20003_CommScope Industrial_Addendum 2_PHASE I RI-LIMTED GW_ (Nov 2014)

22. Addendum 2, Combined Remedial Investigation and Remedial Action Completion
Report, AECOM (November 2014)

ADDENDUM 2
PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT
LIMITED GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT

Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. Facility
1545 St. James Church Road
Newton, Catawba County, North Carolina

NCDENR Site ID #NCD991279118

Prepared for:

R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company 300 Jones Road Spartanburg, South Carolina 29307

Prepared by: AECOM North Carolina, Inc.
8540 Colonnade Center Drive Suite 306
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615

November 2014

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. i
60214687 November 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 Field Activities ........................................................................................................ 2-1
Field Investigation Methods for Soil Sampling ............................................ 2-1 2.1
Manufacturing Building ..................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Design .......................................................... 2-2 2.2
Temporary Monitoring Well Installation ............................................ 2-2 2.2.1
Well Development ............................................................................ 2-3 2.2.2
Groundwater Quality Sampling ......................................................... 2-3 2.2.3
Surveying .................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3
Sample Handing and Shipping .................................................................... 2-3 2.4
Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................... 2-3 2.5
Equipment Cleaning .................................................................................... 2-4 2.6
Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) ............................................................. 2-4 2.7
3.0 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ............................................................................ 3-1
Regional Geology ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1
Local Geology ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2
Regional Hydrogeology ............................................................................... 3-2 3.3
Local Hydrogeology .................................................................................... 3-2 3.4
4.0 Investigation Results .............................................................................................. 4-1
Data Validation ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1
Soil Field Screening Results ....................................................................... 4-1 4.2
Soil Sample Analytical Results .................................................................... 4-1 4.3
Groundwater Analytical Results .................................................................. 4-1 4.4
Investigation Derived Waste Analytical Results .......................................... 4-2 4.5
5.0 Investigation Summary and Conclusions ............................................................... 5-1
Soils ............................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1
Groundwater ............................................................................................... 5-1 5.2
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3
6.0 Cited References ................................................................................................... 6-1

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. ii
60214687 November 2014
List of Appendices

Appendix A – Field Forms
Appendix B – Monitoring Well Construction Permit and Records
Appendix C – Survey Data
Appendix D – Laboratory Analytical Data
Appendix E – IDW Manifests and Disposal

List of Tables

Table 1 – Summary of Monitoring Well Construction Details
Table 2 – Summary of Prior and Recent Analytical Results in Groundwater
Table 3 – Summary of Groundwater Field Parameter Results
Table 4 – Summary of Organic Analytical Results in Soil
Table 5 – Summary of Organic Analytical Results in Groundwater
Table 6 – Summary of Organic Analytical Results in IDW Sample
Table 7 – Summary of Added Data Qualifiers

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 3 – Groundwater Surface Elevation Map (October 2, 2014)

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 1-1
60214687 November 2014
1.0 Introduction

The former Meredith/Burda, Inc. facility is under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section,
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB). As part of the closure process under the IHSB, the site has been
accepted into the Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) program. An Administrative Agreement was
signed between R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company (RRD) and NCDENR in October 2012 to conduct a
voluntary remedial action at the Site in accordance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. 130A-310.9(c), 15A
NCAC 13C .0300, and the “Registered Environmental Consultant Program Implementation Guidance”.
Based on the results of the Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI) for the site, which were submitted to
NCDENR as a Combined Remedial Investigation and Remedial Action Completion Report on December 10,
2013, the site was given a No Further Action (NFA) status (NCDENR, January 2014).
Subsequent to completion of the RI, RRD became aware of an additional incident number assigned to the
site (IHS ID: NONCD0002357, GW Incident #13138). This incident related to the historic occurrence of low
concentrations of the chlorinated volatile organic compound (CVOC) tetrachloroethene (PCE) in groundwater
that were previously detected during a 1997 assessment conducted at the site by Trigon Engineering
Consultants, Inc. Based on subsequent groundwater monitoring data, on September 12, 2007, Advanced
Geoservices requested that NCDENR issue an NFA determination for the groundwater incident. NCDENR
responded to the request on June 2, 2008 that the site did not appear to meet the requirements of the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act (IHSRA) for an NFA at that time.
In May 2014, discussions with NCDENR representatives indicated that former GW Incident #13138 could be
resolved under the current Administrative Agreement with additional limited groundwater assessment. This
assessment could be conducted as an addendum to the Phase I RI.
In October 2014, RRD was notified by NCDENR that they were correcting a historical error and were
merging the R.R. Donnelley Site ID number with the Meredith/Burda Site. RRD was instructed to use the
Meredith/Burda Site ID No. (NCD991279118) for all future correspondence, as the R.R. Donnelley Site ID
(NONCD0002357) will be removed from the NCDENR site inventory and all files under the R.R. Donnelley
Site will be transferred over to the Meredith/Burda Site.
The objectives of this limited groundwater assessment, therefore, are to evaluate the current conditions
relative to the historic detections of PCE in groundwater beneath a discrete portion of former Meredith/Burda,
Inc. facility, screen the data against appropriate standards and to submit the results to the IHSB of NCDEHR
to determine if the site qualifies for a final NFA status relating to former groundwater incident number.

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 2-1
60214687 November 2014
2.0 Field Activities

The Site is located at 1545 St. James Church Road, Newton, Catawba County, North Carolina. The Site
consists of one 327,850 square foot building located on approximately 90.7 acres of land (Figure 1). A
detailed description of the site and its history was presented in Section 2.0 of the original Phase I RI Work
Plan (AECOM, January 2013).
Monitoring well MW-12 was originally constructed in 1994 as part of another groundwater investigation at the
site. Due to the detections of low concentrations of PCE in groundwater from the well, MW-15 and MW-16
were installed in 1997, followed by MW-17 in 1998. Monitoring wells MW-12 and MW-15 were originally
installed through the concrete floor in the Reel Room as a shallow and deep monitoring well cluster (Type II
and Type III construction, respectively). Monitoring wells MW-17 and MW-16 were originally installed through
the concrete floor in the adjacent Cylinder Storage Room as a shallow and deep monitoring well cluster
(Type II and Type III construction, respectively). Well construction details are summarized on Table 1.
The two shallow monitoring wells (MW-12 and MW-17) had historic detections of PCE in groundwater.
However, the maximum detected concentration of PCE was only 24 g/L (MW-12). The data indicate that
there was a decreasing trend in PCE concentrations in groundwater samples obtained from MW-12 over the
three monitoring periods; from February 1997 through October 1998. A tabulation of the historic groundwater
quality results from these four monitoring wells is presented on Table 2.
To facilitate the sale of the property, these four monitoring wells were abandoned by grouting on April 25,
2011 prior to the knowledge of the open NCDENR groundwater incident number. In order to close out the
remaining incident number, additional groundwater quality samples were therefore required to evaluate
current groundwater quality conditions relative to PCE and any degradation products. Since the original four
wells had been abandoned, AECOM proposed installing and sampling a total of four temporary Type II
monitoring wells at the site:
 a new temporary monitoring well (B-101) in the Reel Room located in the immediate vicinity of
former well cluster MW-12/MW-15;
 a new temporary monitoring well (B-102) in the Cylinder Storage Room located in the immediate
vicinity of former well cluster MW-17/MW-16;
 a new temporary monitoring well (B-103) in the Cylinder Storage Room, located approximately 110
feet in the down-gradient direction of former wells MW-17/MW-16; and
 a new temporary monitoring well (B-104) outside of the facility, located approximately 287 feet in the
down-gradient direction of former wells MW-17/MW-16.
The well locations were chosen to evaluate the original areas with PCE detections and areas down-gradient
where CVOCs could have migrated. Due to the lack of detections of CVOCs in the historic groundwater
quality data (Table 2), deeper, double cased (Type III) wells were determined to not be necessary to
evaluate the current site groundwater conditions. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of the original monitoring
wells (MW-12, -15, -16, -17) and the new temporary monitoring wells (B-101 through B-104).

Field Investigation Methods for Soil Sampling 2.1
Soil samples were collected via continuous coring for characterization and chemical analysis of the soils
beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the facility and to evaluate the potential for a residual PCE source.
The soils were screened in the field for VOCs using a photo-ionization detector (PID). The soil zone with the
highest concentration of VOCs (if any) were planned to then be further screened in the field for the presence
AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 2-2
60214687 November 2014
of PCE using the Color-Tec® analytical method. One soil sample from each borehole was submitted to the
subcontract analytical laboratory for analysis of 13 CVOCs by USEPA Method 8260B.

Manufacturing Building 2.1.1
A Diedrich D-50 drill rig was used to advance four soil borings in the vicinity and down-gradient of the former
monitoring wells (MW-12 and MW-17) in which PCE was historically detected. All drilling activities were
performed by a driller licensed in the State of North Carolina.
Borings B-102 thru B-104 were advanced using hollow-stem augers (HSA’s) while using continuous split-
spoons to sample and characterize soils from near ground surface to the target depth of each borehole. The
drill rig derrick was not able to be raised in the Reel Room due to a low ceiling height. Therefore, location B-
101 (near the former MW-12/MW-15 cluster), was sampled via auger soil cuttings, which were collected at 5
foot intervals from the auger flights.
Soil boring B-101 was advanced to a total depth of 35.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) using the Dierich
rig. Soil borings B-102 through B-104 were drilled and continuously sampled to total depths of 36 feet bgs
(Table 1).
Detailed geologist logs were maintained by the AECOM geologist during all drilling operations. Test Boring
Reports were used to record the geologist’s field observations and other pertinent conditions encountered.
Soils were described using the Unified Soil Classification System.
A PID was used during the field soil sampling activities to qualitatively assess the concentration of volatile
organic vapors present in the recovered soil samples. Headspace screening for potential VOCs was
conducted at approximately two foot intervals at the time of sampling by filling a sealable polyethylene bag
with soil sample aliquots collected from the designated intervals. After approximately five minutes, the PID
probe was inserted into the headspace of the bag and the reading was recorded. Soil lithologic descriptions
and PID headspace readings from each soil boring are included on the Test Boring Reports and/or daily
reports, which are provided in Appendix A.
Since high concentrations of VOCs were not detected in the head space of the containerized soil samples,
Color-Tec® screening was not performed. However, representative soil samples were collected for definitive
laboratory analysis of CVOCs from depths of 18 feet at B-101, 16 feet at B-102, 5 feet at B-103, and 22 feet
at B-104.

Groundwater Monitoring Well Design 2.2
As part of the RI Work Plan submittal, a monitoring well installation application was included for the drilling
and installation of B-101 through B-104 (AECOM, July 2014). A monitoring well construction permit, dated
July 2014, was subsequently issued by NCDENR (Appendix B).
Temporary Monitoring Well Installation 2.2.1
Upon completion of the soil borings B-101 through B-104, the borings were converted into temporary
groundwater monitoring wells. Each of the four temporary monitoring wells is constructed of 2-inch diameter
Schedule 40 PVC casing and 10 feet of machine slotted PVC screen placed from approximately 25 to 35 feet
below ground surface (bgs). A graded filter sand was added to the annular space to approximately two-feet
above the top of the well screen. A bentonite clay seal was placed in the annular space above the filter sand
and hydrated with fresh water. The geologic log (test boring report) and the monitoring well construction
details are provided in Appendix A. A monitoring well completion form was completed by the drilling
subcontractor and submitted to NCDENR. A copy of the well completion form is included in Appendix B.
AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 2-3
60214687 November 2014
Well Development 2.2.2
Upon installation, the four temporary groundwater monitoring wells were developed so that they would
produce representative groundwater samples. A combination of an electric submersible Whale pump and
bailer were used for the development of the wells. Well development was continued until the turbidity,
specific conductance, and temperature of the water had stabilized to within approximately 10 percent and pH
had stabilized to within 0.2 standard units (su) for three consecutive readings. Copies of the Monitoring Well
Development Logs are included in Appendix A.
Groundwater Quality Sampling 2.2.3
The temporary monitoring wells were purged and sampled using disposable polyethylene bailers. During well
purging, water quality indicator parameters were monitored until they had stabilized within the tolerances
stated in Section 2.2.2 above. A summary of the groundwater quality field indicator parameters at the time
the groundwater sample was collected presented in Table 3. The groundwater samples from the four
temporary monitoring wells were submitted for laboratory analysis of 13 CVOC’s, including PCE,
trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) by USEPA Method 8260B.
Surveying 2.3
A North Carolina licensed surveyor was subcontracted to determine the horizontal location and elevation of
the four temporary monitoring wells located within and adjacent to the manufacturing building (Figure 2).
Surveying field work was conducted by Benchmark Surveying, Inc., of Greenville, SC on October 2, 2014.
Northing and Easting coordinates were referenced to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) and vertical
elevations (ground surface, top of well casing) were referenced to the North American Vertical Datum 1988
(NAVD88). Surveyed location coordinates and elevations are provided in Appendix C and are also included
on the respective Test Boring Reports (Appendix A).
Sample Handing and Shipping 2.4
Upon collection, all environmental soil and groundwater samples were documented on chain of custody
forms. The samples bottles were then placed and sealed into plastic bags and the bags of sample containers
were temporarily stored in a cooler with ice to maintain a temperature of approximately 4 degrees Celsius.
Each cooler was kept and delivered to the analytical laboratory under chain of custody protocols. The chilled
samples were shipped via overnight express delivery to Gulf Coast Analytical Laboratories (GCAL) for
analysis. GCAL is located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and is certified by NCDNER to conduct the analytical
tests performed as part of this Addendum to the Phase I RI. Copies of the sample chain of custody forms are
included with the laboratory certificates of analysis in Appendix D.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control 2.5
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) samples were collected during the Addendum 2 Limited
Groundwater Assessment field work and analyzed for the purpose of assessing the quality of the field
sampling effort and of the analytical data. These samples consisted of a duplicate, a matrix spike and a
matrix spike duplicate, and a trip blank. A duplicate sample was collected to evaluate the laboratory’s ability
to replicate the analytical results. The duplicate sample was given an “-a” suffix to distinguish it from the
original sample. A duplicate sample was collected at groundwater well B-101 (B-101-a).
Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were collected to provide an indication if the
analytical results were affected by interferences of the sample matrix (e.g., soil or groundwater matrix).
MS/MSD samples were submitted from groundwater well B-102 (B-102-MS/-MSD).
One trip blank, containing organic-free reagent-grade water, accompanied the sample bottles during the
initial shipment from the laboratory, through the sampling process and shipment back to the laboratory.
These blanks were used to evaluate the potential for cross-contamination of the samples by CVOCs.
AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 2-4
60214687 November 2014
Equipment Cleaning 2.6
All drilling equipment and tooling was cleaned prior to beginning each boring. Cleaning consisted of pressure
washing and steam cleaning all equipment that came into contact with the soil. Wash waters and soils were
collected and retained on plastic sheeting and transferred to drums as investigation derived waste (IDW).
All non-disposable well development pumps were cleaned before each use. Cleaning procedures consisted
of washing with de-ionized water and laboratory-grade detergent and rinsing with de-ionized water.
Groundwater sampling bailers were made of single use, disposable polyethylene and thus did not require
cleaning.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn by sampling and drilling personnel in accordance with the
Site Specific Health and Safety Plan (AECOM, January 2013). Disposable gloves were changed between
sampling locations or as necessary.
Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) 2.7
All soil cuttings from drilling and sampling, and purged groundwater generated during well development, and
sampling was temporarily stored as IDW. The IDW was segregated by type and placed in Department of
Transportation (DOT)-approved 55-gallon open head drums:
 11 drums of soils
 2 drums of monitoring well purge water
 1 drum of water/soil that was retained from the equipment cleaning
The drums were temporarily staged on the concrete pad near the electrical substation on the southern side
of the former Meredith/Burda facility. Access to the site is prevented by security fencing and an entrance
gate that is manned by a guard on a 24/7 schedule.
Used personal protective equipment (PPE), disposable sampling equipment, and other miscellaneous trash
was consolidated in trash bags at the end of each day, sealed, and staged at a central location for
subsequent disposal as non-hazardous solid waste.
A representative sample of containerized soil IDW was collected and submitted for laboratory analysis of
CVOC’s via EPA Method 8260B. Upon receipt and review of the analytical data, waste profiles were
completed so that appropriate disposal options could be developed. All IDW was classified as non-
hazardous. A non-hazardous shipping manifest was prepared and the IDW was transported by A&D
Environmental Services for ultimate disposal at Uwharrie Environmental Landfill, located in Archdale, NC.
The analytical results for the solid and aqueous IDW samples are included in the GCAL report (Appendix D).
A copy of the waste characterization form and signed manifest are included in Appendix E.

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 3-1
60214687 November 2014
3.0 Site Geology and Hydrogeology

A detailed description of the regional and local geology and hydrogeology was originally presented in Section 3
of the Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) report (Trigon, 1994) that is on file at the NCDENR DWM UST
Section office in Mooresville, North Carolina. Updated information regarding the seasonal groundwater flow
patterns at the Site were provided in the groundwater monitoring reports in the UST Section files (see Table 1,
AECOM, January 2013). A summary of the geology and hydrogeology of the site and vicinity from those
reports and data generated during the Phase I RI is presented below.
Regional Geology 3.1
Catawba County is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina and contains a wide
variety of rock types within its boundaries, including granite, gneisses, schists, quartzites and crystalline
limestones. The predominant rock types are metamorphic gneisses and schists, which show a strong foliation
or schistosity. Throughout the Piedmont of the southeastern United States, bedrock weathers to form saprolite,
which retains the structure of the parent bedrock. The thickness of saprolite can vary considerably depending
on location. Typically, a zone of weathered bedrock exists between the overlying saprolite and the underlying
competent bedrock. Further in-place weathering of saprolite results in shallow/surficial clayey soils termed
“residuum”. Residuum typically occurs in the shallow subsurface and is distinguished from the underlying
saprolite by a lack of structural or textural features of the parent rock.
According to LeGrand (1954) and the Geologic Map of North Carolina (Brown and others, 1985), rocks in the
Catawba County region trend northeastward. Locally, a broad belt of gneiss and schist trends northeastward
through the county and is present in the site vicinity. Outcrops of these rocks are rare; as the bedrock is
covered by a thick layer of red clayey soil (residuum).
The City of Newton is underlain by a biotite gneiss and schist that are described as megacrystalline and not
equigranular. Occurrences of gneiss and schist are often interlayered with calcite-silicate rock, sillimanite-mica
schist, mica schist, and amphibolites. South of Newton, encompassing the Site, the bedrock is an amphibolite
and biotite gneiss, which are described as interlayered with minor layers and lenses of hornblende gneiss,
metagabbro, mica schist, and granitic rock.
Local Geology 3.2
Above the bedrock, saprolite and residuum consist of a tan brown to green grey, micaceous, medium- to
fine-grained sandy silt that presumably formed from the in-place weathering of the underlying biotite gneiss
(as indicated on the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina). Prior subsurface investigations reported a one-
to five-foot thick wedge of red brown silty clay that thickens from northwest to southeast. This clay was
observed to overlie the residual silts in the vicinity of the manufacturing building, former USTs, and former
solvent recovery system. Boring logs from prior investigations are provided in the CSA report (Trigon, 1994).
The soil borings advanced at locations in and around the manufacturing building during the limited
groundwater assessment (B-101 through B-104) indicate that the subsurface beneath the immediate vicinity
of the manufacturing building consists primarily of silts, sandy silts, silts with clays, and silty sands. In
general, the uppermost 10 inches of material underneath the building consists of an 8-inch thick slab of
concrete, which is underlain by a gravel road base fill. Fill materials consisting of a dry, yellowish red silt with
sand to silt is present to about 7 feet bgs. From 7 to 20 feet bgs, a dry, weak red to reddish brown silt with
clay with faint relic structure is present. At 20 to 36 feet bgs, a dry to moist, yellowish red to reddish brown,
micaecous, saprolitic (gneiss or mica schist in nature), silty sand exists. From these four soil borings,
saturated soils seemed to occur at approximately 16 feet bgs at B-102 to 26 feet bgs at B-104 location.
Copies of the test boring reports for B-101 through B-104 are included in Appendix A.
AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 3-2
60214687 November 2014
Regional Hydrogeology 3.3
Two aquifer units characterize the hydrogeology of the area. The saprolite and overlying residuum serve as an
unconfined aquifer (water table aquifer) that stores and transmits water downward to the lower semi-confined
partially weathered rock (PWR) and then into the fractured crystalline bedrock aquifer unit.
Shallow groundwater typically occurs and is stored in the primary porosity of the saprolite and migrates slowly
downward into the PWR and subsequently, into bedrock. The water table typically mimics surface topography,
with recharging occurring in the higher elevations and discharge occurring at lower elevations, such as stream
beds.
The PWR, often referred to as the “transition zone,” is characterized by its ability to transmit groundwater at a
higher rate than either saprolite or bedrock due to open fractures and greater porosity from partial chemical
weathering. PWR commonly occurs associated with the bedrock aquifer unit. Groundwater movement in PWR
flows through open fractures (secondary porosity) and also through the rock matrix (primary) porosity.
Groundwater movement in the bedrock is primarily restricted to intersecting sets of water bearing fractures and
joints (secondary porosity) and to a lesser extent through the rock matrix porosity, which typically has a low
hydraulic conductivity.
Local Hydrogeology 3.4
On October 2, 2014, AECOM personnel collected depth to water readings in each temporary monitoring well
prior to well purging and sampling. This data, along with the surveyed top of casings were used to develop
the potentiometric map of the water table surface, as illustrated on Figure 3.
Based on the boring logs from MW-15 and MW-16, the surficial unconfined aquifer unit extends to depths
ranging from 37 to 42 feet bgs, where partially weathered rock was encountered. Depth to water measurements
resulted in water level elevations ranging from 955.13 to 943.38 feet (NAVD88) (approximately 25 to 35 feet
below land surface). The potentiometric map developed from the water level elevation data suggests that
shallow groundwater flows towards the south-southeast under a hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.033 feet
per foot (ft/ft) toward the Smyre Creek that borders the Southern boundary of the property.
AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 4-1
60214687 November 2014
4.0 Investigation Results

The following sections of this report present the site characterization results based on the field screening
activities and laboratory analyses of the soil and groundwater samples. Summaries of the CVOC analytical
data are presented in Tables 4 through 6 by media sampled. A summary of the added data qualifiers is
presented in Table 7.
Data Validation 4.1
AECOM performed independent QC checks of field and laboratory procedures that were used in collecting
and analyzing the data. The QC checks verify that the data collected are of appropriate quality for the
intended data use and that the analytical data quality objectives (DQOs) were met. The steps and guidelines
followed during the data validation process were modeled on the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program
National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (USEPA, October 2004), USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (USEPA, October 1999), and
Data Validation Standard Operating Procedures for Contract Laboratory Program Routine Analytical
Services (USEPA, July 1999). In addition, method-specific criteria set forth in the compendium of analytical
methods found in the Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste (SW-846), Update III (USEPA, June 1997)
are also evaluated during the validation process.
The result of the data validation process was that none of the data were rejected and therefore, the data
associated with this investigation should be considered compliant and adequate for its intended use in
assessing the occurrence of CVOCs in soil and groundwater beneath the site.
Soil Field Screening Results 4.2
Recovered soil samples from beneath and adjacent to the manufacturing building were screened with a PID
for the presence of volatile organic vapors. In summary, the observed headspace readings ranged from 0.6
to 1.7 parts per million (ppm). No signs of any petroleum or solvent-like odors or soil staining were reported
in the recovered soil samples, which indicate little to no impact from volatile organic compounds.
Soil Sample Analytical Results 4.3
Representative soil samples from soil borings B-101 through B-104 were analyzed for CVOCs. The results
of the definitive laboratory analyses for CVOCs are summarized in Table 4. Only PCE was detected in the
soil samples collected; at low (estimated) concentrations:
 B-102 at 0.00109 mg/kg
 B-103 at 0.00075 mg/kg
 B-104 at 0.00064 mg/kg
None of the reported PCE concentrations for the samples listed above exceeded their respective North
Carolina IHSB Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal (PSRG) values.
Groundwater Analytical Results 4.4
Groundwater from temporary monitoring wells B-101 through B-104 was analyzed for CVOCs and the results
of the laboratory analyses are summarized in Table 5. No CVOCs were detected in any of the groundwater
samples tested, including the duplicate sample.
The analytical results were screened against the applicable North Carolina Administrative Code (NCDENR,
April 2013) 2L Groundwater Standards as per the REC Program Implementation Guidance (NCDENR,
November 2012). The groundwater analytical results for PCE were reported on Table 5 as < 5.0 g/L, which
is the Reporting Detection Limit (RDL). Because the 2L Groundwater Standard (0.7 g/L) is less than the
AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 4-2
60214687 November 2014
RDL, the Method Detection Limit (MDL) was used. The laboratory MDL for PCE was 0.193 g/L for all four
groundwater samples. The groundwater analytical results for PCE were all less than the MDL (see GCAL
laboratory report, Appendix D). Therefore, there was not an exceedance above the respective 2L
groundwater standards.
Included with Table 2 is a time-series graph of the historic and current groundwater quality data for PCE from
the MW-12/B-101 location and the MW-17/B-102 location. This graph illustrates that PCE in groundwater at
these two locations has decreased over the period of record to non-detectable levels.
Investigation Derived Waste Analytical Results 4.5
Soil IDW was sampled and analyzed to characterize the waste for disposal purposes. A summary of the
analytical results for CVOCs from the soil IDW sample (IDW-SS) are presented in Table 6. Based on these
analytical results, the IDW was accepted by the disposal facility as non-hazardous waste. Copies of the
waste characterization profiles and the disposal manifest are included in Appendix E.

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 5-1
60214687 November 2014
5.0 Investigation Summary and Conclusions
This Limited Groundwater Assessment of soil and groundwater was conducted as Addendum 2 to the Phase
I Remedial Investigation. The field activities were designed to evaluate the current groundwater conditions
relative to the historic detections of PCE in groundwater beneath a discrete portion of former Meredith/Burda,
Inc. facility.
Soils 5.1
Soil boring samples were analyzed for CVOCs. PCE was detected in three of the four soil boring samples at
low (estimated) concentrations. However, none of the detected PCE concentrations exceeded the PSRG
(Table 4). Therefore, based on the field screening and definitive laboratory analyses, chlorinated volatile
organic compounds are not deemed to be a concern in soils beneath the manufacturing building and no
further action for soil is recommended.
Groundwater 5.2
Groundwater from four locations beneath and adjacent to the manufacturing building was sampled for
CVOCs and screened against 15A NCAC 2L standards (Table 5). No CVOCs were detected in the
groundwater samples and therefore, no site-related impact from CVOCs is deemed to be occurring in the
groundwater beneath the manufacturing building. No further action for groundwater is recommended.
Conclusions 5.3
As previously presented in the Addendum 2 RI Work Plan (AECOM, July 2014), historic occurrence of low
concentrations of the CVOC tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in groundwater were previously detected during a
1997 assessment conducted at the site by Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. Based on subsequent
groundwater monitoring data, on September 12, 2007, Advanced Geoservices requested that NCDENR
issue an NFA determination for the open groundwater incident.
This Addendum 2 to the Phase I RI was designed to investigate the areas of historic PCE detections in
groundwater beneath the manufacturing building and provide the necessary information to NCDENR in order
make a NFA determination for the site.
According to the results of this limited additional investigation, groundwater beneath this portion of the
manufacturing building is not adversely impacted by CVOCs, including PCE. Therefore, based on the
decreasing PCE concentration trend in the historic data set and these recent groundwater quality results,
which are below the 15A NCAC 2L standards, there is not any environmental impact that would require
remedial efforts. NCDENR should, therefore, have the supporting data necessary to make a NFA
determination for the open groundwater incident.
Upon receipt of the NFA, the temporary monitoring wells will be abandoned by a North Carolina licensed well
driller.

AECOM North Carolina, Inc. 6-1
60214687 November 2014
6.0 Cited References

AECOM, Inc., July 2014, Addendum 2 Phase I Remedial Investigation Work Plan Limited Groundwater
Assessment, Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. Facility
AECOM, Inc., January 2013, Phase I Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. Facility.
Brown, P.M. and others, 1985, Geological Map of North Carolina; North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development.
LeGrand, Harry, 1954, Geology and Ground Water in the Statesville Area, North Carolina, North Carolina
Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Mineral Resources, Bulletin Number 68, 68 pp.
NCDENR, November 2012, Registered Environmental Consultant Program Implementation Guidance.
NCDENR, April 2013, Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup, Inactive Hazardous Sites Program.
NCDENR, January 2014, Letter correspondence from NCDENR to R. R. Donnelley, regarding Remedial
Investigation/Remedial Action Completion and No Further Action listing.
Trigon, 1994, Comprehensive Site Assessment Report.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), June 1997. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste (SW-846), 3rd Edition, Update III.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), July 1999. Data Validation Standard Operating
Procedures for Contract Laboratory Program Routine Analytical Services, Revision 2.1, EPA Region IV.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), October 1999. USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Publication #EPA540/R-99/008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), October 2004. USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. Publication #EPA540/R-04/004.

Tables

Ta
b
l
e

1
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ch
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d

V
O
C

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Fo
r
m
e
r

M
e
r
e
d
i
t
h
/
B
u
r
d
a
,

I
n
c
.

a
n
d

R
.

R
.

D
o
n
n
e
l
l
e
y

&

S
o
n
s

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

Ne
w
t
o
n
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
4"

C
a
s
i
n
g

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

2
"

C
a
s
i
n
g

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

S
c
r
e
e
n
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
To
p
(f
t

b
g
s
)
Bo
t
t
o
m
(f
t

b
g
s
)
To
p
(f
t

b
g
s
)
Bo
t
t
o
m
(f
t

b
g
s
)
To
p
(f
t

b
g
s
)
Bo
t
t
o
m
(f
t

b
g
s
)
MW
-
1
2
*
*

6
/
2
9
/
1
9
9
4
30
NA
0

1
5

1
5

3
0
II

2
6
.
0
4
*
NA
MW
-
1
5
*
*

4
/
1
8
/
1
9
9
7
44
NA

0

3
3
.
5

0

3
9

3
9

4
4
II
I

2
6
.
3
3
*
NA
B-
1
0
1

9
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
35
.
3

9
7
9
.
8
6
0

2
5
.
3

2
5
.
3

3
4
.
9

I
I

/

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

2
4
.
7
3

9
5
5
.
1
3
MW
-
1
7
*
*

4
/
2
3
/
1
9
9
8
30
NA
0

1
5

1
5

3
0
II

2
6
.
8
8
*
NA
MW
-
1
6
*
*

4
/
2
2
/
1
9
9
7
51
NA

0

3
9

0

4
6

4
6

5
1
II
I

2
9
.
7
8
*
NA
B-
1
0
2

9
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
35
.
3

9
7
9
.
8
6
0

2
5
.
3

2
5
.
3

3
4
.
9

I
I

/

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

2
9
.
3
6

9
5
0
.
5
0
B-
1
0
3

1
0
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
36

9
7
9
.
2
6
0

2
6

2
6

3
5
.
6

I
I

/

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

3
2
.
1
0

9
4
7
.
1
6
B-
1
0
4

9
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
4

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

o
f

B
l
d
g

3
5
.
8

9
7
5
.
9
9
0

2
5
.
8

2
5
.
8

3
5
.
4

I
I

/

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

3
2
.
6
1

9
4
3
.
3
8
No
t
e
s
:
(*
)

S
t
a
t
i
c

W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

o
n

1
0
/
1
3
/
1
9
9
8
(*
*
)

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l
s

M
W
-
1
2
,

M
W
-
1
5
,

M
W
-
1
6

a
n
d

M
W
-
1
7

w
e
r
e

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d

b
y

g
r
o
u
t
i
n
g

o
n

A
p
r
i
l

2
5
,

2
0
1
1
.
De
p
t
h
s

a
r
e

i
n

f
e
e
t

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
b
g
s
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

f
e
e
t
,

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
a
t
u
m

o
f

1
9
8
8

(
N
A
V
D

8
8
)
NA

=

N
o
t

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
TO
C

=

T
o
p

o
f

C
a
s
i
n
g
bt
o
c

=

b
e
l
o
w

t
o
p

o
f

c
a
s
i
n
g
bg
s

=

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
Da
t
e

In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
We
l
l

Nu
m
b
e
r
Re
e
l

R
o
o
m
Cy
l
i
n
d
e
r

St
o
r
a
g
e

R
o
o
m
Groundwater Elevation (ft NAVD 88)Static Water Level (btoc)
We
l
l

T
y
p
e
TO
C

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t

N
A
V
D

8
8
)
To
t
a
l

D
e
p
t
h
(f
t

b
g
s
)
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
L:
\
w
o
r
k
\
6
0
2
1
4
6
8
7
\
W
P
\
0
5

R
I

a
d
d
e
n
d
u
m

f
o
r

V
O
C

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s
\
Ta
b
l
e

1
&
2

-

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u

&

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

S
i
t
e

D
a
t
a
.
x
l
s
x
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

1
November 2014
Ta
b
l
e

2
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

P
r
i
o
r

a
nd

R
e
c
e
n
t

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

Re
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
at
e
r
Ch
l
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d

V
O
C

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Fo
r
m
e
r

M
e
r
e
d
i
t
h
/
B
u
r
d
a
,

I
n
c
.

a
n
d

R
.

R
.

D
o
n
n
e
l
l
e
y

&

S
o
n
s

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ne
w
t
o
n
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
15
A

N
C
A
C
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
2L
Sa
m
p
l
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
N
u
m
b
e
r

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
B-
1
0
1
B-
1
0
2

B
-
1
0
3

B
-
1
0
4
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
a
t
e

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

1
/
1
7
/
9
7

2
/
25
/
9
7

4
/
2
9
/
9
7

1
0
/
1
3
/
9
8

1
0
/
2
/
1
4

4
/
2
9
/
9
7

1
0
/
1
3
/
9
8

1
0
/
2
/
1
4

1
0
/
2
/
1
4

1
0
/
2
/
1
4
Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

(
u
g
/
L
)
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
0.
7
22

2
4

7
.
8

2
.
3
<
5

B
D
L
4.
3
<
5

<

5

<

5
To
l
u
e
n
e
60
0

3
1

3
6

2
8

B
D
L

A
N
R

4
8

3
.
1

A
N
R

A
N
R

A
N
R
Ch
l
o
r
o
f
o
r
m
70

A
N
R

A
N
R

B
D
L

B
D
L

<

5

1
4

B
D
L

<

5

<

5

<

5
Br
o
m
o
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
0.
6

A
N
R

A
N
R

B
D
L

B
D
L

<

5
2.
6
BD
L

<

5

<

5

<

5
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
35
0

A
N
R

A
N
R

B
D
L

B
D
L

<

5

B
D
L

2
.
7

<

5

<

5

<

5
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
6

A
N
R

A
N
R

B
D
L

B
D
L

<

5

B
D
L

4
.
1

<

5

<

5

<

5
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
3

A
N
R

A
N
R

B
D
L

B
D
L

<

5

B
D
L

2

<

5

<

5

<

5
Me
t
h
y le
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

1
5

A
N
R

A
N
R

B
D
L
10
<
5

B
D
L
11
<
5

<

5

<

5
No
t
e
s
:
(*
)

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

d
a
t
a

f
r
o
m
:

T
a
b
l
e

1
,

A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

G
e
o
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e

o
f

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
2
,

2
0
0
7
.
2L

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

(
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

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

C
o
d
e
)

2
L

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

(
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

D
a
t
e
:

A
p
r
i
l

1
,

2
0
1
3
)
.
Bo
l
d
a
n
d

s
h
a
d
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

a
n

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

2L

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

a
t

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

r
e
p
o
r
t
.
ug
/
L

=

m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
AN
R

=

A
n
a
l
y
t
e

N
o
t

R
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
BD
L

=

B
e
l
o
w

D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

L
i
m
i
t
s
1/
1
7
/
9
7
,

2
/
2
5
/
9
7

S
a
m
p
l
e
s

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d

b
y

E
P
A

M
e
t
h
o
d

8
2
4
0
4/
2
9
/
9
7
,

1
0
/
1
3
/
9
8

S
a
m
p
l
e
s

A
na
l
y
z
e
d

b
y

E
P
A

M
e
t
h
o
d

6
0
1
/
6
0
2
10
/
2
/
2
0
1
4

S
a
m
p
l
e
s

A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d

b
y

E
P
A

M
e
t
h
o
d

8
2
6
0
B

(
C
V
O
C
s

o
n
l
y

l
i
s
t
)
MW
-
1
2

a
n
d

M
W
-
1
7

w
e
r
e

T
y
p
e

I
I

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l
s

a
n
d

s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
a
b
l
e
.
1 =

B
e
l
i
e
v
e
d

b
y

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
o
r
s

t
o

b
e

a

L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

A
r
t
i
f
a
c
t
MW
-
1
2
*
An
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
MW
-
1
7
*
0510152025 1/
1
/
9
7

3
/
2
2
/
9
9

6
/
9
/
0
1

8
/
2
9
/
0
3

1
1
/
1
6
/
0
5

2
/
5
/
0
8

4
/
2
5
/
1
0

7
/
1
3
/
1
2

1
0
/
2
/
1
4
P
C
E

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
g
/
L
)
Tim
e
PC
E
 Tr
e
n
d
l
i
n
e
s

PC
E
 MW
‐12
/
B
‐10
1
PC
E
 MW
‐17
/
B
‐10
2
L:\
w
o
r
k
\
6
0
2
1
4
6
8
7
\
W
P
\
0
5

R
I

a
d
d
e
n
d
u
m

f
o
r

V
O
C

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s
\
T
a
b
l
e

1
&
2

-

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u

&

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

S
i
t
e

D
a
t
a
.
x
l
s
x
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

1
November 2014
Table 3
Summary of Groundwater Field Indicator Parameter Results
Chlorinated VOC Assessment
Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. and R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Newton, North Carolina
Sample ID Measurement
Date pH
Specific
Conductance
(mS/cm)
Water
Temperature
(°C)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/L)
ORP
(mV)
Saprolite Monitoring Wells
B-101 10/2/2014 6.17 0.038 21.70 768.7 7.22 221.5
B-102 10/2/2014 5.81 0.034 23.54 >1100 8.40 253.1
B-103 10/2/2014 5.48 0.038 21.70 653.6 5.64 269.9
B-104 10/2/2014 5.48 0.051 18.93 >1100 5.60 188.9
Notes:
mS/cm - milliSiemens per centimeter°C - Celsius
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
mg/L - milligram per liter
mV - millivolt
L:\work\60214687\WP\05 RI addendum for VOC Report\Tables\\
Table 3 - Field Parameters 2014.xlsx Page 1 of 1 November 2014
Table 4
Summary of Organic Analytical Results in Soil
Chlorinated VOC Assessment
Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. and R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Newton, North Carolina
Sample ID NCDENR B-101-18 B-102-16 B-103-5 B-104-22
Date Collected IHSB 09/30/14 09/30/14 10/01/14 09/29/14
Laboratory ID PSRG 21410060602 21410060603 21410060604 21410060601
CVOCs by Method 8260B (mg/kg)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 640 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.6 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.3 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
1,1-Dichloroethane 3.6 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.0051 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.46 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
1,2-Dichloropropane 1 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
Carbon tetrachloride 0.65 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
Chloroform 0.32 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
Methylene chloride 57 < 0.0133 < 0.012 < 0.0104 < 0.0123
Tetrachloroethene 16 < 0.0067 0.0011 J// 0.0008 J// 0.0006 J//
Trichloroethene 0.82 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
Vinyl chloride 0.059 < 0.0067 < 0.006 < 0.0052 < 0.0061
Notes:
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
NCDENR IHSB PSRG - North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Inactive Hazardous
Site Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal for Residential Health based on carcinogenic risk of 1.0E-06
and noncarcinogenic hazard quotient of 0.2 (September 2014).
CVOC - chlorinated volatile organic compound
Bold and shading indicate a detected concentration.
See Table 7 for definitions of data qualifiers.
L:\work\60214687\WP\05 RI addendum for VOC Report\Tables\
Table 4&6 - Soil Results (Oct 2014).xlsx Page 1 of 1 November 2014
Table 5
Summary of Organic Analytical Results in Groundwater
Chlorinated VOC Assessment
Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. and R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Newton, North Carolina
Sample ID 15A NCAC 2L B-101 B-101-a B-102 B-103 B-104
Date Collected Groundwater 10/02/14 10/02/14 10/02/14 10/02/14 10/02/14
Laboratory ID Standard 21410060612 21410060613 21410060609 21410060608 21410060607
CVOCs by Method 8260B (ug/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.2 <5 <5 < 5 <5 <5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.6* < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
1,1-Dichloroethane 6 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.005 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.4 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.6 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Carbon tetrachloride 0.3 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Chloroform 70 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Methylene chloride 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Trichloroethene 3 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Vinyl chloride 0.03 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
Notes:
15A NCAC (North Carolina Administrative Code) 2L Groundwater Standard (Effective Date: April 1, 2013).
* indicates an Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration established under 15A NCAC 2L.0202.
-a - Duplicate Sample
-c - Trip Blank Sample
ug/L - micrograms per liter
CVOC - chlorinated volatile organic compound
Bold and shading indicate a detected concentration.
See Table 7 for explanation of data qualifiers.
Table 5 -Groundwater Results (Oct 2014).xlsx\T5 - VOCs Page 1 of 1 November 2014
Table 6
Summary of Organic Analytical Results in IDW Sample
Chlorinated VOC Assessment
Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. and R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Newton, North Carolina
Sample ID NCDENR IDW-SS
Date Collected IHSB 10/01/14
Laboratory ID PSRG 21410060605
CVOCs by Method 8260B (mg/kg)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 640 < 0.006
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.6 < 0.006
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.3 < 0.006
1,1-Dichloroethane 3.6 < 0.006
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.0051 < 0.006
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.46 < 0.006
1,2-Dichloropropane 1 < 0.006
Carbon tetrachloride 0.65 < 0.006
Chloroform 0.32 < 0.006
Methylene chloride 57 < 0.012
Tetrachloroethene 16 < 0.006
Trichloroethene 0.82 < 0.006
Vinyl chloride 0.059 < 0.006
Notes:
IDW - Investigation Derived Waste Sample
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
NCDENR IHSB PSRG - North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Inactive Hazardous Site Branch Preliminary Soil Remediation
Goal for Residential Health based on carcinogenic risk of 1.0E-06 and
noncarcinogenic hazard quotient of 0.2 (September 2014).
CVOC - chlorinated volatile organic compound
See Table 7 for definitions of data qualifiers.
L:\work\60214687\WP\05 RI addendum for VOC Report\Tables\
Table 4&6 - Soil Results (Oct 2014).xlsx Page 1 of 1 November 2014
Table 7 - Data Flags (Oct 2014).docx Page 1 of 1 November 2014
Table 7 Summary of Added Data Qualifiers
Chlorinated VOC Assessment Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. and R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Newton, North Carolina

Modifier Description
< Indicates not detected at the reporting limit indicated.
“/” Separates the laboratory added data qualifiers from the validation data qualifiers. The laboratory added data qualifiers precede the first “/”. The result qualifiers follow the first
“/”, and the analysis qualifiers follow the second “/”. The result qualifiers are a product of the data validation process, and the analysis qualifier defines the type of QC excursion.

Laboratory Data Qualifiers
Qualifier Description
J The analyte was positively identified. The quantitation is an estimation.

Result Data Qualifiers
None Present

Analysis Data Qualifiers
None Present

Figures

10 Patewood Drive, Building 6, Suite 500Greenville, SC 29615T: [phone] F: [phone]
PROJECT NO.60214687 DRAWN BY:RQL DATE:11/07/2012 Figure 1
Site Location Map
Former Meredith/Burda, Inc., FacilityNewton, North CarolinaTopo is a seamless, scanned images of United States Geological Survey (USGS)paper topographic maps.
Source: http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/USA_Topo_Maps
Note:5Map Projection: NAD 1983, State Plane,North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Datum: North American, 1983
0 1,500750Feet
1:18,000
Legend
Former Meredith/Burda, Inc. and
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. Property Boundary
Path: L:\work\60214687\CADD\GIS\Maps\F1_Commscope_8.5x11.mxd
18" PIPE
12" PIPE
24
"

P
I
P
E
AND
FORMER
FORMER
NON POTABLE
CONCRETE
AS
P
H
A
L
T
PAD
SUPPORTSCONCRETE
METHANOL UST
S
S S
S
S
S
S
WELL
15'
15'
15
'
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
100'
TRACKS
8"

S
E
W
E
R

L
I
N
E
1
5
"

P
I
P
E
12
"

P
I
P
E
24" P
I
P
E
CONC. OUTLET
CONC. OUTLET
CONC. OUTLET
CONC. OUTLET
15
"

P
I
P
E
SILOS
RET. WALL
WATER VAULT
GENERATOR
S
S
UST AREAWASTE WATER
SILO
20,000 GAL.50,000 GAL.
UST'SFUEL OIL
FIRE TANK300,000 GAL
POLEFLAG
ASPHALT
PUMP HOUSE
SILO104.02'
OFFICES
ASPHALTPARKINGLOT
8' CHAIN LINK FENCE
A
S
P
H
A
L
T

D
R
I
V
E
MANUFACTURING PLANT
A
S
P
H
A
L
T

D
R
I
V
E
SB-1/MW-1
ASPHALT LOT
FORMER SEDIMENT BASIN(FILLED IN)
ASPHALT LOT
ASPHALT LOT
8' CHA
I
N

L
I
N
K

F
E
N
C
E
10
"

W
/
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
B-103
B-102
B-101
B-104
MW-12 MW-15
MW-17 MW-16
..
10 Patewood Drive, Building 6, Suite 500
Greenville, SC 29615
T: [phone] F: [phone]
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DATE:
RJS60214687 10/29/2014
NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORMER MEREDITH/BURDA, INC., FACILITY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2
MONITORING WELL LOCATION (MAY 2013)
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL LOCATION (OCTOBER 2014)
HISTORICAL MONITORING WELL LOCATION
LEGEND
MW-1
REFERENCE:PHYSICAL SURVEY FOR COMMSCOPE INC.,PERFORMED BY DEDMON SURVEYS, DATED 11/13/11.
B-101
MW-12
FORMER
24"

P
I
P
E
CONC. OUTLET
SILOS
RET. WALL
GENERATOR
S
UST AREA
WASTE WATER
ASPHALT
104.02
'
MANUFACTURING PLANT
SB-1/MW-1
B-103
B-102
B-101
B-104
[947.16]
[950.50]
[955.13]
[943.38]
945
947
949
951
953
955
MW-12
MW-15
MW-17
MW-16
..
10 Patewood Drive, Building 6, Suite 500
Greenville, SC 29615
T: [phone] F: [phone]
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DATE:
RJS60214687 10/29/2014
NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORMER MEREDITH/BURDA, INC., FACILITY
OCTOBER 2, 2014GROUNDWATER SURFACE ELEVATION MAP
FIGURE 3
MONITORING WELL LOCATION (MAY 2013)
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL LOCATION (OCTOBER 2014)
HISTORICAL MONITORING WELL LOCATION
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FT. NAVD 88)
GROUNDWATER SURFACE CONTOUR (FT. NAVD 88)
INFERRED GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
LEGEND
MW-1
REFERENCE:
PHYSICAL SURVEY FOR COMMSCOPE INC.,PERFORMED BY DEDMON SURVEYS, DATED 11/13/11.
B-101
[955.13]
MW-12