HomeMy WebLinkAbout22040 Metromont Concrete Environmental Management Plan_20221006
Via Email
July 25, 2022
NCDEQ – Division of Waste Management
Brownfields Program
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Attn: Mr. Bill Schmithorst, PG
Re: Environmental Management Plan
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 22040-18-060
H&H Project No. S2K-001
Dear Bill:
On behalf of S2K Charlotte QOZB, LLC, please find the enclosed Environmental Management Plan
(EMP) prepared for the proposed development planned at the Metromont Concrete Brownfields property
in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.
Should you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at
(704) 586-0007.
Sincerely,
Hart & Hickman, PC
Ralph McGee, PG Haley Martin, PG
Project Manager Senior Project Geologist
Enclosure:
cc: Mr. Dan Wendover, CapRock (via email)
#C-1269 Engineering
#C-245 Geology
Environmental Management Plan
Metromont Concrete Facility
4101 Greensboro Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 22040-18-060
July 25, 2022
H&H Job No. S2K-001
CONTENTS
Completed EMP Template Form
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Soil Analytical Data
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data
Table 3 Summary of Soil Gas Analytical Data
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Sample Location Map
Figure 4 Compound Concentration Map
Appendices
Appendix A Preliminary Erosion Plan
Appendix B Preliminary Construction Schedule
1
EMP Version 2, January 2021
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 Brownfields project manager.
The EMP is a typical requirement of a Brownfields Agreement (BFA). Its purpose is to clarify
actions to be taken during the demolition and construction at Brownfields properties in an
effort to avoid delays in the event of the discovery of new contamination sources or other
environmental conditions. The EMP provides a means to document redevelopment plans and
environmental data for each applicable environmental medium to inform regulatory‐compliant
decision‐making at the site. As much detail as possible should be included in the EMP,
including contingency planning for unknowns. Consult your project manager if you have
questions.
Prospective Developers and/or their consultants must complete and submit this form and all
pertinent attachments, see checklist below, to their Brownfields project manager prior to any
earthmoving or other development‐related activities that have the potential to disturb soil at
the Brownfields Property, including demolition. For the resultant EMP to be valid for use, it
must be completed, reviewed by the program, signed by all parties working on the project,
and approved by the Brownfields project manager. Failure to comply with the requirements of
the EMP could jeopardize project eligibility, or in the event of a completed agreement, be
cause for a reopener.
The EMP is valid only for the scope of work described herein and must be updated to be
applicable for new phases of redevelopment or after significant changes in applicable
regulatory guidance.
Voluntary Metrics Tab
The NC Brownfields Program updates estimated capital investment (from the Brownfields
Property Application) and estimated jobs created (from the Brownfields Agreement) whenever
possible. As a voluntary measure, you may opt to complete the below information for capital
investment and jobs created as estimated by your final redevelopment plans for the Brownfields
Property:
1. Estimated capital investment in redevelopment project: $125,000,000
2. Estimated jobs created:
a. Construction Jobs: 150
b. Full Time Post-Redevelopment Jobs: 12
2
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Table of Contents
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................... 1
GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 4
COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM ............................................................................... 5
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 5
CONTAMINATED MEDIA ......................................................................................................................... 7
PART 1. Soil ......................................................................................................................................... 8
PART 2. GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 19
PART 3. SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................. 21
PART 4. SEDIMENT ............................................................................................................................ 21
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR ......................................................................................................................... 22
PART 6. SUB‐SLAB SOIL VAPOR ........................................................................................................ 23
PART 7. INDOOR AIR ......................................................................................................................... 23
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 24
CONTINGENCY PLAN – encountering unknown tanks, drums, or other waste materials ..................... 24
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING ..................................................................................................... 27
APPROVAL SIGNATURES ....................................................................................................................... 28
3
EMP Version 2, January 2021
So that the EMP provides value in protecting brownfields eligibility and public health, the
preparer shall ensure that the following steps have been completed prior to submitting the
EMP for review. Any EMP prepared without completing these steps is premature.
☒ Site sampling and assessment that meets Brownfields’ objectives is complete and has
been reviewed and approved by the Brownfields Project Manager.
☒ Specific redevelopment plans, even if conceptual, have been developed for the project,
submitted and reviewed by the Brownfields Project Manager.
Please submit, along with the completed EMP form, the following attachments, as relevant
and applicable to the proposed redevelopment:
☒ A set of redevelopment plans, including architectural/engineering plans, if available; if
not conceptual plans may suffice if updated when detailed plans are drafted.
☒ A figure overlaying redevelopment plans on a map of the extent of contamination for
each media.
☒ Site grading plans – *Note that a preliminary erosion control plan is provided as
Appendix B, since mass grading activities is not included as part of Phase I of
redevelopment.
☒ A figure showing the proposed location and depth of impacted soil that would remain
on site after construction grading.
☐ Any necessary permits for redevelopment (i.e. demolition, etc.).
☒ A detailed construction schedule that includes timing and phases of construction.
☒ Tabulated data summaries for each impacted media (i.e. soil, groundwater, soil gas,
etc.) applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
☒ Figures with the sampling locations and contamination extents for each impacted media
applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
☐ A full final grade sampling and analysis plan, if the redevelopment plan is final.
☐ If known, information about each proposed potential borrow soil source, such as aerial
photos, historic site maps, historic Sanborn maps, a site history, necessary for
brownfields approval.
☐ Information and, analytical data if required, for quarries, or other borrow sources,
4
EMP Version 2, January 2021
detailing the type of material proposed for importation to the Brownfields Property.
☐ A work plan for the sampling and analysis of soil to be brought onto the Brownfields
Property. Refer to Issue Resolution 15 in Brownfields Program Guidelines.
☐ A map of the Brownfields Property showing the location of soils proposed for export
and sampling data from those areas.
☒ If a Vapor Mitigation System is required by the Brownfields Program, the Vapor
Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) plan will be signed and sealed by a NC Professional
Engineer. The VIMS Plan may also be submitted under separate cover.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: 7/25/2022 Revision Date (if applicable): Click or tap to enter a date.
Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Metromont Concrete Facility
Brownfields Project Number: 22040‐18‐060
Brownfields Property Address: 4101 Greensboro Street, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Brownfields Property Area (acres): The Brownfields property consists of two parcels totaling
approximately 18.49 acres of land. A Site location map is provided as Figure 1, and the Site and
surrounding area are shown in Figure 2.
Is Brownfields Property Subject to RCRA Permit?.......................☒ Yes ☐ No
If yes enter Permit No.: NCR000011262 (inactive since 2011)
Is Brownfields Property Subject to a Solid Waste Permit….……..☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, enter Permit No.: Click or tap here to enter text.
COMMUNICATIONS
A copy of this EMP shall be distributed to all the parties below as well as any contractors or site workers
that may be exposed to site vapors, soil, groundwater, and/or surface water. Additionally, a copy of the
EMP shall be maintained at the Brownfields Property during redevelopment activities. NOTE, THE EMP
DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A SITE‐SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN.
Prospective Developer (PD): S2K Charlotte QOZB, LLC
Contact Person: Dan Wendover
Phone Numbers: Office: Mobile: 704‐905‐6844
Email: dwendover@caprockinvest.com
5
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Contractor for PD: ColeJenest & Stone
Contact Person: Collin Jenest, PE
Phone Numbers: Office: 704‐376‐1555 Ext. 3787 Mobile: 704‐564‐1118
Email: colin.jenest@bolton‐menk.com
Environmental Consultant: Hart & Hickman, PC
Contact Person: Ralph McGee, PG
Phone Numbers: Office: 704‐586‐0007 Mobile: 704‐840‐4775
Email: rmcgee@harthickman.com
Brownfields Program Project Manager: Mr. Bill Schmithorst, PG
Phone Numbers: Office: 919‐707‐8159 Mobile: 919‐441‐3606
Email: william.schmithorst@ncdenr.gov
Other DEQ Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch,
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste):
Brownfields Property Management Unit
BFpropertymanagement@ncdenr.gov
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
Written advance Notification Times to Brownfields Project Manager: Check each box to accept
minimum advance notice periods (in calendar days) for each type of onsite task:
On‐site assessment or remedial activities:……………………………………….…… 10 days Prior ☒
Construction or grading start:……………………………………….………………………. 10 days Prior ☒
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, ventilation of work zones):…………….……….……… Within 48 hours ☒
Installation of mitigation systems:………………………….………………….……….. 10 days Prior ☒
Other notifications as required by local, state or federal agencies to implement redevelopment
activities: (as applicable): ……………………….…………………………………………..… Within 30 days ☒
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply):
☒Residential ☐Recreational ☐Institutional ☒Commercial ☒Office ☒Retail ☐Industrial
6
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☐Other specify:
Proposed redevelopment of the Brownfields property includes razing the existing Site buildings
and removing building slabs and hardscapes. Due to the size of the existing structures, the area
of land disturbance for removal of the buildings require installation of erosion control measures.
Therefore, this EMP has been prepared to assist in management of Site media during demolition
and erosion control installation activities. Future redevelopment plans will include leveling the
Site for construction of multi‐story mixed mixed‐use apartment buildings with commercial retail
and amenity spaces, and associated parking areas. Redevelopment activities also include
installation of new access drives, courtyards, and landscaped areas. This EMP has be prepared
specifically for Phase I of the redevelopment, which includes demolition of Site structures,
removing building slabs and hardscapes, installation of a sediment pond, and installation of
erosion control measures. The preliminary erosion control plan is provided as Appendix A.
An EMP for Phase II of the proposed redevelopment including grading and construction of
proposed buildings will be submitted under separate cover at a later date.
2) 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
3) Summary of Redevelopment Plans (MANDATORY: attach detailed plans or conceptual plans, if
detailed plans are not available. EMP review without such information would be premature):
Provide brief summary of redevelopment plans, including demolition, removal of building
slabs/pavement, grading plans and planned construction of new structures:
A copy of the most recent erosion control plan prepared for the demolition and installation of
the erosion control measures at the Brownfields property is included in Appendix A. As noted
above, initial redevelopment plans include razing the existing Site buildings, removing building
slabs and hardscape features, installation of a sediment pond, and installation of erosion controls
to prepare for redevelopment.
4) Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?:
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☒ If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements, including without limitation those related to lead and asbestos
abatement that are administered by the Health Hazards Control Unit within the Division of Public
Health of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. If available, please
provide a copy of your demolition permit.
5) Are sediment and erosion control measures required by federal, state, or local regulations?
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
7
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☒ If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements. If soil disturbance is necessary to install sediment and erosion
control measures, they may not begin until this EMP is approved.
6) Which category of risk‐based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement? Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels shall
be cited in the Brownfields Agreement for comparison purposes.
☒ Residential ☐ Non‐Residential or Industrial/Commercial
7) Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a) Construction start date: 8/1/2022
b) Anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
Demolition of Site structures and Site work is scheduled to begin in August 2022. Building
slab and hardscape removal will begin after erosion control measures are in place. Phase I of
the proposed redevelopment is expected to be completed by December 2023. A copy of the
preliminary construction schedule is provided as Appendix B.
c) Additional phases planned? ☒ Yes ☐ No
If yes, specify the start date and/or activities if known:
Start Date: 3/1/2023
Planned Activity:
As noted above, additional phases of redevelopment will include construction of mixed‐use
multi‐story apartment buildings with commercial retail and amenity spaces, and an associated
parking deck. Redevelopment activities also include installation of new access drives,
courtyards, and landscaped areas.
Start Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
Planned Activity:
Click or tap here to enter text.
Start Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
Planned Activity:
Click or tap here to enter text.
d) Provide the planned date of occupancy for new buildings: 1/1/2025
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Please fill out the sections 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.
8
EMP Version 2, January 2021
1) Contaminated Media on the Brownfields Property
Part 1. Soil:……………………………………….……………. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 2. Groundwater:.……………………….……..……. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 3. Surface Water:.……………...……..…………… ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☒ Unknown
Part 4. Sediment:.……………...……..…………………… ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☒ Unknown
Part 5. Soil Vapor:…..…………...……..…………………. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 6. Sub‐Slab Soil Vapor:……...……..…………….. ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☒ Unknown
Part 7. Indoor Air:...……..…………………………………. ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☒ Unknown
2) For the Area of Proposed Redevelopment on the Brownfields Property, attach tabulated data
summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with sample locations.
PART 1. Soil
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list general groups of contaminants):
Soil samples were collected at the Brownfields property in April 2018 and January 2019 to
evaluate the potential for impacts associated with historical on‐Site and nearby off‐Site
operations. Soil assessment activities completed at the Brownfields property included collection
of twelve (12) soil samples for laboratory analysis. A tabular summary of the soil sample
laboratory analytical results for samples collected at the Brownfields property is included as
Table 1. Soil sample locations are shown in Figure 3. A summary of the previously completed
soil assessment results is provided below:
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Soil sample analytical results indicate that low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel
range organics (TPH‐DRO) were detected in soil samples collected adjacent to former
underground storage tanks (USTs). The detected concentrations were well below the DEQ UST
Section Action Level of 100 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). In addition, low levels of volatile
petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) and extractable hydrocarbons (EPH) were detected in soil
samples collected adjacent to former USTs, but at concentrations below the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs).
Volatile Organic Compounds
Soil sample analytical results indicate that low levels of acetone were detected at concentrations
above the laboratory method detection limits, but below the DEQ PSRGs in soil samples collected
at the Brownfields property. No VOCs were detected at concentrations above the DEQ PSRGs.
No other VOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits in
the soil samples collected at the Brownfields property.
Semi‐Volatile Organic Compounds
No SVOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits in soil
samples collected at the Brownfields property.
9
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Metals
Detections of metals in soil samples collected at the Brownfields property are consistent with
naturally occurring levels and are considered representative of background conditions.
2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet):
No compounds have been detected at concentrations above the DEQ PSRGs (or background
levels in the case of metals) in soil samples collected at the Site.
3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet):
The entire Site (approximately 805,860sq ft) is expected to be disturbed by redevelopment. For
Phase I of the proposed redevelopment, soil will be disturbed in select areas during demolition of
the existing structures and for installation of erosion control measures including excavations for
construction of a sediment pond. A copy of the preliminary erosion control plan is provided as
Appendix B.
4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet):
Based on review of the erosion control plan, planned cut depths in area of the sediment pond
are expected to range from approximately 1 to 12 ft bgs.
5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan):
Based on conversations with the PD, soil excavated during construction of the sediment pond in
the northeastern corner of the Site will remain stockpiled or thin spread on‐Site for use during
mass grading in subsequent phases of redevelopment.
6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
No compounds have been detected at concentrations above the DEQ PSRGs (or background
levels in the case of metals) in soil samples collected at the Brownfields property.
7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:
As noted above, excess soil generated during installation of the sediment pond in the
northeastern corner of the Site will be stockpiled or thin‐spread on site for use during mass
grading during subsequent phases of redevelopment. Therefore, off‐Site disposal of excess soil
generated during installation of the sediment pond is not anticipated at this time.
Part 1.A. MANAGING ONSITE SOIL
If soil 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).
1) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION:
a) 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
10
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☐ If yes, explain why below, including the level of knowledge regarding processes
generating the waste (include pertinent analytical results as needed).
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ If yes, do the soils exceed the “Contained‐Out” levels in Attachment 1 of the
North Carolina Contained‐In Policy?................................................. ☐ Yes ☐ No
b) 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 DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND
REGULATIONS.
c) Does the soil contain a CHARACTERISTIC WASTE?.................................... ☐ Yes ☒ No
☐ If yes, mark reason(s) why below (and include pertinent analytical results).
☐ Ignitability Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ Corrosivity Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ Reactivity Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ Toxicity Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ TCLP results Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ 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)
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ If no, explain rationale:
Although laboratory analytical results for soil samples TW‐3/DUP‐1 detected
concentrations of total chromium which exceed TCLP criteria using the Rule of
20, the detected concentrations are believed to be naturally occurring and not
indicative of characteristically hazardous waste. Laboratory analysis of the
remaining soil samples collected during assessment activities did not identify
compound concentrations at characteristically hazardous levels or levels which
exceed TCLP criteria using the Rule of 20.
d) 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 DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
2) 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
11
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☒ Preliminary Health‐Based Industrial/Commercial SRGs
☒ Division of Waste Management Risk Calculator (For Brownfields Properties Only)
☐ Site‐specific risk‐based cleanup level. Please provide details of methods used for
determination/explanation.
Click or tap here to enter text.
Additional comments:
Click or tap here to enter text.
3) If known impacted soil is proposed to be reused within the Brownfields Property Boundary,
please check the measures that will be utilized to ensure safe placement and documentation of
same. Please attach a proposed location diagram/site map.
☒ 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
☐ Geotextile to mark depth of fill material.
Provide description of material:
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Manage soil under impervious cap ☒ or clean fill ☒
☒ Describe cap or fill:
Documented impacted soils, if encountered during construction, will be covered with
impervious surfaces (asphalt pavement, sidewalks, access roads, buildings, etc.) or a
minimum of 2 ft of demonstrably clean fill during subsequent phases of redevelopment.
☒ Confer with NC BF Project Manager if Brownfield Plat must be revised (or re‐recorded if
actions are Post‐Recordation).
☒ GPS the location and provide site map with final location.
☐ Other. Please provide a description of the measure:
4) Please describe the following action(s) to be taken during and following excavation and
management of site soils:
Management of fugitive dust from site
☒ Yes, describe the method will include:
Significant areas of contaminated soil are not expected to be encountered or disturbed
during future Site redevelopment activities based upon previous soil sampling data and field
screening during previous assessment activities. However, the contractor will take into
account conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and moisture content of soil during
soil grading and stockpiling activities to minimize dust generation. Particular attention will
be paid by contractors to implement dust control measures as needed based on Site and
Click or tap here to enter text.
12
EMP Version 2, January 2021
atmospheric conditions, and may be controlled using water application, hydro‐seeding,
and/or mulch, stone, or plastic cover.
☐ No, explain rationale:
Click or tap here to enter text.
Field Screening of site soil
☒ Yes, describe the field screening method, frequency of field screening, person conducting
field screening:
During soil disturbance at the Site, the workers or contractors will observe soils for
evidence of potential significantly impacted soil. Evidence of potential impacted soil
includes a distinct unnatural color, strong odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of
concern (i.e., chemicals, tanks, drums, etc.). Should the above be noted during Site work,
the contractor will contact the project environmental professional to observe the suspect
condition. If the project environmental professional confirms that the material may be
impacted, then the procedures below will be implemented. In addition, the environmental
professional will contact the DEQ Brownfields project manager within 48‐hours to advise
that person of the condition.
☐ No, explain rationale:
Click or tap here to enter text.
Soil Sample Collection
☐ Yes, describe the sampling method (e.g., in‐situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ No, explain rationale:
Collection of additional soil samples in potentially impacted areas at the Site is not
anticipated based on results of previous Site assessment activities. If previously
unknown significant soil impact is encountered during grading and/or installation or
removal of utilities, excavation will proceed only as far as needed to allow grading
and/or construction of the utility to continue and/or only as far as needed to allow
alternate corrective measures described below.
Suspect impacted soil excavated during grading, erosion control installations, and/or
utility line installation or removal may be stockpiled and covered in a secure area to
allow construction to progress. Suspect impacted soil will be underlain by and covered
with minimum 10‐mil plastic sheeting as shown in the diagram labeled Figure 1 provided
in the EMP form below. At least one representative composite soil sample (no less than
3 aliquot soil samples) at a sample ratio of 1 soil sample per every approximately 1,000
cubic yards of soil will be collected for the analyses selected below (i.e., total VOCs,
SVOCs, and RCRA metals plus hexavalent chromium). The VOC sample would be a grab
sample of the aliquot with the highest field screen reading. If the soil sample laboratory
analytical results indicate that the soil could potentially exceed toxicity characteristic
hazardous waste criteria, then the soil will also be analyzed by TCLP for those
compounds that could exceed the toxicity characteristic hazardous waste criteria.
13
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Newly identified impacted soil uncovered during grading will be managed in the manner
described below based upon the laboratory analyses:
i. If no organic compounds are detected in a sample (other than which are attributable
to sampling or laboratory artifacts) and metals are below the DEQ Protection of
Groundwater or Residential PSRG (whichever is lower for the detected compounds) and
are consistent with Site‐specific background levels with acceptable cumulative risk
calculator results, then the soil will be deemed suitable for use as on‐Site fill without
conditions or as off‐Site fill with DEQ approval. The proposed location(s) for off‐Site
placement of soil (other than a subtitle D landfill or permitted landfarm facility) along
with the receiving facility’s written approval for acceptance of the soil will be provided to
DEQ for approval prior to taking the soil off‐Site.
ii. If detectable levels of compounds are found which do not exceed the DEQ
Residential PSRGs (other than which are attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts
or which are consistent with Site‐specific background levels for metals), the TCLP
concentrations are below hazardous waste criteria, and cumulative risk calculator results
are acceptable, then the soil may be used on‐Site as fill without conditions.
iii. If detectable levels of compounds are found which exceed the DEQ Residential
PSRGs (other than which are attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts or which are
consistent with background levels for metals) and the TCLP concentrations are below
hazardous waste criteria, the soil may be used on‐Site as fill below an impervious
surface, or at least 2 ft of compacted demonstrably clean soil. If impacted soil with
concentrations above Residential PSRGs is moved to an on‐Site location, its location and
depth will be documented, and its location will be provided to DEQ
iv. Impacted soil may be transported to a Brownfields approved permitted facility
such as a MSW landfill or landfarm provided that the soil is accepted at the disposal
facility. If soil is transported to a permitted facility other than a MSW landfill or
landfarm, the permitted facility’s written approval or acceptance to dispose of soil from
the Site will be included as a supporting document in a redevelopment report and DEQ
Brownfields approval will be obtained prior to export. In the unlikely event that the
sample data indicates concentrations above TCLP hazardous waste criteria, then the soil
must be transported to a permitted disposal facility that can accept or treat hazardous
waste.
*Please note that should the PD elect to transport export soil to a permitted facility or to
a DEQ Brownfields pre‐approved receiving facility, soil will be direct loaded onto trucks
for transport off‐Site.
If soil samples are collected for analysis, please check the applicable 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, mercury, lead, selenium
and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
EPA Methods 6020/7471
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
14
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium,
Herbicides, etc.): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199
☒ Check to confirm that stockpiling of known or suspected impacted soils will be conducted
in accordance with Figure 1 of this EMP. Stockpile methodology should provide erosion
control, prohibiting contact between surface water/precipitation and contaminated soil,
and preventing contaminated runoff. Explain any variances or provide additional details as
needed:
☐ Final grade sampling of exposed native soil (i.e., soil that will not be under buildings or
permanent hardscape). Select chemical analyses for final grade samples 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, mercury, lead,
selenium and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent
Chromium, Herbicides, etc.):
Please provide a scope of work for final grade sampling, including a diagram of soil
sampling locations, number of samples to be collected, and brief sampling methodology.
Samples should be collected from 0‐2 ft below ground surface, with the exception of VOCs
which should be taken from 1‐2 ft below ground surface. Alternatively, indicate if a work
plan for final grade sampling may be submitted under separate cover.
☒ If final grade sampling was NOT selected, please explain rationale:
This EMP has been prepared for Phase I of the proposed redevelopment which includes
demolition of existing structures, construction of a sediment pond, and installation of
erosion controls and does not cover subsequent phases of redevelopment. No occupancy
Click or tap here to enter text.
15
EMP Version 2, January 2021
of the Site is planned following completion of Phase I of the proposed redevelopment.
Final grade soil sampling will be included under separate cover for subsequent phases of
redevelopment that will include grading to achieve final grade elevations.
Part 1.B. IMPORTED FILL SOIL
NO SOIL MAY BE BROUGHT ONTO THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL
FROM THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM. According to the Brownfields IR 15, “Documenting
imported soil (by sampling, analysis, and reporting in accordance with review and written
approval in advance by the Brownfields Program), will safeguard the liability protections provided
by the brownfields agreement and is in the best interest of the prospective developer/property
owner.”
Requirements for importing fill:
1) Will fill soil be imported to the site?................................................ ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported?
Based on conversations with the PD and review of Site plans prepared for the initial phase of
redevelopment, import soil import soil is not anticipated at this time.
3) If yes, what is the anticipated depth that fill soil will be placed at the property? (If a range
of depths, please list the range.)
Not applicable.
4) Provide the source of fill, including: location, site history, nearby environmental concerns,
etc. Attach aerial photos, maps, historic Sanborn maps and a borrow source site history:
As mentioned above, import of fill material is not anticipated at this time. In the unlikely event
that import soil is needed, the procedures outlined in Part 1.B. Section 7 below will be followed to
demonstrate import soil meets acceptable standards applicable to the Site.
5) PRIOR TO ITS PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, provide a plan to analyze fill
soil to demonstrate that it meets acceptable standards applicable to the site and can be
approved for use at the Brownfields property.
The PD will follow the procedures outlined below to demonstrate import soil meets acceptable
standards applicable to the Site.
6) Please check the applicable chemical analytes for fill soil samples. (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, mercury, lead,
selenium and silver): Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
EPA Methods 6020/7471
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
16
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent
Chromium, Herbicides, etc.):
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199
7) The scope of work for import fill sampling may be provided below or in a Work Plan
submitted separately for DEQ review and approval. Attach specific location maps for in‐situ
borrow sites. If using a quarry, provide information on the type of material to be brought
onto the Brownfields Property.
The PD will follow the procedures outlined below to demonstrate import soil meets acceptable
standards applicable to the Site, if necessary.
If the PD plans to import fill material from Vulcan Materials Company quarry located near
Pineville, NC, or from the Martin Marietta quarry located on Beatties Ford Road in Charlotte, NC,
no samples of the import material will be collected as adequate analytical data is available in the
DEQ Brownfields database to demonstrate material from these facilities is suitable for use as
structural fill at a Brownfields property.
If fill soil is obtained from an off‐Site property that is not a Brownfields pre‐approved quarry or is
recycled material from the Vulcan Materials Company quarry or the Martin Marietta quarries,
then soil samples will be collected for laboratory analyses at a general rate of 1 sample per 1,000
cubic yards. Representative composite soil samples (no less than 3 aliquot soil samples) will be
collected for VOCs by EPA Method 8260, SVOCs by EPA Method 8270, and RCRA metals plus
hexavalent chromium by EPA Methods 6020/7199. The VOC sample would be a grab sample from
the aliquot with the highest field screening reading. DEQ approval of the fill soils will be obtained
prior to transporting import soil to the Site.
Fill soil will be considered suitable for use at the Site if it does not contain compound
concentrations above DEQ IHSB Residential PSRGs, DWM Risk Calculator risk thresholds, or typical
metals concentrations which are consistent with background levels in the Site area.
Part 1.C. EXPORTED SOIL
NO SOIL MAY LEAVE THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM. FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL MAY VIOLATE A BROWNFIELDS
AGREEMENT CAUSING A REOPENER OR JEOPARDIZING ELIGIBILITY IN THE PROGRAM,
ENDANGERING LIABILITY PROTECTIONS AND MAKING SAID ACTION POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO
ENFORCEMENT. JUSTIFICATIONS PROVIDED BELOW MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROGRAM IN
WRITING PRIOR TO COMPLETING TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES. Please refer to Brownfields IR 15 for
additional details.
17
EMP Version 2, January 2021
1) If export from a Brownfields Property is anticipated, please provide details regarding the
proposed export actions. Volume of exported soil, depths, location from which soil will
be excavated on site, related sampling results, etc. Provide a site map with locations of
export and sampling results included.
Based on conversations with the PD, excess soil generated during construction of the sediment
pond in the northeastern corner of the Site will remain stockpiled or thin spread on‐Site for use
during mass grading in subsequent phases of redevelopment. As such, export from the Site is
not anticipated at this time.
In the unlikely event that export is required, the procedures outlined below will be followed to
demonstrate export soil meets acceptable standards applicable to the Site. Prior to transporting
the material off‐Site, a sampling plan will be developed and submitted to DEQ Brownfields for
review and approval. Generally, soil samples will be collected from export soil at a rate of one
sample per every 1,000 cubic yards of export material which will include a minimum of three
combined composite locations and one grab location. Sampling may be completed in‐situ prior
to grading, or from stockpile soil once grading begins.
DEQ approval of the sampling plan, sampling locations, and analytical results will be obtained
prior to transporting export soil from the Site. Based on analytical results of soil samples
collected from the export soil, the soil will be transported off‐Site to a suitable location. The PD
will notify DEQ Brownfields of the location receiving the export soil. If not a permitted facility,
DEQ Brownfields approval and written approval from the receiving facility will be obtained prior
to transporting the soil off‐Site.
2) To what type of facility will the export Brownfields soil be sent?
☒ Subtitle D/Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (analytical program to be determined by
landfill)
☒ Permitted but Unlined Landfill (i.e. LCID, C&D, etc.) Analytical program to be
determined by the accepting Landfill;
☒ Landfarm or other treatment facility
☒ Use as fill at another suitable Brownfields Property – determination that a
site is suitable will require, at a minimum, that similar concentrations of the same or
similar contaminants already exist at both sites, use of impacted soil will not increase
the potential for risk to human health and the environment at the receiving Brownfields
property, and that a record of the acceptance of such soil from the property owner of
the receiving site is provided to Brownfields. Please provide additional details below.
☒ Use as Beneficial Fill off‐site at a non‐Brownfields Property ‐ Please provide
documentation of approval from the property owner for receipt of fill material. This will
also require approval by the DEQ Solid Waste Section. Additional information is
provided in IR 15. Please provide additional details below.
3) Additional Details: (if transfer of soil to another property is requested above, please provide
details related to the proposed plans).
18
EMP Version 2, January 2021
The environmental professional will contact DEQ Brownfields to obtain DEQ Brownfields and
DEQ Solid Waste approval prior to exporting soil to a facility other than a permitted MSW
landfill. In the event the PD would like to export material as beneficial fill at a non‐Brownfields
property, metals detected at the Site will be compared to metals concentrations at the
proposed facility to determine compatibility.
Part 1.D. 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?
☐ If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials or provide the results of this evaluation in the
Vapor Mitigation Plan. Note that if vapor mitigation is planned for site buildings, utility
corridors will need to be evaluated as part of mitigation designs:
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ If no, include rationale here:
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Unknown, details to be provided in the Vapor Mitigation Plan for site buildings
Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches:
The contractor and workers will observe soil for potential impacts during initial utility installation
activities. Evidence of potential significant impacted soil includes a distinct unnatural color, strong
odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of concern (i.e., chemicals, tanks, drums, etc.). Should
the above be noted during utility work, the contractor will contact the project environmental
professional to observe the suspect condition. If the project environmental professional confirms that
the material may be impacted, then the procedures outlined in Managing On‐Site Soil above will be
implemented.
Should impacted soil be discovered during trenching activities, appropriate safety screening will be
performed to protect workers during installation activities. Safety screening activities include
monitoring the worker breathing zone with a calibrated photoionization detector or similar
instrument at all times when in utility trenches. If safety screening results indicate further action is
warranted, the work zone will be evacuated until appropriate engineering controls (such as use of
industrial fans) are implemented.
19
EMP Version 2, January 2021
PART 2. GROUNDWATER
1) What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property?
During previously completed groundwater assessment activities, the depth to groundwater was
measured at depths ranging from approximately 7 ft bgs in the northwestern portion of the
Brownfields property to approximately 10 ft bgs at higher topographic elevations located in the
southeastern portion of the Brownfields property.
2) Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ☒onsite ☐offsite ☐both or ☐unknown
sources? Describe source(s):
Previous groundwater assessment at the Brownfields property included collection of twelve (12)
groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. Locations of previous groundwater samples are
shown in Figure 3. A tabular summary of groundwater sample laboratory analytical results is
included as Table 2. Compound concentrations exceeding DEQ NCAC 15A 2L Groundwater
Quality Standards (2L Standards) and/or the DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor
Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) are shown in Figure 4. A brief summary of the
groundwater assessment results is provided below.
Volatile and Semi‐Volatile Organic Compounds
Groundwater sample results indicate that the chlorinated VOC tetrachloroethene (PCE) was
detected in Site groundwater (up to 2.6 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) in the southeastern portion
of the Site and downgradient for a former gasoline underground storage tank (UST) at
concentrations exceeding the DEQ 2L Groundwater Quality Standards (2L Standards). The
chlorinated VOC compounds cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene (up to 170 µg/L ), trichloroethene or TCE (up
to 24 µg/L), and vinyl chloride (up to 27.3 µg/L) were also detected in Site groundwater at
concentrations exceeding the 2L Standard and the DEQ DMW Vapor Intrusion Residential and/or
Non‐Residential GWSLs in groundwater samples (GW‐1 and TW‐7) collected in the northwestern
and downgradient portions of the Site. No other organic compounds were detected at
concentrations above the DEQ 2L Standards or DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion GWSLs.
VPH/EPH
Groundwater sample results indicate that total C9‐C18 aliphatics (up to 27 J µg/L) were detected
at concentrations above the DEQ DWM Vapor Intrusion Residential and Non‐Residential GWSLs
in samples collected adjacent to former and abandoned USTs located in the northwestern,
western, and southeastern portions of the Site. Groundwater analytical results also indicated
C5‐C8 aliphatics (8.1 J µg/L) was detected at a concentration above the DEQ DWM Vapor
Intrusion Residential and Non‐Residential GWSLs in a sample (TW‐4) collected adjacent to an
abandoned heating oil UST located in the northwestern portion of the Site.
Metals
Groundwater analytical results indicate that arsenic, barium, lead, total chromium, and silver
were detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits, but below the 2L
Standards.
3) What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property?
Shallow groundwater is expected to mimic surface topography which slopes generally northwest
20
EMP Version 2, January 2021
towards Little Sugar Creek located along the northwestern Site boundary.
4) Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities?
☐Yes ☒No
If yes, describe these activities:
If groundwater is encountered during redevelopment activities, the procedures outlined below
will be implemented.
Regardless of the answer; 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, NPDES permit, or
sampling procedures).
Based on previous assessment activities, contractors will be made aware of areas at the Site
where groundwater is impacted and an environmental professional will be contacted to
conduct safety screening if groundwater is encountered in these predetermined areas. Should
groundwater be encountered outside of areas of known impacts, the contractor will contact an
environmental professional to observe conditions to determine if there are impacts that may
pose a potential risk to workers.
Although limited groundwater may be encountered during excavations for certain utilities,
based on the depth of groundwater at the Site and the depths of planned excavations,
management of groundwater is not anticipated at this time. In the unlikely event groundwater
gathers in an open excavation, the accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate to
the extent that time for dissipation does not disrupt the construction schedule or be used on
the Brownfields property for dust control purposes. Should the time needed for the natural
dissipation of accumulated water be deemed inadequate, an environmental professional will be
contacted and the water will be sampled in situ or pumped into a container to allow for work to
continue. The water will be tested and disposed of off‐Site (if impacted), or tested and
discharged to the storm sewer (if not impacted above DEQ surface water standards) in
accordance with applicable municipal and State regulations for erosion control and construction
stormwater control. Appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken if groundwater
gathers in an open excavation within an area determined to be impacted during construction
activities.
5) Are monitoring wells currently present on the Brownfields Property?.................☐Yes ☒No
If yes, are any monitoring wells routinely monitored through DEQ or other
agencies?..................................................................................................................☐Yes ☐No
6) Please check methods to be utilized in the management of known and previously
unidentified wells.
☐ Abandonment of site monitoring wells in accordance with all applicable regulations. It
is the Brownfields Program’s intent to allow proper abandonment of well(s) as
specified in the Brownfields Agreement, except if required for active monitoring
through another section of DEQ or the EPA.
21
EMP Version 2, January 2021
☐ Location of existing monitoring wells marked
☐ Existing monitoring wells protected from disturbance
☒ Newly identified monitoring wells will be marked and protected from further
disturbance until notification to DEQ Brownfields can be made and approval for
abandonment is given.
7) Please provide additional details as needed:
Please note, disturbance of existing site monitoring wells without approval by DEQ is not
permissible. If monitoring wells are damaged and/or destroyed, DEQ may require that the PD
be responsible for replacement of the well.
PART 3. SURFACE WATER
1) Is surface water present at the property? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
2) Attach a map showing the location of surface water at the Brownfields Property.
3) Is surface water at the property known to be contaminated? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
4) Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment
activities? ☐ Yes ☒ No
5) 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):
Little Sugar Creek is present along the northwestern Brownfields property boundary.
Redevelopment activities that include disturbance to the creek are not anticipated at this time.
If surface water run‐off gathers in an open excavation within an area determined to be impacted
during construction activities, appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken. The
accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate within an excavation to the extent
time for dissipation does not disrupt the construction schedule or may be used on the
Brownfields property for dust control. Should the time needed for natural dissipation of
accumulated water be deemed inadequate, an environmental professional will be contacted and
the water will be sampled in situ or pumped into a container to allow for work to continue. The
water will be tested and disposed off‐Site (if impacted) or tested and discharged to the storm
sewer (if not impacted above DEQ surface water standards) in accordance with applicable
municipal and State regulations for erosion control and construction stormwater control.
PART 4. SEDIMENT
1) Are sediment sources present on the property? ☒ Yes ☐ No
The PD is not aware of existing monitoring wells located on the Brownfields property. DEQ will be
notified if newly identified monitoring wells are found on the Brownfields property.
22
EMP Version 2, January 2021
2) If yes, is sediment at the property known to be contaminated: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
3) Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment
activities? ☐ Yes ☒ No
4) Attach a map showing location of known contaminated sediment at the property.
5) In the event that contaminated sediment is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such events (stream bed disturbance):
Redevelopment plans that will include disturbance to Little Sugar Creek are not planned at this
time.
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR
1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the
following vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) 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
2) Attach a map showing the locations of soil vapor contaminants that exceed site
screening levels.
3) If applicable, at what depth(s) is soil vapor known to be contaminated?
4) Will workers encounter contaminated soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown 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:
As noted above, appropriate safety screening will be performed to protect workers during sub‐
A total of four (4) exterior soil gas samples were collected for laboratory analysis in January and
February 2019. The soil gas samples were collected within the footprint of the proposed residential
building footprints to evaluate the potential for structural vapor intrusion. Soil gas sample locations
are shown in Figure 3, compound concentrations are shown in Figure 4, and a tabular summary of the
laboratory analytical data is provided in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the VOC benzene (up to 23 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) was detected in
select soil gas samples at concentrations above the DEQ DWM Residential Vapor Intrusion Soil Gas
Screening Levels (SGSLs). No other VOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding the DEQ DWM
Residential SGSLs.
23
EMP Version 2, January 2021
grade work including demolition activities should potentially impacted media be encountered.
Safety screening activities include monitoring the worker breathing zone with a calibrated
photoionization detector or similar instrument. If safety screening results indicate further action
is warranted, an environmental professional will be contacted and the work zone will be
evacuated until appropriate engineering controls (such as use of industrial fans) are
implemented.
PART 6. SUB‐SLAB SOIL VAPOR
1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the
following vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) in sub‐slab soil vapor:
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
2) If data indicate that sub‐slab soil vapor concentrations exceed screening levels, attach a map
showing the location of these exceedances.
3) At what depth(s) is sub‐slab soil vapor known to be contaminated? ☐0‐6 inches ☐Other, please
describe:
No sub‐slab soil gas samples have been collected within the existing Site buildings. The Site
buildings and all other on‐Site features will be razed as part of the proposed redevelopment.
4) Will workers encounter contaminated sub‐slab soil vapor during planned redevelopment
activities? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
☐ If no, include rationale here:
In the event impacted vapors are encountered during redevelopment activities, they will be
managed in accordance with the procedure outlined below.
5) In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact
If impacted soil vapors are encountered during future redevelopment activities, worker
breathing zone will be monitored using a calibrated photoionization detector by an
environmental professional. If results indicate further action is warranted, appropriate
engineering controls (such as use of industrial fans) will be implemented.
PART 7. INDOOR AIR
1) Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
2) Attach a map showing the location(s) where indoor air contaminants exceed site screening levels.
3) If the structures where indoor air has been documented to exceed risk‐based screening levels will
24
EMP Version 2, January 2021
not be demolished as part of redevelopment activities, will workers encounter contaminated
indoor air during planned redevelopment activities? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
☒ If no, include rationale here:
No indoor air samples have been collected within the existing Site building. The Site building and
all other on‐Site features will be razed as part of the proposed redevelopment.
4) In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact:
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM
Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) proposed for this Brownfields Property?
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☐ If no or unknown, include rationale here as well as plans for pre‐occupancy sampling, as
necessary:
If yes, ☐ VIMS Plan Attached or ☒ VIMS Plan to be submitted separately
If submitted separately provide date:
A vapor intrusion mitigation plan for subsequent phases of redevelopment will be submitted
under separate cover.
VIMS Plan shall be signed and sealed by a NC Professional Engineer
If no, please provide a brief rationale as to why no vapor mitigation plan is warranted:
Note that approval of this EMP does not imply approval with any vapor intrusion mitigation land
use restrictions or requirements of the recorded or draft Brownfields Agreement and that
separate approval of mitigation measures will be required.
CONTINGENCY PLAN – encountering unknown tanks, drums, or other waste materials
In this section please provide actions that will be taken to identify or manage unknown
potential new sources of contamination. During redevelopment activities, it is not uncommon
that unknown tanks, drums, fuel lines, landfills, or other waste materials are encountered.
Notification to DEQ Brownfields Project Manager, UST Section, Fire Department, and/or other
In the unlikely event there is evidence of potential indoor air issues (i.e., unusual odors) during future
redevelopment activities, the area will be evacuated and appropriate safety screening of the indoor
air will be performed. If warranted, safety screening procedures will include periodically screening
indoor air for volatile organic vapors with a calibrated photoionization detector when workers are
present in the Site buildings to identify potential indoor air issues. If results indicate further action is
warranted, appropriate engineering controls (such as the use of industrial fans) will be implemented.
25
EMP Version 2, January 2021
officials, as necessary and appropriate, is required when new potential source(s) of
contamination are discovered. These Notification Requirements were outlined on Page 1 of this
EMP.
Should potentially impacted materials be identified that are inconsistent with known site
impacts, the DEQ Brownfields Project Manager will be notified and a sampling plan will be
prepared based on the EMP requirements and site‐specific factors. Samples will generally be
collected to document the location of the potential impacts.
Check the following chemical analysis that are to be conducted on newly identified releases:
☒ 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, mercury, lead, selenium and
silver)
EPA Methods 6020/7471
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
Click or tap here to enter text.
☒ Other Constituents & Analytical Method(s) (i.e. Hexavalent Chromium, Herbicides, etc.)
Please note, if field observations indicate the need for additional analyses, they should
be conducted, even if not listed here.
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 7199
Please provide details on the proposed methods of managing the following commonly
encountered issues during redevelopment of Brownfields Properties.
During construction activities, contractors may encounter unknown sub‐surface environmental
conditions (i.e., tanks, drums, etc.) that if encountered, will require management. Prior to
beginning Site work, H&H will attend a pre‐construction kick‐off meeting with the PD and the
redevelopment contractors to discuss the DEQ approved EMP and various scenarios when it would
be appropriate and necessary to notify H&H of the discovery of unknown subsurface features or
potentially impacted media at the Site.
In the event that such conditions are encountered during Site development activities, the
environmental actions noted below will be used to direct environmental actions to be taken during
these activities and sampling data for potentially impacted soil and the disposition of impacted soil
will be provided to DEQ when the data becomes available.
Underground Storage Tanks:
In the event a UST or impacts associated with a UST release are discovered at the Site during initial
redevelopment activities, the UST and/or UST related impacts will be addressed through the
Brownfields Program. DEQ Brownfields will be notified within 48‐hours of discovery of the UST.
26
EMP Version 2, January 2021
If a UST is encountered, the UST will be removed, if possible, and the UST will be transported off‐
Site for disposal at a suitable facility. If the UST contains residual fluids, the fluids will be sampled
for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals and transported off‐Site for disposal at a suitable facility based
on the laboratory analytical results prior to removing the UST from the ground. If a UST is
encountered that cannot be removed, it may be abandoned in‐place with prior DEQ approval and
construction will proceed. Where appropriate, the bottom of the UST may be penetrated before
abandonment to prevent fluid accumulation. Impacted soil in the vicinity of the UST will be
managed in accordance with the Managing On‐Site Soil section outlined above in the EMP.
Sub‐Grade Feature/Pit:
If a sub‐grade feature or pit is encountered it will be removed and construction will proceed. If the
pit has waste in it, the waste will be set aside in a secure area and will be sampled for waste
disposal purposes for TCLP VOCs, TCLP SVOCs, and TCLP metals and disposed off‐Site at a permitted
facility or the waste will be managed in accordance with the Managing On‐Site Soil section outlined
above in the EMP, whichever is most applicable based on the type of waste present. If the pit must
be removed and the observed waste characteristics indicate the concrete may potentially be
contaminated to a significant degree, the concrete will be sampled and analyzed by methods
specified by the disposal facility.
Buried Waste Material – Note that if buried waste, non‐native fill, or any obviously filled materials
is encountered, the DEQ Brownfields Program must be notified to determine if investigation of
landfill gases is required:
If excavation into buried wastes or significantly impacted soil occurs, the contractor is instructed to
stop work in that location and notify the environmental consultant. The environmental consultant
will review the materials and collect samples, if warranted. Confirmation sampling will be
conducted at representative locations in the base and the sidewalls of the excavation after the
waste or significantly impacted soil is removed. The confirmation samples will be analyzed for
VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals. Areas of suspected contaminated soil that remain at the Site after
excavation is complete above the DEQ IHSB Residential PSRGs will be managed pursuant to this
plan. The DEQ Brownfields Program will be notified within 48 hours of identifying buried material.
Re‐Use of Impacted Soils On‐Site:
Please refer to the description outlined in the Managing On‐Site Soil section (Part 1A) of the EMP
above.
If unknown, impacted soil is identified on‐site, management on‐site can be considered after the
project team provides the necessary information, outlined in Part 1.A. Item 11, for Brownfields
Project Manager approval prior to final placement on‐site.
If other potential contingency plans are pertinent, please provide other details or scenarios as
needed below:
Click or tap here to enter text.
27
EMP Version 2, January 2021
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING
☒ Check this box to acknowledge that a Redevelopment Summary Report will be required for the
project. If the project duration is longer than one year, an annual update is required and will be
due by January 31 of each year, or 30 days after each one‐year anniversary of the effective date of
this EMP (as agreed upon with the Project Manager). These reports will be required for as long as
physical redevelopment of the Brownfields Property continues, except that the final
Redevelopment Summary Report will be submitted within 90 days after completion of
redevelopment. Based on the estimated construction schedule, the first Redevelopment Summary
Report is anticipated to be submitted on 1/31/2023
The Redevelopment Summary Report shall include environment‐related activities since the last
report, with a summary and drawings, that describes:
1. actions taken on the Brownfields Property;
2. soil grading and cut and fill actions;
3. methodology(ies) employed for field screening, sampling and laboratory analysis of
environmental media;
4. stockpiling, containerizing, decontaminating, treating, handling, laboratory analysis and
ultimate disposition of any soil, groundwater or other materials suspected or confirmed
to be contaminated with regulated substances; and
5. removal of any contaminated soil, water or other contaminated materials (for example,
concrete, demolition debris) from the Brownfields Property (copies of all legally required
manifests shall be included).
☒ Check box to acknowledge consent to provide a NC licensed P.G. or P.E. sealed, Redevelopment
Summary Report in compliance with the site’s Brownfields Agreement.
29
EMP Version 2, January 2021
Tables
Table 1Summary of Soil Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDSB-1 SB-3 SB-5 SB-6 TW-1 TW-2Depth (ft bgs)4-8 0-1 8-12 4-7 10 10Date4/27/2018 2/4/2019 1/28/2019Range MeanTPH (8015)DRO 1 0.39 0.24<0.3 NA NA -- --100-- --GRO <0.62 <0.22 <0.24 <0.3 NA NA -- --50-- --VOCs (8260)AcetoneNA NA NA NA0.15<0.0008414,000 210,000-- -- --SVOCs (8270)NA NA NA NA ALL BRL NA -- -- -- --EPH/VPH (MADEP)C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low) NA NA NA NA <0.64 <0.38110 460-- -- --Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)NA NA NA NA5.5 J 1.6 J 20 93-- -- --C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)NA NA NA NA50NA47,000 700,000-- -- --Total C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)NA NA NA NA13<0.1320 120-- -- --Metals (6020/7471/7199)ArsenicNA NA NA NA NA NA0.68 3.0--1.0 - 18 4.8BariumNA NA NA NA NA NA3,100 47,000--50 - 1,000 356CadmiumNA NA NA NA NA NA1.4 20--1.0 - 10 4.3Chromium (total)NA NA NA NA NA NANE NE--7.0 - 300 65Hexavalent ChromiumNA NA NA NA NA NA0.31 6.5--NS NSTrivalent ChromiumNA NA NA NA NA NA23,000 350,000--NS NSLeadNA NA NA NA NA NA400 800--ND - 50 16MercuryNA NA NA NA NA NA4.7 70--0.03 - 0.52 0.121SeleniumNA NA NA NA NA NA78 1,200--<0.1 - 0.8 0.42SilverNA NA NA NA NA NA78 1,200--ND - 5.0 NSNotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) dated January 20222) DEQ Uunderground Storage Tank (UST) Section Action Levels dated July 20163) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005. Background Cd and Ag concentrations were taken from Southeastern and Conterminous US soilsSoil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; ft bgs= feet below ground surfaceBRL = below laboratory reporting limit; NE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; ND = not detectedJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration. Screening Criteria Residential PSRGs (1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs (1)Action Level (2)Regional Background Metals in Soil (3)Sample Location4/26/2018Northwestern (downgradient)Former UST No. 4 (heating oil tank)Former UST No. 2 (gasoline tank)Former UST No. 3 (heating oil tank)Former UST No. 1(diesel tank)Former UST No. 2(gasoline tank)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Metromont Data Tables.xlsx7/13/2022Table 1 (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 1Summary of Soil Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDTW-4 BGS-1 BGS-2Depth (ft bgs)4-5 DUP-1 (4-5) 10 5-6 2-4 0-2Date1/29/2019 1/29/2019 1/29/2019Range MeanTPH (8015)DRO NA NA NA NA NA NA -- --100-- --GRO NA NA NA NA NA NA -- --50-- --VOCs (8260)Acetone 0.035 0.021 J<0.00130.062NA NA14,000 210,000-- -- --SVOCs (8270)ALL BRL ALL BRL ALL BRL ALL BRL NA NA -- -- -- --EPH/VPH (MADEP)C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low) NA NA <0.51 <0.49 NA NA110 460-- -- --Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)NA NA2.0 J<0.79 NA NA20 93-- -- --C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)NA NA <3.6 <3.5 NA NA47,000 700,000-- -- --Total C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)NA NA <2.2 <2.1 NA NA20 120-- -- --Metals (6020/7471/7199)Arsenic 2.5 2.2NA NA2.5 2.1 0.68 3.0--1.0 - 18 4.8Barium 39 32 JNA NA73 75 3,100 47,000--50 - 1,000 356Cadmium<0.026 <0.025 NA NA0.053 J 0.060 J 1.4 20--1.0 - 10 4.3Chromium (total) 130 110NA NA120 67 NE NE--7.0 - 300 65Hexavalent Chromium 0.86 0.85NA NA1.37 0.19 J 0.31 6.5--NS NSTrivalent Chromium 129.14 109.15NA NA118.63 66.81 23,000 350,000--NS NSLead 7.2 7.3NA NA15 7.6 400 800--ND - 50 16Mercury 0.026 J 0.023 JNA NA0.016 J 0.012 J 4.7 70--0.03 - 0.52 0.121Selenium 0.87 J 0.84 JNA NA0.79 J 0.69 J 78 1,200--<0.1 - 0.8 0.42Silver<0.026 <0.025 NA NA0.031 J 0.023 J 78 1,200--ND - 5.0 NSNotes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) dated January 20222) DEQ Uunderground Storage Tank (UST) Section Action Levels dated July 20163) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils taken from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005. Background Cd and Ag concentrations were taken from Southeastern and Conterminous US soilsSoil concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; ft bgs= feet below ground surfaceBRL = below laboratory reporting limit; NE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; ND = not detectedJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration. 1/28/2019Former Acid Wash OperationsFormer UST No. 3(heating oil tank)Sample LocationFormer UST No. 4(heating oil tank)TW-3 / DUP-1Background Screening Criteria Residential PSRGs (1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs (1)Regional Background Metals in Soil (3)Action Level (2)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Metromont Data Tables.xlsx7/13/2022Table 1 (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2Summary of Groundwater Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDTW-1 GW-4 TW-2 TW-3 TW-4Date2/4/2019 4/27/2018 1/29/2019 1/30/2019 1/30/2019Sample LocationUST No. 1UST No. 3 & Former Acid Wash OperationsUST No. 4VOCs (8260/6200/602)Acetone NA66<0.31 NA NA <0.31 <0.316,000 NE NE1,1-DichloroetheneNA <0.083 <0.083 NA NA <0.083 <0.083350 7.6 33ChloroformNA <0.076 <0.076 NA NA0.27 J 0.42 J70 0.81 3.6cis-1,2-DichloroetheneNA <0.056 <0.056 NA NA <0.056 <0.05670 NE NEMethyl-tert Butyl Ether (MTBE)<0.042 <0.0421.3<0.042 <0.0421.2 1.320 450 2,000TetrachloroethyleneNA <0.0982.6NA NA <0.098 <0.0980.7 12 48Trichlorofluoromethane NA <0.062 <0.062 NA NA <0.062 <0.0622,000 NE NEToluene<0.044 <0.044 <0.0443.0<0.0441.2 1.4600 3,800 16,000trans-1,2-DichloroetheneNA <0.094 <0.070 NA NA <0.094 <0.094100 22 NETrichloroetheneNA <0.078 <0.078 NA NA <0.078 <0.078314.4Vinyl chlorideNA <0.097 <0.097 NA NA <0.097 <0.0970.03 0.15 2.5SVOCs (8270/625)Elcosene (TIC)25NANE NE NEVanillin (TIC)14NANE NE NEVPH/EPH (MADEP)C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low)<1.7 NA <1.75.3 J8.1 JNA NA400 1.7 7.1Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)27 JNA12 J12 J11 JNA NA700 0.15 0.63C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)96 JNA NA <85 <75 NA NA10,000 NE NETotal C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)<78 NA <0.40 <74 <65 NA NA200 32 130Metals (6020/7470)ArsenicNA NA NA0.49 JNA0.18 J 0.18 J10-- --BariumNA NA NA160NA80 81700-- --CadmiumNA NA NA <0.078 NA <0.078 <0.0782-- --Chromium (total)NA NA NA7.4NA1.1 J 0.92 J10-- --LeadNA NA <5.00.90 JNA0.28 J 0.33 J15-- --MercuryNA NA NA <0.000036 NA <0.000036 <0.0000361 0.18 0.75SeleniumNA NA NA <0.63 NA <0.63 <0.6320-- --SilverNA NA NA <0.063 NA <0.0630.22 J20-- --Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 02L.0202 Groundwater Quality Standard dated April 20222) DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) dated January 2022Compound concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (μg/L).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the table above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses. Bold values indicates concentration exceeds NCAC 2L Groundwater Standard.Underlined values indicates concentration exceeds DWM Residential GWSL.Grey shaded values indicates concentration exceeds the DWM Non-Residential GWSL.UST = underground storage tank; VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compoundsNE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; BRL = below laboratory reporting limitJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration.Screening Criteria 2L Standard (1)Residential GWSLs (2) Non-Residential GWSLs (2)TW-5 / DUP-11/30/2019Eastern (upgradient)ALL BRL ALL BRL ALL BRL ALL BRLUST No. 2ALL BRLhttps://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Metromont Data Tables.xlsx7/13/2022Table 2 (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2Summary of Groundwater Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDTW-6 GW-1 TW-7 GW-6 TW-8 TW-9Date1/30/2019 4/26/2018 1/29/2019 4/26/2018 1/30/2019 1/30/2019Sample LocationSoutheastern (upgradient)Southwestern (upgradient)VOCs (8260/6200/602)Acetone <0.315.1<0.3175<0.31 <0.316,000 NE NE1,1-Dichloroethene<0.0831.4 1.1<0.083 <0.083 <0.083350 7.6 33Chloroform<0.076 <0.076 <0.076 <0.076 <0.076 <0.07670 0.81 3.6cis-1,2-Dichloroethene<0.056170 160<0.056 <0.056 <0.05670 NE NEMethyl-tert Butyl Ether (MTBE)<0.042 <0.042 <0.042 <0.042 <0.042 <0.04220 450 2,000Tetrachloroethylene<0.098 <0.098 <0.098 <0.098 <0.098 <0.0980.7 12 48Trichlorofluoromethane <0.0621.1<0.062 <0.062 <0.062 <0.0622,000 NE NEToluene1.5<0.044 <0.044 <0.0440.92 J 2.0600 3,800 16,000trans-1,2-Dichloroethene<0.094 <0.0940.57 J<0.094 <0.094 <0.094100 22 NETrichloroethene<0.078242.8<0.078 <0.078 <0.078314.4Vinyl chloride<0.0973.30.95 J<0.097 <0.097 <0.0970.03 0.15 2.5SVOCs (8270/625)Elcosene (TIC)NE NE NEVanillin (TIC)NE NE NEVPH/EPH (MADEP)C5-C8 Aliphatics (Low)NA NA NA NA NA NA400 1.7 7.1Total C9-C18 Aliphatics (Medium)NA NA NA NA NA NA700 0.15 0.63C19-C36 Aliphatics (High)NA NA NA NA NA NA10,000 NE NETotal C9-C22 Aromatics (Medium)NA NA NA NA NA NA200 32 130Metals (6020/7470)ArsenicNA NA NA NA NA NA10-- --BariumNA NA NA NA NA NA700-- --CadmiumNA NA NA NA NA NA2-- --Chromium (total)NA NA NA NA NA NA10-- --LeadNA NA NA NA NA NA15-- --MercuryNA NA NA NA NA NA1 0.18 0.75SeleniumNA NA NA NA NA NA20-- --SilverNA NA NA NA NA NA20-- --Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 02L.0202 Groundwater Quality Standard dated April 20222) DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) dated January 2022Compound concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (μg/L).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the table above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses. Bold values indicates concentration exceeds NCAC 2L Groundwater Standard.Underlined values indicates concentration exceeds DWM Residential GWSL.Grey shaded values indicates concentration exceeds the DWM Non-Residential GWSL.UST = underground storage tank; VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compoundsNE = not established; NS= not specified; NA = not analyzed; -- = not applicable; BRL = below laboratory reporting limitJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration.ALL BRL ALL BRLNorthwestern (downgradient) Southern (upgradient)ALL BRL ALL BRLALL BRLScreening Criteria 2L Standard (1)Residential GWSLs (2) Non-Residential GWSLs (2)ALL BRLhttps://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Metromont Data Tables.xlsx7/13/2022Table 2 (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3Summary of Soil Gas Analytical DataMetromont Concrete Facility4101 Greensboro Street Charlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. S2K-001Sample IDSG-1 SG-3 SG-4Date1/31/2019 1/31/2019 2/4/2019Depth (ft bgs)777VOCs (TO-15)Acetone 51 150 87<6678NE NEBenzene 1222 23 151.1 J12 1602-Butanone (MEK) 12 J<2.3 <2.3 <9.241 J35,000 440,000Carbon Disulfide 320 400 410 150<0.774,900 61,000Carbon Tetrachloride 1.6 1.9 J 2.0 J<4.1 <0.7416 200Cyclohexane<0.49940 970<4.9 <0.8842,000 530,000Ethanol 6.9 J<17 <17 <6736 NE NEEthyl Acetate<0.54 <1.3 <1.3 <5.437490 6,100Ethylbenzene 9.5 14 15 16<0.9037 4904-Ethyltoluene 8.6 11 12<6.0 <1.1NE NEHeptane 17 900 920<4.84.02,800 35,000Hexane 49 320 330<12 <2.24,900 61,000Isopropanol 7.2 J<1.5 <1.5 <6.015 J1,400 18,000Methylene Chloride 1.1 J<2.1 <2.1 <8.4 <1.53,400 53,0004-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 4.3<0.99 <0.99 <3.9 <0.7121,000 260,000Tetrachloroethylene 1.2 J 2.2 J<1.9 <7.5 <1.4280 3,500Toluene 180 170 170 3,700 14035,000 440,000Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 2.2 J<1.6 <1.6 <6.5 <1.2NE NE1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113) 1.4 J<2.3 <2.3 <9.3 <1.735,000 440,0001,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11 15 17 8.1 J<1.1420 5,3001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 2.4 3.8<1.5 <6.2 <1.1420 5,300m&p-Xylene 39 58 61 51 1.9 J700 8,800o-Xylene 13 22 23 18<0.97700 8,800Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Sub-slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) datd January 2022Compound concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the table above.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parentheses.Bold values indicates concentration exceeds the DWM Residential SGSL.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; ft bgs= feet below ground surface; NE = not establishedJ = Compound was detected above the laboratory method detection limit, but below the laboratory reporting limit resulting in a laboratory estimated concentration. SG-2 / DUP-SG1/31/20197Screening Criteria Residential SGSLs (1)Non-Residential SGSLs (1)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles‐1/Shared Documents/AAA‐Master Projects/S2K Charlotte/Metromont Concrete Facility/EMP/Metromont Data Tables.xlsx7/13/2022Table 3 (Page 1 of 1)Hart & Hickman, PC
Figures
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP ElevationProgram, Geographic Names Information System, National HydrographyDataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset,and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S.Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data;U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAANational Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal ReliefModel. Data refreshed August, 2021.
SITE LOCATION MAP
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY4101 GREENSBORO STREETCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 7-11-22
JOB NO: S2K-001
REVISION NO: 0
FIGURE. 1
2923 South Tryon Street - Suite 100Charlotte, North Carolina 28203704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
TITLE
PROJECT
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE IN FEET
Path: \\HHFS01\Redirectedfolders\sperry\My Documents\ArcGIS\PROJECTS\S2K-001\Figure 1.mxdN
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP
CHARLOTTE EAST, NORTH CAROLINA 2019DERITA, NORTH CAROLINA 2019
QUADRANGLE7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
SITE
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. S2K-001
DATE: 7-11-22
FIGURE NO. 2
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY
4101 GREENSBORO STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE MAP
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
GREENSBORO S
T
R
E
E
T EAST SUGAR
CREEK
ROAD
PRE-S
T
R
E
S
S
CONC
R
E
T
E
F
O
R
M
STAGI
N
G
A
R
E
A
PRE-S
T
R
E
S
S
CONC
R
E
T
E
F
O
R
M
STAGI
N
G
A
R
E
A
SAND
B
L
A
S
TI
N
G
BUILDI
N
G
N. TR
Y
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
ABANDONED UST
FORMER UST
TRYON MALL CLEANER
(451 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
BINGO TIRE & AUTO
(4026 N. TRYON STREET)
PALACE AUTO SALES
(4104 N. TRYON STREET)ZOEWEE'S
(4111 N. TRYON STREET)
SUGAR CREEK TIRE & AUTO
(126 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
EL NOA NOA
(215 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
DINO'S
(350 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
ESTRAMONTE CHIROPRACTIC
(402 E. SUGAR CREEK ROAD)
CONCRETE SUPPLY COMPANY
(3940 GREENSBORO STREET)
CONSOLIDATED PRESS
(3900 GREENSBORO STREET)
CONCRETE SUPPLY COMPANY
(3823 RALEIGH STREET)
FORMER TARMAC FACILITY
(3934 RALEIGH STREET)
FORMER ACID WASH
OPERATIONS
NOTES:
1.PARCEL DATA AND AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM
MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS (2022).
2.UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
FORMER GASOLINE
UST (TANK NO.2)
FORMER HEATING OIL
UST (TANK NO.3)
FORMER DIESEL
UST (TANK NO.1)
ABANDONED HEATING
OIL UST (TANK NO.4)
RALEIGH S
T
R
E
E
T
CARS TO GO
(3922 N. TRYON STREET)
POPEYE'S
(4050 N. TRYON STREET)S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Figures\S2K-001 Site Map 20220711.dwg, FIG 2 - SITE MAP, 7/13/2022 10:14:21 AM, sperry
SB-3
SB-6
MW-1
SB-5/GW-4
MW-3
MW-5
MW-4
GW-6
MW-2
N. TR
Y
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
TW-8
TW-9
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3
SG-4
BGS-1
TW-3
TW-7
TW-6
TW-5
BGS-2
TW-4
TW-1
TW-2
GREENSBORO S
T
R
E
E
T EAST SUGAR
CREEK
ROAD
RALEIGH ST
R
E
E
T
TW-3
SB-1/GW-1
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. S2K-001
DATE: 7-11-22
FIGURE NO. 3
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY
4101 GREENSBORO STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
NOTES:
1.PROPOSED SITE PLAN BASED ON CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COLEJENEST & STONE
DATED 6/24/2022.
2.LOCATIONS FOR MONITORING WELLS MW-1 THROUGH
MW-5 ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON REVIEW OF THE
PHASE III GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REPORT
PREPARED BY ROGER AND COLLCOTT IN MAY 1996.
3.SOIL BORING (SB-3 THROUGH SB-6) AND TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL (GW-1, GW-4, AND GW-6)
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON REVIEW OF
THE PHASE II ESA REPORT PREPARED BY ECS IN MAY
2018.
4.BROWNFIELDS SOIL AND GROUNDWATER BORINGS
TW-1 THROUGH TW-9 WERE ADVANCED AND SAMPLED
1/28/2019 THROUGH 1/30/2019 AND 2/4/2019. SG-1
THROUGH SG-4 WERE SAMPLED 1/31/2019 AND 2/4/2019.
5.UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
ABANDONED UST
FORMER UST
HISTORICAL MONITORING WELL
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING / TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL
SOIL BORING LOCATION
SOIL GAS SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION
PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW INTO THE
SEDIMENT POND
FORMER ACID WASH
OPERATIONS
FORMER GASOLINE
UST (TANK NO.2)
FORMER HEATING OIL
UST (TANK NO.3)
FORMER DIESEL
UST (TANK NO.1)
ABANDONED HEATING
OIL UST (TANK NO.4)
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED
SEDIMENT BASIN
S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Figures\S2K-001 Site Map 20220711.dwg, FIG 3 - SAMPLES, 7/13/2022 10:08:05 AM, sperry
N. TR
Y
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
GREENSBORO S
T
R
E
E
T EAST SUGAR
CREEK
ROAD
RALEIGH ST
R
E
E
T
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. S2K-001
DATE: 7-11-22
FIGURE NO. 4
METROMONT CONCRETE FACILITY
4101 GREENSBORO STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION MAP
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
NOTES:
1. BOLD VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
THE 2L GROUNDWATER STANDARD.
2.UNDERLINED VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATION
EXCEEDS THE DEQ DWM VAPOR INTRUSION
RESIDENTIAL GWSL.
3.SHADED VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
THE DEQ DWM VAPOR INTRUSION NON-RESIDENTIAL
GWSL.
4. ITALICIZED VALUES INDICATE CONCENTRATION
EXCEEDS THE DEQ DWM VAPOR INTRUSION
RESIDENTIAL SGSL.
5.J = COMPOUND WAS DETECTED ABOVE THE
LABORATORY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT BUT BELOW
THE LABORATORY REPORTING LIMIT, RESULTING IN A
LABORATORY ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION.
6.cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
PCE = TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TCE = TRICHLOROETHYLENE
GWSL = GROUNDWATER SCREENING LEVELS
SGSL = SOIL GAS SCREENING LEVELS
UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
LEGEND
BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL LINE
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
ABANDONED UST
FORMER UST
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING / TEMPORARY
MONITORING WELL
SOIL GAS SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION
PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW INTO THE
SEDIMENT POND
FORMER ACID WASH
OPERATIONS
FORMER GASOLINE
UST (TANK NO.2)
FORMER HEATING OIL
UST (TANK NO.3)
FORMER DIESEL
UST (TANK NO.1)
ABANDONED HEATING
OIL UST (TANK NO.4)
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED
SEDIMENT BASIN
TW-1
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 27 µg/L
TW-7
cis-1,2-DCE 160 μg/L
TCE 2.8 μg/L
VC 0.95 J μg/L
TW-3
C5-C8 ALIPHATICS 5.3 J μg/L
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 12 J μg/L
TW-2
PCE 2.6 μg/L
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 12 J μg/L
TW-4
C5-C8 ALIPHATICS 8.1 J μg/L
TOTAL C9-C18 ALIPHATICS 11 J μg/L
GW-1
cis-1,2-DCE 170 μg/L
TCE 24 μg/L
VC 3.3 µg/L
SG-2 / DUP-SG
BENZENE 22 / 23 μg/m3
SG-2
TW-3
SB-1/GW-1
TW-7
TW-4
TW-1
TW-2
TW-7
cis-1,2-DCE 160 μg/L
TCE 2.8 μg/L
VC 0.95 J μg/L
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION
SAMPLE ID
S:\AAA-Master Projects\S2K Charlotte\Metromont Concrete Facility\EMP\Figures\S2K-001 Site Map 20220711.dwg, FIG 4 - CONC MAP, 7/13/2022 10:08:15 AM, sperry
Appendix A
Preliminary Erosion Control Plan
BFPFHFHGM GDPGDPGWGWGWLPPMWMXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X
XXXXXECM1"EIP1/2"EIR1/2"EIR1/2"EIRXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XX1/2"EIR
1/2"EIRCORNER INACCESSIBLE(UNDER MATERIAL PILE)CPCPCPCPCPCP1/2"NIR1/2"EIR1/2"NIR1/2"NIRNNVARIABLE WIDTH P
U
B
L
I
C
R
/
W
EAST SUGAR CREEK R
O
A
D
(D.B. 29741, PG.
7
8
7
)
(D.B. 29756, PG.
2
8
9
)60' DEDICATED PUBLIC R/WGREENSBORO STREET60' DEDICATED PUBLIC R/WRALEIGH STREET1/2"EIR(BENT)1/2"NIR1/2"NIRLITTLE SUGAR CREEKLITTLE SUGAR CREEKLITTLE SUGAR CREEKGW
GW
GWLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLP
LPLPLPLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSIGNSIGNTBM=716.02TOP BOLT FHWBWVWVE E
E
E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETBM= 715.55TOP BOLT FHLPEEESD SD
SD
SD SDSDSDSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SDSDSDSD SDSDSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD
SDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS
SSSSSSSS
SS
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSS
SSPPPMWBU
E
UE
UEUTUTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W WWGGG G G GGGWWWWWWWUTUTUT705710715720725715715720 720715710 710
7107056956906906957006957
0
5705710715715GWWW
POBRevisedProject No.IssuedColeJenest& Stone200 South Tryon Street, Suite 1400Charlotte, North Carolina 28202p+ 704 376 1555 f+ 704 376 7851url+ www.colejeneststone.comShaping the EnvironmentRealizing the PossibilitiesLand Planning+Landscape Architecture+Civil Engineering+Urban DesignNd/b/a ColeJenest
& S
tone S2KQOZB LLCSUITE 305ORLANDO, FL 32822SUGAR CREEKMIXED-USE4101 GREENSBORO STREETCHARLOTTE, NC 28206cThe drawings, the project manual and the designshown theron are instruments of Bolton & MenkSoutheast, LLC.. The reproduction or unauthorized useof the documents without consent of Bolton & MenkSoutheast, LLC. is prohibited. Bolton & Menk Southeast, LLC. 20224821.01CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS5950 HAZELTINE NATIONAL DR.N0SCALE:5'2.5'10'1"=5'
Appendix B
Preliminary Construction Schedule
2410 Dunavant Street caprockinvest.com
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
BUILDING SOLUTIONS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Kantor Michael Brown Sam Axel
Adam Hochfelder
CC: Stan Gregor Andy Cox Greg Godley
FROM: Dan Wendover
DATE: May 31, 2022
RE: Metromont – Steps to Permits
Following is a list of fairly high‐level steps to get from today to permits for demolition,
infrastructure/mass grading, and building permitting.
VERTICAL STRUCTURES DEMOLITION:
Proposal / Contract – I have requested any form of contract DH Griffin uses in addition to their
proposal.
Determine scope of demolition and source of funding – Phase I & Phase II structures.
Permit for Vertical Structures – by DHG, approximately 10 day turnaround.
Vertical Structure Demolition.
Target Commencement – Late June.
Target Completion – Late July, with ongoing “processing” of debris continuing after.
CIVIL DEMOLITION EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Preliminary Erosion Control Plan ‐ shared today with City staff representing key reviewing
departments: Erosion Control, Engineering, Stormwater/Buffers, and Subdivision.
o Includes a temporary detention pond placed on Phase II
Pre‐Submittal Meeting – CJS today requested an appointment for this City‐required step to
meet with all reviewing departments prior to filing plans for permit
Permitting.
Target Completion: Late August.
DEMOLITION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Preparation of a Limited EMP ‐ by Hart‐Hickman, with submitted Civil EC plan.
Submission and Review ‐ by NC DEQ:
o Should be a fairly quick review and approval by NC DEQ.
Target Completion: Late August.
2410 Dunavant Street caprockinvest.com
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
BUILDING SOLUTIONS
MEMORANDUM ‐ Metromont – Steps to Permits
May 31, 2022
Page 2
SLAB DEMOLITION
Start slab demolition.
Concrete Crushing – Crusher mobilize to site, crush and stockpile concrete.
Target Commencement: Late August.
Target Completion: Late October.
TIA
Scoping is complete, Counts have been received.
CJS to provide Proposal.
TIA preparation is an iterative process with CDOT. NCDOT is provided a courtesy copy for
review, but does not have authority over Phase I.
Target Completion: Simultaneous with filing Civil Subdivision/Infrastructure plans below.
PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES
GC Pricing of Conceptual Plans
___________________________________
CIVIL
See Demolition Erosion Control Plan above.
Wetlands Flagging, Geotechnical Investigation:
o Wetlands flagging is somewhat a “check the box” step, to be sure we have
documentation of no wetlands outside of the floodway.
o Geotechnical Investigation will be required for roadway and building foundation
structural design. Boring locations will be located on initial Civil plans with preliminary
building plans shown.
Subdivision/Infrastructure –
o SD Plan:
Showing roads, utilities, and mass grading.
o Preliminary meetings with key City staff:
Subdivision, Zoning, EC, Engineering, City Water, Stormwater/Buffer
Disturbance.
o CD Plans.
o Pre‐Submittal Meeting ‐ a City‐required step to meet with all reviewing departments
prior to filing plans for permit.
o Permitting.
2410 Dunavant Street caprockinvest.com
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
BUILDING SOLUTIONS
o Target Completion – “Shovel in Ground” by December 20.
“Phase I” Civil Plans – detailed development of the Phase I.
o SD Plan:
Showing parcel grading, utility connections between building and mains,
hardscape and streetscape.
o Preliminary meetings with key City staff:
o CD Plans.
o Pre‐Submittal Meeting.
o Permitting.
o Target Completion: March 2023.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING:
Emp
VMP
ARCHITECTURAL
Confirm conceptual plan
Start SD
DD
CD
ColeJenest & Stone schedules for their work is attached, and they are updating an Action Item List that
provides greater detail, including target dates, for the Civil Engineering steps. As BB+M gets started in
the near future, I will get a similar outline for Architectural tasks from them. Note that all of these are
iterative, rather than linear processes, and the steps involved will be subject to regular updating and
rearrangement.