HomeMy WebLinkAboutColonial_Abrasive_Phase_II_ESA
PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Former Saint-Gobain Abrasives Facility
312 South Pine Street
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina 28315
W&R Project #02130182
Prepared for:
Gilder Holdings, LLC
312 South Pine Street
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina 28513
Prepared by:
Withers & Ravenel, Inc.
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, North Carolina 27511
(919) 469-3340
July 15, 2013
115 MacKenan Drive | Cary, NC 27511 | tel.: 919.469.3340 | fax: 919.467-6008 | www.withersravenel.com | License No. C-0832
1410 Commonwealth Drive | Suite 101 | Wilmington, NC 28403 | tel: 910.256.9277 | fax: 910.256.2584
7011 Albert Pick Road | Suite G | Greensboro, NC 27409 | tel: 336.605.3009 | fax: 919.467.6008
July 15, 2013
Gilder Holdings, LLC
312 South Pine Street
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
Attn: Mr. Chris Gilder
RE: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Meridian Zero Degrees
312 South Pine Street
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina 28315
W&R Project Number: 02130182.00
Mr. Gilder:
Withers & Ravenel (W&R) is pleased to submit this report describing limited Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) activities completed during May and June 2013
for the above referenced property. The Phase II ESA was completed in order to allow Gilder
Holdings, LLC to obtain information necessary to better understand the environmental
conditions of several historical areas of concern on the property in order to submit a successful
application for inclusion of the site within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management
(DWM) Brownfields Program.
Those historical areas of concern include the following:
1) Historical petroleum impacts from a former hydraulic press system beneath the
manufacturing plant;
2) Historical operation of a gasoline underground storage tank (UST) system that has
been removed from the property; and
3) Historical releases of chlorinated solvents at the location of a chemical storage
building and a historical aboveground storage tank (AST) on the property.
This work included both the installation and sampling of new groundwater monitoring wells,
monitoring wells to replace the wells once included in a network of wells where periodic
groundwater monitoring activities were completed, and collection of samples from soil borings
in the vicinity of the former hydraulic press area, the former gasoline UST area and chlorinated
solvent AST area. The work also included completion of a supply well survey for the area within
1,000 feet of the subject property.
The results of the assessment data suggest the following:
• The petroleum concentrations in both soil and groundwater appear to be relatively low in
concentration and below the cleanup concentrations required of the DWM UST Section
for “low-risk” sites. Based on our water supply well survey information it appears that
the site would qualify as a “low-risk” site if resolution of the historical hydraulic press
hydraulic oil release and the former gasoline UST were to be pursued with the UST
Section.
2
• The concentrations of chlorinated solvent impacts in groundwater were relatively low but
remain above groundwater quality standards for tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in two of the
groundwater monitoring well samples. Overall the extent of the groundwater impacts
appears relatively limited across the property and not representative of a threat to an
offsite receptor such as the adjacent stream. Supply wells were not determined to be
present in proximity to the property by the work we completed.
• The concentrations of chlorinated solvent impacts in soil were also relatively low relative
to the DWM standard for residential settings but remain above standards developed by
DWM for the protection of groundwater. The extent of those soil impacts has not been
defined and the assessment data suggests they remain in soil in the vicinity of the
former solvent AST and the hydraulic press area. Based upon the groundwater
assessment data it appears that the soil impacted by chlorinated solvents is localized
and would be expected to be present beneath the manufacturing plant building and at
several areas along the perimeter of the plant building (i.e. the former AST area and
chemical storage building).
Based on the findings of this investigation it appears that the environmental conditions and
setting would be deemed suitable for inclusion of the site within the DWM Brownfields Program
and a Brownfields Agreement as a means to address the historical environmental conditions on
the property. W&R understands that you require a Brownfields Agreement in order to secure
financing to purchase the property and allow future construction of additional manufacturing
and related buildings on the subject property.
The enclosed report summarizes the results of W&R’s field activities and presents the findings
of assessment of existing environmental conditions at the site. This report is intended to be
made part of a Brownfields application for the property. Please do not hesitate to contact us
should have any questions about this report.
Sincerely yours,
WWIITTHHEERRSS && RRAAVVEENNEELL,, IInncc..
Matthew James, P.G.
Project Geologist
C. Chan Bryant, P.E.
Project Manager – Vice President Environmental Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 LOCATION....................................................................................................................1
2.0 HISTORY OF PROPERTY USE..........................................................................................1
3.0 HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .......................................................................1
4.0 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES ........................2
5.0 W&R SOIL & GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT (MAY/JUNE 2013)......................................6
6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY..........................................................................9
7.0 RECEPTOR SURVEY.....................................................................................................10
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................10
FIGURES
Figure 1 General Location Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Groundwater Potentiometric Map
Figure 4 Groundwater Results Map
Figure 5 Soil Results Map
Figure 6 Receptor Survey & Contiguous Property Owner Map
TABLES
Table 1 Monitoring Well Construction Data and Groundwater Elevations
Table 2 Summary of Soil Analysis – (Hits Only)
Table 3 Summary of Groundwater Analysis – (Hits Only)
Table 4 Historical Summary of Historical Groundwater Analysis – (Hits Only)
APPENDICES
Appendix A Boring Logs & Well Construction Records
Appendix B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody Forms
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 1
1 Location
Withers & Ravenel (W&R) has completed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II
ESA) on the ±11.11-acre property owned by Meridian Real Estate, LLC. The property is
identified as 312 South Pine Street and is located in Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The approximate ±11.11-acre property is made up of two parcels identified as
having parcel pin numbers: 8570019582 (9.97 acres) and 857000119608 (1.14 acres) by the
Moore County GIS Department website. Both tracts will be referred to as the subject
property.
2 History of Property Use
The subject property has reportedly been used for commercial uses since the 1930s. The
Moore County Register of Deeds website lists several deeds for the subject property, however,
a complete chain of title could not be produced from the available information. The
information that is available suggests the general following ownership history:
Luck’s Canning Company (Prior to 1973)
Luck's Incorporated (Luck’s) was a food production company founded in Seagrove, North
Carolina, in 1947, which produced a line of canned bean and other canned food products.
Luck's also operated a peach cannery on the subject property for a period of time prior to
1973 when the property was sold to Flexovit.
Flexovit (1973 to 1998)
Flexovit is an abrasives manufacturing company that is shown in the deed listing by Moore
County to have purchased the property in 1973 and owned it until 1998 when the property
was sold to Saint Gobain Abrasives, Inc. Et al. Flexovit is now a subsidiary of Saint-Gobain,
Inc.
Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc.
Sergo, Incorporated
Colonial Abrasive Products Co. (1998 to 2005)
The property is shown to have been occupied for continued industrial manufacturing for
abrasives products until 2005 when it was sold to Meridian Real Estate, LLC for use of the
property for another manufacturing operation that did not involve abrasives products
manufacturing or the use of hydraulic press or chlorinated solvents.
3 Historical Environmental Reports
The property has a history of industrial use with environmental impacts discovered in the late
1990s. W&R has obtained copies of the following historical environmental reports for the
property that were completed for the previous owners and occupants of the subject property:
• December 28, 1999 – Site Assessment and Corrective Action Plan at Two Areas of
Environmental Concern by Environmental Liability Management, Inc.;
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 2
• March 4, 1999 – Investigation of Groundwater Quality and Evaluation of Potential Risks
at Two Areas of Environmental Concern by Environmental Liability Management, Inc.;
• September 1, 2000 - Groundwater Sampling Report and Supplemental Corrective
Action Plan at Two Areas of Environmental Concern by Environmental Liability
Management, Inc.;
• January 9, 2001 – Groundwater Sampling Report at Two Areas of Environmental
Concern by Environmental Liability Management, Inc.;
• December 18, 2002 – Corrective Action Report by Environmental Liability Management,
Inc.;
• May 20, 2003 – Soil and Remediation Report by ERM NC, PC.;
• February 24, 2004 – 2003 Groundwater Monitoring Report by ERM NC, PC.;
• September 13, 2004 – June 2004 Groundwater Monitoring Report by ERM NC, PC.;
• January 18, 2005 – December 2004 Groundwater Monitoring Report and UIC Permit No.
WI0600006 Final Project Evaluation Report by ERM NC, PC.;
The following reports were completed for Meridian Kiosks, currently operating as Meridian
Zero Degrees, the current occupant of the property:
• February 24, 2005 – Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by
Environmental Hydrogeological Consultants, Inc.; and
• March 23, 2007 – Monitoring Report – February 2007 by Environmental
Hydrogeological Consultants, Inc.
4 Summary of Historical Environmental Assessment Activities
The subject property was investigated for environmental impacts in 1993. This and
subsequent investigation activities led to the discovery of chlorinated solvent impacts in soil
and groundwater, petroleum impacts at a former hydraulic press area where 160 tons of
petroleum impacted soil were remediated and included a historical UST system on the
property. The following paragraphs summarize the previous investigation completed at each
above referenced area:
Chlorinated Solvent Impacts
(Former above ground PCE storage tank - NONCD0002876)
(Drain pipe associated with Chemical Storage Building - NONCD0001528)
A 1993 Phase I ESA conducted by Aquaterra, Inc. identified a former above ground storage
tank (AST) storing tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and soil outside of a chemical storage area as
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 3
two potential areas of concern. A 1993 Phase II ESA conducted at the site revealed PCE in
several soil samples at concentrations up to 0.56 ppm near the former PCE AST and up to
0.140 ppm near a drain and discharge line from a chemical storage room. In addition, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA) was detected in soil at 0.013 ppm. NCDENR action levels are 0.00742
ppm and 0.0183 ppm for PCE and TCA, respectively. Aquaterra concluded that there were no
risks associated with the volatile compound residues in soil assuming an industrial working
exposure scenario. Potential impacts to underlying groundwater were not evaluated.
In August 1998, ELM completed a total of five temporary wells and collected groundwater
samples for analysis from both of the aforementioned areas of concern. Four of the five
samples contained dissolved chlorinated compound concentrations above North Carolina
Groundwater Quality Standards (NCGWS). Based on the findings, ELM returned to the site in
October 1998 and installed 9 additional temporary wells to delineate the extent of
contamination and determine the direction of groundwater flow. Sample analysis from these
wells revealed three of the four samples collected in the vicinity of the AST contained PCE
concentrations above State standards. One of the three wells in the chemical storage room
equaled the 15A NCAC 2L groundwater standard of 0.7 microgram per liter (μg/L) while the
remaining samples were below state standards. After each well was surveyed, groundwater
flow was established to the southwest.
A soil investigation was conducted in September 1999 to include nine soil borings in the two
areas. A soil sample was collected in the saturated and unsaturated zones from each of the
nine borings. This information was presented to the State in a December 1999 report titled
“Site Assessments and Corrective Action Plan at Two Areas of Environmental Concern”.
Groundwater was encountered between 8 and 9 feet BLS. No VOCs were detected in the eight
samples collected in the former AST location (from 3.5 to 5 feet BLS and 9 to 10 feet BLS). Two
of the four surficial samples collected from the chemical storage area (samples collected from
1.5 to 2 feet BLS and 7.5 to 8 feet BLS) revealed concentrations of PCE, one of which was
above State standards. Therefore, the samples were analyzed by the Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure. Neither PCE nor other VOCs were detected. It was therefore determined
that the soil concentrations are not indicative of a source of continuing groundwater
contamination. Six permanent wells were also installed during this investigation (MW-1
through MW-6, one well each within the two areas, two downgradient and two upgradient
wells for each area). Initial sampling of the wells revealed PCE in the source well and PCE and
trichloroethylene (TCE) in the downgradient, off site well (MW-2). The source well at the
chemical storage area (MW-4) revealed PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) above
2L groundwater standards. 1,1-DCE was also observed in the downgradient well at
concentrations below State groundwater standards. In January 2000, ELM installed an
additional monitoring well (MW-7) southwest of MW-4 to assess the shallow groundwater
quality in a downgradient direction and installation of an upgradient well (MW-8) northeast of
MW-1, in the existing gravel lot, to assess the quality of shallow groundwater entering the site.
Based on the absence of a residual source in the saturated and unsaturated soil, Saint
Gobain proposed to monitor groundwater quality in the wells in the Chemical Storage Area. A
September 2000 “Groundwater Sampling Report and Supplemental Corrective Action Plan at
Areas of Environmental Concern” stated that natural attenuation is occurring and a monitored
natural attenuation remedy is considered the appropriate action because it is consistent with
local land and groundwater uses and the absence of both current and future exposure routes
via groundwater. It appears that ELM may have procured a letter from the Planning Director of
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 4
the Town of Aberdeen indicating that there are no future plans for groundwater development
within 1,000 feet downgradient of the facility.
In December 2002, ELM completed a report titled “Corrective Action Plan” that recommended
in-situ reductive dechlorination of PCE by introducing hydrogen releasing compounds into the
subsurface. ELM subsequently supervised the injection of 3030 pounds of Hydrogen Release
Compound (HRC) into the groundwater at the two areas of concern via 56 small diameter
GeoProbe borings. HRC is a lactic acid based solution which is metabolized by indigenous
anaerobic bacteria, which is intended to provide a more amenable environment for the
growth of the bacteria to biodegrade the chlorinated compounds. HRC is also used to provide
an electron acceptor needed for respiration by the bacteria which then metabolizes the
dissolved organic compound as energy, stripping a chlorine ion from the molecules in the
process.
Since the injection of the HRC, nine documented groundwater monitoring events have taken
place on site. The reports have generally indicated an overall reduction in contaminant
concentrations, however, constituents have remained above groundwater quality standards
for each of the areas. The ELM December 2004 monitoring report concluded that the 2001
injection of HRC has resulted in lower concentrations of VOCs and do not appear to warrant
additional active remediation. Saint Gobain requested that the permit for injection be
terminated and the site should continue to facilitate a monitored natural attenuation
remediation.
The February 2007 monitoring report, completed by Environmental Hydrogeological
Consultants, Inc. (EHC), revealed similar results as the December 2004 monitoring event
except that PCE and TCE were also detected in MW-4 above NCGWS.
Leaking Hydraulic Press
(Former Hydraulic press- FA-19858 - Risk Classification - 70C)
In January 2002, a Phase I ESA was performed on the subject property by Environmental
Resources Management (ERM) identified a hydraulic press area inside the facility as a
potential concern for releases of oils to the subsurface. Specific sources inside the press
area included a concrete-lined hydraulic press sump and a concrete lined sub-grade trench
system which formerly contained oil lines leading to and from the hydraulic press and an oil
circulation pump. The trench system was essentially “L” shaped and began at the west
exterior wall of the building.
Subsequent Phase II ESA assessment activities consisted of the advancement of 13 soil
borings and the collection of 18 soil samples. Analyses of the samples revealed total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) diesel range organics (DRO) at levels up to 12,000 parts per
million (ppm) and oil & grease concentrations up to 33,000 ppm. NCDENR action levels for
TPH-DRO and oil & grease are 40 ppm and 250 ppm, respectively. The analysis showed that
the affected soils extended to the water table, which was detected at an average depth of 6.5
to 7 feet BLS.
In January 2003, the concrete floor around the former hydraulic sump, the floor trench system,
and a small cinderblock building which formerly contained the hydraulic oil pump was cut
and removed. The interior cinderblock building was knocked down and removed. The
concrete across the floor trench area was cut to a width of 5 feet along the length of the
trench. Up to 160.53 tons of contaminated soils were excavated to an average depth of 7.5 to
8 feet BLS inside the building until the capillary fringe was detected. Groundwater was
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 5
reportedly not encountered in the excavation. Only soils within the footprint of the cut
concrete were excavated.
Eight post-excavation soil confirmation samples were collected for TPH-DRO and oil & grease
from the area, three from the base of the excavation and five from the sidewalls. After
confirmation sampling, the excavation was backfilled with sand and crush and run gravel and
surfaced to grade with concrete. An area approximately 2 to 3 feet BLS noted to be stained
and contain petroleum odors was not able to be excavated due to its location around a load
bearing structural I-beam. A second area unable to be excavated was noted beneath the
western exterior wall of the building in the former location of the pump room. These soils
appeared to be stained from 2 feet BLS to terminus of the excavation at 8 feet BLS along the
west sidewall. Excavation of the soils under the I-beam and under the exterior wall could not
be undertaken without risking the integrity of the building.
Soils in the southern most area of the excavation contained up to 220 ppm TPH-DRO and
1,700 ppm oil & grease in the sidewalls and 1,600 ppm TPH-DRO and 15,000 ppm oil & grease
at a depth of 7.5 feet BLS. Soils at a depth of 8 feet BLS below the former oil pump room
contained 1,900 ppm TPH-DRO and 17,000 ppm oil & grease. A sidewall sample collected at
the 90-degree bend in the “L” shaped portion of the trench contained 1,200 ppm TPH-DRO
and 11,000 ppm oil & grease. However, four of the eight samples collected, three from the
various sidewalls and one from the base, were found below NCDENR State standards.
A May 2003 “Soil Removal and Remediation Report” documenting site activities concluded
that further excavation of the soils at the western exterior wall and at the structural I-beam
area cannot be accomplished. Additional excavation of soils in the 90-degree bend could be
completed but was not recommended pending an analysis of remedial alternatives and an
assessment of the building’s future use. ERM recommended that the groundwater monitoring
program for the chlorinated solvent release be amended to include sampling monitoring wells
MW-2 and MW-3 for semi-volatile organic compounds.
Former 1,000 Gallon Gasoline UST System
(No Regulatory Incident Number Available)
W&R reviewed a September 1999 letter from Environmental Liability Management, Inc. (ELM)
to the Saint-Gobain Corporation, the owner of the site at the time of the letter (beginning in
1998). The letter reported that field personnel discovered a localized area of discolored soil
that appeared to contain petroleum residue. The letter concluded that after a file review of
the Colonial Abrasives facility, a limited field investigation would be conducted to determine
whether regulated compounds are present at concentrations above North Carolina State
standards. However, a subsequent November 1999 letter from ELM to Saint-Gobain
Corporation stated that it appears that the discovered soil resulted from the operation of the
former 1,000-gallon gasoline UST. The report explained that in December 1989, McNeill Oil
Company removed the tank and all associated piping from the site. After the tank was
removed soil samples were collected for total petroleum hydrocarbons and BTEX (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes). On February 7, 1990, McNeill Oil Company sent the
laboratory results to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM - now called the
NCDWM). Although only two groundwater sampling events took place prior, the letter
continues to state that BTEX compounds have historically not been detected in the
groundwater samples from a nearby monitoring well or in the recent soil borings (September
1999) conducted in the vicinity of the former tank. The letter concludes that: 1) the minor
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 6
discoloration is in an area previously investigated and approved for closure by the NCDENR;
2) petroleum related constituents are below action levels in soil; and 3) the former operation
of the now-removed UST has not adversely impacted groundwater.
W&R discussed this site with representatives of the NCDWM who stated that the only
information in the file was a February 20, 1990 letter from the DEM to Mr. Frank McNeill of
McNeill Oil Company regarding the review of the lab results of the UST soil assessment. The
letter stated that based on the lab results, no additional soil excavation and removal is
required. W&R reviewed the December 1999 ELM report, titled “Site Assessment and
Corrective Action Plan at Two Areas of Environmental Concern” that referred to the September
1999 soil and groundwater collection activities. W&R could not find any documented
information of sampling near the UST or the location of the UST on a map in this report.
5 W&R Soil & Groundwater Assessment (May/June 2013)
W&R initiated subsurface assessment activities at the subject property in May 2013. The
assessment activities were completed in early June 2013. Drilling activities were completed
using a GeoProbe® 7822DT drill rig owned and operated by SAEDACCO, Inc of Fort Mill, SC.
Environmental Science Corporation, Inc. in Mt. Juliet, TN provided laboratory analyses of the
soil and groundwater samples collected during the investigation activities. The following
paragraphs describe the field activities and results of the sample analyses.
Soil Assessment Activities
Eleven soil borings were advanced in the following areas of the property:
Former PCE AST Area: 6 (SB-1 to SB-6)
Former Hydraulic Press Area: 4 (SB-7 to SB-10)
Former Gasoline UST Area: 2 (SB-11 and SB-12)
Soil samples were collected from the borings in 2.0-foot intervals and bagged for field
screening for organic vapors using a Thermo Scientific TVA 1000B Photo Ionization Detector
(PID) and Flame Ionization Detector (FID) for the presence of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) typical of potential petroleum hydrocarbons. The FID/PID is an industry accepted
scanning device used to detect the presence of organic vapors, but is not entirely relied upon
to determine specific levels of contamination.
Lithology encountered in the borings collected form the former hydraulic press area and the
PCE AST area consisted of orange, tan, and brown clay/sand mixtures from the ground surface
down to a depth of approximately 5.0 feet bgs where each boring was terminated. Borings in
the former UST area were advanced to a depth of 2.0 feet blgs where saturated conditions
were reached. Samples from the former UST area were collected from 0.5 feet bgs to 2.0 feet
bgs and consisted of clayey sands and coarse sands, resembling fill. Refer to the attached
boring logs for soil classifications and FID/PID readings included in Appendix A.
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 7
Soil samples collected from the former hydraulic press area and the former UST area were
submitted to the laboratory for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260,
semi-volatile organics by EPA Method 8270, and volatile petroleum hydrocarbons/extractable
petroleum hydrocarbons by MADEP VPH/EPH methodology. Soil samples collected from the
former PCE AST area were laboratory analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260. All collected
samples were placed in laboratory supplied bottleware, placed in a cooler of ice, and
transported to the laboratory under proper chain-of-custody.
See Figure 5 for soil boring locations and illustrations of laboratory results. Refer to Table 2
for a list of collected soil samples, sampling depths, and associated analysis. Refer to the
attached boring logs for soil classifications and FID/PID readings in Appendix A.
Laboratory Results – Soil Samples – Former Hydraulic Press & Former UST Areas
The regulatory standards published by the DWM UST Section were used for comparison of the
laboratory results for the petroleum constituents in samples from the former hydraulic press
and former UST area. The UST Section has published three standards which are described as
follows:
1) Soil-to-Water Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentrations (MSCCs) – standard
protective of groundwater quality;
2) Residential MSCC – standard protective of residential user health;
3) Industrial /Commercial MSCC – standard protective of industrial / commercial user
health;
The sample listed below contained petroleum concentrations above the standard protective
of groundwater quality:
• SB-8 (1-3) – C9-C22 Aromatics at 75 mg/kg;
All other samples from borings advanced in the former hydraulic press and former UST areas
were lower than any of the UST Section standards.
Laboratory Results – Soil Samples – Former Solvent AST Area
The regulatory standards published by the DWM Inactive Hazardous Site Branch (IHSB) were
used for comparison of the laboratory results for the constituents in samples from the former
solvent AST area. The IHSB has published three standards which are described as follows:
1) Protection of Groundwater Standard (PSRG) – standard protective of groundwater
quality;
2) Preliminary Residential Health Based Soil Remediation Goal; and
3) Preliminary Residential Health Based Soil Remediation Goal;
The samples listed below contained constituent concentrations above the IHSB standard
protective of groundwater quality:
• SB-2 (3-5) – PCE at 0.016 mg/kg;
• SB-4 (3-5) – PCE at 0.073 mg/kg;
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 8
• SB-5 (1-3) – PCE at 0.0069 mg/kg;
• SB-8 (1-3) – PCE at 0.034 mg/kg; and
• SB-9 (3-5) – PCE at 0.018 mg/kg.
The sample SB-8 was collected from the former hydraulic press area.
Laboratory results are summarized on Table 2 and are shown on Figure 5. Complete
laboratory reports and chains-of-custody are included in Appendix B.
Groundwater Assessment Activities
On May 28th and 29th as well as June 6th, 2013, W&R mobilized to the site for the purposes
of supervising monitoring well installation operations. W&R supervised the installation of the
replacement of three historical site monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-6, and MW-8) that were not
found during the site reconnaissance, and the installation of nine additional site monitoring
wells (MW-1D, MW-4D, MW-6D, MW-7, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, and MW-12D).
Monitoring well, MW-4, was the only previously installed monitoring well that remained on the
subject property. Also, historical monitoring wells MW-2, MW-3, and MW-5 were not located
during this assessment and were not replaced.
Shallow monitoring wells MW-1, MW-6, MW-7, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, and MW-13 were
installed to a total depth of 15 feet and constructed with 10 feet of 1-inch 10-slot PVC screen
and 5 feet of PVC casing. Shallow monitoring well, MW-8, was installed to a total depth of 25
feet and constructed with 10 feet 0f 1-inch 10-slot PVC screen and 15 feet of PVC casing. Deep
monitoring wells MW-1D, MW-4D, MW-6D, and MW-12D were drilled until the shallow clay
confining layer was encountered. MW-1D was terminated at 29 feet and constructed with 5
feet of 1-inch 10-slot PVC well screen and 24 feet of PVC casing; MW-4D was terminated at 27
feet and constructed with 5 feet of 1-inch PVC 10-slot well screen and 22 feet of PVC casing;
MW-6D was terminated at a depth of 27 feet and constructed with 5 feet of 1-inch PVC 10-slot
well screen and 22 feet of PVC casing; and MW-12D was terminated at 25 feet and constructed
with 5 feet of 1-inch 10-slot well screen and 20 feet of PVC casing.
Clean-filter sand was placed into the annular space surrounding the well screen to
approximately 1 foot above the screen. A two foot thick bentonite seal was placed over the
sand pack and hydrated. The remaining annular space was then filled with neat cement grout
to grade. Well construction records and field boring logs are provided in Appendix A. See
Table 1 for well construction details & groundwater elevation data. Each monitoring well was
developed using a peristaltic pump following completion.
Each monitoring well was gauged and surveyed in by W&R personnel. Groundwater levels
ranged from 15.33 feet bgs in MW-8 to 1.01 feet bgs in MW-7. According to the collected data,
groundwater is flowing from the northeast to the southwest across the site. Figure 3 is
provided as a groundwater contour map.
Each monitoring well was purged of approximately three well volumes with a peristaltic pump
and sampled. The groundwater samples were collected in laboratory cleaned glass
containers with clean nitrile non-latex gloves, placed in a cooler of ice, and transported to the
laboratory under proper chain-of-custody. Samples from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 9
9, MW-12 and MW-12D were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 6200D. Samples from
monitoring wells MW-10 and MW-11 (installed in petroleum source areas) were laboratory
analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 6200D, SVOCs by EPA Method 625 and MADEP Method for
VPH/EPH.
Laboratory Results – Groundwater Samples
Laboratory results for the collected groundwater samples revealed the following well samples
exceeded the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standard:
• MW-4 – PCE at 1.9 μg/L; and
• MW-11 – PCE at 35 μg/L.
No other analytes were detected at concentrations that exceeded their 15A NCAC 2L .0202
Standard.
The following analytes were detected in MW-10 (possible gasoline UST area) and MW-11 (former
hydraulic press area) at concentrations that exceeded the laboratory reporting limit but were
below their respective 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Standard:
• MW-10: C9-C18 Aliphatics, N-Butylbenzene, Sec-Butylbenzene, Ethylbenzene, P-
Isopropyltoluene, N-Isopropyltoluene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzne, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene,
M&P Xylene, and Naphthalene; and
• MW-11: C19-C36 Aliphatics.
No other analytes were detected above their respective laboratory reporting limit.
Groundwater analytical results for this event are summarized on Table 3, historical
groundwater analytical results area summarized in Table 4 (2002 through 2007). The
monitoring well network is illustrated in Figure 2 and a summary of the May/June 2013
groundwater results are provided in Figure 4. Well boring and construction logs as well as
well completion records are included in Appendix A. The laboratory analytical reports and
COCs are included in Appendix B.
6 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The Geologic Map of North Carolina (Brown, et al., 1985) indicates that the property is located
in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. This site is specifically underlain by Cretaceous
age materials consisting of sand, sandstone, and mudstone, grey to pale gray with orange
cast, mottled; clay balls and iron-cemented concretions common, beds laterally
discontinuous, cross-bedding common.
An examination of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic map of the
Southern Pines, North Carolina Quadrangle (Figure 1) indicates that the site ranges in
elevation from an approximate maximum elevation of 360 feet above mean sea level (amsl)
on the northeastern portion of the site, to an approximate minimum elevation of 320 feet
amsl on the southwestern portion of the site. Topographic relief at the site is generally to the
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 10
southwest. Depth to groundwater was measured to be approximately 15.33 feet below ground
surface (bgs) in monitoring well MW-8 and approximately 1.01 feet bgs in monitoring well MW-
7. If the groundwater surface were a subdued replica of site/source area topography,
groundwater flow would most likely be to the southwest towards the confluence of the un-
named tributary of Aberdeen Creek, which flows just south of the subject property, and
Aberdeen Creek. Measured groundwater elevations confirm the site groundwater flow from
the northeast toward the southwest.
Soils encountered at the site during the May/June 2013 investigation indicated a
predominance of sandy clays, clayey sands, and uniform sands from the surface down to a
site confining layer of tight clays that was encountered at 29 feet bgs in MW-1D, 27 feet bgs in
MW-4D and MW-6D, and 25.5 feet bgs in MW-12D. W&R did not penetrate the clay layer
during drilling operations conducted in May 2013.
7 Receptor Survey
W&R conducted a receptor survey during this investigation to identify water supply wells,
surface water bodies, and wellhead protection areas. W&R contacted Mr. Robert (Bob)
Matthews, Water & Sewer Superintendent for the Town of Aberdeen, in-order to identify any
water supply wells located within 1,500 feet of the subject property. Mr. Matthews was not
aware of any water supply wells within the 1,500 foot radius. W&R also contacted the Town of
Aberdeen Water Billing Department to verify municipal water bills to all residences and
businesses within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The Town of Aberdeen Water Billing
Department reported that all occupied residences with-in 1,000 feet of the subject property
are connected to municipal supplied water.
The nearest surface water body is an unnamed, west-southwest flowing tributary of Aberdeen
Creek. The unnamed tributary is located approximately 400 feet southeast of the UST area
source and 600 feet southeast of the former hydraulic press area source. The confluence of
the tributary with Aberdeen Creek is approximately 1,400 feet southwest of the former UST
area and 1,600 feet southwest of the former hydraulic press area. Surface water features are
depicted on Figure 7.
According to the NCDENR Wellhead Protection Program online map viewer, the source area is
not located within an approved or planned wellhead protection area.
8 Conclusions and Recommendations
W&R has completed soil and groundwater assessment activities at the subject property in
May and June 2013. The purpose of the additional assessment activities was to supplement
the historical assessment data for the property relative to the chlorinated solvent impacts and
petroleum impacts. The findings of the investigation suggest the following:
• Areas of chlorinated solvent impacted soil remain in proximity to the former PCE AST
area and in the former hydraulic press area. Concentrations of PCE in soil exceed the
IHSB cleanup limit protective of groundwater in both locations, however, previous
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 11
leachate testing suggests that the PCE in soil closest to the former AST reported that
the impacted soil does not pose a threat to groundwater quality.
• Petroleum impacted soil are present in the vicinity of the former hydraulic press areas
within the plant building. The concentration of C9-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons are
above the soil to groundwater MSCCs for one of the four samples completed in this
area.
• Petroleum impacted soil was not identified near the former 1,000 gallon gasoline UST.
• Groundwater impacts from chlorinated solvents remain in the upper portion of the
surficial aquifer with concentrations of PCE in wells MW-4 (at the chemical storage
building) and MW-11 (at the hydraulic press area) above the 2L groundwater quality
standards.
• Groundwater impacts from petroleum hydrocarbons were reported to be present in
wells MW-10 (petroleum UST) and MW-11 (former hydraulic press area), however, all
constituent concentrations were below the groundwater quality standards.
• The extent of groundwater impacts in the shallow portion of the surficial aquifer
appears limited to the area of the manufacturing building footprint and former
chemical storage building. The extent of the contamination has not been defined to
the west of the building. The available assessment data suggests that the plume is
not a threat to surface water quality for the southern adjacent unnamed tributary to
Aberdeen Creek.
• The extent of groundwater impacts in the deeper portion of the shallow aquifer
appears limited as samples collected from the four monitoring wells installed with
screens installed on top of the clay present at depths of 25 feet or greater below
surface were reported to contain no targeted analytes above method reporting limits.
• A receptor survey completed for the surrounding community suggests that no supply
wells are in use for the area within 1,000 feet of the property and that public water
from the Town of Aberdeen is supplied to the subject property and the adjoining
properties.
Based on the current information it is our opinion that the historical petroleum contamination
from the former hydraulic press and former 1,000 gallon UST system do not exceed cleanup
standards and as such would be eligible for site closure for “low risk” sites. The assessment
data also suggests that the chlorinated solvent impacts to the site are rather low in
concentration and do not appear to threaten receptors such as surface water bodies or wells.
Based on this information it appears that the chlorinated solvent impacts would not warrant
active remediation if the impacts were formally addressed with the IHSB program rules.
Upon consideration of this information it is our opinion that this data would not preclude the
site from being accepted into the DWM Brownfields Program.
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 12
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions or comments regarding
the information provided in this report.
Sincerely yours,
WWIITTHHEERRSS && RRAAVVEENNEELL,, IInncc..
Matthew James, P.G. C. Chan Bryant, P.E.
Project Geologist Project Manager
312 S. Pine Street, Aberdeen, NC W&R Project # 02130182.00
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment July 2013
Page 13
References Cited:
Brown, et al., 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina, Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Land Resources; Raleigh, North Carolina.
FIGURES
1
i
n
c
h
=
1
0
0
f
t
.
1
0
0
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
C
A
L
E
0
5
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
i
n
c
h
=
1
0
0
f
t
.
1
0
0
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
C
A
L
E
0
5
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
i
n
c
h
=
1
0
0
f
t
.
1
0
0
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
C
A
L
E
0
5
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
i
n
c
h
=
1
0
0
f
t
.
1
0
0
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
C
A
L
E
0
5
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
i
n
c
h
=
4
0
0
f
t
.
4
0
0
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
C
A
L
E
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
TABLES
WELL ID MEASUREMENT DATE SCREEN INTERVAL
(FT)
CASING ELEVATION*
(FT)
DEPTH TO WATER BELOW
CASING
(FT)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(FT)
MW-1 6/13/2013 5 - 15 88.93 7.18 81.75
MW-1D 6/13/2013 24 - 29 88.82 6.93 81.89
MW-2 6/13/2013
MW-3 6/13/2013
MW-4 6/13/2013 Unknown 81.55 2.25 79.30
MW-4D 6/13/2013 22 - 27 81.64 2.43 79.21
MW-5 6/13/2013
MW-6 6/13/2013 5 - 15 82.19 2.95 79.24
MW-6D 6/13/2013 22 - 27 82.15 2.74 79.41
MW-7 6/13/2013 5 - 15 77.19 1.01 76.18
MW-8 6/13/2013 15 - 25 100.00 15.33 84.67
MW-9 6/13/2013 5 - 15 84.68 2.51 82.17
MW-10 6/13/2013 5 - 15 81.52 1.86 79.66
MW-11 6/7/2013 5 - 15 Not Surveyed 9.67 Not Surveyed
MW-12 6/13/2013 5 - 15 78.63 2.12 76.51
MW-12D 6/13/2013 20 - 25 78.33 1.72 76.61
MW-13 6/13/2013 5 - 15 79.24 1.90 77.34
NOTES:
FT Feet*Based on Assigned Elevation of 100.00 feet for Top-of-Casing at MW-8.
Not Found
Not Found
Not Found
TABLE 1 - MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DATA AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
312 SOUTH PINE STREETABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT #: 02130183
Page 1 of 1
CAS
#
C5-C8 Aliphatics -MADEPV mg/kg NL 68 939 24,528 NA NA NA NA NA NA <5.4 <4.2 <4.6 <4.2 <3.6 <3.7
C9-C18 Aliphatics -MADEPE mg/kg NL 540 1,500 40,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA <7.1 <7.0 <7.1 <7.3 <7.6 <7.4
C19-C36 Aliphatics -MADEPE mg/kg NL Considered Immobile 31,000 810,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA <7.1 390 <7.1 <7.3 <7.6 <7.4
C9-C22 Aromatics -MADEPE mg/kg NL 31 469 12,264 NA NA NA NA NA NA <7.1 75 <7.1 <7.3 <7.6 <7.4
Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 8260B mg/kg 0.005 0.0074 1.10 10 <0.0012 0.016 0.0013 0.073 0.0069 <0.0012 0.0021 0.034 0.018 0.0031 <0.0012 <0.0011
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 8260B mg/kg 1.2 1.6 31,000 810,000 <0.0012 <0.0011 <0.0012 <0.0011 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 0.003 <0.0011 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 8270D mg/kg 0.0087 0.23 4.6 73 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.37 J3 <0.39 J3 <0.38 J3
n-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 8270D mg/kg 0.0000031 NL NL NL NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.37 J3 <0.39 J3 <0.38 J3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 8270D mg/kg 2.2 2.6 156 4,088 NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.37 J3 <0.39 J3 <0.38 J3
2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 8270D mg/kg NL NL NL NL NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.36 J3 <0.37 J3 <0.39 J3 <0.38 J3
Notes
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
Client Sample ID SB-1 1-3 FT SB-2 3-5 FT SB-3 1-3 FT SB-4 3-5 FT SB-5 1-3 FT SB-6 1-3 FT SB-7 3-5 FT SB-8 1-3 FT SB-9 3-5 FT SB-10 3-5 FT SB-11 .5-2 FT SB-12 .5-2 FTCollect Date 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/7/2013 6/7/2013
Parameter Method Units
IHSB
Protection of Groudwater
PSRG (mg/kg)
UST SECTION
Residential Soil Cleanup
Levels (mg/kg)
UST SECTION
Industrial/Commercial
Soil Cleanup Levels
(mg/kg)
Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value ValueQualValueQualValue
J3 - The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.Qualifiers:
NA - Not Analyzed
Qual
Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons / Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Qual Value Qual
UST SECTION
Soil-to-Water Maximum
Contaminant
Concentration (mg/kg)
Exceedences to the IHSB Protection of Groundwater PSRG are BOLD and HIGHLIGHTED.
IHSB - Inactive Hazardous Sites BranchPSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (February 2013)
Exceedences to the Laboratory Detection Limit are HIGHLIGHTED.
Exceedences to the Soil-to-Water MSCCs are BOLD and HIGHLIGHTED.
mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram or parts per million (ppm)NL - Not Listed
Page 1 of 1
C5-C8 Aliphatics MADEPV µg/l 400 NL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <100 <100 NA NA NA
C9-C18 Aliphatics MADEPV µg/l 700 NL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 <100 NA NA NA
C19-C36 Aliphatics MADEPE µg/l 10,000 NL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <100 240 NA NA NA
C9-C22 Aromatics MADEPE µg/l 200 NL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <100 <100 NA NA NA
n-Butylbenzene 104-51-8 6200B-1997 µg/l 70 6,900 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
sec-Butylbenzene 135-98-8 6200B-1997 µg/l 70 8,500 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 6200B-1997 µg/l 20 20,000 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 6200B-1997 µg/l 6 6,000 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 6200B-1997 µg/l 600 84,500 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 6200B-1997 µg/l 70 25,000 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4 <1.0 J4
p-Isopropyltoluene 99-87-6 6200B-1997 µg/l 25 11,700 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1 6200B-1997 µg/l 70 3,000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 6200B-1997 µg/l 0.7 700 <1.0 <1.0 1.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 35 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 6200B-1997 µg/l 400 28,500 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 6200B-1997 µg/l 400 25,000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Naphthalene 91-20-3 625 µg/l 6 6,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 <1.0 NA NA NA
Notes:
Exceedences to the NCDENR 2L Standard are BOLD and HIGHLIGHTED
Qualifiers:
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
Sample ID MW-1 MW-1D MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-4D MW-5 MW-6 MW-6D MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-12D MW-13Collect Date 6/7/2013 6/7/2013 Not Found Not Found 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 Not Found 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/7/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 6/6/2013
Parameter CAS #Method Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross
Contamination
Levels for
Groundwater
(μg/L)
Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Qual Value Value Qual ValueQualValueQualValue Qual
Volatile Petroleum HydrocarboNA / Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Not Found Not Found Not Found
Qual Value Qual ValueQual
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Not Found Not Found Not Found
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Not Found Not Found Not Found
J5 - The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is high
µg/l - Micrograms per Liter or parts per billion (ppb)
NL - Not ListedNA - Not Analyzed
J4 - The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.
Exceedences to the Laboratory Detection Limit are HIGHLIGHTED.
Page 1 of 1
Sample ID
Collect Date 9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700 44.3 120.0 6.4 5.7 42.0 97.0
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000 2 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000 4.7 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000 2.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000 0.26 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
MW-1
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
Page 1 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
21.0 36.0 55.0 100.0 17.0 16.0
36.1 34.0 15.0 15.0 33.0 31.0
6.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 5.2 6.3
0.29 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.2 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
2.0 BDL BDL BDL BDL 2.0
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.26 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
MW-2
Page 2 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
BDL BDL BDL 97.0 BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL 15.0 BDL BDL
0.6 BDL BDL 2.9 BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.71 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
MW-3
Page 3 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
0.81 2.5 1.2 4.5 BDL 11
0.47 1 1.1 5.3 BDL 2.8
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.3
BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
1.5 2.5 5.6 20.0 BDL 60.0
105.0 390.0 300.0 560.0 1100.0 280.0
BDL BDL BDL 0.62 BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL 1 BDL BDL
MW-4
Page 4 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
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 BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL 2.0 BDL BDL
MW-5
Page 5 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
NS BDL BDL 1.1 BDL BDL
MW-6
Page 6 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
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 BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL 1.1 BDL BDL
MW-7
Page 7 of 8
Sample ID
Collect Date
Tetrachloroethane μg/L 0.7 700
Trichloroethane μg/L 3 3,000
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 70 70,000
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene μg/L 100 100,000
1,1-Dichloroethane μg/L 6 6,000
1,1,1 Trichloroethane μg/L 200 200,000
Ethylbenzene μg/L 600 84,500
Toluene μg/L 600 260,000
NOTES:
Historical data obtained from Groundwater Monitoring Report - February 2007
ug/L = micrograms per liter
NS = Not Sampled
BDL = below minimum laboratory detection limits
Units NC 2L Standard
(μg/L)
Gross Contamination
Levels for Groundwater
(μg/L)
TABLE 4 - HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS (HITS ONLY)
312 SOUTH PINE STREET
ABERDEEN, MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W&R PROJECT NO. 02130182.00
9/5/2002 6/19/2003 12/3/2003 6/21/2004 12/1/2004 2/28/2007
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
NS BDL Dry Dry Dry BDL
MW-8
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS &
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORMS
Attachment AList of Analytes with QC Qualifiers
Sample Work Sample Run
Number Group Type Analyte ID Qualifier
________________ ___________ _______ ________________________________________ __________ __________
L640156-07 WG666568 SAMP Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP n-Nitrosodimethylamine R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 2-Nitrophenol R2708021 J3
L640156-08 WG666568 SAMP Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP n-Nitrosodimethylamine R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 2-Nitrophenol R2708021 J3
L640156-09 WG666568 SAMP Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP n-Nitrosodimethylamine R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 2-Nitrophenol R2708021 J3 L640156-10 WG666568 SAMP Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP n-Nitrosodimethylamine R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 2-Nitrophenol R2708021 J3
L640156-11 WG666568 SAMP Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP n-Nitrosodimethylamine R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 2-Nitrophenol R2708021 J3
L640156-12 WG666568 SAMP Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP n-Nitrosodimethylamine R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene R2708021 J3
WG666568 SAMP 2-Nitrophenol R2708021 J3
Page 38 of 52
Attachment BExplanation of QC Qualifier Codes
Qualifier Meaning
__________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
J3 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range
for precision.
Qualifier Report Information
ESC utilizes sample and result qualifiers as set forth by the EPA Contract Laboratory Program and
as required by most certifying bodies including NELAC. In addition to the EPA qualifiers adopted
by ESC, we have implemented ESC qualifiers to provide more information pertaining to our analytical
results. Each qualifier is designated in the qualifier explanation as either EPA or ESC.
Data qualifiers are intended to provide the ESC client with more detailed information concerning
the potential bias of reported data. Because of the wide range of constituents and variety ofmatrices incorporated by most EPA methods,it is common for some compounds to fall outside of
established ranges. These exceptions are evaluated and all reported data is valid and useable
"unless qualified as 'R' (Rejected)."
Definitions
Accuracy - The relationship of the observed value of a known sample to the
true value of a known sample. Represented by percent recovery and
relevant to samples such as: control samples, matrix spike recoveries,
surrogate recoveries, etc.
Precision - The agreement between a set of samples or between duplicate samples.
Relates to how close together the results are and is represented by
Relative Percent Differrence.
Surrogate - Organic compounds that are similar in chemical composition, extraction,
and chromotography to analytes of interest. The surrogates are used to
determine the probable response of the group of analytes that are chem-
ically related to the surrogate compound. Surrogates are added to thesample and carried through all stages of preparation and analyses.
TIC - Tentatively Identified Compound: Compounds detected in samples that are
not target compounds, internal standards, system monitoring compounds,
or surrogates.
Page 39 of 52
Summary of Remarks For Samples Printed
06/18/13 at 13:11:21
TSR Signing Reports: 134
R5 - Desired TAT
Do not log for QC2MODCN
Sample: L640156-01 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-02 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-03 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-04 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-05 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-06 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-07 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-08 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-09 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-10 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-11 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Sample: L640156-12 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/18/13 13:09
Attachment AList of Analytes with QC Qualifiers
Sample Work Sample Run
Number Group Type Analyte ID Qualifier
________________ ___________ _______ ________________________________________ __________ __________
L640157-01 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-02 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-03 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-04 WG665537 SAMP Acrolein R2701460 J5
WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4 WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-05 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-06 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-07 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-08 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-09 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-10 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-11 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4 WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-12 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-13 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
L640157-14 WG665537 SAMP 1,2-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP 1,4-Dichlorobenzene R2701460 J4
WG665537 SAMP Isopropylbenzene R2701460 J4
Page 34 of 46
Attachment BExplanation of QC Qualifier Codes
Qualifier Meaning
__________________ _______________________________________________________________________________
J4 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range
for accuracy.
J5 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate
determination; spike value is high
Qualifier Report Information
ESC utilizes sample and result qualifiers as set forth by the EPA Contract Laboratory Program and
as required by most certifying bodies including NELAC. In addition to the EPA qualifiers adopted
by ESC, we have implemented ESC qualifiers to provide more information pertaining to our analyticalresults. Each qualifier is designated in the qualifier explanation as either EPA or ESC.
Data qualifiers are intended to provide the ESC client with more detailed information concerning
the potential bias of reported data. Because of the wide range of constituents and variety of
matrices incorporated by most EPA methods,it is common for some compounds to fall outside of
established ranges. These exceptions are evaluated and all reported data is valid and useable
"unless qualified as 'R' (Rejected)."
Definitions
Accuracy - The relationship of the observed value of a known sample to the
true value of a known sample. Represented by percent recovery and
relevant to samples such as: control samples, matrix spike recoveries,
surrogate recoveries, etc.
Precision - The agreement between a set of samples or between duplicate samples.
Relates to how close together the results are and is represented by
Relative Percent Differrence.
Surrogate - Organic compounds that are similar in chemical composition, extraction,and chromotography to analytes of interest. The surrogates are used to
determine the probable response of the group of analytes that are chem-
ically related to the surrogate compound. Surrogates are added to the
sample and carried through all stages of preparation and analyses.
TIC - Tentatively Identified Compound: Compounds detected in samples that are
not target compounds, internal standards, system monitoring compounds,
or surrogates.
Page 35 of 46
Summary of Remarks For Samples Printed
06/14/13 at 17:39:31
TSR Signing Reports: 134
R5 - Desired TAT
Do not log for QC2MODCN
Sample: L640157-01 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-02 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-03 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-04 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-05 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-06 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-07 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-08 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-09 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-10 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-11 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-12 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-13 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38
Sample: L640157-14 Account: WITHRAVS Received: 06/08/13 07:00 Due Date: 06/14/13 00:00 RPT Date: 06/14/13 17:38