HomeMy WebLinkAbout21021_Stanley Furniture-Graham_Draft Phase II ESA_201702
February 2017
Former Stanley Furniture Site
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
37-Acre Portion of the Former Stanley Furniture Property
Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina
Prepared for Graham County
Project Number: C61555-01.01
\\Asheville1\Asheville\Projects\Graham County\Former Stanley Furniture\Phase II ESA\Reporting\Draft Phase II ESA.docx
February 2017
Former Stanley Furniture Site
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
37-Acre Portion of the Former Stanley Furniture Property
Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina
Prepared for
Graham County
12 North Main Street
Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
Prepared by
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment i February 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Site Assessment History .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Scope of Services ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Health and Safety Information ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Ground-Penetrating Radar Investigation ................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Test Pits ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Soil Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.5 Groundwater Sampling ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.6 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling ...................................................................................................... 4
3 Assessment Results ................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 GPR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Test Pits ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Soil Assessment Results .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Groundwater Assessment Results ................................................................................................................. 5
3.5 Surface Water and Sediment Results .......................................................................................................... 5
4 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Soil ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7
4.2 Groundwater and Surface Water ................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Sediment ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
TABLES
Table 1 Test Pit Logs
Table 2 Soil Analaytical Results Summary
Table 3 Sediment Analaytical Results Summary
Table 4 Groundwater and Surface Water Analytical Results Summary
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Sample Location Diagram
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ii February 2017
APPENDICES
Appendix A Analytical Data
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment iii February 2017
ABBREVIATIONS
Altamont Altamont Environmental, Inc.
Anchor QEA Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPR ground-penetrating radar
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PID photoionization detector
PIN Parcel Identification Number
PSRG Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Site former Stanley Furniture property in Robbinsville, North Carolina
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
VOC volatile organic compound
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 1 February 2017
1 Introduction
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC (Anchor QEA), on behalf of Graham County,, prepared this site
assessment report of an approximate 37-acre tract of land, identified as a portion of the former
Stanley Furniture property located at 68 Snowbird Road in Robbinsville, North Carolina
(Site).Altamont Environmental, Inc. (Altamont), which became Anchor QEA on December 29, 2016,
completed a series of assessment activities at the Site.
Per the Graham County GIS, the Site is identified by Parcel Identification Number (PIN)
566011120000612. The parcel is currently owned by Graham County. Figure 1 illustrates the general
location of the Site, and Figure 2 details the Site boundaries. The Site is generally bounded by the
former Stanley Furniture complex to the east, Long Creek to the west, and commercial or residential
uses to the north and south. The Site consists of undeveloped, mostly cleared land. A primitive road
transects the Site. A wooded area is located on the southern portions of the Site. The northern
portion of the Site is occupied by a ballfield and associated bathrooms and concession building.
1.1 Site Assessment History
Altamont completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), dated October 13, 2016,
for the Site in general accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments (ASTM E1527-13). The findings of that Phase I ESA identified multiple environmental
concerns associated with the Site, specifically associated with the potential for discarded industrial
waste to have been placed within the Site boundaries.
After completion of the Phase I ESA, Altamont was requested to complete additional assessment of
the Site. Details of those assessment activities are discussed in the following sections of this report.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 2 February 2017
2 Scope of Services
In general accordance with a proposal for Site Assessment Services, dated October 31, 2016, the
completed scope of work involved:
Completion of a health and safety review
Completion of a limited ground-penetrating radar (GPR) assessment
Completion of a series of test pits
Completion of a soil assessment
Completion of a groundwater assessment
Completion of a surface water and sediment assessment
2.1 Health and Safety Information
Prior to initiating field activities at the Site, Altamont and subcontracted personnel participated in an
initial review of the Site Health and Safety Plan. In addition, a health and safety “tailgate” meeting
was held prior to completing fieldwork.
2.2 Ground-Penetrating Radar Investigation
Prior to engaging in intrusive activities, Altamont contacted the North Carolina One-Call Center to
identify public utilities at the Site. Due to the apparent presence of multiple utilities on and near the
Site (e.g., a sanitary sewer line and power line right-of-way), a private utility locate was also
completed. Altamont subcontracted with the private utility locator to clear Site boring locations
using GPR.
In addition to identifying utilities that may be located within proximity to proposed boring or
excavation locations, Altamont also utilized GPR technology to assess the extents and depths of
potential on-site buried waste.
2.3 Test Pits
Once GPR activities were completed, Altamont observed and documented the completion of a series
of exploratory test pits that were completed to evaluate subsurface conditions. Test pits were
completed using equipment and an operator provided by Graham County. Test pit locations were
selected based on results of the GPR study, identified historical concerns, and/or physical review of
Site conditions (e.g., mounded or depressed surface areas).
As each test pit was excavated, the surface soil was set aside and kept separate from underlying soil
and/or waste material (if applicable). After completing each test pit, the excavated material was
returned to the pit from which it was excavated. The segregated surface soil was then used to cover
exposed waste where applicable. Thirty-six test pit locations were completed between December 1
and 2, 2016.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 3 February 2017
Test pit locations were identified using GPS coordinates. Figure 2 shows test pits locations within the
Site boundaries. Test pit locations were also marked in the field using wooden stakes and flagging.
Further details pertaining to test pit observations are include on Table 1.
2.4 Soil Sampling
Between December 15 and 16, 2016, Altamont observed the completion of 10 soil borings (SB-1
through SB-10 as shown on Figure 2)_ across the Site using direct push technology drilling methods.
The drilling equipment was operated by a driller licensed in North Carolina. Continuous soil cores
were obtained from each boring, and one representative soil sample was collected from eight of the
boring locations for laboratory analysis.
Soil cores were collected via dedicated Macro-Core sleeves in 5-foot intervals and were screened
with a photoionization detector (PID) for organic vapor content. One soil sample from each boring
location was collected from an interval exhibiting the most elevated readings on the PID or, if no
elevated reading was observed, an interval determined to be most representative of Site conditions
by the professional in the field.
Soil borings were advanced between 10 to 15 feet below ground surface. Soil samples were collected
and transferred into laboratory-supplied containers, placed on ice, and delivered to a North Carolina
certified laboratory under chain-of-custody protocol to be analyzed for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 (expanded to include pentachlorophenol), and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals using EPA Methods 6010 and 7471.
2.5 Groundwater Sampling
During completion of soil sampling, as detailed in Section 2.4, Altamont observed the advancement
of three of the soil borings to intersect groundwater beneath the Site. Once groundwater was
encountered, the driller installed a temporary groundwater monitoring well at each of the three
locations (TMW-1 through TMW-3).
After completion of the temporary wells, Altamont collected one groundwater sample from each
location. The first groundwater monitoring point (TMW-1) was completed at a location estimated to
be topographically upgradient of the operations of the former Stanley Furniture plant. The two
additional groundwater monitoring points were completed at locations estimated to be most
representative of Site conditions. Temporary monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 2.
Once collected, each groundwater sample was placed in laboratory-provided containers, placed on
ice, and delivered to a North Carolina certified laboratory under chain-of-custody protocol.
Groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs using EPA Method 8260, SVOCs using
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 4 February 2017
EPA Method 8270 (expanded to include pentachlorophenol) and RCRA metals using
EPA Methods 6010 and 7471.
2.6 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Altamont collected three surface water and sediment samples from Long Creek, which borders the
Site’s western boundary. Altamont collected one sample from an area considered to be upgradient
from the former operations of Stanley Furniture plant and a second sample from a location
considered to be downgradient of those operations. A third sample was collected from a central
location within the boundaries of Long Creek, considered to be most representative of Site
conditions. Surface water samples (SW-1 through SW-3) and sediment samples (SS-1 through SS-3)
were submitted for analysis of VOCs using EPA Method 8260, SVOCs using EPA Method 8270
(expanded to include pentachlorophenol), and RCRA metals using EPA Methods 6010 and 7471.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 5 February 2017
3 Assessment Results
3.1 GPR
GPR was used to clear boring locations and assess for potential subsurface features within proximity
to boring locations. In addition, GPR was used to assess potential waste boundaries. A diagram
showing estimated waste extents is included as Figure 2.
3.2 Test Pits
Thirty-six test pits were completed across the Site. A diagram showing test pit locations is included
as Figure 2, and test pit descriptions are included on Table 1. Industrial waste and/or apparent inert
buried waste was identified at multiple test pit locations.
3.3 Soil Assessment Results
A total of 10 soil borings (SB-1 through SB-10) were advanced during this assessment. Eight soil
samples were collected from the 10 borings. Soil analytical results were then compared to the
Inactive Hazardous Site Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs). Sample locations are
depicted on Figure 2. Soil analytical results are summarized on Table 2. The laboratory analytical
report is included as Appendix A. Multiple sample locations exceeded protection of groundwater,
residential, and industrial PSRGs. The exceedances of industrial PSRGs at sample locations SB-5, SB-6,
SB-7, and SB-10 may limit future Site redevelopment opportunities without further assessment or
remediation.
3.4 Groundwater Assessment Results
Three temporary monitoring wells were installed at the Site and are identified as TW-1, TW-2, and
TW-3. Altamont collected groundwater samples from the three temporary monitoring wells for
analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals. Groundwater results were compared to the North
Carolina Administrative Code 02L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards (2L standards)
The location of monitoring wells TW-1 through TW-3 are shown on Figure 2. Groundwater analytical
results are summarized on Table 3, and the laboratory analytical report is included as Appendix A.
Impacts to groundwater were not identified above laboratory reporting limits.
3.5 Surface Water and Sediment Results
Three surface water samples (SW-1 through SW-3) and three sediment samples (SS-1 through SS-3)
were collected from Long Creek, bordering the Site’s western boundary. Sample locations are
depicted on Figure 2. Surface water and sediment results are summarized on Tables 3 and 4. Several
constituents of concern exceeded applicable laboratory reporting limits in sediment but did not
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 6 February 2017
exceed the associated regulatory standards. Assessed constituents of concern within surface water
were not identified above applicable laboratory reporting limits.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 7 February 2017
4 Summary and Conclusions
4.1 Soil
Review of Site soil analytical data and observations documented during the completion of a series of
test pits and soil borings have confirmed that industrial waste has been discarded and buried within
the boundaries of the Site. Multiple constituents of concern exceed industrial regulatory limits, and
will require further action and assessment and/or will require institutional or engineering controls to
limit potential exposure to Site workers/users. Because the constituents reported in soil do not
appear to have migrated to groundwater it is likely those constituents are mostly immobile.
However, additional groundwater sampling may be necessary to confirm current Site conditions and
potential future risk.
4.2 Groundwater and Surface Water
Analysis of groundwater and surface water samples at the Site did not identify constituents of
concern above laboratory reporting limits.
4.3 Sediment
Analysis of sediment samples collected from Long Creek identified three VOCs, one SVOC, and
several metals above laboratory reporting limits. The reported concentrations were below applicable
regulatory limits.
Tables
Table 1
Test Pit Log: December 1-2, 2016
Test Pit Description Total Depth (ft)
TP-1 rock/boulders, native soils 4
TP-2 woody debris 4
TP-3 metal and woody debris 5
TP-4 woody debris 5
TP-5 native soils, saturated at 5 feet 5
TP-6 native soils, saturated at 5 feet 5
TP-7 block and plastic debris + tarp (refusl w/ rock/boulders @ 4 feet)4
TP-8 woody debris 4
TP-9 unidentifiable industrial waste, strong odor 2
TP-9A unidentifiable industrial waste, strong odor 1
TP-9B unidentifiable industrial waste, strong odor 1
TP-10 terocota pipe and metal debris 4
TP-11 native soils 3
TP-12 native soils 3
TP-13 native soils 3
TP-14 native soils 3
TP-15 native soils 3
TP-16 plastic and industrial waste 1
TP-17 plastic and industrial waste 1
TP-18 pipe, debris, plastic, brick, railroad ties, steel, petro odor, black soil 5
TP-19 impacted soils, tarp, grey waste 2
TP-20 grey waste 2
TP-21 rock and stone, groundwater at 7 feet 7
TP-22 native soil to 4 feet, river rock 4-5 feet 5
TP-23 native soil with cobble 4
TP-24 industrial waste at less than 1 foot including slag, brick, plastic, strong odor 1
TP-25 industrial waste at less than 1 foot including slag, brick, plastic, strong odor 1
TP-26 industrial waste at less than 1 foot including slag, brick, plastic, strong odor 1
TP-27 inert debris, but no apparent industrial waste 5
TP-28 unidentifiable industrial waste, strong odor 1
TP-29 native soils with cobble and boudlers 3
TP-30 native soils with cobble and boudlers 3
TP-31 concrete, barrel/drum, bricks, metal, hose, tarp, fabric, wood 2
TP-32 terocota pipe and metal debris 4
TP-33 native soil to rock at 4 feet 4
TP-34 native with shallow rock 3
TP-35 native with shallow rock 3
TP-36 native with shallow rock 3
Notes:
a. Clean overburden was set aside and used to cover test pits at surface. Any identified waste/debris was placed back into the pit from
which it was excavated.
b. Test pit locations were marked at surface with staking. A flag was tied to the stake if industrial waste was observed.
c. Excavation was stopped when industrial waste was identified.
d. If no waste was observed, excavation was stopped at refusal, saturation, or when it was apparent that native soils were encountered.
: presumed inert debris
: presumed industrial debris
ft: feet
Phase II ESA
Graham County - Former Stanley Furniture DRAFT Page 1 of 1
February 2017
Table 2
Soil Analytical Results Summary
SB-1 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10
12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16
Arsenic 3.6 <1.7 <2.2 <2.4 <2.1 <1.7 <2.2 2.6 5.80 0.68 3
Barium 120 66 73 190 110 48 95 3100 580 3000 44000
Cadmium <0.30 <0.28 <0.36 <0.40 <0.36 <0.28 <0.37 0.64 3.0 14.2 196
Chromium 27 12 19 26 21 9.0 15 20 360000 24000 100000
Lead 14 4.6 9.1 15 10 5.1 11 20 270 400 800
Mercury 0.045 <0.023 0.041 <0.031 0.059 <0.023 <0.032 0.59 1.0 2.2 3.13
Selenium <1.2 <1.1 <1.4 <1.6 <1.4 <1.1 <1.5 <1.5 2.1 78 1160
Silver <0.30 <0.28 <0.36 <0.40 <0.36 <0.28 <0.37 1.9 3.4 78 1160
1,1-Dichloroethane <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.045 0.030 3.60 16.0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.036 6.7 11.6 48.0
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.017 6.7 156 182
4-Isopropyltoluene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.0036 J 0.68 NA NA
Acetone 0.024 J 0.032 J 0.045 J 0.057 J 0.044 J <0.050 0.087 0.10 24 12200 100000
Benzene <0.0029 <0.0033 <0.0047 <0.0046 <0.0040 <0.0030 <0.0036 0.057 0.0073 1.2 5.1
Chloroethane <0.0098 <0.011 <0.016 <0.015 <0.013 <0.010 <0.012 0.0065 J 16 2120 2120
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.091 0.36 32 460
Ethylbenzene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.097 8.1 5.8 25
Isopropylbenzene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.032 1.3 268 268
m,p-Xylenes <0.0098 <0.011 <0.016 0.0056 J <0.013 <0.010 <0.012 0.075 6.1 116 260
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)<0.098 0.0044 J 0.0043 J 0.0088 J 0.0049 J <0.10 0.0096 J <0.18 16 5400 28400
Naphthalene <0.0098 <0.011 <0.016 0.21 0.0029 J <0.010 <0.012 9.2 0.21 3.8 17
n-Propylbenzene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.020 1.5 264 264
o-Xylene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.028 NA 130 434
sec-Butylbenzene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.0092 2.2 145 145
Styrene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.12 0.92 867 867
Toluene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 0.0075 J <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.53 5.5 818 818
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene <0.0049 <0.0055 <0.0078 <0.0077 <0.0067 <0.0050 <0.0060 0.016 0.55 320 1850
Total Xylenes <0.015 <0.017 <0.023 0.0056 J <0.020 <0.015 <0.018 0.10 6.1 116 260
1-Methylnaphthalene <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 1.4 1.5 <0.37 <0.48 5.7 0.055 18 73
2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 <0.52 0.12 J <0.37 <0.48 <4.9 1.4 260 3200
2-Methylnaphthalene <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 2.3 2.1 <0.37 <0.48 9.3 1.6 48 600
3,4-Methylphenol <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 <0.52 0.15 J <0.37 <0.48 <4.9 NA 12.6 164
Acenaphthene <0.40 <0.37 0.14 J 7.7 8.5 <0.37 <0.48 53 8.4 720 9000
Acenaphthylene <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 0.83 0.82 <0.37 <0.48 2.3 J NA NA NA
Anthracene <0.40 <0.37 0.34 J 10 34 <0.37 <0.48 74 660 3600 46000
Benzo(a)anthracene <0.40 <0.37 0.64 49 65 <0.37 <0.48 280 0.18 0.160 2.90
Benzo(a)pyrene <0.40 <0.37 0.57 46 62 <0.37 <0.48 260 0.059 0.0160 0.290
Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.40 <0.37 0.84 63 85 <0.37 <0.48 360 0.60 0.160 2.90
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <0.40 <0.37 0.38 J 30 40 <0.37 <0.48 170 7800 NA NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.40 <0.37 0.26 J 5.9 8.1 <0.37 <0.48 52 5.9 1.60 29.0
Benzoic Acid <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 0.14 J <0.47 <0.37 <0.48 <4.9 120 50000 100000
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate <0.40 <0.37 1.8 4.1 4.7 <0.37 <0.48 <4.9 7.2 39.0 160
Chrysene <0.40 <0.37 0.63 45 60 <0.37 <0.48 250 18 16.0 290
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 6.9 2.0 <0.37 <0.48 28 0.19 0.0160 0.290
Dibenzofuran <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 4.7 5.3 <0.37 <0.48 26 5.2 14.6 200
Fluoranthene <0.40 <0.37 1.5 73 89 <0.37 <0.48 510 330 480 6000
Fluorene <0.40 <0.37 0.14 J 7.9 8.5 <0.37 <0.48 51 56 480 6000
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene <0.40 <0.37 0.40 J 34 <0.47 <0.37 <0.48 190 2.0 0.160 2.90
Naphthalene <0.40 <0.37 <0.46 4.6 4.1 <0.37 <0.48 21 0.21 3.8 17
Phenanthrene <0.40 <0.37 1.2 10 83 <0.37 <0.48 460 68 NA NA
Pyrene <0.40 <0.37 1.2 73 92 <0.37 <0.48 490 220 360 4600
Notes:
RCRA Metals: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals analyzed according to EPA Methods 6010 and 7470.
mg/kg: miligrams per kilogram
VOCs: Volatile organic compounds analyzed according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260.
SVOCs: Semivolatile organic compounds analyzed according to EPA Method 8270.
<1.7: Indicates the constituent was detected below the laboratory reporting limit.
108: Bold indicates the constituent was detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
0.0036 J: J flag indiates that the constituent was detected above the laboratory detection limit but below the laboratory reporting limit and is therefore considered an estimate.
0.045: Italicized indicates concentrations that exceed the protection of groundwater PSRG.
PSRG: Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB), Protection of Groundwater, Residential, and Industrial Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG), updated October 2016.
NA: Not applicable
SVOCs
(8270)
(mg/kg)
3.6: Indicates concentrations that exceed the residential health PSRG.
49: Indicates concentrations that exceed the industrial health PSRG.
Sample ID Protection of
Groundwater
PSRG
Residential
Health PSRG
Industrial
Health PSRG
Sample Collection Date (mm/dd/yy)
RCRA
Metals
(mg/kg)
VOCs
(8260)
(mg/kg)
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
Former Stanley Funiture Property, Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
January 2017
Table 3
Water Analytical Detections Summary
VOCs (8260)
(µg/L)
SVOCs (8270)
(µg/L)
RCRA Metals
(µg/L)
VOCs SVOCs Barium
TMW-1 12/16/16 ND ND NA
TMW-2 12/16/16 ND ND NA
TMW-3 12/16/16 ND ND NA
SW-1 12/15/16 ND ND ND
SW-2 12/15/16 ND ND ND
SW-3 12/16/16 ND ND ND
---
---
Notes:
VOCs: Volatile organic compounds analyzed according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260.
µg/L: micrograms per liter
SVOCs: Semivolatile organic compounds analyzed according to EPA Method 8270.
RCRA Metals: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals analyzed according to EPA Methods 6010 and 7470.
ND: Not detected at a concentration above the associated laboratory reporting limit.
NA: Not analyzed
2L Standard: North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A, Subchapter 2L groundwater quality standards, effective April 1, 2013.
2B Standard: North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A, Subchapter 2B surface water quality standards, effective June 30, 2016.
Sample
Collection Date
(mm/dd/yy)Sample ID
2L Standard
2B Standard
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
225 Coxe Avenue, Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
January 2017
Table 4
Sediment Analytical Results Summary
SS-1 SS-2 SS-3
12/15/16 12/15/16 12/15/16
Arsenic <2.0 <2.1 <1.8 5.80 0.68 3
Barium 55 59 30 580 3000 44000
Cadmium <0.34 <0.35 <0.31 3.0 14.2 196
Chromium 13 15 15 360000 24000 100000
Lead 7.8 6.7 3.8 270 400 800
Mercury 0.037 0.029 <0.024 1.0 2.2 3.13
Selenium <1.3 <1.4 <1.2 2.1 78 1160
Silver <0.34 <0.35 <0.31 3.4 78 1160
Acetone 0.19 0.12 0.085 24 12200 100000
Benzene <0.0029 <0.0049 0.0063 0.0073 1.2 5.1
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)0.015 J 0.010 J 0.0064 J 16 5400 28400
SVOCs (8270)
(mg/kg)Benzoic Acid <0.43 0.19 J <0.38 120 50000 100000
Notes:
RCRA Metals: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals analyzed according to EPA Methods 6010 and 7470.
mg/kg: miligrams per kilogram
VOCs: Volatile organic compounds analyzed according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260.
SVOCs: Semivolatile organic compounds analyzed according to EPA Method 8270.
<2.0: Indicates the constituent was detected below the laboratory reporting limit.
55: Bold indicates the constituent was detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
0.0036 J: J flag indiates that the constituent was detected above the laboratory detection limit but below the laboratory reporting limit and is therefore considered an estimate.
PSRG: Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB), Protection of Groundwater, Residential, and Industrial Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG), updated October 2016.
Residential
Health PSRG
Industrial
Health PSRG
Sample Collection Date (mm/dd/yy)
RCRA Metals
(mg/kg)
VOCs (8260)
(mg/kg)
Sample ID Protection of
Groundwater
PSRG
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
Former Stanley Funiture Property, Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
January 2017
Figures
Privileged and Confidential | Attorney Work Product | Prepared at Request of Counsel
[0 2,000
Feet
DATA SOURCE(S):USGS Topographic Map -National Geographic Society 2013Parcel - Graham County GIS 2016
LEGEND:
Subject Site
Publish Date: 2017/02/03, 12:13 PM | User: cpattersonFilepath: P:\Graham County\Former Stanley Furniture\Phase I ESA\Figures\Figure 1 - Site Location Map.mxd
Figure 1Site Location MapFormer Stanley Furniture Site68 Snowbird RoadRobbinsville, North Carolina
Site
!U
!U
!U
!?
!?
!?
!A
!A
!A
SW-3
SW-1
SW-2
SS-3
SS-1
SS-2
TMW-3
TMW-1
[0 250
Feet
DATA SOURCE(S):Orthoimagery - NC OneMap 2016Surface Water - NC OneMap 2016Parcels - Graham County GIS 2016Roads - NCDOT 2014
NOTES(S):TP: Test PitSW: Surface WaterSS: Sediment SampleSB: Soil BoringTMW: Temporary Monitoring Well
LEGEND:
Presumed Inert Debris
Industrial Waste
Native Soil
!A Surface Water Sample
!?Sediment Sample
!U Temporary Monitoring Well
Subject Site
Graham County Parcels
Roads
Surface Water
Estimated Edge of Waste
Publish Date: 2017/02/03, 11:54 AM | User: cpattersonFilepath: P:\Graham County\Former Stanley Furniture\Phase I ESA\Figures\Figure 2 - Site Aerial Map.mxd
Privileged and Confidential | Attorney Work Product | Prepared at Request of Counsel
Figure 2Sample Location DiagramFormer Stanley Furniture Site68 Snowbird RoadRobbinsville, North Carolina
LONG C
R
E
E
K
TP2
TP1
TP3/SB-9
TP5
TP6
TP8
TP9
TP9A TP9B/SB-6
TP22
TP4
TP23
TP7/SB-8
TP21 TP23
TP19
TP20/SB-7/TMW-2
TP25/SB-10
TP26
TP27TP18
TP16
TP29
TP14
TP30
TP28/SB-5
TP13
TP17
TP15
TP12
TP11
TP10
TP31/SB-4
TP32
TP33
TP34
TP35
TP36
SB-1
SB-2
SB-2
Appendix A
Analytical Data
Page 1 of 81
Page 2 of 81
Page 3 of 81
Page 4 of 81
Page 5 of 81
Page 6 of 81
Page 7 of 81
Page 8 of 81
Page 9 of 81
Page 10 of 81
Page 11 of 81
Page 12 of 81
Page 13 of 81
Page 14 of 81
Page 15 of 81
Page 16 of 81
Page 17 of 81
Page 18 of 81
Page 19 of 81
Page 20 of 81
Page 21 of 81
Page 22 of 81
Page 23 of 81
Page 24 of 81
Page 25 of 81
Page 26 of 81
Page 27 of 81
Page 28 of 81
Page 29 of 81
Page 30 of 81
Page 31 of 81
Page 32 of 81
Page 33 of 81
Page 34 of 81
Page 35 of 81
Page 36 of 81
Page 37 of 81
Page 38 of 81
Page 39 of 81
Page 40 of 81
Page 41 of 81
Page 42 of 81
Page 43 of 81
Page 44 of 81
Page 45 of 81
Page 46 of 81
Page 47 of 81
Page 48 of 81
Page 49 of 81
Page 50 of 81
Page 51 of 81
Page 52 of 81
Page 53 of 81
Page 54 of 81
Page 55 of 81
Page 56 of 81
Page 57 of 81
Page 58 of 81
Page 59 of 81
Page 60 of 81
Page 61 of 81
Page 62 of 81
Page 63 of 81
Page 64 of 81
Page 65 of 81
Page 66 of 81
Page 67 of 81
Page 68 of 81
Page 69 of 81
Page 70 of 81
Page 71 of 81
Page 72 of 81
Page 73 of 81
Page 74 of 81
Page 75 of 81
Page 76 of 81
Page 77 of 81
Page 78 of 81
Page 79 of 81
Page 80 of 81
Page 81 of 81
Page 1 of 53
Page 2 of 53
Page 3 of 53
Page 4 of 53
Page 5 of 53
Page 6 of 53
Page 7 of 53
Page 8 of 53
Page 9 of 53
Page 10 of 53
Page 11 of 53
Page 12 of 53
Page 13 of 53
Page 14 of 53
Page 15 of 53
Page 16 of 53
Page 17 of 53
Page 18 of 53
Page 19 of 53
Page 20 of 53
Page 21 of 53
Page 22 of 53
Page 23 of 53
Page 24 of 53
Page 25 of 53
Page 26 of 53
Page 27 of 53
Page 28 of 53
Page 29 of 53
Page 30 of 53
Page 31 of 53
Page 32 of 53
Page 33 of 53
Page 34 of 53
Page 35 of 53
Page 36 of 53
Page 37 of 53
Page 38 of 53
Page 39 of 53
Page 40 of 53
Page 41 of 53
Page 42 of 53
Page 43 of 53
Page 44 of 53
Page 45 of 53
Page 46 of 53
Page 47 of 53
Page 48 of 53
Page 49 of 53
Page 50 of 53
Page 51 of 53
Page 52 of 53
Page 53 of 53