21002_Eagle Island_RevDM_20200504

REVISED DECISION MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 4, 2020
FROM: Sharon Eckard
TO: BF Assessment File
RE: Eagle Island
105, 116 & 125 Battleship Road NE
Leland, Brunswick County
Wilmington, New Hanover County
BF # 21002-17-010
Based on the following information, it has been determined that the above referenced
site, whose intended use is for no uses other single family residential, high density
residential, short-term rental home, office, retail, restaurant, hotel, recreation, marina,
open space, associated parking, and subject to DEQ's prior written approval, other
commercial uses, can be made suitable for such uses.
Introduction:
The Brownfields Property comprises five parcels totaling approximately 39.7 acres. Two
of the parcels at 105 and 125 Battleship Road are located in New Hanover County, but
the remainder are located immediately to the south along Battleship Rd in Brunswick
County. The Brownfields Property is located on the western bank of the Cape Fear River,
across from downtown Wilmington on land known as Eagle Island.
The Prospective Developer (PD) is Burgess Group Consolidated, LLC, who acquired the
Brunswick County parcels of the property in February 2017. The Brownfields Property
was subsequently sold in May 2017 to Holdings of TCM, Inc. (TCM), the current owner
of the Brownfields Property. TMC is considered a follow on owner as Burgess Group
Consolidated is retaining its position as the PD until the brownfields documents are
recorded. TMC is also the owner of the New Hanover County parcels of the Brownfields
Property.
The Brownfields Property is located on Eagle Island directly west of the Cape Fear River
and the City of Wilmington. That portion of the Brownfields Property that is located in
New Hanover County (PINS R05300-001-001-000 and R05300-001-002-000) is subject
to a prior Brownfields Agreement (BF Project No. 19071-15-065, Site Name: Battleship
Road), which was recorded on November 15, 2016 (New Hanover County Registry of
Deeds, Book RB 6017, Page 1759). This Brownfields Agreement supersedes the original
Brownfields Agreement for these New Hanover County parcels previously recorded in
2016 as referenced above (Brownfields Project No. 19071-15-065), and replaces those
land use restrictions respective to these parcels with those provided in paragraph 15 of the
Brownfields Agreement.
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

It is the intent of DEQ and the Prospective Developer that the execution and recordation
of this Agreement between DEQ and Prospective Developer shall not in any way impact
any other person's existing liability protection under the Brownfields Property Reuse Act
and previously entered Brownfields Agreements. Specifically, this Agreement shall not
alter the existing liability protection of any applicable person identified in Section 130A-
310.33 of the Brownfields Property Reuse Act as provided by the respective agreement
attached as Exhibit A to the Battleship Road Notice of Brownfields Property that was
originally recorded on November 15, 2016 at the New Hanover County Registry of
Deeds (Book RB 6017, Page 1759).The Eagle Island Notice of Brownfields Property
(NBP) with its Brownfields Agreement will includes property that was previously
covered under the recorded Brownfields Agreement for the two New Hanover County
parcels, known as the "Battleship Road" site. This NBP, once recorded, will supersede
the NBP recorded for the Battleship Road site (BF Project No. 19071-15-065) recorded
on November 15, 2016 at the New Hanover County Register of Deeds (Book RB 6017,
Page 1759), while retaining the environmental liability protection of prior entities entitled
to such protection under the Brownfields Statute.
Redevelopment Plans:
The Brownfields Property is currently vacant. The PD proposes to use the Brownfields
Property for single-family residential, high density residential, short-term rental home,
office, retail, restaurant, hotel, recreation, marina, open space, associated parking, and
subject to DEQ's prior written approval, other commercial uses. There is a small sliver
of land on the southern extent of the Brownfields Property that is considered wetlands
and undevelopable.
Site History:
Eagle Island is a historic location of agricultural and industrial operations, including
naval commerce, lumber production, turpentine production, fertilizer production and
sales, and tar and resin storage from the 1800s to the 1900s. The Brownfields Property
was originally developed for agricultural use during the mid-1700s. The area was
principally used for the cultivation of rice until the late 1700s until the mid- 1800s, when
it was transitioned to industrial use. The Brownfields Property is low-lying and portions
of it are undeveloped wetlands.
From the late 1700s, Eagle Island, on which the Brownfields Property is situated, was
utilized for various facilities associated with port operations for the area. Activities on
the site, or in the immediate vicinity included warehousing of cargo, naval stores, raw
and milled lumber storage and shipping, lumber mills, turpentine stills, and fertilizer
production and storage, as well as ship building and repair. Operations of these types
continued on Eagle Island into the 1900s, with operations diminishing until the 1960s.
The shoreline along the Cape Fear River has historically been fortified with fill material,
bulkheads, docks, wharfs, and piers since at least the 1850s. In 1856, historical maps of
the City of Wilmington indicate that the northeast portion of the Brownfields Property
was subdivided for commercial and/or residential purposes. The central portion of the
2
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

Brownfields Property (the southern area of the New Hanover County parcels) and
adjoining land to the south in Brunswick County were reportedly used to retrofit and
build ships since prior to the Civil War. The central portion of the Brownfields Property
was reportedly used as a Confederate Naval Yard during the Civil War from 1861 to
1865.
By 1881, the New Hanover County portion of the Brownfields Property was primarily
used for industrial purposes, primarily for the production and storage of naval stores. By
1915, there was a residential dwelling located to the west of Battleship Road on the New
Hanover portion of the Brownfields Property and the southern New Hanover County
portion of the Brownfields Property transitioned from turpentine manufacturing back to
ship building, and it was occupied by the Stone Marine Railway Company. During the
1880s until 1950, industrial activities, including bulk petroleum storage, fertilizer
manufacturing, and equipment maintenance, occurred on the New Hanover County
portion of the Brownfields Property.
By the mid-1950s, the northern portion of the Brownfields Property was mostly vacant
and unoccupied. A truck maintenance shop was located on the northern portion of the
New Hanover County portion of the Brownfields Property in 1955, but it was demolished
by 1974. Partially submerged marine vessels, dock pilings, and remnants of the marine
railway yard remain along the river's western shoreline. Over the past 160 years,
numerous land- and marine -based buildings have been constructed, demolished, burned
down, or deteriorated over time on Eagle Island.
The Brunswick County portion of the Brownfields Property may historically been used
for a variety of industrial operations as noted above, but has been vacant and primarily
unused since the mid-1960s, except for commercial use in the late 1980s. At that time,
the Brunswick County portion of the Brownfields Property was acquired by S&G
Prestress Company and the Arundel Corporation (collectively doing business as Vulcan
Materials Company). This portion of the Brownfields Property was used as a laydown
yard for concrete building materials during Vulcan Materials Co. operations.
The New Hanover County portion of the Brownfields Property was owned by Wright
Chemical Corporation from 1979 to 1993; by Carolina Power and Light Company from
1993 to 2000; by Winner, LLC from 2000 to 2013; by Muddy Waters Properties, LLC
from 2013 to 2015; and by Holdings of TCM, Inc. from 2015 to the present. The
Brunswick County parcels of the Brownfields Property were acquired by S&G Prestress
Company and Arundel Company in the late 1980s. The Prospective Developer, Burgess
Group Consolidated, LLC acquired this portion of the Brownfields Property on February
7, 2017. Holdings of TCM, Inc. purchased the Brunswick County parcels of the
Brownfields Property on May 8, 2017.
During Phase II assessment activities, an area of previously unidentified tar/resin was
discovered on one of the Brunswick County parcels of the Brownfields Property. The
impacted area and surrounding surficial soils were excavated, resulting in approximately
99.5 tons of material, which was disposed of off -site in August 2017.
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

Potential Receptors:
Potential receptors are: construction workers, on -site workers, future residents, visitors,
animals, and trespassers.
Contaminated Media:
DEQ has evaluated data collected from the following media at the subject property:
groundwater and soil. DEQ relies on the following data to base its conclusions regarding
the subject property and its suitability for its intended reuse.
Soil
Soil was evaluated primarily through composite sampling at the Brownfields Property.
New Hanover County samples
Soil on the New Hanover County parcels was analyzed for pesticides (EPA Method
8081), Nitrite (Method 300.0), ammonia (Method 4500), VOCs (Method 8260), and
SVOCs (Method 8270). Results of the analyses indicated the presence of arsenic (0.69
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 4.3 mg/kg), p-isopropyltoluene (0.44 mg/kg to 0.397
mg/kg) and 1,2,3-trichloropropane (0.183 mg/kg) at concentrations exceeding their
respective DWM Residential Screening Levels. The screening levels for arsenic and
1,2,3-Trichloropropane are 0.68 mg/kg and 0.0051 mg/kg, respectively. There is no
screening level established for p-Isopropyltoluene.
Brunswick Copp . samples
On the basis of composite sampling, soil on the Brunswick County parcels were found to
be impacted with arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, and
thallium at concentrations exceeding residential health -based screening levels at depths of
0-1 foot below ground surface. Lead concentrations in localized areas (sample locations
PS3, PS5, SS-2, SS-MW5, and Z13) ranged from 413 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
up to 3,390 mg/kg, which exceeds not only the residential preliminary soil remedial goal
(PSRG), but the industrial PSRG. However, these soils were excavated from the
Brownfields Property and transported for offsite disposal. This excavation also removed
most concentrations of other metals (lead, copper, mercury, and manganese) that
exceeded residential screening levels from the Brownfields Property, with the exception
of mercury, manganese and thallium in an area known as Z8 on one of the Brunswick
County parcels. Redevelopment in this area is further restricted in the Brownfields
Agreement.
Arsenic was detected across the entire site at concentrations generally consistent with
naturally occurring background levels (considered to be up to about 15 mg/kg) for the
region, and are not likely a result of historical operations at the site, with the exception of
a concentration of 33.7 mg/kg at sample location SS-MW-4, which is located at the
extreme southern boundary of the Brownfields Property on a small undevelopable sliver
of land immediately adjacent to the Duke Power substation, and exceeds the residential
PSRG for arsenic of 0.68 mg/kg. This sliver of "dry" land is separated from the
developable part of the Brownfields Property by significant wetlands.
4
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

The presence of the other metals and benzo(a)pyrene remaining on site are attributed to
historical operations at the site and are distributed across the entirety of the developable
(upland) portions of the Brownfields Property to depths from one to four feet below
ground surface.
Groundwater
Groundwater at the site was analyzed for pesticides (EPA Method 8081), nitrite (Method
300.0), ammonia (Method 4500), VOCs (Method8260), and SVOCs (Method 8270). It
was found to be impacted with ammonia (2,350 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 19,100
µg/L), arsenic in one well associated with the high arsenic concentration in soil on the
undevelopable portion of the Brownfields Property (MW-4 at 267 µg/L), manganese (107
µg/L to 3,430 µg/L), 3/4 methylphenol in well BB-TW04 (927 µg/L ), phenol in one
well, BB-TW04 at 94.1 µg/L, which exceed their respective NC 2L Standards. Bis(2-
chloroethoxy)methane (52.3 µg/L, phosphorus (340 µg/L to 3,200 µg/L), and
orthophosphate as phosphorus (270 µg/L to 3,400 µg/L)were also detected in
groundwater, but there are no NC 2L standards established for these compounds.
The ammonia, phosphorus and orthophosphate are distributed across the New Hanover
County parcels and are attributed to historical fertilizer manufacturing and storage at the
site. The 3/4-methylphenol, bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane and phenol are attributed to
historical ship building and maintenance activities conducted at the site. Phenol, 3/4-
Methylphenol and bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane were detected at one location, which is in
the northern portion of the site where a truck maintenance shop, was located from 1955 to
1974.
Surface Water
Surface water does not traverse the Brownfields Property, although the Brownfields
Property abuts the Cape Fear River.
Soil Vapor
Soil vapor samples were not collected because groundwater data indicated that volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) were not in excess of NC DEQ residential vapor intrusion
screening levels.
Sub -Slab Vapor/Indoor Air
No buildings are present on the Brownfields Property; thus no indoor air or sub -slab
samples were collected. VOCs were not found to be constituents of concern at the
Brownfields Property.
Risk Calculations
Risk calculations were performed using the DWM Risk Calculator (May 2019 version).
For the purposes of looking at the site spatially, the site was divided into the New
Hanover County parcels, which were evaluated as a whole, and the Brunswick County
5
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

parcels, which were evaluated by dividing into two areas: 1) usable, upland (dry)
property, and 2) unusable land (wetlands and the sliver of property at the extreme
southern boundary). The risk calculations indicated the following based on available
data, including the following media: groundwater, residual soil (based on confirmatory
soil data):
Risk for Individual Pathways it
Version Date: May 2019
Basis: May 2019 EPA RSL Table
Site ID: 21002-17-010
Exposure Unit ID: New Hanover County Parcels
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
Carciinnogenic
sk
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded?
Resident
Soil
4.2E-05
2.2E-01
NO
Groundwater Use*
1.8E-07
8.5E+03
YES
Non -Residential Worker
Soil
3.1E-06
2.9E-02
NO
Groundwater Use*
1.3E-08
I 1.2E+03
YES
Construction Worker
Soil
4.6E-07
2.0E-01
NO
Recreator/Trespasser
Soil
2.4E-05
7.8E-02
NO
Surface Water*
NC
NC
NC
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
CarcinogenicRisk
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded?
Resident
Groundwater to Indoor Air
2.8E-09
2.5E-02
NO
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Non -Residential Worker
Groundwater to Indoor Air
2.3E-10
5.8E-03
NO
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
The risk calculator for the New Hanover County parcels indicates that there is no
unacceptable risk exposure to soil under residential, non-residential, construction worker,
or trespasser exposure scenarios. Exposure to groundwater does exceed acceptable
environmental risk ranges for both resident and non-residential worker as the hazard
indices for these two exposure scenarios is 8,500 and 1,200, respectively, orders of
magnitude above a hazard index threshold value of 1. Groundwater concentrations do
not pose an unacceptable environmental risk with regards to vapor intrusion for both
residential and non-residential exposure scenarios.
6
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

Risk for Individual Pathways 1
Version Date: May 2019
Basis: May 2019 EPA RSL Table
Site ID: 21002-17-010
Exposure Unit ID: Brunswick Co parcels excl. wetlands & SS-MW-4
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded.
Resident
Soil
2.2E-05
1.1E+00
YES
Groundwater Use*
5.2E-03
5.3E+01
YES
Non -Residential Worker
Soil
4.6E-06
1.6E-01
NO
Groundwater Use*
1.0E-03
8.3E+00
YES
Construction Worker
Soil
7.8E-07
3.5E+00
YES
Recreator/Trespasser
Soil
1.2E-05
3.8E-01
NO
Surface Water*
NC
NC
NC
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
Carcfiskeme
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded?
Resident
Groundwater to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
9.2E-03
NO
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Non -Residential Worker
Groundwater to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
2.2E-03
NO
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
The risk calculator for the Brunswick Co. parcels, excluding the wetlands area and that
represented by well SS-MW-4, indicates that soil exceeds a hazard index of 1 (1.1) for
residential use and 3.5 for construction worker (3.5), but does not exceed for non-
residential worker (0.16) nor for the trespasser scenario. This is with respect to the
metals concentrations of mercury particularly that are above residential screening levels
in an area delineated as Z8. This area will be subject to additional land use restrictions
that prohibit residential use without additional assessment and remediation as necessary.
Groundwater use under both residential and non-residential scenarios exceeds an
acceptable environmental carcinogenic risk range and non -cancer hazard index of 1.
7
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

Risk for Individual Pathways 1
Version Date: May 2019
Basis: May 2019 EPA RSL Table
Site ID: 21002-17-010
Exposure Unit ID: Brunswick Co. Parcels including wetlands & SS-MW-4
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded.
Resident
Soil
5.4E-05
1.2E+00
YES
Groundwater Use*
5.2E-03
5.3E+01
YES
Non -Residential Worker
Soil
1.1E-05
1.0E-01
NO
Groundwater Use*
1.0E-03
8.3E+00
YES
Construction Worker
Soil
1.9E-06
1.6E+00
YES
Recreator/Trespasser
Soil
3.0E-05
6.3E-01
NO
Surface Water*
NC
NC
NC
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
Carcfiskeme
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded?
Resident
Groundwater to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
9.2E-03
NO
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Non -Residential Worker
Groundwater to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
2.2E-03
NO
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
Indoor Air
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NO
The wetlands and SS-MW-4 area is deemed to be undevelopable. Risk calculations
indicate that groundwater use exceeds acceptable environmental risk for both residential
and non-residential scenarios; soil poses an unacceptable environmental risk under
residential and construction worker scenarios. Vapor intrusion is this area is not
anticipated based on groundwater conditions. Because the natural conditions in this area
deem it to be undevelopable, we do not anticipate that this area will be developed and
thus this represents an incomplete risk pathway.
The areas of potential concern for soils are contained within the delineated wetlands and
at the southern boundary of the property, and the area noted as "Z8". The wetlands are
undevelopable and inaccessible by virtue of being wetlands. No additional restrictions
are considered necessary for these areas. The unusable sliver of "dry" property at the
southern boundary is too small for development and is separated from the developable
area by a substantial wetland area. This small piece of property also is immediately
adjacent to the fence surrounding the power sub -station located to the south.
With regards to soil at the Brownfields Property, given the excavation of much of the soil
that exceeds residential screening levels, with the exception of the wetlands and the
approximately 20-feet wide sliver of unusable property running along the undevelopable
wetlands to the north, the extreme southern boundary of the property immediately
adjacent to the substation, and the area delineated as Z8, the risk calculator indicates that
residual impacts on the site do not pose a risk for residential use. Therefore, a land use
restriction for on -site soils on the developable portion of the Brownfields Property, other
8
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020

than the area delineated as Z8, is limited to the restriction on the export and import of
soil.
With regards to groundwater risk, municipal water is planned to be supplied to the area as
part of the redevelopment plans. Therefore, risk of ingestion of groundwater is not
considered an issue for the Brownfields Property. However, a land use restriction on
exposure to and use of groundwater will be placed on the site as a precautionary measure
through the recordation of a Brownfields Agreement.
Required Land Use Restrictions:
Land use restrictions will include the standard restrictions regarding land use,
groundwater, known contaminants, DEQ access, EMP requirement, access, use of
products with known contaminants, property association declaration language, and
LURU reporting. Restrictions preventing the use of groundwater at the site are placed on
the site to ensure groundwater is not accessed or used. Restrictions on residential use in
the area of Z8 are based on soil data in that area; additional soil restrictions are due to the
import and export of soil to and from the property to ensure only clean soil is brought
onto the site and that impacted soil is properly handled if taken off site. Final grade
sampling is also required.
Due to a written comment received from the NC State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) within the 30-day public comment period as to the impact of the redevelopment
on potential historic resources on Eagle Island, DEQ and the Prospective Developer have
agreed that any draft EMP will be shared with SHPO for the purposes of communicating
the redevelopment plans to SHPO, and obtaining, and evaluating the application of, input
from SHPO regarding the preservation of historic resources at the Brownfields Property.
Such input is defined in the BFA as that which pertains to "1) the protection of historic
maritime and archaeological artifacts of historic significance that may exist at the
Brownfields Property; and 2) the federal, State, and/or local historic resource protection
laws that may be applicable to the redevelopment of the Brownfields Property."
Language to this effect was added to the BFA and the PD has agreed to it. It was
determined that a second public comment period would not be necessary due to these
modifications to the BFA language.
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.
9
Eagle Tsland/21002-17-010/04May2020