18067_Wurst Property_DM_20160708

DECISION MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 8, 2016
FROM: Sharon Eckard, PG
TO: BF Assessment File
RE: Wurst Property
810 Lufkin Road
Apex, Wake County
BF #18040-14-060
Based on the following information, it has been determined that the above referenced
site, whose intended use is for no uses other than warehousing, office, or light industrial
use, and subject to DEQ's prior written approval, other commercial uses, and associated
parking, with potential future redevelopment to include educational uses other than pre-
school, primary, middle, or secondary school use unless that school use complies with
land use restrictions 15.f., 15.g, 15.h., and 15.i.in the Brownfields Agreement, can be
made suitable for such uses.
Introduction:
The Property comprises approximately 16 acres (tax parcel identification number
0741942224) and represents about 147,000 square feet of leasable space in the existing
building. There are three co -Prospective Developers for this Property: Mayberry
Investments, LLC, Beechmoor, LLC, and Wolfpack Family, LLC. The co-PDs have
acknowledged that they will be jointly and severally responsible for any liability incurred
by Prospective Developer, and jointly and severally entitled to all benefits and
protections afforded to, Prospective Developer as defined in paragraph 2 of the
Brownfields Agreement.
The co-PDs purchased the Property on March 22, 2016 from the prior property owner,
Henry Wurst Inc. of Raleigh (HWI), which is headquartered at 1331 Saline Street, North
Kansas City, MO. HWI acquired several undeveloped parcels from Jeanne S. and Joseph
E. Hack on December 30, 1970 that comprise the bulk of the Property, and acquired the
remainder of the Property from Cooper Industries, Inc. on January 31, 1972.
The Property is bordered to the north by industrial property operated by Apex Tool
Group (aka Cooper Tools) and currently owned by Apex Tool U.S. Real Estate Holding,
LLC; to the east by undeveloped wooded land owned by Apex Tool U.S. Real Estate
Holding, LLC; to the south by industrial property owned by Eastern Services Holdings,
LLC; and to the west by industrial property owned by Industrial Glass Corporation
(Potters Industries) and Southern Equipment Company, Inc.
Redevelopment Plans:

Initial redevelopment plans call for about $1,000,000 in renovations to expand the
underused facility and to attract more warehousing or light industrial tenants to the
location. Potential future plans include using the facility for educational uses,
particularly for adult education such as a technical or community college.
Site History:
The Property was undeveloped woodland dating back to 1938, and was first developed
for commercial printing operations in 1972 by HWI. A one-story, approximately 145,000
square feet slab on grade manufacturing building was constructed in 1972 with additional
improvements including asphalt parking and a tennis court in the northern area of the
Property through the early 1990s. A railroad spur, present from at least 1974 through
some time before 1993, terminated near the south wall of the building.
On -site commercial printing operations included the printing, production and distribution
of marketing materials. The facility operated under EPA ID No. NCD982162133. The
printing operations included the use of heatset web offset printing presses and a bindery.
Petroleum -based solvents were used to clean the printing presses. Solvents were
normally stored in a flammable liquid room located against the south exterior wall of the
plant building. HWI operated as a Small Quantity Generator producing hazardous wastes
with the D001 code (ignitable wastes). There is no record of violations pertaining to the
storage of hazardous wastes at the facility.
HWI ceased its operations at this facility in December 2011. Currently, the central and
northern portions of the building are empty as the printing equipment and supplies have
been removed from the Property. As of late in 2015, a small percentage of available
warehouse space in the southern portion of the building is leased out for the storage of
corrugated box products by a tenant, Corrugated Container Corporation, and for
inventory sorting and distribution of clothing items by another tenant, National Delivery,
which contracts with Ross Stores. A former garage structure in the eastern portion of the
Property was used to store delivery trucks, but was not used for maintenance or repairs,
nor storage of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. The garage burned in a fire years ago
and the remaining wood pallets were ground into large mulch piles. This is the location
where impacted soil from a petroleum solvent release was landfarmed.
A Colonial Oil pipeline easement extends along the southern boundary of the Property.
The pipeline is part of an interstate commercial petroleum distribution line, which
distributes fuel from the Gulf coast region to northern portions of the United States.
About 300 feet of this pipeline transects the Property below ground surface and has been
in place within this easement beginning sometime between 1959 and 1965.
Summary of Environmental Conditions:
The manufacturing operations at the Cooper Tools site since 1967 includes metal plating
operations and the use of multiple solvents. Cooper Tools operations included the drying
of sludge from their manufacturing processes on filter beds located near the northern
property boundary of the subject Property from 1967 to 1972, and from 1972 to 1975,
15,000 cubic feet of sludge was landfilled in trenches south of the drying beds or were
2

placed in a surface impoundment near the subject Property's northern boundary. The
former sludge landfill and solvent pit are now closed. The site is identified as a RCRA
Large Quantity Generator with the following hazardous waste codes: D001 (ignitable
hazardous wastes), D006 (cadmium), D007 (chromium), D008 (lead), DOI I (silver),
D035 (methyl ethyl ketone), D040 (trichloroethylene), F001 (spent halogenated solvents),
F003 (spent halogenated solvents), F006 (wastewater treatment sludge), and FO10 (bath
residue from oil baths). The EPA ID number for the Cooper Tools site is
NCD042892067.
Groundwater at the Property and in the surrounding area is contaminated with chlorinated
and non -chlorinated solvents stemming from the Cooper Tools operations immediately
north of the Property. However, impacted groundwater stemming from Cooper Tools
Industries operations underlies a portion of the northern area of the Property including the
northeastern portion of the on -site building. The groundwater flow direction in the site
vicinity is demonstrated to be to the southeast toward an unnamed tributary to Middle
Creek.
Several areas at the Property have been investigated as potential areas of environmental
concern. These areas include: a former underground storage tank (UST) removed from
the Property in 1992; a solvent/petroleum storage room; above ground storage tank
(AST) pipeline along the eastern wall of the building; impacted soil landfarm area;
maintenance area; wash room; and ink storage and mixingibarrel room. Data from these
investigations are discussed below.
There are no surface indications of releases from the Colonial Oil pipeline and no known
investigations to date have evaluated whether releases have occurred from the subsurface
oil pipeline that extends along the southern boundary of the Property.
Potential Receptors:
Potential receptors are construction workers, onsite workers, potential students and
faculty, visitors, and trespassers.
Contaminated Media Summary:
DEQ has evaluated data collected from the following media at the subject property:
groundwater, soil, soil vapor, and indoor air. DEQ relies on the following data to base its
conclusions regarding the subject property and its suitability for its intended reuse.
Soil
Soil data collected at the site indicates that no area sampled has concentrations of
contaminants that exceed residential PSRGs. Soil reportedly excavated from the area of
the known solvent release site in the former solvent storage room, and landfarmed in the
eastern part of the site was field screened with an FID. The results of the field screening
suggest that concentrations of petroleum compounds are not in high concentration in
these soils. Development activities in this area should be addressed in a site
Environmental Management Plan in case soil contamination was missed with the field
screening approach.
3

Groundwater
Groundwater was sampled in 2013 using temporary wells and in 2015 using six
permanent wells in three nested well pairs at the Property. A VOC plume is detected in
the northeastern portion of the Property under the tennis courts and northeastern portion
of the manufacturing building that stems from waste management practices at the
adjacent Cooper Tools site conducted just north of the property boundary. Shallow
groundwater concentrations are believed to cause a completed VI exposure pathway for
indoor air in the manufacturing building at the Property, particularly in the northeast
corner of the building.
Surface Water
An unnamed tributary to Middle Creek flows along a portion of the eastern Property
boundary; it is possible that this stream is affected by groundwater flow of contaminants
in shallow groundwater from the Cooper Tools site.
Soil Vapor
Soil gas sampling exterior to the onsite building was not conducted at the Property.
Sub -Slab Vapor
Sub -slab vapor samples were collected in several locations at the Property in 2013 and in
2015. Results indicate that VOCs are detected above residential and non-residential
screening levels in sub -slab vapor, especially for TCE in the northeastern corner of the
building.
Indoor Air
Indoor air samples were collected in several locations throughout the building using
Radiello sampling devices for a one -week period. Results suggest that a completed
exposure pathway is located in the northeastern corner of the onsite building, and
possibly in the area near the ink storage room. The concentration of TCE in indoor air in
three samples (two + duplicate) exceeds the residential and non-residential default
screening levels. TCE concentrations also exceed the residential NC DHHS Action
Level of 2 µg/m3, but are below the non-residential NC DHHS Action Level of 8.8 µg/m3
for TCE. The DHHS action levels for TCE are based on the following provided by Sandy
Mort, DWM Toxicologist:
The recommended DWM indoor air (IA) action level (AL) for trichloroethylene (TCE) in non-
residential exposure situations is 8.8 ug/m3 based on the non-residential non -cancer HQ of 1.0.
This exposure scenario assumes no sensitive sub -groups may be exposed (children <16 years of
age). It is recommended that non-residential (excluding the specified sensitive sub -population)
exposures at or above this concentration be eliminated. The 8.8 ug/m3 AL is calculated from the
critical effect/point of departure of fetal cardiac malformations and is protective for fetal
(maternal) exposure up to this concentration during the 1" trimester.
Risk Calculations

In the short term the Property is contemplated for only non-residential warehousing or
light industrial uses; however, because PD specified that they want the flexibility to
redevelop the site for educational purposes that was potentially not limited to adult only
education, we used residential screening levels for a data analysis purposes and
residential settings for our risk calculations. Non-residential risk calculations are also
shown for comparison purposes.
Because concentrations of VOCs exceeded applicable screening levels, risk calculations
were performed using the EPA VI risk calculator. The resulting calculated risk ranges
for cancer effects and non -cancer effects indicate the following based on available data,
including groundwater, sub -slab vapor gas, and indoor air samples:
Summary of EPA Risk Calculator Results
Wurst Property
Apex, Wake County
Oct-15
Residential
Non -Residential
Media
LICR
HI
LICR
HI
Indoor Air
7.64E-06
1.8
1.33E-06
0.43
Sub -slab Soil Gas
3.52E-05
6.98
6.12E-06
1.66
Groundwater
1.55E-03
73.35
1.55E-04
17.46
LICR > 1E-04 or HI>1
LICR = Lifetime Incremental Cancer Risk
HI = Hazard Index
These calculations indicate the following:
• the LICR for groundwater is not within an acceptable risk range of 1 E-06 to 1 E-
04 and a HI of <1 for either residential or non-residential settings
• Calculated LICR values are within acceptable risk ranges for sub -slab soil gas and
indoor air.
• Hazard indices are not acceptable for any media for residential use.
• Hazard indices are only acceptable range for indoor air for non-residential use.
However, due to the low action level of TCE and the identified risk of fetal heart
malformation that could affect pregnant females in the first trimester of pregnancy, and at
a time when women may not realize that they are pregnant, any exceedance or suspected
exceedance of TCE above 2 µg/m3 should be confirmed and mitigated.
Sandy Mort, BF Toxicologist, reviewed the file, BFA and the Decision Memo and
concurred with the above findings as to risk. In addition, she added the following in an
11/3/15 email to Sharon Eckard, PM as to other risks at the site:
5

1. The proposed future use of this property is as an academic building. The property at
this time is not be appropriate for this use on the basis of the indoor air (IA)
concentrations of TCE reported, without control / remediation of the TCE IA
concentrations. The level of indoor air TCE exceeds the action level defined by DWM
for sensitive receptors (15r trimester pregnancy and children <16 years, 2.2 µg/m3).
2. The former landfarm area that was used for petroleum solvent contaminated soil
treatment has only been investigated using a field FID instrument. Afield FID
instrument is not an adequate / valid means to quantify and identify COPCs for risk
assessment. A full VOC, SVOC and metals scan of the representative soils collected in
the landfarm area are recommended.
Soil Concerns
The soil issue raised by Sandy Mort can be addressed through an approved Environmental
Management Plan as per the BFA, especially since the initial use would remain
industrial/commercial. If children would frequent the site, additional sampling should occur in
this landfarmed soil area.
Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Installed
Regarding the vapor intrusion issues, the PD installed a sub -slab depressurization system in the
eastern most portion of the building starting with a pilot test in late 2015 and including the
installation and testing of a full-scale system in early to mid-2016, including both the office area
and the ink area where indoor air concentrations exceeded screening levels in 2015. DEQ
recently received the installation and performance report for the SSDS (Mid -Atlantic, June 23,
2016, which indicates that the system has been successful in mitigating the TCE concentrations to
non -detectable levels and has reduced the concentrations of PCE to levels below screening levels.
Pressure levels in all locations monitored exceed the objective of 4 Pascals, with many
measurements in the double digits.
Revised risk calculations for indoor air concentrations using Radiello samplers collected in April
2016 after operation of the SSDS for several months yielded the following LICR and HI values:
For residential settings: LICR = 8.59E-07 and HI = 0.21
For non-residential settings: LICR = 1.76E-07 and HI = 0.05
These values are within acceptable risk range for LICR and below the HI threshold limit of 1
indicating that the SSDS is effective at mitigating the TCE in indoor air, which was the driver for
the installation of the system, and should be continued to be operated and maintained as long as
concentrations in the subsurface warrant such mitigation.
Required Land Use Restrictions —
Land use restrictions will include the standard EMP, surface water, gw disturbance, vapor
mitigation system LURs in addition to LURs regarding playground use, animal grazing,
& restrictions on the use of the Property for schools for non -adult education purposes.
Certain groundwater monitoring wells exist on the property and are required for
monitoring of groundwater by Cooper Tool and are referenced in the Hazardous Waste
Management Permit (Permit No. NCD 042 892 067-R3, July 20, 2007); in addition,
Cooper Tools was interested in sampling wells installed by the PDs' consultant MW-1, -
2

1D, 2, -213, 3, and 3D. These wells will likely be retained. The Hazardous Waste
Section PM, Rob McDaniel, was consulted with regard to the wells and approved the
language in the BFA pertaining to the well abandonment.
Based on the site -specific data provided to the Brownfield program, the site reuse is
suitable for the site as long as the agreed upon land use restrictions in the BFA are abided
by, especially if uses include those in which children would frequent.
7