLY CONSTITUENTS DETECTeD
ABOVE SCREeNING LEVELS ARE
SHOWN.
2. BOLD NUMBER INDICAT~S
CONSTITUENT EXCEEDS THE
HEALTH BASED
REiv'1EOIATION GOAL .
3. ALL RESULTS ARE IN mglkg.
4. NC BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION RANGE FOR
ARSENIC IS 2-18 mglkg (DRAGUN
2005)
@
APPROXH,IATE
o eo 16v ~=-~~=== SCALE. IN F::::.1
SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAP
FORtvl:::R REGAL MANUFACTURING
212 12th AVENUE NE
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA
OA.TE: 4 21 10 R~ISION NO. 0
JOB NO: HIC-00 i FIGURE: 4
--
-
'
1-!J < h. tJj
C::: t-: (I)
'b " c\J I
---------1
I
EXXON GAS STATION
FOR1'viER
TC8Y
uNDEVELOPED LAND
(FORMER DUNMORE
FURNITURE)
IW-2
MW-4 S~.MPL,=. DATE. 1/19/10
SA.'v1PL:: ~ATE: 1/~9/iO i I TETKACHLOROETHENE {PCc) j
MANGANESE I 99 ' i "-~ANGANESE I
r-------\ rth----l----
1, :::::::::==-~ L A VENUENr= -------------==.--=------------/ -I ' \ ~
I I MW~ I .==:::\
./ [ m -. 1:
_'IL~~~"--. __ J __ ------------I
35 1
3.7oo I
HICK CRY
HIGH SCHOO!..
-----------------------------------------------------
HICKORY HIGH SCHOOL
PA~KING A~EA !--= 1 ---·-I!
r-1
1
_____
5
_
8
_·
9
____ __,11\ SB-1 0:• SS.-3 ' ~ ® s®,--J--1~-~ ____:C")::.!~C--:-1 T------:,::=;----~
SAMFLE DATe: ~15107 e. "" "'"'W • 1
I . ~I .... I E!RACHLOROETHENE (PCE) i 120 \\ ~ .! ' SAI'APLE DATE: ~119110 I I T.'<.ICHLORO!:TH:NE I 5.9 ""' ® ~ MW-3 r-~----'-'---IW--1-1 ---~"' ~ S3·2· I JBJ ~~~ i ___ M~~-A_N~S.-~------'[_2_10___,1 = ® -= lSI ""
1 SAMPLS OAT::: 1:22110 / ~" 1 \\~ ~SB--4iTW-2 _-:: '
1 T::TRACHLO:IROETH::N:: (PCEl 1 1 "..._ 1
'-----------'--'----'-___:_7..;..;.9:....___; "-..._L_sB-6/ SB-9 .So-8 j: I
.' ~...:;..~~ I MW-2
' MW-4 --sa-~._-I
----------'-------,· r IN--2 w~· ~' I I--::==-:-:::-:-S.,-A-::c"'-=-'P-=-LE==-DA-:-::T:-E-::c:-,-1=-/1::-:9::-:-/1_0.,-----l ' I -I T::Ti<ACHLOROETHENE (PCE) i 600
TMW-4 ~ Ti'l.ICHLOROETHENE I 77
SAAIPLE DATE: 517/02 O~~~~~~H MW-6~. t' ~B MANGANESE I 52
1
1 TETRACHLOROETHENE (PCE)
11
1.
5
6
7
00 .
. TRICHLOROETHENE I _-\.L----~--------------,
r ""'-'-I MW-1 TMW-1., 'MW-1
...._____ ~TMW-2 a\ /\\ -SAMPLe DATE: 1/19/10
I ~ l ~ TCTRACHLOROETHENE (PCE) -~-11h ~--~~~
.-------------: __________ , __ ~~ ---~~------___ t __ A~~~E~N~U~E~~N~~~c--~~~---J\t-----~-·~:Z---=-=-=-=--~=--=~---~~~·-----==="-~l~AN~G~A~N~E=S=E ======I=-~36~0~
~--------~~ \~--------=-==~-----~--------
~ @ "" ~
e ® e. ..,.
""
~ ® ®
76
TMW-2
~--------T_Mw_-_1 ________ ~1 1
1--------------~~' lr---------------~ SAMPLE DATE: 5/V02 SAMPLE DATE: 3/6J02
BENZ::NE I 89 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE i
SAMPLE DATE: 512/02 MW-6 r~-=-=-~
1 I :f
TcTRACrlLOROETHENE (PC:O) j 160
TR1CHLOROETHENE I 4.2 1.7
XYLENES I 1,450 I f TETRACHLOROETHENE (PC;;:.) I
ETRACHLOROE i HENc:. ("'C.=::) I 260 I I TR!CHLOROETHEN:: I
MEDICAL
Oi=FICE BUILDING YOUSSC:FF 242
RESTAURANT
504
14.6 lr: .'1
AS?HAL T PARKING AR~A ./
I ' FOR i=ORM;:R R::OGA:. I i ~ MANUFACTURING •
1
I; J l ___ l
r
I
L--;
,J
r
.I
•'v10:!JICAL
OFFICE
LFGcND
---- ---PROPERTY BOUNDA~Y
0
FeNCE LINE
@ OILSTAINS
IT] PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
CD POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORiv1ER
® FLOOR DRAIN CONN::CTcD TO
AIR WASH S':'STEM
~ EXISTING MONITORING Wf;:LL
LOCATION
A. APPROXIMATe 2002 TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
.t. APRPOXIMATE 2007 SOIL
80 Rl N G/T EMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
• APPROXIMATE 2010 SOIL BORIN G
LOCATION
~ APPROXIMATE 2010 SOIL
BORING/TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
NOTES:
1. ONLY COI'\STITUENTS
DETECTED ABOVE THE 2L
GROUND WATER
STANDARDS ARE SHOWN.
2. ALL RcSUL TS ARE IN ugll.
:..?~ROXIMAT(
80 160
sc.;;_~ IN fE~
GROUNDWAT~R ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAP
FORM::R REGAL MANUFACTURING
212 12th AVENUE NE
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 4-21-10 R~ISION NO. 0
JOB NO: HIC-IJOI FIGURE: 5
Appendix A
Historical GaiaTcch Assessment Documents
GaiaTechlNC.
Environmental Planning
for Business
January 2, 2002
Mr. Mitchell R. Setzer
Treasurer and Secretary
WorldTex Incorporated
915 Tate Blvd. SE ·
Suite 106
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
3343 Peachtree Rd, N.E.
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
404.812.0001
404.812.1992 Fax
RE: Focussed Phase II Investigation Letter of Findings: Elastic Corporation of America -
Columbiana, AL, Elastic Corporation of America -Lexington, SC, and Regal
Manufacturing, Hickory, NC Facility
Dear Mr. Setzer:
GaiaTech has completed the scope of work outlined in our November 28, 2001 proposal letter for the
following facilities:
Elastic Corporation of America
102 Industrial Road & 455 Highway 70 West
Columbiana, Alabama
Elastic Corporation of America
130 Zenker Road
Lexington, South Carolina
Regal Manufacturing
212 12" Avenue NE
Hickory, North Carolina
This letter provides preliminary details of the findings of the Focussed Phase II Investigations
authorized by WorldTex on December 6, 2001
Field sampling activities were conducted at each of the facilities on December 5 and 6, 2001. Initially,
soil borings were created in the areas of concern (AOC) identified in the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs) previously performed by GaiaTech. Subsurface soil and groundwater sampling
was facilitated by the use of truck-mounted Geoprobe® drill rigs at each of the facilities. These soil
borings were intended to provide additional assessment of subsurface conditions and potential impact by
contaminants of concern (COC), Subsequent to completion of the borings, select borings were
e Chicago, Atlanta, ProYiden~c, Irving {Ot'dlas) & Manchester (UK I
"'
!i
I
"' I
Mr. Mitchell R. Setzer
January 2, 2002
Page 2 of6
WorldTex, Inc.
Co/umoiana, AL; Lexington, SC; Hickory, NC
converted to temporary groundwater sampling points. Groundwater was sampled from many of these
locations and prepared for ·laboratory analyses. Upon completion of soil and groundwater sampling
activities, temporary well casings were removed and the boreholes were backfilled in an appropriate
manner.
In summary, no evidence of subsurface impact was identified at the Lexington, South Carolina or
Hickory, North Carolina locations and no further investigation or action is warranted at these facilities.
Trace concentrations of total lead and vinyl chloride were found slightly exceeding the applicable
standards groundwater samples collected at the Columbiana, Alabama location. It may be appropriate
for legal counsel to advise on potential release reporting obligations to the State that these detections
may require. No other evidence of impact was identified in soil or groundwater exceeding applicable
standards. The detected total lead concentrations are most likely attributable to natural background
levels rather than evidence of a release. Although the vinyl chloride detection is isolated to a single
sample location, further investigation may be required by Alabama to confirm !be concentration and
demonstrate that it does not represent a likely potential to adversely effect human health and/or the
environment. GaiaTech has been requested to conduct additional sampling at the Columbiana facility
and will issue a supplemental report and recommendations by January 18, 2002.
Columbiana, Alabama
The following AOCs identified by GaiaTech during the ESA were addressed as part of the subsurface
sampling scope of work:
• Adjacent facility to the north of the 102 Industrial Road facility (north parcel) has been involved in
remedial action regulated by Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM).
• Trench drains of unknown construction and condition exist at the 455 Highway 70 West (south
parcel) location.
• Drilled holes in the floor near the dye rnL,ing station in the building located on the south parcel.
Soil Analytical Results
Four soil borings were installed on the south parcel (SB-01 through SB-04). These borings extended to
approximately 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Four soil borings were installed on the north parcel
(SB-05 through SB-08). These borings ranged from approximately 5 to 15 feet bgs, several of whlch
were terminated on top of bedrock. Select soil samples were analyzed for volatile ·organic compounds
(VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), 8 RCRA metals, and polynuclear aromatic
ydroearbons (PAHs). Analyses of soil samples obtained from these borings do not indicate significant
exceedance of ADEM or United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) screening standards.
Several VOCs and SVOCs were noted above laboratory detection limits in the results, but all are below
the EPA Region ill risk-based concentrations (RBCs) and Region IX preliminary remediation goals
(PROs) used by ADEM to determine the necessity of additional assessment. PAH presence was below
laboratory detection limits.
I
I
I
I
I
II
• II
Mr. Mitchell R. Setzer
January 2, 2002
Page 3 of6
WorldTex, inc.
Columbiana, AL; Lexington. SC; Hickory, NC
A minor presence of mercury was noted at very low levels in 2 soil samples and arsenic was noted in
several soil samples at low concentrations. The mercury presence is below the likely applicable
screening standards. The range of naturally occurring arsenic in soils Is 0.1 to 40 mg/kg. Chromium
presence was noted in several soil samples at values exceeding the ADEM initial screening levels.
These chromium values are considered to be low and very near the lower end of the range for naturally
occurring chromium (5 to 3,000 mglkg). Although both of these elements ·slightly exceed the ADBM
screening srandarda, it is not believed that there Is a reportiJ,lg obligation in place for these results. In
past conversations with ADEI'vi, they indicated that they prefer that all results be reported, although
there is no specific regulation requiring this in non-underground storage tank (UST} situations.
Groundwater
During advancement of the soil borings, groundwater was encountered at approximately 5 feet bgs on
the south parcel and at approximately 13 feet bgs (near top of bedrock) on the north parcel. Consistent
refusal on hard rock prior to .encountering groundwater at the north parcel limited the number of
groundwater samples that could be collected to four. Based upon field observations of the topography
and borings, shallow groundwater is expected to flow toward the south on the north parcel and toward
the west on the south parcel.
Metals analyses of the groundwater indicates fairly low concentrations of several merals present across
the 4 temporary wells (3 on south parcel and 1 on north parcel} sampled. Of these, oniy lead was found
at levels above current ADEM primary drinking water standarda. Total lead concentrations ranging
from 16 micrograms per liter (ug/L) to 33 ug/L were detected in the four groundwater sampling points.
Although these concentrations slightly exceed the ADEM primary drinking water standard of 1.5 ug!L,
it is not uncorrunon for similar levels to be detected from background lead concentrations in soils.
Vinyl chloride was detected at a concentration of 4 ug/L, which slightly exceeds the ADEM primary
drinking water limit of 2 ug/L. This sample was collected from TW-03, located along the west wall of
the main building on the south parceL No other VOCs were detected above the ADEM standards.
Based on past conversations and experience with ADEM, it is believed that they will most likely
consider any presence of a regulated compound exceeding drinking water standards in waters of the
State io be a release and therefore reportable to ADEM. It may be appropriate for legal counsel to
advise on potential release reporting obligations for these detections to the State.
Mr. Mitchell R. Setzer
January 2, 2002
Page 4 of6
WoridTex, Inc.
Columbiana, AL; Lexington, SC; Hickory, NC
ADEM currently only has published groundwater quality standards established for primary drinking
water. Non-potable groundwater sources are evaluated on a case-by-case basis using risk-based
methodologies to assess the potential for impacting sensitive receptors such as surface water or drinking
water supply wells. According to City Water Department, all residents and business are cOJmecled to
the City drinking water supply system. Furthermore, as there are no readily available records of any
drinking or other supply wells in the inuuediate area of the property, it is likely that less restrictive site
specific groundwater standards above the maximum detected concentrations can be applied for the
subject site. It is, however, likely that ADEM will request additional investigation to evaluate potential
source areas and extent of the compounds as well as confirm that grouodwater is not used locally.
GaiaTech has been requested to conduct additional groundwater sampling in this area to confirm the
previous vinyl chloride detection as well as evaluate tl1e potential source area and extent of
contamination, if present. .
Lexington, South Carolina
The following AOCs identified by GaiaTech during the ESA were addressed as part of the subsurface
sampling scope of work:
• Process wastewater from site operations is reported to have been previously discharged through
an on-site septic system. No documentation is available characterizing this wastewater prior to
discharge.
A total of 7 soil borings were installed and select soil samples from 4 of the 7 borings were analyzed by
a laboratory for VOCs, PAHs, and 8 RCRA metals plus zinc. Laboratory analyses indicates no VOCs
or PAHs present above laboratory detection limits. Based upon these results, nothing further is required
at lhls time. The analyses for metals indicate low metals presence, with a!! values falling within the
range of naturally-occurring concentrations. Based upon these results, nothing further is recommended
at this time.
Soil borings were advanced to a depth of approximately 16 feet below ground surface with no
appreciable groundwater being encountered during boring. No temporary wells were installed and no
groundwater samples were obtained. Based upon the soil results, nothing further is recommended at this
time.
Mr. Mitchell R. Setzer
January 2, 2002
Page 5 of 6
Hickory, North Carolina
WorldTex, Inc.
Columbiana, AL; Lexington, SC; Hickory, NC
The following AOCs identified by GaiaTech during the ESA were addressed as part of the subsurface
sampling scope of work:
• A fanner gasoline underground storage tank (UST) is reported to have been on-site for an
unknown number of years and is reported to have been removed in the late 1980s. No closure
information is available.
A total of 6 soil borings were installed and selec."! soil samples from 4 of the 6 borings were analyzed by
a laboratory for VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbom-gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), and lead.
Analyses indicate no VOCs and no TPH-GRO to be present above laboratory detection limits. The
analyses for lead indicate a limited presence of lead in the soil sampled. The EPA Engineering Forum
paper describing naturally-occurring inorganics lists average lead presence in soil to be 2 to 200 mg!kg.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) regulatory levels
are an order of magnitude higher (8 to 10 times higher) than the results of this soil sampling and
therefore not considered as indicative of impact and no further investigation would appear to be
warranted.
Groundwater
Soil borings were created to a depth of approximately 16 feet below ground surface with no appreciable
groundwater being encountered during boring. No temporary wells were installed and no groundwater
samples were obtained. Based opon these results, nothing further is recommended at this time.
Please contact me at 404.812.0001, extension 244 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
GaiaTech Incorporated
e:~
Manager, Hydrogeology
Alabama Registration No.389
Norfu Carolina Registration No. 1388
N
,·.
·. '"· .,
30 I
. . · .. . : .. ; . '
' • '• .... .I' "' '.. . ·. ~ .. ~ -~ .· ..
----~~-~· ... 1·--:-• ·.·. ' . ·, ~--..... ,t .
-~ .· · .... .
:~. a:• . .' ~~-~~-~.
• . ..
: ·, .
. ..
. . .
:,12TH AVENUE N~
...
.. '.
·.· .·
'· ..
... . ·.
LEGEND
l!lli!IBUILDINGS
QCONCRETE
C]ASPHALT
[SJ CANOPY/RAIN SHELTER
r:z:d FORMER ON SITE UST PIT
I:::::::J GRASS/VEGETATED AREAS
GaiaTech1Nc.
FEET
-·' · .
. '· ..
60 I
•. '-
·.· . ·.
• • • !c'
.. ... -·
• .. .. · .
• •
....,__FENCE
SB~B SOIL BORING LOCAllON
I.IW-$-OFFSI1E MONITORING WELL
FIGURE 2
BORING LOCA1\0N MAP
Elwii0111Mftt111 Plwmlllafllr~ REGAL MANUFACTURING
---lt.f.·Su'"330·-.G!·JO.ll< 212 12TH AVENUE NE ~~ r;x <o<.81:1.t902 HICKORY, CATAWBA COUN1Y, NORTH CAROLNA
llf,IWt ~ ~ 'FI~ / ;z. ~4?'2 1"=30' .t!l:fi: WORLDTEX H!CKORY.OWG No. 2
Client #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
Gaia Tech
Page:
Date:
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Log #:
Page 1 of 3
12/13/2001
LSB573-1
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
Parameter
J?ercent Solid
~~Wff~t-unds
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitr.i le
Benzene
, Bromobenzane
Bromochloromethane
Bromodiahloromethane
Brotnofo:rm
Bromorne thane
n-Butylbmizene
sec-Butylhenzene
tert-Butylben~ene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenz:ene
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2-Chlorotol'uene
4-Chl.orotoluene
Dibromochloromethane
~~ 2-Dibronlo-3 -Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1, 2~Dichl.orobenzene
Results
79
llDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
llDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
fJDL
fJDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
EDL
BDL
Analytical Report: BB-01,12-16'
Date Sampled: 12/0S/2001
Time Sampled: 10:29
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Units Method
-SM2540H
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
rug/kg (di<) 5035/8260
rug/kg (d\•) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
WB/kg (dW) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mgrAg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/B2fiO
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
Reportabla Extr. Anly.
Limit Data Date Analyst
0 .. 10
0.070
0. 035
0.035
0.0028
0.0070
0.0070
0.0028
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.070
0. 0070
0.0070
0.0070
0,070
0,0070
0,0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0028
0.0070
0,0028
0.0070
0.0070
~2/07 ~2/07 SP
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06 BL
),2/08 8[,
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/0S BL
12/08 BI,
12/08 BL
12/08 BJ,
12/08 EL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
J.2/08 BL
J.:?./00 BL
1.2/08 BL
12/08 BL
J.2/0B BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 EL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/0B BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
US Eio.system.s 3231. UW 7th Av~n\t<'! Boca Raton, FL 33411 {8SS) 802·522?
Client #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
Gaia Tech
Page:
Date:
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Log #:
Page 2 of 3
12/13/2001
L58573-1
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
Pa:rameter
iQ~~~Jr~~nds
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 Dichlorodifluoromethane
l,~-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroe~hene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans .. ll2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
l 1 3-Dichloropropane
2r2-Dichloropropane
1~1-Dichloroprope11e
cis-1,3-DichlorOpropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzane
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Hexanone
Isopropyl Benzene
4-Isopropyl Toluene
MEK (3 -Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
MIBK "(4 -Methyl-2_.Pentanone)
~ITBE
Naphthalene
n-Propylben'2::ene
Styrene
ltl 1 1,2~Tetrachloroathane
111,2, 2-'l'etrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Total Xylenes
~,2,3-Trichlordbenzene
~,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
1,11 2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluo:romethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
~~2~4-Trimethylbenzene
Analytical Report: SB-01,12-16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 10:29
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Reportable Extr, Anly.
Results units Method Limit Datm DatG Analyst
(continued)
BDL mg/kg (dw) SOlS/8260
J3DL mg/kg [dw) 5035/8360
Bm~ mg/kg (d•,;) 5035/8260
·BDL mg/kg (d•,;) 503.5/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
J3DL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035'/8260
BDL UB/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL nB/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg [dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (d>,l) 5035/B260
BDL mg/kg (dot) 5035/8J60
BDL rng/kg (dw) 5035/8260·
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDJ, mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/6260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
llDL mg/kg (d") 5035/0260
BDL mg/kg (d•") 5035/8260
EDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/6260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
BDL rng/kg (dw) 5035/8260
llDL mgfkg (dw) 503 5/8260
BDL rngfkg (dw) 5035/8260
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0028
0,0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0028
0.0028
0.0070
0.0070
0.070
0.0070
0.0070
0.070
0.014
0.070
0.070
0.0056
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0,0014
0,0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0070
0.0028
0.0070
12/06
12/06
1.2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
:1.2/06
12/06
1.2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l3/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
14/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
l-2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12}08 BL
12}08 BL
1.2/08 HL
12/08 BL
12/08 ru,
13/08 , BL
12jos BL
12/08 BL
l2j08 BL
12/08 BL
12/09 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/0B BL
12/0B BL
l2/09 BL
l2/09 BL
l2/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 J3L
12/08 BT,
l.2/08 J3L
12/08 BL
12/0B BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
l.2/08_ BL
l2/09 BL
l-2/08 BL
12/08 l3L
12/08 BL
12/oa Br~
1.2/08 J3L
12/08 J3L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
[
[
[
r
Cli~t #: COR-99-011201
Address: GaiaTech
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Atlanta, G~ 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
Page: Page 3 of 3
Date: 12/13/2001
Log #: LSB573-1
Analytical Report: SB-01,12-16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 10:29
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Reportable Extr, Anly.
l?aramete.r ResuJ.ts Units Method Limit Date Data Analyst
¥"~'fil!gf.fRI];];Nfl8unds
l 1 3r5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyi Chloride
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Recoveries~
Dibromofluorometha!l.e
Toluene-D9
4-Bromofluorobenzene
(continued J
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.~
121
103
93.0
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwJ 5035/8260
5035/8260
~ 5035/8260
% 5035/8260
% 5035/8260
0.0070
0.014
0.0056
52~155
46~154
36-l38
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/08
12/08
1?./08
12/08
22/0B
12/08
12/08
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
Lead 38 mg/kg (dwJ 3050/6010 L3 12/10 12/10 SB
~~~T:f{tii<Wil~s
GaSoline Range Organics
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Redoveries:
ara,a-Tri~luorotoluer~
BDL
1.0
63.0
ugfkg (d") 5030/801.5
5030/8015
5030/8015
630
36-133
~2/12
~2/12
12/12
12/12 GG
12/12 GG
1?./12 GG
All ~lys~s we;o;e perla:x:ll'tad usiug F.PA, 1\SM-1~ NIOSB, USGS, or Standard Met;hodn and certified to m~et. N&LP..C rmqu.i.t:2;:rtE:nts,
Flags: llDL or U··bclow reporting limit; DL-dilnt~d out.; rL-meets internal lab lintits; MT-tr ... l.Lri:x interference; NA-not appL
Flllgu.: CFR-Pb/Cu .:>;uJ,et .ND•i"}(fii det-ect. !JtL estimated! ; NFr..-no free liquids; dtl··d:ty ~t; W\~-'..ret •.tt; C (II) -see ai:i:ached, usa CQde
Irt.DEP Flags: J{j)~esl:imated J.:uurr. fail 2:no knmm \:C req;, l;QC fail tR or 'tR!?Dt oi;mat.ri-,.;:: .int. S:imprcper fld. protocol
FLDRI' Flags: L-exceedn calibration; Q-holding !!ime exceeded; '!'-value <: MDL; V-presem: in blank
FLDEP Flagsr Y-improper pre9e~raeion; a-colonies exc~ed range; !-result between MDL and ~L
QAPf-980126
SUR IA~Jf ~GL12,S5109,P.8i,04B
~~ CERT# ~Q03100l
ELI?J\'1'# 13801,
VA CER'l':f-00395
DOHllo E66240
ADEM LD# 40S.Sn'
TN CSR'l'1f 0:2985
ffi\ CERTif: 917
NC CERTif 444
Mit CE:R'l'tf M"YL443
C'I' CERTj J?lj-1)},32-
USDA Soll Bermit# S-3Sl40
R~~bmitted,
Monaliaa Beasley
Project Manager
us Biosystams 3231 NW 7th Avenue Boca Raton, F~ 3341l [phone]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
'
Client #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
GaiaTech
3343 Peachtree Road,
suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hiclcroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
.l?aramat.ar Results
NE
J?age:
Date:
Log #:
Page 1 of 1
12/13/2001
L58573-2
Analytical Report: SB~02,l2-l6'
12/05/2001
11:28
12/06/2001
Client
Unita
Pate Sampled:
Time Sampled:
.Date Received:
Collected By:
Reportabls Extr, Anly,
Method Limit Date Date Analyst
All analyse~l were perfo-rmed using EE.A, ASTM, ~UOSH, USGS, or StandArd Methods and certified t.o meet NELAC r:eqUiremeut.s.
Flag:ru BDL. or U-below: .reporting lhtit; DL-di1uted. out.; l:L~meato int::at:nal la.b limits; f>.fi-!T11'1trix. interf-erence; NA-oo!~ appl.
F.lags: CFR-Ph/<:u. rula; ND-non detect !RL estimated}; NFL·· no free liquids; du-d:ry wt; 1m-wet:. ~11:.; C(ii:)-see attaehed USE code
FLOEP Fl1:191'" J(/H -estimated ~;su1:r. fail. 2 :no known QC -req. 3:QC: fall tR or %RPD; 4 :mat.rix int. s~i.,..prqleor fld. protocol
FLDE~ Flage1 L-exceads calibration; Q-holding ti~ exceedeU; r-value ~ MOL: V-pr~o~nt: in blank
F'UJRP Flags~ Y-improper preservation; n-co1ardea exceed ranga; IT~I'!Sl.\lt be:tW<!en IDL and PQL
QM>if 9SOJ.26
BUD DOHi 8€122,861G9,S86043
SC CSRTi 96031001
EI.d!MI!' 1381ll
VA CEP.:tlf 00395
OOH# !:86240
ADEM Illl!: 40850
'I'M CEitri¥ 02985
GA CERT;l 917
CT C8RT~ PH-0~22
USDA SOil Permit# S~J5240
Respectfully submitted,
Monali.sa Beasley
Project Man.;tger
Client #:
Address:
COR-99·011201
GaiaTech
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
!?age:
Date:
Log #:
Page 1 of 3
12/D/2001
L58573-3
Analytical Report: SB-0 3, 12 c. 16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 12:20
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Repo~tab1e Extr. An1y.
Parameter Results Units Method Limit Date· Date Analyst
~i!!f~~-~~lWM~IIt~
Percent Solid
M§[..W~my:W1\f&!~lltt>und"
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Brornobenz eue
Bramochlorcmathane
Bromodich1oromethane
Bromoform
Bromornethane
n-Butylben7.ene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon Disulfide
carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2 -Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
'1,2~Dichlorobenzene
66
BDL
BDL
BDil
BDI,
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL'
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDT"'
BDIJ
BDL
BDL
BDL
SI'!2540B
rng/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mgjkg (d••l 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/-kg {dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d\<) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/k:g {dVI) 5035/8260
mg/k:g (dvt) 5035/8260
mg/kg {dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d;t) 5035/8260
m!J/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
m!J/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
m!J/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dvt) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg {dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d") 5035/8260
0.10
0.083
o. 042
0.04:?.
0.0033
0.0083
0.0083
0.0033
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
o:os3
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0033
0.0093
o.oop
0.0083
0,0083
12/07 12/07 EP
12/06
12/06
12/06
12./05
12/06
12/06
12/06
D/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
,12/06
12/06
J.2/05
n/o6
l2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l<l/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l.2/0S
U/08
12/08
1.2/08
12/0B
12/0fl
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/0S
12/08
12/0B
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
l2/08
12/08
12/08
12/08
l.2/08
12/08
12/08
BL
SL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BJ,
US Biosystems 3231 l~ 7th Avenua aoca Raton, FL 3343~ (833)8S2-5227
client #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
GaiaTech
Page:
Date:
3343 Peachtree Road, N.E
Suite 330
Log #:
Page 2 of 3
12/3.3/2001
L58573-3
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.H: 6330-420-0
!"a:rameter
~~~~unds
1!3-Dichlorobenzene
~~4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
~1 1.-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichlcroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
~.3-Dtchloropropane
2j2-Dichloropropane
1.,1-Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1, 3-Dichlo:roprop_ene
Ethylbenzene
He:::tachlorobutadiE'-..ne
2-Hexanane
Isopropyl Benzene
4-Iaopropyl Toluene
~IEK ( 2 -llutanone)
Methylene Chloride
MIBK ( 4-~lethyl-2-Pentanone)
MTBE
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
styrene
1.1 1,1,2-Tetiachloroethane
1,1,2~2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloxoethene
Toluene
TotalXylenes
~~2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 1 2,4-Trichloroben.zene
1 1 ~,1.-Trichloroethane
1 1 L1 2-Trichlbroethane
Trichloroethene
Ti-ichlorofluoromethane
~.2,3-Trichlo:rop:ropane
~,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Results
(continued)
BDL
BDL
EDL
BDL
BDL
BDJ..~
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
EllL
EDL
BDI,
BDL
BDI,
BDJJ
.llDL
BDL
EDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
EDL
BDL
llDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
EDL
BDL
EDL
BDL
BDL
Analytical Report: SB-03,12-16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 12:20
Data Received; 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Units Method
mg/kg {dw) 5035/B260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
rr,g/l<g (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d'n) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d~r) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d>t) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d'#) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dvr) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mgfkg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw} 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw} 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw} 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg {d•t) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw] 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw] 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
_, mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw} 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mgfkg (dw) 5035/8260
Reportable Extr.
Limit; Date
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0,0083
0.0083
0,0063
0.0033
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0033
0.0033
0.0093
0,0083
0. 083
0. 0083
0.0083
0.083
0.0~7
0.083
0.083
0,0067
0.0083
0,0083
0,0083
0,0017
0.0093
0.0093
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0.0083
0. 0033
0.0083
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
:1.2/06
22/06
22/06
12/06
~2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
~2/0G
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
:12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
1'2/06
12/06
Anly.
Date At>alyst
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
1.2/08 BL
12/08 BI,
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 llL
12/08 BL
:1.2/08 BL
12/08 EL
12/08 BL
1.2/0!l BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
~2/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
U/08 BL
1.2/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 I'lL
12/08 I'lL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 I'lL
12/08 BL
12/08 BL
12/08 IlL
12/08 BL
us Biosystems 323l ffW 7th Avenue Boca Raton, li'L! 334.31 [phone]
I
I
t
I
Client #::
Address:
COR-99-011201
GaiaTech
3343 Peachtree Road, I-rE
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy; NC
Proj .#: 6330-420-0
Page;
Date:
Log #:
Page 3 of 3
12/13/2001
L58573-3
Analytical Report: SB-03,12-16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 12:20
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Reportable m~tr. Anly.
Parameter Results Units Method Limit Date Data Analyst
\\fci'm'l'l!t~"~~""'"'~-·"'"" unds ·c.~ ••• -~Wf.~"~~~~}j~:;K~~t'J
1,3,5-T:rimet.hy:tbenze:ne
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Recoveries:
Dibromofluoramethane
Toluene-·DB
4-Bromofluorobenzene
&aJl~Iir~;m~g•~
Le.ad
m~mtt~~s
Gasoline Range Organics
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Recoveries;
a,a1 a-Tri£1uorotoluene
I continued)
BDL.
BDL
BDL
l.l
lll
97,0
80.0
58
BDL
l,O
78.0
mg/kg (dw)
mg/kg (d<l)
mg/kg {dw)
9,·
"' %
mg/kg (dw)
ug/kg (dw)
%
5035/B260 0,0083 12/0f 12/08
5035/8260 0.017 12/06 12/0B
5035/8260 0.0067 12/06 12/0B
5035/8260 12/ ()6 12/08
5035/8260 52-155 12/06 12/08
5035/8260 46-154 12/06 12/08
5035/8260 36-138 :12/()6 12/08
3050/6010 1,5 12/10 12/10
5030/8015 760 12n2 l2/12
5030/8015 :1,2/12 12/12
5030/8015 36-:1,33 12/12 l2/12
All. analyses were p~rlormed using EPA~ Jo...S'l"H, NIOSH, usas, or Standal;'d Methods and certiEiad to !l'!l?.et NBLAC raqu.i:cau;;onts.
ll~lags: BDI. or. U-ba1ow reporting l:L."'lit; DL-diluted out; IL-meets internal lab limits; MT~matrix interference; NA-not ap.pL ·
Plugs: CFR.-Pb/CU rule; ND-non detact (RL e.stlruatedi; twt.~no f:t.:eP ligui6s; dw-dty wt:; w11~wet. wt; CHtl •iS'$!; attnched USR code
~p Flag~: Jt~}~eatimnted l:Qurr, fail 2>no knotnl Q~ req, 3:QC fail t~ or %RPD; 4:matxix int. 5:improper £ld. protocol
FLDBP .Plags: L-a..-..:m~eds calibration; Q-holdipg time exceeded; T-valuo < MOL; V-present in blank
i"LOBP !?lags: Y-1mprope:c preservqtlon; B-colonies. rncc<;ed rang-e; :r-result between MDL and J?QL
QAP# 9\t0126
,gae DOH! 9Gl~2,851g9,E66049
sc C:::!R"l'l 9603101ll
ELPAT:!.! lJ80:1.
VA CERT/t OOJ95
DOli# E8G240
,;4..D£M I!Jij. 4{!$50
TM CERTif 019135
GA CSRT# 91?
NC C£R"r; 444
HA CER'l'!f M-FL449
CT CER'l'~ PH-0122
USDA Soil Pel·m.n-tt-S-35240
Respe:tfut}\:J'~mitted,
~!on[~
Project ~ianager
US lliosystems .323~ NW 7th Av~nua Scca ·RatonT FL 334-J~ {il8S) 862 .. 5227
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
SB
GG
GG
GG
Client #:
Address:
COR~99~0~1201
GaiaTech
Page:
Date:
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Leg Jl::
Page 1 of 3
12/13/2001
L58573-4
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
J?ax-amater
Percent Solid
w!li~Wl11'c.@ilfGunds
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethan~
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomathane
n-But:ylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
t.ert-Butyl.benzene
Carbon Disulfide
carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
Dibromochloromethane
1.,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane-
1/2-Dibromoethane
t>ibromomCthane
1,2-DichlorobenZene
Results
85
!!DL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDI,
BDL
BDL
BDI1
BDL
BDI.
BDL
BDL
DDI.
BDL
BDL
BDL
EDL
BDI.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDI.
Analytical Report: SB-04, 1.2-16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 13:01
Date Received: 1.2/06/2001.
Collected By: Client
units
SM2S40B
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d11) 5035/8260
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg {dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 503S/B260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg {dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg {dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw} 503S/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d>!) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dOl) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dOl) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
Reportable Extr. Anly.
I.imit Data Date Analyst
0.10
0.071
0.035
0. 035
0.0028
o.oo11
0. 0071
0.0028
o.oon
o.oon
0.0071
0. 0071
0.0071
0,071
0. 0071
0.0071.
0. 0071.
0.07l.
o.oon
0.0071
0.007].
0. 0071
0.0028
0.0071.
0.0028
0.0071.
0. 0071
1.2/07 12/07 EP
1.2 I oo
1.2/06
J.2/06
J.2/06
1.7./06
1.2/06
1.2/06
1.2/06
1.2/06
l.2/06
J.2/ 06
J.2/0G
12/06
l.2/06
J.2/06
1.2/06
:l.2/ 06
1.2/06
1.2/06
12/06
12/0G
njo6
1.2/06
1.2/06
~2/0G
l2/0G
12/10 BL
l2/l0 BL
1.2/lO BL
~2/10 BI,
1.2/1.0 BL
12/1.0 BL
1.2/lO BL
l.2/1.0 BL
J.2/1.0 BL
J.2/l0 BL
1.2/10 BL
1.2/l.O BL
1.2/10 BL
12/1.0 BL
1.2/1.0 BL
1.2/10 BL
1.2/1.0 l3L
1.2/1.0 BL
J.2/1.0 BI,
12/1.0 BL
1.2/1.0 BL
1.2/lO BL
1.2/1.0 BL
1.2/lO BL
1.2/10 BL
1.2 /J.O BL
trS Biosyatems 32>1 NW 7th Avenue Boca Rnton1 FL 33431 {SS8)862-5l27
Client #: COR-99-011201
Address: GaiaTech
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj .#: 6330-420-0
Page: Page 2 of 3
Date: 12/l3/2001
Log #: L58573-4
Analytical Report: SB-04,12-16'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 13:01
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Reportable Extr. Anly.
Parameter Results Units Method Limit Date Date Analyst
~~J;Jtt¥£l{~~iW.~J.i~~§£ift.lWf.~und~
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 1 2-Dichloroethane
11 1-Dichloroethene
cis-1 1 2-Dichloroethene
trans-J:-, 2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1 1 1-Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dlchloropropene
trans ·-11 3 -Di chloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Hexanone
Isopropyl Benzene
4-Isopropyl Toluene
MEK(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
MIBK(4-Methyl-2-Pent.anone)
MTBE
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,11 2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2~Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
~,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
l 1 2 1 4-Trichlorobenzene
1,l,l-Trichloroethane
l,l,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2 1 3-Trichloropropane
1,2;4-Trimethylbenzene
(continued)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
mg/kg (d>l) ·5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d'd) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d>l} 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg'/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8360
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.007l
0. 0071
0. 0071
0.0028
0 '0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0028
0.0028
0. 0071
0.0071
0.071
0.0071
0.0071
0.071
O.Ol4
0.071
0.071
0.0056
0. 0071
G. 0071
0.0071
0.0014
0. 0071
0. 0071
0. 0071
0. 0071
0. 0071
0.0071
0' 0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0028
0. 0071
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
U/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/96
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
US Biosystema 3231 NN 7th Avenue Boca Raton, E'L 33-131 (888) 86'2-.S:227
J.2 I 10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/lO
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
.12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
12/10
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BI,
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
C~ient #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
Gaia Tech
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 5330·420-0
Page:
Date:
Log#:
Page 3 of 3
12/13/2001
L58573-4
Analytical Report: SB-04,12-16'
Date Samp~ed: 12/05/2001
Time Samp~ed: 13:01
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Reportab~e Extr. Anly.
Parameter Results t!nita · Method Limit Date lJate 1Ula1yst
ifi.~Jil:i.®:;,~-m..W~,=::;~,;~~~YJ~unds ,.<P.l'f..-§lfu<."<>~'li!iE'*.!\>1!""'
1, 3 1 5-Trirnethyiben~ene
Vinyl Acetate
v:i.nyl Chloride:
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Recoveries:
Dibromofluoromethane
Toluene-De
4-Bromofluorobenzene
~~~~~~1-
Lead
~if'J.ii~ljJfj~s
Gaaa1ine Range Organics
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Recovaries:
ara,a-Trifluorotoluene
(continued)
BDL mg/kg
BDL mg/kg
BDL mg/kg
:1.2
81.0 %
54 .o %
44.0 %
59 mg/kg
BDL ug/kg
LO
70.0 %
(dw) 5035/8260 0.0071 U/06 12/10
(dw) 5035/8260 0~014 l2/06 12/J.O
(dw) 5035/8260 0.0055 12/06 12/J.O
5035/8260 12/06 12/10
5035/9260 52-155 12/06 12/10
5035/8260 46-154 12/06 12/10
5035/B260 36-13!3 J.2/06 J.2/10
(dw) 3050/6010 1.2 12/10 l2/10
(dw) 5030/8015 590 12/12 12/12
5030/8015 12/12 12/12
5030/8015 36-133 12/12 12/12
All analyst!s wen~ per.foa:me.d using EPA. JtSTit, NlOSH, 1:1SGS, or Standard Methods and t:a::r:t;ified to mflt>l:: NEJAC requirements.
Flags: BDL or li-bdow reporting lindt; DL~dillll:ed outr Ii.>~~t~Hets int.erne.l lab limits< ML-matri:z int.e1:.Eerence; NA~not a!lpL
Flag-a; CfR;-l'b/CU :rule; ND-non det~>ct.{Rt. estimated}; .Nli'L~na free liquids; dw~dry 11t1 ww-~'ff!t wt; C{-/f}-aee attached trSB code
FLDEP Flags: J{~{-estimated ltsurr. fail z,no known 0C r~q. J,QC fpil ~R or %RPD; 4:matriA int. S;imp~oper rld. protocol
FLOE-I? Fla9-5: r ... exceed.s calibration; Q-holding time exceeded; '!'~value < YJJJ,; 11-present; in blank
l!'LOEP Fla.ga: ¥-improper p:ceservar:ir.u:q 2-r:olonil'W' e.Kceed nnge; !-result betv1een }!!)It and FQit
QAtMI' 91!0126
BUB DOHJI-861.2:2, 9610;J,Ell504fl
SC C£RT1/ 960:310 01
ELPA'I'it lJ801
VA etm'I'i# Oil39S
DOH# EB6240
ADEM lDjf 4085!}
TN CBRTH" 02SI1.1S
GA. CI!!RTll-917
NC CERT# 4•Jil.
'-i'< Cl!Jfi;T# M-FL449
CT CERTff PM-0122
USDi\ Soil Pe:rmit:-:1 S-35240
Re~mitt.ed,
Monalisa Beasley
l?roj ect Manu.ger
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BI.,
SB
GG
GG
GG
Client #:
Address:
COR-99-0U201
Gaia Tech
l'ag_e:
Date:
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Log #:
Page 1 of 3
12/D/2001
L58573-5
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
i\t~@!~,g~Jlt<i'$Mfi.'r~unds
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Brornocbloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
n-Butylbenzene
sec~autylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrqchloride
chlorobenzene
Chlo:coethane
2-C~oroethylvinyl Ether
Chl-oroform
Chloromethane
2-Chlorotoluene
4..;Chlorotaluene
Dibromochloramethane
J., 2-Dibromo~~ 3 -Chl o:ropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
.nibromomet:hane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ResultS
75
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BfJL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
sm,
Analytical Report: SB-05,8 12'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Tims Sampled: 14:06
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Clia.nt
Un:tts Method
SM2540B
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/6260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw] 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8250
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/$260
mg/kg (d>t) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
rng/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg [d'l) 5035/8260
mg/ks (d<v) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8250
rug/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
Reportable Ex.tr ~ ~..nly.
Limit Date-:Date Analyst
0.10
0.058
0.029
0.029
0.0023
Q. 0058
0.0058
0.0023
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.058
0,0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.058
0.0058
0,0058
0.0058
0.0058
0. 0023
0.0058
0.0023
0.0058
0.0058
12/07 12/07 EP
l2/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
l2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
J.2/06
12/06
J.2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
12/06
12/0G
12/06
J.2/06
12/06
12/06
l2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
:1.2/10 BL
12/10 BL
:1.2/10 EL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
l2/10 BL
J.<l/J.O BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 EL
l2/l0 BL
12/10 BI,
12/10 BL
l2/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/lO BL
12/Io sr,
12/10 BL
12/lO BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
,us Biosystams 3231 NW 7th Avenue Boca Raton, ~L 13431 {888)661-522?
Client #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
Gaia Tech
Page:
Date:
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Log il:
Page 2 of 3
12/13/2001
L58573-5
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 5330-420-0
Parameter
:z~~if'i\i""'-~fii'F'i?-!\.unds -~;;!;.Jl. .. ;g-£1:.,;, *~~!R!!ll!'~
1,3-D1chlorobenzene
1.,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromet:hane
1 1 1-Dichlaroethane
1.~2-Dichloroethane
1 1 1-Dichloroethene
cis-11 2-Dichloroethene
trans-11 2-Dichloroethene
1,2-DichloroproRane
1~3-Dichloropropane
2 1 2-Dichlor.opr.epane
1,1-Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-DicPJoroprppene
Ethylbenzen.e
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Eexanone
.Isopropyl Benzene
4-Isopropyl TolUene
MEIK(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
MIBK(4-Methy1-2-PentaP~ne)
MTBE
Naphthalene
n-Propylhenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, J, r 2 ( 2-'l'etraahloroethaue
Tetrachloroethene
'l'oluene
Total Xyl.enes
1, 2 1 3 -Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorohenzene
:l, ~~1-Trichloroet:han.e
111,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroet:hene
Trichloxofluorornethane
1r21 3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Results
(continued)
BDi_.
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDrJ
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDir
BDL
BDL
BDL
Analytical Report: SB-05,8-12'
Date S~~led: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 14:06
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected By: Client
Reportable Extr. An1y.
units Method Limit Pate Date Analyst
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/ksr (dVI) 50JS/B2Go
tng/kg (dwl 5035/8260
mg/ksr (dwl 5035/8260
mgr~g (dwl so3s/82Go
mg/kg (d~<) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dv) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/9260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
tng/kg {dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d>t) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8250
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d>I) 5035/8260
mg/kg (d>I) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dVI) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0,0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0023
0.0058
0.0058
0. 0058
0.0023
0.0023
0.0058
0.0050
0.058
0,0058
0.0058
0.058
0 .Ol2
0.058
0.059
0,0046
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0,0012
0.0058
0.0056
0. 0058
0,0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0,0023
0.0058
U/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
1.2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/66
12/06
12/06
:L2/ 06
12!o6
12/06
1.2/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/06
12/10 BL·
12/:LO BL
12/10 BL
12/10 DL
12/10 BL.
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/:LO BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/H) BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 l3L
12/lO !lL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
1:1./10 DL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 l3L
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
12/lO BL
12/10 BL
12/10 BL
US Siosy~tems 3231 NW 7th Avenue Boca Raton, FL 334Jl {SSa}B62·5227
I
I
Client #:
Address:
COR-99-011201
Gaia Tech
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Sample Description:
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330 420-0
Page:
Date:
Log #:
Page 3 of 3
12/13/2001
L58573-5
Analytical Report: SB-05,8-12'
Date Sampled: 12/05/2001
Time Sampled: 14:06
Date Received: 12/06/2001
Collected Ey: Client
:Re~ortable Extr. Anly.
Parameter Results TJnits Method Limit Date Data Analyst
I
I
~iiifa•U~~~~unds
l 1 3,5~Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Recoveriest
(contin\!ed)
EDL
BDL
BDI,
0. 87
mg/kg (d") 5035/8260 0.0058 12/06 12/10
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260 0.012 12/06 12/10
mg/kg (dw) 5035/8260 0.0046 12/06 12/10
5035/8260 12/06 12/10
I Dibromofluoromethane
. Toluene-DB
4-Bromofluorobenzene
133
90.0
70.0
'< 5035/8260
%; 5035/8260.
% 5035/8260
52-155 12/06 12/lO
46-154 12/06 12/J.O
36-~38 12/06 12/.lO
I
I
I
),RJI~3~i&t1:~~1fJ;lJ
Lead
~-~~~~~s Gasoline Range organics
Dilution Factor
Surrogate Racove~ias:
&1 a 1 a-Trifluorotoluene
JJ.
BDL
J..O
70,0
mg/kg (dw)
ug/kg (dw)
%;
3050/6010 ~.3 12/10 12/10
5030/80J.5 670 12/12 12/12
5030/8015 12/12 12/12
5030/8015 36-133 12/12 12/l2
AJ.l analy;s;es 111e:re. _(Je.rfm:tll!iil ueing EPJ\, :A.STi'>!, N!O.SH, OSG!J, or Standar-d Het:hods and oe:r:t.i.fied to meet NBLJ.C reqni:remrutt.s.
FlagE: BDL or U-below reporting limit; DL-d:ilu.ted out; t!>-mt:!ets inte:...-nal lAb limit:;; MI-·matrix i:nl:e:tferl!mea; NA ... not apt:>L
!:-'lags; CFR-Pb}Cu rule; ND-rnn detect.{?.!. estimated} 1 llTFL-na free liqui~; dw-dr'y wt1 wt~~~·let ~It; C(fH -see attached U"~ code
Ff,TJY:P Flaga: J(ff)-estimated :t..nurr. fail :a:no known QC req:. 3:QC t:ail %R or -tRPD; 4Hnatrix int, 5dmprcpo:c fld. p1:ot.ocol
FLDEP Flags: L~exceeds caJ_ib~Hon; Q-h01ding time Erxcaeded; T·-•.ralue .:: f·IDL; V-p:r:es-ent in bla~
pr,DEP flagsl Y-improper preservation; a-colonies exceed rangt:; I-re:mlt bal:ucmt t-fDI, and PQL
Ql\1?#' !Hl0:126
SUfi OO!Tit ll5l22,Ul0"9,E!Hia4ll'
SC CER't'lt 9603:1001
ELPAT# 136iU
VA CBR'l'~ OD39S
OOHff-E&6::i!40
io..DEM ID!l 41J!l50
W CER't# 02.985
CH\ Ct:R'l'h 91'1
NC CER.Tft 4 ,a
?-t~ C'BP.T!J; M-!?T,449
C'I' CERT!i PH-{1122
USDA Boll Permit# S-JS240
US niosystems 323~ l:TW 7th Avenue Eoca Ra.Cont FL 3343-1 {SBa} 862-5227
BL
BL
EL
BL
BL
BL
BL
SB
GG
GG
GG
Client If:
Address:
COR-99-011201
Gaia Tech
3343 Peachtree Road,
Suite 330
Atlanta, GA 30326
Attention: Rob Deal
Page:
Date:
NE Log #:
Page 1 of 1
12/13/200:1
L58573-6
Sample Description: Analytical Report: SB-06,12 16'
:12/05/2001
14:41
12/06hOOl
Client
Hickroy, NC
Proj.#: 6330-420-0
Parameter Results Units
Date Sampled:
Time. Sampled:
Date Received:
Collected By:
Reportable Extr.. Anly.
Method Limit Date Date Ana~yst
All analyses wexe p.eorf-ormed using EPA1 AS'l't.f, IITGSJJ, ust.!S, or Standard Nethods ar.d cexti£-ied to meet YELAC requi:cemen1~s.
J!lao_:r-3;-BDL or U-helow repart;.ing limit; OL-dilm:ed out; !L-m<~oeta interllil.l lab limits; Ml-matri:t interferenc!!); UA-not appL
l"'lags_: CFR-Pb/Cu rule; N'D-non detect f.RL estimated/; NFL-no f:tee liqui&; dw-<i...ry Wt'.f \IW-<tiWtt: wt; Ct/fo/ -!O'ee attached USS oode
FLDEP Flags: J(ff'}-esLimated J.:surr. i'ail 2:no known C.C reg. J:QC fa:ll tR or :::RPD; of:matrix int, S::lmproper fld. pn::otocol
FLDEP .flags: L-excee.ds calibration; QMboldi.ng tih:l.e e~~a~edad; T~valuu < MDL; '!-present in bl<mk
FLDEP Flags; Y-J.J'flpl.:OJ?el; p:rcservation; 13-~olonies axceed :::'angeo l•tn.t;ult. between MDL ~nd :t'QL
QAP'lt 980125
SUE DOH~ 96l2l~B5109,E$6048
SC CERTff S60J100l
ELPAT# 13801
VA CBRT!J. COl$5
OOHit E!l62':l0
ADEt-1 ID# 40!150
Tlif CERT# -1)2905
GA CEitr# 911
NC L"'Ee:r'!f 444
MA CEaT# M-FL449
Cl' CERTit PU-01J!2
USDA Soil Pa~itft 8-JS64~
Respectfully submitted1
Monalisa Beasley
Project Manager
U$ Biosystams 3231 Wr'1 7th AV'enue Boca Raton, Ft. 33431 {llSlJ)862~52~7
_8
_9
#
3231 N.W. 7th Avenue
Boca Raton, Fl. 33431
88&-862-LABS
561-447-7373
888-456-4846 Fax
561447-6136 Fax
c.o.c. # 24643
' ' l c~ r" {~ l
'\_ ....... J
Prt:pan:J by:
,\drienn~
CO:\FllJE:\Tl.\L
LI\JJTED Pl:HSE [I SITE L'\"VESTIGATlOi\i
FOinHm RE(;\L :\[A:\ITICITfU:\G
112 ll"' AVE.'\l E :"'E
H!CKORY, :','QRTll C.\iWU:\.\
PREP.\RED FoR
WORLDTEX, Nc.
HICKORY, :\ORTH CIROLl~i,\
PREP.IR!CD lh
G\LI TECH l'iCORPO!UTED
ATLA:\T.-1, GEORGI.-\
JlSE 2007
T.:-.::hnk:al R~\· ie',\ ,mJ
C!J!lLHffC'l!C;:." by :
])a\-;: I3ucha!t~r. P, E.
EnvironmcrHai Comuluuu En\ tronm: . .:m:JI _\l:w•tg_~,.Cr Atlanu
G.ILITE! H PlWJEt"I i'\o. 6330-.J-20-1
G \U f£{"11 hi 'U!H'P){ \!'Ell
'L\RLE OF COYfE:-.iTS
EXECL'TJ'iE Sl':H:\1ARY ................................................................................. i
l.O l:\TRODlTTlO::-i .................................................................................. 1
l.l
L2
' ' l .. J'
Sire Desc;-iptinn anti Backgrmmtl
Scope of Work .. .. ... .. . .. ................ ..
Gt:olngy and llyLlrogeolngy ...... , .......... . ,.,, ................... 3
2.0 SO It S.\:\IPLI:\G .................................................................................. ..1
2. l ;vtethudmogy.................... ................ ............ .................. . -+
1 1 Snil Regulmory Standlrrcls .... .......... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ................. 5
Snil Sampling Rc:sulrs
Surnnmry.
.... 5
. ......................... 5
3.0 GROl·";D\V.-\TER SA:\IPLI'-;G ................................................................ 6
3.1 .\ktllndolog:....................... .. .... 6
J.~ Grounch,atcr Regulatory Srandartls .... ............ ........... . ...... 6
3.3 Ground\vatcr Sarnpling Resulrs .............. .. 7
3 .+ Summnr) . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ..... . .. .. . ............ 7
..1.0 CO.\'C'Ll.'SIO:\S .................................................................................... 8
5.0 LI:'I-11TATIO:\S ..................................................................................... 9
Tables
Table I
Tahk 2
Figure I
Figur~ 1
Appemlix A
\ppcndix B
Soil Analy1icsl Results
Gmundwarer Analytical Results
Site l•lcation Map (Tnpographicl
Site Plan \Vith Boring Ltlc;uions
BL'~ring Logs
Laborarnrv Anal;:tical Rcpnrts
l"nrm:..:r H._•_g:li
Ht<:k.:r: .. ::-..-r~h C,1c '!Hu
EXEClTIVE St~niARY
WoriJtex, fnc. (Wnrldrexl reraiuetl Gaia Tech lncmpmmcu to wnduct a Limited Pha;c [[ Sire
lm estigariun of the Former Regal i\lanufacturing \Rcgall t~cility locatcll at 212 12"' ,-\venue N£ in
Hidnry, Carawha Coumy, Nl)tth CuolimL The purpose of rilis invcstigaliun \\as two-fold. The
first goal \vas m ~Yaluuu: whether suhsurfac:; Ct)ntaminariou existed on :sile. Tht~ secnnJ goat. if
comaminadnn \-Vas identiticd on ')ire, \-\":ls to evaluate wherher rhe -;he is the source nf conmminams
or rhe source ls off ;5ite and ha5 mignueti onto the -;itc.
The sire consists of rllrce comigunus parcels totahng 2.03 acres of lanti lo...:~ned bet\\-een 1.2rh
.\venue NE and 11'' Avenue NE. These parcels make up the formc'r manufacturing area of the
site. In udtlirion ro these parcels, a 0.61·acre parking area is locatell across i 1'1' Avenue NEro rbe
sourh of rhe nwnufacinring ponion of the si[~. ,-\pproximatdy 60ti1 oC rhe area of the
manut;lcturing portion of the site is m:cupiell by buildings. The remainder consists of ,tsphalt and
cnncrete~paved parking and loading areas antJ a ~ntul! grQssy [rtlCl along the nonhern side of rhe
building. The parking area across ll'" Avenue NEts fenced and pa1eL1.
Tht:~ sirt:: is curremly vacant antl unused. From as early as 19:56. the sire upt:rareU as n textile
manufacruring facility. R;:gaL the mosr recem occupam of the site, manufactured elastic yarn on
site fmm rhe 1960s unnl 1999 when manufacturing operations ceaseJ.
The surrounding pmperties consisted of primarily commercial and industrial properties from as
early as the 1950s.
Gaia Tech conducted an fmpact He view of the sire in February 2007 that evalumetl two previous
Gaia Tech reporrs (200 l Phase I and 200:: Phase II) and an EnviroAssessments. PLLC (EAt report
!2007 Phase 1), as well as regulatory documentation pertaining to several leakitrg umkrgrouml
storage tank facilities in the vicinity of the site. This review itlentitied tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
and trichloroerhylene (!'CE) on an adjacent pmpeny.
On Fehruary 28 aml :-.larc!J 5-6, 2007, Gaia Tech installed and sampled a wtal of 6 soil horings
ISB-1 through S/3-6) and four monil<lrin(! \\elb 1:-.IW-I thmugh l\IW-4) at the site. Three soil
samples and four groundwater samples were analyzed for volatile organic compmmtls (VOCs).
Two soil samples were analyzed for Tom! Petroleum Hyllrocarbnns (TPHJ. In allllition, a sample
of oil from the hydraulic lift on sire v.as anal;. zed fnr rhe presence of polychlorinated biphenyls
r PCBs1
GaiaTedr returned w rhe sire ,m April 5, ~007 to install three soil borings (SB·S through SB·ltll
along the 11estern propcrt) bountlary. Three soil samplt::; and three gmunllwan:r samples were
wllccteJ tt>r analysis of VOC's.
BaseJ on snit screening ami sampling rL';,uli-;~ un cvidt·nce of impnu tn site snih was. idcmifi.;LI
during the insrnllatinn nt Sllil borings.
.-\nalyrical rt'sulrs imlkmed rhm PCE concenrrariuns in MW I, tvJW-~. ami SB-9 ;:mu TCE
eoncemrations ini'vlW-:! and SB-9 exceed tire Class GA standard, the mosr stringem groundwater
standard in Nonh Carolina. Accnrdmg to the regularor~ standard, the discovery of tl1ese
conccntnir.ivns mu.sL be rernrtcd to the North Carolina Deparunent of Enviromnenral m1U ~atural
Resources' i:-lCDE01R \)Inactive Sire's Group within 90 days nf discovery.
ll
l.O r:o-;TRODCCTIO'<
Wtlrh.ltex, Inc. tW!lr!dte~) n:tJined GaiaTech !flcorp<ltltcd t<J conduct a Limite!l Phase il Sire
lnvl~:Higutlon Gfthe F\?l'tner Regal :Vlanufaeruring {Regal) tadlity Iucmet..l at 212 l2111 Aventte NE in
Hick or;,. Catawba Coum'. Nortll Carolina. The purpose of this investigation was ro C\'alumc
wherher subsurt"nce impacts cxjst on :;ire.
L 1 Site Desc!"iption and Background
TlH: site consists ot' rl1ree contiguous parccis rmaling 2.03 acres of land locaretl bcrwcen
i2'" Avenue NE anrl t 1'1' Avenue NE. Thesc parcels make up rt1e manufacmring area of the
site. ln audition ro thcsc parcds, a 0. 61 ·acre parking area is located across ll '" Avenue N f:
to the sornh of the manufaclUring portion of the sire. The northernmost parcel ot the
manufacturing portion of rhe silt: is occupied by a large manufacturing building includlug
an office area and t\vo >:;maller manufacmring buildings alo11g the wesH~rn property
houndary. The :muthern two parcels are occupied by a loading dock associated with rhe
nmmrfacruring building and two smaller builclings. Approximately 60:f of tht: area of the
manufacturing portion of tile site is occupied by buildings. The remainder consists of
asphalt and concret<:>paved parking and loatling areas and a small grassy mrct along the
norrtrern side of the building.
The sire is currently vacant and unused. From as early as 1956, the sire operatecl '" a
textile manufacturing facility. Hisroricaloccupants include Reaco Hosiery Mills, Madaris
Hosierv Mil!s. the EhLstic corporation. and Realspan Corrorarion. In the 1960s. an
amomotive repair business operated in one of the smaller buicdings locatecl to the south of
the manufacmring huilding. Regal, the most recent occupant ot' the site, manufacmred
elastic yam on sire from the 1960s until 1999 when manufacturing openltions on site
ceased.
Accnrtli ng to representatives of W or!utex, Regal utilize some hazardous chemicals in its
maimcnance proccsse~, De[ails regarding hi~torical openuion:-;, prior tt) Regal's. are not
known. As a result, there is a potential for impacts tn the site resulting l'rom historical on-
site o,xrations.
The surrounding rroperries consisted of prinmriJy commercial anti industrial propert!c~
from as early as tile 1950s. Two gasoline stations and a sdf-sen·e car wash have bnrtlerecl
the manufacturing ptxtinn of lhe site to the west since at Ieasr 1961. ·rhe manufacturing
ponitmof the site was hnrckretl u1 the north, across 12'" A venue NE, h) a gasoline station,
dwelling, antl textile manufacturing facilit}. These properties are cuneml' occupicu b) a
church, TCI3Y Fnn:c:n Yogurt store. and a vacant pa\'ed parking lt1t (-.vhkh was pre\·iously
occupied h: Dun.\-! ore Furniture J. The site has been bordereu to the east, across 3"' Street.
hy Hickor.;. High Schth)l since ur ka~r 1973. The tnanufacLuring pnrtiml of the site is
G \l ,-ru·a l\<"JJ!l.I'IJit' 1 r,n
bonlt:ret! to the south across II'" .', venuo: NE by the parkwg lm as,;rJCiateu 1virh RegaL a
restaumm. ,mu cmmnercial retail facilities. These p!'llJKrties were hisrorically re,;i,kmial
and n;mil.
GaiaTed1 comlucred a Phase 1 Environmemal Sire Assessmem (ESA) of the sire in
Nnvember 2001 that identified potential impacts ro the sire from the former underground
storl_ge tank { t;ST), hytlranlk litL hiswriclll textile manufacturing operations, and potential
impacts t'ronr leaking UST and lmnnlous waste generming fnciliries in the vicinity ol· the
sire.
Suh;;equent to GaiaTecll's Phase 1 ES.',, a Focused Pll,tse II hJYesrigarion was conducted b}
GaiaTedt in January 2UO.: to evaluate potentia! impacls in tile vicinity of tile former UST.
No evillenee of impact to soil was idcmiiiecL However, no groundwater sampk:s were
obraineu,
An lmpacl Review of rile sire was conducted by GaiaTeeh in February ::'.007 GaiaTeclt
evaluareu rile previous reports, as well as regulatory documents related to nearby UST
facilities including Viewmonr Ex,on and Servco, ench locmeu adjaeenl ro the west ,,f the
sire. This review com:lmled tllat t!lc Viewmom Exxon am! Servco facilities have had
releases vf petrokum products. ln allllirion, PCE and TC.E were observed in groundwater
collecred at the S.crvco facility.
In an effon to determine whether tile she lws been impacted by contaminants observed at
the adjacent property anli whether these com;uninanrs might have originated on site,
Gaia Tech targeted the in,·esrigation to evalume areas Liuwngrudiem and upgradiem of rhe
manul'acturing plant, A comparison of these results will aid in pinpniming the soun:e nf
potemial comaminams. It is possible that the PCE and TCE have multiple sources.
L2 Scope of "Vork
On Felrrn;uy 28 and lvlarch 5-6, 2007, GaiaTech installed and sampled a toral ot-6 soil
borings and four mnnitortng wells at the site, Thre~ soil scunpil.'!s and four ground\vatcr
samp es were analyzed !'or: vulmile organic compotmds (VOCs). Two soil samples were
analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), In addition, a sample of eli! from rhe
hydraulic lift on site was mralyz~d for the presence of pnlyehlorinmctl biphenyls (PCBs).
The locations of tlte borings are ratinnaiized as fotiO\\S,
• TwtJ burings (SB-1 and SB<!l were installed in areas dowugradient of the
nmnufacturing huikllng: and uear the JocatiLm of a monitoring \n:lt where eit:vme;J
concenrrrrtions tll' clrlnrinareli 'nlvems were observed at an adjacent pro pert~.
• fwo borings iSB·3 and SB--IJ were installed upgre<Liient nf rhe manufacruring
building to nsses~ £he potemial f(w migrmhm of comamin~ms to the site frnm an
upgratlic!lt otl~sire source.
i--nrm.:-t
HL·l-•lf'<. '\,•nh (",_t!·•Litu
• Two borings tSB-5 anti SB-61 were installed to ~valuate potemial impacts from a
release of oil from the hydraulic lift on -;ite.
On .\pril 5. ~()0'7, GaiaTcch rentrneJ rn the 'iire to instalt three :luil boring3 uhmg the
1.vestern propeny bt)Unthuy.. One soil sample and one groundwater sampk 'ha::; collected
from eadt boring for analysis M \'OCs. The locations of the borings arc rationalized a,;
folJO\\S.
• One boring tSB-9\ was instnllcd will tin the plant building near the southwestern corner
of rhc -;ire bui!Jing. This boring \VU.S plnceU in an arett upgradiem of a monitoring \Veil
\Vhere elevmed cnnc;:mrmions of chlorinat~d solvents were oh'lerved ar an adjacent
proper!).
• Two borings tSB-8 aml SB-1 01 were installed in the northwestern corner of the sire in
areas upgradiem am.l crossgraUient of rhe mannfacturing building tu assess the pm.enr.lal
for mtgrmlon of .:ontuminnllls to the site tTmn an oft'-sire source,
L3 Geology and Hydrogeology
According to tile Soil Sune" oj'Ca!ttH·ba Coumv, !Vonil Carolina, site soils are classiticJ
as Cecil Sandy Loam with 2 to 6 percent slopes. The Cecil series consists of well-drained
soil> on uplands. These soils formed in residuum from acidic rock, including grattite>gnciss
and granire. It is a well-drained soil on fairly smooth, bruud ridges and upbn<is. Typically.
the surface layer is dark grayish-brown and brown sandy loam approximately 7 inches
thick. The subsoil is approximately 43 inches !!tick and is dominantly red, firm day in the
upper part and red, friable clay loan! mnttled with brown in the lower pan. The
substratum. to a depth of approximately 75 inches, is mottled red and brown sanely loam.
During Gaia Tech's investigation, the subsurface materials typically encountered in the soil
borings cmtsisted of micaceous silty sands that were mottled with (red, black, and yellow)
clayey pockets and intersected by louse scams of weathered rock fragments. !n generaL
Gaia Tech observed severely weathered rock m depths ranging from approximately :!0 feet
to 30 feet below ground surface (bgsJ across the site. Less severely wc;:thered rock \\'as
encountered at depths ranging fwm approximately 30 to 40 feet bgs across the site. \Vi thin
the ol0--l5 fr bgs extent nf this investigation, competent rock was encoumered in the area
approximated hy the ;;nuthwestem comer of the plant at approximately 35 feet bg~.
Ground\Vater was ob'jt~n't!d Ht th:prhs ranging from appro~imately 30 to 37 feet hg.,
throughout the site. Elased on measurcmems col leered during the tield component of tiJis
:lssessmenl. groundwater at the site is tlowing in a soutlnvcster~y direcrion.
3
G \I \TF("H r,t.!HH'~-Ht, ru1
:!.0 SOILS. ~.'1-iPLL'<{~
2.1 :\Iethodolog~·
Prior w conJucting t1eld acth·itics, GaiaTc:c:1 complercd a subsurface uti!ir) clearance
througll rt1c ~ionil Carolina One Call Center.
On Feuruary 28, March 5·6. :!007, anJ .·\pril 5, 2007. Gaia Tech supcrviscJ the installmiLm
nf 8 i:Oii boring'-i using a rruck-mounteJ Geopruhe~t: unil to depths ranging frnm l2 to -+0
ft!et bgs. During boring ins(ailatinn, continuous soil sample~; \Vere collected using a five-
foot stainless sred macrocorc sampling system with disposable acetate: liners. Upon
retrieval from rhe sample liner, soils were visually inspecteJ for evidence of contamination
and lk:-;cribeJ on th~ basb of lirhoingy, culnr, tt:xture, odor, and relative moisrure. Boring
logs :tre presemed in Appendix A.
Rz:prcsentati'.e samples from each tube were split intt.) s~pan:ue s;:unple hag:l: one useJ for
ndt: :)crcening and tile other for laborawry analyses (as Uescribed belO\V}. Fidll screening
was accomplished using a portable plloto-i.mizauon detector tPIDl equipped with a l0.6eY
lamp, calibrated to a 100 volumetric parts per million (ppm .. ) isohutylene stamlarJ.
Speeit1e procedures in screening soils ar·e as follows:
a The soil sample wns st:aled in a zip toe bag.
• The sample hag was labdeJ with the boring number and sampk intervaL
• The sample was alloweJ to reach ambiem temperarure.
11 The PID was inserrecl intn the heallspace ahnve rh~ '\oil-air interfnce_
• The maxim11m PID reading was recorded for eacl1 sample.
The soil sampk from eneh boring thm exhibited the highest PID reading was selected for
laboratory analysis. The bagged portions of selected samples were plaeeJ into laboratory
prcparerl sample bottles ami submined under strict clnin~of-custody procedures to
Analytical Em·irunmcmal Services, Inc. of Atlanta. Georgia.
To aHJid croso, contamimtion, all tlown-hok soil boring and non-JcJicarcd sampling
equipment was decontm11lnateJ using an Alconox"'\V~Jter solurion unll wmcr rinse,
Soil borings SB-1 rhrough SB--t were cunven~cl r.o temporary l-inch dian1C£t~r monitoring
wells rsee Secthm 3.01 w iaciliratc the cPllecti•lll nf groundwater samples. s,,;] borings Sll·
8 througlt 513-9 were converted to temporar:--l-inch Jiameter temporary mnnitoring wells
(see Sectinn 3.0) ro facilitate the eollectt<Jn of groundwater samples. L'pon receipt nf
analytical results. GaiaTeeh along with WorlJtex determined tlwt the wdls shouiJ be
converteU to permanent monftoring wells to thcltit:.He fumrc sampling needs at the sHe.
In aJJition tu th~sc b<Jrings. GaiaTedl collectc·d soil samples from a depth Df
npprl)xinla!dy 1.5 feec bg:; fron1 two sll<llln\\ hand auger borings iilstullcd n~ar th~
G \1 tTlTII !:-.CO!tPOIU! E!J
hydr3.ulic lift on )ite. These sampks werc placed directly into laboratory prepared bottles
:.u:.d "Submined under strict chain-uf-cusmd;; prnc~durcs to Analyrk:al EnYironmental
Services. lnc, nf -\tlam~L. Georgia,
2.2 Soil Regulatm·y Standards
Comaminmt>d Soil Clean~( I' Ll'l'e/s (Table 3! of rl1e Groundwater Section Guidelines for
the hn·estigatiun aml Rcmelli~ninn of Snil and Groundwater prepared by rhc Department of
Environment and Natural Rcs.ourc~s Dh·i:..:inn nf \Vater ~-;tahlish target cnncenlrarinns, for
cmmuuinnnts in 'lolL
2.3 Soil Sampling Results
The soil analytical resrtlrs are prescmed in Table I. The approximate locations oi the
borings are sho\vn on Figure 2. Complete laboratory analytical report$ arc indudetJ tn
Appendix B. No chemic:Jls wen: identified m concemrations greater than the laboratory
detection UmJts in any soil boring.
2.4 Summary
Based on soil screening anti sampling resul[s. no evidence of impact ro site soils \vas
idemitkd during tbe installation of soil borings.
3.0 GROC\DWA TER SA:\iPLI:\G
3.1 .\[ethodology
In order tt> "'ahute pmential impacts to gnmnJwarer. f,)ur borings SB·· l, SB-2. Sl3~3. and
SB~-~) were lll·er-drilkJ using hollow-stem augers (SB-l) and air mwry (SB-2, SB-3. anJ
SB--!t in orJcr to construct permanent grounJwater monimring wells. Permanent wells
\vere c:on::;trw.::teU ()y insertlng 2-inch Jiamerer PVC screen and riser into the bordwlc.
!'.:mporary wells were screened to intercept the shallow groundwater table using 0 .n \0-
inch machine-sinned s:creen. A silica-sand pack wns placed in the annulus to a dep[h nf one
foot above rile top ot' the o;creen. A two-foor bemonite plug"''" then placed over the sand
pack w seal the :;creen. and prevenc the int'ilrration of surface water. Ceuwnt grout was
used to fi11 the remainder of tire borehole to a depth of appmxintatcly 6 inches bgs.
Permancm wells were completed with l1ush-mount man hole covers.
The monitoring wells were purged ami sampled using a submersihle pmnp miliLing
disposableldcdicarcd m!Jing. The submersible ponions of rile pump wer~ decontaminated
using an .AJconox 't\varer solution and watt:T rinse. Groundwater samples w~re tollecred
directly imo laboratory prepared containers with the appropriate preservadYe, labeled ami
placed on ice fm rransponminn. Samples were de ivcred under strict chain-of-eusrorly
procedures Ill Analytical Environmenral Services, Inc. or Norcross, Georgia.
After rccctpl of groundwater analytical results, tbe temporary wells were converted to
permanent groundwater monitoring wells by grouring from the bentonite plug ttl the
surface am.J tlnlshing \Vith a rlush rnmmr manhnlc cover and concrete pad.
On April j, 2007, GuiaTech collected an additional three groundwater samples from soil
borings SB·8, SB~9, and SB-10. Soil borings were convened to temporary wells h)
inserting a length of l-inch diameter PVC screen anu riser into the borehole. Using a
periswltic pump with dedicated tubing. one groundwater smnple was collected from each
boring. Folhl\ving sampk collection, the PVC screen aml riser were rcmoveJ and tlw
boring backfilh.:d with bcnmnitc and grout.
Groundwater Hegulatory Standards
Class GA Standards outlined in the .\orr/1 Cam/ina tldminisrruril'c Code Till"' 15 ·1.
Subcliaprer 2r. Secrion 02021 l5A r.CAC 2!..0202 are the arplkable regulator\ swndard'
fur 1his in\'t~srigatinn.
6
G \I\ rn II t~,t·.:mt"iHt\ n~n
3.3 Groundw:uN· Snmpling RL'Sults
The groundwater s:.nnp!ing results are presented belov; and are summarized in Tab~e ~.
i\:I onitoring well locations are sho•sn un Figure l. T~:c tnbnratm) analyril'al clara sheets are
inclmkcl in Appendix B.
PCE \!:as ickmifted in mormoring wells :VIW l, ~IW-2. and SG-9 at conccmrmions nrS-+ .
. 280. and 120 ,ug}L respecrivel~. Tllese concemrmions exceeli the 0. 7 l'g!L Class G.-\
Standard t\1r PCE. TCE was itlemirieu in monilOring wells MW-1 and SB-9 at
ennctnrradons or 58 and 5. 9 w4 T .. v .. hich exeeed lhe 2.8 }.t.gt L Cla~~ GA StanthH'd_ N1)
mher ctnH::uuiumus were iJemitied at concemratlnns greater than rhe Class G,\
Grounuwarer SramJarJs.
3.-l Summary
Analytical re5lllrs lmlicmetl rhar PCE concemrnrions in MW -l, ~lW -2. and SB-9 am: TCE
concentrations in 0.-f\.V -2 and SB··9 exce:::tJ the Class GA swndHrd. According tlJ the
regulatory standard. the discovery of t11cse concemrations must be repcmeu to rll.: North
Carolina Department of Emirunmemal and l'iamral Resources' (?-ICDENR's) Inactive
Site's Group \vi thin 90 days of discovery.
!:-~•fflkr
H;~·\.Jr:. S.·nh {':.l.r··lin.J
7
G\J\Tt-:t ti(\(":JI{Il()J!\H:n
~-0 CO;";CU::SIO"iS
On Febnwr} 28 and ~·lmch 5 .. 6. 2007. Gaia Tech insmllecl and sampleu a row! of6 soil b<lrings and
four monitoring \Yr:lb at rh~ site. Three soil 'iamples nml four gruundw;:uer smnph:s were anulyzed
f,lr: VOCs. Two soil snmples were analyzed for TPH. In addirior., a sample of lift oil from the
hydraulic on site \WS analyzed for the presence <lf (PCBs.
Gaia Tech returned to the site on April 5. 2007 to ir!Stall three soil l:mrings iSB-8 d1rough SB-10)
along the wesrern properr: bnundary. Three "inil ;;;amplcs and three grounllwater sarnpie::: were
enllccted for analysis of VOCs
Baseu on soil screening and. sampling results, no evidence <Jf impact to si!e soils was i<.lentil1ed
dming the insta!ladon ut' soil borings.
Analytical n.:sults imJicatcd thar PCE concemmtions in M\V-1, MW-2. and SB-9 and TCE
cnncemrations in M\fi-2 and SB-9 exceed t!Jc Class GA standard. According to the regulatory
srandard.. the discovery of these .::oncentrations must be reponed to the l'ICDENR 's [nacrive Site's
Group witl1in 90 t!ays of discovery
hlrnt,":
Hd.,•r:, "\,unh CJ.r•>lin.J
8
G \I d"Fnl hnmrotl \II IJ
5.0 LI.\HTATIONS
This report b prepared i\lr the otlle llenefit Worldtex. lnc.and may notlle rdieJ upon by any <lrllcr
person or entity. This report anJ rhe tintlings shall not. in whole or in part. be liistrihuteJ c>r
tran::.tuiued to any other part} , nor used by an~; other party. without rhe prior wrinen !.:onsem Gf
Gaia Tech.
GaiaT!.!ch has cnntlucretl ::ht:se profl~~sional services in accnrdance wirh eurrem scientific principles.
and indusrrial ~tandanls ;Jf pracric.;s in the fie IUs of environmental science am( .;ngineering on the
dute rlll~ \\"nrk was t.:ontiw.::red and in the smne geographical area of £he subject site for sintilar
studies. GaiaT ~ch's findings and re;.:onunentlurinns must be con.'iiLlcrcd ns professional opinil111S
hnsed upon the limiret1 tiara collecred during the course of th~ cnvirunn1enwl si[e investigation.
which is lirniwll in titne <:md :-lcop..:. Gain Tech makes no warramy l t.::<press or itnplicd,
Only a limired mtmhcr of soil and gmunthvatcr samples were collected l'rnm widely spaced soil
borings. The varimion~ among th~;;c samp1e'i and resuits mn) not become evitknr until further
investigation. ln {he e\"em that mort: dara are avaHabl¢. il nwy be nGcessiH'} to re-assess the
contlitions of £he 'iuhject sire iH onJ~r to revise the cnndusJons and recommendations contained in
rhis repnn.
An indepentlentlaborat.ory bas performer! chemical analyses. GaiaTech hns deri,·eu the findings
and recommendar.ions. in part. from these repons. These findings arc contingent upon the validity
of the analytical reports.
Limiwd soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for specific param~t~rs as detailed in the
r~port. Other cltemical compounds, whiclt \\'ere not analyzed fm, may exist at the site, although
unlikely based upon available informalion.
•rm•r !·t·p:d \Lrnut~:llHtll);!
Hr,l..•r; •• ~.Hth Cir·•lm.r
9
,');;JIIJlll' Jdl'll!ill<d!lt>ll
r kptli in h hj]"
) )Jie
ii\'OC':-.-Fl',\ _\iNiwd
!lS2fiOB
HI~ I -hdnt.v J,d111rutt1r;r n:p(1rli11g li:llil
I"·'\ -1\ni ;li!;Jlyt.l·d
SB·!
2:5'~27'
]! 2i'iiD7
Table l
Soil Analytical Hesul!s
Fehmary/March 2007
Sll-.i I SH-~ 'I SB-5
~0'-I:! ' T1·~15' L5'
2!1Wi (7 ; 1!2Xi07 ~ 3iSill7
i
>!{~·,nit~ {'l•tnp:m.:,] tD t 'IL•anu;1 Ht·quilvmvHl' !111' t: :nlunHu:tt~·d Soli oui!iw.:d in
(Jwmhh\"Jl('f ."l~.Ttlilll (Jul~h...·lilli.:<.lor llk'l!tv\.·.,og;.Jillll ;tlld Rt_·tm·di;Jiion ni Snil and
(;rn,1ndw;,!t·•· Lluly 21lli!!)
S!HI Sli '" 1.3' '" _, 1S'
J;j!lj{ -!/5!1 (!
"'\ I· HI< I
I
.')B-'J
7' ·lll'
-i/5/07
1 • Bid
I·,)ruh·r lkg:!l t\Lnatf::~·mrill);
~ 12 l.!th A \'t:tt\tt· N E
!!Jd\ill), Nnt!l; ( ':lnJlil!:J
"} [ l· i 11
J)'w 1 7'
4/5;tl7
I BTU,
; ."'l:IOljli<: hkntill~';i\i!l!; \ 'Ia .... ~ ( i/·.
lhtl' 'SU;Jhbnl-.
SOt':-.-EP.\ Mt·t!rml pg/[, ~~~~L~:.~jt}l~ :~· 7;Ju
Tahic 1
Groundwatt:r Anlllytical Results
Fehnun·~·lr\lun·h 20U7
hiW-1 J t\1\V--2 HW-.\ :I i\1\:V-< I
.\!()1,!()[)7i "::;! ~C''"i: 3t6!10!J? .1/\i/2fl!l7! -··· ·-1\,
Jl;;l/
o'l < i.il -5 .llJ ., :\.ill
SB·X I
.j ·,.:;,2111!7 I
. :\IJj
11-:h· ~ .2-l )i·..:l!iurn~·!ht:lil' 7il ., s.u 112 "'5JJI '.~.i:·i~--•. :),!;~
:11 ;:tr;rd!IPI,,t:lh:,:tk' \J. 7 S-l 2HO <5.o: .. :· .. o :'Ull
! .I
i'riL·IJlPIO.:!) l'!l(
... ....:, __
2.X . 5.1!'' ~ 5~ < \.11"1 . ~J)•r
l '
:
N"'" t. l~t·-.ul\o., LomptHt'd (11 ( 'f(l'l:-. ( il\ .S:alltb~-.b nnl!inL'd il. Nmtb ( arn!'_Ha AtiL:illl~~r::I!Vt' t ·mk
Titll' 1)/\. Suhrh.tph:r 21., Scc!i\lll 02U2 il:'lA Nt'.J\C 21. :!20:!!
2.. N.\ • Nnr .\mt!y/t.'d
3. Ht•n1hs in B,)f(l :md Shadefl (~X('N·d tlu• Cl:\.'i;'l GA Hiand&H'lh
1·! .\lhllr;Uili'Y'" prac!ic.ll l!ll:!!!l it;:!litHI litllilL·xc~·cch till' { 'b~-. ( j,\ Staml;u·..;, \l~·r l )t\ Nt 'i\( ·
2L .. :2ll2 till' limit ~lt't'> ;1-, 1l1<..' ~ta;Jdan.l
•.
< 5.11:
I
S!}-9 i .. .j;-);2!107 I
-:\Ill
' Ill 1101
5})1
I
SB
I'>Hl;u,;l 1{\.-~i!{ i\1;!!!\li:K\llliil;t
112: il!h ,•\V...:illll' K!·
!Tkk.~ry. No111, { ':unUII:t
lfl I
.u:): 1\lll/
:;:11i . 5 .o1: .. '''II
• 5 ·'' ii
l-UI
IJJ IX I (f)
()
"? Cl
! I
r
>-., ;lQ :{
0
"----
EXXON
SERVCO
~------
I TCBY
I
I
11TH AVENUE NE
~~ ~----I
ASPHALT
PARKING )
/ /
i
i
I
I
I \.)() J
t ··N
I