20078_Performance Auto Mall_EMP_BF Signed_20180807

NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
This form is to be used to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for projects in the
North Carolina Brownfields Program at the direction of a project manager for the program.
Prospective Developers and/or their consultants must complete and submit this form and all
pertinent attachments to their project manager prior to any site earthmoving or other
development related activities. For the resultant EMP to be valid for use, it must be completed,
reviewed by the program, and signed by all signers at the bottom. Consult your project
manager if you have questions.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: 6/8/2018
Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Performance Auto Mall
Brownfields Project Number: 20078-16-068
Brownfields Property Address: 1806 Fordham Blvd. and 120, 126 and 130 Old Durham Road, Chapel
Hill, Orange County, North Carolina. See attached GIS map showing lot lines and current
buildings/improvements in relation to the proposed building footprint.
Brownfields Property Area (acres): 13.88
Is Brownfields Property Subject to RCRA Permit? ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes enter Permit No.: lick here to enter text.
Is Brownfields Property Subject to a Solid Waste Permit? ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes, enter Permit No.: Click here to enter text
COMMUNICATIONS
Prospective Developer (PD): LG 1810 Fordham Blvd, LLC
Phone Numbers: Office: 214-865-8094..... Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Primary PD Contact: Scott Milke; Email: [e-mail]
Phone Numbers: Office: 407-467-3889 Mobile: [phone]
Email:
Environmental Consultant: Jeff Tyburski- The John R. McAdams Company (McAdams)
Phone Numbers: Office: 919-361-5000..... Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Brownfields Program Project Manager: Kelly Johnson
1
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

Office: 919-707-8279
Email: [e-mail]
Other DENR Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch,
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste): Clark Wipfield — Incident Manager, UST Section (Incident No. 16492)
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
Advance Notification Times to Brownfields Project Manager: Check each box to accept minimum
notice periods (in calendar days) for each type of onsite task:
On -site assessment or remedial activities: Within 10 days_®
Construction or grading start: Within 10 days
Discovery of stained soil, odors, USTs, buried drums or waste, landfill, or other signs of previously
unknown contamination: Within 48 hours
Implementation of emergency actions (e.g. dewatering, flood, or soil erosion control
measures in area of contamination, venting of explosive environments):
Within 48 hours
Installation of mitigation systems: Within 10 days
Other notifications as required by local, state or federal agencies to implement
redevelopment activities: (as applicable): Within 30 days
7=� REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply):
❑ Residential ❑ Recreational ❑ Institutional ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ® Retail ❑ Industrial
❑ Other specify: Click here to enter text
2) Summary of Redevelopment Plans (attach conceptual or detailed plans as available):
a) Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
b) Do plans include removal of building foundation slab(s) or pavement:
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
c) Provide brief summary of redevelopment plans, including demolition, removal of building
slabs/pavement and other structures: Plans include the complete demolition of all existing
buildings, foundations, utilities, and paved surfaces for the construction of a grocery store. The
entire property will be regraded to support the construction of the proposed building,
landscaped areas, and parking lots. Utility main connections are located both on and off of the
property. With the exception of possible tree protection areas around the perimeter of the site,
the entire property will be regraded to support the construction of the proposed building and
parking areas. Soils encountered during foundation installation, utility installation and
landscaping will be managed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in this EMP. A
2
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

Site Map and Grading Plan are provided as Drawings 1 and 2, respectively.
Additionally, the PD is proposing to utilize three types of beneficial fill on the property pending
separate Brownfields Program approval. First, the PD proposes to reuse asphalt millings from
the current parking area under proposed impervious paving surfaces. Second, the PD proposes
to use approved masonry demolition material as beneficial fill on the property. Finally, the PD
proposes to use exported soil from the nearby Crown Honda II Brownfields property as fill.
Separate plans for these proposed beneficial reuse opportunities are attached. Implementation
of these plans will be subject to Brownfield Program/regulatory approval. Maps depicting
beneficial reuse fill areas are provided in the plans.
3) Which category of risk -based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement?
❑ Residential ® Non-residential or Industrial/Commercial
Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels shall be cited in the Brownfields
Agreement for comparison purposes.
4) Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a) Phase I start date and anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
6/18/2018
Phase I redevelopment activities include mass grading, building demolition, and building
decommissioning. Building demolition, including asbestos abatement and removal of vertical
structures down to the foundation slab, will take approximately three weeks to complete. Building
decommission activities are expected to take approximately 20 days to complete and includes
removal of virgin and waste oil storage containers, cleaning of floor drain and oil/water separator
systems, demolition and removal of floor drain and oil/water separator systems, and removal of
known impacted soils to support the start of standard construction activities. Combined with mass
grading, these activities are anticipated to last approximately three months.
b) If applicable, Phase 2 start date and anticipated duration (specify activities during each
phase): 8/6/2018
Phase 2 work includes infrastructure and utility work, site grading, and landscaping. This work is
scheduled to be completed by May 15, 2019.
Phase 3 work includes building construction (including Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System [VIMS]
installation) and is scheduled to begin March 1, 2019. The final VIMS plan will be submitted
following finalization of the building layout.
c) Additional phases planned? If yes, specify activities if known:
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not in the foreseeable future El Decision pending
d) Provide the planned date of occupancy for new buildings: 3/1/2020
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Contaminated Media (attach tabulated data summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with
sample locations):
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

Part 1. Soil:
Part 2. Groundwater:
Part 3. Surface Water:
Part 4. Sediment:
Part 5. Soil Vapor:
Part 6. Sub -Slab Soil Vapor:
Part 7. Indoor Air:
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Suspected
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Suspected
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Suspected
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Suspected
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Suspected
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Suspected
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Suspected
PART 1. SOIL — Please fill out the information below, using detailed site plans, if available, or estimate
using known areas of contaminated soil and a conceptual redevelopment plan. Provide a figure
overlaying new construction onto figure showing contaminated soil and groundwater locations.
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list specific compounds): There are three known North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) release incidents at this site. A No Further
Action (NFA) was issued for the first incident (No. 8462) which was associated with a 1991 release of
oil and grease from a former 1,000-gallon used oil UST (see data table and map in Appendix A). After
the UST was removed and impacted soils were excavated, residual petroleum contamination was
reportedly identified in soil at levels below regulatory standards. The second incident was associated
with an open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) release (Incident No. 16492) reported to the
NCDEQ Underground Storage Tank (UST) Section in 1995. Gasoline -range Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH) were identified above the State Action Level in 1995 (see data table and map in
Appendix A). Based on 2017 assessment results, residual soil contamination remains at the location
of the former UST system. Associated groundwater impacts with this incident are further discussed
in Part 2 of this EMP. The third incident was associated with a release from hydraulic lifts and an oil
water separator system that was assigned Leaking Above Ground Storage Tank (LAST) Incident No.
86219 in 2002. Soil impacts from the lift systems included TPH. TPH, benzene and chromium were
identified in the vicinity of the oil water separator. The incident was closed following lift and oil
water separator removal and over excavation, however residual contamination may potentially still
be present in the vicinity of these historical systems. In addition to these incidents, given the nature
of site operations, shallow soil impacts (from 0 to 5 feet bls) may potentially be encountered at
various areas across the site, particularly beneath concrete floor where vehicles maintenance/repair
operations were performed and where various petroleum and other chemicals were stored. This
also includes the floor drain and oil/water separator systems. Attached Drawings 1 and 2 provide
the locations of these features. The potential to encounter known and potentially impacted soil are
highest in these areas.
2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet): Based on a 1991 UST Closure Report, although
soil was excavated and disposed of to depths as great as 16 feet below land surface (bls), residual
used oil soil impacts may be encountered from the approximate invert of the former tank
(estimated to be at depths equal to or greater than 7.5 feet bls to approximately 11 feet bls) in the
area of closed incident No. 8462. Residual soil impacts may also potentially be encountered in the
vicinity of the hydraulic lifts and the oil water separator systems, that could range in depth from
surface (0 feet bls) to 8.5 feet bls in the area of closed incident 86219. Based on recent assessment
results performed in conduction with the open LUST Incident (No. 16492), residual gasoline soil
impacts are anticipated to range from ground surface to approximately 15 feet bls in the vicinity of
the former UST. Finally, given the nature of site operations, shallow soil impacts (from 0 to 5 feet
4
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

bls) may potentially be encountered at various areas across the site, particularly beneath concrete
floor where vehicles maintenance/repair operations were performed and petroleum and other
chemicals were stored (Drawing 1 and 2).
3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet): Most, if not all of the 13.88 acres (or
604,612.8 square feet) of the subject site are expected to be disturbed during redevelopment.
Drawing 2 includes the site grading plan and also includes the location of proposed utilities.
4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet): The deepest excavations are located on the eastern portion
of the property boundary and will range in depth up to 16 feet to accommodate subsurface utilities
and tractor trailer loading docks (Drawing 2). No known or suspected contaminant sources are
located in this area. From a site grading standpoint, the rest of the site will generally include minor
cutting and filling between +/- 4 feet from the existing grade. Spot excavation of impacted soils
encountered during construction will be conducted during demolition of the existing building and
will include removal of known/potentially impacted soil in the area of documented LUST and LAST
releases, and beneath current/former vehicle maintenance areas. Soil excavation and disposal is
proposed in the area of open LUST incident in an effort to further remediate gasoline related soil
and groundwater impacts from the release. As is summarized in a Conceptual Remediation Plan and
Cost Estimates letter dated December 5, 2017, submitted to and approved by the UST Section, the
depth of the excavation is expected to be no deeper than 15 feet bls in a 20-foot by 20-foot area.
This work will be conducted prior to the start of grading and utility work.
5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan): The grading plan is
provided in Drawing 2. The grading plan includes a balanced site with regard to the import and
export of fill. This will limit the amount of imported and exported material outside of the initial
excavation of known/potentially impacted soil at the start of construction activities.
6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
The estimated total volume of impacted soil expected to be excavated from the open incident UST
area during remedial activities is approximately 225 cubic yards. In addition to this, we estimate
that no more than 500 cubic yards of impacted soil will be encountered during earth works in other
areas of the subject site.
7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:
Combining soil from the open release area and potentially impacted soil in other areas of the
subject site, we estimate approximately 725 cubic yards of contaminated soil will require offsite
disposal at a permitted facility.
IMPORTED FILL SOIL
1) Will fill soil be imported to the site? ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported? Imported fill will include quarry
stone aggregate for foundation and utility installation and topsoil/wood mulch in landscaped areas.
Additionally, the PD would like to request importing up to 1,900 cubic yards of pre-screened fill soil
from the nearby Crown Honda II Brownfields Property (NCBP Project Number 20077-16-68) to be
placed under impervious parking lot areas on the subject site. Pre-screening/sampling protocols for
this imported fill will be addressed in an EMP addendum for the Crown Honda II Brownfields
Property.
Additional imported soil is not anticipated. Aggregate material will be sourced from local quarries,
such as Martin Marietta's American Stone Quarry in Carrboro, NC, Luck Stone Pittsboro Plant in
Moncure, NC, and Wake Stone Corporation in Cary, NC.
In addition to imported fill, onsite building demolition material generated during Phase 1 of
construction is proposed to be potentially used as beneficial fill on the property under impervious
5
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

parking and roadway surfaces. Approximately 600 cubic yards of painted concrete block, 4,000
cubic yards of recycled asphalt, and 1,000 cubic yards of unpainted concrete from building slabs,
sidewalks, and retaining walls are proposed for possible beneficial reuse. The inclusion/exclusion of
beneficial fill does not impact the planned neutral status of the site with regard to the import/export
of soil. A separate Beneficial Reuse Plan will be submitted and describes how beneficial fill from the
demolition of onsite buildings will be characterized and placed during site redevelopment.
Supporting laboratory analysis and documentation for reuse materials as well as maps depicting
beneficial reuse fill areas is provided in the plan. Implementation of the plan will be subject to
Brownfield Program/regulatory approval.
3) If yes, what is the depth of fill soil to be used at the property? If imported fill soil is required, it
would likely be limited to the top two feet of selected areas on the site or along utility corridors. This
would include, as applicable, stone aggregate, topsoil and wood mulch for landscaped areas. Import
fill from the Crown Honda Brownfields Property would likely be limited to the top two feet beneath
asphalt/paved impervious surfaces.
If a range of depths, please list the range.
4) PRIOR TO ITS PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, provide plan to analyze fill soil to
demonstrate that it meets acceptable standards and can be considered clean for use at the
Brownfields property (Check all that apply):
® Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
® Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
® Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium (speciated), mercury, lead,
selenium and silver)
❑ Metals —Hazardous Substance List -14 (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium
(speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc)
❑ Metals — EPA Priority Pollutant List — 13 (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (speciated
according to IHSB protocol), copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, silver, thallium, and
zinc)
❑ Other Constituents & Analytical Method: (.IicK nere to enter text.
® Known borrow material (DESCRIBE SOURCE AND ATTACH SAMPLING PROFILE): Stone
aggregate from local quarries.
MANAGING ONSITE SOIL
1) If soil in known or suspected areas of contamination is anticipated to be excavated from the
Brownfield Property, relocated on the Brownfields Property,or otherwise disturbed during site
grading or other redevelopment activities, please provide a grading plan that clearly illustrates
areas of cut and fill (approximate areas & volumes are acceptable, if only preliminary data
available).
2) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION — Does the soil contain a LISTED WASTE as defined in the
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section under 40 CFR Part 261.31-261.35? ❑ Yes ® No
6
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

If yes, explain why below, including the level of knowledge regarding processes generating the
waste( include pertinent analytical results as needed). Click here to enter text
If yes, do the soils exceed the "Contained -Out" levels in Attachment 1 of the North Carolina
Contained -In Policv? ❑ Yes ❑ No
NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND EXCEEDS THE
CONTAINED -OUT LEVELS IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE NORTH CAROLINA CONTAINED -IN POLICY THE
SOIL MAY NOT BE RE -USED ON SITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DENR
HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
3) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION —Does the soil contain a CHARACTERISTIC WASTE?:
❑ Yes ® No
If yes, mark reason(s) why below (and include pertinent analytical results).
❑ Ignitability
❑ Corrosivity
❑ Reactivity
❑ Toxicity
® TCLP results
® Rule of 20 results (20 times total analytical results for an individual hazardous
constituent on TCLP list cannot, by test method, exceed regulatory TCLP standard)
If no, explain rationale: Rule of 20 will be used for painted concrete and similar materials as necessary.
Concrete block paint samples with exceedances of the Rule of 20 will be submitted for TCLP analysis.
TCLP analysis results are currently pending for four paint samples. This information will be provided
under separate correspondence.
NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A CHARACTERISTIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE SOIL MAY NOT
BE RE -USED ON SITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DENR HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
4) Screening criteria by which soil disposition decisions will be made (e.g., left in place, capped in
place with low permeability barrier, removed to onsite location and capped, removed offsite):
❑ Preliminary Health -Based Residential SRGs :lick here to enter a date.
® Preliminary Health -Based Industrial/Commercial SRGs 2/1/2018
❑ Site -specific risk -based cleanup level, or acceptable concentrations determined via
calculated cumulative risk. Enter details of methods used for determination/explanation:
Click here to enter text
5) Check the following action(s) to betaken during excavation and management of said soils:
® Manage fugitive dust from site:
® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe method; If no, explain rationale: Excavation areas will be monitored for visible
dust and total volatile organic compounds using a photoionization detector (PID). Although petroleum
7
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

impacts from dust are not anticipated, construction activities will include the use of common dust
suppression activities, such as water mist, as needed.
® Field Screening:
® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe method; If no, explain rationale: Petroleum impacted soils at the location of
open LUST Incident No. 16492 will be excavated for off -site disposal as part of a corrective action effort
to remediate gasoline impacted soil and groundwater. Details for remedial actions and soil screening
during excavation were provided to the UST Section in an Updated Preliminary Conceptual Remediation
Plan and Cost Estimates letter dated December 5, 2017. The NCBP was provided a copy of this plan.
This plan has since been accepted by the UST Section and remediation is scheduled to occur in
conjunction with initial demolition activities prior to the start of mass grading and utility installation
activities. Under this plan, soils will be screened in the field for evidence of petroleum impacts to
determine the extent of excavation activities under the direction of a North Carolina licensed
Professional Geologist (PG). The excavation is anticipated to be no deeper than 15 feet in a 20-foot by
20-foot area. Once over excavation is complete, four sidewall samples and one base excavation sample
(if soil is not saturated at the bottom of the excavation) will be collected from the open excavation to
evaluate the effectiveness of over -excavation. Soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 8260B (w/ Ethanol, Ethyl Tert butyl ether [ETBE],
tert-Amyl alcohol [TAA], tert-Amyl methyl ether [TAME],tert-Butyl alcohol [TBA], & tert-Butyl formate
[TBF]), semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOC) using EPA Method 8270D (Base Neutrals/Acid
Extractable [BNAs], Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MADEP) Volatile Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (VPH) and Total Lead and Total Chromium via EPA Method 3050 in general accordance
with Table 3 - Approved Methods for Soil Analyses at Petroleum UST Closures and Over -Excavation and
at Site Checks in the Guidelines for Site Checks, Tank Closure, and Initial Response and Abatement for
UST Releases (UST Section, updated July 7, 2017). A vacuum truck will be used to pump free product
and water if they are present in the excavation. Liquids will be characterized and disposed of off -site at
a facility permitted to accept the waste. The base of the excavation will be filled with No. 57 stone (the
source of backfill material will be approved by the Brownfields Program), or equivalent from, to create a
porous reservoir and promote the migration of the chemical oxidant from the excavation along the
same preferential flow pathways followed by free product and dissolved -phase gasoline constituents.
This approach will promote chemical oxidation of free product and dissolved -phase constituents along
preferential migrations pathways and enhance natural attenuation of remaining petroleum impacts over
time. Petroleum -impacted soil from the excavation (estimated to be 225 cubic yards) will be transported
off -site for disposal at a facility permitted to accept the waste. It is assumed that only one soil sample
will be necessary for characterization and will include a composite sample for semi volatile organic
compound (SVOC) — Base Neutral and Acid Extractables by EPA Method 8270 and Toxicity Characteristic
Leachate Procedure (TCLP) Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Metals by EPA Method 1311
analysis, and one discrete representative sample for VOC using EPA Method8260B and Gasoline Range
Organic (GRO) by EPA Method 8015. Non -impacted fill (if present) will be used to backfill the excavation
to the surface above the No. 57 stone (or equivalent) layer. The results of field screening and sampling
associated with remedial actions will be presented in a Corrective Action Performance Report.
Soils in other areas of the site (Drawings 1 and 2) will also be screened for evidence of petroleum or
other potential impacts during initial demolition in suspect areas (e.g., other former USTs, ASTs,
hydraulic lifts, oil water separators, floor drain systems, maintenance bays, etc.). Field screening will
include the use of a PID for both headspace analysis of select soil samples and ambient air monitoring.
Field screening visits will be documented using field notes and photographs. Notes and photographs
8
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

will be included in the final EMP implementation deliverable. See attached Drawings 1 and 2 for the
location of the UST and estimated depths of grading and excavations.
Export of nonimpacted soils — Based on field screening, soils that are determined not to be impacted
that require offsite export will be transported to the East End Connector NCDOT Highway Project in
Durham, NC. The NCDOT has indicated that they will accept nonimpacted soils that have been
characterized per an approved EMP. Soils will only be exported offsite to the NCDOT facility from non-
current/historical automotive repaired areas after initial remediation of soils have been conducted
during building demolition as described in this EMP. Additionally, export of soils will not commence
until remediation closure sample results have been reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of
remediation activities. Based on results of the evaluation and approval from the NCBP, soils designated
for export to the NCDOT facility may be direct loaded into trucks based on field screening only.
® Soil Sample Collection:
® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe method (e.g., in -situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.); If no, explain rationale:
Soil sampling in the open LUST Incident No. 16492 area will be collected as described under field
screening above. In addition, in the event that impacted soils are encountered in previously
unidentified areas, soil will be stockpiled in general accordance with NCDEQ guidance. Stockpiled soils
will be sampled per applicable NCDEQ guidance for waste characterization and eventual off -site disposal
at a permitted facility or possible re -use as on -site fill subject to laboratory test results and NCBP
approval. At a minimum, stockpiled soils will be analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs
using EPA Method 8270D and RCRA Metals, including hexavalent chromium speciation. Additional
laboratory analyses may be selected for NCBP approval based on field characteristics of the impacted
soil and selected disposal facility requirements.
® Stockpile impacted soil in accordance with NCDENR IHSB protocol in the current version of
the "Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup", and providing erosion control, prohibiting
contact between surface water/precipitation and contaminated soil, and preventing
contaminated runoff. Explain any variances:
Click here to enter text.
® Analyze potentially impacted soil for the following chemical analytes:
® Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
® Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
® Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium (speciated), mercury,
lead, selenium and silver)
❑ Metals —Hazardous Substance List -14 (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium (speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc)
❑ Metals — EPA Priority Pollutant List —13 (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium
(speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc)
® Other Constituent(s) & Analytical Method(s): As described above, additional
analyses may be required based on field characteristics of previously unidentified impacted areas and
selected disposal facility requirements. NCBP approval will be obtained to determine if additional
analytical methods to characterize impacted soils will be necessary.
9
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

® Proposed Measures to Obtain Pre -Approval for Reuse of Impacted Soil within the
Brownfields Property Boundary
® Provide documentation of analytical report(s) to Brownfields Project Manager
® Provide documentation of final location, thickness and depth of relocated soil on
site map to Brownfields Project Manager once known
® Use geotextile to mark depth of fill material (provide description of material)
® Manage soil under impervious cap ® or clean fill
Describe cap or fill: Click here to enter text. (provide location diagram)
® Confer with NC BF Project Manager if Brownfield Plat must be revised (or re-
recorded if actions are Post -Recordation).
❑ Other: k-I II, Ii I ICI C lV CI IICI Ltf AL.
® Final grade sampling of exposed soil (i.e., soil that will not be under buildings or permanent
hardscape): [if not checked provide rationale for not needing]
Provide diagram of soil sampling locations, number of samples, and denote Chemical
Analytical Program with check boxes below (Check all that apply):
® Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
® Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
® Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium (speciated), mercury,
lead, selenium and silver)
❑ Metals —Hazardous Substance List -14 (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium (speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc)
❑ Metals — EPA Priority Pollutant List — 13 (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium
(speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc)
❑ Pesticides
❑ PCBs
❑ Other Constituents & Analytical Method: Click here to enter text.
OFFSITE TRANSPORT & DISPOSITION OF EXCAVATED SOIL
NOTE: Unless soil will be transported offsite for disposal in a permitted facility under applicable
regulations, no contaminated or potentially contaminated soil may leave the site without approval
from the brownfields program. Failure to obtain approval may violate a brownfields agreement,
endangering liability protections and making said action subject to enforcement. Justifications
provided below must be approved by the Program in writing prior to completing transport activities.
® Transport and dispose of impacted soil offsite (documentation of final disposition must be sent to
Brownfields Project Manager)
® Landfill — analytical program determined by landfill
® Landfarm or other treatment facility The selected disposal facilities and associated
approved waste profiles will be provided to the NCBP for approval prior to transporting impacted soil
off -site. Selected landfarms will likely include Soilworks, Inc. located in Selma, NC and EarthTec in
Sanford, NC.
❑ Use as Beneficial Fill Offsite — provide justification: L11Ck here to enter tex
❑ Use as Beneficial Fill at another Suitable Brownfields Site — (Note: a determination that a
site is a "Suitable Brownfields" site will require, at a minimum, that similar concentrations of the same
10
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

or similar contaminants already exist at both sites, use of impacted soil as beneficial soil will not
increase the potential for risk to human health and the environment at that site, and that notarized
documentation of the acceptance of such soil from the property owner of the receiving site is
provided to Brownfields. Provide justification: -Ii-1, here to enter tex+
MANAGEMENT OF UTILITY TRENCHES
® Install liner between native impacted soils and base of utility trench before filling with clean fill
(Preferred)
® Last out, first in principle for impacted soils (if soil can safely be reused onsite and is not a
hazardous waste), i.e., impacted soils are placed back at approximately the depths they were
removed from such that impacted soil is not placed at a greater depth than the original depth from
which it was excavated.
® Evaluate whether necessary to install barriers in conduits to prevent soil vapor transport, and/or
degradation of conduit materials due to direct impact with contaminants? Result: Yes ❑ No ❑
If no, include rationale here. No — The need to install liners or barriers is not anticipated for this project
as soil excavation activities will be conducted at the beginning of construction during demolition and will
include the removal of petroleum -impacted soil that would be encountered during construction.
If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials
Other comments regarding managing impacted soil inutility trenches: ACK nere to enter text.
PART 2. GROUNDWATER — Please fill out the information below and attach figure showing
distribution of groundwater contaminants at site
What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property? Groundwater depths range from an
estimated 3 feet bls to 19 feet bls. Because the site is located in the Triassic Basin geological formation,
shallower groundwater may be present under perched conditions. Groundwater estimated flow maps in
the shallow and deeper portions of the aquifer are provided in Appendix B.
Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ❑onsite ❑ offsite ® both ❑ or unknown
sources? Describe source(s): Groundwater contamination was identified in conjunction with open
release incident number 16492. As depicted in the drawings presented in Appendix B, benzene and
methyl-tert butly ether (MTBE) have been reported in groundwater at concentrations above Gross
Contaminant Levels (GCLs). Other petroleum related compounds and chlorinated solvents have also
been identified in groundwater above the 15A North Carolina Administration Code (NCAC) 2L .0202
Groundwater Standards (2L Standards) as summarized in the table provided in Appendix B. Free product
has been identified in deeper aquifer monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-11 (See MTBE and Free Product
Isoconcentration Map in Appendix B). As depicted in the maps in Appendix B, petroleum related
compounds and chlorinated solvents have also been identified in groundwater above the 2L Standards
off -site.
What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property? Shallow groundwater in
saprolite follows topography, flowing south towards Old Durham Road. Deeper groundwater in partially
11
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

weathered rock (PWR) appears to flow to the north in the northern portion of the site and to the south
in the southern portion of the of the subject site. Deeper portions of the aquifer appear to be largely
controlled by the east-southeast dipping sandstone unit at depth. Groundwater estimated flow maps in
the shallow and deeper portions of the aquifer are provided in Appendix B.
Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe these activities: Redevelopment design plans have been made to limit instances of
intersecting the water table during installation of the building foundation and site utilities. As a result,
intersection of the water table (if present) will be limited to deeper utilities. The geology of the area will
likely limit the amount of water infiltrating utility trenches. This will allow the use of measures, such as
the use of aggregate stone as fill, to avoid dewatering. Groundwater encountered in the excavation
associated with the open release incident will be pumped and disposed of offsite at a permitted facility
as previously described in Part 1 Section 5 (Soil Management Field Screening) and summarized in the
Updated Preliminary Conceptual Remediation Plan (McAdams, 2017).
In the event that contaminated groundwater is encountered during redevelopment activities (even if
no is checked above), list activities for contingent management of groundwater (e.g., dewatering of
groundwater from excavations or foundations, containerizing, offsite disposal, discharge to sanitary
sewer, or sampling procedures): In the event that groundwater is encountered (outside of
groundwater in the remediation area excavation), sampling may be conducted to determine if it is
impacted (Using Standard Method 6200B for VOCs and EPA Method 625 for SVOCs). The primary
method for handling water will be to use techniques to displace the water within excavations to avoid
the need to pump the water from the excavations. If water will need to be pumped from the excavation,
a separate plan will be developed for NCBP approval that will include the methods for pumping,
containerization, treatment, transportation and disposal (as needed). The plan will be developed to
meet construction needs and to be protective of construction workers and future site occupants.
PART 3. SURFACE WATER — Please fill out the information below.
Attach a map showing the location of surface water at the Brownfields Property.
Is surface water at the property known to be contaminated: ❑ Yes ® No
Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ® No
In the event that contaminated surface water is encountered during redevelopment activities, or
clean surface water enters open excavations, list activities for management of such events (e.g.
flooding, contaminated surface water run-off, stormwater impacts): Excavation of petroleum
impacted soils from the UST release area and other potentially impacted areas will occur following
building demolition and prior to the start of earthworks to remove potential contaminant sources that
could impact surface and storm water during construction. In the unlikely event that additional
contaminant sources are identified during construction, plastic sheeting (if needed) will be placed over
the surface of the impacted soil to prevent rainwater from coming into contact with the impacted soil
until the soil can be excavated into stockpiles or directly loading into trucks for off -site disposal. If
needed, the site will be graded to direct runoff into construction stormwater ponds to prevent
potentially impacted stormwater from migrating off -site. If a rain event occurs that causes stormwater
12
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

to flow across impacted soil, soil from impacted areas will be screened, sampled and managed in
accordance with the requirements described under Part 1 (Soil) of this EMP.
PART 4. SEDIMENT — Please fill out the information below.
Is sediment at the property known to be contaminated: ❑ Yes ® No
Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ® No
If yes, attach a map showing location of known contaminated sediment at the property.
In the event that contaminated sediment is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such events (stream bed disturbance): It is highly unlikely that sediment
will be encountered during construction based on current site characteristics. See item No. 3 (Surface
water) for managing surface water and potential impacted soils.
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR — Please fill out the information below.
Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the following
vapor intrusion screening levels in the following media:
IHSB Residential Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor: ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
Groundwater: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor: ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
Groundwater: ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Attach a map showing the location of soil vapor contaminants that exceed site screening levels.
If applicable, at what depth(s) is soil vapor known to be contaminated? Soil vapor impacts are likely at
the location of the UST and above the associated groundwater contamination plume (see Groundwater
Isoconcentration Contour Maps in Appendix B). As previously described, the UST release area and
associated impacted soil will be excavated at the start of construction activities. Conducting this work
early in the construction schedule will help to minimize associated soil vapor risks to construction
workers during redevelopment. Limited construction is planned over the groundwater contamination
plume. As previously discussed, ambient air in excavation areas will be monitored for volatile organic
compounds using a PID. Additionally, the prospective developer (PD) has elected to proactively mitigate
soil vapors with the installation of a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) beneath the proposed
building to protect future site occupants. This is due, in part, to the presence of chlorinated solvents and
other volatile organic compounds detected in groundwater on the subject site. Proactive mitigation is
being conducted as a precaution to manage vapor intrusion risk for future site occupants.
Will workers encounter contaminated soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
13
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities (trenches,
manways, basements or other subsurface work, list activities for management of such contact: Soil
vapor impacts will be managed during the excavation of petroleum impacted soils from the UST release
area at the start of construction activities as previously described in this EMP. Conducting this work
upfront will help to mitigate the risk of soil vapor impacts that could be encountered in subsequent
phases of construction. Ambient air will be monitored throughout construction using a PID.
PART 6. SUB -SLAB SOIL VAPOR -please fill out the information below if existing buildings or
foundations will be retained in the redevelopment.
Are sub -slab soil vapor data available for the Brownfields Property? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
If data indicate that sub -slab soil vapor concentrations exceed screening levels, attach a map showing
the location of these exceedances.
At what depth(s) is sub -slab soil vapor known to be contaminated? ❑ 0-6 inches ❑ Other, If other
describe: Click here to enter text.
Will workers encounter contaminated sub -slab soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact: See Part 5 description regarding excavation of petroleum
impacted soil. UST release area soil removal will be conducted prior to the start of major
redevelopment. Removal of petroleum impacted soil upfront will remove a potential source area for
sub -slab soil vapors during subsequent redevelopment. As previously discussed, ambient air in
excavation areas will be monitored for volatile organic compounds using a PID. Additionally, the PD has
elected to proactively mitigate soil vapors with the installation of a VIMS beneath the proposed building
to protect future site occupants. This is due, in part, to the presence of chlorinated solvents and other
volatile organic compounds detected in groundwater on the subject site. Proactive mitigation is being
conducted as a precaution to manage vapor intrusion risk for future site occupants.
14
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

=DOOR AIR — Please fill out the information below.
Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
If yes, attach a map showing the location where indoor air contaminants exceed site screening levels.
If the structures where indoor air has been documented to exceed risk -based screening levels will not
be demolished as part of redevelopment activities, will workers encounter contaminated indoor air
during planned redevelopment activities?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact: See Part 5 description regarding excavation of petroleum
impacted soil. UST release area soil removal will be conducted prior to the start of major
redevelopment. Removal of petroleum impacted soil upfront will remove a potential source area for
sub -slab soil vapors during subsequent redevelopment. As previously discussed, ambient air in
excavation areas will be monitored for volatile organic compounds using a PID. Additionally, the PD has
elected to proactively mitigate soil vapors with the installation of a VIMS beneath the proposed building
to protect future site occupants. This is due, in part, to the presence of chlorinated solvents and other
volatile organic compounds detected in groundwater on the subject site. Proactive mitigation is being
conducted as a precaution to manage vapor intrusion risk for future site occupants.
PART 8 — Vapor Mitigation System — Please fill out the information below.
Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system proposed for this Brownfields Property?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
If yes, provide the date the plan was submitted to the Brownfields Program.
Attach the plan.
Has the vapor mitigation plan been approved by the NC Brownfields Program?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
Has the vapor mitigation plan been signed and sealed by a North Carolina professional engineer?
❑ Yes ❑ No
What are the components of the vapor intrusion mitigation system?
® Sub -slab depressurization system
® Sub -membrane depressurization system
❑ Block -wall depressurization system
❑ Drain tile depressurization system
❑ Passive mitigation methods
❑ Vapor barriers
❑ Perforated piping vented to exterior
15
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

❑ Other method:
---The VIMS plan is pending final design plans from the PD. The final VIMS plan will be submitted under
separate cover.
PART 9. CONTINGENCY FOR ENCOUNTERING UNKNOWN TANKS, DRUMS, OR OTHER WASTE
MATERIALS
Please provide a contingency plan in the event unknown tanks, drums, fuel lines, landfills, or other
waste materials are encountered during site activities.
Check the following activities that will be conducted prior to commencing earth -moving activities at
the site:
® Review of historic maps (Sanborn Maps, facility maps)
❑ Conducting geophysical surveys to evaluate the location of suspect UST, fuel lines, utility lines, etc.
❑ Interviews with employees/former employees/facility managers/neighbors
Notification to State Brownfields Project Manager, UST Section, Fire Department, and/or other
officials, as necessary and appropriate, is required when new potential source(s) of contamination are
discovered. See Notification Section on Page 1 for notification requirements.
POST -REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING
In accordance with the site's Brownfield Agreement, provide a report within the designated schedule
to the State Brownfields Project Manager.
N Check box to acknowledge consent to provide a redevelopment summary report in compliance
with the site's Brownfields Agreement.
APPROVAL SIGNATURES
P_C—, 1 ul C7 91-v& .
Prospective Developer Date
Printed Name/Title/Company
16
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014

713all
ant ! Date
Name/Title/Company J',r f jrjr R �j N rr1(p ` ! Ql iYt f yr • �
tr°P✓/cts
7 7'- Mc
y�
t�
dOroject Manager
eeliI175 �. IoLv}
17
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
.7 t aq

LEGEND
=SUBJECT SITE
= ORANGE COUNTY PARCELS
® WATER SUPPLY WELL
MONITORING WELL
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF VOLATILES IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
®AREAS OF OIL STORAGE
®PAST AND PRESENT AREAS OF AUTOMOBILE SERVICE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER POND
PROPOSED SITE FEATURES
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
PAVED AREA
- -- WATER
POWER
GAS
STORMWATER
40
FORMER UNDERGROUND OWS
i
F O 0
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER
IN -GROUND HYDRAULIC LIFTS
UST INCIDENT NO. 86219
ABOVEGROUND OWS
UNDERGROUND OWS
VVIV
G�PQE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FORMER GASOLINE UST
UST INCIDENT NO. 16492
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FORMER USED OIL UST
UST INCIDENT NO. 8462
a
w
0 42 N
N
�OJ W UFi
N II
c:)
CV
01
Q UY X�
Lu U J �
Z C:) O mU= jV of
Z O Z F U 0 0 0
O OWZ3LL wJ
♦ r M �Q0Wwza:
\ @ 0 00)0o W QLL
UNDERGROUND
Z
Q
J Q
a-
� J Z
z
w of
w O0 U
Z Q Q ~
<wUO
Z Z
Z D' _
LU
2i LLw
Z W d
a 2
> U
Z
W
'qw
UNDERGROUND OWS
r
:APPROXIMATE
Q
LOCATION OF
co
`
o
O
O
o
FORMER GASOLINE UST
Z N
:5 o
w -
Zz
DUI
00
ui
a
O0
a0
a
m
(A
of
W z
Z
CD
0
�o
QO
J
UE
Q 7
co J_
FLu O F
O N
t
Z N

LEGEND
= SUBJECT SITE
ORANGE COUNTY PARCELS
® WATER SUPPLY WELL
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF VOLATILES IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
® AREAS OF OIL STORAGE
®PAST AND PRESENT AREAS OF AUTOMOBILE SERVICE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER POND
PROPOSED SITE FEATURES
-PROPOSED STRUCTURE
PAVED AREA
- — WATER
- — POWER
GAS
STORMWATER
CUT/FILL DEPTH (FT.)
'-16 to -12
-12 to -8
-8 to -4
-4 to 0
0 to 3
�3to7
N
►" • •
• � i
dam.,
r
FORMER UNDERGROUND OWS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER
IN -GROUND HYDRAULIC LIFTS
UST INCIDENT NO. 86219
ABOVEGROUND OWS
UNDERGROUND OWS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
0
f 4P
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
LlL11=1CZc7zlelli ixely &I
a
w
U�
� 6
z
�2 cc
o
0
42
N ai
V1
i� 2 J z
�UC7 �o
N 11
N O J W J<
-
y
c:) U
� 0
N
0
CV
o cD
Q
az
Y -
U Y <Q
W
W U J
Z
m = W Q Q
O U : �
U
CO
of
0
Z OZFU00
0
Fv
r
O
M
0�mQ< (LW
�Q0wwZa-�
0
6
Z
Z
J Q
a J Z
Z Q O
C7
2
W
w a U
0
Z z Q �
�QQO
J_
=
W �_ Q
Z� E W
O W a-
a-
2
U
Z
W
0
N
0
z
¢U
�z
U Z
w
U a
Z �
a
¢LL
�w
wco
ZZ
UU
z
QUO
� J
w }
} J
w�
Q
J
w
CJ
wof
fn M ¢
wow
~O N U
Z N

APPENDIX A
SOIL SAMPLE DATA AND MAPS

Legend
Monitoring Well
-eW-6
�- Highway 15/501 service rd.
SB•6 Ito
M W-4
Approximale Posilion
of Used Oil UST
Closed 1991
Original Building
J1 MW-5
126 Durham lid. old
MW-9,
;ed water well Ir
r
)/118 Old Durham Rd.
r
I .'
r r
i a
/' • ater supply well f r
J 130 Old Durham Rd. J
MW-12
r �
unused water well
126 Old Durham Rd.
PROJECT:
TRIANGLE
ENVIRONMENTAL Performance Chevrolet
INC.
). Box 41087
IeiglyN.C. 27629 Site Map
9) 876-51is
IO) 849-5115
*NINV-10
i a
V :=
l
l Catch
WAX Basin
AMW-2
t
t
MW-11
#N1W-K-100.00
385-0209
I E31'`
III = 80,

7
z
UST EXCAVATION 10' X 17'
UST DIMENSIONS 3.5' ',X 9'
SAMPLE DEPTH: S1 ®! 16'
SERVICE BUILDING
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1'= 10'
PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET APPLIED ENVIRONMENTALPROJECT NO.: S112361
SERVICES, INC.
CHAPEL HILL DRAWING NO.: 3

9071 Oil & Grease
TCLP Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
TABLE 3
1,000 Gallon Used Oil
Sample/ID Leachable
S1 Limits
9.8 mg/kg
BDL
5.0
0.99
100.0
0.00026
1.0
BDL
5.0
0.040
5.0
BDL
0.2
BDL
1.0
BDL
5.0
Note: All results reported in mg/kg (parts per million)
BDL = Below Detectable Limits
See Figure 3 for soil sample location.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
' Based on the laboratory results, all soils remaining in place
' associated with the used oil UST are below corrective action levels of
10 ppm oil and grease in soils. In addition, the laboratory extraction
' for oil and grease (9071) adds weight to the sample if any sulfur, humus
or chlorophyll is present in the sample. The freon (trichloro-
' trifluoroethane) used to extract the sample has an affinity to the
' aforementioned materials, thus being a weight gained divided by weight
extracted method has the potential to be overstated in laboratory
' reports, and not wholly representative of actual oil and grease values.
Volatile and semi -volatile organic compounds were not detected in the
' EPA 8240 and 8270 analyses. TCLP RCRA metals extracted on S1 revealed
' -4-

I
I
I

0
Table 1
Laboratotv Data Snmm.-iry - Snil AnalvJIQ
Performance Chevrolet
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Triangle Project No. 385-0209
Sample
Sample
Sample TPH 3550
TPH 5030
Remarks
Date
Number
Depth (mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
3/29/95
PT1A
7 NA
144
Tank Closure Report
3/29/95
PT1B
7 NA
202
Tank Closure Report
3/29/95
PT2A
7 NA
2,414
Tank Closure Report
3/29/95
PT213
7 NA
299
Tank Closure Report
5/8/96
SB 1
6.2-7.0 <10
<2.0
5/8/96
SB2
7.5-7.8 NA
<2.0
5/8/96
SB3
3.2-4.5 <10
6,620
5/8/96
SB3
9.5-10.0 <10
<2.0
5/8/96
SB4
4.5-4.9 <10
20,600
5/8/96
SB5
4.5-4.7 NA
<2.0
5/8/96
SB6
7.7-8.0 NA
<2.0
9/15/96
S138
7.5 NA
<2.0
Current Investigation
9/15/96
SB9
7.5 NA
2,200
Current Investigation
9/15/96
SB10
6.5 NA
6,550
Current Investigation
State Action Levels
40
10
NA = Not Analyzed
Page 1 of 1

O

TABLE 1
FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Soil Boring
Depth
PID Reading
ID
(feet)
(ppm)
4
8
SB-1
7
15
3
<1
SB-2
5
<1
5
<1
SB-3
9
<1
5
<1
SB-4
10
<1
5
<1
SB-5
10
<1
5
<1
SB-6
10
<1
4
<1
SB-7
7.5
< 1
4
<1
SB-8
7.5
< 1
4
<1
SB-9
8
<1
3
<1
SB-10
5.5
< 1
4
<1
SB-11
7.5
< 1

TABLE 1 (continued)
FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Soil Boring
ID
Depth
(feet)
P ID Reading
(ppm)
SB-12
5
<1
9
<1
SB-13
5
<1
9.5
< 1
SB-14
5
<1
9
<1
SB-15
5
<1
8.5
< 1
SB-16
4
<1
8
<1
SB-17
5
<1
10
<1
SB-18
4
<1
7
<1
SB-19
4
<1
8
<1
Soil samples collected by Carolina Environmental Associates personnel
on March 26, 2002.

TABLE 2
SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS - OILIWA TER SEPARATOR
PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Compound
SB-1 (7')
SB-2 (5')
RB
NCMSCC -
STG
EPA Method 8260E
Acetone
0.04516
BDL
BDL
3
Benzene
0.00691
0.01129
BDL
0.0056
Toluene
BDL
0.00336
BDL
7
EPA Method 8270C
All target compounds BDL BDL
NT
various
MA.DEP VPH/EPH
C5-C8 Aliphatics
BDL
BDL
NT
72
C9-C12 Aliphatics
BDL
BDL
NT
3255
C9-C 10 Aromatics
BDL
12.0
NT
34
C9-C18 Aliphatics
BDL
BDL
NT
3255
C19-C36 Aliphatics
419
BDL
NT
immobile
C 11-C22 Aromatics
155
BDL
NT
34
EPA Method 6010B
Chromium
53.7
48.9
NT
27
Lead
8.66
12.1
NT
270
• BDL = below detection limits
• NT = not tested
• Sample results are presented in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
• Soil samples collected by Carolina Environmental Associates on March 26, 2002.
• Samples were analyzed by Test America, Inc.

TABLE 3
SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS - HYDRAULIC LIFTS
PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample ID
Sample Depth
(feet)
EPA Method 9071B
(mg/kg)
SB-3 (9')
9
BDL
S13-4 (10')
10
BDL
S13-5 (10')
10
BDL
SB-6 (10')
10
BDL
S13-7 (7.5')
7.5
BDL
S13-8 (7.5')
7.5
BDL
S13-9 (8')
8
334
SB-DUP-1 (8')
8
257
SB-10 (5.5')
5.5
107
SB-11 (7.5')
7.5
BDL
SB-12 (9')
9
BDL
SB-13 (9.5')
9.5
BDL
SB-14 (9')
9
BDL
SB-15 (8.5')
8.5
169
SB-DUP -2 (8.5')
8.5
BDL
SB-16 (8')
8
BDL
SB-17 (10')
10
252
SB-18 (T)
7
277
SB-19 (8')
8
607
NCDENR Action Level
250
BDL = below detection limits
Soil samples collected by Carolina Environmental Associates on March 26, 2002.
Samples were analyzed by Test America, Inc.

TABLE 5
CLOSURE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS - HYDRAULIC LIFTS
PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET
CHAPEL HILL, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample ID
Date
Sampled
Sample Depth
(Feet)
EPA Method 9071 A
(mg/kg)
SB-20 (5')
7/19/04
5
77
SB-21 (5)
7/19/04
5
BDL
SB-22 (5')
7/19/04
5
BDL
SB-23 (5')
7/19/04
5
BDL
SB-24 (8.5')
7/19/04
8.5
BDL
SB-25 (5')
7/20/04
5
BDL
SB-26 (5'}
7/20/04
5
BDL
SB-27 (5')
7/20/04
5
BDL
SB-28 (5')
7/20/04
5
BDL
SB-29 (8.5')
7/20/04
8.5
77
SB-30
8/23/04
10
BDL
SB-31
8/23/04
7
BDL
SB-32
8/23/04
7
BDL
SB-33
8/23/04
7
BDL
SB-34 (7)
8/23/04
7
BDL
SB-35 (7.5')
8/24/04
7.5
BDL
SB-36 (5')
8/24/04
5
BDL
SB-37 (5')
8/24/04
5
BDL
SB-38 (5')
8/24/04
5
BDL
SB-39 (5)
8/24/04
5
BDL
NCDENR Action Level
250
BDL = below detection limits
Closure samples collected by CEA personnel on the dates shown on the table.

APPENDIX 6
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE DATA AND MAPS

041Q
w
U �
4� \G �9Q
�
�i
OLD DURHAM RD
M W-4
(83)
3 .,
327-
M W-3 ww �wN
(FIR
4W
•Ff :.rpk
�t
N
a)
00 cD
'o
O O o x
Q LL
C
N m E
�m
o0
UO
oo J W
Ua
II
Nw
U
U 0,
V)
o
a
_
'
�
`1 Z
X
wo ¢
mV>V o
2
z
O
Zujz�LL V �° o
�Q0zaLu
-
Q
❑❑n❑❑ W QIL
o
1
cn
w
O
z
0
J
MW-19
LL
- (ND)
U
z
z
Q
J
Q Q
U�
Z z
LEGEND
2iQ
DEEP MONITORING WELL
° o
U
ESTIMATED FREE PRODUCT AND MTBE ISOCONCENTRATION - 20,000 ug/L
Z 2i
z
o
(83) MTBE CONCENTRATIONS
(FP) FREE PRODUCT
W m
(ND) NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT
o
- - - - ESTIMATED DEEP WATER TABLE ELEVATION
o
Q SUBJECT SITE
66 M
0 PARCELS
o �
z N
d
Q
0�Oo
O�� Q
W O J Z
(DZD¢O
ZOQ0Q
O�C)¢�
2U�¢O
LLuoLu�J
� C) Lu
QOEOJ
LLLLw
zzLJJZ
O - Lu U
D 00
0-
W
W
0

TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AUGUST 29-31 AND OCTOBER 17, 2017
PERFORMANCE AUTOMALL
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
MCADAMS JOB NO. LCG-16000
SHALLOW WELLS
DEEP WELLS
WELL ID
MW-5
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
MW-15
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
TRW-1
MW-2
MW-4
MW-10
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
NC GCLs
Residential VI
Non -Residential
DATE SAMPLED
8/30/2017
8/31/2017
8/31/2017
8/30/2017
8/30/2017
8/30/2017
8/31/2017
8/30/2017
8/29/2017
8/30/2017
10/17/2017
10/17/2017
10/17/2017
10/17/2017
8/31/2017
8/31/2017
8/29/2017
8/29/2017
8/29/2017
8/30/2017
8/30/2017
NCGQS
GWSL
VI GWSL
EPA METHOD 6200B (ug/L)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
4
<0.054
1900
<0.054
054
<C
2100
2100
<5.4
<0.054
0.76
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
400
28,500
50
210
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<0.076
<0.076
<0.76
<0.076
2.0
<0
<7.6
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
20
20,000
530
2,200
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
<0.076
<0.076
410
<0.076
<0
<0.076
<0
<0.076
<0.076
530
510
<7.6
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
400
25,000
35
150
4-1sopropyltoluene
<0.089
<0.089
6.4
<0.089
<0.089
<0.089
<0.089
<0.089
<0.089
-8.9
<8.9
<0.089
<0.089
<0.099
<0.089
<0.089
25
11,700
NE
NE
Benzene
160
<0.048
<0.048
1300
<0.048
<0.048
<0.048
<0.048
0.72
<0.048
14000
2100
290
<0.048
6.0
<0.048
<0.048
<0.048
1
5,000
16
69
Chlorobenzene
<0.062
<0.0
<0.062
<0.062
<0.062
<0.062
9.2
<0.062
<0.06
6.2
-6.2
<0.062
<0.062
<0.062
<0.062
<0.062
50
50,000
82
340
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
4500
<0.056
<0.0
45
<0.056
<0.056
<0.056
5.5
<0.056
<0.056
<0.05(
<5.6
<0.056
<0.056
<0.056
<0.056
<0.056
70
70,000
NE
NE
Ethylbenzene
14
<0.061
<0.0
1600
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
<0.06
2700
3200
<6.1
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
<0.061
600
84,500
35
150
Isopropyl Ether
<t
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
1.8
51
68
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
70
70,000
1,400
5,900
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)
9.8
<0.054
<0.054
62
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
<0.("
88
80
<5.4
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
<0.054
70
25,000
180
750
m,p-Xylenes
<1.2
<0. 12
<0. 12
6300
<0. 12
<0. 12
<0. 12
<0. 12
<0. 12
<0.. _
9400
9800
<12
<0. 12
1.6
<0. 12
<0. 12
<0.12
500
85,500
71
300
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
280
2.0
21
250
1.1
<0.042
0.70 J
10
<0.042
1.3
12
69
8600
1.1
740
57000
83
2.0
32
<0.042
<0.042
20
20,000
4,500
20,000
Naphthalene
8.7J
530
<0.19
<0.19
<0.19
0.84J
<0.19
<0.19
810
820
<19
<0.19
<0.19
<0.19
<0.19
<0.19
6
6,000
35
150
n-Butylbenzene
5.9
76
13
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<C
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.07(
70
6,900
NE
NE
n-propylbenzene
9.5
-0.087
160
<0.087
<0.087
<0.087
<0.087
<0.087
<C
250
260
<0.087
<0.087
<0.087
<0.087
<0.087
70
1 30,000
NE
NE
o-Xylene
<0.044
940
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
4700
4700
-4.4
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
500
85,500
98
410
sec-Butylbenzene
<0.076
<(l.
8.6
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<7.6
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
<0.076
70
8,500
NE
NE
Styrene
<(`
<0.047
<('
47
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
86
<4.7
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
<0.047
70
70,000
1,900
7,800
Tetrachloroethylene
<0.098
<0.98
<0.,
<0.098
<0.098
<0.098
<0.098
<0.098
<0.098
<9.8
<0.098
<0.098
0.62
<0.098
<0.098
0.7
700
12
48
Toluene
7.5
<0.044
<0.
1600
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
28000
15000
<4.4
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
<0.044
600
260,000
3,800
16,000
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
40
<0.070
<0.0
7.0
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
<0.0/0
<7.0
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
<0.070
100
100,000
NE
NE
Trichloroe thylene
14
<0.078
<0.078
8_5
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<_-
Z8
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
<0.078
3
3,000
1.0
4.4
Vinyl chloride
9.1
<0.097
<0.097
350
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<9.7
.7
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
<0.097
0.03
30
1.5
25
Xylenes, total
<0.15
<0.15
7200
<0.15
<0.15
<0.15
<0.15
<0.15
<0.15
<0.15
14000
14000
5
<0.15
1.6
<0.15
<0.15
<0.15
500
85,500
77
320
Notes:
ug/L = micrograms per liter
Bolded and Italicized Values = Analyte concentration detected above its NC 2L Groundwater Quality Standard (NCGWQS)
RED Values = Analyte concentration detected above its NC Gross Contamination Level (GCL)
Grey Shaded Cells = Analyte concentration detected above its Division of Waste Management (DWM) Residential Vapor Intrusion Ground Water Screening Level (VI GWSL) - October, 2017
Underlined Values =Analyte concentration detected above its DWM Non -Residential VI GWSL - October, 2017
< # = Not detected above the laboratory minimum detection limit (MDL)
Underlined MDL values indicate the MDL is greater than the NCGWQS
Italicized MDL values indicate the MDL is greater than the Residential VI GWSL
Bolded MDL values indicate the MDL is greater than the Non -Residential VI GWSL
J = Detected but below the reporting limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration
GCLs = North Carolina Gross Contaminant Levels For Groundwater - September, 2014