SF_F_NONCD0001192_FRB_PASI(2)

EAKES CLEANERS PA REFERENCES
Eakes Cleaners PA
December 20, 2022
Eakes Cleaners
Preliminary Assessment References: 1)US EPA 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, Hazard Ranking System, July 1, 2019.2)NC Department of Environment Quality, Raleigh, NC: “Pre-CERCLA ScreeningAssessment, Eakes Cleaners (NONCD0001192), 827 West Morgan Street, Durham,Durham County, NC.” September 14, 2022.3) Durham County, NC Tax Summary for 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, NC 27701:https://maps.roktech.net/durhamnc_gomaps4/
4) NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC: “Brownfield SiteAssessment Report, Eakes Dry Cleaners, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina.”December 23, 1997.
5) NCDOT Historical Aerial Imagery. November 3, 1959. March 26, 1961. March 31, 1969.January 12, 1976. April 2, 1982. March 8, 1986.https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=91e02b76dce4470ebd7ec240ad202a04
6) Durham County Property Records. June 25, 1956. March 18, 1958. February 27, 1964.July 25, 1967. October 1, 1997. July 31, 1998. June 8, 2016.
7) Hill’s Directory Company: Durham City Directory Vol. 1950, 1951, 1955, 1960, 1963.
Durham, North Carolina.
8) Front Royal Environmental Service, Inc, Morrisville, NC: “Limited Soil and GroundWater Investigation, Eakes Cleaners, Inc., 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, DurhamCounty, North Carolina, Front Royal Project No. 2239-96-183.” October 14, 1996.
9) ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Source Investigation Report, Eakes Cleaners, 827
West Morgan Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site IdentificationNo. DC320004.” July 18, 2019.
10)Hiortdahl, Kirsten; Environmental Engineer; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section, IHSB:Memo to File re: Eakes Cleaners (Former) Site Review Summary. October 24, 2016.
11)Meyer, Billy; Hydrogeologist/Risk Assessor; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section, DSCA:Memo Re: DC320004-Eakes Cleaners-827 W. Morgan Street Durham, Durham County.
April 24, 2017.
Eakes Cleaners PSA
December 20, 2022
12)Zinn, Harry; Environmental Engineer; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, Special RemediationBranch, Raleigh, NC: Letter re: Additional Data Needs, Brownfield Project for Eakes
Cleaners, Durham, Durham County. March 11, 1998.
13)Zinn, Harry; Environmental Engineer; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, Special RemediationBranch, Raleigh, NC: Letter re: Eakes Cleaners Brownfield Project, Durham, DurhamCounty. December 15, 1998.
14)Thomas, Dianne; Project Manager; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, DSCA, Raleigh, NC:Letter re: Discovery of Dry-Cleaning Contamination. February 16, 2007.
15)Thomas, Dianne; Project Manager; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section, DSCA: Memo
Re: Former Cleaners, 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, DSCA ID#32-0004. April 27,
2007.
16)Boyles, Sean; Hydrogeologist; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, IHSB, Raleigh, NC: Letterre: Former Eakes Cleaners, 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, Durham County, NCID#
pending. August 6, 2007.
17)Assefa, Hanna; Industrial Hygiene Consultant; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, IHSB,Raleigh, NC: Letter re: Notice of Regulatory Requirements for Contaminant Assessmentand Cleanup, Former Eakes Cleaners, 827 West Morgan St., Durham, Durham County,
NONCD 000 1192. February 15, 2011.
18)Leaf Environmental & Engineering, P.C., RTP, NC: “Indoor Air Sampling Report forShooters II, 827 W. Morgan Street, Durham, North Carolina.” July 9, 2019.
19)EPA: Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1), May
2022. Available online at: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/402371.pdf.
20)Meyer, Billy; Hydrogeologist/Risk Assessor; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section,DSCA: E-communication re: DC320004 Eakes Cleaners site transfer to IHSB. October 3,
2019.
21)Walch, John; Eastern Unit Supervisor; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, IHSB, Raleigh, NC:Letter re: Information on Voluntary Cleanup Procedures and Regulatory Requirements,Former Eakes Cleaners, Durham, Durham County, NONCD0001192. October 16, 2019.
22)Holland, Eli; Principal; One Environmental Group; Charlotte, NC: Letter re: Notificationof An Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site, 823 W Morgan Street,Durham, North Carolina 27701. May 18, 2020.
23)Tetra Tech, Inc.: “Trip Report, Eakes Cleaners Removal Site Evaluation, Durham,
Durham County, North Carolina.” November 30, 2021.
Eakes Cleaners PSA
December 20, 2022
24)Tetra Tech, Inc.: “Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (Short Form), Eakes Cleaners,Durham, Durham County, North Carolina.” July 27, 2021.
25)North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geological Map of North Carolina: Raleigh,
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,Geological Section, scale 1:5000,000, in color.https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0a7ccd9394734ff6aa2434d2528ddf12
26)Bain, George and Charles Brown; U.S. Geological Survey: “Evaluation of the DurhamTriassic Basin of North Carolina and Technique Used to Characterize Its Waste-StoragePotential.” 1981. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1980/1295/report.pdf27) US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, WebSoil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Printout: September 8, 2021.
28)United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey ofDurham County, North Carolina. June 1976.
29)ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Groundwater Monitoring Report, Durham Dry
Cleaners, 200 Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site
Identification No. DC320026.” October 14, 2020.
30)City of Durham Water Quality Treatment Website: https://durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-
Quality-Treatment
31)ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Assessment Report, Durham Dry Cleaners, 200Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site Identification No.DC320026.” January 12, 2018.
32)ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Assessment Report, One Hour Koretizing, 1016
West Main Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site IdentificationNo. DC320029.” January 11, 2019.
33)Engineering Consulting Services, LTD., Research Triangle Park, NC: “Initial Site
Assessment for Brightleaf Square Lots 3-8 Located at The Intersection of Gregson and
Main Street in Durham, North Carolina.” June 6, 1996.34) Durham County Stormwater Utilities Map.https://maps.roktech.net/durhamnc_gomaps4/. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.
35)North Carolina Source Water Assessment Program Info2.0 GIS Mapping Tool:
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=26f4e2b3140f4e5882
5e48781ccebf5e. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.
Eakes Cleaners PSA
December 20, 2022
36)Fishidy Interactive Map: https://www.fishidy.com/fishing-maps.
37)North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Fishing Areas GIS Mapping Tool:
https://www.ncpaws.org/wrcmapbook/FishingAreas.aspx. Print Out Date: September 30,2021. 38) US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory On-line Mapper:http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.39) NC DEQ, Natural Heritage Program Data Explorer:
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/map. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.
40)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in NorthCarolina. Accessed Online on September 9, 2022 at:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-
state?stateAbbrev=NC&stateName=North%20Carolina&statusCategory=Listed.
41)US EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator output, August 5, 2022 andDecember 9, 2022. https://epa-visl.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/visl_search.
42)One Environmental Group, Raleigh NC: “Limited Vapor Intrusion Investigation Letter
Report, 815 West Morgan Street, Durham, North Carolina, 27701.” September 23, 2021.
43)One Environmental Group, Raleigh NC: “Indoor Air Monitoring Letter Report (April2022), 815 West Morgan Street, Durham, North Carolina, 27701.” June 10, 2022.
44)Hanks, Joshua; Snavely, Keith; Kwiatkowski, David, NC Superfund Section: Electroniccommunications on October 20 and December 12, 2022.
REFERENCE 1
Pt. 300, App. A 40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-19 Edition)
involuntarily obtains ownership or control of property by virtue of its function as sovereig·n; (2)Acquisitions by or transfers to a government entity or its agent (includ­ing governmental lending and credit institutions, loan guarantors, loan in­surers, and financial reg·ulatory enti­ties which acquire security interests or properties of failed private lending or depository institutions) acting as a conservator or receiver pursuant to a clear and direct statutory mandate or reg·ulatory authority; (3)Acquisitions or transfers of assetsthroug·h foreclosure and its equivalents (as defined in 40 OFR 300.ll00(d)(l)) or other means by a Federal, state, or local government entity in the course of administering a g·overnmental loan or loan guarantee or loan insurance progTam; and (4)Acquisitions by or transfers to a government entity pursuant to seizure or forfeiture authority. (b)Nothing· in this section or in OEROLA section 101(20)(D) or section 101(35)(A)(ii) affects the applicability of 40 OFR 300.1100 to any security inter­est, property, or asset acquired pursu­ant to an involuntary acquisition or transfer, as described in this section. NOTE TO PARAGRAPHS (a)(3) AND (b OF THIS SECTION: Reference to 40 CFR 300.1100 is a ref­erence to the provisions regarding secured creditors in CERCLA sections 101(20)(:E)-(G), 42 U.S.C. 9601(20)(:E)-(G). See Section 2504(a) of the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act, Pub­lic Law, 104---208, 110 Stat. 3009-462, 3009-468 (1996). APPENDIX A TO PART 300-THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables 1.0. Introduction. 1.1 Definitions. 2.0 Evaluations Common to Multiple Path-ways. 2.1 Overview. 2.1.1 Calculation of HRS site score. 2.1.2 Calculation of pathway score. 2.1.3 Common evaluations. 2.2 Characterize sources. 2.2.1 Identify sources. 2.2.2 Identify hazardous substances associ­ated with a source. 2.2.3 Identify hazardous substances avail­able to a pathway. 2.3 Likelihood of release. 2.4 Waste characteristics. 2.4.1 Selection of substance potentially pos­ing· greatest hazard. 2.4.1.1 Toxicity factor. 2.4.1.2 Hazardous substance selection. 2,4,2 Hazardous waste quantity, 2.4.2.l Source hazardous waste quantity. 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous constituent quantity. 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous wastestream quantity. 2.4.2,1.3 Volume. 2.4.2.1.4 Area. 2.4.2.1.5 Calculation of source hazardous waste quantity value, 2.4.2.2 Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, 2.4,3 Waste characteristics factor category value. 2.4.3.1 Factor category value. 2.4.3.2 Factor category value, considering bioaccumulation potential. 2,5 Targets. 2.5,l Determination of level of actual con-tamination at a sampling location. 2.6.2 Comparison to benchmarks. 3,0 Ground Water Migration Pathway, 3,0,1 General considerations, 3.0.1.1 Ground water target distance limit. 3.0.1.2 Aquifer boundaries. 3.0.1.2,1 Aquifer interconnections, 3,0,1.2.2 Aquifer discontinuities, 3.0.1.3 Karst aquifer. 3.1 Likelihood of release, 3,1.1 Observed release, 3,1,2 Potential to release, 3.1.2.l Containment, 3.1.2.2 Net precipitation, 3.1.2.3 Depth to aquifer. 3.1.2.4 Travel time. 3,1.2.5 Calculation of potential to release factor value, 3.1.3 Calculation of likelihood of release factor category value. 3.2 Waste characteristics, 3,2,1 Toxicity/mobility, 3.2.1.l Toxicity. 3.2.1.2 Mobility, 3.2.1.3 Calculation of toxicity/mobility factor value, 3,2,2 Hazardous waste quantity, 3,2.3 Calculation of waste characteristics factor category value, 3,3 Targets. 3.3,l Nearest well, 3.3,2 Population. 3.3.2.l Level of contamination. 3.3.2.2 Level I concentrations. 3.3,2,3 Level II concentrations, 3.3.2.4 Potential contamination, 3,3,2,5 Calculation of population factor value, 3,3,3 Resources. 3,3.4 Wellhead Protection Area, 3,3,5 Calculation of targets factor category value, 3.4 Ground water migration score for an aq­uifer, 110
1
REFERENCE 2

September 14, 2022

Ms. Sandra Bramble, RPM
Restoration & Site Evaluation Section
US EPA Region 4 Superfund and
Emergency Management Division
61 Forsyth Street, 11th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Subject: Pre-CERCLA Screening Assessment
Eakes Cleaners (NONCD0001192)
827 West Morgan Street
Durham, Durham County, NC

Dear Ms. Bramble:

Under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA), the NC Superfund Section conducted a Pre-CERCLA Screening Assessment
(EPSA) at the above site. The purpose of this investigation was to collect information concerning
conditions at the site sufficient to determine the need for additional CERCLA/SARA or other
appropriate evaluation. Based on the results of this investigation, this site is recommended for
addition to the EPA Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).

The scope of this investigation included reviews of historical environmental assessments
and correspondence between NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and contractors
from 1996 to present day, as well as geographic data from Rowan County and NCDEQ Geographic
Information Services (GIS). The scope of the current PSA included coordinating with the EPA
Region 4 Emergency Response and Removal Branch (ERRB) to conduct a Removal Site
Evaluation (RSE) at the site and surrounding area.

Site Description, Ownership and Operational History, and Previous Investigations:

Site Description

The site is located at 827 West Morgan Street in Durham, Durham County, North
Carolina 27701 (see Figures 1 and 2). The geographic coordinates for the site are 36.001033º
north latitude and 78.909475o west longitude. The site property is a 0.291-acre lot that consists
of a 6,600 square foot brick building. The remaining property is an asphalt-covered parking lot
SANDRA
BRAMBLE
Digitally signed
by SANDRA
BRAMBLE
Date: 2022.09.14
14:34:33 -04'00'
Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 2

located on the northwest side of the building (Refs. 3; 4) (see Figures 1 and 2). The site is
bordered to the northeast by West Morgan Street and to the northwest by Albermarle Street with
parking lots beyond. Directly north of the site across the intersection of West Morgan Street and
Albemarle Street is a residential property that serves as a corner to a larger neighborhood further
north. Commercial properties are located adjacent to the southwest and southeast site
boundaries. A majority of the surrounding area is composed of commercial properties which are
primarily restaurants, retail stores, and a day spa. An auto body shop and an apartment complex
are located approximately 180 feet southeast and 300 feet southwest of the site, respectively (see
Figures 1 and 2).

The site property slopes to the east towards North Gregson Street and then north to the
Durham School of Arts. Topographic relief across the site property is approximately 4 feet. No
surface water features are located on the site property (see Figures. 1 and 2).

Ownership and Operational History

Based on historical aerials and property records, the site is believed to have been a
residential property prior to William Madison Eakes, the owner of Eakes Cleaners, Inc.,
purchasing the site in 1964. Mr. Eakes later transferred ownership of the property to Eakes
Cleaners, Inc. (Eakes Cleaners) and constructed the primary on-site structure in 1967. Eakes
Cleaners continued to operate at the site until the company filed for bankruptcy in 1995.
Following the bankruptcy, the site was sold to P.I.C. Enterprise, Inc. in 1997. The site was later
sold again to The Galley, Inc. in 1998 and eventually to Robert & Cates Properties, LLC in 2016.
Robert & Cates Properties, LLC is the current property owner, and the site is used as a
bar/nightlclub named Shooters II (Refs. 5; 6).

Eakes Cleaners operated as a dry cleaning and fur storage business. Prior to owning and
developing the site in 1967, Durham County property records and phone directories show that
Eakes Cleaners operated out of a building located at 229 North Gregson Street from as early as
1951 to at least 1963. Operations continued at the subject site until the company filed for
bankruptcy in 1995 (Refs. 4; 6; 7). Little information is available to the public about Eakes
Cleaners’ practices, but chlorinated solvents, including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and to a lesser
extent, trichloroethene (TCE), have been commonly used for dry cleaning since the 1950s. The
site reportedly utilized a 550-gallon heating oil underground storage tank (UST) on the northwest
side of the building. At the time of Eakes Cleaners operations, a drainage sump was located
inside the building and the drain line ran parallel to the southwest wall of the building (Refs. 4,
8, 9). It is unclear if these items were removed when Eakes Cleaners ceased their operations or
if they remain on site.

Previous Investigations

A chlorinated solvent release was first identified on site during an October 1996 soil and
groundwater investigation. Petroleum impacted soil was identified in the area surrounding the
550-gallon UST. The PCE and its degradation products including TCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethene
(DCE), 1,1-DCE, and vinyl chloride were detected in soil samples collected from areas adjacent
Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 3

to the drain line at the rear of the building, outside the buildings north wall adjacent to the
drainage sump, and directly adjacent to the sump inside the building. Shallow groundwater
samples, collected from three of six soil borings, exhibited elevated concentrations of chlorinated
solvents as well as detections of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes),
naphthalene, and carbon disulfide. The October 1996 report recommended the removal of the
UST and petroleum impacted soil as well as additional assessment of groundwater impacted by
chlorinated solvents (Ref. 8).

In 1997, P.I.C. Enterprises, Inc. purchased the site and submitted a Letter of Intent to seek
a brownfields agreement to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR, later named NCDEQ). In December 1997, the North Carolina Superfund Section
submitted a Brownfield Site Assessment Report evaluating the site for action under
CERCLA/SARA. Based on the high concentrations of chlorinated solvents found during the
October 1996 investigation, the Superfund Section conducted a survey of properties with
structural basements near the site. The Superfund Section subsequently collected indoor air
samples at seven locations, including the Durham Magnet Center. None of the indoor air samples
reportedly exhibited detectable contaminant concentrations. However, due to sampling
methodology and analytical methods at the time, the 1997 sample quantitation limits were likely
much higher than current action levels for remediation. The Brownfield Site Assessment Report
recommended the site for No Further Remedial Action Planned under CERCLA/SARA (Refs.
4; 10; 11).

In March 1998, the NC Superfund Section submitted a letter to P.I.C. Enterprises, Inc.
requesting additional work to be performed including additional soil borings samples from the
area of highest groundwater concentrations, resample existing monitoring wells, a liquid sample
from the sewer line downstream from the tie-ins from the site, and an air sample from inside the
building. This information is not available on file but in a December 1998 letter to the Durham
City/County Inspection Program, the NC Superfund Section states that a Mr. Danny Roberts
provided this information, which suggested the on-site building did not pose a health risk to
occupants on a commercial basis (Refs. 12; 13). No further correspondence is available on file
regarding the attempt to redevelop the site by P.I.C. Enterprises, Inc. and a brownfields
agreement was never completed.

Between 2007 and 2017, multiple attempts were made by both the Inactive Hazardous
Sites Branch (IHSB) and the Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act (DSCA) Program to reach out
to the site owner regarding the release on site and potential clean up options. The IHSB and
DSCA Program both received little to no responses over this time (Refs. 11; 14 to 17).

In June 2019, a consultant working on behalf of the site owner collected two 8-hour indoor
air samples inside the building and detailed the results in a July 2019 Indoor Air Sampling
Report. The indoor air samples exhibited several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
PCE (up to 19 micrograms per cubic meters [μg/m3]); cis-1,2-DCE (2.6 μg/m3); 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene (39 μg/m3); and isopropanol (69 μg/m3). PCE concentrations in the indoor air
samples were detected at and above the EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) of 18 μg/m3 for
industrial air (Refs. 18; 19).
Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 4

In June 2019, DSCA obtained and executed an administrative search warrant to conduct
a soil, groundwater, and sub-slab soil vapor investigation at the site. DSCA’s contractors
collected two sub-slab soil vapor samples and collected samples from two soil borings/temporary
monitoring wells in the area near the drain line along the south side of the building. A third soil
boring and temporary monitoring well were constructed and sampled near the former 550-gallon
heating oil UST. Groundwater samples collected near the drain line exhibited petroleum and
chlorinated VOCs including PCE (up to 4,870 μg/L); TCE (8,750 μg/L) vinyl chloride (4,680
μg/L); cis-1,2-DCE (87,700 μg/L); trans-1,2-DCE (684 μg/L); 1,1-DCE (61 μg/L); and 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene (338 μg/L). PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, and 1,1-
DCE were detected above their respective EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). Sub-slab
soil gas samples collected near the drain line exhibited multiple VOCs including PCE (8,600
μg/m3); TCE (2,600 μg/m3); cis-1,2-DCE (5,800 μg/m3); trans-1,2-DCE (160 μg/m3); vinyl
chloride (440 μg/m3); 1,1-DCA (85 μg/m3); and 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (29 μg/m3). PCE and
TCE were detected above their respective EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL) for
Targeted Sub-Slab Near-source Soil Gas of 5,840 μg/m3 and 292 μg/m3, respectively. The 2019
DSCA investigation concluded that a release had occurred on site and that the chlorinated solvent
concentrations in sub-slab soil vapor indicated that subsurface intrusion was a potential exposure
risk to the building’s occupants. DSCA referred the site back to IHSB with the results of the
June 2019 investigation stating that an indoor air sample could not be collected during the
investigation. IHSB attempted to contact the site owner again in October 2019 to reiterate the
risk of subsurface intrusion and to request indoor air sampling but did not receive a response
(Refs. 9; 18; 20; 21; 41).

A consultant performing a Limited Phase II Investigation submitted a letter to IHSB in
May 2020 notifying of contaminants migrating onto the property located adjacent to and east of
the site at 823 West Morgan Street. The Phase II Investigation, conducted in March 2020,
consisted of three soil borings that were converted into temporary monitoring wells, 2 sub-slab
soil vapor samples, one exterior soil gas sample, one indoor air sample, and one ambient air
sample. Soil samples exhibited minimal concentrations of chlorinated solvents including PCE
(1.0 micrograms per kilogram [μg/kg]); cis-1,2-DCE (39 μg/kg); and trans-1,2-DCE (2.4 μg/kg).
Low concentrations of petroleum VOCs also were detected in the soil samples. Groundwater
samples contained chlorinated solvents including PCE (6,800 μg/L); TCE (8,800 μg/L); vinyl
chloride (780 μg/L); cis-1,2-DCE (140,000 μg/L); trans-1,2-DCE (120 μg/L); and 1,1-DCE (21
μg/L). All of which are above their respective EPA MCLs. The sub-slab soil gas samples
exhibited up to PCE (200,000 μg/m3); TCE (110,000 μg/m3); vinyl chloride (14,000 μg/m3); cis-
1,2-DCE (230,000 μg/m3); and trans-1,2-DCE (2,900 μg/m3). PCE and TCE were detected
above their respective EPA VISLs for Targeted Sub-Slab Near-source Soil Gas. Despite the
elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents present in groundwater and sub-slab soil gas
samples, the indoor air sample collected from 823 West Morgan Street exhibited low
concentrations of chlorinated VOCs including PCE (1.5 μg/m3) and cis-1,2-DCE (1 μg/m3),
among others. The Phase II Investigation concluded that based on the history of the property at
823 West Morgan Street, the source of the chlorinated solvent impacts to both groundwater and
soil vapor were likely the Eakes Cleaners site (Ref. 22).

Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 5

In coordination with the NC Superfund Section, the EPA Region 4 ERRB conducted a
RSE in August 2021, which included re-sampling existing monitoring wells near the site,
installing and sampling two temporary monitoring wells at 823 West Morgan Street, collecting
four indoor air samples at off-site properties, and collecting an ambient air sample. Access to
the Shooters II (former Eakes Cleaners) property located at 827 West Morgan Street was not
obtained for the RSE. The existing monitoring wells are associated with nearby dry cleaner sites
One Hour Koretizing (located about 200 feet west-southwest) and Durham Dry Cleaners (located
about 550 feet southeast) of Eakes Cleaners. The RSE groundwater samples collected from
temporary monitoring wells at 823 West Morgan Street exhibited chlorinated solvents including
PCE (103 μg/L); TCE (333 μg/L); vinyl chloride (up to 180 μg/L); cis-1,2-DCE (up to 8,080
μg/L); and trans-1,2-DCE (up to 57.6 μg/L). Groundwater samples collected from the off-site
existing monitoring wells exhibited chlorinated solvents including PCE (up to 228 μg/L); TCE
(up to 51.4 μg/L); cis-1,2-DCE (up to 200 μg/L); trans-1,2-DCE (2.0 μg/L); and vinyl chloride
(1.1J μg/L). PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride were detected above their respective
MCLs in both the temporary and existing monitoring well groundwater samples. Indoor air
samples were collected from four properties including the Shell Gas Station at 1016 West Main
Street (EC-IA-1016), the Not Just Paper store at 1010 West Main Street (EC-IA-1010WH and
EC-IA-1010RS), the GOJO coffee shop at 823 West Morgan Street (EC-IA-GOJO), and an
office space at 213 North Gregson Street (EC-IA-213GREG). Two of the four indoor air samples
exhibited detectable concentrations of chlorinated solvents. Gas station indoor air sample EC-
IA-1016 exhibited PCE (9.44 μg/m3); TCE (4.51 μg/m3); cis-1,2-DCE (12.5 μg/m3); and cis-1,2-
DCA (1.55 μg/m3). Due to the location of the Shell Gas Station being upgradient of the site, the
source of these indoor air contaminants is likely not attributable to Eakes Cleaners. Indoor air
sample EC-IA-213GREG exhibited PCE (2.93 μg/m3) and trans-1,2-DCE (36.7 μg/m3). This
location is downgradient of the site and near the 229 North Gregson Street property that Eakes
Cleaners reportedly operated at from 1951 to 1963. The ambient air sample, collected west of
Eakes Cleaners exhibited TCE at 3.49 μg/m3. Chlorinated solvents were not detected above their
respective EPA RSLs in the air samples (Refs. 19; 23; 24; 41) (see Figure 2).

Groundwater Migration Pathway and Targets:

Durham County, NC lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Physiographic Province is characterized at the surface by low, well-rounded hills and long, rolling
northeast-trending ridges while the subsurface is characterized by northeast trending zones of
folded and fractured bedrock divided into several geologic belts. The site is located within the
Triassic Basin which is characterized by mostly half grabens or tilted grabens containing
continental fluvial sedimentary fill. The Triassic Basin consists of multiple sub-basins, but the site
is located within the Durham-Sanford sub-basins which are composed of conglomerate,
fanglomerate, sandstone, and mudstone (Refs. 25; 26).

Soil beneath the site is mapped as Urban Land, which consists of areas where the soil has
been cut, filled, graded, or otherwise changed to the extent that the original soil characteristics
have been altered or destroyed (Refs. 27; 28). Soil encountered beneath the site during the 2019
DSCA investigation was described as gray variations of clay, silt, and sand from 0 to 6 feet below
ground surface (bgs) and a clayey to sandy silt from 6 to 9 feet bgs (Ref. 9). Previous investigations
Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 6

have measured groundwater depths at the site to range from 4 to 6 feet bgs and groundwater data
collected from nearby properties show an east-northeast groundwater flow direction beneath the
site towards North Gregson Street (Refs. 8; 9; 29).

The site is located within the Durham city limits (see Figures. 1 and 2). The site and most
of the surrounding area are supplied municipal drinking water from the city of Durham which
obtains water from Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir (Ref. 30). No community drinking
water supply wells are located within 4 miles of the site. The nearest community drinking water
supply well is located approximately 4.13 miles west of the site and is identified as Well #2 of the
Tyndrum S/D community well system (see Figure 3). Private drinking water supply wells have
not been observed in the area and are not suspected to be present within Durham city limits.
Receptor surveys conducted for nearby dry cleaners have not documented or identified private
drinking water supply wells in the site vicinity (Refs. 4; 31 to 33).

Groundwater samples collected from temporary and existing permanent monitoring wells
at and in the vicinity of the site contain chlorinated solvents above their respective EPA MCLs.
Also, detectable concentrations of organic compounds including acetone, benzoic acid,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, ethylbenzene, MBK, naphthalene, phenanthrene, n-propylbenzene, and
pyrene have been detected in groundwater samples. A co-mingled groundwater plume likely is
located in the site area. in the site vicinity. (Refs. 9; 19; 22; 23; 31; 32).

Due to the lack of community and private drinking water supply wells and the availability
of municipal drinking water at and within the 4-mile radius of the site, the exposure hazard posed
via the groundwater migration pathway appears to be minimal.

Surface Water Migration Pathway and Targets:

Surface runoff from the site flows east and is collected by storm sewers and conveyed
north for approximately 0.5 mile where it discharges to an intermittent stream. The stream flows
north for approximately 0.2 mile and continues north as the South Ellerbe Creek Tributary for
1.0 mile before discharging to the South Ellerbe Creek. South Ellerbe Creek flows approximately
0.30 mile southeast, discharging to Ellerbe Creek, which continues northeast for 7.15 miles to
discharge to Falls Lake. Falls Lake constitutes the remainder of the 15-mile surface water
migration pathway target distance limit (TDL) (Refs. 4; 34; 35) (see Figure 3).

The City of Durham is supplied drinking water from surface-water intakes at the Little
River Reservoir and Lake Michie located approximately 8 miles and 11 miles north of the site,
respectively. No public drinking water intakes are located within 15 miles downstream from the
site (Ref. 35) (see Figure 3). Multiple locations along Falls Lake are identified as public access
and recreational fishing areas (Refs. 36; 37). The nearest mapped wetland is a freshwater
forested/shrub wetland located approximately 0.4 mile downstream from where surface runoff is
discharged to the intermittent stream along South Ellerbe Creek Tributary discharges to the
unnamed tributary (Ref. 38) (see Figure 3). State and local government as well as privately
protected areas are located along the 15-mile surface water migration pathway TDL with the
nearest protected area being the Pearl Mill Preserve located at the same location as the above-
Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 7

mentioned wetland (Ref. 39). Several federally endangered and threatened species occur in
Durham County. The Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) are all
endangered species in Durham County. The Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) is the only
threatened species in Durham County (Ref. 40).

Soil Exposure and Subsurface Intrusion, and Air Migration Pathways:

The former Eakes Cleaners site consists of a brick building and an asphalt covered parking
lot. The former heating oil UST was located near the northwestern side of the building and a drain
line ran parallel to the southwestern wall of the building. The is located in a mixed commercial
and residential area. The brick building is currently occupied by a bar/nightclub named Shooters
II. The nearest residence is located within 200 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school is the
Durham School of Arts located approximately 300 feet northeast of the site. The nearest day care
is the Wonderland Enrichment School located approximately 620 feet west of the site (see Figures
1 and 2). About 17 businesses that employ about 97 workers are located in the study area (see
Figure 2).

Previous investigations conducted at the site have documented chlorinated solvents in soil
gas, sub-slab soil vapor, and indoor air samples at and/or in the vicinity of the site. In 2019, an
indoor air samples collected from the site building contained PCE at 19 μg/m3, which is above the
EPA RSL of 18 μg/m3 for industrial air (Refs. 9; 41).

Sub-slab soil vapor samples collected from the adjacent property at 823 West Morgan
Street contained PCE (200,000 μg/m3) and TCE (110,000 μg/m3) above their respective EPA
VISLs 5,840 μg/m3and 292 μg/m3 for Targeted Sub-Slab Near-source Soil Gas; however,
concentrations of PCE and TCE in indoor air samples collected from that property were not above
EPA RSLS for indoor air (Refs. 22; 41). Two of the four air samples collected during the 2021
RSE contained low concentrations of chlorinated solvents; however, their concentrations were not
above their respective EPA RSL for industrial air (Refs. 19; 23).

Based on the extensive subsurface contamination (groundwater and soil gas), lack of indoor
air samples in all nearby occupied structures, and unknown worker population of nearby occupied
structures identified, this PSA revealed that site contaminant migration may pose a potential
exposure hazard to additional downgradient properties via the subsurface intrusion component of
the soil exposure and subsurface intrusion pathway.

Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 8

Pre-CERCLA Screening Assessment Conclusions:

Based on the RSE and PSA findings, the Eakes Cleaners site is a candidate for addition to
SEMS and further evaluation under CERCLA. If you have any questions, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].

Sincerely,

___________________________ _______________________
Joshua Hanks, Hydrogeologist Qu Qi, Head
Federal Remediation Branch Federal Remediation Branch
NC Superfund Section NC Superfund Section

Attachments
cc: File

Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 9

Eakes Cleaners
Pre-CERCLA Screening Assessment References:

1) US EPA 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, Hazard Ranking System, July 1, 2019.

2) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Superfund Chemical Data
Matrix, Appendix B, Updated July 2020. Query at:
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-chemical-data-matrix-scdm-query

3) Durham County, NC Tax Summary for 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, NC 27701:
https://maps.roktech.net/durhamnc_gomaps4/

4) NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC: “Brownfield Site
Assessment Report, Eakes Dry Cleaners, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina.”
December 23, 1997.

5) NCDOT Historical Aerial Imagery. November 3, 1959. March 26, 1961. March 31, 1969.
January 12, 1976. April 2, 1982. March 8, 1986.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=91e02b76dce4470ebd7ec2
40ad202a04

6) Durham County Property Records. June 25, 1956. March 18, 1958. February 27, 1964.
July 25, 1967. October 1, 1997. July 31, 1998. June 8, 2016.

7) Hill’s Directory Company: Durham City Directory Vol. 1950, 1951, 1955, 1960, 1963.
Durham, North Carolina.

8) Front Royal Environmental Service, Inc, Morrisville, NC: “Limited Soil and Ground
Water Investigation, Eakes Cleaners, Inc., 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, Durham
County, North Carolina, Front Royal Project No. 2239-96-183.” October 14, 1996.

9) ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Source Investigation Report, Eakes Cleaners, 827
West Morgan Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site Identification
No. DC320004.” July 18, 2019.

10) Hiortdahl, Kirsten; Environmental Engineer; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section, IHSB:
Memo to File re: Eakes Cleaners (Former) Site Review Summary. October 24, 2016.

11) Meyer, Billy; Hydrogeologist/Risk Assessor; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section, DSCA:
Memo Re: DC320004-Eakes Cleaners-827 W. Morgan Street Durham, Durham County.
April 24, 2017.

Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 10

12) Zinn, Harry; Environmental Engineer; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, Special Remediation
Branch, Raleigh, NC: Letter re: Additional Data Needs, Brownfield Project for Eakes
Cleaners, Durham, Durham County. March 11, 1998.

13) Zinn, Harry; Environmental Engineer; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, Special Remediation
Branch, Raleigh, NC: Letter re: Eakes Cleaners Brownfield Project, Durham, Durham
County. December 15, 1998.

14) Thomas, Dianne; Project Manager; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, DSCA, Raleigh, NC:
Letter re: Discovery of Dry-Cleaning Contamination. February 16, 2007.

15) Thomas, Dianne; Project Manager; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section, DSCA: Memo
Re: Former Cleaners, 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, DSCA ID#32-0004. April 27,
2007.

16) Boyles, Sean; Hydrogeologist; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, IHSB, Raleigh, NC: Letter
re: Former Eakes Cleaners, 827 West Morgan Street, Durham, Durham County, NCID#
pending. August 6, 2007.

17) Assefa, Hanna; Industrial Hygiene Consultant; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, IHSB,
Raleigh, NC: Letter re: Notice of Regulatory Requirements for Contaminant Assessment
and Cleanup, Former Eakes Cleaners, 827 West Morgan St., Durham, Durham County,
NONCD 000 1192. February 15, 2011.

18) Leaf Environmental & Engineering, P.C., RTP, NC: “Indoor Air Sampling Report for
Shooters II, 827 W. Morgan Street, Durham, North Carolina.” July 9, 2019.

19) EPA: Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1), May
2022. Available online at: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/402371.pdf.

20) Meyer, Billy; Hydrogeologist/Risk Assessor; NCDEQ, DWM, Superfund Section,
DSCA: E-communication re: DC320004 Eakes Cleaners site transfer to IHSB. October 3,
2019.

21) Walch, John; Eastern Unit Supervisor; NCDEQ, Superfund Section, IHSB, Raleigh, NC:
Letter re: Information on Voluntary Cleanup Procedures and Regulatory Requirements,
Former Eakes Cleaners, Durham, Durham County, NONCD0001192. October 16, 2019.

22) Holland, Eli; Principal; One Environmental Group; Charlotte, NC: Letter re: Notification
of An Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site, 823 W Morgan Street,
Durham, North Carolina 27701. May 18, 2020.

23) Tetra Tech, Inc.: “Trip Report, Eakes Cleaners Removal Site Evaluation, Durham,
Durham County, North Carolina.” November 30, 2021.

Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 11

24) Tetra Tech, Inc.: “Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (Short Form), Eakes Cleaners,
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina.” July 27, 2021.

25) North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geological Map of North Carolina: Raleigh,
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Geological Section, scale 1:5000,000, in color.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0a7ccd93947
34ff6aa2434d2528ddf12

26) Bain, George and Charles Brown; U.S. Geological Survey: “Evaluation of the Durham
Triassic Basin of North Carolina and Technique Used to Characterize Its Waste-Storage
Potential.” 1981. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1980/1295/report.pdf

27) US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web
Soil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Print
out: September 8, 2021.

28) United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Durham County, North Carolina. June 1976.

29) ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Groundwater Monitoring Report, Durham Dry
Cleaners, 200 Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site
Identification No. DC320026.” October 14, 2020.

30) City of Durham Water Quality Treatment Website: https://durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-
Quality-Treatment

31) ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Assessment Report, Durham Dry Cleaners, 200
Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site Identification No.
DC320026.” January 12, 2018.

32) ATC Group Services, Raleigh, NC: “Assessment Report, One Hour Koretizing, 1016
West Main Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, DSCA Site Identification
No. DC320029.” January 11, 2019.

33) Engineering Consulting Services, LTD., Research Triangle Park, NC: “Initial Site
Assessment for Brightleaf Square Lots 3-8 Located at The Intersection of Gregson and
Main Street in Durham, North Carolina.” June 6, 1996.

34) Durham County Stormwater Utilities Map.
https://maps.roktech.net/durhamnc_gomaps4/. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.

35) North Carolina Source Water Assessment Program Info2.0 GIS Mapping Tool:
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=26f4e2b3140f4e5882
5e48781ccebf5e. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.

Eakes Cleaners PSA
September 14, 2022
Page 12

36) Fishidy Interactive Map: https://www.fishidy.com/fishing-maps.

37) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Fishing Areas GIS Mapping Tool:
https://www.ncpaws.org/wrcmapbook/FishingAreas.aspx. Print Out Date: September 30,
2021.

38) US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory On-line Mapper:
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.

39) NC DEQ, Natural Heritage Program Data Explorer:
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/map. Print Out Date: September 30, 2021.

40) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in North
Carolina. Accessed Online on September 9, 2022 at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-
state?stateAbbrev=NC&stateName=North%20Carolina&statusCategory=Listed.

41) US EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator output, October 1, 2021.
https://epa-visl.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/visl_search.
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedLegendSite BoundarySurface WaterEakes CleanersEPA ID No: NONCD0001192Durham, Durham County, NCFigure 1: Site DetailDate of Preparation:September 29, 2021Prepared by: Joshua Hanks.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05Miles
1016 W MAIN ST1000 W MAIN ST823 W MORGAN ST209 N GREGSON ST Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser CommunityLegendSite Boundary2021 RSE Indoor AirSamplesDurham County ParcelsEakes CleanersEPA ID No: NONCD0001192Durham, Durham County, NCFigure 2: Site Map and IndoorAir Sample LocationsDate of Preparation:September 29, 2021Prepared by: Joshua Hanks.0 0.035 0.07 0.105 0.140.0175Miles$OEHPDUOH6W$OEHPDUOH6W1*UHJVRQ6W1*UHJVRQ6W:DWWV6W:0RUJDQ6W:0RUJDQ6W:0DLQ6W:0DLQ6W:0DLQ6W:0RUJDQ6W/DPRQG$YHQXH1*UHJVRQ6W1'XNH6W
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, KadasterNL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunityLegendGroundwater CommunityGroundwater Non-Community TransientSite BoundaryFreshwater EmergentWetlandFreshwater Forested/ShrubWetlandFreshwater PondSurface WaterEakes CleanersEPA ID No: NONCD0001192Durham, Durham County, NCFigure 3: Site ReceptorsDate of Preparation:September 29, 2021Prepared by: Joshua Hanks.012340.5Miles1.0 Mile2.0 Mile3.0 Mile4.0 Mile
REFERENCE 3
DURHAM PROPERTY RECORD SEARCH
103154827 W MORGAN ST
CURRENT
ROBERTS & CATES PROPERTIES LLC
827 W MORGAN ST
DURHAM, NC, 27701
Total Assessed Value$1,277,732
KEY INFORMATION
Tax District CNTY-DRHM/CITY-DRHM/BID PIN 0821-07-69-7269
Account 8632596 Neighborhood C821H
Land Use Code 425 Land Use Desc COM/ BAR
Subdiv Code 0000 Subdiv Desc N/A - NO SUBDIVISION
Deed Book & Page 007948 / 000748 Plat Book & Page:000047 / 000101
Last Sale Date:06/08/2016 Last Sale Price:$150,000
Jan 1st Owner:ROBERTS & CATES PROPERTIES LLC
Legal Description:PROP-HINTON ROBERT & LEON A
ASSESSMENT DETAILS
Land Fair Market Value $576,668
Improvement Fair Market Value $701,064
Total Fair Market Value $1,277,732
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (1)Assessed Total Improvement Value $701,064
Year Built:1967 Built Use / Ranch BARS (TAVERNS)
Current Use BARS (TAVERNS)Percent Complete:100%
Heated Area (S/F):7,511 Full Bathroom(s):0
Half Bathroom(s):0 Bedroom(s):0
Fireplace (Y/N):N Basement (Y/N):N
Basement Unnished:-Basement Finished:-
Basement Partially Finished:-Attached Garage (Y/N):N
Assessed Building Value:$701,064
LAND DETAILS
$576,668 $576,668 0.291
Land Fair Market Value (FMV)Land Assessed Value Mapped Acres
SALES
06/08/2016 150,000
08/14/1998 137,500
05/06/1998 70,000
Sales Date Sale Price
100 ft
Disclaimer
Data Disclaimer: All data shown here is from other primary data sources and is public information. Users of this data are hereby notied that the aforementioned public information
sources should be consulted for verication of the information contained on this website. This site presents appraised value which may not represent taxable value. While efforts
have been made to use the most current and accurate data, Durham County, NC and Data Providers assume no legal responsibility for the use of the information contained herein.
Please direct any questions or comments about the data displayed here to [e-mail]
REFERENCE 4
REFERENCE 5
REFERENCE 6
REFERENCE 7
HILL'S
DURHAM
(Durham County,N.C.)
CITY DIRECTORY
Vol.1950 XXXVII
INCLUDING Bragtown,Hope Valley,Joyland,Rockwood,
Rollingwood,Sherron Acres and Tuscaloosa Forest.
Containing an Alphabetical Directory of Business Concerns and Private
Citizens,a Directory of Householders,Occupants of Office
Buildings and Other Business Places,Including
a Complete Street and Avenue
Guide,also a
BUYERS'GUIDE
and a Complete
Classified Business Directory
FOR DETAILED CONTENTS SEE GENERAL INDEX
PRICE ^^^^^$30.00
HILL DIRECTORY CO.,INC.,Publishers
207 Governor Street,Richmond 6,Va.
DIRECTORY LIBRARY FOR FREE USE OF PUBLIC ATCHAMBEROFCOMMERCE
Member Association ot North American Directory Pubiishers
Copyright,1950,by Hill Directory Co.,Inc.
rSffS-^1&B»«»^'*r^iii I IIIIMIII 1*11 I wW-M /,11111
DURHAM ELEQRIC CON^RlfniON Ca
II3-II9 ORANGE ST.PHONE R.739
GREGSON N—Contd
209aReUablc Home Equip lise
furngs gds
211-13iiSmith Electric Co contrs
215^Sou Insulation Co
229JiDurliam Rcfur Sis &Seiv Inc
^Durham Insulation Co
23iaGodwin Sinclair Serv fill sta—Lamond av Intersects
301 Christian and Missionary
Alliance Cli
303AForsytlie Geo G
SOSAMattiiews W Johnson
SOraSchofieid Wilbur M
309aHolt D Dillon ReT
SllACouncil John L @—Gloria av begins
40lJlBurlie Cleveland H
Burke Madeline Mrs nurse
401.'.ACurrin Izonia
403&Bal£er B Dewey
403J4^Powell Ernest C
405aMaritham Felix D @407AMcArthurGlennT®Morgan Mary E Mrs drsmlir
Carlton Wm M
AGrlnstead Eug A
409AMarkham Thos C @
41IiiEgerton Frank N @-^Minerva av Intersects
505 Piggly-Wiggly Stores (br)
gros
5101 Bradsher Earl B
25—W Trinity av intersects
fiOOARoberts Louis C
602AGoldnian Louis H
604AGary Jos N jr
(i06 Matthews Artow A
eOSACranford Thos B
tjlOABissette J Collie ®612-14 Apartments:
lABjork Dorothy A
2aHall W Preston
SAOrr Lewis P
4AStepliane Paul VV
5 Rimpo Maurice D
6 Roy Harold E
"AStormes Benj F
SAWiison Ernest F—Monmouth av intersects
TOIAWhitc O J Real Estate
705ABiacklcy Helen M Mrs—Daclan av Intersects
SOS BIckett The
Apartments ;
lAYelverton John B jr
2AParonen Paul W
3AShaw Ormond
4AReeves Robt L
SACiine Kitty I
BAUmstead Hampton B
TASenimes Louise A Mrs
SAHarris James A
9ACox Rosa C
lOAFields Sara J
llAPranklin Pender L
12ATrent Jas W
Street continued
SOSAMurray Frank H—Urban Intersects
905AStone Kerney C ®KOeAPeaee Wm G
907ABell J Cleve jr ®909AHays Robt S ®911ABishop Jesse @
—W Markham av Intersects
1003ABerry E Willard @lOOTAPerryJohnL@lOOSAMaupInThosC®
1012ABloomfield Isadore F ®
lOlSAMartin Carlos C ®—Green intersects
1102AHaden Clarence R jr Rev
llOSAWiikins Lyman L ®
1104ARoHKar G Hearst ®AKirchoftT &Arnold Assocs
il05AJiincs ('lias F
1106AAndre\vs T Vernon ®1107ALyon Herman T ®llOSAStaniey Wm E ®1109AClark Robt WmOAYoungWilbert H ©IlllANewson Henry W @—Demerlus Intersects
1201AEdwards Wm W ®
1202AMarshaii Bessie H Mrs ®
1203AJolinson J Thurman ®
1204AKing Harry R @
1205AKlrkland Jack L jr ®
120(iALevy Roy I @
1207AErvin Spencer J @—W Knox Intersects
1312AMalone J Robt ®1313ACouch C Odell @1314AWheelerJohnW®1317AWeek3 Albert D ®
131!fARepass Emma G Mrs @
Elkins Eiiz A Mrs nurse
1320ARasberry Sami B ®1401AMarkley Robt R ©
1402ACarr Robt G ®
1405ANeison Al W @
1407AWilkerson Jos L ®1410AGibson Jefferson D ®UllADominick Leila M Mrs ®
1415APlyler Marlon T Rev ®
1422ACarlton Jos P ®
41—W Club blvd intersects—(Not open between W Club blvd
and ^block south of Ruby)—Ruby Intersects—Hudson Intersects (not open)—Leon Intersects
II
GREGSON S —From 900 W Main
southwest and south to Jackson
llSADurham Laundry C(j—W Peabody intersects—Sou Ry (overpass)—W Pettigrew Intersects
201 White's Grocery
202AIngold Tire Co
203AMatthews Oscar W ®
204AWester Geo W
205AStewart Marshall
20eATumer Louis C
207AStrickland Jos A ®208AWilson Jeter H
209ARochelle Hubert I
210AMorgans Robt OAMorganDoniaS JIrs drsmkr—Burch av begins
301AUurhara Dairy Products Inc
(side)
302ABrinkley Hugh D
302iAMorgan Rufus R
304AFowler John M ®
304i Redford Jack—Memorial ends
306 Bowles Pauline Mrs nurse
Betancourt Burma nurse
310 Sanford Mary M nurse
Barbee Percey Mrs nurse
310 Chalen The
Apartments :
lAMcNeer Fred A
2AStorey Sliepherd I>
3AHarrls Thos J
4AWyatte Ronnie Mrs nurse
Walker Hilda S nurse
—W Chapel Hill Intersects
40S Savoid Tama Mrs (c)
410 Lyles Leah Mrs (c)
412 Tison Ernest (c)
414 Blake Ariena U (c)—Jackson Intersects
13
34GROVE—From Lee north to E
Geer,I east of N Alston av (not
open between Lee and \block
south of E Geer)—E Geer Intersects
Owen Bruce A
29GUESSROAD(West Durham)
(Part formerly Watts)—From
1407 Watts northwest beyond city
limit
(numbers irregular)
1421AGates Cash Gro
1424AWatts St Serv Sta (side ent)
IJOOACiyde's Grill restr
Watts St Wrecker Serv
ATerry &Woods auto reprs—W Club blvd Intersects
1510AShaw's Venetian Blinds mfrs—N Buchanan blvd Intersects
1202AFerrell Arth E ®
1206 Fara Louis ®
1210 Boy Scouts of Am Troup 197—Rena begins (not open)—2d ends—Earl begins
1404OHurst Mamie L Mrs ®
1414AHiiliard C Curtis ©—Ruby begins
1416AMartin John R ®—4th ends (not open)
IJOOAKing Edw T ®
1501ASha\v's Venetian Blinds
1502 Cates Erwln H
1504ASlaughter S Haiford
1505AWatkins Jas H ©
150rALye John P ©IjOHATIionipson Everette O ®
1510ASlaughter John F
ISllAShuford Jack H ®
35—Ida begins
1600A('ozart John W ©
1602 Fuller Walter ®
1603ATeague Kemp C @
16n4AHasweH Benj E ®—5th intersects (ss not open)
1613AWeaver Alf C ®1617AGattl3 Waiter R ©1620AXance Lucy J Mrs ®—6th intersects (ns not open)
1701AErvin Jack C ®corABaker's Sis &Serv fill sta—Broad ends—Newton rd begins
1813ANorman Raymond D ®lS15ABarp Elton F ©ISlSAMorris Alma W Mrs
ISlOACoe Wm D ®l.S20ACushman Clias L ®lS21AHargis Raymond W @1822AHaywoodRobtE®
1823ARo3e Leon J ®
1824AGuidice Danl E
1825AGunter June IT ®
182fiACox Roht C ®
1827AOuthrie Mary S Mrs—Sunset av begins—Wagner begins
1944 Under construction
2000AWaliace Elec Mtr Serv rcpr
2002AJones Philip F insulating
contr
2003ACOX Richd T
2004ANe\vton Instrument Co surgi-
cal instrument mfr
2007ABla ice Elton E
2niOOnurl]am-Body Mfg Co
2011AMerrltt Hubert E
2012AWethington Milton M ®2021AMay Nathan W gro
2103 Vacant
2107 Vacant
2111Al)ennis Luther A ®
2117 Clark Ethel L Mrs
2120AByrd Jennie L Mrs ®2124 McKee Curry H ®2137 Vacant
214iaDossett Grover N @2142AWhitakerLeeG©2145ABrowning Raymond W
2147ATotten Wm S
2151 Travis Earl M—City limit
2155aCoicIoUKh Fred ®
H.G.TERRY,Realtor
Real Estate —Rentak
411 SnowBldg 331 W.Main TeL F-2301
Carpenter's
Inc.
Complete
Service For
Car*and Trucks
TIRES —TUBES
BATTERIES
e.Main Street
Day Pi)on«;
All Dapts.
8921
NIgiits.Sunday*
and Holldaye
Phone:
eervlcfl Dept.
and
Wrecker ServiM
«e21
Pvts and Aceesierines2z
Tire Deisartment6»23
Now Cars Hid
Tnietis6924
Uied Oars end
Truckse92S
Bookkeeping D«pt*
6324
plu!<;ding
and heatingcontractcrs
S701{EKS
OIL BJri:i-iis
Safes c;:;-J Service
DIAL R-4f51
2»07
ftoxboro Rd.
<^t5g
"A SOFT WATER LAUNDRY"TEL.N-157
MOREHEAD AV—Contd
—Rex intersects^Burke begins—Lal(e begins—Norwood av begins
1901 Tew Claxton
—Anderson intersects
45
19MORELANDAV—From 1500MoreheadavsouthtoHigh(notopenbetween1215andHigh)1004iLangley Alonzo (c)®wood
1005 Alston Wm C (c)McCoy Wadie (c)
lOOeASplkes Minnie Mrs (c)@1007aParkerVictorL(c)
1007b Poole Eobt L (c)
lOOOAGreer Chas (c)
lOlO-dOldham Thos (c)®1011 Salmon Mollie Mrs (c)1012AXunn Dollle (c)@1013WilliamsDavidKMrs (c)1014 Wllkerson Octavlus E @ gro1015LawsJohn(c)Eubanks Alonzo (c)lOleaATounEer Maggie Mrs (c)lOlSb Daniels John F (c)1017AFogg Jack (c)lOlSARichmond Georgiana Mrs
(c)
1018 Sampson Hubert (c)
lOlDATaylor Saml S (c)
AColtrane Rebecca Mrs (c)
1020ilMebane Sadie Mrs (c)®1021 McDaniel Wm W (c)
1022ACozart Augustus C (c)@1023ASingIetonJackson(c)
1025 Johnson Wallace (c)
Blandlng Sidney (e)
1026 Robertson Jas W (c)
AWillis Frank (c)
1027AJones Luvenia Mrs (c)1028aALyde Jas (c)
1028b Bass Olivia Mrs (c)
lOSOACozart Wm (c)
lOSlAMcQueen Frank (c)AThomas NathI (c)1032AFreeland Albert (c)1034 Dark John E (c)
ATaylor Eddie (c)—Halley intersects
llOOAJoyner Peter J (c)®llOlAOrmond Bernie L (c|1102APerry Lawrence P (c)®1103AMoore Lillie L Mrs (c)®1104AEdwards John A (c)®llOSAWinston Louis F (c)®1106 Blount Rholivia Mrs
1107AChavis Vera Mrs (c)
llOSABurnette Jasper (c)
1109 Jamison Raymond (c)lllOARlch John R (c)®1111 Green Sophronia C Mrs (c)
1112 White Ida (c)®—Gunter intersects
1200AWebb Chester
1205 Douglas Haney (c)
Robinson Van (c)
1206 Pryerson Mary Mrs (c)
1212 Hayes Graham E (c)
1213 Hayes Sherman (c)@
1214 Worsley Clifton (c)
1215AMcCallum Talmadge (c)
(Not open between 1215 and
High)—W Laliewood av intersects—Bivins intersects—High intersects (not open)
MORGAN —From 415 N Mangum
west and northwest to W Main
lOoACity Mtrs of Durham Inc
autos
109AC &r Dry Clnrs (br)
Esso Std Oil Co (Essotane
Dept)
1095ARay-Mac Constr Co steel
contrs
lll-13ABrady'5 Wldg ServIHADunawayIncPrinters
115 Clark Mtr Car Serv reprs
llOAEster Ralph A &Co leather
gds
117 Armstrong Radiator ServllSARoweCurtisPtypewriters
AJohnson Otis A real est &
notary
119 Dr Peper Btlg Co (stge)
120 Vacant
125ADr Pepper Btlg Co of Dur-
ham Inc
126ASher Morris L clo
126aAGoldman Music Co
128AValentine Sup Co farm
raachy—Rigsbee av intersects
corAGriffeth Super Serv Inc filling
201 US Sandwich Shop
205ATaylor's Seafoods
207-09AMack's Furn Co Inc
211-13AStone Bros &Byrd feed
212AHome Finance Co loans
—Pleasant al begins
214AGrlfflth Used Car Co Inc
215-17ADiamond Feed Store
219-23 Piedmont Furn Co (side)—Holland ends
224AElectrolux Corp vacuum
clnrs
226ANoland Co Inc plmbg cups
^Foster intersects
302ASOU Parts &Elec Inc whol
308AKornegay Mtrs Inc autos
314-18AMay D C Co pntrs
319-21AMontgomery &Aldrldge
fill sta—Roney intersects
400AHastings Bus Line IncAChapelHillTransitLines
Inc
AHastlngs Uphol Shop
406 Kornegay Mts used cars
408 Lee's Lndry
Lee Raymond
416ASalem Merc Co Inc hse
funrnsg gds
418 Vacant
420APiedmont Cloth Store dry
gds
422 Allen &Allen Dry
Cleaning (c)
424 Bill's Sandwich Shop restr
426AOtis Elev Co (br)—Morris intersects
sw corAMlller-Hurst Inc (side ent)
503-05ARollmg Pin Bake Shop
The
507AHerndon Chas M jr fish509AMorganStreetLunch
510 Imperial Tob Co (parking
lot)
518AMurdock Ice &Coal Co Inc
519AColonial Linoleum &Tile Co
Inc
-~N Great Jones ends—N&WRy crosses
S27AHolt Nettie Mrs @—Jones intersects
cor Vacant—Watts intersects—W Main intersects
12
9—N Fuller intersects—N Duke intersects
SOOACarr Julian S Junior High
School
805 Vacant
807AAverltt Lucy F Mrs—N Gregson intersects
815-17ADurham Hudson CorpSlSAAndrewsThosB®
820AWoods Alvis A
Wliitaker Lessie drsmkr
821-23AStephenson-Wllson Inc
autos
824 Clifton M JuliaAChambersMoses T
MORNING GLORY AV (Edgemont)—From 901 E Main north and
southeast to N Plum908ATempleJHarvey
912AStewart Garland B
914ABaldwin Chas E
9lDAHillcrest Hos Mills IncAHamlltonHosFnshrsInc916Charlie's Drink Stand—Belt begins
1003AWilliams Major D1004ChurchofGodThe1005AJohnsonConnieL1007AHunleyClemL
1008ARoberts Callie B Mrs
1009AParrish Maggie L MrslOllAManguraAlexS^N Elm intersectsllOlAHoggardMarshall C1103AFowlerJuliusL
1105ABunn Herman
1106AVlckers Chas F @1107DriverJohnR1108Vlcker's Gro
lllSAWallace J Benton—N Ashton av intersects
1203 Eatman Betty Mrs
1204 Pearce Alvin E
1205AIsenhour Roy E
1207APatterson Wm A
1209AThompson Rowland C1211AGllllamWmM
1212AGrlffln John L @—N Holman intersects
1302AFerrell J Brondell
1306ALowery Edw P ®—N Alston av intersects
1308AMcDonald Oscar M1406ABrayDanlL®
1408 Blackman Lewis M—N Goley ends
1502APoole Georgianna Mrs1504SykesInezWMrs
1506ARhodes Fredk W MrsO'Neal Eliza R Mrs1508AHiggsCorneliusR@
1510 Fitch Jasper F ®
1512 Andrews JIary C Mrs ®1516AEvers Bessie Mrs1518GossSamlH
1520ACash Buck
ADlckerson Wm H exp—N Plum ends
MORRIS —From 400 W MainnorthtoWashingtonlOlJADurhamBeautyAcademy
102-04 Kaplan's Shoe Store reprs
lOSABroadway's Mkt meats
lOSAWeldon's Bowling Center
Prldgen Bruce B confr
lll-13ASatvatlon Army The
(citadel)
108JAByrd Thos S wtchrepr
AMarshall Geo H jr—Manning pi ends
llSAChandler Amanda G Mrs bdt
120-24ADurham City Hall
bsmt City Water Dept (machshop)AS H &P W C
lobby Moffltt Matle E Mrs confr1stflACltyJuvenileCourtACltyProbationOfcrsACountyProbationOfcrsACountyJuvenileCourtACityPlanningDir
PICKARD ROOFING CO..INC.
1108 BROAD ST.
Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors
PHONE X-6568
S.
SWARTZ
&
SONS
Best Market
Prices for
Scrap Iron
Tin
—
Rags
Hides—Metals
Waste Paper
Structural
Steel &Pipe
Main Office
TEL.J-9331
Holman St.
TEL.L-53U
^#
INC.
Dfstributor
•MOHAWK •
Tires
Tubes
Repair
Materials
Recapping
DIAL
9-4378
307
McMsnncn St.
HILL'S
DURHAM
(Durham County,N.C.)
CITY DIRECTORY
Vol.1951 XXXVIII
Including:Bragtown,Hope Valley,Joyland,Rockwood,
Rollingwood,Sherron Acres,Tuscaloosa Forest.
Containing an Alphabetical Directory of Business Concerns and Private Citizens,
a Directory of Householders,Occupants of Office Buildings and Other
Business Places,Including a Complete Street and Avenue
Guide,a Numerical Telephone Directory,
BUYERS'GUIDE
and a Complete
Classified Business Directory
FOR DETAILED CONTEXTS SEE INTRODUCTION ANDGENERALINDEXPAGEX
PRICE ^ffli'»$35.00
HILL DIRECTORY CO.,INC.,Publishers
207 Governor Street,Richmond 6,Va.
DIRECTORY LIBRARY FOR FREE I'SE OF ITRLIC ATCHAMBEROFCOMMERCE
Member Association of North American Directory Publishers
Copyright,1951,by Hill Directory Co.,Inc.
Alexander
Motor
Go.^Inc.
Automobile
Body
Rebuilding
24-Hoar
PaMing
Service
Factory
Baked Enamel
Fhhh
USED CARS
and
TRUCKS
330
E.Main
TEL.
9-1 921
The
Peabody
Drug
Company
Inc.
•
Wholesale
Druggists
•
Complete Line
Eli yily's
Pharma-
ceuticals
•
TEL.
5155
-K
305
W.Pettiqrew
St.
54
DURHAM LUMBER Cp.,Inc.
Millwork —Roofing —Insulation
Wallboard —H2urdware
Mill and Yard,East Diirham Piiones 4957 and 4958
GREGSON N—Contd
108 I)urhiim Hudson Corp (used
far dept)
]09AChill House restr
lllAUtley's Barber Shop
llsa.Mayola Grill &Fountain
restr
115 Eaton Leslie W
121 l>urham Hudson Corp (side
ent)—Morgan Intersects
2010DaTi3 Henrv C
203 Enloe Lewis H
209-llARellable Home Equip Co
Inc hse furngs gds
213ASmUli Electric Co contrs
215AS0U Insulation Co
229AEakes Clns
231A(3odwln Sinclair Serv till sta—Lamond av intersects
301 Christian and Missionary
Alliance Ch
SOSAForsythe Geo G
305 —
307AScliofield Wilbur M
Schofleld Mary C Mrs nurse
309AHolt D Dillon Rev
SllACoundl John L @—Gloria av begins
401ABurlce Cleveland H
Burke Madeline Mrs nurse
401JACurrln Izonia
403ABaker B Dewey
•1035APowell Ernest C
405AMarkliam Felix D ®407AMcArthur Glenn T ®Morgan Mary E Mrs drsmkr
Carlton Wm M
409AMarkham Thos C ®
411AEgerton Prank N ®—Minerva av intersects
505 Piggly-Wlggly Stores (br)
gros
—W Trinity av intersects
OOOALIewellyn Garland C
602AHobgood Bailey W II
C04ACrutchfieid .Tames C jr
BOOAMatthews Arto A
(iOSATohnson Lloyd C
filOABlssette J Collie ®
012-14 Apartments:
lASurtman Patricia J
2APeyton Phillip B 1r
3 Clark S Garland jr
4AThatcher Clyde E Mrs
SAMlchalak M Victor
OACouncil Jessie G
7ADrake David E
SAMcFarlin James M—Monmoutti av intersects
"OlAWhlte O J Real Estate
705ABlackley Helen M Mrs—Dacian av intersects
S06 Bickett The
Apartments
:
1 Harris James
2 Paronen Paul W3AMangumThosH
4AReeves Robt L
SACox John F
OAO'Neal James R
7 Spears Jimmie W
SAMatthews David D
9AC0X Rosa C
lOABIacLelland Grace S
llABarnes Arth T
12 Hall W Preston
Street continued
SOSARogers Ralph W—Urban Intersects
905AStone Kerney C ®MOOAPeace Wm G
007ABell J Cleve jr @909AHaysRSaml@OlOAHugginsMarionD ®911ABlshop Jesse ®
27—W Markham av intersects
1003ABerry E Wlllard @
lODTAPerry John L ®
1008 Vacant
1012ABloomfleld Isadore F ®lOlSAMartln Carlos C ®—Green intersects
1102AHaden Clarence R jr Rev
1103AWllklns Lyman L @
1104ABosser G Hearst ®
AKlrchofer &Arnold Assocs
1105 Vacant
1106AAndrews T Vernon ®1107ALyon Herman T @llOSAStanleyWmE@1109AClarkRobtW
lllOAYoung Wllbert H ®llllANewson Henry W ®—Demerius Intersects
1201AEdwards Wm W @
1202AMarshaII Bessie H Jlrs ®1203APettit Alvin E
1204AKing Harry R @1205AKlrklandJackL jr ®1206ALevy Roy I ®1207AErvln Spencer J @—W Knox intersects
1312AMalone J Robt ®1313ACouch C Odell ®1314AWheeler John W ®1317AWeeks Albert D ®1318ARepass Emma G Mrs ®
1320ARasberry Saml B ®
140lAMarkley Robt R @1402ACarrRobtG®1405ANelson Al W ®1407AWllkerson Jos L @1410AOibsonDrusillaWMrs ®1411ADomlnlck Leilla M Mrs fi)
1415APlyler Marlon T Rey @
1422AOarlton Jos P @
41—W Club blvd Intersects—(Not open between W Club blvd
and I blocit south of Ruby)—Ruby intersects—Hudson intersects (not open)—Leon intersects
IIGREGSONS—From 900 W Main
southwest and south to Jaclcson
llSADurham Laundry Co—W Peabody intersects—Sou Ry (overpass)—W Pettlgrew Intersects
201AWhite's Grocery &Mkt
202AIngold Tire Co
203AHampton Wm C
204AWester Geo W
205AStewart Marshall
ADickerson Jack R
206ATurner Louis C
207AStrickland Jos A @208AWIl3OnJeterH
209 —
210AMorgan Robt
AMorgan Donia S Mrs drsmkr—Burch av begins
SOlADurham Dairy Products Inc
(main ofc)
302ABrinkIey Hugh D
3021AMorgan Rufus R
304AFowler John M @
304JAGowins Walter
•—Memorial ends
306 Medical BIdgAMedGroupInc
London Arth H jr phys'
Adkins Trogier F phys
Singletary Wm V phys
Raney R Beverly phys
Watson Geo A phys
Bowles F Norman phys
Nichols Rhodes E phys
Street continued
310AElsevier Ernest
3101 Bradsher Earl B
316 Chalen The
Apartments
:
1 Vacant
2AEzell Chas L jrSAHarrisThosJ
4 Wyatte Bex M
—W Chapel Hill intersects
4OS Savold Tama Mrs (c)
410 Lyles Hassle L Mrs (c)
412 Tison Ernest (c)
414 Blake Arlena D (c)—Jackson Interseoti
11^
34GROVE—From Lee north to E
Goer,I east of N Alston av (not
open between Lee and i block
south o(E Goer)—E Gear intersectsAOwenBruceA ®
29GUESSROAD(West Durham)
(Part formerly Watts)—From
1407 Watts northwest beyond
city limit
(numbers irregular)
142lAGates Cash Gro1424AWattsStService Sta (side
ent)
ISOOAJoseph's GrillAWattsStWrecker Serv—W Club blvd intersects
corALes's Auto Serv
loOlAShaw's Venetian Blinds mtrs—N Buchanan blvd intersects
1202 Ferreil Arth E ®AHursey J C ®1206 Para Louis ®
1210 Boy Scouts of Am Troup 19T—Rena begins (not open)—2d ends—Earl begins
1404 Hurst Mamie L Mrs ®—Ruby begins
1414AHilllard Chas C ®
1416 Martin John B @—4th ends (not open)
1500AKing Bdw T ®
ISOlAShaw's Venetian Blinds
1502ACates Erwin H
1504ASlaughter S H
1505AWatklns J Herman ®1507ALye John P
1509ASmith Geo B jr
1510ASlaughter John F1511AShutordJackH®1512ABittle Geo W
1514AHarrls Droper H ®
—Ida begins
leOOACozart John W @1602AOverbyHolstonN @1603ATeagueKempC®1604AHaswell Bennle E @
•—5th intersects (ss not open)1613ABowen Carl L
1617AGattJs Walter R @1620ANanceLucyJMrs ®—6th intersects (ns not open)
nOlAErvin Jack C ®corAHunter's Gulf Serv
1716ABroadweU Paint Co Inc—Broad ends—Newton rd begins
ISlSANoraian Raymond D @
ISlSAEarp Elton F @
1818AMoore Henry C jr @
ISlOAOoe Wm D @1820ADuncanRobt jr @
1821AHargis Raymond W ®1822AHaywood Robt E @
lS23ARose Leon J ©1824ASmith Wm A @1825AKeatonRalphJ @1826ACOXRobtC®
35
S.M.BRADSHER.INC.
1019 W.TRINITY AVE,
—GENERAL CONTRACTOR —
Commercio/...Industrial
P.O.Box 362 TEU 4-905
*>v '^
j^SSjimfSmgy^^J ^o^
Pf^H ^^
^^^Ssw^——IW'^«1-
•
2 e
Eo
•s Ol•o ocD
<J S
>.
ON STATE s««
o O
f-<111
2 ^1 ^Ul
t^S .«
Oo<•J
1U«X o Eto3H?
oz
/^il ^^
V^U^^H ^<«\99DHar o^msa>»•^CM
Lovette's
Radio
and
Uppliance
Corp.
Radios
•••
Television
•••
Refrigerators
»••
Ranges
•••
Washers
••
Sales
and
Service
STORE NO.1
711 W.Chapel Hill
PHONE 492/
STORE NO.2
107 W.Chapel Hill
PKOHE 49/3
RILEY
"IN FRONT OF THE POST OFFICE"
PAINT CO.
WholnaU aad Rcton
TarnaD's Perfection aad
Dutch Boj Paints
iBperial Wall Paper
mi
PHONE 9-1971
MOREHEAD AV—Contd
314ABeal Victor E
SlGAMorehead Av Fnod Center
gros—Wiltard intersects
402ACobb Clarence H ®
40GAjIurra3'Henrietta I"Sirs @
408aFranklin Gene B
4081 Cause Harvey JI
410&O'Shea Horace \V @—S Duke intersects
.j02&Robcrtson Edwin M @
SOeACobh Xc'lUc K Mrs ®
512iiWnutc Gilbert C ®
515 (See 804 S Duke)
518 Wiley Eug JI ®
tiOOAWarren W Frank
617iJohnsou J Eric ®
lilS&Xicholson Sterling J ®lilStAHarrison Paul
BlOJACliears Crockett Mrs—Victcers av intersects
TOT&Farthing Wm P ®710aHobgood Mattie P Mrs @—Siiepiierd intersects—Arnette av intersects
aO'AMcLester Chas E Rev (c)®—Milton av intersects (not open)
iiOO&Tapii Claiborne (c)
ABailey Floy T Mrs (c)
1)10 Tate Preston (c)
912 Cockerliam Harry (c)
913 Harden Hattle A Key (c)
ftl4-CBangs Georgia (c)
916 Taylor Mary I Mrs (c)
fllSAMills Jas (c)®
Stephlight Enoch (c)—Carroll intersects
1000 Mt Temple Holy Ch (c)
1001-O.Watson Irene (c)
lOOSATapp's Gro &Mkt (c)
1004aHarden Hattie A (c)gro
1006-08 Morehead Av Bapt Ch (c)
lOOTABlacknell Clara (c)
1009 Gaither Martha M (c)
•0-Ginyard Arth (c)
1010 Edwards Ollie (c)®
1011 Elliott Geo (c)
AHerrod Joseph (c)
1012£i.Sellers Annie (cl @—Rock begins
llOlAFarrow Edgar (c)
llOS&Johnson Wallace S (c)@
1103 Pratt Ella Mrs (c)
1106 Durham Hebrew Cemetery
llOTAHarris John H (c)@
1111 rjreene Jos (c)—Fairview begins
1203-iHickmon James X (c)
1205J3.Townsend Mack (c)
1207iinogan Chas (c)®—Cornell begins
KlOiaWilson Ellen (c)
1303&Smoot Mamie Mrs (c)
1305ABaglev Tennie (c)
i:;0"aKelley John (c)
1309iiHart Hermors H Rev (c)
1311 First Calvary Bapt Cai (c)—Kent intersects
1401&Morehead Av Fish Mkt (c)
gros
rearJlLucille's Self-Scrv Washette
(c)
1407AWllk-erson Wm D gro
1409aPurlty Stores (br)
UllABlalock's Service Sta
'—Moreland av begins
loOlADurham Marble Wks
1503 Vacant
1305AHohbie's Grill restr
150"APettiway's Cabt Shop (c)—Rosedale av begins
1601AHeflin John H
AHaithcock Joe S
liUi5AXorwood Lewis C @
li;il7JiWlnkler Carl H @ mach
Alsenhour Parks G—Chapel Hill rd begins—Maplewood av ends
—Rex intersects—Burke begins—Lake begins
.—Norwood av begins
1901 Carty James E—Anderson intersects
(c)
19MORELANDAV—From 1500
Morehead av south to High (not
open between 1215 and High)
1004aLangley Alonzo (c)@
1005 Alston Willie C (c)
McCoy Wadie (c)
1006 Spikes Minnie L Mrs (c
AEvvie's Beauty Shoppe
1007a Parker Victor L (c)
1007bAPoole Robt L (c)
1009aGreear Chas (c)
Across Stelle V (c)
lOlOAOldham Thos C (c)@lOllASahnonMoUieMrs(c)
1012AXunn Dollie (c)@
1013 WilUams David K (c)
JIcThadden Mabel P Mrs (c)
1014 Wilkerson Octavlus E @ gro
1015 Laws John (c)AEubanks Alonzo (c)
lOlf.aAYoiingcr Maggie Mrs (c)
1016b Daniels John F (c)
1017Arogg Jack (c)
Autry John (c)
lOlSARichmond Georgiaua Jlrs
(c)
ASampson Hubert (c)
lOlOATaylor Saml S (c)
AColtrane Rebecca Mrs (c)1020AMebane Sadie S Mrs (c)®1021AMcDanlel Wm W (c)
1022ACozart Augstus (c)@1023ALewisCiceroA(c)
1025 Johnson Wallace (cjBlandingSidney(c)
1026 Moore Nellie D Mrs (c)
W^illiams Frank (c)
1027AJunes Luvenia Mrs (c)
102SaALyde Jas (c)
102Sb Bass Olivia Mrs (c)
lOSOACozart Willie (c)
lOolAMcQueen Frank (c)
AThomas Xathl (c)1032Arreeland Albert (c)
1034 Dark John K (c)
ATaylor Eddie (c)—Halley intersects
llOOAJojner Peter J (c)®llOlAOrmond Bernie L (c)
1102APerrv Lawrence P (c)®llOSAMoore Lillie L Mrs (c)®1104AEdwards ohn A (c)®llOSAWinston Louis F (c)®llOOABlount Rholivia Mrs1107AChavlsVeraMrs(c)
llOSABurnette Jasper (c)@1109JamisonRajTnond(cj
Alston Louis (c)
lllOARlch John R (c)@1111GreenSophroniaCMrs (c)
Aufh-ews Willie (cJ
1112 White Ida (c)®—Gunter intersects
1200AWebb Chester
1205AADouglas Handy (c)
Robinson A'an (c)
1206 Patterson Forester (c)
Frieson Fannie B
1212AHayes Graham E (c)
1213 Haves Sherman (c)@
1214 Worslev Clifton (c)
1215.SMcCallum Talmadge (c)
(Not open between 1215
High)—W Lakewood av intersects—Bivins intersects—High intersects (not open)
and
MORGAN —From 415 N Manbum I
west and northwest to W Main 1
105AClty Mtrs of Durham Inc
autos
109AC &F Dry Cln br
AEsso Sid Oil Co (EssoUoce
Dept)lOOlADurham Art SellABekGallery
ACaplan Jerry L
lll-13ABradys Wndg Serv114ADuna"ay Inc pmtrs
lloAClark Mtr Car Serv reprs
116 Vacant
117 Vacant
llSAJohnsou Otis A notary
A.lohnson o A Realtor
119 Dr Pepper Btig Co (stgc)
12oASuperior I'rutra
125ADr Pepper 3llg Co of Dur-ham Inc
120ASher Morris L clo126aAHuntPrntgCo
liSAValentlnc Sup Co farm sups—Rigsbee av intersects
curAGrlffith .~iii)er Serv till sla
201AUS Sandwich Shop
205ATaylor's .Seafoods
207-01IAMack's Furn Co luc
211-13Asion<;Brob ii Byrd feed
212 Vacant—Pleasant al begins
214AGritfith i:sc.J Car Co Inc215-17ADiamond Feed Store
219-23 Piedmont Fum Co (side)—Holland ends
224AElectrolu:i Corp vacuum
clnrs
226AXoIand Co Inc plmb sups
^Foster intersects
302ASOU Parts &Elec Inc whol308AKomegayMtrsIncautos314-16AMay D C Co pntrs
319-21AMontgomery &Aldridge
I flU sta—Roney intersects
406AKorneEay Mtrs Inc used car
dept
40SALee's Lndry
ALee Raymond
416ABames J Ben Sign Shop418ATypewriterSupCo
420ABurrouglis Adding Macb Co
422AAllen &Allen Tailors
424 Bill's Sandwich Shop restr
426A0ti3 Elec Co (br)
—Morris intersects
sw corAMlIler-Hurst Inc (side
ent)
S03-05ASoUlng Pin Bake ShopThe
50"AHerndon Chas M jr fish509AMorgauStreetLunch
510 Imperial Tob Co (parking
lot)SlSAMurdock Ice &Coal Co Inc
519AColonlal Linoleum &Tile Co
Inc contrs—Great Jones ends—NN&WRy crosses
—N Fuller intersects—N Duke intersects
SOOACarr Julian S Jr Hi Sch
805ARicks David
807AAverltt Lucy F Mrs—N Gregson intersects
813-I7ADurham Hudson Corp
SlSAAndrews Thos B ®
820 House MarshaU P
S21-23AStephensou-Wil50n Inc
autos
824ACUfton M Julia
AWhitaker Lessie drsmkr
S27AHolt Nettle Mrs ®—Jones intersects
corAZesto of Durham confr—Watts intersscts—W Main intersects
ONE STOP TO PARK AND SHOP
416 E.MAIN ST.DIAL 6771
SEARS.ROEBUCK AND CO.
HILL'S
DURHAM
(Durham County,N.C.)
CITY DIRECTORY
1955
Containing an A.phabetica.Directory or Business Concerns and Private CitizensaD.rectory of Householders,Occupants of Office Buildings and Other
Business Places,Including a Complete Street and Avenue
Guide,a Numerical Telephone Directory,
BUYERS'GUIDE
and a Complete
Classified Business Directory
FOR CONTENTS SEE INTRODUCTIONAND
GENERAL INDEX ON PAGE III
PRICE $40.00
H,LL ^CT°RY C0->WC,^Ushers207GovernorSt.,Richmond 19,Va.
^^if?!^^^Publishm
Copyright,1954,by .he Hill Directory Co.,Inc.
108
Tires
Tubes
Vulcanizing
Recapping
PHONES
9-4378
and
3-0471
108 W.|LAKEWOOD AV.
cor SOUTH
P
P..1
PAINTING
&
PAPERING
CONTRACTOR
for
PAINTING
PAPERING
DECORATING
Free Estimates
Gladly Furnished
Phone
4-3118
112 Herbert St.
RIGSBEE TIRE SALES,INC.
\\festinghouse
HOME APPLIANCES
GREEN—Contd
815—Contd
House of Tile
817 Williams Leroy S 8-9307
819 Tyndall Junius B ®8-9043
820 Bobbitt F Branson ®8-9042
821 Coble I Eliz Mrs ®8-9859
Ladd Jacob H 8-9857
822 Page Wm O 8-9044
Kubiszewski Robt J 8-8103
823 Hackney Rufus R@ 8-9041
824 Dozier Donald P 8-9850
826 Stancik Edwin E 8-8101
Parks Wm B 8-8103
N Duke intersects
902 Gregory Jas A ®8-0182
903 Ivey Elsie B Mrs ®8-1170
907 Garrett Edgar ®8-9971
909 Samfield Max M 8-2004
910 Ross Thurman T ©8-1110
911 Creekmore Bowers 8-0180
912 Turner HArlin 8-3169
913 Valentine Edson M ©8-0181
914 Andrews Etoile A Mrs
915 Cekada Emil B ©8-2887
916 Poole Percy O ©8-1190
917 Vacant
918 Shelburn Mary C Mrs ©8-1159
919 Watkins Rotcher H ©8-2001
921 Lieberman Max H ©8-3184
924 Hunt Louis C ©hauling 8-6821
Ellis Thurman H 8-3383
N Gregson intersects
1003 Boyd Richd B ©8-0185
1005 Tilley Adolphus P ©8-2003
Tilley Laura L mus tchr
1007 Woodley Whitford W jr 8-4541
1008 Rogers Exum A ©8-7081
1009 Paschall M Jether jr 8-3385
1010 Carroll Norwood M ©8-0111
1012 Bennett W Crompton Rev 8-4346
1013 Hilliard Wm C ©8-3382
1014 Hill Norman M ©8-2893
1015 Parker Wm A 8-2005
1017 Johnson Carl W 8-3300
1024 Phipps Margt L Mrs ©8-2891
1026 Satterwhite Ira W pntr 8-2892
Watts intersects
GREENBERG ALLEY (Hayti)-From
112 E Proctor south f block,1 east
of McMannen
506 Lancy Robt
508 McCormick Sally
510 Johnson Annie M 4-7225
40GREENBRIARROAD-From Miami
blvd northeast 1 block
1601 Rochelle Hidy L ©2-3032
1603 Best Hydra S ©6-3934
Best Plumbing Co 6-3934
1605 Horton Julius H jr ©4-0935
1609 Cagle Hubert E ©2-2563
1611 Higgins Francis E ®
1613 Burns Roy ©5-2333
36GREENLEAF-From Tate north toEMarkhamav,1 west of Avondale
dr
41GREENWOODDRIVE-From Elgin
west 1 block
304 Brown C Julian ©2-1786
306 Vacant
308 Bullock Lonnie B ©4-8713
309 Scott Jas W jr ©3-3391
310 Tucker Hubert L 2-1623
311 Vacant
312 McDonald Hubert F 9-4318
313 Bond Wm E 4-8712
314 Bonkmeyer Leonard W 9-2463
315 Beebe Geo K 9^2163
317 Herrington Hunter R 9-2363
GREGSON N-From 900 W Main north
beyond Leon
106 Univ Mtrs (parking lot)
108 Vacant
109 Chili Hse restr 9-2256
111 S &W Tailors 4-8823
113 Bill &Ann's Grill &Fountain
restr 9-4752
115 Bell Willard T
121 Vacant
Morgan intersects
201 Chisenhall John H 4-7752
203 Henderson John W
211 Univ Roofing Co 9-7717
213 Reliable Home Equip Co Inc hse
furngs 2-4533
215 Sou Insulation Co 5-7572
225 Under Constn
229 Eakes Clns 5-9021
231 Godwin's Sinclair Serv Sta
9-2632
Lamond av intersects
301 Christian Missionary Alliance
Church 2-2657
303 Forsythe Geo G
305 Roberts John M jr 3-0725
307 Schofield Wilbur M 3-8161
309 Evans Ralpn L 3-6731
311 Council John L ®3-0722
Gloria av begins
401 Burke Cleveland H 4-8611
Burke Madeline E Mrs nurse
40 lj Currin Izonia M 5-0122
403 Moon Ernest C 4-8613
_.403|Woods Geneva E Mrs 4-8612
405 May Edwin J ©4-5675
407 Vacant
409 Markham Lula N Mrs ©2-3161
Crenshaw M Carlyle ©4-0883
411 Egerton Frank N ©4-8614
Minerva av intersects
505 Piggly-Wiggly Stores (br)gros
25WTrinityavintersects
600 Sherrill John F 5-2532
602 Hobgood Bailey W 5-4531
604 Crutchfield Jas C jr 5-5781
606 Roberts G Floyd 4-5242
608 Bissette Alton F 5-6373
610 Bissette J Collie ©5-0271
612-14 Apartments
1 Thatcher Clyde S Mrs 5-0845
2 Horry Helen S Mrs
3 Vacant
.4 Vacant
5 Ervines Sam 9-2376
6 Pfeifer Teresa D nurse 5-9173
Rusco Window Co.of Raleigh &Durham,N.C.
COMBINATION STORM SASH and DOORS
201 Glenwood Av.Phones Raleigh 3-5059 Durham 9-5877
172
Tires
Tubes
Vulcanizing
Recapping
PHONES
9-4378
and
3-0471
108 W.LAKEWOOD AV
cor SOUTH
mm
mm
8ra*l
:
LANE
PAINTING
&
PAPERING
CONTRACTOR
for
PAINTING
PAPERING
DECORATING
Free Estimates
Gladly Furnished
Phone
4-3118
112 Herbert St.
RIGSBEE TIRE SALES,
Westinghouse
INC.
HOME APPLIANCES
MORELAND-AV—Contd
1021 Vacant
1022 Cozart Augustus C ©7-7229
1023 Eubanks Wm 7-7220
1025 Johnson Alease M Mrs
Blanding Annie B Mrs
1026 Moore Nellie D Mrs
Gilliam Fred F 7-8520
1027 Jones Luvenia Mrs ®7-7106
1028a Lyde Jas 7-8528
1028b Bass Olivia Mrs 7-8526
1030 Cozart Willie 7-9624
1031 McQueen Frank 7-7108
Thomas Nathi T ©7-9622
1032 Freeland Albert 7-7100
1034 Dark John R
Taylor Eddie 7-9625
Halley intersects
1100 Joyner Peter J ®7-8158
1101 Joyner Peter jr 7-6472
1102 Perry Lawrence P ®
1103 Moore Lillie L Mrs ®
1104 Edwards John A ©7-9530
1105 Winston Louis F ®7-6473
1106 Blount Rholivia M Mrs ©7-6475
1107 Chavis Vera M Mrs 7-9526
1108 Burnette Margt ©7-9539
Burnette Beauty Shop
1109 Jamison Raymond 7-9983
Alston Lewis
1110 Rich John R ®7-9984
1111 Davis Robt A 7-9982
Grubbs H Lee
1112 White Ida Mrs ©
Gunter intersects
1200 Webb Alma C Mrs ©7-9636
Webb Chester jr fl sander
1205 McMillian Jas
Williams June
1206 Vacant
1212 Hayes Graham E
1213 Ray Geneva W Mrs
1214 Goldston Jas T
1215 McCallum Talmadge
.1216 Jacob Frank 7-9639
(Not open between 1215 and
High)W Lakewood av intersects
Bivins intersects
High intersects
(not open)
MORGAN-From 415 N Mangum
west and north to W Main
105 H&B Mtr Co (used car lot)
9-2421
109 Durham Radio &TV Serv
109|Am Vet of World War II 3-2375
111-13 Brady's Serv 3-7001 welding
114 Dunaway Inc prntrs 4-6 581
115 Rogers Sht Mtl &Htg Co 9-3621
116 Durham Mtr Finance Inc 2-2992
117 Seeman Printery (stge)
118 Johnson Otis A notary
Johnson O A Realtor 2-2451
Smith Typewriter Co reprs
9-5680
Vacant
Vacant
Sher Morris L clo
Vacant
120
125
126
126a
128 Valentine Sup Co farm sups 6651
Rigsbee av intersects
cor Griffith Super Serv fill sta
4-7852
201 US Sandwich Shop 3-8851
205 Taylor's Seafoods whol &retail
9-7341
207-09 Cash Furn Co 5-4941
211-13 Stone Bros &Byrd feed
2-1311
212 Griffith Finance Co auto loans
9-1913
Pleasant al begins
214 Griffith Automobiles of Durham
Inc 9-1913
215-17 Durham Cigar &Candy Co
3-2341
219-23-Piedmont Furn Co 3-1431
Holland ends
224 Electrolux Corp vacuum clns
9-1636-9-1592
226 Noland Co Inc plmb sups 4929
302 Sou Parts &Elec Inc whol 5159
304-06 State Emp Security Div
9-1996
State Employment Serv Div
308 State Emp Security Comm
(negro br)2-4513
312 Natl Cash Register Co 6-4461
314-16 May D C Co pntrs 6727
319-21 Montgomery &Aldridge gas
sta 6185
Roney intersects
400 Hastings Bus Lines Inc 5-4961
Camp Butner Bus Center
Armstrong Harvey D confr
408 Lee's Lndry
Lee Raymond 5-6353
416 Barnes J Ben Sign Shop 5-7542
418 Typewriter Sup Co 6-5543
Burroughs Corp adding mach
3-3301
422 Allen &Allen Dry Cln
424 Bill's Sandwich Shop restr
rear Costulias Wm
426 Otis Elev Co (br)9-1546
Morris intersects
swcor Miller-Hurst Inc (side ent)
503-05 Rolling Pin Bake Shop The
4-6031
507 Central Sea Food Mkt 9-6149
JS09 Morgan Street Lunch
510 Imperial Tob Co (parking lot)
518 Murdock Ice &Coal Co 9-5686
519 Colonial Linoleum &Tile Co Inc
contrs 5-6091
Great Jones ends
N&W Ry crosses
9
N Fuller intersects
N Duke intersects
800 Carr Julian S Junior Hi Sch
3-3481
815-17 Vacant
818 Mitchell Jesse C 4-7755
821-23 Stephenson-Wilson Inc autos
827 Holt Nettie V Mrs ©4-7753
Jones intersects
905 Zesto of Durham ice cream
6-4881
Watts intersectsWMainintersects
Rusco Window Co.of Raleigh &Durham,N.C.
201 Glenwood Av.
COMBINATION STORM SASH and DOORS
Phones Raleigh 3-5059 Durham 9-5877
HILL'S
DURHAM
(Durham County,N.C.)
CITY DIRECTORY
1960
Including Hope Valley,Joyland and Sherron Acres
Containing an Alphabetical Directory of Business Concerns and Private
Citizens,a Directory of Householders,Occupants of Office
Buildings and Other Business Places,Including a
Complete Street and Avenue Guide,a Numeri-
cal Telephone Directory and Much Informa-
tion of a Miscellaneous Character;
also the
YELLOW PAGES
With a Special ADVERTISING SECTION
and a Complete CLASSIFIED LIST
FOR CONTENTS SEE INTRODUCTION AND
GENERAL INDEX
PRICE $45,00
Hill Directory Co.,Inc.,Publishers
2910 W.Clay St.,P.O.Box 767,Richmond 6,Va.
DIRECTORY LIBRARY FOR FREE USE OF PUBLIC AT DURHAM
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,WASHINGTON DUKE HOTEL,124-126 N MARKET
Member Association of North American Directory Publishers
Copyright,1959,by Hill Directory Co,,Inc.
t
i
i\l
"
m jP
ID o
It
5
^.
M.E.MURDAUGH
Manager &
Owner
•"siSs^**H
ELECTRIC
STANDARD
PORTABLE
Sales
and
Service
Rentals
418 and 422
MORGAN ST.
Phone
6-5543
(SEE YELLOWPAGE195)
Consult
the
CLASSIFIED
LISTS
of the
DIRECTORY
If You
Would Fiud
What You
Wish to
Buy
J
120
EARL J.
LATTA
GREENBRIAR RD—Contd
1639 Matthews Leslie A ®5-2951
GREENLEAF-From Tate north to
E Markham av,1 west of Avondale
dr
1602 White Fred P jr 2-4059
1603 Williams Jack E ®
1604 Francis Earl R ©2-6808
1605 Schlegel Harlan C 2-6311
16 08 Brown Geo H ®2-7662
1609 Nash Malbourne K ®2-4325
36
GREENWOOD DR-From Elgin west 1
blk
41
304
306
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
317
1786BrownCommodoreJ©2
Walters Wm G ®2-1789
Bullock Lonnie B ©9-3311
Scott Jas W jr ®2-3779
Tucker Kath S Mrs 2-1623
Buba Felix E ®2-4204
McDonald Hubert F ®9-4318
Tucker Chas W 4-8712
Thomas Harold H 2-7290
Wilson Chas M 4-8713
Bisplinghoff Wm R 4-8714
GREGSON N-From W Main north bey
Leon
108 Univ Mtrs Inc (stge)
109-11 Mayola's Chili Hse restr
9-2256
113 Chesterfield Billiards 3-6371
121 Brunson's appliances 5125
Morgan intersects
201 Childress Charlie G 4-7752
203 Henderson John W
211 Vacant
21lls&W Tailors 2-6834
213 Bright's T V &Radio Serv
reprs 2-8545
215 Daves Ofc Mach Serv reprs
2-6984
219 Theatre Arts Building
Doherty Suzanne W Sch of Dance
4-6802
229 Eakes Clns 5-9021
231 Stephenson's Serv Center gas
sta 9-2632
Lamond av intersects
301 Christian Missionary Alliance
Ch 2-2657
303 Forsythe Geo G 6-3861
305 Vacant
3 07 DeBruyne Anton L 2-2650
308 Evans Ralph L 3-6731
311 Schofield Wilbur M 3-8161
Gloria av begins
401 Burke Madeline F Mrs 4-8611
40llCurrin Izonia M 5-0122
403 Moon Ernest C
4 03 j Rhodes Floyd G 2-2270
405 May Edwin J ®4-5765
407 McArthur Glenn T ®lwyr
5-2041
409 Markham Lula N Mrs ®2-3161
GRADING
LAND CLEARING
FISH PONDS
TEL.5-9269
(See Yellow Page 70)
409iPhipps David L 4-8614
411 Home G Ray 9-4686
Minerva av intersects
505 Edens Inc gros and drugs
2-6543
25
600
602
6 04
6 06
608
610
612'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
705
806
W Trinity av intersects
Doherty Suzanne W Mrs 2-7095
Hobgood Bailey W 5-4531
Roy Donald F 9-3321
Roberts G Floyd 4-5242
Blssette Alton F 2-3569
Bissette Annie F Mrs ®5-0271
•14 Apartments
Frayser K Regina 5-0844
Paine Steph C
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Kirshner Norman 4-8223
Vacant
Simkins Thos M jr 9-2276
Monmouth av intersects
Blackley Helen M Mrs 2-3072
Dacian av intersects
Bickett The
Apartments:
1 Sherrill Madeline H Mrs 4-4034
2 O'Brien Wm J 3-8741
3 Campbell Mabel S Mrs
4 Reeves Robt L 6-4592
5 Ellis M Frances 5-5451
6 Bevill Patricia M 4-3921
7 Tweedy Patricia A Mrs 2-4688
8 Pearce Bessie P Mrs 4-4031
9 Hamilton Kath E 4-4033
10 Buckingham Eliz M Mrs 2-1047
11 Vacant
12 Thomason Callie M Mrs 4-3925
Street continued
808 Rogers Ralph W 4-8221
Urban intersects
904 Peace Ila C Mrs 8-2121
905 Stone Elma S Mrs ®8-7311
906 Green Harold W 8-2123
907 Holler Walker W 8-9071
909 Hays Robt S ®8-6866
910 Huggins Marion D ®8-2133
911 Bishop Jesse ®8-1981
27
1003
1007
1008
1010
1012
1013
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
W Markham av intersects
Berry Edw W ©8-2152
Pritchard F Whitaker ®8-1619
Cooper Walter G ®8-1992
Walker Hugo ©8-2155
Granville Ruth R Mrs ©8-3305
Carrington J Thos 8-1874
Martin Carlos C ©8-3181
Green intersects
Hamlin Wm T ©8-1143
Wilkins Lyman L ©8-9628
Bohus Emil R ®8-1600
Rosser G Hearst ©8-1158
Carolina Securities Corp 8-1194
Wooten Annie S ©8-3168
Andrews T Vernon ©
Lyon Herman T ©8-5711
Stanley Wm E ©8-1188
Smith Grover jr 8-5715
Uzzle Motor Co.,Inc.
AIITUnD17Cn Cftl CO —J ornwinr »
611 Foster St.
AUTHORIZED SALES and SERVICE
CADILLAC —0LDSM0BILE —WILLYS
(See Yellow Page 22)Phone 5191
196
.1 N
|«
V-m
t
lit
H
1%H
k c;
I
a.
CM ^
CM 4)
Cd •a.z si—™
•a->>
8 Dial (SeeoC3CO
J jifh.
fig
G)—
^3s
si JHll ^
3 flfl uz
S3
It3
^3 fer
CO 5oz13C"to
^3 LU
CO"*CO
CO
CNICO
PUBLIC
HARDWARE
McQuade
and
Sapolin
Paint
Varnish
Enamel
Builders'
Hardware
Tools for
Farmer
Gardener
Carpenter
Mechanic
Cooking Utensils
Sporting
Goods
Roofing and
Shingles
111 E.
PARRISH ST.
Tel.9-1937
GE APPLIANCES B.F.GOODRICH TIRES
THE TIRE &APPLIANCE CENTER INC.
RECAPPING -RETREADING -TELEVISIONS -HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES
601 Foster St.,Tel.[phone] Wellons Village,Tel.9-7170
See Yellow Pages 10 and 192
MORGAN—Contd
823 Stephenson-Wilson Inc auto dlrs
6188-4-2861
827 Holt Nettie V Mrs ©4-7753
Albemarle intersects
Watts intersectsWMainintersects
MORNING (Joyland)-From 2716 Ro-
c helie north
111 McGhee Jas R ®3-7356
42
12MORNINGGLORYAV-From 901 E
Main north and southeast
908 Rasberry Reuben 4-3531
912 Warren B Lorena ©9-1635
914 Vacant
Belt begins
1003 Williams Major D ®9-8135
1004 Church of God
1005 Mize John K ©9-1735
1007 Lorbacher Edgar L
1008 Lane Herman
1009 Parrish Maggie D Mrs ©2-2505
1011 Hancock Ralph C 3-4233
N Elm intersects
1101 Hoggard Marshall C ©9-2332
1103 Adams Jos M 9-7662
1105 Bunn Herman O 9-2132
1106 Vickers Chas F ©3-4231
1107 Lucas Arth E 9-2232
1108 Harvey's Sandwich Co
1113 Clark Wm J 6-0541
N Alston av intersects
1203 Eatman S Lonnie ©9-6177
1204 Moore Frances L Mrs 9-1445
Moore Jas
1205 Honeycutt Julius C 9-2235
1207 Moore Fred H jr ©9-2435
1209 Barbour Robt H ©
1211 Hancock Jerry R
1212 Ennis Jos C 9-2335
N Holman intersects
1301 Housing Authority of the City of
Durham 6-2631-2-4171
1302 Inscoe John W 9-6627
1306 Lowery Odell B Mrs ©3-2531
1308 McDonald Oscar M 3-2534
N Blacknall ends
1406 Hatfield Carrie M Mrs
1408 Blackmon Lewis M ©
1410 Ward Leo 4-2332
1412 Lewis Wm U Gro 4-2334
1502 Coe Luena W Mrs 4-2G42
Webster Hildred
1504 Sykes Inez W Mrs ©4-2045
1506 Cates Walter F
1508 Hobgood Joel W 9-4470
1510 Fitch J Frank ®
1512 Andrews Mary C Mrs ©
1516 Parker Deveraux T ©2-6836
1518 Goss Saml H
1520 Cash Buck 9-4270
39MORREENERD—From Erwin rd north-
west to city limits
602 Gibson Alf W 8-7775
Buchanan Jack
608 Smith H Bruce 8-9954
623 Pierce OUen O ©8-7774
624 Vacant
629 Bunting Glenn W ©8-7770
634 House Marshall F jr 8-3357
636 Oakley Dewey B ©8-3348
639 Batts Ralph ©8-2114
702 Whitfield Noble M ©8-2855
703 Pearce Geo L,8-7773
706 Shamel Frantz G 8-3361
707 Whitfield Marvin G ©8-2115
709 Shamel Marvin D 8-2110
710 Forbush Essie W Mrs ©8-2118
712 Atkins John W ®8-4222
715 McCauley Jesse B ©8-3359
716 Jennings Wm R 8-3390
721 Blalock BY®8-4220
724 Bridgers Dora M Mrs ©8-3356
732 Hamm Gene ©ofc 8-2886
811 Waddell John B ©8-3552
816 Fisch Ben R 8-1734
818 Smith Wm A ©8-3553
820 Bullock Gerald R ©8-6473
823 Hall Walter W ©8-3824
825 Turnage's Barbeque restr 8-3117
827 Mays Gilbert C ©8-3822
828 SherriU Jas V ®8-3258
831 Whitfield Jas O 8-3214
833 Johnson Chas B ®8-3123
835 Boyd Lorna H ®8-1069
836 Wright D M Bldrs Inc contrs
8-3140
841 Mills R Waldo ®8-1453
843 Atkins Edw G ®8-1441
924 Vacant
943 Ledbetter Richd B 8-6779
943£Garrison Jos M jr 8-9908
947 Cable Leonard B ®8-6777
948 Penny John C jr ©8-9906
949 Cable Jas E ©8-6771
952 Phillips Robt E ®8-9905
955 Cable Harry L ®8-6774
1007 Green John B ©8-9902
1023 Ideal Flower Shop 8-2521
1025 Tharrington Craven P 8-2521
5MORRIS—From 400 W Main north to
Washington
101^Durham Beauty Academy Inc
5-4051
104 E-Z Loans Inc 6-5144
104|Wright BuildingRooms:
1 Rosenstein Nathan Lodge No 1249
(B'nai B'rith)
2 Vacant
5 Vacant
Street continued
106 Broadway's Mkt gros 5-2131
108 Wright W B Realty Co Inc 3-0601
IO85 Byrd Thos S watch repr
111-13 Salvation Army The (citadel)
3-5261
Red Shield Boys Club (ofc)
Manning pi ends
120-24 City Hall
bsmt City Police Dept (assembly rm)
City Signal &Parking Meter Shop
3-2411
"Let Mutuals Save You Money"
BARNHART INSURANCE AGENCY
415
FIRE —AUTOMOBILE —GENERAL LIABILITY —HOSPITALIZATION
Durham's Oldest Mutual Insurance Agency
416 Wachovia Bank Bldg.
128 W.Main St.(See Yellow Page 127)Phone 24940
Hill's
DURHAM
(DURHAM COUNTY,N.C.)
CITY DIRECTORY
1963
Including Hope Valley,Joyland
and Sherron Acres
CONTAINS:
*Buyers'Guide and
a complete classified
business directory
*Alphabetical directory
ot business concerns and
private citizens
*Complete street and
avenue guide,including
householders,and
occupants of office
buildings and other
business places
*Numerical telephone
directory
PLUS
Useful and interesting
information about the
city
PRICE $50.00
HILL DIRECTORY COMPANY
:f»-lt:b li s ke:r<s
2910 w.clay st.•p.o.box 6874
RICHMOND 30,VA.
Member Association of North American Directory Publishers
Copyright,1963,by Hill Directory Company
i\
T.E.
ALLEN
&
SONS
MUTUAL
INSURANCE
AGENCY
Dividend Paying
Fiteand Casualty
Insurance—•
—
Insuring
The Better
Risks at a
Lower Net Cost
Rooms
509-10
WACHOVIA
BANK BLDG.
128 W.MAIN ST.
Phone
684-0439
(See Page 128
Buyers 'Guide)
Who
Sells
It?
Is
Answered
by the
ou
y
CO
Business
Lists
in this
Directory
MUTUAL SAVINGS and LOAN ASSOCIATION
"SikabLUhzd iQ2i'
INSURED SAVINGS (SEE PAGE 173 BUYERS'
1 1 2 WEST PARRISH ST.
GUIDE)HOME LOANS
PHONE [phone]
132
GREENWOOD DR-Contd
306 Vacant
308 Bullock Lonnie B ®681-3311
309 Harrell Eunice F Mrs ®684-9414
310 Vacant
311 Buba Felix E ©682-4204
312 McDonald Hubert F ©681-4318
McDonald's Whol novelties
681-4318
313 No Return
314 Stevens Bobby D ®682-4887
315 Haworth Chester C 684-8714
317 Bisplinghoff Wm R 682-8454
GREGSON NORTH-From W Main north
bey Leon
108 Univ Mtrs Inc (stge)
109-11 Mayola's Chili Hse restr
681-2256
113 Chesterfield Billiards 383-6371
121 Vacant
Morgan Intersects
201 Meade Aubrey V 684-7751
203 Newcombe Vaden 684-7752
209 Vacant
211 S &W Tailors 682-6834
213 Vacant
215 Dictaphone Corp The 383-3841
219 Vacant
229 Eakes Clns 688-9021
231 Stephenson's Serv Center gas sta
681-2632
Lamond av intersects
301 Christian Missionary Alliance
Church 682-2657
303 Forsythe Geo G 681-7927
305 Council Clara I ©688-7842
307 Lawson Thos J 681-7161
309 Minnotte James O 688-4932
311 Schofield Wilbur M 383-8161
Gloria av begins
401 Ripley Alf W 684-8611
40ll Currin Izonia M 688-0122
403 Gaulden James C 682-2631
403|Vacant
405 May Edwin J ©684-5765
407 McArthur Glenn T ©lwyr
688-2041
409 Markham Lula N Mrs ©682-3161
409j Vacant
411 Lewis John B 681-6906
Minerva av intersects
505 Vacant
4 Markman Sidney D 688-0845
5 Cash Gaynelle F 684-8224
6 Vacant
7 Vacant
8 Simkins Thos M jr 681-2276
Monmouth av intersects
705 Blackley Helen M Mrs 682-3072
Dacian av intersects
806 Bickett The
Apartments:
1 Sherrill Madeline H Mrs
684-4030
2 Woods Cora C Mrs 383-8745
3 Campbell Mabel S Mrs
4 Reeves Robt L 681-3006
5 Powell Rosa T Mrs 684-4032
6 Fulbright Lessie F Mrs 682-7813
7 Tweedy Patricia A Mrs 682-4619
8 Garney Edna R Mrs 682-5344
9 Hamilton Kath E 684-4033
10 Buckingham Eliz M Mrs
682-1047
1
1
Vacant
12 Vacant
Street continued
808 Rogers Ralph W 684-8221
Urban intersects
904 Peace Ha C Mrs 286-2121
905 Stone Elma S Mrs ®286-7311
906 Goldston Wm 286-1677
907 Lewis J Wesley 286-3071
909 Hays Robt S ®286-6866
910 Huggins Marion D ©286-2133
911 Bishop Jesse ©286-1981
25
Q
c*O
CD
W Trinity av intersects
600 Coppridge Ferrie C Mrs ®
688-5651
602 Hobgood Bailey W 688-4531
604 Roy Donald F 681-3321
606 Hart Leonard M 681-5656
608 Bissette Alton F 682-3569
610 Bissette Annie F Mrs ©688-0271
612-14 Apartments
1 Dobler Rebecca P Mrs 681-2476
2 Lore Jos C 688-0843
3 Sigler Steven R 688-0844
27
W Markham av intersects
1003 Berry E Willard ©286-2152
1007 Pritchard F Whitaker ©286-1619
1008 Smith Grover C ®286-1992
1010 Walker Cora G Mrs ©286-2155
1012 Granville Ruth R Mrs ©
286-9305
Ruth's Beauty Shop 286-9305
1013 Martin Carlos C ©286-9181
Green intersects
1102 Hamlin Wm T ©286-1143
1103 Bohus Emil R ©386-1600
1104 Rosser G Hearst ©286-1158
Carolina Securities Corp
286-1194 &682-8282
1105 Wootten Annie S 286-9168
1106 Andrews T Vernon ©286-1197
1107 Lyon Herman T ©286-5711
1108 Stanley Wm E ©286-1188
1109 Masterson Bruce I 286-9185
Schmitz Geo F 286-4339
Schmitz Eileen P Mrs nurse
1110 Holleman Robt D ®286-2400
1111 Newson Henry W ©286-1148
1112 Young Wilbert H ©286-0 62 6
Demerius intersects
1201 Gary Joseph N jr ©286-9671
1202 Marshall Bessie H Mrs ©
286-1748
1203 Bynum Francis B ®286-4158
Janiteer Serv bldg mtce 286-4158
1204 King Harry R ®286-1989
PASCHALL BROTHERS INC.
PLUMBING and HEATING CONTRACTORS
AMERICAN-STANDARD,ELJER,KOHLER,NATIONAL-CRANE
326 W.GEER ST.siaWi**),„1912 Tel.[phone]
(SEE PAGE 153 BUYERS'GUIDE)
u-c
a...
kfii
r"
k;
c*.mk
a.
c
fe
f.;
BLACK
TREE
EXPERTS,
INC.
Tree Surgery
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMPLETE TREE
SERVICE AND
SPRAYING
FULLY INSURED
3 Brown Bldg
281 4V4
Roxboro Rd.
P.O.Box 8067
TELEPHONES
OFC
681 5468
SHOP
684-0193
N
A
T
E
MILK
ICE CREAM
(See Page 82
Buyers'Guide)
BARTON ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO.,INC.
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
1916 PERRY ST.(See Page 92 Buyers'Guide)PHONE [phone]
218
MORGAN-Contd
N Fuller intersects
N Duke intersects
800 Carr Junior Hi Sch 383-3481
820 Publix Oil Co gas sta 682-3014
893 Stephenson-Wilson Inc auto dlrs
286-1834 and 684-0416
827 Vacant
840 Vacant
Albemarle intersects
Watts intersects
W Main intersects
Vacant
MORNING (Joyland)-From 2716
Rochelle north
111 McGhee Jas R ®596-6471
42
12
MORNING GLORY AVENUE-From 901
E Main north and southeast
908 James Marvin 684-3532
912 Warren B Lorena ®681-8635
914 Vacant
Belt begins
1003 Williams Major D ®681-8835
1004 Vacant
1005 Hight Cooper ®681-8735
1007 Lorbacher Edgar L
1008 Marks James E 681-7562
1009 Parrish Maggie D Mrs ®682-2505
1011 Hancock Ralph C 383-4233
N Elm intersects
1101 Hoggard Lucille E Mrs ©
681-2332
1103 Adams Jos M 681-7662
1105 Vacant
1106 Vickers Chas F ©383-4231
1107 Vacant
1108 Harvey's Sandwich Co 684-3221
N Alston av intersects
1203 Eatman S Lonnie ®681-6177
1204 Moore Frances L Mrs 681-8445
Moore Jas 681-8345
1205 Rigsby Hilda Mrs
1207 Smith Ernest S 681-6253
1209 Ferrell Wm H 681-6477
1211 Klapp Burlena H Mrs
1212 Ennis Jos C 681-4370
N Holman intersects
1301 Few Gardens
Housing Authority of the City of
Durham NC 681-7104
1302 Inscoe John W 681-6627
1306 Clark H B
1308 McDonald Oscar M 383-2534
N Blacknall ends
1406 Hatfield Carrie M Mrs 684-2042
1408 Blackmon Lewis M ©684-2043
1410 Lunsford Evelyn L Mrs 383-5105
1502 Webster Hildred A 682-2607
1504 Jones Cornelia E 684-2045
1506-06?Vacant
1508 Hobgood Joel W 681-4470
1510 Fitch J Frank ©383-1361
1512 Andrews Mary C Mrs ©684-1223
1516 Parker Deveraux T ©596-5093
1518 Goss Saml H
1520 Cash Buck 681-4270
39
MORREENE ROAD-From Erwin rd
northwest
602 Gibson Alf W
Champion Barney
604 Turnage's Barbecue 286-9117
606 Smith Roy L 286-3954
608 Robbins Danl M jr 286-3952
623 Pierce Ollen O©286-7774
624 Riley Albert ©
626 Browning Nancy E Mrs
629 Bunting Glenn W ©286-7770
634 House Marshall F jr 286-9357
636 Oakley Dewey B ©286-9348
639 Batts Ralph ©286-2114
702 Whitfield Noble E ©286-2855
703 Pearce Geo L 286-7773
706 Sharpe Vance H ©286-4565
707 Whitfield Marvin G ©286-2115
709 Jones Winfred S 286-2168
710 Forbush Essie W Mrs ©286-2118
712 Atkins John W ®286-5622
713 Noblitt Bobby R ©
715 McCauley Jesse B ®286-9359
716 Rice Robt C 286-4854
Salter Thos A 286-4819
Koontz Ronald A 286-9351
720 May Chas B jr
721 Blalock BY®286-5620
728 Coulter Eufola W ©286-7957
732 Hamm Gene ©286-2886
806 Cress Robt H ©286-4017
811 Waddell John B ©286-9552
816 Brintle Jos H ©286-1579
818 Smith Wm A ©286-9553
820 Bullock Gerald R ©286-6473
821 Atkinson Saml M ©286-9825
823 Hall Walter W ®286-9824
824 Cushman Audrey J Mrs 286-1980
827 Mays Gilbert C ®286-9822
828 Morgan Walter E ©286-4226
829 Dalton John B ©286-9823
831 Whitfield Jas O 286-9124
Thompson Maudlene B ©286-3904
833 Hutter Frank E
835 Boyd Loma H ©286-1069
836 Wright D M Bldrs Inc 286-9140
Wright D M Rlty &Investment Co
Inc 286-9140
841 Mills R Waldo ©286-1453
843 Atkins Edw G ©286-1441
909^Kerr Marilyn 286-2325
922(948)Penny John C jr ©286-3906
927(947)Cable Leonard B ®286-2011
929(949)Cable Jas E ©286-6771
932(952)Phillips Robt E ©286-3905
943(955)Cable Harry L ©286-6774
Hughes Clifford G 286-1762
1037(1007)Green John B ©286-3902
1133(1027)Ideal Flower Shop 286-2521
1137(1025)Tharrington Craven T ©
286-2521
DURHAM INSURANCE SERVICE CO.
INSURANCE -REAL ESTATE -PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
215 RIGSBEE AVE.215 RIG (See Page 122 Buyers'Guide)PHONE [phone]
REFERENCE 8
REFERENCE 9
2725 East Millbrook Road
Suite 121
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.atcgroupservices.com
N.C. Engineering License No. C-1598

July 18, 2019

Mr. Billy Meyer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646

Re: Source Investigation Report
Eakes Cleaners
827 West Morgan Street
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
DSCA Site Identification No. DC320004

Dear Mr. Meyer:

ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) is pleased to submit this letter report
summarizing a chlorinated solvent release source investigation conducted at the above
referenced site. ATC, under contract to the North Carolina Dry-cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act
(DSCA) Program, conducted soil and groundwater assessment activities to evaluate whether
chlorinated solvent constituents are present on the subject property. This report describes
background information and the results of soil, groundwater, and sub-slab gas sampling
activities.

The subject property is currently owned by Robert & Cates Properties LLC and is occupied by
Shooters II Saloon (private night club). According to Durham County tax records the building
was constructed in 1967. The site is located in downtown Durham and is in close proximity to
four other former dry-cleaners: Johnson Prevost (DSCA Site #DC320033), One Hour Koretizing
(DSCA Site #DC320029), Durham Dry Cleaners (DSCA #DC320026) and Scott and Roberts
(DSCA Site #DC320025). Releases have been confirmed at the former Durham Dry Cleaners
and the former One Hour Koretizing facilities. Assessment at Durham Dry Cleaners and One
Hour Koretizing began under the DSCA Program in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and are
currently ongoing. No evidence of dry-cleaning solvent releases were found at the Scott and
Roberts and Johnson Prevost facilities. Activities completed by ATC at Eakes Cleaners occurred
inside the back of the building and the parking lot. The site map is presented in Figure 1.

Source Investigation Report July 18, 2019
Eakes Cleaners – DC320004 ATC Project No. DC320004

2

1.0 Background Information

On October 14, 1996, Front Royal Environmental Services, Inc. (Front Royal) completed a
Limited Soil and Groundwater Investigation report for the property of Eakes Cleaners at 827
West Morgan Street, Durham, North Carolina. During the investigation, soil and groundwater
samples were collected from six soil borings and three temporary wells for analysis of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Laboratory analytical results from the soil borings indicated
concentrations of trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), vinyl chloride (VC), trichloroethylene
(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and toluene were detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
Laboratory analytical results from the groundwater samples indicated concentrations of trans-
1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and VC above the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) Title 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards (2L Standards). Benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, and naphthalene were also detected in the groundwater above
the laboratory reporting limit. The report did not provide a determination on groundwater flow
direction; however, based upon the One Hour Koretizing site (DC320029) to the west
groundwater is expected to flow east-northeast.

2.0 June 2019 Sampling Event

On June 6, 2019, ATC mobilized to the site to collect sub-slab gas, soil, and groundwater samples
to determine if a chlorinated solvent release has occurred at the subject property. Approximate
sub-slab, soil, and groundwater sample locations are shown on the attached Figure 1. The boring
locations were selected based on the facility’s building layout and previously collected sample
locations. Prior to beginning the interior sampling activities, vapor pins SS-1, SS-2, and SS-3
were installed and screened with a photoionization detector (PID) to determine the sampling
locations (two of the three with the highest PID readings). SS-1 and SS-2 had higher PID
readings; therefore, these locations were selected for sub-slab gas sampling. Following sub-slab
gas collection, points SS-1 and SS-2 were over drilled for soil and groundwater collection.

2.1 Soil Sampling Event

2.1.1 Soil Sampling Protocol

Soil borings HA-1 and HA-2 were located in the back room of the building and correspond to
the SS-1 and SS-2 sub-slab points. Soil boring HA-4 was located to the west of the building in
the parking lot near a former heating oil underground storage tank, as documented in the October
1996 Limited Soil and Groundwater Investigation report. The October 1996 report also indicated
the water table is less than five feet below ground surface (bgs). Due to the shallow nature of
groundwater at this site and limited space inside the building, each soil boring was advanced
with a hand auger to a depth of approximately 9 feet bgs. Soil boring logs are provided as
Attachment A. Photographs documenting the sampling event are included in Attachment B.
ATC attempted to collect soil samples from the soil borings at one-foot increments where each
increment was screened with a PID. Along with the first interval (0 to 1 feet bgs), the screened
increment with the highest PID reading above the water table was also collected from each
Source Investigation Report July 18, 2019
Eakes Cleaners – DC320004 ATC Project No. DC320004

3

boring. Soil from 0 to 1 feet bgs and 3 to 4 feet bgs in each soil boring (HA-1, HA-2, and HA-
4) was collected. It should be noted that based on field observations in the soil column and
observed water table depth that these samples are not likely impacted by groundwater
contamination associated with the rise and fall of the water table. Samples were collected in
laboratory-provided containers and shipped under chain-of-custody protocol to Pace Analytical
Laboratory (Pace) in Mount Juliet, Tennessee for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260.

2.1.2 Soil Laboratory Analytical Results

The results of the laboratory analyses for soil sample HA-1 (3 to 4 feet bgs) indicated cis-1,2-
DCE, PCE, TCE, VC, and naphthalene above the NCDEQ Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
(PSRGs). Soil sample HA-2 (0 to 1 feet bgs) indicated PCE and TCE above the PSRGs. Soil
samples HA-2 (3 to 4 feet bgs) and HA-4 (3 to 4 feet bgs) indicated PCE above the PSRGs. A
summary of the laboratory analytical results is provided in the attached Table 1 and depicted in
Figure 2. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as Attachment C.

2.2 Groundwater Sampling Event

2.2.1 Groundwater Sampling Protocol

Three temporary monitoring wells (TMW-1, TMW-2, and TMW-4) were installed
corresponding to the HA-1, HA-2, and HA-4 soil boring locations. ATC installed a temporary
well screen in each soil boring following soil sample collection. TMW-1 and TMW-2 were
installed to 9 feet bgs and TMW-4 was installed to 9.5 feet bgs, each utilizing a 10-foot section
of screen. A grab groundwater sample was then collected using a peristaltic pump. Samples were
collected in laboratory-provided containers and shipped under chain-of-custody protocol to Pace
for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260. Following sample collection, the borings were
abandoned with bentonite grout and the surface was restored to match original conditions.
Photographs documenting the sampling event are included in Attachment B.

2.2.2 Groundwater Laboratory Analytical Results

Results of the laboratory analyses for the groundwater sample collected from TMW-1 indicated
cis- and trans-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, VC, naphthalene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and n-propylbenzene
detections in exceedance of the 2L Standards. TMW-2 results indicated cis- and trans-1,2-DCE,
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), naphthalene, and VC exceedances of the 2L Standards. TMW-
3 results also indicated MTBE, naphthalene, n-butylbenzene, and sec-butylbenzene exceedances
of the 2L Standards. A summary of the laboratory analytical results is provided in the attached
Table 2 and depicted in Figure 3. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as
Attachment C.

Source Investigation Report July 18, 2019
Eakes Cleaners – DC320004 ATC Project No. DC320004

4

2.3 Sub-Slab Gas Sampling Event

2.3.1 Sub-Slab Sampling Protocol

Three sub-slab vapor pins (SS-1, SS-2, and SS-3) were installed in the back of the building near
the southern extent of the property boundary. Vapor Pins® were installed to facilitate the sub-
slab gas sampling. To install the Vapor Pins®, a hammer drill was used to drill a 5/8-inch hole
through the slab and about an inch into the soil below the slab. A brass Vapor Pins® with silicone
sleeve was then hammered into the hole.

Sampling of sub-slab gas points SS-1 and SS-2 was conducted approximately two hours
following installation to allow for equilibration of subsurface conditions prior to sampling. A
shut-in test was conducted on the sampling process lines to ensure an airtight connection by
applying vacuum pressure to the lines and observing for vacuum pressure loss. A leak test was
also performed using lab-grade helium gas as a tracer during sampling activities to document
any atmospheric short-circuiting along the sampling train. A temporary shroud was placed over
the sampling point, then helium gas was then injected into the shroud. A field helium meter was
used to periodically measure helium concentrations within the shroud throughout the sampling
process. A three-way valve and a 60-milliliter (mL) syringe were then connected to the sampling
point tubing and used to purge approximately three volumes from the sampling point. Following
purging, the three-way valve and syringe were used to collect a gas sample in a Tedlar® bag.
Purging and sampling were conducted at a maximum flow rate of 200 mL/minute. A field helium
meter was used to measure the concentration of helium gas in the sample. The helium
concentrations in the shroud versus the sample were then compared to evaluate for the presence
of leaks. The results of the tracer gas testing indicated no significant leaks (<10%) in the samples.
Upon completion of leak testing, samples were collected in stainless steel Summa canisters.
Following sampling, the Vapor Pins® were removed and the borings were abandoned.

Sub-slab samples SS-1 and SS-2 were packaged and shipped to H & P Mobile Geochemistry,
Inc. in Carlsbad, California for analysis of PCE, TCE, trans- and cis-1,2-DCE, VC, benzene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, and 1,1-dichloroethane.
The specific compound list was determined by the results of the soil and groundwater sampling.

2.3.2 Sub-Slab Laboratory Analytical Report

The results of the laboratory analyses for the sub-slab samples indicated concentrations of cis-
1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, and VC in both SS-1 and SS-2 above the laboratory reporting limit. SS-2
was also found to have concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene above the laboratory reporting limit. A
summary of the laboratory analytical results is provided in the attached Table 3 and depicted in
Figure 4. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as Attachment C.

Source Investigation Report July 18, 2019
Eakes Cleaners – DC320004 ATC Project No. DC320004

5

ATC performed cumulative risk calculations for each sample using the NC DEQ Risk Calculator
(May 2019) which are documented in Appendix D. The results of the cumulative noncancer risk
calculations indicated hazard indexes of 0.089 and 3.5 for a non-residential worker based on
concentrations observed in sub-slab samples SS-1 and SS-2, respectively. The calculated
carcinogenic risk for a non-residential worker indicated a lifetime cancer risk of 1.8x10-6 and
1.1x10-5 for sub-slab samples SS-1 and SS-2, respectively. A hazard index that is greater than 1
or a carcinogenic risk greater than 1x10-4 is considered unacceptable. Based on the observed sub-
slab gas concentrations at SS-2 the calculated indoor air concentration of TCE is 29 µg/m3 with
an associated hazard quotient (HQ) of 3.0. Indoor air concentrations are calculated by applying
a generic (slab) attenuation (or alpha factor) of 0.1 to observed sub-slab concentrations. TCE is
considered an acute toxin that may result in a permanent adverse effect to fetal cardiac
development. Division of Waste Management (DWM) recognizes women of child-bearing age
as “sensitive” receptors when there is a potential for inhalation of TCE from vapor intrusion due
to the adverse effect on a fetus during gestation. DWM’s TCE short-term exposure (8-hours) and
immediate action level for women of child-bearing age, in a non-residential worker exposure
setting, is 8.8 µg/m3. The calculated indoor air concentration exceeds this short-term exposure
level.

3.0 Conclusions/Recommendations

Based on the results of this assessment, ATC concludes that a release of chlorinated solvents
occurred at Eakes Cleaners. The primary basis for this conclusion is the former use of the
building as a dry-cleaner and the detection of chlorinated solvents in the shallow soil samples on
the property. Groundwater data also corroborates this conclusion since no chlorinated solvents
were detected in the upgradient sample (TMW-4) (located outside the building footprint) but
were detected beneath the building footprint (TMW-1). Based on the sub-slab gas concentrations
and the evaluation using the NCDEQ Risk Calculator, it is recommended that further indoor
sampling be performed to determine whether TCE concentrations exceed DWM’s short-term
exposure levels.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office at
[phone].

Sincerely,
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.

Jeremy J. Robbins, P.G. Meghan E. Greiner, P.E.
Staff Geologist Program Manager

Source Investigation Report July 18, 2019
Eakes Cleaners – DC320004 ATC Project No. DC320004

6

Tables
Table 1 – Analytical Data for Soil
Table 2 – Analytical Data for Groundwater
Table 3 – Analytical Data for Sub-Slab Gas

Figures
Figure 1 – Site Map
Figure 2 – Soil Analytical Map
Figure 3 – Groundwater Analytical Map
Figure 4 – Sub-Slab Gas Analytical Map

Attachments
Attachment A – Soil Boring Logs
Attachment B – Photographs
Attachment C – Laboratory Analytical Report
Attachment D – NCDEQ Risk Calculators

TABLES
Table 1: Analytical Data for Soil
DSCA ID No.: DC320004
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)NaphthaleneTetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)2-Butanone (MEK)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene0-1 06/06/19 0.00343 0.0317 0.00595J <0.00281 0.0236J <0.00701 0.0263 0.00894J <0.00281 <0.00701 0.0150J 0.0664J 0.00646J 0.00591J <0.0140 <0.0140 <0.0140
3-4 06/06/19 0.00207J 9.34 0.127 <0.00264 1.21 13.6 0.027 0.0977 1.47 0.476 0.36 0.0824 2.01 1.05 0.55 0.0529 0.0143
0-1 06/06/19 0.0319 0.0509 0.0917 <0.00296 0.176 0.105 0.126 0.0131J 0.0941 <0.00740 0.153 0.116 0.117 0.0824 0.0581 0.00773J <0.0148
3-4 06/06/19 0.00283J <0.00752 0.375 <0.00301 2.15 <0.00752 0.00541J <0.0150 0.00263J <0.00752 0.723 0.0996 3.34 1.61 0.22 <0.0150 <0.0150
0-1 06/06/19 0.0215 0.0195 0.00823 <0.00276 0.214 <0.00690 0.00884J <0.0138 0.00520 <0.00690 0.0162J 0.0721 0.0347 0.0181 0.00587J <0.0138 <0.0138
3-4 06/06/19 <0.00600 <0.00621 0.0964 0.00246J 0.839 <0.00621 <0.0124 <0.0124 <0.00248 <0.00621 <0.0161 0.129 0.0122J 0.0227 0.00613J <0.0124 <0.0124
0.01 0.41 13 0.09 0.39 0.0063 8.3 0.62 0.021 0.00021 9.9 17 12 2.1 11 0.39 0.12
NCDEQ PSRGs = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
< = Not detected above the Reporting Limit
[mg/kg]
NCDEQ PSRGs May 2019Sample IDSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Depth[feet bgs]HA-1
HA-2
HA-4
Table 1
Page 1 of 2
Table 1(1): Analytical Data for Soil (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320004
1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-DichloroetheneAcetonen-Butylbenzenesec-Butylbenzenetert-ButylbenzeneChlorobenzeneIsopropylbenzenep-Isopropyltoluenen-Propylbenzene1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane0-1 06/06/19 <0.00701 <0.00701 <0.0701 <0.0351 <0.0351 <0.0140 <0.00701 <0.00701 <0.0140 <0.0140 <0.00701 <0.00701
3-4 06/06/19 0.00878 0.0107 <0.0661 0.699 0.612 0.0219 0.0177 0.162 0.589 0.435 0.00402J 0.00402J
0-1 06/06/19 0.00487J <0.00740 0.0927 0.0279J 0.0311J <0.0148 0.00298J 0.024 0.0303 0.036 <0.00740 0.00455J
3-4 06/06/19 <0.00752 <0.00752 0.0708J 0.903 0.768 0.0207 <0.00752 0.269 0.497 <0.638 <0.00752 <0.00752
0-1 06/06/19 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.0690 0.0184J 0.0166J <0.0138 <0.00690 0.00489J 0.0166 0.00825J <0.00690 <0.00690
3-4 06/06/19 <0.00621 <0.00621 <0.0621 0.584 0.574 0.0192 <0.00621 0.141 0.188 0.293 <0.00621 <0.00621
0.034 2.5 25 4.5 4.1 3.1 0.68 2.3 1.24 2.6 1.4 0.0039
NCDEQ PSRGs = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
< = Not detected above the Reporting Limit
HA-4
NCDEQ PSRGs May 2019
HA-1 Depth[feet bgs]Sampling Date (mm/dd/yy)HA-2Sample ID[mg/kg]
Table 1(1)
Page 2 of 2
Table 2: Analytical Data for Groundwater
DSCA ID No.: DC320004
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)NaphthaleneTetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)TMW-1 06/06/19 0.0502J 87.7 0.119 <0.100 0.434J 4.87 0.203 0.684 8.75 4.68 0.294J
TMW-2 06/06/19 0.0368 20.4 0.0582 0.0348 0.0863 <0.0100 0.0490 0.137 <0.0100 1.7 0.0785
TMW-4 06/06/19 0.0161 <0.0100 <0.0100 0.13 0.169 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0300
0.001 0.07 0.6 0.02 0.006 0.0007 0.6 0.1 0.003 0.00003 0.5
J = Detected but below the Reporting Limit (lowest calibration standard); therefore, result is an estimated concentration (J-Flag).
< = Not detected above the Reporting Limit
02L Groundwater StandardsGroundwater Sampling PointSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)[mg/L]
Table 2
Page 1 of 2
Table 2(1): Analytical Data for Groundwater (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320004
1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenen-Butylbenzenesec-Butylbenzenetert-Butylbenzenen-PropylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneTMW-1 06/06/19 0.0268J 0.0610J 0.338 0.207 0.0593J 0.0478J 0.0493J <0.100 0.0746J 0.043J
TMW-2 06/06/19 <0.0100 0.00639J 0.160 0.0985 0.0456 0.0197 0.0215 <0.0100 0.0307 0.0156
TMW-4 06/06/19 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 0.00351J <0.0100 0.0748 0.0986 0.00638J 0.0139 0.0193
0.006 0.35 0.4 NE 0.4 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
J = Detected but below the Reporting Limit (lowest calibration standard); therefore, result is an estimated concentration (J-Flag).
< = Not detected above the Reporting LimitGroundwater Sampling PointSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)02L Groundwater Standards
[mg/L]
Table 2 Table 2(1)
Page 2 of 2
Table 3: Analytical Data for Sub-slab Gas
DSCA ID No.: DC320004
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)NaphthaleneTetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)1,1-Dichloroethane1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneSS-1 6 6 G 06/06/19 <16 160 <22 NA NA 430 NA <40 48 440 <66 <21 <25 <25
SS-2 9 9 G 06/06/19 7.0 5,800 4.7 NA NA 8,600 NA 160 2,600 70 15 85 12 29
1,600 NE 4,900 47,000 260 3,500 440,000 NE 180 2,800 8,800 18,000 5,300 5,300
NCDEQ = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
VISL = Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
NA = Not Analyzed
NR= Not Reported
NE = Not Established
< = Not detected above the Reporting Limit
NCDEQ Non-Residential VISL (February 2018)
1 Indicate "G" for grab sample or for longer samples indicate the number of hours followed by "h".Sample IDSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Depth[inches bgs]Slab Thickness[inches]Sampling Duration 1[µg/m3]
ADT 3
Page 1 of 1

FIGURES
SSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSP SSPPPROJECT NO.
NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they
presented to a stated accuracy.
DATE
TITLE
SCALEREV. BYPREP. BYCAD FILE DSCA IDCOORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US
SURVEY FEET
[phone]Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
SSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSP SSPPPROJECT NO.
NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they
presented to a stated accuracy.
2.J = Detected but below the Reporting Limit (lowest calibration
standard): therefore, result is an estimated concentration
(J-Flag).
3.Concentrations shown in BOLD are above the NC Preliminary
Soil Remediation Goals.
DATE
TITLE
SCALEREV. BYPREP. BYCAD FILE DSCA IDCOORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US
SURVEY FEET
[phone]Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
SSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSP SSPPPROJECT NO.
NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they
presented to a stated accuracy.
2.J = Detected but below the Reporting Limit (lowest calibration
standard): therefore, result is an estimated concentration
(J-Flag).
3.Concentrations shown in BOLD are above the NC 2L
Standard.
DATE
TITLE
SCALEREV. BYPREP. BYCAD FILE DSCA IDCOORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US
SURVEY FEET
[phone]Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
SSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSP SSPPPROJECT NO.
NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they
presented to a stated accuracy.
2.Risk values shown in BOLD are above the NC Acceptable
value.
DATE
TITLE
SCALEREV. BYPREP. BYCAD FILE DSCA IDCOORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US
SURVEY FEET
[phone]Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.

ATTACHMENT A

Soil Boring Logs
07-03-2019 S:\Enviro\DSCA Contract\Site #32-0004, Eakes Cleaners, Durham, NC\Boring Logs\HA-1_TMW-1.borClient: NCDEQ-DSCA Contract
DSCA Site No. #320004
827 West Morgan Street
Durham, North Carolina
Eakes Cleaners
bgs = below ground surface
Water level = 6.40 feet bgs
Samples collected: HA-1(0-1)@1545, HA-1(3-4)@1550, TMW-1@1600
SOIL BORING / TEMPORARY WELL: HA-1/TMW-1
(Page 1 of 1)
Date(s) Drilled : 6/6/2019
Drilling Conractor : ATC Associates of NC, P.C.
Drilling Method : Hand Auger
Boring Diameter : 3.25 inches
Logged By : Jeremy Robbins
Depth in Feet (bgs)0
2
4
6
8
10 USCSF0
ML
CL
ML
ML GRAPHICDESCRIPTION
Concrete
Dark Gray slightly CLAYEY SILT, with brick and glass fragments
Gray SILTY CLAY, medium plasticity
Gray slightly CLAYEY SANDY SILT, fine grained, odor
Light Greenish Gray SILT, micaceous, odor
End of boring
PID
(ppm)
34.9
266.0
525.9
4984
Elev.:
Well: TMW-1
Sand
1" Screen
07-03-2019 S:\Enviro\DSCA Contract\Site #32-0004, Eakes Cleaners, Durham, NC\Boring Logs\HA-2_TMW-2.borClient: NCDEQ-DSCA Contract
DSCA Site No. #320004
827 West Morgan Street
Durham, North Carolina
Eakes Cleaners
bgs = below ground surface
Samples collected: HA-2(0-1)@1705, HA-2(3-4)@1710, TMW-2@1720
SOIL BORING / TEMPORARY WELL: HA-2/TMW-2
(Page 1 of 1)
Date(s) Drilled : 6/6/2019
Drilling Conractor : ATC Associates of NC, P.C.
Drilling Method : Hand Auger
Boring Diameter : 3.25 inches
Logged By : Jeremy Robbins
Depth in Feet (bgs)0
2
4
6
8
10 USCSF0
GW
ML
CL
SM
CL
ML GRAPHICDESCRIPTION
Concrete
Gravel
Dark Gray slightly CLAYEY SILT, odor
Gray SILTY CLAY, medium plasticity, odor
Gray slightly SILTY SAND, fine grained, odor
Gray SANDY CLAY, fine grained, low plasticity, odor
Light Greenish Gray SILT, micaceous, odor
End of boring
PID
(ppm)
19.2
20.3
168.5
480.2
Elev.:
Well: TMW-2
Sand
1" Screen
07-03-2019 S:\Enviro\DSCA Contract\Site #32-0004, Eakes Cleaners, Durham, NC\Boring Logs\HA-4_TMW-4.borClient: NCDEQ-DSCA Contract
DSCA Site No. #320004
827 West Morgan Street
Durham, North Carolina
Eakes Cleaners
bgs = below ground surface
Water level = 5.30 feet bgs
Samples collected: HA-4(0-1)@1150, HA-4(3-4)@1300, TMW-4@1250
SOIL BORING / TEMPORARY WELL: HA-4/TMW-4
(Page 1 of 1)
Date(s) Drilled : 6/6/2019
Drilling Conractor : ATC Associates of NC, P.C.
Drilling Method : Hand Auger
Boring Diameter : 3.25 inches
Logged By : Jeremy Robbins
Depth in Feet (bgs)0
2
4
6
8
10 USCSF0
GW
ML
ML
ML
ML GRAPHICDESCRIPTION
Concrete
Gravel
Tan to Dark Gray slighlty CLAYEY SILT, with brick fragments
Gray CLAYEY SANDY SILT, fine grained, strong odor
Light Greenish Gray slightly CLAEYEY SILT, odor
Dark Reddish Brown slightly SANDY SILT, fine grained, micaceous
End of boring
PID
(ppm)
36.7
11.6
45.4
674.2
1254
1001
Elev.:
Well: TMW-4
Sand
1" Screen
REFERENCE 10
MEMO TO FILE
Date: 10/24/2016
From: Kirsten Hiortdahl
Site Name: EAKES CLEANERS (FORMER)
ID: NONCD0001192
RE: Site Review Summary
Site Location (street, city and county where site is located)
 827 W. Morgan St, Durham
Potential RP or Remedial Party (address and phone contacts):
 RP: Eakes Cleaners (bankruptcy)
 GIS Owner: ROBERTS & CATES PROPERTIES LLC, 827 W MORGAN ST, DURHAM 27701
(Shooters II Inc, Nightclub & Bar)
Current Status (direct oversight, REC, independent cleanup, BF agreement, no activities, etc.):
 Previous owner declined DSCA (DC320004) in 2007 (no response)
 BF (Eakes Drycleaners) 01005-97-32, Ineligible
o Eligibility Determination Letter sent to PD 11/30/1997
Brief Description of the Site (contaminants, contaminated media and the highest concentrations, type of
business, etc.):
A 1996 LSA describes PCE 29 mg/L, TCE 5.8 mg/L, and VC at 4 mg/L in groundwater (MW-2 in back of
facility); ppb lvl chlorinateds in soil. 1998 PIRF describes GW contamination including PCE and degradation
products from dry cleaning and BTEX from a heating oil UST. Site operated as a dry cleaner until 1995 when
Mr. Eakes passed and his estate went to bankruptcy. A PD (P.I.C. Enterprises, Inc.) pursued a BF agreement
sampled indoor air in 1998 (not in file), correspondence indicated that the levels were acceptable for occupation
at the time. In 2007 the occupant/and owner at the time was sent a DSCA eligibility letter; the owner declined
to respond and the site was referred back to IHSB. In 2011 a NORR was sent to the owner from IHSB; no
further information is on file. New owner since 2011 NORR.
Brief Description of Actions Taken at Site so Far (RI, AA, RAP, etc.)
 None
Risk Factors (water supply wells, vapor intrusion potential, surface water, soil contamination, sensitive
receptors, property use, distance to residential houses, etc.):
 High potential VI risk for building occupants
 Potential VI risk for neighboring properties
 High residential VI potential ~200/250 ft N residential homes/apartments
Conclusion and Recommendation:
 High Priority, referred to DSCA due to new property owner

REFERENCE 11

1

North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Program
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
Superfund Section
Memo

April 24, 2017

MEMORANDUM

TO: Charlotte Jesneck, Branch Head
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, Superfund Section

THROUGH: Delonda Alexander, Supervisor, DSCA Cleanup Unit
Special Remediation Branch, Superfund Section

FROM: Billy Meyer, Hydrogeologist/Risk Assessor
NC Dry Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act (DSCA) Program, Superfund
Section

SUBJECT: DC320004 – Eakes Cleaners – 827 W. Morgan Street
Durham, Durham County

The former Eakes Cleaners is being referred to IHSB since the property owner has
declined participation in the DCA program at this time.

DSCA site DC320004 has been under investigation by the state for many years dating
back to 1998. The former Eakes Cleaners structure is now occupied by a country and
western dance club called “Shooters”. The only environmental data available is from a
October 14, 1996 “Limited Soil and Groundwater Investigation Report”. This report
documents a clear release of dry cleaning solvent at the site as evidence by soil and
groundwater contamination. Of concern are the high levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) in
MW-2 (5,830 µg/L) and MW-3 (689 µg/L). Standard vapor intrusion evaluation
calculators, which evaluate the groundwater to indoor air exposure pathway, result in
estimated indoor air concentrations of 2,347.7 µg/m3 and 277.5 µg/m3 based on
groundwater concentrations observed in MW-2 and MW-3 which correspond to a Hazard
Quotient (HQ) of 270 and 32, respectively.

DSCA has communicated with the property owners several times and communicated the
nature of the hazards posed by the contaminants, discussed the site’s history and
concerns, provided them information regarding the contamination and discussed options
to manage the contamination associated with their property. The contact information for
the property owner “Roberts and Cates Properties LLC” is as follows:

From the NC DSCA Program
2

Danny Roberts: 919-369-8381 (cell)
Kim cates: [e-mail]

It should be noted that DWM’s Superfund Section sent the City of Durham a letter dated
December 15, 1997 that states: “During the review or this site, we determined a need for
additional data, including the sampling of the air inside the building onsite. On December
14, 1998, Mr. Danny Roberts submitted this information to us. After a preliminary review
of this information, we can safely say that occupancy of this building on a commercial
basis will pose no health risk to the occupants.” The information referenced above was
not available in the file. However, DSCA did speak with Mr. Harry Zinn with DWM who
was the project manager at the time, and as documented in a letter dated December 23,
1997 to EPA Region IV, CERCLA, that indoor air had been sampled by DWM Industrial
Hygienist David Lilley. DSCA spoke with Mr. Lilley and he indicated that no
contaminants were detected, but that the detection levels using the sampling methodology
and analytical methods used at the time, likely resulted in quantitation limits much higher
than current action levels. Mr. Zinn and DSCA explained this to Mr. Roberts and that the
science had changed. Mr. Roberts is very confused by this change and opted to not enter
the DSCA program at this time.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Billy Meyer at (919) 707-
8366.

Attachments: Email correspondence (with DSCA brochure attached)
Contamination discovery letter – program choice letter
Front Royal Limited Site Assessment Report
Groundwater to Indoor Air Risk Calculations

cc: DSCA File DC320004

1
Meyer, Billy
From:Meyer, Billy
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:16 PM
To:[e-mail]
Subject:DC320004: Contaminated Property, 827 W Morgan St., Durham - Shooters property
Attachments:DC320004_20161104_InvitationLetter.pdf; DSCA Brochure 20150602 version 2.pdf
Categories:Red Category
Mrs. Cates, 
Thank you for speaking with me on the phone. You are indicated as a contact for Roberts & Cates Properties LLC on the 
secretary of state’s website. Roberts & Cates Properties LLC is the owner of property located at 827 W Morgan St. in 
Durham, where groundwater is contaminated with dry cleaning solvent from “Eake’s Cleaners” formerly located on the 
property. Please notice the attached letter and brochure concerning the options available to the property owner to 
address the site contamination under NC laws.   

Roberts & Cates, LLC is eligible for the Dry Cleaning Solvent Cleanup (DSCA) Act fund which is a voluntary program where 
you receive environmental liability protection to the state of NC. This also provides access to the fund according to legal 
agreements signed between the state and the site owner (petitioner), where the state assesses and remediates the site 
according to priority and the petitioner is only responsible for 1.5% of that cost which is invoiced annually. This is up to a 
maximum of $1,000,000 (site may cost more than that to assess and remediate over the life of the site) but petitioner is 
only responsible for 1.5% up to $1,000,000, which is a maximum of $15,000 over the entire life of the site (plus a $1000) 
certification fee. Please notice the attached brochure which explains all of this. If you do not choose to enter into the 
DSCA program where liability protection is afforded to you, and where risk based standards apply, the site will be 
transferred to the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program where cleanup to more stringent standards will be required. It 
should also be noted that this site is already considered a high risk or high priority site for the IHSB program based on 
the potential hazards present to building occupants from subsurface contamination creating unsafe indoor air 
conditions. 

I encourage you to read the attached letter and brochure and respond as soon as possible. The original letter was sent 
11/4/16 but was evidently not delivered.  

If you have any questions please give me a call. 
Sincerely, 
Billy Meyer 

Billy Meyer, Project Manager/Risk Assessor  
NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section, DSCA Program – Remediation Unit 
Phone/fax: 919‐707‐8366 
[e-mail] 

Physical Office Address:               Mailing Address: 

Green Square Complex                1646 Mail Service Center 
217 West Jones Street                 Raleigh, NC 27699‐1646  
Raleigh, NC  27603 

******************************************************* 
2
E‐mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the  
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 
******************************************************* 

What is DSCA?
The Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act (DSCA) Program was established to help fund the cleanup of contamination
at dry-cleaning sites. Participation in the DSCA cleanup program is voluntary and is available to past and present
facility owners, operators and property owners of both active and
former dry-cleaning and wholesale solvent distribution facilities. DSCA
also established minimum management practices that all dry-cleaning
and wholesale solvent distribution facilities must follow in order to
prevent environmental contamination.

What can DSCA do for me?
Funds for Cleanup
DSCA will pay most of the assessment and cleanup costs. You would be
responsible for a $1,000 application fee when you enter the program
and a small (1-2%) co-pay (see chart on the back of this brochure).

Cleanup Services
The DSCA Program assigns your site to one of its independent, state-
contracted environmental engineering firms. A DSCA project manager
oversees the activities of the firm as they determine the extent and degree
of contamination and, if necessary, implement cleanup action.

Liability Protection
DSCA protects you from being ordered by other state agencies to clean up
the dry-cleaning contamination at your own expense.

Risk-based Cleanups
DSCA cleanups use risk-based standards. These standards are calculated
for each site and are dependent on what receptors (e.g. drinking wells and
surface water), if any, are being threatened by the contamination. The
result is that cleanup goals may be more readily achievable and site
cleanups may be completed more quickly.

Property Marketability
Program participation can help remove the stigma of contaminated property and may facilitate property
transactions, development, and/or reuse.

How to Get Started
If dry-cleaning solvent contamination is found on your site, complete and submit a DSCA Petitioner Questionnaire
(found at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/dry-cleaning-solvent-cleanup-act-program) Laboratory results
documenting contaminated soil or groundwater qualify as acceptable evidence of contamination. Be sure that
you are operating in compliance with the Minimum Management Practices (MMPs, see https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/
waste-management/dry-cleaning-solvent-cleanup-act-program)

The Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act (DSCA)

Web: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/dry-cleaning-solvent-cleanup-act-program
Division of Waste Management- Superfund Section–
Special Remediation Branch
Pete Doorn: Branch Manager
**IMPORTANT**
All operating dry-cleaning facilities and wholesale solvent distribution facilities must comply with DSCA’s
Minimum Management Practices even if the facility does not wish to participate in the DSCA cleanup program.

Mailing Address:
DSCA Program
Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Physical Address:
(do not mail items to this address)
Green Square Complex
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
For more information:
Please be aware that this fact sheet outlines significant program components and is not a comprehensive program
description. For more details, visit: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/dry-cleaning-solvent-cleanup-act-program
You may contact the DSCA Program for additional details. Applicable regulations are found in NCGS 143-215.104A
et seq. and 15A NCAC 2S.
Type of Facility Small Cleaner Medium Cleaner Large Cleaner Abandoned Wholesale Dist.
Active facility with less
than 5 full-time em-
ployees
Active facility with 5-
9 full-time employees
Active facility with 10
or more full-time em-
ployees
Abandoned Dryclean-
er Sites**
Wholesale Distribution
Facilities
Co-payment
Percentage 1% 1.5% 2% 1.5% 2%
(For example) if Total
Site Cost is:
_____________________________Petitioner Pays:_____________________________________
$100,000 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $2,500 $3,000
$500,000 $6,000 $8,500 $11,000 $8,500 $11,000
$1,000,000 $11,000 $16,000 $21,000 $16,000 $21,000
All site costs above $1,000,000 are covered by the DSCA Fund.
*Above amounts include $1,000 application fee.
**Abandoned facilities are closed dry-cleaning facilities (including previously operating facilities that are currently
pick-up only or “dry” stores).
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PETITIONERS FOR SITES ELIGIBLE FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA DRY-CLEANING SOLVENT CLEANUP FUND
Web: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/dsca Web: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/dry-cleaning-solvent-cleanup-act-program
Contacts:
Pete Doorn, Branch Manager
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Delonda Alexander, Remediation Unit Supervisor
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Eric Swope, Compliance Unit Supervisor
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]

The Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act (DSCA)
DSCA ID No:Name/Address of DSCA Site:Name/Address of Sampling Location:
Sampling Date:N/A
Sample ID:MW-2
Average Groundwater Temperature (°C):25 (Use default of 25⁰C unless site-specific data is available confirming the groundwater temperature during worst-case summer conditions.)
CAS #
Groundwater
Concentration(ug/L)
Henry's Constant
at 25°(dimensionless)
Temperature
Adjusted Henry's Constant
(dimensionless)
Henry's Constant used
for calculations(dimensionless)
Calculated Indoor Air Concentration
(ug/m3)
Indoor Air
Screening Level
for Carcinogens @ TCR = 1E-
06
Indoor Air
Screening Level for Non-Carcinogens
@ THQ = 0.2
Calculated Carcinogenic Risk
Calculated Non-
Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
79-01-6 5830 0.4026983 0.4026983 0.4026983 2347.731089 2.99E+00 1.75E+00 7.8E-04 2.7E+02
Cumulative: 7.8E-04 2.7E+02
Trichloroethylene
DSCA Indoor Air Risk Calculator - Cumulative Risk for Non-Residential Worker
Version 5, September 2016
DC320004Eake's Cleaner's
827 W. Morgan Street, Durham NC
Chemical Name:
DSCA ID No:Name/Address of DSCA Site:Name/Address of Sampling Location:
Sampling Date:N/A
Sample ID:MW-3
Average Groundwater Temperature (°C):25 (Use default of 25⁰C unless site-specific data is available confirming the groundwater temperature during worst-case summer conditions.)
CAS #
Groundwater
Concentration(ug/L)
Henry's Constant
at 25°(dimensionless)
Temperature
Adjusted Henry's Constant
(dimensionless)
Henry's Constant used
for calculations(dimensionless)
Calculated Indoor Air Concentration
(ug/m3)
Indoor Air
Screening Level
for Carcinogens @ TCR = 1E-
06
Indoor Air
Screening Level for Non-Carcinogens
@ THQ = 0.2
Calculated Carcinogenic Risk
Calculated Non-
Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
79-01-6 689 0.4026983 0.4026983 0.4026983 277.4591287 2.99E+00 1.75E+00 9.3E-05 3.2E+01
Cumulative: 9.3E-05 3.2E+01
Trichloroethylene
DSCA Indoor Air Risk Calculator - Cumulative Risk for Non-Residential Worker
Version 5, September 2016
DC320004Eake's Cleaner's
827 W. Morgan Street, Durham NC
Chemical Name:
REFERENCE 12
REFERENCE 13
REFERENCE 14
REFERENCE 15
REFERENCE 16
REFERENCE 17
REFERENCE 18
REFERENCE 19
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
3.0E-04 O 1 0.1 Acephate 30560-19-1 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 1.3E-04 n 2.2E-06 I 9.0E-03 I V 1 1.1E+05 Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 8.2E+00 n 3.4E+01 n 9.4E-01 n 3.9E+00 n 1.9E+00 n 3.8E-04 n 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Acetochlor 34256-82-1 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.5E+01 n 2.8E-02 n 9.0E-01 I V 1 1.1E+05 Acetone 67-64-1 7.0E+03 n 1.1E+05 nm 1.8E+03 n 3.7E-01 n 2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Acetone Cyanohydrin 75-86-5 2.8E+05 nm 1.2E+06 nm 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 6.0E-02 I V 1 1.3E+05 Acetonitrile 75-05-8 8.1E+01 n 3.4E+02 n 6.3E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 1.3E+01 n 2.6E-03 n 1.0E-01 I V 1 2.5E+03 Acetophenone 98-86-2 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 ns 1.9E+02 n 5.8E-02 n 3.8E+00 C 1.3E-03 C 1 0.1 Acetylaminofluorene, 2-53-96-3 1.4E-01 c 6.0E-01 c 2.2E-03 c 9.4E-03 c 1.6E-02 c 7.5E-05 c 5.0E-04 I 2.0E-05 I V 1 2.3E+04 Acrolein 107-02-8 1.4E-02 n 6.0E-02 n 2.1E-03 n 8.8E-03 n 4.2E-03 n 8.4E-07 n 5.0E-01 I 1.0E-04 I 2.0E-03 I 6.0E-03 I M 1 0.1 Acrylamide 79-06-1 2.4E-01 c*4.6E+00 c*1.0E-02 c*1.2E-01 c*5.0E-02 c*1.1E-05 c* 5.0E-01 I 2.0E-04 P V 1 1.1E+05 Acrylic Acid 79-10-7 2.0E+00 n 8.3E+00 n 2.1E-02 n 8.8E-02 n 4.2E-02 n 8.5E-06 n 5.4E-01 I 6.8E-05 I 1.0E-02 A 2.0E-03 I V 1 1.1E+04 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 2.5E-01 c**1.1E+00 c**4.1E-02 c**1.8E-01 c**5.2E-02 c**1.1E-05 c** 6.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Adiponitrile 111-69-3 8.5E+05 nm 3.6E+06 nm 6.3E-01 n 2.6E+00 n 5.6E-02 C 1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Alachlor 15972-60-8 9.7E+00 c**4.1E+01 c* 1.1E+00 c*2.0E+00 8.7E-04 c*1.6E-03 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Aldicarb 116-06-3 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 2.0E+00 n 3.0E+00 4.9E-04 n 7.5E-04 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Aldicarb Sulfone 1646-88-4 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 2.0E+00 n 2.0E+00 4.4E-04 n 4.4E-04 1 0.1 Aldicarb sulfoxide 1646-87-3 4.0E+00 8.8E-041.7E+01 I 4.9E-03 I 3.0E-05 I V 1 Aldrin 309-00-2 3.9E-02 c**1.8E-01 c*5.7E-04 c 2.5E-03 c 9.2E-04 c*1.5E-04 c* 4.0E-03 P 1.0E-04 X V 1 1.1E+05 Allyl Alcohol 107-18-6 3.5E-01 n 1.5E+00 n 1.0E-02 n 4.4E-02 n 2.1E-02 n 4.2E-06 n 2.1E-02 C 6.0E-06 C 1.0E-03 I V 1 1.4E+03 Allyl Chloride 107-05-1 1.7E-01 n 6.9E-01 n 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.1E-01 n 6.7E-05 n 1.0E+00 P 5.0E-03 P 1 Aluminum 7429-90-5 7.7E+03 n 1.1E+05 nm 5.2E-01 n 2.2E+00 n 2.0E+03 n 3.0E+03 n 4.0E-04 I 1 Aluminum Phosphide 20859-73-8 3.1E+00 n 4.7E+01 n 8.0E-01 n 9.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Ametryn 834-12-8 5.7E+01 n 7.4E+02 n 1.5E+01 n 1.6E-02 n 2.1E+01 C 6.0E-03 C 1 0.1 Aminobiphenyl, 4-92-67-1 2.6E-02 c 1.1E-01 c 4.7E-04 c 2.0E-03 c 3.0E-03 c 1.5E-05 c 8.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Aminophenol, m-591-27-5 5.1E+02 n 6.6E+03 n 1.6E+02 n 6.1E-02 n 4.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Aminophenol, o-95-55-6 2.5E+01 n 3.3E+02 n 7.9E+00 n 3.0E-03 n 2.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Aminophenol, p-123-30-8 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 4.0E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 2.5E-03 I 1 0.1 Amitraz 33089-61-1 1.6E+01 n 2.1E+02 n 8.2E-01 n 4.2E-01 n 5.0E-01 I V 1 Ammonia 7664-41-7 5.2E+01 n 2.2E+02 n 2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Ammonium Picrate 131-74-8 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 1.9E-02 n 2.0E-01 I 1 Ammonium Sulfamate 7773-06-0 1.6E+03 n 2.3E+04 n 4.0E+02 n 3.0E-03 X V 1 1.4E+04 Amyl Alcohol, tert-75-85-4 8.2E+00 n 3.4E+01 n 3.1E-01 n 1.3E+00 n 6.3E-01 n 1.3E-04 n 5.7E-03 I 1.6E-06 C 7.0E-03 P 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Aniline 62-53-3 4.4E+01 n 4.0E+02 c**1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 1.3E+01 c**4.6E-03 c** 4.0E-02 P 2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Anthraquinone, 9,10-84-65-1 1.3E+01 n 5.7E+01 c** 1.4E+00 c**1.4E-02 c** 4.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 A 0.15 Antimony (metallic)7440-36-0 3.1E+00 n 4.7E+01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 7.8E-01 n 6.0E+00 3.5E-02 n 2.7E-01 5.0E-04 H 0.15 Antimony Pentoxide 1314-60-9 3.9E+00 n 5.8E+01 n 9.7E-01 n 4.0E-04 H 0.15 Antimony Tetroxide 1332-81-6 3.1E+00 n 4.7E+01 n 7.8E-01 n 2.0E-04 I 0.15 Antimony Trioxide 1309-64-4 2.8E+04 n 1.2E+05 nm 2.1E-02 n 8.8E-02 n 1.5E+00 I 4.3E-03 I 3.0E-04 I 1.5E-05 C 1 0.03 Arsenic, Inorganic 7440-38-2 6.8E-01 c**R 3.0E+00 c*R 6.5E-04 c**2.9E-03 c**5.2E-02 c*1.0E+01 1.5E-03 c*2.9E-01 3.5E-06 C 5.0E-05 I 1 Arsine 7784-42-1 2.7E-02 n 4.1E-01 n 5.2E-03 n 2.2E-02 n 7.0E-03 n 1 Asbestos (units in fibers)1332-21-4 7.0E+06(G) 3.6E-02 O 1 0.1 Asulam 3337-71-1 2.3E+02 n 3.0E+03 n 7.2E+01 n 1.8E-02 n 2.3E-01 C 3.0E-03 A 1 0.1 Atrazine 1912-24-9 2.4E+00 c**1.0E+01 c* 3.0E-01 c*3.0E+00 2.0E-04 c*1.9E-038.8E-01 C 2.5E-04 C 1 0.1 Auramine 492-80-8 6.2E-01 c 2.6E+00 c 1.1E-02 c 4.9E-02 c 7.8E-02 c 7.1E-04 c 4.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Avermectin B1 65195-55-3 2.5E+00 n 3.3E+01 n 8.0E-01 n 1.4E+00 n 3.0E-03 A 1.0E-02 A 1 0.1 Azinphos-methyl 86-50-0 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 1.0E+00 n 4.4E+00 n 5.6E+00 n 1.7E-03 n 1.1E-01 I 3.1E-05 I V 1 Azobenzene 103-33-3 5.6E+00 c 2.6E+01 c 9.1E-02 c 4.0E-01 c 1.2E-01 c 9.3E-04 c 1.0E+00 P 7.0E-06 P 1 0.1 Azodicarbonamide 123-77-3 8.6E+02 n 4.0E+03 n 7.3E-04 n 3.1E-03 n 2.0E+03 n 6.8E-01 n 2.0E-01 I 5.0E-04 H 0.07 Barium 7440-39-3 1.5E+03 n 2.2E+04 n 5.2E-02 n 2.2E-01 n 3.8E+02 n 2.0E+03 1.6E+01 n 8.2E+01 5.0E-03 O V 1 Benfluralin 1861-40-1 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 2.8E+00 n 9.4E-02 n 5.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Benomyl 17804-35-2 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 9.7E+01 n 8.5E-02 n 2.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Bensulfuron-methyl 83055-99-6 1.3E+03 n 1.6E+04 n 3.9E+02 n 1.0E-01 n 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Bentazon 25057-89-0 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 5.7E+01 n 1.2E-02 n 4.0E-03 P 1.0E-01 I V 1 1.2E+03 Benzaldehyde 100-52-7 1.7E+02 c**8.2E+02 c* 1.9E+01 c*4.1E-03 c* 5.5E-02 I 7.8E-06 I 4.0E-03 I 3.0E-02 I V 1 1.8E+03 Benzene 71-43-2 1.2E+00 c**5.1E+00 c**3.6E-01 c**1.6E+00 c**4.6E-01 c**5.0E+00 2.3E-04 c**2.6E-031.0E-01 X 3.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Benzenediamine-2-methyl sulfate, 1,4-6369-59-1 1.9E+00 n 2.3E+01 c** 6.0E-01 n 1.7E-04 n 1.0E-03 P V 1 1.3E+03 Benzenethiol 108-98-5 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 1.7E+00 n 1.1E-03 n 2.3E+02 I 6.7E-02 I 3.0E-03 I M 1 0.1 Benzidine 92-87-5 5.3E-04 c 1.0E-02 c 1.5E-05 c 1.8E-04 c 1.1E-04 c 2.8E-07 c 4.0E+00 I 1 0.1 Benzoic Acid 65-85-0 2.5E+04 n 3.3E+05 nm 7.5E+03 n 1.5E+00 n 1.3E+01 I V 1 3.2E+02 Benzotrichloride 98-07-7 5.3E-02 c 2.5E-01 c 3.0E-03 c 6.6E-06 c 1.0E-01 P 1 0.1 Benzyl Alcohol 100-51-6 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 2.0E+02 n 4.8E-02 n 1.7E-01 I 4.9E-05 C 2.0E-03 P 1.0E-03 P V 1 1.5E+03 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 1.1E+00 c**4.8E+00 c**5.7E-02 c**2.5E-01 c**8.9E-02 c**9.8E-05 c** 2.4E-03 I 2.0E-03 I 2.0E-05 I 0.007 Beryllium and compounds 7440-41-7 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 1.2E-03 c**5.1E-03 c**2.5E+00 n 4.0E+00 1.9E+00 n 3.2E+00 9.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Bifenox 42576-02-3 5.7E+01 n 7.4E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 7.6E-02 n 1.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Biphenthrin 82657-04-3 9.5E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 3.0E+01 n 1.4E+02 n 8.0E-03 I 5.0E-01 I 4.0E-04 X V 1 Biphenyl, 1,1'-92-52-4 4.7E+00 n 2.0E+01 n 4.2E-02 n 1.8E-01 n 8.3E-02 n 8.7E-04 n 4.0E-02 I V 1 1.0E+03 Bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether 108-60-1 3.1E+02 n 4.7E+03 ns 7.1E+01 n 2.6E-02 n 3.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 5.9E+00 n 1.3E-03 n 1.1E+00 I 3.3E-04 I V 1 5.1E+03 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 2.3E-01 c 1.0E+00 c 8.5E-03 c 3.7E-02 c 1.4E-02 c 3.6E-06 c 2.2E+02 I 6.2E-02 I V 1 4.2E+03 Bis(chloromethyl)ether 542-88-1 8.3E-05 c 3.6E-04 c 4.5E-05 c 2.0E-04 c 7.2E-05 c 1.7E-08 c 5.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Bisphenol A 80-05-7 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 7.7E+01 n 5.8E+00 n 2.0E-01 I 2.0E-02 H 1 Boron And Borates Only 7440-42-8 1.6E+03 n 2.3E+04 n 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 4.0E+02 n 1.3E+00 n 2.0E+00 P 2.0E-02 P V 1 Boron Trichloride 10294-34-5 1.6E+04 n 2.3E+05 nm 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 4.2E+00 n 4.0E-02 C 1.3E-02 C V 1 Boron Trifluoride 7637-07-2 3.1E+02 n 4.7E+03 n 1.4E+00 n 5.7E+00 n 2.6E+00 n 7.0E-01 I 4.0E-03 I 1 Bromate 15541-45-4 9.9E-01 c*4.7E+00 c 1.1E-01 c*1.0E+01 8.5E-04 c*7.7E-02 1.0E-04 X 6.0E-05 X V 1 2.4E+03 Bromo-2-chloroethane, 1-107-04-0 3.5E-02 n 1.5E-01 n 6.3E-03 n 2.6E-02 n 1.2E-02 n 3.3E-06 n 3.0E-04 X V 1 9.0E+02 Bromo-3-fluorobenzene, 1-1073-06-9 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 4.9E-01 n 4.7E-04 n 3.0E-04 X V 1 3.2E+02 Bromo-4-fluorobenzene, 1-460-00-4 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 4.6E-01 n 4.4E-04 n 1 0.1 Bromoacetic acid 79-08-3 6.0E+01(G) 1.2E-02
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
Page 1 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
8.0E-03 I 6.0E-02 I V 1 6.8E+02 Bromobenzene 108-86-1 2.9E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 6.3E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 6.2E+00 n 4.2E-03 n 4.0E-02 X V 1 4.0E+03 Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 1.5E+01 n 6.3E+01 n 4.2E+00 n 1.8E+01 n 8.3E+00 n 2.1E-03 n 6.2E-02 I 3.7E-05 C 8.0E-03 P V 1 9.3E+02 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 2.9E-01 c 1.3E+00 c 7.6E-02 c 3.3E-01 c 1.3E-01 c 8.0E+01(G)3.6E-05 c 2.2E-027.9E-03 I 1.1E-06 I 2.0E-02 I V 1 9.2E+02 Bromoform 75-25-2 1.9E+01 c**8.6E+01 c*2.6E+00 c 1.1E+01 c 3.3E+00 c*8.0E+01(G)8.7E-04 c*2.1E-02 1.4E-03 I 5.0E-03 I V 1 3.6E+03 Bromomethane 74-83-9 6.8E-01 n 3.0E+00 n 5.2E-01 n 2.2E+00 n 7.5E-01 n 1.9E-04 n 5.0E-03 H V 1 Bromophos 2104-96-3 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 3.5E+00 n 1.5E-02 n 1.0E-01 A V 1 9.7E+02 Bromopropane, 1-106-94-5 2.2E+01 n 9.4E+01 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 2.1E+01 n 6.4E-03 n 1.0E-01 O 1.5E-02 O 1 0.1 Bromoxynil 1689-84-5 5.3E+00 c*2.2E+01 c* 6.1E-01 c*5.2E-04 c* 1.0E-01 O 1.5E-02 O V 1 Bromoxynil Octanoate 1689-99-2 6.7E+00 c*3.2E+01 c* 2.4E-01 c*2.1E-03 c* 6.0E-01 C 3.0E-05 I 2.0E-03 I V 1 6.7E+02 Butadiene, 1,3-106-99-0 7.6E-02 c**3.3E-01 c**9.4E-02 c**4.1E-01 c**7.1E-02 c**3.9E-05 c** 1.0E-01 I V 1 7.6E+03 Butanol, N-71-36-3 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 ns 2.0E+02 n 4.1E-02 n 5.0E-04 I 4.0E-01 I 5.0E+00 I V 1 Butyl Alcohol, t-75-65-0 1.4E+03 c**6.5E+03 c**5.2E+02 n 2.2E+03 n 1.5E+02 c**3.2E-02 c** 2.0E+00 P 3.0E+01 P V 1 2.1E+04 Butyl alcohol, sec-78-92-2 1.3E+04 n 1.5E+05 nms 3.1E+03 n 1.3E+04 n 2.4E+03 n 5.0E-01 n 5.0E-02 I V 1 Butylate 2008-41-5 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 4.6E+01 n 4.5E-02 n 2.0E-04 C 5.7E-08 C 1 0.1 Butylated hydroxyanisole 25013-16-5 2.7E+03 c 1.1E+04 c 4.9E+01 c 2.2E+02 c 1.5E+02 c 2.9E-01 c 3.6E-03 P 3.0E-01 P 1 0.1 Butylated hydroxytoluene 128-37-0 1.5E+02 c*6.4E+02 c* 3.4E+00 c*1.0E-01 c* 5.0E-02 P V 1 1.1E+02 Butylbenzene, n-104-51-8 3.9E+02 ns 5.8E+03 ns 1.0E+02 n 3.2E-01 n 1.0E-01 X V 1 1.5E+02 Butylbenzene, sec-135-98-8 7.8E+02 ns 1.2E+04 ns 2.0E+02 n 5.9E-01 n 1.0E-01 X V 1 1.8E+02 Butylbenzene, tert-98-06-6 7.8E+02 ns 1.2E+04 ns 6.9E+01 n 1.6E-01 n 2.0E-02 A 1 0.1 Cacodylic Acid 75-60-5 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 4.0E+01 n 1.1E-02 n 1.8E-03 I 1.0E-04 A 1.0E-05 A 0.025 0.001 Cadmium (Diet)7440-43-9 7.1E-01 n 1.0E+01 n 1.0E-03 n 4.4E-03 n 1.8E-03 I 1.0E-04 A 1.0E-05 A 0.05 0.001 Cadmium (Water)7440-43-9 1.0E-03 n 4.4E-03 n 1.8E-01 n 5.0E+00 1.4E-02 n 3.8E-01 5.0E-01 I 2.2E-03 C 1 0.1 Caprolactam 105-60-2 3.1E+03 n 4.0E+04 n 2.3E-01 n 9.6E-01 n 9.9E+02 n 2.5E-01 n 1.5E-01 C 4.3E-05 C 2.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Captafol 2425-06-1 3.6E+00 c**1.5E+01 c*6.5E-02 c 2.9E-01 c 4.0E-01 c**7.1E-04 c** 2.3E-03 C 6.6E-07 C 1.3E-01 I 1 0.1 Captan 133-06-2 2.4E+02 c**1.0E+03 c*4.3E+00 c 1.9E+01 c 3.1E+01 c**2.2E-02 c** 1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Carbaryl 63-25-2 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.8E+02 n 1.7E-01 n 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Carbofuran 1563-66-2 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 9.4E+00 n 4.0E+01 3.7E-03 n 1.6E-02 1.0E-01 I 7.0E-01 I V 1 7.4E+02 Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 7.7E+01 n 3.5E+02 n 7.3E+01 n 3.1E+02 n 8.1E+01 n 2.4E-02 n 7.0E-02 I 6.0E-06 I 4.0E-03 I 1.0E-01 I V 1 4.6E+02 Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 6.5E-01 c*2.9E+00 c*4.7E-01 c*2.0E+00 c*4.6E-01 c*5.0E+00 1.8E-04 c*1.9E-03 1.0E-01 P V 1 5.9E+03 Carbonyl Sulfide 463-58-1 6.7E+00 n 2.8E+01 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 2.1E+01 n 5.1E-02 n 1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Carbosulfan 55285-14-8 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 5.1E+00 n 1.2E-01 n 1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Carboxin 5234-68-4 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.9E+02 n 1.0E-01 n 9.0E-04 I 1 Ceric oxide 1306-38-3 1.3E+05 nm 5.4E+05 nm 9.4E-02 n 3.9E-01 n 1.0E-01 I V 1 Chloral Hydrate 302-17-0 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 n 2.0E+02 n 4.0E-02 n 1.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Chloramben 133-90-4 9.5E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.9E+01 n 7.0E-03 n 1 0.1 Chloramines, Organic E701235 4.0E+03(G) 4.0E-01 H 1 0.1 Chloranil 118-75-2 1.3E+00 c 5.7E+00 c 1.8E-01 c 1.5E-04 c 5.0E-04 G V 1 0.04 Chlordane (alpha)5103-71-9 3.6E+00 n 5.0E+01 n 3.6E-01 n 4.9E-02 n 5.0E-04 G V 1 0.04 Chlordane (gamma)5103-74-2 3.6E+00 n 5.0E+01 n 1.0E+00 n 1.4E-01 n 3.5E-01 I 1.0E-04 I 5.0E-04 I 7.0E-04 I V 1 0.04 Chlordane (technical mixture)12789-03-6 1.7E+00 c**7.7E+00 c**2.8E-02 c**1.2E-01 c**2.0E-02 c**2.0E+00 2.7E-03 c**2.7E-011.0E+01 I 4.6E-03 C 3.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Chlordecone (Kepone)143-50-0 5.4E-02 c*2.3E-01 c 6.1E-04 c 2.7E-03 c 3.5E-03 c*1.2E-04 c* 7.0E-04 A 1 0.1 Chlorfenvinphos 470-90-6 4.4E+00 n 5.7E+01 n 1.1E+00 n 3.1E-03 n 9.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Chlorimuron, Ethyl-90982-32-4 5.7E+02 n 7.4E+03 n 1.8E+02 n 6.0E-02 n 1.0E-01 I 1.5E-04 A V 1 2.8E+03 Chlorine 7782-50-5 1.8E-02 n 7.8E-02 n 1.5E-02 n 6.4E-02 n 3.0E-02 n 4.0E+03(G)1.5E-05 n 2.0E+00 3.0E-02 I 2.0E-04 I V 1 Chlorine Dioxide 10049-04-4 2.3E+02 n 3.4E+03 n 2.1E-02 n 8.8E-02 n 4.2E-02 n 8.0E+02(G) 3.0E-02 I 1 Chlorite (Sodium Salt)7758-19-2 2.3E+02 n 3.5E+03 n 6.0E+01 n 1.0E+03 5.0E+01 I V 1 1.2E+03 Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane, 1-75-68-3 5.4E+03 ns 2.3E+04 ns 5.2E+03 n 2.2E+04 n 1.0E+04 n 5.2E+00 n 3.0E-04 I 2.0E-02 H 2.0E-02 I V 1 7.9E+02 Chloro-1,3-butadiene, 2-126-99-8 1.0E-02 c 4.4E-02 c 9.4E-03 c 4.1E-02 c 1.9E-02 c 9.8E-06 c 4.6E-01 H 1 0.1 Chloro-2-methylaniline HCl, 4-3165-93-3 1.2E+00 c 5.0E+00 c 1.7E-01 c 1.5E-04 c 1.0E-01 P 7.7E-05 C 3.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Chloro-2-methylaniline, 4-95-69-2 5.4E+00 c**2.3E+01 c*3.6E-02 c 1.6E-01 c 7.0E-01 c**4.0E-04 c** 2.7E-01 X V 1 1.2E+04 Chloroacetaldehyde, 2-107-20-0 2.6E+00 c 1.2E+01 c 2.9E-01 c 5.8E-05 c 1 0.1 Chloroacetic Acid 79-11-8 6.0E+01(G) 1.2E-02 3.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Chloroacetophenone, 2-532-27-4 4.3E+03 n 1.8E+04 n 3.1E-03 n 1.3E-02 n 2.0E-01 P 5.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Chloroaniline, p-106-47-8 2.7E+00 c**1.1E+01 c** 3.7E-01 c**1.6E-04 c** 2.0E-02 I 5.0E-02 P V 1 7.6E+02 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 2.8E+01 n 1.3E+02 n 5.2E+00 n 2.2E+01 n 7.8E+00 n 1.0E+02 5.3E-03 n 6.8E-02 1.0E-01 X 1 0.1 Chlorobenzene sulfonic acid, p-98-66-8 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 2.0E+02 n 4.7E-02 n 1.1E-01 C 3.1E-05 C 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 4.9E+00 c*2.1E+01 c*9.1E-02 c 4.0E-01 c 3.1E-01 c*1.0E-03 c* 3.0E-02 X 1 0.1 Chlorobenzoic Acid, p-74-11-3 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 5.1E+01 n 1.3E-02 n 8.6E-06 C 3.0E-03 P 3.0E-01 P V 1 2.9E+02 Chlorobenzotrifluoride, 4-98-56-6 2.2E+00 c**9.6E+00 c*3.3E-01 c*1.4E+00 c*6.5E-01 c**2.3E-03 c** 4.0E-02 P V 1 7.3E+02 Chlorobutane, 1-109-69-3 3.1E+02 n 4.7E+03 ns 6.4E+01 n 2.6E-02 n 5.0E+01 I V 1 1.7E+03 Chlorodifluoromethane 75-45-6 4.9E+03 ns 2.1E+04 ns 5.2E+03 n 2.2E+04 n 1.0E+04 n 4.3E+00 n 2.0E-02 P V 1 1.1E+05 Chloroethanol, 2-107-07-3 1.6E+02 n 2.3E+03 n 4.0E+01 n 8.1E-03 n 3.1E-02 C 2.3E-05 I 1.0E-02 I 9.8E-02 A V 1 2.5E+03 Chloroform 67-66-3 3.2E-01 c*1.4E+00 c*1.2E-01 c*5.3E-01 c*2.2E-01 c*8.0E+01(G)6.1E-05 c*2.2E-02 9.0E-02 I V 1 1.3E+03 Chloromethane 74-87-3 1.1E+01 n 4.6E+01 n 9.4E+00 n 3.9E+01 n 1.9E+01 n 4.9E-03 n 2.4E+00 C 6.9E-04 C V 1 9.3E+03 Chloromethyl Methyl Ether 107-30-2 2.0E-02 c 8.9E-02 c 4.1E-03 c 1.8E-02 c 6.5E-03 c 1.4E-06 c 3.0E-01 P 3.0E-03 P 1.0E-05 X 1 0.1 Chloronitrobenzene, o-88-73-3 1.8E+00 c*7.7E+00 c*1.0E-03 n 4.4E-03 n 2.4E-01 c*2.2E-04 c* 6.0E-02 P 7.0E-04 P 2.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Chloronitrobenzene, p-100-00-5 4.4E+00 n 3.8E+01 c**2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 1.2E+00 c**1.1E-03 c** 5.0E-03 I V 1 2.7E+04 Chlorophenol, 2-95-57-8 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 9.1E+00 n 8.9E-03 n 4.0E-04 C V 1 6.2E+02 Chloropicrin 76-06-2 2.0E-01 n 8.2E-01 n 4.2E-02 n 1.8E-01 n 8.3E-02 n 2.5E-05 n 1.7E-02 C 1.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 3.2E+01 c**1.4E+02 c** 4.0E+00 c**9.0E-03 c** 2.0E-02 I V 1 9.1E+02 Chlorotoluene, o-95-49-8 1.6E+02 n 2.3E+03 ns 2.4E+01 n 2.3E-02 n 2.0E-02 X V 1 2.5E+02 Chlorotoluene, p-106-43-4 1.6E+02 n 2.3E+03 ns 2.5E+01 n 2.4E-02 n 2.4E+02 C 6.9E-02 C 1 0.1 Chlorozotocin 54749-90-5 2.3E-03 c 9.6E-03 c 4.1E-05 c 1.8E-04 c 3.2E-04 c 7.1E-08 c 5.0E-03 O 1 0.1 Chlorpropham 101-21-3 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 7.1E+00 n 6.4E-03 n 1.0E-03 A 1 0.1 Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 8.4E-01 n 1.2E-02 n 1.0E-02 H 1 0.1 Chlorpyrifos Methyl 5598-13-0 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 1.2E+01 n 5.4E-02 n 5.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Chlorsulfuron 64902-72-3 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 9.9E+01 n 8.3E-02 n 1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Chlorthal-dimethyl 1861-32-1 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 1.2E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 8.0E-04 H 1 0.1 Chlorthiophos 60238-56-4 5.1E+00 n 6.6E+01 n 2.8E-01 n 7.3E-03 n
Page 2 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
1.5E+00 I 0.013 Chromium(III), Insoluble Salts 16065-83-1 1.2E+04 n 1.8E+05 nm 2.2E+03 n 4.0E+06 n 5.0E-01 C 8.4E-02 G 3.0E-03 I 1.0E-04 I M 0.025 Chromium(VI)18540-29-9 3.0E-01 c*6.3E+00 c*1.2E-05 c 1.5E-04 c 3.5E-02 c 6.7E-04 c 0.013 Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.0E+02 1.8E+05 1.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Clofentezine 74115-24-5 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 2.3E+01 n 1.4E+00 n 9.0E-03 P 3.0E-04 P 6.0E-06 P 1 Cobalt 7440-48-4 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 3.1E-04 c**1.4E-03 c**6.0E-01 n 2.7E-02 n 6.2E-04 I V M 1 Coke Oven Emissions E649830 1.6E-03 c 2.0E-02 c 4.0E-02 H 1 Copper 7440-50-8 3.1E+02 n 4.7E+03 n 8.0E+01 n 1.3E+03 2.8E+00 n 4.6E+01 5.0E-02 I 6.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Cresol, m-108-39-4 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 6.3E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 9.3E+01 n 7.4E-02 n 5.0E-02 I 6.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Cresol, o-95-48-7 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 6.3E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 9.3E+01 n 7.5E-02 n 2.0E-02 P 6.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Cresol, p-106-44-5 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 6.3E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 3.7E+01 n 3.0E-02 n 1.0E-01 A 1 0.1 Cresol, p-chloro-m-59-50-7 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 1.7E-01 n 1.0E-01 A 6.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Cresols 1319-77-3 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 6.3E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 1.5E+02 n 1.3E-01 n 1.9E+00 H 1.0E-03 P V 1 1.7E+04 Crotonaldehyde, trans-123-73-9 3.7E-01 c*1.7E+00 c* 4.0E-02 c*8.2E-06 c* 1.0E-01 I 4.0E-01 I V 1 2.7E+02 Cumene 98-82-8 1.9E+02 n 9.9E+02 ns 4.2E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 4.5E+01 n 7.4E-02 n 2.2E-01 C 6.3E-05 C 1 0.1 Cupferron 135-20-6 2.5E+00 c 1.0E+01 c 4.5E-02 c 1.9E-01 c 3.5E-01 c 6.1E-04 c 8.4E-01 H 2.0E-03 H 1 0.1 Cyanazine 21725-46-2 6.5E-01 c*2.7E+00 c* 8.8E-02 c*4.1E-05 c* Cyanides 1.0E-03 I 1 ~Calcium Cyanide 592-01-8 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.0E+00 n 5.0E-03 I 1 ~Copper Cyanide 544-92-3 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 6.0E-04 I 8.0E-04 G V 1 9.5E+05 ~Cyanide (CN-)57-12-5 2.3E+00 n 1.5E+01 n 8.3E-02 n 3.5E-01 n 1.5E-01 n 2.0E+02 1.5E-03 n 2.0E+00 1.0E-03 I V 1 ~Cyanogen 460-19-5 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.0E+00 n 9.0E-02 I V 1 ~Cyanogen Bromide 506-68-3 7.0E+02 n 1.1E+04 n 1.8E+02 n 5.0E-02 I V 1 ~Cyanogen Chloride 506-77-4 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 1.0E+02 n 6.0E-04 I 8.0E-04 I V 1 1.0E+07 ~Hydrogen Cyanide 74-90-8 2.3E+00 n 1.5E+01 n 8.3E-02 n 3.5E-01 n 1.5E-01 n 1.5E-03 n 2.0E-03 I 1 ~Potassium Cyanide 151-50-8 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 5.0E-03 I 0.04 ~Potassium Silver Cyanide 506-61-6 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 8.2E+00 n 1.0E-01 I 0.04 ~Silver Cyanide 506-64-9 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 n 1.8E+02 n 1.0E-03 I 1 ~Sodium Cyanide 143-33-9 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.0E+00 n 2.0E+02 2.0E-04 P 1 ~Thiocyanates E1790665 1.6E+00 n 2.3E+01 n 4.0E-01 n 2.0E-04 X V 1 ~Thiocyanic Acid 463-56-9 1.6E+00 n 2.3E+01 n 4.0E-01 n 5.0E-02 I 1 ~Zinc Cyanide 557-21-1 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 1.0E+02 n 6.0E+00 I V 1 1.2E+02 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 6.5E+02 ns 2.7E+03 ns 6.3E+02 n 2.6E+03 n 1.3E+03 n 1.3E+00 n 2.0E-02 X 2.0E-02 X 1 0.1 Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5-pentabromo-6-chloro-87-84-3 2.7E+01 c**1.1E+02 c* 2.8E+00 c*1.6E-02 c* 5.0E+00 I 7.0E-01 P V 1 5.1E+03 Cyclohexanone 108-94-1 2.8E+03 n 1.3E+04 ns 7.3E+01 n 3.1E+02 n 1.4E+02 n 3.4E-02 n 5.0E-03 P 1.0E+00 X V 1 2.8E+02 Cyclohexene 110-83-8 3.1E+01 n 3.1E+02 ns 1.0E+02 n 4.4E+02 n 7.0E+00 n 4.6E-03 n 2.0E-01 I V 1 2.9E+05 Cyclohexylamine 108-91-8 1.6E+03 n 2.3E+04 n 3.8E+02 n 1.0E-01 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Cyfluthrin 68359-37-5 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 1.2E+01 n 3.1E+00 n 7.2E-02 O 1 0.1 Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 4.5E+02 n 5.9E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 2.3E+01 n 5.0E-01 O 1 0.1 Cyromazine 66215-27-8 3.2E+03 n 4.1E+04 n 9.9E+02 n 2.5E-01 n 2.4E-01 I 6.9E-05 C 3.0E-05 X 1 0.1 DDD, p,p`- (DDD)72-54-8 1.9E-01 n 2.5E+00 n 4.1E-02 c 1.8E-01 c 6.3E-03 n 1.5E-03 n 3.4E-01 I 9.7E-05 C 3.0E-04 X V 1 DDE, p,p'-72-55-9 2.0E+00 c**9.3E+00 c**2.9E-02 c 1.3E-01 c 4.6E-02 c*1.1E-02 c* 3.4E-01 I 9.7E-05 I 5.0E-04 I 1 0.03 DDT 50-29-3 1.9E+00 c**8.5E+00 c**2.9E-02 c 1.3E-01 c 2.3E-01 c**7.7E-02 c** 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Dalapon 75-99-0 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 6.0E+01 n 2.0E+02 1.2E-02 n 4.1E-021.8E-02 C 5.1E-06 C 1.5E-01 I 1 0.1 Daminozide 1596-84-5 3.0E+01 c*1.3E+02 c*5.5E-01 c 2.4E+00 c 4.3E+00 c*9.5E-04 c* 7.0E-04 I 7.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Decabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6'- (BDE-209)1163-19-5 4.4E+01 n 5.7E+02 n 1.4E+01 n 7.8E+00 n 4.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Demeton 8065-48-3 2.5E-01 n 3.3E+00 n 4.2E-02 n 1.2E-03 I 6.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 103-23-1 4.5E+02 c**1.9E+03 c* 6.5E+01 c*4.0E+02 4.7E+00 c*2.9E+016.1E-02 H 1 0.1 Diallate 2303-16-4 8.9E+00 c 3.8E+01 c 5.4E-01 c 8.0E-04 c 7.0E-04 A 1 0.1 Diazinon 333-41-5 4.4E+00 n 5.7E+01 n 1.0E+00 n 6.5E-03 n 1.0E-02 X V 1 Dibenzothiophene 132-65-0 7.8E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 6.5E+00 n 1.2E-01 n 8.0E-01 P 6.0E-03 P 2.0E-04 P 2.0E-04 I V M 1 9.8E+02 Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-96-12-8 5.3E-03 c*6.4E-02 c*1.7E-04 c 2.0E-03 c*3.3E-04 c 2.0E-01 1.4E-07 c 8.6E-05 1 0.1 Dibromoacetic acid 631-64-1 6.0E+01(G) 1.2E-02 4.0E-04 X V 1 1.6E+02 Dibromobenzene, 1,3-108-36-1 3.1E+00 n 4.7E+01 n 5.3E-01 n 5.1E-04 n 1.0E-02 I V 1 Dibromobenzene, 1,4-106-37-6 7.8E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 1.3E+01 n 1.2E-02 n 8.4E-02 I 2.0E-02 I V 1 8.0E+02 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 8.3E+00 c*3.9E+01 c* 8.7E-01 c*8.0E+01(G)2.3E-04 c*2.1E-022.0E+00 I 6.0E-04 I 9.0E-03 I 9.0E-03 I V 1 1.3E+03 Dibromoethane, 1,2-106-93-4 3.6E-02 c 1.6E-01 c 4.7E-03 c 2.0E-02 c 7.5E-03 c 5.0E-02 2.1E-06 c 1.4E-05 4.0E-03 X V 1 2.8E+03 Dibromomethane (Methylene Bromide)74-95-3 2.4E+00 n 9.9E+00 n 4.2E-01 n 1.8E+00 n 8.3E-01 n 2.1E-04 n 3.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Dibutyltin Compounds E1790661 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Dicamba 1918-00-9 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 5.7E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 1 0.1 Dichloramine 3400-09-7 4.0E+03(G) 4.2E-03 P V 1 5.5E+02 Dichloro-2-butene, 1,4-764-41-0 2.1E-03 c 9.4E-03 c 6.7E-04 c 2.9E-03 c 1.3E-03 c 6.6E-07 c 4.2E-03 P V 1 5.2E+02 Dichloro-2-butene, cis-1,4-1476-11-5 7.4E-03 c 3.2E-02 c 6.7E-04 c 2.9E-03 c 1.3E-03 c 6.2E-07 c 4.2E-03 P V 1 7.6E+02 Dichloro-2-butene, trans-1,4-110-57-6 7.4E-03 c 3.2E-02 c 6.7E-04 c 2.9E-03 c 1.3E-03 c 6.2E-07 c 5.0E-02 I 4.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dichloroacetic Acid 79-43-6 1.1E+01 c**4.6E+01 c** 1.5E+00 c**6.0E+01(G)3.1E-04 c**1.2E-02 9.0E-02 I 2.0E-01 H V 1 3.8E+02 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-95-50-1 1.8E+02 n 9.3E+02 ns 2.1E+01 n 8.8E+01 n 3.0E+01 n 6.0E+02 3.0E-02 n 5.8E-015.4E-03 C 1.1E-05 C 7.0E-02 A 8.0E-01 I V 1 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-106-46-7 2.6E+00 c 1.1E+01 c 2.6E-01 c 1.1E+00 c 4.8E-01 c 7.5E+01 4.6E-04 c 7.2E-024.5E-01 I 3.4E-04 C 1 0.1 Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-91-94-1 1.2E+00 c 5.1E+00 c 8.3E-03 c 3.6E-02 c 1.3E-01 c 8.2E-04 c 9.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Dichlorobenzophenone, 4,4'-90-98-2 5.7E+01 n 7.4E+02 n 7.8E+00 n 4.7E-02 n 2.0E-01 I 1.0E-01 X V 1 8.5E+02 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 8.7E+00 n 3.7E+01 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 2.0E+01 n 3.0E-02 n 5.7E-03 C 1.6E-06 C 2.0E-01 P V 1 1.7E+03 Dichloroethane, 1,1-75-34-3 3.6E+00 c 1.6E+01 c 1.8E+00 c 7.7E+00 c 2.8E+00 c 7.8E-04 c 9.1E-02 I 2.6E-05 I 6.0E-03 X 7.0E-03 P V 1 3.0E+03 Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 4.6E-01 c**2.0E+00 c**1.1E-01 c**4.7E-01 c**1.7E-01 c**5.0E+00 4.8E-05 c**1.4E-03 5.0E-02 I 2.0E-01 I V 1 1.2E+03 Dichloroethylene, 1,1-75-35-4 2.3E+01 n 1.0E+02 n 2.1E+01 n 8.8E+01 n 2.8E+01 n 7.0E+00 1.0E-02 n 2.5E-03 2.0E-03 I V 1 2.4E+03 Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-156-59-2 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 3.6E+00 n 7.0E+01 1.1E-03 n 2.1E-02 2.0E-02 I 4.0E-02 X V 1 1.9E+03 Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 7.0E+00 n 3.0E+01 n 4.2E+00 n 1.8E+01 n 6.8E+00 n 1.0E+02 2.1E-03 n 3.1E-02 3.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dichlorophenol, 2,4-120-83-2 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 4.6E+00 n 2.3E-03 n 1.0E-02 I 1 0.05 Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid, 2,4-94-75-7 7.0E+01 n 9.6E+02 n 1.7E+01 n 7.0E+01 4.5E-03 n 1.8E-023.7E-02 P 3.7E-06 P 4.0E-02 P 4.0E-03 I V 1 1.4E+03 Dichloropropane, 1,2-78-87-5 1.6E+00 n 6.6E+00 n 4.2E-01 n 1.8E+00 n 8.2E-01 n 5.0E+00 2.7E-04 n 1.7E-03 2.0E-02 P V 1 1.5E+03 Dichloropropane, 1,3-142-28-9 1.6E+02 n 2.3E+03 ns 3.7E+01 n 1.3E-02 n 3.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dichloropropanol, 2,3-616-23-9 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 5.9E+00 n 1.3E-03 n
Page 3 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
1.0E-01 I 4.0E-06 I 3.0E-02 I 2.0E-02 I V 1 1.6E+03 Dichloropropene, 1,3-542-75-6 1.8E+00 c**8.2E+00 c**7.0E-01 c**3.1E+00 c**4.7E-01 c**1.7E-04 c** 2.9E-01 I 8.3E-05 C 5.0E-04 I 5.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Dichlorvos 62-73-7 1.9E+00 c**7.9E+00 c**3.4E-02 c**1.5E-01 c**2.6E-01 c**8.1E-05 c** 3.0E-05 O 1 0.1 Dicrotophos 141-66-2 1.9E-01 n 2.5E+00 n 6.0E-02 n 1.4E-05 n 8.0E-02 P 3.0E-04 X V 1 2.6E+02 Dicyclopentadiene 77-73-6 1.3E-01 n 5.4E-01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 6.3E-02 n 2.2E-04 n 1.6E+01 I 4.6E-03 I 5.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Dieldrin 60-57-1 3.4E-02 c**1.4E-01 c*6.1E-04 c 2.7E-03 c 1.8E-03 c*7.1E-05 c* 3.0E-04 C 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Diesel Engine Exhaust E17136615 9.4E-03 c*4.1E-02 c* 2.0E-03 P 2.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Diethanolamine 111-42-2 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 2.1E-02 n 8.8E-02 n 4.0E+00 n 8.1E-04 n 3.0E-02 P 1.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether 112-34-5 1.9E+02 n 2.4E+03 n 1.0E-02 n 4.4E-02 n 6.0E+01 n 1.3E-02 n 6.0E-02 P 3.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether 111-90-0 3.8E+02 n 4.8E+03 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 1.2E+02 n 2.4E-02 n 1.0E-03 P V 1 1.1E+05 Diethylformamide 617-84-5 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.0E+00 n 4.1E-04 n 3.5E+02 C 1.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Diethylstilbestrol 56-53-1 1.6E-03 c 6.6E-03 c 2.8E-05 c 1.2E-04 c 5.1E-05 c 2.8E-05 c 8.3E-02 O 1 0.1 Difenzoquat 43222-48-6 5.2E+02 n 6.8E+03 n 1.7E+02 n 2.6E+01 n 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Diflubenzuron 35367-38-5 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 2.9E+01 n 3.3E-02 n 4.0E+01 I V 1 1.4E+03 Difluoroethane, 1,1-75-37-6 4.8E+03 ns 2.0E+04 ns 4.2E+03 n 1.8E+04 n 8.3E+03 n 2.8E+00 n 3.0E+01 X V 1 6.9E+02 Difluoropropane, 2,2-420-45-1 2.4E+03 ns 1.0E+04 ns 3.1E+03 n 1.3E+04 n 6.3E+03 n 1.4E+01 n 4.4E-02 C 1.3E-05 C V 1 Dihydrosafrole 94-58-6 9.9E+00 c 4.5E+01 c 2.2E-01 c 9.4E-01 c 3.0E-01 c 1.9E-04 c 7.0E-01 P V 1 2.3E+03 Diisopropyl Ether 108-20-3 2.2E+02 n 9.4E+02 n 7.3E+01 n 3.1E+02 n 1.5E+02 n 3.7E-02 n 8.0E-02 I V 1 5.3E+02 Diisopropyl Methylphosphonate 1445-75-6 6.3E+02 ns 9.3E+03 ns 1.6E+02 n 4.5E-02 n 2.2E-02 O 1 0.1 Dimethipin 55290-64-7 1.4E+02 n 1.8E+03 n 4.4E+01 n 9.6E-03 n 2.2E-03 O 1 0.1 Dimethoate 60-51-5 1.4E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 4.4E+00 n 9.9E-04 n 1.6E+00 P 1 0.1 Dimethoxybenzidine, 3,3'-119-90-4 3.4E-01 c 1.4E+00 c 4.7E-02 c 5.8E-05 c 1.7E-03 P 6.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Dimethyl methylphosphonate 756-79-6 3.2E+02 c**1.4E+03 c** 4.6E+01 c**9.6E-03 c** 4.6E+00 C 1.3E-03 C 1 0.1 Dimethylamino azobenzene [p-]60-11-7 1.2E-01 c 5.0E-01 c 2.2E-03 c 9.4E-03 c 5.0E-03 c 2.1E-05 c 5.8E-01 H 1 0.1 Dimethylaniline HCl, 2,4-21436-96-4 9.4E-01 c 4.0E+00 c 1.3E-01 c 1.2E-04 c 2.0E-01 P 2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Dimethylaniline, 2,4-95-68-1 2.7E+00 c**1.1E+01 c* 3.7E-01 c*2.1E-04 c* 2.7E-02 P 2.0E-03 I V 1 8.3E+02 Dimethylaniline, N,N-121-69-7 1.6E+01 n 1.2E+02 c** 2.5E+00 c**9.0E-04 c** 1.1E+01 P 1 0.1 Dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-119-93-7 4.9E-02 c 2.1E-01 c 6.5E-03 c 4.3E-05 c 1.0E-01 P 3.0E-02 I V 1 1.1E+05 Dimethylformamide 68-12-2 2.6E+02 n 1.5E+03 n 3.1E+00 n 1.3E+01 n 6.1E+00 n 1.2E-03 n 1.0E-04 X 2.0E-06 X V 1 1.7E+05 Dimethylhydrazine, 1,1-57-14-7 5.7E-03 n 2.4E-02 n 2.1E-04 n 8.8E-04 n 4.2E-04 n 9.3E-08 n 5.5E+02 C 1.6E-01 C V 1 1.9E+05 Dimethylhydrazine, 1,2-540-73-8 8.8E-04 c 4.1E-03 c 1.8E-05 c 7.7E-05 c 2.8E-05 c 6.5E-09 c 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Dimethylphenol, 2,4-105-67-9 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.6E+01 n 4.2E-02 n 6.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Dimethylphenol, 2,6-576-26-1 3.8E+00 n 4.9E+01 n 1.1E+00 n 1.3E-03 n 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dimethylphenol, 3,4-95-65-8 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.8E+00 n 2.1E-03 n 4.5E-02 C 1.3E-05 C V 1 4.7E+02 Dimethylvinylchloride 513-37-1 1.1E+00 c 4.8E+00 c 2.2E-01 c 9.4E-01 c 3.3E-01 c 1.1E-04 c 8.0E-05 X 1 0.1 Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-534-52-1 5.1E-01 n 6.6E+00 n 1.5E-01 n 2.6E-04 n 2.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dinitro-o-cyclohexyl Phenol, 4,6-131-89-5 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 2.3E+00 n 7.7E-02 n 4.0E-04 X 2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Dinitroaniline, 3,5-618-87-1 2.5E+00 n 3.3E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 7.7E-01 n 4.1E-04 n 1.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Dinitrobenzene, 1,2-528-29-0 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 1.9E-01 n 1.8E-04 n 1.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-99-65-0 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 1.8E-04 n 1.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Dinitrobenzene, 1,4-100-25-4 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 1.8E-04 n 2.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dinitrophenol, 2,4-51-28-5 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 3.9E+00 n 4.4E-03 n 6.8E-01 I 1 0.1 Dinitrotoluene Mixture, 2,4/2,6-E1615210 8.0E-01 c 3.4E+00 c 1.1E-01 c 1.5E-04 c 3.1E-01 C 8.9E-05 C 2.0E-03 I 1 0.102 Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-121-14-2 1.7E+00 c**7.4E+00 c*3.2E-02 c 1.4E-01 c 2.4E-01 c*3.2E-04 c* 1.5E+00 P 3.0E-04 X 1 0.099 Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-606-20-2 3.6E-01 c**1.5E+00 c* 4.9E-02 c*6.7E-05 c* 1.0E-04 X 1 0.006 Dinitrotoluene, 2-Amino-4,6-35572-78-2 7.7E-01 n 1.1E+01 n 1.9E-01 n 1.5E-04 n 1.0E-04 X 1 0.009 Dinitrotoluene, 4-Amino-2,6-19406-51-0 7.7E-01 n 1.1E+01 n 1.9E-01 n 1.5E-04 n 4.5E-01 X 9.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Dinitrotoluene, Technical grade 25321-14-6 1.2E+00 c**5.1E+00 c* 1.0E-01 c*1.4E-04 c* 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Dinoseb 88-85-7 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.5E+00 n 7.0E+00 1.3E-02 n 6.2E-021.0E-01 I 5.0E-06 I 3.0E-02 I 3.0E-02 I V 1 1.2E+05 Dioxane, 1,4-123-91-1 5.3E+00 c*2.4E+01 c*5.6E-01 c**2.5E+00 c**4.6E-01 c*9.4E-05 c* Dioxins 6.2E+03 I 1.3E+00 I 1 0.03 ~Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Mixture 34465-46-8 1.0E-04 c 4.7E-04 c 2.2E-06 c 9.4E-06 c 1.3E-05 c 1.7E-05 c 1.3E+05 C 3.8E+01 C 7.0E-10 I 4.0E-08 C V 1 0.03 ~TCDD, 2,3,7,8-1746-01-6 4.8E-06 c**2.2E-05 c**7.4E-08 c*3.2E-07 c*1.2E-07 c*3.0E-05 5.9E-08 c*1.5E-05 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Diphenamid 957-51-7 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 5.3E+01 n 5.2E-01 n 4.0E-04 X V 1 Diphenyl Ether 101-84-8 3.4E+00 n 1.4E+01 n 4.2E-02 n 1.8E-01 n 8.3E-02 n 3.4E-04 n 8.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Diphenyl Sulfone 127-63-9 5.1E+00 n 6.6E+01 n 1.5E+00 n 3.6E-03 n 1.0E-01 O 1 0.1 Diphenylamine 122-39-4 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.3E+02 n 2.3E-01 n 8.0E-01 I 2.2E-04 I 1 0.1 Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-122-66-7 6.8E-01 c 2.9E+00 c 1.3E-02 c 5.6E-02 c 7.8E-02 c 2.5E-04 c 2.2E-03 I 1 0.1 Diquat 2764-72-9 1.4E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 2.0E+01 3.3E-02 n 1.7E-017.4E+00 C 2.1E-03 C 1 0.1 Direct Black 38 1937-37-7 7.3E-02 c 3.1E-01 c 1.3E-03 c 5.8E-03 c 1.1E-02 c 5.1E+00 c 7.4E+00 C 2.1E-03 C 1 0.1 Direct Blue 6 2602-46-2 7.3E-02 c 3.1E-01 c 1.3E-03 c 5.8E-03 c 1.1E-02 c 1.7E+01 c 6.7E+00 C 1.9E-03 C 1 0.1 Direct Brown 95 16071-86-6 8.1E-02 c 3.4E-01 c 1.5E-03 c 6.5E-03 c 1.2E-02 c 1.6E-01 c 4.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Disulfoton 298-04-4 2.5E-01 n 3.3E+00 n 5.0E-02 n 9.4E-05 n 1.0E-02 I V 1 Dithiane, 1,4-505-29-3 7.8E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.0E+01 n 9.7E-03 n 2.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Diuron 330-54-1 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 3.6E+00 n 1.5E-03 n 2.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Dodine 2439-10-3 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 4.0E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 5.0E-02 O V 1 EPTC 759-94-4 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 7.5E+01 n 4.0E-02 n 6.0E-03 I V 1 Endosulfan 115-29-7 4.7E+01 n 7.0E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 1.4E-01 n 6.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Endosulfan Sulfate 1031-07-8 3.8E+01 n 4.9E+02 n 1.1E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Endothall 145-73-3 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.8E+01 n 1.0E+02 9.1E-03 n 2.4E-02 3.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Endrin 72-20-8 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 2.3E-01 n 2.0E+00 9.2E-03 n 8.1E-029.9E-03 I 1.2E-06 I 6.0E-03 P 1.0E-03 I V 1 1.1E+04 Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 1.9E+00 n 8.2E+00 n 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.0E-01 n 4.5E-05 n 2.0E-02 I V 1 1.5E+04 Epoxybutane, 1,2-106-88-7 1.6E+01 n 6.7E+01 n 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 4.2E+00 n 9.2E-04 n 4.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Ethanol, 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)-111-77-3 2.5E+02 n 3.3E+03 n 8.0E+01 n 1.6E-02 n 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Ethephon 16672-87-0 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 2.1E-03 n 5.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Ethion 563-12-2 3.2E+00 n 4.1E+01 n 4.3E-01 n 8.5E-04 n 1.0E-01 P 6.0E-02 P V 1 2.4E+04 Ethoxyethanol Acetate, 2-111-15-9 2.6E+02 n 1.4E+03 n 6.3E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 1.2E+01 n 2.5E-03 n 9.0E-02 P 4.0E-02 P V 1 1.1E+05 Ethoxyethanol, 2-110-80-5 2.6E+02 n 1.5E+03 n 4.2E+00 n 1.8E+01 n 8.0E+00 n 1.6E-03 n 7.0E-01 P 7.0E-02 P V 1 1.1E+04 Ethyl Acetate 141-78-6 6.2E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 7.3E+00 n 3.1E+01 n 1.4E+01 n 3.1E-03 n 5.0E-03 P 8.0E-03 P V 1 2.5E+03 Ethyl Acrylate 140-88-5 4.7E+00 n 2.1E+01 n 8.3E-01 n 3.5E+00 n 1.4E+00 n 3.2E-04 n
Page 4 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
4.0E+00 P V 1 2.1E+03 Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane)75-00-3 5.4E+02 n 2.3E+03 ns 4.2E+02 n 1.8E+03 n 8.3E+02 n 2.4E-01 n 2.0E-01 I V 1 1.0E+04 Ethyl Ether 60-29-7 1.6E+03 n 2.3E+04 ns 3.9E+02 n 8.8E-02 n 3.0E-01 P V 1 1.1E+03 Ethyl Methacrylate 97-63-2 1.8E+02 n 7.6E+02 n 3.1E+01 n 1.3E+02 n 6.3E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 8.0E-08 I 1.0E+00 I 4.0E+01 I V 1 2.9E+03 Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE)637-92-3 1.3E+02 c*5.6E+02 c*3.5E+01 c 1.5E+02 c 7.0E+01 c*1.7E-02 c* 1.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Ethyl-p-nitrophenyl Phosphonate 2104-64-5 6.3E-02 n 8.2E-01 n 8.9E-03 n 2.8E-04 n 1.1E-02 C 2.5E-06 C 5.0E-02 P 1.0E+00 I V 1 4.8E+02 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 5.8E+00 c*2.5E+01 c*1.1E+00 c*4.9E+00 c*1.5E+00 c*7.0E+02 1.7E-03 c*7.8E-01 7.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Ethylene Cyanohydrin 109-78-4 4.4E+02 n 5.7E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 2.8E-02 n 9.0E-02 P V 1 1.9E+05 Ethylene Diamine 107-15-3 7.0E+02 n 1.1E+04 n 1.8E+02 n 4.1E-02 n 8.0E-01 A 4.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 5.1E+03 n 6.6E+04 n 4.2E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.2E-01 n 1.0E-01 I 1.6E+00 I 1 0.1 Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether 111-76-2 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.7E+02 n 7.0E+02 n 2.0E+02 n 4.1E-02 n 3.1E-01 C 3.0E-03 I 3.0E-02 C V M 1 1.2E+05 Ethylene Oxide 75-21-8 2.0E-03 c 2.5E-02 c 3.4E-04 c 4.1E-03 c 6.7E-04 c 1.4E-07 c 4.5E-02 C 1.3E-05 C 8.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Ethylene Thiourea 96-45-7 5.1E-01 n 6.6E+00 n 2.2E-01 c 9.4E-01 c 1.6E-01 n 3.6E-05 n 6.5E+01 C 1.9E-02 C V 1 1.5E+05 Ethyleneimine 151-56-4 2.7E-03 c 1.2E-02 c 1.5E-04 c 6.5E-04 c 2.4E-04 c 5.2E-08 c 3.0E+00 I 1 0.1 Ethylphthalyl Ethyl Glycolate 84-72-0 1.9E+04 n 2.5E+05 nm 5.8E+03 n 1.3E+01 n 2.5E-04 I 1 0.1 Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 1.6E+00 n 2.1E+01 n 4.4E-01 n 4.3E-04 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Fenpropathrin 39515-41-8 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 6.4E+00 n 2.9E-01 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Fenvalerate 51630-58-1 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 5.0E+01 n 3.2E+01 n 1.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Fluometuron 2164-17-2 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 2.4E+01 n 1.9E-02 n 4.0E-02 C 1.3E-02 C 1 Fluoride 16984-48-8 3.1E+02 n 4.7E+03 n 1.4E+00 n 5.7E+00 n 8.0E+01 n 4.0E+03 1.2E+01 n 6.0E+02 6.0E-02 I 1.3E-02 C 1 Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride)7782-41-4 4.7E+02 n 7.0E+03 n 1.4E+00 n 5.7E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 4.0E+03 1.8E+01 n 6.0E+02 8.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Fluridone 59756-60-4 5.1E+02 n 6.6E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 1.6E+01 n 4.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Flurprimidol 56425-91-3 2.5E+02 n 3.3E+03 n 6.9E+01 n 3.1E-01 n 2.0E-03 O 1 0.1 Flusilazole 85509-19-9 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 3.1E+00 n 5.1E-01 n 5.0E-01 O 1 0.1 Flutolanil 66332-96-5 3.2E+03 n 4.1E+04 n 7.9E+02 n 4.2E+00 n 1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Fluvalinate 69409-94-5 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 2.0E+01 n 2.9E+01 n 9.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Folpet 133-07-3 5.7E+02 n 7.4E+03 n 1.6E+02 n 3.9E-02 n 1.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Fomesafen 72178-02-0 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 1.9E+01 n 6.3E-02 n 2.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Fonofos 944-22-9 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 2.4E+00 n 4.7E-03 n 2.1E-02 C 1.3E-05 I 2.0E-01 I 9.8E-03 A V 1 4.2E+04 Formaldehyde 50-00-0 1.1E+01 c**5.0E+01 c**2.2E-01 c**9.4E-01 c**3.9E-01 c**7.8E-05 c** 9.0E-01 P 3.0E-04 X V 1 1.1E+05 Formic Acid 64-18-6 2.9E+00 n 1.2E+01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 6.3E-02 n 1.3E-05 n 2.5E+00 O 1 0.1 Fosetyl-AL 39148-24-8 1.6E+04 n 2.1E+05 nm 5.0E+03 n 6.6E+01 n Furans 1.0E-03 X V 1 ~Dibenzofuran 132-64-9 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 7.9E-01 n 1.5E-02 n 1.0E-03 I V 1 6.2E+03 ~Furan 110-00-9 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 1.9E+00 n 7.3E-04 n 9.0E-01 I 2.0E+00 I V 1 1.7E+05 ~Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 1.8E+03 n 9.5E+03 n 2.1E+02 n 8.8E+02 n 3.4E+02 n 7.5E-02 n 3.8E+00 H 1 0.1 Furazolidone 67-45-8 1.4E-01 c 6.0E-01 c 2.0E-02 c 3.9E-05 c 3.0E-03 I 5.0E-02 H V 1 1.0E+04 Furfural 98-01-1 2.1E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 5.2E+00 n 2.2E+01 n 3.8E+00 n 8.1E-04 n 1.5E+00 C 4.3E-04 C 1 0.1 Furium 531-82-8 3.6E-01 c 1.5E+00 c 6.5E-03 c 2.9E-02 c 5.1E-02 c 6.8E-05 c 3.0E-02 I 8.6E-06 C 1 0.1 Furmecyclox 60568-05-0 1.8E+01 c 7.7E+01 c 3.3E-01 c 1.4E+00 c 1.1E+00 c 1.2E-03 c 6.0E-03 O 1 0.1 Glufosinate, Ammonium 77182-82-2 3.8E+01 n 4.9E+02 n 1.2E+01 n 2.6E-03 n 1.0E-01 A 8.0E-05 C 1 0.1 Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 6.0E+02 n 7.0E+03 n 8.3E-03 n 3.5E-02 n 2.0E+02 n 4.0E-02 n 4.0E-04 I 1.0E-03 X V 1 1.1E+05 Glycidaldehyde 765-34-4 2.3E+00 n 2.1E+01 n 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 1.7E-01 n 3.3E-05 n 1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Glyphosate 1071-83-6 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 2.0E+02 n 7.0E+02 8.8E-01 n 3.1E+00 1.0E-02 X V 1 Guanidine 113-00-8 7.8E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.0E+01 n 4.5E-03 n 2.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Guanidine Chloride 50-01-1 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 4.0E+01 n 3.0E-02 X 1 0.1 Guanidine Nitrate 506-93-4 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 6.0E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 5.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Haloxyfop, Methyl 69806-40-2 3.2E-01 n 4.1E+00 n 7.6E-02 n 8.4E-04 n 4.5E+00 I 1.3E-03 I 1.0E-04 A V 1 Heptachlor 76-44-8 1.3E-01 c**6.3E-01 c*2.2E-03 c 9.4E-03 c 1.4E-03 c*4.0E-01 1.2E-04 c*3.3E-029.1E+00 I 2.6E-03 I 1.3E-05 I V 1 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 7.0E-02 c**3.3E-01 c**1.1E-03 c 4.7E-03 c 1.4E-03 c**2.0E-01 2.8E-05 c**4.1E-03 3.0E-03 X V 1 2.1E+02 Heptanal, n-111-71-7 2.4E+00 n 1.0E+01 n 3.1E-01 n 1.3E+00 n 6.3E-01 n 1.4E-04 n 3.0E-04 X 4.0E-01 P V 1 5.8E+01 Heptane, N-142-82-5 2.2E+00 n 2.9E+01 n 4.2E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 6.0E-01 n 4.8E-03 n 2.0E-03 I V 1 Hexabromobenzene 87-82-1 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 2.3E-02 n 2.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Hexabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',4,4',5,5'- (BDE-153)68631-49-2 1.3E+00 n 1.6E+01 n 4.0E-01 n 1.6E+00 I 4.6E-04 I 1.0E-05 P V 1 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 7.8E-02 n 9.6E-01 c**6.1E-03 c 2.7E-02 c 9.8E-03 c**1.0E+00 1.2E-04 c**1.3E-027.8E-02 I 2.2E-05 I 1.0E-03 P V 1 1.7E+01 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 1.2E+00 c**5.3E+00 c*1.3E-01 c 5.6E-01 c 1.4E-01 c**2.7E-04 c** 6.3E+00 I 1.8E-03 I 8.0E-03 A 1 0.1 Hexachlorocyclohexane, Alpha-319-84-6 8.6E-02 c 3.6E-01 c 1.6E-03 c 6.8E-03 c 7.2E-03 c 4.2E-05 c 1.8E+00 I 5.3E-04 I 1 0.1 Hexachlorocyclohexane, Beta-319-85-7 3.0E-01 c 1.3E+00 c 5.3E-03 c 2.3E-02 c 2.5E-02 c 1.5E-04 c 1.1E+00 C 3.1E-04 C 1.0E-05 A 1 0.04 Hexachlorocyclohexane, Gamma- (Lindane)58-89-9 7.1E-02 n 1.0E+00 n 9.1E-03 c 4.0E-02 c 1.2E-02 n 2.0E-01 7.1E-05 n 1.2E-031.8E+00 I 5.1E-04 I 1 0.1 Hexachlorocyclohexane, Technical 608-73-1 3.0E-01 c 1.3E+00 c 5.5E-03 c 2.4E-02 c 2.5E-02 c 1.5E-04 c 6.0E-03 I 2.0E-04 I V 1 1.6E+01 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 1.8E-01 n 7.5E-01 n 2.1E-02 n 8.8E-02 n 4.1E-02 n 5.0E+01 1.3E-04 n 1.6E-014.0E-02 I 1.1E-05 C 7.0E-04 I 3.0E-02 I V 1 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.8E+00 c**8.0E+00 c**2.6E-01 c*1.1E+00 c*3.3E-01 c**2.0E-04 c** 3.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Hexachlorophene 70-30-4 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 8.0E-01 n 8.0E-02 I 4.0E-03 I 1 0.015 Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)121-82-4 8.3E+00 c**3.8E+01 c* 9.7E-01 c**3.7E-04 c** 1.0E-05 I V 1 3.4E+03 Hexamethylene Diisocyanate, 1,6-822-06-0 3.1E-01 n 1.3E+00 n 1.0E-03 n 4.4E-03 n 2.1E-03 n 2.1E-05 n 4.0E-04 C 1 0.1 Hexamethylene diisocyanate biuret 4035-89-6 5.7E+04 n 2.4E+05 nm 4.2E-02 n 1.8E-01 n 4.0E-04 C 1 0.1 Hexamethylene diisocyanate isocyanurate 3779-63-3 5.7E+04 n 2.4E+05 nm 4.2E-02 n 1.8E-01 n 4.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Hexamethylphosphoramide 680-31-9 2.5E+00 n 3.3E+01 n 8.0E-01 n 1.8E-04 n 2.0E-07 X 6.0E-01 P V 1 1.4E+02 Hexane, Commercial E5241997 1.2E+01 c**5.1E+01 c**1.4E+01 c**6.1E+01 c**2.8E+01 c**2.0E-01 c** 7.0E-01 I V 1 1.4E+02 Hexane, N-110-54-3 6.1E+01 n 2.5E+02 ns 7.3E+01 n 3.1E+02 n 1.5E+02 n 1.0E+00 n 2.0E+00 P 1 0.1 Hexanedioic Acid 124-04-9 1.3E+04 n 1.6E+05 nm 4.0E+03 n 9.9E-01 n 9.5E-03 P 7.0E-02 P 4.0E-04 P V 1 2.7E+02 Hexanol, 1-,2-ethyl- (2-Ethyl-1-hexanol)104-76-7 1.5E+00 n 6.3E+00 n 4.2E-02 n 1.8E-01 n 8.3E-02 n 2.3E-05 n 5.0E-03 I 3.0E-02 I V 1 3.3E+03 Hexanone, 2-591-78-6 2.0E+01 n 1.3E+02 n 3.1E+00 n 1.3E+01 n 3.8E+00 n 8.8E-04 n 3.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Hexazinone 51235-04-2 2.1E+02 n 2.7E+03 n 6.4E+01 n 3.0E-02 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 1.1E+01 n 5.0E-02 n 1.7E-02 O 1 0.1 Hydramethylnon 67485-29-4 1.1E+02 n 1.4E+03 n 3.4E+01 n 1.2E+04 n 3.0E+00 I 4.9E-03 I 3.0E-05 P V 1 1.1E+05 Hydrazine 302-01-2 3.2E-02 c**1.4E-01 c**5.7E-04 c**2.5E-03 c**1.1E-03 c**2.2E-07 c** 3.0E+00 I 4.9E-03 I 1 Hydrazine Sulfate 10034-93-2 2.3E-01 c 1.1E+00 c 5.7E-04 c 2.5E-03 c 2.6E-02 c 2.0E-02 I V 1 Hydrogen Chloride 7647-01-0 2.8E+06 nm 1.2E+07 nm 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 4.2E+00 n 4.0E-02 C 1.4E-02 C V 1 Hydrogen Fluoride 7664-39-3 3.1E+02 n 4.7E+03 n 1.5E+00 n 6.1E+00 n 2.8E+00 n
Page 5 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
2.0E-03 I V 1 Hydrogen Sulfide 7783-06-4 2.8E+05 nm 1.2E+06 nm 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 4.2E-01 n 6.0E-02 P 4.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Hydroquinone 123-31-9 9.0E+00 c*3.8E+01 c* 1.3E+00 c*8.7E-04 c* 6.1E-02 O 1.1E-01 O 1 0.1 Imazalil 35554-44-0 8.9E+00 c*3.8E+01 c 9.0E-01 c 1.5E-02 c 2.5E-01 I 1 0.1 Imazaquin 81335-37-7 1.6E+03 n 2.1E+04 n 4.9E+02 n 2.4E+00 n 2.5E+00 O 1 0.1 Imazethapyr 81335-77-5 1.6E+04 n 2.1E+05 nm 4.7E+03 n 4.1E+00 n 1.0E-02 A 1 Iodine 7553-56-2 7.8E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.0E+01 n 1.2E+00 n 4.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Iprodione 36734-19-7 2.5E+02 n 3.3E+03 n 7.4E+01 n 2.2E-02 n 7.0E-01 P 1 Iron 7439-89-6 5.5E+03 n 8.2E+04 n 1.4E+03 n 3.5E+01 n 3.0E-01 I V 1 1.0E+04 Isobutyl Alcohol 78-83-1 2.3E+03 n 3.5E+04 ns 5.9E+02 n 1.2E-01 n 9.5E-04 I 2.0E-01 I 2.0E+00 C 1 0.1 Isophorone 78-59-1 5.7E+02 c**2.4E+03 c**2.1E+02 n 8.8E+02 n 7.8E+01 c**2.6E-02 c** 1.5E-02 I V 1 Isopropalin 33820-53-0 1.2E+02 n 1.8E+03 n 4.0E+00 n 9.2E-02 n 2.0E+00 P 2.0E-01 P V 1 1.1E+05 Isopropanol 67-63-0 5.6E+02 n 2.4E+03 n 2.1E+01 n 8.8E+01 n 4.1E+01 n 8.4E-03 n 1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Isopropyl Methyl Phosphonic Acid 1832-54-8 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 2.0E+02 n 4.3E-02 n 5.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Isoxaben 82558-50-7 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 7.3E+01 n 2.0E-01 n 3.0E-01 A V 1 JP-7 E1737665 4.3E+07 nm 1.8E+08 nm 3.1E+01 n 1.3E+02 n 6.3E+01 n 8.0E-03 O 1 0.1 Lactofen 77501-63-4 5.1E+01 n 6.6E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 4.6E-01 n 2.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Lactonitrile 78-97-7 1.3E+00 n 1.6E+01 n 4.0E-01 n 8.1E-05 n 5.0E-05 P 1 Lanthanum 7439-91-0 3.9E-01 n 5.8E+00 n 1.0E-01 n 2.1E-05 P 1 0.1 Lanthanum Acetate Hydrate 100587-90-4 1.3E-01 n 1.7E+00 n 4.2E-02 n 1.9E-05 P 1 Lanthanum Chloride Heptahydrate 10025-84-0 1.5E-01 n 2.2E+00 n 3.7E-02 n 2.8E-05 P 1 Lanthanum Chloride, Anhydrous 10099-58-8 2.2E-01 n 3.3E+00 n 5.7E-02 n 1.6E-05 P 1 Lanthanum Nitrate Hexahydrate 10277-43-7 1.3E-01 n 1.9E+00 n 3.2E-02 n Lead Compounds 8.5E-03 C 1.2E-05 C 1 ~Lead Phosphate 7446-27-7 8.2E+01 c 3.8E+02 c 2.3E-01 c 1.0E+00 c 9.1E+00 c 2.1E-01 C 8.0E-05 C 1 0.1 ~Lead acetate 301-04-2 2.6E+00 c 1.1E+01 c 3.5E-02 c 1.5E-01 c 3.7E-01 c 7.5E-05 c 1 ~Lead and Compounds 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 G 8.0E+02 G 1.5E-01 G 1.5E+01 G 1.5E+01 1.4E+013.8E-02 C 1.1E-05 C 1 0.1 ~Lead subacetate 1335-32-6 1.4E+01 c 6.0E+01 c 2.6E-01 c 1.1E+00 c 2.1E+00 c 4.5E-04 c 1.0E-07 I V 1 2.4E+00 ~Tetraethyl Lead 78-00-2 7.8E-04 n 1.2E-02 n 1.3E-04 n 4.7E-07 n 5.0E-06 P V 1 3.8E+02 Lewisite 541-25-3 3.9E-02 n 5.8E-01 n 9.0E-03 n 3.8E-06 n 7.7E-03 O 1 0.1 Linuron 330-55-2 4.9E+01 n 6.3E+02 n 1.3E+01 n 1.1E-02 n 2.0E-03 P 1 Lithium 7439-93-2 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 1.2E+00 n 5.0E-04 I 1 0.1 MCPA 94-74-6 3.2E+00 n 4.1E+01 n 7.5E-01 n 2.0E-04 n 4.4E-03 O 1 0.1 MCPB 94-81-5 2.8E+01 n 3.6E+02 n 6.5E+00 n 2.6E-03 n 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 MCPP 93-65-2 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.6E+00 n 4.7E-04 n 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Malathion 121-75-5 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.9E+01 n 1.0E-02 n 1.0E-01 I 7.0E-04 C 1 0.1 Maleic Anhydride 108-31-6 6.3E+02 n 8.0E+03 n 7.3E-02 n 3.1E-01 n 1.9E+02 n 3.8E-02 n 5.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Maleic Hydrazide 123-33-1 3.2E+03 n 4.1E+04 n 1.0E+03 n 2.1E-01 n 1.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Malononitrile 109-77-3 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 4.1E-05 n 3.0E-02 H 1 0.1 Mancozeb 8018-01-7 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 5.4E+01 n 7.6E-02 n 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Maneb 12427-38-2 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 9.8E+00 n 1.4E-02 n 1.4E-01 I 5.0E-05 I 1 Manganese (Diet)7439-96-5 5.2E-03 n 2.2E-02 n 2.4E-02 G 5.0E-05 I 0.04 Manganese (Non-diet)7439-96-5 1.8E+02 n 2.6E+03 n 5.2E-03 n 2.2E-02 n 4.3E+01 n 2.8E+00 n 9.0E-05 H 1 0.1 Mephosfolan 950-10-7 5.7E-01 n 7.4E+00 n 1.8E-01 n 2.6E-04 n 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Mepiquat Chloride 24307-26-4 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 6.0E+01 n 2.0E-02 n 1.1E-02 P 4.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Mercaptobenzothiazole, 2-149-30-4 2.5E+01 n 2.1E+02 c** 6.3E+00 c**1.8E-02 c** Mercury Compounds 3.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 G 0.07 ~Mercuric Chloride (and other Mercury salts)7487-94-7 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 5.7E-01 n 2.0E+00 3.0E-04 I V 1 3.1E+00 ~Mercury (elemental)7439-97-6 1.1E+00 n 4.6E+00 ns 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 6.3E-02 n 2.0E+00 3.3E-03 n 1.0E-01 1.0E-04 I 1 ~Methyl Mercury 22967-92-6 7.8E-01 n 1.2E+01 n 2.0E-01 n 1.4E+00 n 8.0E-05 I 1 0.1 ~Phenylmercuric Acetate 62-38-4 5.1E-01 n 6.6E+00 n 1.6E-01 n 5.0E-05 n 3.0E-05 I V 1 Merphos 150-50-5 2.3E-01 n 3.5E+00 n 6.0E-02 n 5.9E-03 n 6.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Metalaxyl 57837-19-1 3.8E+02 n 4.9E+03 n 1.2E+02 n 3.3E-02 n 1.0E-04 I 3.0E-02 P V 1 4.6E+03 Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7 7.5E-01 n 1.0E+01 n 3.1E+00 n 1.3E+01 n 1.9E-01 n 4.3E-05 n 5.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Methamidophos 10265-92-6 3.2E-01 n 4.1E+00 n 1.0E-01 n 2.1E-05 n 2.0E+00 I 2.0E+01 I V 1 1.1E+05 Methanol 67-56-1 1.2E+04 n 1.2E+05 nms 2.1E+03 n 8.8E+03 n 2.0E+03 n 4.1E-01 n 1.5E-03 O 1 0.1 Methidathion 950-37-8 9.5E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.9E+00 n 7.1E-04 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Methomyl 16752-77-5 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 5.0E+01 n 1.1E-02 n 4.9E-02 C 1 0.1 Methoxy-5-nitroaniline, 2-99-59-2 1.1E+01 c 4.7E+01 c 1.5E+00 c 5.3E-04 c 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Methoxychlor 72-43-5 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 3.7E+00 n 4.0E+01 2.0E-01 n 2.2E+00 8.0E-03 P 1.0E-03 P V 1 1.2E+05 Methoxyethanol Acetate, 2-110-49-6 1.1E+01 n 5.1E+01 n 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.1E-01 n 4.2E-05 n 5.0E-03 P 7.0E-03 P V 1 1.1E+05 Methoxyethanol, 2-109-86-4 2.6E+01 n 2.0E+02 n 7.3E-01 n 3.1E+00 n 1.3E+00 n 2.6E-04 n 1.0E+00 X V 1 2.9E+04 Methyl Acetate 79-20-9 7.8E+03 n 1.2E+05 nms 2.0E+03 n 4.1E-01 n 2.0E-02 P V 1 6.8E+03 Methyl Acrylate 96-33-3 1.5E+01 n 6.1E+01 n 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 4.2E+00 n 8.9E-04 n 6.0E-01 I 5.0E+00 I V 1 2.8E+04 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)78-93-3 2.7E+03 n 1.9E+04 n 5.2E+02 n 2.2E+03 n 5.6E+02 n 1.2E-01 n 1.0E-03 X 1.0E-03 P 2.0E-05 X V 1 1.8E+05 Methyl Hydrazine 60-34-4 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.1E-03 n 8.8E-03 n 4.2E-03 n 9.4E-07 n 3.0E+00 I V 1 3.4E+03 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone)108-10-1 3.3E+03 n 1.4E+04 ns 3.1E+02 n 1.3E+03 n 6.3E+02 n 1.4E-01 n 1.0E-03 C V 1 1.0E+04 Methyl Isocyanate 624-83-9 4.6E-01 n 1.9E+00 n 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.1E-01 n 5.9E-05 n 1.4E+00 I 7.0E-01 I V 1 2.4E+03 Methyl Methacrylate 80-62-6 4.4E+02 n 1.9E+03 n 7.3E+01 n 3.1E+02 n 1.4E+02 n 3.0E-02 n 2.5E-04 I 1 0.1 Methyl Parathion 298-00-0 1.6E+00 n 2.1E+01 n 4.5E-01 n 7.4E-04 n 6.0E-02 X 1 0.1 Methyl Phosphonic Acid 993-13-5 3.8E+02 n 4.9E+03 n 1.2E+02 n 2.4E-02 n 6.0E-03 H 4.0E-02 H V 1 3.9E+02 Methyl Styrene (Mixed Isomers)25013-15-4 3.2E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 4.2E+00 n 1.8E+01 n 2.3E+00 n 3.8E-03 n 9.9E-02 C 2.8E-05 C 1 0.1 Methyl methanesulfonate 66-27-3 5.5E+00 c 2.3E+01 c 1.0E-01 c 4.4E-01 c 7.9E-01 c 1.6E-04 c 1.8E-03 C 2.6E-07 C 3.0E+00 I V 1 8.9E+03 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)1634-04-4 4.7E+01 c*2.1E+02 c*1.1E+01 c*4.7E+01 c*1.4E+01 c*3.2E-03 c* 3.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Methyl-1,4-benzenediamine dihydrochloride, 2-615-45-2 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 3.6E-04 n 3.0E+00 X V 1 2.5E+03 Methyl-2-Pentanol, 4-108-11-2 5.4E+03 ns 2.3E+04 ns 3.1E+02 n 1.3E+03 n 6.3E+02 n 1.4E-01 n 9.0E-03 P 2.0E-02 X 1 0.1 Methyl-5-Nitroaniline, 2-99-55-8 6.0E+01 c**2.6E+02 c** 8.2E+00 c**4.6E-03 c** 8.3E+00 C 2.4E-03 C 1 0.1 Methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine, N-70-25-7 6.5E-02 c 2.8E-01 c 1.2E-03 c 5.1E-03 c 9.4E-03 c 3.2E-06 c 1.3E-01 C 3.7E-05 C 1 0.1 Methylaniline Hydrochloride, 2-636-21-5 4.2E+00 c 1.8E+01 c 7.6E-02 c 3.3E-01 c 6.0E-01 c 2.6E-04 c 1.0E-02 A 1 0.1 Methylarsonic acid 124-58-3 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 2.0E+01 n 5.8E-03 n
Page 6 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
2.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Methylbenzene,1-4-diamine monohydrochloride, 2-74612-12-7 1.3E+00 n 1.6E+01 n 4.0E-01 n 1.0E-01 X 3.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Methylbenzene-1,4-diamine sulfate, 2-615-50-9 1.9E+00 n 2.3E+01 c** 6.0E-01 n 2.2E+01 C 6.3E-03 C M 1 0.1 Methylcholanthrene, 3-56-49-5 5.5E-03 c 1.0E-01 c 1.6E-04 c 1.9E-03 c 1.1E-03 c 2.2E-03 c 2.0E-03 I 1.0E-08 I 6.0E-03 I 6.0E-01 I V M 1 3.3E+03 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 3.5E+01 n 3.2E+02 n 6.3E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 1.1E+01 n 5.0E+00 2.7E-03 n 1.3E-031.0E-01 P 4.3E-04 C 2.0E-03 P M 1 0.1 Methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline), 4,4'-101-14-4 1.2E+00 c*2.3E+01 c**2.4E-03 c 2.9E-02 c 1.6E-01 c*1.8E-03 c* 4.6E-02 I 1.3E-05 C 1 0.1 Methylene-bis(N,N-dimethyl) Aniline, 4,4'-101-61-1 1.2E+01 c 5.0E+01 c 2.2E-01 c 9.4E-01 c 7.0E-01 c 3.9E-03 c 1.6E+00 C 4.6E-04 C 2.0E-02 C 1 0.1 Methylenebisbenzenamine, 4,4'-101-77-9 3.4E-01 c 1.4E+00 c 6.1E-03 c 2.7E-02 c 4.7E-02 c 2.1E-04 c 6.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanate 101-68-8 8.5E+04 n 3.6E+05 nm 6.3E-02 n 2.6E-01 n 7.0E-02 H V 1 5.0E+02 Methylstyrene, Alpha-98-83-9 5.5E+02 ns 8.2E+03 ns 7.8E+01 n 1.2E-01 n 1.5E-01 I 1 0.1 Metolachlor 51218-45-2 9.5E+02 n 1.2E+04 n 2.7E+02 n 3.2E-01 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Metribuzin 21087-64-9 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 4.9E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 2.5E-01 I 1 0.1 Metsulfuron-methyl 74223-64-6 1.6E+03 n 2.1E+04 n 4.9E+02 n 1.9E-01 n 4.5E-06 X 1.0E-02 X 1.0E-01 P V 1 6.9E+00 Midrange Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Streams E1790669 6.5E-01 c*2.8E+00 c*6.2E-01 c*2.7E+00 c*1.2E+00 c**1.8E-02 c** 3.0E+00 P V 1 3.4E-01 Mineral oils 8012-95-1 2.3E+04 ns 3.5E+05 nms 6.0E+03 n 2.4E+02 n 1.8E+01 C 5.1E-03 C 2.0E-04 I V 1 Mirex 2385-85-5 3.6E-02 c*1.7E-01 c 5.5E-04 c 2.4E-03 c 8.8E-04 c 6.3E-04 c 2.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Molinate 2212-67-1 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 3.0E+00 n 1.7E-03 n 5.0E-03 I 2.0E-03 A 1 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 1.0E+01 n 2.0E-01 n 1.0E-01 I 1 Monochloramine 10599-90-3 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 n 2.0E+02 n 4.0E+03(G) 2.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Monomethylaniline 100-61-8 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 3.8E+00 n 1.4E-03 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Myclobutanil 88671-89-0 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 4.5E+01 n 5.6E-01 n 3.0E-04 X 1 0.1 N,N'-Diphenyl-1,4-benzenediamine 74-31-7 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 3.6E-01 n 3.7E-02 n 2.0E-03 I V 1 Naled 300-76-5 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 1.8E-03 n 3.0E-02 X 1.0E-01 P V 1 Naphtha, High Flash Aromatic (HFAN)64742-95-6 2.3E+02 n 3.5E+03 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 1.5E+01 n 1.8E+00 C 0.0E+00 C 1 0.1 Naphthylamine, 2-91-59-8 3.0E-01 c 1.3E+00 c 3.9E-02 c 2.0E-04 c 1.2E-01 O 1 0.1 Napropamide 15299-99-7 7.6E+02 n 9.8E+03 n 2.0E+02 n 1.3E+00 n 2.6E-04 C 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C 1 0.1 Nickel Acetate 373-02-4 6.7E+01 n 8.1E+02 n 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 2.2E+01 n 4.5E-03 n 2.6E-04 C 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C 1 0.1 Nickel Carbonate 3333-67-3 6.7E+01 n 8.1E+02 n 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 2.2E+01 n 2.6E-04 C 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C V 1 Nickel Carbonyl 13463-39-3 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 2.9E-03 n 2.6E-04 C 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C 0.04 Nickel Hydroxide 12054-48-7 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 2.0E+01 n 2.6E-04 C 1.1E-02 C 2.0E-05 C 0.04 Nickel Oxide 1313-99-1 8.4E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.1E-03 n 8.8E-03 n 2.0E+01 n 2.4E-04 I 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C 0.04 Nickel Refinery Dust E715532 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 2.2E+01 n 3.2E+00 n 2.6E-04 C 2.0E-02 I 9.0E-05 A 0.04 Nickel Soluble Salts 7440-02-0 1.5E+02 n 2.2E+03 n 9.4E-03 n 3.9E-02 n 3.9E+01 n 2.6E+00 n 1.7E+00 C 4.8E-04 I 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C 0.04 Nickel Subsulfide 12035-72-2 4.1E-01 c 1.9E+00 c 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 4.5E-02 c 9.1E-01 C 2.6E-04 C 1.1E-02 C 1.4E-05 C 1 0.1 Nickelocene 1271-28-9 6.0E-01 c 2.5E+00 c 1.5E-03 n 6.1E-03 n 8.6E-02 c 1.6E+00 I 1 Nitrate (measured as nitrogen)14797-55-8 1.3E+04 n 1.9E+05 nm 3.2E+03 n 1.0E+04 1 Nitrate + Nitrite (measured as nitrogen)E701177 1.0E+04 1.0E-01 I 1 Nitrite (measured as nitrogen)14797-65-0 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 n 2.0E+02 n 1.0E+03 1.0E-02 X 5.0E-05 X 1 0.1 Nitroaniline, 2-88-74-4 6.3E+01 n 8.0E+02 n 5.2E-03 n 2.2E-02 n 1.9E+01 n 8.0E-03 n 2.0E-02 P 4.0E-03 P 6.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Nitroaniline, 4-100-01-6 2.5E+01 n 1.1E+02 c**6.3E-01 n 2.6E+00 n 3.8E+00 c**1.6E-03 c** 4.0E-05 I 2.0E-03 I 9.0E-03 I V 1 3.1E+03 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 5.1E+00 c**2.2E+01 c**7.0E-02 c*3.1E-01 c*1.4E-01 c**9.2E-05 c** 3.0E+03 P 1 0.1 Nitrocellulose 9004-70-0 1.9E+07 nm 2.5E+08 nm 6.0E+06 n 1.3E+03 n 7.0E-02 H 1 0.1 Nitrofurantoin 67-20-9 4.4E+02 n 5.7E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 6.1E-02 n 1.3E+00 C 3.7E-04 C 1 0.1 Nitrofurazone 59-87-0 4.2E-01 c 1.8E+00 c 7.6E-03 c 3.3E-02 c 6.0E-02 c 5.4E-05 c 1.7E-02 P 1.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Nitroglycerin 55-63-0 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 8.5E-05 n 1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Nitroguanidine 556-88-7 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 2.0E+02 n 4.8E-02 n 8.8E-06 P 5.0E-03 P V 1 1.8E+04 Nitromethane 75-52-5 5.4E+00 c**2.4E+01 c**3.2E-01 c**1.4E+00 c**6.4E-01 c**1.4E-04 c** 5.8E-04 X 2.0E-02 I V 1 4.9E+03 Nitropropane, 2-79-46-9 6.4E-02 c 2.8E-01 c 4.8E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 9.7E-03 c 2.5E-06 c 2.7E+01 C 7.7E-03 C M 1 0.1 Nitroso-N-ethylurea, N-759-73-9 4.5E-03 c 8.5E-02 c 1.3E-04 c 1.6E-03 c 9.2E-04 c 2.2E-07 c 1.2E+02 C 3.4E-02 C M 1 0.1 Nitroso-N-methylurea, N-684-93-5 1.0E-03 c 1.9E-02 c 3.0E-05 c 3.6E-04 c 2.1E-04 c 4.6E-08 c 5.4E+00 I 1.6E-03 I V 1 Nitroso-di-N-butylamine, N-924-16-3 9.9E-02 c 4.6E-01 c 1.8E-03 c 7.7E-03 c 2.7E-03 c 5.5E-06 c 7.0E+00 I 2.0E-03 C 1 0.1 Nitroso-di-N-propylamine, N-621-64-7 7.8E-02 c 3.3E-01 c 1.4E-03 c 6.1E-03 c 1.1E-02 c 8.1E-06 c 2.8E+00 I 8.0E-04 C 1 0.1 Nitrosodiethanolamine, N-1116-54-7 1.9E-01 c 8.2E-01 c 3.5E-03 c 1.5E-02 c 2.8E-02 c 5.6E-06 c 1.5E+02 I 4.3E-02 I M 1 0.1 Nitrosodiethylamine, N-55-18-5 8.1E-04 c 1.5E-02 c 2.4E-05 c 2.9E-04 c 1.7E-04 c 6.1E-08 c 5.1E+01 I 1.4E-02 I 8.0E-06 P 4.0E-05 X V M 1 2.4E+05 Nitrosodimethylamine, N-62-75-9 2.0E-03 c*3.4E-02 c*7.2E-05 c*8.8E-04 c*1.1E-04 c*2.7E-08 c* 4.9E-03 I 2.6E-06 C 1 0.1 Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-86-30-6 1.1E+02 c 4.7E+02 c 1.1E+00 c 4.7E+00 c 1.2E+01 c 6.7E-02 c 2.2E+01 I 6.3E-03 C V 1 1.1E+05 Nitrosomethylethylamine, N-10595-95-6 2.0E-02 c 9.1E-02 c 4.5E-04 c 1.9E-03 c 7.1E-04 c 2.0E-07 c 6.7E+00 C 1.9E-03 C 1 0.1 Nitrosomorpholine [N-]59-89-2 8.1E-02 c 3.4E-01 c 1.5E-03 c 6.5E-03 c 1.2E-02 c 2.8E-06 c 9.4E+00 C 2.7E-03 C 1 0.1 Nitrosopiperidine [N-]100-75-4 5.8E-02 c 2.4E-01 c 1.0E-03 c 4.5E-03 c 8.2E-03 c 4.4E-06 c 2.1E+00 I 6.1E-04 I 1 0.1 Nitrosopyrrolidine, N-930-55-2 2.6E-01 c 1.1E+00 c 4.6E-03 c 2.0E-02 c 3.7E-02 c 1.4E-05 c 1.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Nitrotoluene, m-99-08-1 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 1.7E-01 n 1.6E-04 n 2.2E-01 P 9.0E-04 P V 1 1.5E+03 Nitrotoluene, o-88-72-2 3.2E+00 c**1.5E+01 c** 3.1E-01 c**3.0E-04 c** 1.6E-02 P 4.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Nitrotoluene, p-99-99-0 2.5E+01 n 1.4E+02 c** 4.3E+00 c**4.0E-03 c** 3.0E-04 X 2.0E-02 P V 1 6.9E+00 Nonane, n-111-84-2 1.1E+00 n 7.2E+00 ns 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 5.3E-01 n 7.5E-03 n 1.5E-03 O 1 0.1 Norflurazon 27314-13-2 9.5E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.9E+00 n 1.9E-02 n 3.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Octabromodiphenyl Ether 32536-52-0 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 6.0E+00 n 1.2E+00 n 5.0E-02 I 1 0.006 Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX)2691-41-0 3.9E+02 n 5.7E+03 n 1.0E+02 n 1.3E-01 n 2.0E-03 H 1 0.1 Octamethylpyrophosphoramide 152-16-9 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 9.6E-04 n 7.8E-03 O 1.9E-01 O 1 0.1 Oryzalin 19044-88-3 7.0E+01 c*2.9E+02 c* 7.9E+00 c*1.5E-02 c* 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Oxadiazon 19666-30-9 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 4.7E+00 n 4.8E-02 n 2.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Oxamyl 23135-22-0 1.6E+02 n 2.1E+03 n 5.0E+01 n 2.0E+02 1.1E-02 n 4.4E-027.3E-02 O 4.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Oxyfluorfen 42874-03-3 7.4E+00 c*3.1E+01 c 5.4E-01 c*4.3E-02 c* 1.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Paclobutrazol 76738-62-0 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 2.3E+01 n 4.6E-02 n 4.5E-03 I 1 0.1 Paraquat Dichloride 1910-42-5 2.8E+01 n 3.7E+02 n 9.0E+00 n 1.2E-01 n 6.0E-03 H 1 0.1 Parathion 56-38-2 3.8E+01 n 4.9E+02 n 8.6E+00 n 4.3E-02 n 5.0E-02 H V 1 Pebulate 1114-71-2 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 5.6E+01 n 4.5E-02 n 3.0E-01 O 1 0.1 Pendimethalin 40487-42-1 1.9E+03 n 2.5E+04 n 1.4E+02 n 1.6E+00 n 2.0E-03 I V 1 3.1E-01 Pentabromodiphenyl Ether 32534-81-9 1.6E+01 ns 2.3E+02 ns 4.0E+00 n 1.7E-01 n 1.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Pentabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',4,4',5- (BDE-99)60348-60-9 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 8.7E-03 n 8.0E-04 I V 1 Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 6.3E+00 n 9.3E+01 n 3.2E-01 n 2.4E-03 n
Page 7 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat(mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
9.0E-02 P V 1 4.6E+02 Pentachloroethane 76-01-7 7.7E+00 c 3.6E+01 c 6.5E-01 c 3.1E-04 c2.6E-01 H 3.0E-03 I V 1 Pentachloronitrobenzene 82-68-8 2.7E+00 c**1.3E+01 c*1.2E-01 c*1.5E-03 c*4.0E-01 I 5.1E-06 C 5.0E-03 I 1 0.25 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 1.0E+00 c*4.0E+00 c*5.5E-01 c 2.4E+00 c 4.1E-02 c*1.0E+00 5.7E-05 c*1.4E-034.3E-03 X 9.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)78-11-5 5.7E+01 n 5.3E+02 c**1.7E+01 n 2.6E-02 n1.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Pentamethylphosphoramide (PMPA)10159-46-3 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 4.1E-05 n1.0E+00 P V 1 3.9E+02 Pentane, n-109-66-0 8.1E+01 n 3.4E+02 n 1.0E+02 n 4.4E+02 n 2.1E+02 n 1.0E+00 n Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)3.0E-06 D 1 0.1 ~Ammonium perfluoro-2-methyl-3-oxahexanoate 62037-80-3 1.9E-02 n 2.5E-01 n 6.0E-03 n 1.3E-06 n3.0E-06 D V 1 ~Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)13252-13-6 2.3E-02 n 3.5E-01 n 6.0E-03 n3.0E-04 P 1 0.1 ~Perfluorobutanesulfonate 45187-15-3 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 1.9E-04 n3.0E-04 P 1 0.1 ~Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)375-73-5 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 1.9E-04 n2.0E-05 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorohexanesulfonate 108427-53-8 1.3E-01 n 1.6E+00 n 3.9E-02 n 1.7E-05 n2.0E-05 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)355-46-4 1.3E-01 n 1.6E+00 n 3.9E-02 n 1.7E-05 n3.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorononanoate 72007-68-2 1.9E-02 n 2.5E-01 n 5.9E-03 n 2.5E-05 n3.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)375-95-1 1.9E-02 n 2.5E-01 n 5.9E-03 n 2.5E-05 n2.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorooctanesulfonate 45298-90-6 1.3E-02 n 1.6E-01 n 4.0E-03 n 3.8E-06 n2.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)1763-23-1 1.3E-02 n 1.6E-01 n 4.0E-03 n 3.8E-06 n7.0E-02 D 3.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorooctanoate 45285-51-6 1.9E-02 n 2.5E-01 n 6.0E-03 n 9.1E-05 n7.0E-02 D 3.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)335-67-1 1.9E-02 n 2.5E-01 n 6.0E-03 n 9.1E-05 n3.0E-04 P 1 0.1 ~Potassium perfluorobutanesulfonate 29420-49-3 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 3.0E-04 n2.0E-06 A 1 0.1 ~Potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate 2795-39-3 1.3E-02 n 1.6E-01 n 4.0E-03 n Perchlorates7.0E-04 I 1 ~Ammonium Perchlorate 7790-98-9 5.5E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.4E+00 n7.0E-04 I 1 ~Lithium Perchlorate 7791-03-9 5.5E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.4E+00 n7.0E-04 I 1 ~Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts 14797-73-0 5.5E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.4E+00 n 1.5E+01(G)7.0E-04 I 1 ~Potassium Perchlorate 7778-74-7 5.5E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.4E+00 n7.0E-04 I 1 ~Sodium Perchlorate 7601-89-0 5.5E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.4E+00 n5.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Permethrin 52645-53-1 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 1.0E+02 n 2.4E+01 n2.2E-03 C 6.3E-07 C 1 0.1 Phenacetin 62-44-2 2.5E+02 c 1.0E+03 c 4.5E+00 c 1.9E+01 c 3.4E+01 c 9.7E-03 c2.4E-01 O 1 0.1 Phenmedipham 13684-63-4 1.5E+03 n 2.0E+04 n 3.8E+02 n 2.1E+00 n3.0E-01 I 2.0E-01 C 1 0.1 Phenol 108-95-2 1.9E+03 n 2.5E+04 n 2.1E+01 n 8.8E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 3.3E-01 n4.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Phenol, 2-(1-methylethoxy)-, methylcarbamate 114-26-1 2.5E+01 n 3.3E+02 n 7.8E+00 n 2.5E-03 n5.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Phenothiazine 92-84-2 3.2E+00 n 4.1E+01 n 4.3E-01 n 1.4E-03 n2.0E-04 X V 1 1.3E+02 Phenyl Isothiocyanate 103-72-0 1.6E+00 n 2.3E+01 n 2.6E-01 n 1.7E-04 n6.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Phenylenediamine, m-108-45-2 3.8E+01 n 4.9E+02 n 1.2E+01 n 3.2E-03 n1.2E-01 P 4.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Phenylenediamine, o-95-54-5 4.5E+00 c**1.9E+01 c*6.5E-01 c*1.7E-04 c*1.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Phenylenediamine, p-106-50-3 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 2.0E+00 n 5.4E-04 n1.9E-03 H 1 0.1 Phenylphenol, 2-90-43-7 2.8E+02 c 1.2E+03 c 3.0E+01 c 4.1E-01 c2.0E-04 H 1 0.1 Phorate 298-02-2 1.3E+00 n 1.6E+01 n 3.0E-01 n 3.4E-04 n3.0E-04 I V 1 1.6E+03 Phosgene 75-44-5 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 6.3E-02 n 1.6E-05 n2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Phosmet 732-11-6 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.7E+01 n 8.2E-03 n3.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 I V 1 Phosphine 7803-51-2 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 5.7E-02 n1.0E-02 I 1 Phosphoric Acid 7664-38-2 1.4E+06 nm 6.0E+06 nm 1.0E+00 n 4.4E+00 n2.0E-05 I V 1 Phosphorus, White 7723-14-0 1.6E-01 n 2.3E+00 n 4.0E-02 n 1.5E-04 n Phthalates1.4E-02 I 2.4E-06 C 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 ~Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 3.9E+01 c**1.6E+02 c*1.2E+00 c 5.1E+00 c 5.6E+00 c**6.0E+00 1.3E+00 c**1.4E+001.9E-03 P 2.0E-01 I 1 0.1 ~Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 85-68-7 2.9E+02 c**1.2E+03 c*1.6E+01 c*2.4E-01 c*1.0E+00 I 1 0.1 ~Butylphthalyl Butylglycolate 85-70-1 6.3E+03 n 8.2E+04 n 1.3E+03 n 3.1E+01 n1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 ~Dibutyl Phthalate 84-74-2 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 9.0E+01 n 2.3E-01 n8.0E-01 I 1 0.1 ~Diethyl Phthalate 84-66-2 5.1E+03 n 6.6E+04 n 1.5E+03 n 6.1E-01 n1.0E-01 I V 1 ~Dimethylterephthalate 120-61-6 7.8E+02 n 1.2E+04 n 1.9E+02 n 4.9E-02 n1.0E-02 P 1 0.1 ~Octyl Phthalate, di-N-117-84-0 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 2.0E+01 n 5.7E+00 n5.0E-01 X 1 0.1 ~Phthalic Acid, p-100-21-0 3.2E+03 n 4.1E+04 n 9.4E+02 n 3.4E-01 n2.0E+00 I 2.0E-02 C 1 0.1 ~Phthalic Anhydride 85-44-9 1.3E+04 n 1.6E+05 nm 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 3.9E+03 n 8.5E-01 n7.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Picloram 1918-02-1 4.4E+02 n 5.7E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 5.0E+02 3.8E-02 n 1.4E-011.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Picramic Acid (2-Amino-4,6-dinitrophenol)96-91-3 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 1.3E-04 n2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Picric Acid (2,4,6-Trinitrophenol)88-89-1 1.3E+01 n 1.6E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 1.9E-02 n7.3E-04 O 1 0.1 Pirimiphos, Methyl 29232-93-7 4.6E+00 n 6.0E+01 n 8.9E-01 n 8.4E-04 n3.0E+01 C 8.6E-03 C 7.0E-06 H 1 0.1 Polybrominated Biphenyls 36355-01-8 1.8E-02 c**7.7E-02 c**3.3E-04 c 1.4E-03 c 2.6E-03 c** Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)7.0E-02 G 2.0E-05 G 7.0E-05 I V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1016 12674-11-2 4.1E-01 n 5.1E+00 n 1.4E-01 c 6.1E-01 c 1.4E-01 n 1.3E-02 n2.0E+00 G 5.7E-04 G V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1221 11104-28-2 2.0E-01 c 8.3E-01 c 4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 4.7E-03 c 8.0E-05 c2.0E+00 G 5.7E-04 G V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1232 11141-16-5 1.7E-01 c 7.2E-01 c 4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 4.7E-03 c 8.0E-05 c2.0E+00 G 5.7E-04 G V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1242 53469-21-9 2.3E-01 c 9.5E-01 c 4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 7.8E-03 c 1.2E-03 c2.0E+00 G 5.7E-04 G V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1248 12672-29-6 2.3E-01 c 9.4E-01 c 4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 7.8E-03 c 1.2E-03 c2.0E+00 G 5.7E-04 G 2.0E-05 I V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1 1.2E-01 n 9.7E-01 c**4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 7.8E-03 c**2.0E-03 c**2.0E+00 G 5.7E-04 G V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 1260 11096-82-5 2.4E-01 c 9.9E-01 c 4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 7.8E-03 c 5.5E-03 c6.0E-04 X V 1 0.14 ~Aroclor 5460 11126-42-4 3.5E+00 n 4.4E+01 n 1.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Heptachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'- (PCB 189)39635-31-9 1.3E-01 c**5.2E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*2.8E-03 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3',4,4',5,5'- (PCB 167)52663-72-6 1.2E-01 c**5.1E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.7E-03 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4',5'- (PCB 157)69782-90-7 1.2E-01 c**5.0E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.7E-03 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4',5- (PCB 156)38380-08-4 1.2E-01 c**5.0E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.7E-03 c*3.9E+03 W 1.1E+00 W 2.3E-08 W 1.3E-06 W V 1 0.14 ~Hexachlorobiphenyl, 3,3',4,4',5,5'- (PCB 169)32774-16-6 1.2E-04 c**5.1E-04 c**2.5E-06 c*1.1E-05 c*4.0E-06 c*1.7E-06 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2',3,4,4',5- (PCB 123)65510-44-3 1.2E-01 c**4.9E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.0E-03 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3',4,4',5- (PCB 118)31508-00-6 1.2E-01 c**4.9E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.0E-03 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4'- (PCB 105)32598-14-4 1.2E-01 c**4.9E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.0E-03 c*3.9E+00 W 1.1E-03 W 2.3E-05 W 1.3E-03 W V 1 0.14 ~Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,4,4',5- (PCB 114)74472-37-0 1.2E-01 c**5.0E-01 c**2.5E-03 c*1.1E-02 c*4.0E-03 c*1.0E-03 c*1.3E+04 W 3.8E+00 W 7.0E-09 W 4.0E-07 W V 1 0.14 ~Pentachlorobiphenyl, 3,3',4,4',5- (PCB 126)57465-28-8 3.6E-05 c**1.5E-04 c**7.4E-07 c*3.2E-06 c*1.2E-06 c*3.0E-07 c*2.0E+00 I 5.7E-04 I V 1 0.14 ~Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk)1336-36-3 2.3E-01 c 9.4E-01 c 4.9E-03 c 2.1E-02 c 5.0E-01
Page 8 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
4.0E-01 I 1.0E-04 I V 1 0.14 ~Polychlorinated Biphenyls (low risk)1336-36-3 2.8E-02 c 1.2E-01 c 4.4E-02 c 5.0E-01 6.8E-03 c 7.8E-027.0E-02 I 2.0E-05 I V 1 0.14 ~Polychlorinated Biphenyls (lowest risk)1336-36-3 1.4E-01 c 6.1E-01 c 5.0E-01 1.3E+01 W 3.8E-03 W 7.0E-06 W 4.0E-04 W 1 0.14 ~Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 3,3',4,4'- (PCB 77)32598-13-3 3.8E-02 c**1.6E-01 c**7.4E-04 c*3.2E-03 c*6.0E-03 c**9.4E-04 c** 3.9E+01 W 1.1E-02 W 2.3E-06 W 1.3E-04 W V 1 0.14 ~Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 3,4,4',5- (PCB 81)70362-50-4 1.2E-02 c**4.8E-02 c**2.5E-04 c*1.1E-03 c*4.0E-04 c*6.2E-05 c* 6.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Polymeric Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (PMDI)9016-87-9 8.5E+04 n 3.6E+05 nm 6.3E-02 n 2.6E-01 n Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 6.0E-02 I V 1 0.13 ~Acenaphthene 83-32-9 3.6E+02 n 4.5E+03 n 5.3E+01 n 5.5E-01 n 3.0E-01 I V 1 0.13 ~Anthracene 120-12-7 1.8E+03 n 2.3E+04 n 1.8E+02 n 5.8E+00 n 1.0E-01 E 6.0E-05 E V M 1 0.13 ~Benz[a]anthracene 56-55-3 1.1E+00 c 2.1E+01 c 1.7E-02 c 2.0E-01 c 3.0E-02 c 1.1E-02 c 9.0E-05 X 2.0E-06 X 1 0.1 ~Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 5.7E-01 n 7.3E+00 n 2.1E-04 n 8.8E-04 n 1.8E-01 n 2.2E-01 n 1.2E+00 C 1.1E-04 C 1 0.13 ~Benzo(j)fluoranthene 205-82-3 4.2E-01 c 1.8E+00 c 2.6E-02 c 1.1E-01 c 6.5E-02 c 7.8E-02 c 1.0E+00 I 6.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 I 2.0E-06 I M 1 0.13 ~Benzo[a]pyrene 50-32-8 1.1E-01 c*2.1E+00 c*2.1E-04 n 8.8E-04 n 2.5E-02 c*2.0E-01 2.9E-02 c*2.4E-011.0E-01 E 6.0E-05 E M 1 0.13 ~Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205-99-2 1.1E+00 c 2.1E+01 c 1.7E-02 c 2.0E-01 c 2.5E-01 c 3.0E-01 c 1.0E-02 E 6.0E-06 E M 1 0.13 ~Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.1E+01 c 2.1E+02 c 1.7E-01 c 2.0E+00 c 2.5E+00 c 2.9E+00 c 8.0E-02 I V 1 0.13 ~Chloronaphthalene, Beta-91-58-7 4.8E+02 n 6.0E+03 n 7.5E+01 n 3.9E-01 n 1.0E-03 E 6.0E-07 E M 1 0.13 ~Chrysene 218-01-9 1.1E+02 c 2.1E+03 c 1.7E+00 c 2.0E+01 c 2.5E+01 c 9.0E+00 c 1.0E+00 E 6.0E-04 E M 1 0.13 ~Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 53-70-3 1.1E-01 c 2.1E+00 c 1.7E-03 c 2.0E-02 c 2.5E-02 c 9.6E-02 c 1.2E+01 C 1.1E-03 C 1 0.13 ~Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene 192-65-4 4.2E-02 c 1.8E-01 c 2.6E-03 c 1.1E-02 c 6.5E-03 c 8.4E-02 c 2.5E+02 C 7.1E-02 C M 1 0.13 ~Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12-57-97-6 4.6E-04 c 8.4E-03 c 1.4E-05 c 1.7E-04 c 1.0E-04 c 9.9E-05 c 4.0E-02 I 1 0.13 ~Fluoranthene 206-44-0 2.4E+02 n 3.0E+03 n 8.0E+01 n 8.9E+00 n 4.0E-02 I V 1 0.13 ~Fluorene 86-73-7 2.4E+02 n 3.0E+03 n 2.9E+01 n 5.4E-01 n 1.0E-01 E 6.0E-05 E M 1 0.13 ~Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 193-39-5 1.1E+00 c 2.1E+01 c 1.7E-02 c 2.0E-01 c 2.5E-01 c 9.8E-01 c 2.9E-02 P 7.0E-02 A V 1 0.13 3.9E+02 ~Methylnaphthalene, 1-90-12-0 1.8E+01 c*7.3E+01 c* 1.1E+00 c*6.0E-03 c* 4.0E-03 I V 1 0.13 ~Methylnaphthalene, 2-91-57-6 2.4E+01 n 3.0E+02 n 3.6E+00 n 1.9E-02 n 1.2E-01 C 3.4E-05 C 2.0E-02 I 3.0E-03 I V 1 0.13 ~Naphthalene 91-20-3 2.0E+00 c**8.6E+00 c**8.3E-02 c**3.6E-01 c**1.2E-01 c**3.8E-04 c** 1.2E+00 C 1.1E-04 C 1 0.13 ~Nitropyrene, 4-57835-92-4 4.2E-01 c 1.8E+00 c 2.6E-02 c 1.1E-01 c 1.9E-02 c 3.3E-03 c 3.0E-02 I V 1 0.13 ~Pyrene 129-00-0 1.8E+02 n 2.3E+03 n 1.2E+01 n 1.3E+00 n 1.5E-01 I 9.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Prochloraz 67747-09-5 3.6E+00 c*1.5E+01 c* 3.8E-01 c*1.9E-03 c* 6.0E-03 H V 1 Profluralin 26399-36-0 4.7E+01 n 7.0E+02 n 2.6E+00 n 1.6E-01 n 1.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Prometon 1610-18-0 9.5E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.5E+01 n 1.2E-02 n 4.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Prometryn 7287-19-6 2.5E+02 n 3.3E+03 n 6.0E+01 n 9.0E-02 n 7.5E-02 I 1 0.1 Pronamide 23950-58-5 4.7E+02 n 6.2E+03 n 1.2E+02 n 1.2E-01 n 1.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Propachlor 1918-16-7 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 2.5E+01 n 1.5E-02 n 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Propanil 709-98-8 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 8.2E+00 n 4.5E-03 n 1.9E-01 O 4.0E-02 O 1 0.1 Propargite 2312-35-8 2.8E+00 c*1.2E+01 c 1.6E-01 c 1.1E-02 c 2.0E-03 I V 1 1.1E+05 Propargyl Alcohol 107-19-7 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 4.0E+00 n 8.1E-04 n 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Propazine 139-40-2 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.4E+01 n 3.0E-02 n 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Propham 122-42-9 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.5E+01 n 2.2E-02 n 1.0E-01 O 1 0.1 Propiconazole 60207-90-1 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.6E+02 n 5.3E-01 n 8.0E-03 I V 1 3.3E+04 Propionaldehyde 123-38-6 7.5E+00 n 3.1E+01 n 8.3E-01 n 3.5E+00 n 1.7E+00 n 3.4E-04 n 1.0E-01 X 1.0E+00 X V 1 2.6E+02 Propyl benzene 103-65-1 3.8E+02 ns 2.4E+03 ns 1.0E+02 n 4.4E+02 n 6.6E+01 n 1.2E-01 n 3.0E+00 C V 1 3.5E+02 Propylene 115-07-1 2.2E+02 n 9.3E+02 ns 3.1E+02 n 1.3E+03 n 6.3E+02 n 6.0E-01 n 2.0E+01 P 1 0.1 Propylene Glycol 57-55-6 1.3E+05 nm 1.6E+06 nm 4.0E+04 n 8.1E+00 n 2.7E-04 A 1 0.1 Propylene Glycol Dinitrate 6423-43-4 3.9E+04 n 1.6E+05 nm 2.8E-02 n 1.2E-01 n 7.0E-01 H 2.0E+00 I V 1 1.1E+05 Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether 107-98-2 4.1E+03 n 3.7E+04 n 2.1E+02 n 8.8E+02 n 3.2E+02 n 6.5E-02 n 2.4E-01 I 3.7E-06 I 3.0E-02 I V 1 7.8E+04 Propylene Oxide 75-56-9 2.1E+00 c*9.7E+00 c*7.6E-01 c**3.3E+00 c**2.7E-01 c*5.6E-05 c* 1.0E-03 I V 1 5.3E+05 Pyridine 110-86-1 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.0E+00 n 6.8E-04 n 5.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Quinalphos 13593-03-8 3.2E+00 n 4.1E+01 n 5.1E-01 n 4.3E-03 n 3.0E+00 I 1 0.1 Quinoline 91-22-5 1.8E-01 c 7.7E-01 c 2.4E-02 c 7.8E-05 c 9.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Quizalofop-ethyl 76578-14-8 5.7E+01 n 7.4E+02 n 1.2E+01 n 1.9E-01 n 3.0E+04 A 1 Refractory Ceramic Fibers (units in fibers)E715557 3.1E+03 G 1.3E+04 G 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Resmethrin 10453-86-8 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 6.7E+00 n 4.2E+00 n 5.0E-02 H V 1 Ronnel 299-84-3 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 4.1E+01 n 3.7E-01 n 4.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Rotenone 83-79-4 2.5E+01 n 3.3E+02 n 6.1E+00 n 3.2E+00 n 2.2E-01 C 6.3E-05 C M 1 0.1 Safrole 94-59-7 5.5E-01 c 1.0E+01 c 1.6E-02 c 1.9E-01 c 9.6E-02 c 5.9E-05 c 5.0E-03 I 1 Selenious Acid 7783-00-8 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 5.0E-03 I 2.0E-02 C 1 Selenium 7782-49-2 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 1.0E+01 n 5.0E+01 5.2E-02 n 2.6E-01 5.0E-03 C 2.0E-02 C 1 Selenium Sulfide 7446-34-6 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 2.1E+00 n 8.8E+00 n 1.0E+01 n 1.4E-01 O 1 0.1 Sethoxydim 74051-80-2 8.8E+02 n 1.1E+04 n 1.6E+02 n 1.4E+00 n 3.0E-03 C 1 Silica (crystalline, respirable)7631-86-9 4.3E+05 nm 1.8E+06 nm 3.1E-01 n 1.3E+00 n 5.0E-03 I 0.04 Silver 7440-22-4 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 9.4E+00 n 8.0E-02 n 1.2E-01 H 5.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Simazine 122-34-9 4.5E+00 c**1.9E+01 c* 6.1E-01 c*4.0E+00 3.0E-04 c*2.0E-03 1.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Sodium Acifluorfen 62476-59-9 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 2.6E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 4.0E-03 I 1 Sodium Azide 26628-22-8 3.1E+01 n 4.7E+02 n 8.0E+00 n 2.7E-01 H 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Sodium Diethyldithiocarbamate 148-18-5 2.0E+00 c*8.5E+00 c 2.9E-01 c 1.8E-04 c 5.0E-02 A 1.3E-02 C 1 Sodium Fluoride 7681-49-4 3.9E+02 n 5.8E+03 n 1.4E+00 n 5.7E+00 n 1.0E+02 n 4.0E+03 1.5E+01 n 6.0E+02 2.0E-05 I 1 0.1 Sodium Fluoroacetate 62-74-8 1.3E-01 n 1.6E+00 n 4.0E-02 n 8.1E-06 n 1.0E-03 H 1 Sodium Metavanadate 13718-26-8 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 2.0E+00 n 8.0E-04 P 1 Sodium Tungstate 13472-45-2 6.3E+00 n 9.3E+01 n 1.6E+00 n 8.0E-04 P 1 Sodium Tungstate Dihydrate 10213-10-2 6.3E+00 n 9.3E+01 n 1.6E+00 n 2.4E-02 H 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Stirofos (Tetrachlorovinphos)961-11-5 2.3E+01 c**9.6E+01 c* 2.8E+00 c*8.2E-03 c* 6.0E-01 I 1 Strontium, Stable 7440-24-6 4.7E+03 n 7.0E+04 n 1.2E+03 n 4.2E+01 n 3.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Strychnine 57-24-9 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 5.9E-01 n 6.5E-03 n 2.0E-01 I 1.0E+00 I V 1 8.7E+02 Styrene 100-42-5 6.0E+02 n 3.5E+03 ns 1.0E+02 n 4.4E+02 n 1.2E+02 n 1.0E+02 1.3E-01 n 1.1E-01 3.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN) Trimer (THNA isomer)57964-39-3 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 4.8E+00 n 3.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN) Trimer (THNP isomer)57964-40-6 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 4.8E+00 n 1.0E-03 P 2.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Sulfolane 126-33-0 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 2.0E+00 n 4.4E-04 n 8.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Sulfonylbis(4-chlorobenzene), 1,1'-80-07-9 5.1E+00 n 6.6E+01 n 1.1E+00 n 6.5E-03 n 1.0E-03 C V 1 Sulfur Trioxide 7446-11-9 1.4E+05 nm 6.0E+05 nm 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.1E-01 n
Page 9 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
1.0E-03 C 1 Sulfuric Acid 7664-93-9 1.4E+05 nm 6.0E+05 nm 1.0E-01 n 4.4E-01 n 2.5E-02 I 7.1E-06 I 5.0E-02 H 1 0.1 Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenoxy]-1-methylethyl 140-57-8 2.2E+01 c*9.2E+01 c*4.0E-01 c 1.7E+00 c 1.3E+00 c*1.5E-02 c* 3.0E-02 H 1 0.1 TCMTB 21564-17-0 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 4.8E+01 n 3.3E-01 n 7.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Tebuthiuron 34014-18-1 4.4E+02 n 5.7E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 3.9E-02 n 2.0E-02 H 1 0.1 Temephos 3383-96-8 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 4.0E+01 n 7.6E+00 n 1.3E-02 I 1 0.1 Terbacil 5902-51-2 8.2E+01 n 1.1E+03 n 2.5E+01 n 7.5E-03 n 2.5E-05 H V 1 3.1E+01 Terbufos 13071-79-9 2.0E-01 n 2.9E+00 n 2.4E-02 n 5.2E-05 n 1.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Terbutryn 886-50-0 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 1.3E+00 n 1.9E-03 n 5.0E-03 C 1.3E-06 C V 1 Tert-Butyl Acetate 540-88-5 8.1E+00 c 3.6E+01 c 2.2E+00 c 9.4E+00 c 3.3E+00 c 7.6E-04 c 1.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Tetrabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',4,4'- (BDE-47)5436-43-1 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 5.3E-03 n 3.0E-05 P V 1 Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-95-94-3 2.3E-01 n 3.5E+00 n 1.7E-02 n 7.9E-05 n 2.6E-02 I 7.4E-06 I 3.0E-02 I V 1 6.8E+02 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-630-20-6 2.0E+00 c 8.8E+00 c 3.8E-01 c 1.7E+00 c 5.7E-01 c*2.2E-04 c* 2.0E-01 I 5.8E-05 C 2.0E-02 I V 1 1.9E+03 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-79-34-5 6.0E-01 c 2.7E+00 c 4.8E-02 c 2.1E-01 c 7.6E-02 c 3.0E-05 c 2.1E-03 I 2.6E-07 I 6.0E-03 I 4.0E-02 I V 1 1.7E+02 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 8.1E+00 n 3.9E+01 n 4.2E+00 n 1.8E+01 n 4.1E+00 n 5.0E+00 1.8E-03 n 2.3E-03 3.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-58-90-2 1.9E+02 n 2.5E+03 n 2.4E+01 n 1.8E-02 n 1.6E+01 X 6.0E-05 X V 1 Tetrachlorotoluene, p- alpha, alpha, alpha-5216-25-1 4.3E-02 c*2.0E-01 c* 1.7E-03 c*5.7E-06 c* 5.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Tetraethyl Dithiopyrophosphate 3689-24-5 3.2E+00 n 4.1E+01 n 7.1E-01 n 5.2E-04 n 8.0E+01 I V 1 2.1E+03 Tetrafluoroethane, 1,1,1,2-811-97-2 1.0E+04 ns 4.3E+04 ns 8.3E+03 n 3.5E+04 n 1.7E+04 n 9.3E+00 n 1.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Tetramethylphosphoramide, -N,N,N',N" (TMPA)16853-36-4 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 2.0E-03 P 1 0.00065 Tetryl (Trinitrophenylmethylnitramine)479-45-8 1.6E+01 n 2.3E+02 n 3.9E+00 n 3.7E-02 n 2.0E-05 G 1 Thallic Oxide 1314-32-5 1.6E-01 n 2.3E+00 n 4.0E-02 n 1.0E-05 X 1 Thallium (I) Nitrate 10102-45-1 7.8E-02 n 1.2E+00 n 2.0E-02 n 1.0E-05 X 1 Thallium (Soluble Salts)7440-28-0 7.8E-02 n 1.2E+00 n 2.0E-02 n 2.0E+00 1.4E-03 n 1.4E-01 1.0E-05 X V 1 Thallium Acetate 563-68-8 7.8E-02 n 1.2E+00 n 2.0E-02 n 4.1E-06 n 2.0E-05 X 1 0.1 Thallium Carbonate 6533-73-9 1.3E-01 n 1.6E+00 n 4.0E-02 n 8.3E-06 n 1.0E-05 X 1 Thallium Chloride 7791-12-0 7.8E-02 n 1.2E+00 n 2.0E-02 n 1.0E-05 G 1 Thallium Selenite 12039-52-0 7.8E-02 n 1.2E+00 n 2.0E-02 n 2.0E-05 X 1 Thallium Sulfate 7446-18-6 1.6E-01 n 2.3E+00 n 4.0E-02 n 4.3E-02 O 1 0.1 Thifensulfuron-methyl 79277-27-3 2.7E+02 n 3.5E+03 n 8.6E+01 n 2.6E-02 n 1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Thiobencarb 28249-77-6 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 1.6E+01 n 5.5E-02 n 7.0E-02 X 1 0.0075 Thiodiglycol 111-48-8 5.4E+02 n 7.9E+03 n 1.4E+02 n 2.8E-02 n 3.0E-04 H 1 0.1 Thiofanox 39196-18-4 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 5.3E-01 n 1.8E-04 n 1.2E-02 O 1.6E-01 O 1 0.1 Thiophanate, Methyl 23564-05-8 4.7E+01 c*2.0E+02 c* 6.7E+00 c*5.7E-03 c* 1.5E-02 O 1 0.1 Thiram 137-26-8 9.5E+01 n 1.2E+03 n 2.9E+01 n 4.2E-02 n 6.0E-01 H 1 Tin 7440-31-5 4.7E+03 n 7.0E+04 n 1.2E+03 n 3.0E+02 n 1.0E-04 A V 1 Titanium Tetrachloride 7550-45-0 1.4E+04 n 6.0E+04 n 1.0E-02 n 4.4E-02 n 2.1E-02 n 8.0E-02 I 5.0E+00 I V 1 8.2E+02 Toluene 108-88-3 4.9E+02 n 4.7E+03 ns 5.2E+02 n 2.2E+03 n 1.1E+02 n 1.0E+03 7.6E-02 n 6.9E-013.9E-02 C 1.1E-05 C 8.0E-06 C V 1 Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate 584-84-9 6.4E-01 n 2.7E+00 n 8.3E-04 n 3.5E-03 n 1.7E-03 n 2.5E-05 n 1.8E-01 X 2.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Toluene-2,5-diamine 95-70-5 1.3E+00 n 1.3E+01 c** 4.0E-01 n 1.2E-04 n 3.9E-02 C 1.1E-05 C 8.0E-06 C V 1 1.7E+03 Toluene-2,6-diisocyanate 91-08-7 5.3E-01 n 2.2E+00 n 8.3E-04 n 3.5E-03 n 1.7E-03 n 2.6E-05 n 1.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Toluenediamine, 2,3-2687-25-4 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 6.2E-05 n 1.0E-04 X 1 0.1 Toluenediamine, 3,4-496-72-0 6.3E-01 n 8.2E+00 n 2.0E-01 n 6.2E-05 n 5.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Toluic Acid, p-99-94-5 3.2E+01 n 4.1E+02 n 9.0E+00 n 2.3E-03 n 1.6E-02 P 5.1E-05 C 1 0.1 Toluidine, o- (Methylaniline, 2-)95-53-4 3.4E+01 c 1.4E+02 c 5.5E-02 c 2.4E-01 c 4.7E+00 c 2.0E-03 c 3.0E-02 P 4.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Toluidine, p-106-49-0 1.8E+01 c**7.7E+01 c** 2.5E+00 c**1.1E-03 c** 3.0E+00 P V 1 3.4E-01 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aliphatic High)E1790670 2.3E+04 ns 3.5E+05 nms 6.0E+03 n 2.4E+02 n 6.0E-01 P V 1 1.4E+02 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aliphatic Low)E1790666 5.2E+01 n 2.2E+02 ns 6.3E+01 n 2.6E+02 n 1.3E+02 n 8.8E-01 n 1.0E-02 X 1.0E-01 P V 1 6.9E+00 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aliphatic Medium)E1790668 9.6E+00 ns 4.4E+01 ns 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 1.0E+01 n 1.5E-01 n 4.0E-02 P 1 0.13 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aromatic High)E1790676 2.4E+02 n 3.0E+03 n 8.0E+01 n 8.9E+00 n 4.0E-03 P 3.0E-02 P V 1 1.8E+03 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aromatic Low)E1790672 8.2E+00 n 4.2E+01 n 3.1E+00 n 1.3E+01 n 3.3E+00 n 1.7E-03 n 4.0E-03 P 3.0E-03 P V 1 0.13 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aromatic Medium)E1790674 9.7E+00 n 5.6E+01 n 3.1E-01 n 1.3E+00 n 5.5E-01 n 2.3E-03 n 1.1E+00 I 3.2E-04 I 9.0E-05 P 1 0.1 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 4.9E-01 c**2.1E+00 c**8.8E-03 c 3.8E-02 c 7.1E-02 c**3.0E+00 1.1E-02 c**4.6E-01 3.0E-05 X 1 0.1 Toxaphene, Weathered E1841606 1.9E-01 n 2.5E+00 n 6.0E-02 n 9.3E-03 n 7.5E-03 I 1 0.1 Tralomethrin 66841-25-6 4.7E+01 n 6.2E+02 n 1.5E+01 n 5.8E+00 n 3.0E-04 A V 1 Tri-n-butyltin 688-73-3 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 3.7E-01 n 8.2E-03 n 8.0E+01 X 1 0.1 Triacetin 102-76-1 5.1E+05 nm 6.6E+06 nm 1.6E+05 n 4.5E+01 n 3.4E-02 O 1 0.1 Triadimefon 43121-43-3 2.1E+02 n 2.8E+03 n 6.3E+01 n 5.0E-02 n 7.2E-02 O 2.5E-02 O V 1 Triallate 2303-17-5 9.7E+00 c*4.6E+01 c* 4.7E-01 c*1.0E-03 c* 1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Triasulfuron 82097-50-5 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 2.0E+01 n 2.1E-02 n 8.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Tribenuron-methyl 101200-48-0 5.1E+01 n 6.6E+02 n 1.6E+01 n 6.1E-03 n 5.0E-03 I V 1 Tribromobenzene, 1,2,4-615-54-3 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 4.5E+00 n 6.4E-03 n 9.0E-03 X 1 0.1 Tribromophenol, 2,4,6-118-79-6 5.7E+01 n 7.4E+02 n 1.2E+01 n 2.2E-02 n 2.0E-04 O 1 0.1 Tribufos 78-48-8 1.3E+00 n 1.6E+01 n 5.7E-02 n 2.8E-04 n 9.0E-03 P 1.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Tributyl Phosphate 126-73-8 6.0E+01 c**2.6E+02 c** 5.2E+00 c**2.5E-02 c** 3.0E-04 P 1 0.1 Tributyltin Compounds E1790679 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 3.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Tributyltin Oxide 56-35-9 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 5.7E-01 n 2.9E+01 n 1 0.1 Trichloramine 10025-85-1 4.0E+03(G) 3.0E+01 I 5.0E+00 P V 1 9.1E+02 Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-76-13-1 6.7E+02 n 2.8E+03 ns 5.2E+02 n 2.2E+03 n 1.0E+03 n 2.6E+00 n 7.0E-02 I 2.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Trichloroacetic Acid 76-03-9 7.8E+00 c*3.3E+01 c* 1.1E+00 c*6.0E+01(G)2.2E-04 c*1.2E-022.9E-02 H 1 0.1 Trichloroaniline HCl, 2,4,6-33663-50-2 1.9E+01 c 7.9E+01 c 2.7E+00 c 7.4E-03 c 7.0E-03 X 3.0E-05 X 1 0.1 Trichloroaniline, 2,4,6-634-93-5 1.9E-01 n 2.5E+00 n 4.0E-02 n 3.6E-04 n 8.0E-04 X V 1 Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,3-87-61-6 6.3E+00 n 9.3E+01 n 7.0E-01 n 2.1E-03 n 2.9E-02 P 1.0E-02 I 2.0E-03 P V 1 4.0E+02 Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-120-82-1 5.8E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 4.0E-01 n 7.0E+01 1.2E-03 n 2.0E-01 2.0E+00 I 5.0E+00 I V 1 6.4E+02 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-71-55-6 8.1E+02 ns 3.6E+03 ns 5.2E+02 n 2.2E+03 n 8.0E+02 n 2.0E+02 2.8E-01 n 7.0E-025.7E-02 I 1.6E-05 I 4.0E-03 I 2.0E-04 X V 1 2.2E+03 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-79-00-5 1.5E-01 n 6.3E-01 n 2.1E-02 n 8.8E-02 n 4.1E-02 n 5.0E+00 1.3E-05 n 1.6E-034.6E-02 I 4.1E-06 I 5.0E-04 I 2.0E-03 I V M 1 6.9E+02 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 4.1E-01 n 1.9E+00 n 2.1E-01 n 8.8E-01 n 2.8E-01 n 5.0E+00 1.0E-04 n 1.8E-03 3.0E-01 I V 1 1.2E+03 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 2.3E+03 ns 3.5E+04 ns 5.2E+02 n 3.3E-01 n 1.0E-01 I 1 0.1 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-95-95-4 6.3E+02 n 8.2E+03 n 1.2E+02 n 4.0E-01 n 1.1E-02 I 3.1E-06 I 1.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-88-06-2 6.3E+00 n 8.2E+01 n 9.1E-01 c 4.0E+00 c 1.2E+00 n 1.2E-03 n
Page 10 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-06, HQ=0.1) May 2022
SFO
(mg/kg-day)-1
key
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
key
RfDo (mg/kg-day)
key
RfCi
(mg/m3)
key
vol mutagen GIABS ABSd
Csat (mg/kg)Analyte CAS No.Resident Soil(mg/kg)key Industrial Soil(mg/kg)key
Resident Air
(ug/m3)key
Industrial Air
(ug/m3)key Tapwater(ug/L)key MCL(ug/L)
Risk-basedSSL(mg/kg)key
MCL-basedSSL(mg/kg)
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; D = OW; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = user's guide Section 5; M = mutagen; V = volatile; R = RBA applied ; c = cancer; n = noncancer; * = where: n SL < 100X c SL; ** = where n SL < 10X c SL; SSL values are based on DAF=1; m = ceiling limit exceeded; s = Csat exceeded.Toxicity and Chemical-specific Information Contaminant Screening Levels Protection of Groundwater SSLs
1.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4,5-93-76-5 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 1.6E+01 n 6.8E-03 n 8.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid, -2,4,5 93-72-1 5.1E+01 n 6.6E+02 n 1.1E+01 n 5.0E+01 6.1E-03 n 2.8E-02 5.0E-03 I V 1 1.3E+03 Trichloropropane, 1,1,2-598-77-6 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 8.8E+00 n 3.5E-03 n 3.0E+01 I 4.0E-03 I 3.0E-04 I V M 1 1.4E+03 Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-96-18-4 5.1E-03 c*1.1E-01 c*3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 7.5E-04 c*3.2E-07 c* 3.0E-03 X 3.0E-04 P V 1 3.1E+02 Trichloropropene, 1,2,3-96-19-5 7.3E-02 n 3.1E-01 n 3.1E-02 n 1.3E-01 n 6.2E-02 n 3.1E-05 n 2.0E-02 A 1 0.1 Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP)1330-78-5 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 1.6E+01 n 1.5E+00 n 3.0E-03 I 1 0.1 Tridiphane 58138-08-2 1.9E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 1.8E+00 n 1.3E-02 n 7.0E-03 I V 1 2.8E+04 Triethylamine 121-44-8 1.2E+01 n 4.8E+01 n 7.3E-01 n 3.1E+00 n 1.5E+00 n 4.4E-04 n 2.0E+00 P 1 0.1 Triethylene Glycol 112-27-6 1.3E+04 n 1.6E+05 nm 4.0E+03 n 8.8E-01 n 2.0E+01 P V 1 4.8E+03 Trifluoroethane, 1,1,1-420-46-2 1.5E+03 n 6.2E+03 ns 2.1E+03 n 8.8E+03 n 4.2E+03 n 1.3E+01 n 7.7E-03 I 7.5E-03 I V 1 Trifluralin 1582-09-8 5.9E+01 n 4.2E+02 c** 2.6E+00 c**8.4E-02 c** 2.0E-02 P 1.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Trimethyl Phosphate 512-56-1 2.7E+01 c**1.1E+02 c** 3.9E+00 c**8.6E-04 c** 1.0E-02 I 6.0E-02 I V 1 2.9E+02 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,3-526-73-8 3.4E+01 n 2.0E+02 n 6.3E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 5.5E+00 n 8.1E-03 n 1.0E-02 I 6.0E-02 I V 1 2.2E+02 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-95-63-6 3.0E+01 n 1.8E+02 n 6.3E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 5.6E+00 n 8.1E-03 n 1.0E-02 I 6.0E-02 I V 1 1.8E+02 Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-108-67-8 2.7E+01 n 1.5E+02 n 6.3E+00 n 2.6E+01 n 6.0E+00 n 8.7E-03 n 1.0E-02 X V 1 3.0E+01 Trimethylpentene, 2,4,4-25167-70-8 7.8E+01 ns 1.2E+03 ns 3.8E+00 n 1.3E-02 n 3.0E-02 I 1 0.019 Trinitrobenzene, 1,3,5-99-35-4 2.2E+02 n 3.2E+03 n 5.9E+01 n 2.1E-01 n 3.0E-02 I 5.0E-04 I 1 0.032 Trinitrotoluene, 2,4,6-118-96-7 3.6E+00 n 5.1E+01 n 9.8E-01 n 5.7E-03 n 2.0E-02 P 1 0.1 Triphenylphosphine Oxide 791-28-6 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.6E+01 n 1.5E-01 n 2.0E-02 A 1 0.1 Tris(1,3-Dichloro-2-propyl) Phosphate 13674-87-8 1.3E+02 n 1.6E+03 n 3.6E+01 n 8.0E-01 n 1.0E-02 X 1 0.1 Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate 13674-84-5 6.3E+01 n 8.2E+02 n 1.9E+01 n 6.5E-02 n 2.3E+00 C 6.6E-04 C V 1 4.7E+02 Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate 126-72-7 2.8E-01 c 1.3E+00 c 4.3E-03 c 1.9E-02 c 6.8E-03 c 1.3E-04 c 2.0E-02 P 7.0E-03 P 1 0.1 Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate 115-96-8 2.7E+01 c**1.1E+02 c** 3.8E+00 c**3.8E-03 c** 3.2E-03 P 1.0E-01 P 1 0.1 Tris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate 78-42-2 1.7E+02 c**7.2E+02 c* 2.4E+01 c**1.2E+02 c** 8.0E-04 P 1 Tungsten 7440-33-7 6.3E+00 n 9.3E+01 n 1.6E+00 n 2.4E-01 n 2.0E-04 A 4.0E-05 A 1 Uranium 7440-61-1 1.6E+00 n 2.3E+01 n 4.2E-03 n 1.8E-02 n 4.0E-01 n 3.0E+01 1.8E-01 n 1.4E+011.0E+00 C 2.9E-04 C M 1 0.1 Urethane 51-79-6 1.2E-01 c 2.3E+00 c 3.5E-03 c 4.2E-02 c 2.5E-02 c 5.6E-06 c 8.3E-03 P 9.0E-03 I 7.0E-06 P 0.026 Vanadium Pentoxide 1314-62-1 6.6E+01 n 8.4E+02 n 3.4E-04 c**1.5E-03 c**1.5E+01 n 5.0E-03 G 1.0E-04 A 0.026 Vanadium and Compounds 7440-62-2 3.9E+01 n 5.8E+02 n 1.0E-02 n 4.4E-02 n 8.6E+00 n 8.6E+00 n 1.0E-03 I V 1 Vernolate 1929-77-7 7.8E+00 n 1.2E+02 n 1.1E+00 n 8.9E-04 n 1.2E-03 O 1 0.1 Vinclozolin 50471-44-8 7.6E+00 n 9.8E+01 n 2.1E+00 n 1.6E-03 n 1.0E+00 H 2.0E-01 I V 1 2.8E+03 Vinyl Acetate 108-05-4 9.1E+01 n 3.8E+02 n 2.1E+01 n 8.8E+01 n 4.1E+01 n 8.7E-03 n 1.5E-05 P 3.0E-03 I V 1 2.5E+03 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 2.6E-01 c**1.1E+00 c**1.9E-01 c**8.2E-01 c**3.7E-01 c**1.1E-04 c** 7.2E-01 I 4.4E-06 I 3.0E-03 I 8.0E-02 A V M 1 3.9E+03 Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 5.9E-02 c 1.7E+00 c*1.7E-01 c*2.8E+00 c*1.9E-02 c 2.0E+00 6.5E-06 c 6.9E-04 3.0E-04 I 1 0.1 Warfarin 81-81-2 1.9E+00 n 2.5E+01 n 5.6E-01 n 5.9E-04 n 2.0E-01 G 1.0E-01 G V 1 3.9E+02 Xylene, m-108-38-3 5.5E+01 n 2.4E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 1.9E+01 n 1.9E-02 n 2.0E-01 G 1.0E-01 G V 1 4.3E+02 Xylene, o-95-47-6 6.4E+01 n 2.8E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 1.9E+01 n 1.9E-02 n 2.0E-01 G 1.0E-01 G V 1 3.9E+02 Xylene, p-106-42-3 5.6E+01 n 2.4E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 1.9E+01 n 1.9E-02 n 2.0E-01 I 1.0E-01 I V 1 2.6E+02 Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.8E+01 n 2.5E+02 n 1.0E+01 n 4.4E+01 n 1.9E+01 n 1.0E+04 1.9E-02 n 9.9E+00 3.0E-04 I 1 Zinc Phosphide 1314-84-7 2.3E+00 n 3.5E+01 n 6.0E-01 n 3.0E-01 I 1 Zinc and Compounds 7440-66-6 2.3E+03 n 3.5E+04 n 6.0E+02 n 3.7E+01 n 5.0E-02 I 1 0.1 Zineb 12122-67-7 3.2E+02 n 4.1E+03 n 9.9E+01 n 2.9E-01 n 8.0E-05 X 1 Zirconium 7440-67-7 6.3E-01 n 9.3E+00 n 1.6E-01 n 4.8E-01 n
Page 11 of 11TR=1E-06 THQ=0.1
REFERENCE 20
1
Walch, John
From:Meyer, Billy
Sent:Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:26 PM
To:Walch, John
Cc:Jesneck, Charlotte; Alexander, Delonda
Subject:DC320004 Eakes Cleaners site transfer to IHSB
Attachments:DC320004_20191002_transfer to IHSB.pdf; DC320004_20190718
_SourceInvestigationReport.pdf; DC320004_20190718
_Investigation_SummaryFigures.pdf; DC320004 - Shooters Saloon State Investigation
Report
Hey John, 
As discussed I’m transferring this site back over to IHSB. DSCA obtained an administrative search warrant and executed 
on June 6, 2019 and sent Mr. Danny Roberts a letter once again notifying him that dry cleaning solvent contamination 
had been discovered at this site. The data obtained basically confirmed what was found back in 1999 but is focused on 
the area where the suspected release occurred. Sub‐slab concentrations indicate a potential unacceptable acute 
exposure risk from indoor inhalation of TCE via VI using default exposure parameters and attenuation factors. Indoor Air 
data could not be collected during the investigation. 

Attachments to email: 
Transfer memo 
DSCA Site Investigation Report  
Summary Figures and Conclusions from Report 
7/31 Email to Kim Cates 

If you need anything further or would like to discuss please let me know. 

Thanks, 
Billy  

Memo

October 3, 2019

MEMORANDUM

TO: Charlotte Jesneck, Branch Head
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, Superfund Section

THROUGH: Delonda Alexander, Supervisor, DSCA Branch Head
Special Remediation Branch, Superfund Section

FROM: Billy Meyer, Remediation Unit Supervisor
NC Dry Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act (DSCA) Program, Superfund Section

SUBJECT: DC320004, Former Eakes Cleaners (Shooters Saloon)
827 W. Morgan St..
Durham, Durham County

DSCA Site DC320004 has been transferred between IHSB and DSCA several times. The
occupants of the structure were estimated to be at an increased risk to acute exposure from indoor
inhalation of TCE through vapor intrusion based on historical concentrations observed in
groundwater beneath the building’s footprint.

On June 6, 2019 the DSCA program served an administrative warrant to obtain samples to
characterize the potential risk to occupants of the building. The following sampling was
performed: six soil samples (from three locations), three groundwater samples, and two sub-slab
soil gas samples. Figures showing the locations and results of contamination in each media are
attached to this memo. The results of the assessment are documented in a July 17, 2019 “Source
Investigation Report”.

The TCE concentrations observed in sub-slab gas sample SS-2 exceeded indoor inhalation risk
levels using DEQ’s “NON-RESIDENTIAL WORKER Soil Gas to Indoor Air” Vapor Intrusion
(VI) Calculator. Specifically, using the observed sub-slab TCE concentration of 2,600 µg/m3 and

default attenuation factor of 0.01, results in a predicted indoor air TCE-concentration of 26 µg/m3
(Hazard Index of 3.0). This concentration exceeds DWM’s immediate action level of 8.8 µg/m3
for TCE under a non-residential short-term exposure. The TCE-sensitive exposure population for
short-term exposures is women of child-bearing age (women of age 15-50 years). This population
currently occupies the Shooter’s Saloon structure under the above exposure conditions. Thus,
unacceptable acute exposures to sensitive receptors could potentially be occurring based on the
observed concentrations and default attenuation factor. This may or may not be representative of
the VI characteristics specific to the Shooter’s building. As Indoor air sampling under normal
operating conditions was not performed as part of DSCA’s assessment, such data is needed to
complete the vapor intrusion investigation and risk evaluation of the indoor air inhalation exposure
pathway.

Mr. Danny Robert’s has verbally indicated that indoor air sampling has been performed and that
“nothing was found” in several samples. I asked Mr. Roberts to please submit that information and
none has been submitted to date. Kim Cates, manager of the Shooters Saloon and representative
for Mr. Roberts, was provided the afore mentioned assessment report, which includes
recommended additional data needs and conclusions, in a 7/31/19 email where IHSB was copied
and included in attachments. I also spoke with Mr. Roberts concerning the results of the
investigation.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at [phone].

Attachments: Source Investigation Report – July 18, 2019
Letter: “Notice of Dry-Cleaning Solvent Contamination” – July 31, 2019
Email: “DC320004 – Shooters Saloon Investigation Report to: Kim Cates” – July
31, 2019
Summary Figures and Conclusions of July, 18, 2019 Report
From:Meyer, Billy
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Jesneck, Charlotte; Alexander, Delonda
Subject:DC320004 - Shooters Saloon State Investigation Report
Date:Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:23:09 AM
Attachments:DC320004_20190731_invitationletter_postwarrant_investigation.pdfDC320004_20190718_SourceInvestigationReport.pdfimage002.png
Hey Kim,
I spoke with Danny this morning and he indicated that he does not wish to enter the DSCA program,
which is clearly his prerogative as it is a voluntary program. It seems that we have adequately
communicated with each other and understand the pros and cons of the program so I believe his
decision is well informed. Nonetheless, I have attached a “program choice” letter and also a report
documenting the findings of our investigation. Please review those documents carefully as they are
also being mailed to you (certified).

He also indicated that indoor air sampling was performed and that no contamination was found
across several samples. I asked him to please submit that information as it’s good information for
not only you guys, but also for the state, to have on record concerning the potential health risk, or
lack thereof, to patrons and workers at Shooters Saloon.

As I stated it would be really good for all parties involved if you could email me the results of the
indoor air testing.

If you need anything further, have questions, or otherwise, please contact me.

Take care,
Billy Meyer

REFERENCE 21
REFERENCE 22
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC www.oneenv.com
May 18, 2020 John W. Walch Eastern Unit Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management – Superfund Section Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Notification of an Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site 823 W Morgan Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Dear Mr. Walch: Enclosed please find a copy of the Notification of an Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste
Disposal Site form and a Limited Phase II Investigation Letter Report for the above referenced property located in Durham County, North Carolina. ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC (ONE) is pleased to submit these documents per the request of the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) and on behalf of the property owner, AP Brightleaf Square Owner, LP. The documents herein are provided as a supplement to the existing dataset for IHSB Site ID NONCD0001192 (827 West Morgan Street - Former Eakes Cleaners) and are not representative of an application for entry into the IHSB program. An assessment of soil, groundwater, soil gas, sub-slab soil gas, and indoor air was conducted at the property. The assessment was prompted due to an identified chlorinated solvent release associated with the northwest adjacent property located at 827 W. Morgan Street (former Eakes Cleaners - NONCD0001192). Samples were collected in locations where contamination was suspected to have migrated to the property based on a review of 2019 sampling data of NONCD0001192 and the property's historical use. The assessment reported detections of various chlorinated solvent compounds in groundwater above their respective 15A NCAC 02L Groundwater Quality Standards and above Gross Contamination Levels. In addition, chlorinated solvent compounds were detected in sub-slab soil gas above their respective Non-Residential Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels and above the cumulative risk threshold. No other exceedance of a regulatory standard was identified for the remaining sampled media (soil, soil gas, and indoor air).
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC www.oneenv.com
Mr. John Walch May 18, 2020 Page 2 of 2
The results indicate that the northwest-adjacent contamination plume has migrated to and affected groundwater at the property. Chlorinated solvent compounds in groundwater appear to be vaporizing in soils beneath the structure slab. Indoor air concentration results indicate that the slab is performing as a competent barrier for vapor intrusion. Based on the concentration levels detected in sub-slab, a routine assessment of the structure slab and continued monitoring of indoor air is recommended. We at ONE appreciate your address of the matter and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely,
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
Eli Holland, P.G.
Principal
cc: Mr. Hayes Brown – Asana Partners
ATTACHMENTS

ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
www.oneenv.com
April 10, 2020 Mr. Hayes Brown Asana Partners 1616 Camden Road, Suite 210 Charlotte, NC 28203
RE: Limited Phase II Investigation Letter Report 823 West Morgan Street Durham, North Carolina 28203 Dear Mr. Brown, ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC (ONE) appreciates the opportunity to submit this letter report to Asana Partners (Asana) documenting the Limited Phase II Investigation performed at 823 W Morgan Street in Durham, North Carolina (the “Property”). The Phase II investigation was conducted to address the environmental concerns identified during a prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed of the Property. A summary of the identified concerns and activities of the Phase II Investigation are presented below.
Project Background A Phase I ESA was completed for the Property in September 2019. The assessment identified adjacent historical dry-cleaning and auto-related operations as recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Property. Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, a Limited Phase II Investigation was recommended to evaluate for the presence of subsurface impacts (if any).
Utility Location and GPR Survey On March 12th, 2020, ONE mobilized to the Property to conduct a Limited Phase II Investigation. Prior to commencing subsurface activities, ONE contacted 811 to survey the Property. In addition, ONE contracted private utility locator, Stewart, to complete a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of each proposed boring location, including an area of a potential former underground storage tank (UST). According to ONE’s review of a 1950 fire insurance map, a gas tank had been depicted on the Property and appeared to be associated with the Property’s former auto shop. The results of the GPR survey identified no evidence of the former UST and no concerns with the selected boring locations.
Soil Boring ONE contracted Bridger Drilling of Wilmington, North Carolina to complete the installation of three (3) soil borings (SB-1, SB-2, and SB-3) at the Property. The sample locations are depicted in Figure
1.
Mr. Hayes Brown April 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
www.oneenv.com
Soil borings were advanced with a direct-push Geoprobe® and retrieved within five (5)-foot Macro-Core® sample tubes. Each sample tube was field screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photoionization detector (PID) to terminal depth. Soil samples were collected for analysis at the interval that exhibited the highest PID reading, at predetermined intervals above the water table or where olfactory/visual evidence was reported by field personnel. It should be noted that no soil was recovered at soil boring SB-3; therefore, no representative soil samples from SB-3 were collected or analyzed. Soil samples from borings SB-1 and SB-2 were collected into laboratory supplied bottleware and delivered under proper chain of custody to Waypoint Analytical (Waypoint) of Charlotte, North Carolina. The soil samples were submitted for the following analyses:
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260D and
• Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270E.
Groundwater Sampling Soil borings SB-1, SB-2, and SB-3 were converted into one (1)-inch PVC temporary groundwater monitoring wells (GW-1, GW-2, and GW-3). Prior to sampling, the depths to groundwater were measured via an interface probe. Groundwater measurements were recorded at 4.15 feet below grade surface (bgs) in monitoring well GW-1, at 2.28 feet bgs in monitoring well GW-2, and at 2.0 feet bgs in monitoring well GW-3. The sample locations are depicted in Figure 1. Groundwater samples were collected utilizing a peristaltic pump with dedicated tubing. The groundwater samples were collected in laboratory supplied bottleware and delivered under proper chain of custody to Waypoint of Charlotte, North Carolina for the following analyses:
• VOCs by EPA Method 8260D and
• SVOCs by EPA Method 8270E. Following the completion of groundwater sampling activities, the temporary monitoring wells were removed. The sample locations were abandoned with bentonite and finished with an asphalt patch. Well construction records are provided as Attachment A.
Soil Gas and Indoor Air Sampling Concurrent with soil and groundwater sampling activities, ONE contracted Total Vapor Solutions (TVS) of Alpharetta, Georgia to conduct soil gas and indoor air sampling at the Property. A total of five (5) samples were collected; two (2) sub-slab soil gas (SS-1 and SS-2), one (1) exterior soil gas (SV-1), one (1) indoor air (IA-1), and one (1) ambient air (AA-1). The sample locations are depicted in Figure 1. All samples were submitted under proper chain of custody to H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc. (H&P) of Carlsbad, California for the analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method TO-15. It should be noted that H&P reported elevated analyte concentrations in sub-slab soil gas sample SS-1; therefore, sample SS-1 was analyzed by H&P Method 8260SV. A copy of the TVS Field Report is provided as Attachment B.
Mr. Hayes Brown April 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
www.oneenv.com
Findings
Soil Soil analytical results were screened against the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentrations (MSCC) and Health Based Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) for commercial and industrial properties.
• VOCs – Nine (9) VOCs (acetone, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, naphthalene, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, m,p-xylenes, and total xylenes) were detected above the laboratory reporting limit; however, all reported concentrations were below regulatory screening levels.
• SVOCs – Ten (10) SVOCs, (benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene) were detected above the laboratory reporting limit; however, all reported concentrations were below regulatory screening levels.
• PID readings –Readings from SB-1 and SB-3 were noted as minimal and likely due to detected residual moisture. Readings from SB-2 reported the following:
o 5-7’ reached 15.3 parts per million (ppm);
o 7-8’ reached 9.3 ppm;
o 8-10’ reached 5.7 ppm;
o 10-13.5’ reached 6.1 ppm; and,
o 13.5-15’ reached 3.4 ppm. A summary of the soil analytical detections is provided in Table 1 and presented in Figure 2. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as Attachment C.
Groundwater Groundwater analytical results were screened against the NCDEQ 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS) and Gross Contamination Levels (GCL).
• VOCs – Eleven (11) VOCs (acetone , 1,1-dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, methyl butyl ketone (2-hexanone), PCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride, ethylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, and naphthalene) were detected above the laboratory reporting limit. Of these, five (5) compounds reported concentrations that exceeded regulatory screening levels:

o cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene was detected in sample GW-2 at a concentration of 14 mg/L, which is above the GWQS of 0.07 mg/L, but below the GCL of 70 mg/L.
o trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene was detected in sample GW-2 at a concentration of 0.12 mg/L, which is above the GWQS of 0.1 mg/L, but below the GCL of 100 mg/L.

Mr. Hayes Brown April 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
www.oneenv.com
o PCE was detected in samples GW-1 and GW-3 at a concentration of 0.15 mg/L and 0.0057 mg/L, respectively, which are above the GWQS of 0.0007mg/L. PCE was detected in sample GW-2 at a concentration of 6.8 mg/L, which is above both the GWQS and the GCL of 0.7 mg/L.

o TCE was detected in samples GW-1 and GW-3 at a concentration of 0.036 mg/L and 0.0078 mg/L, respectively, which are above the GWQS of 0.003 mg/L. TCE was detected in sample GW-2 at a concentration of 8.8 mg/L, which is above both the GWQS and the GCL of 3.0 mg/L.
o Vinyl chloride was detected in samples GW-1 and GW-3 at a concentration of 0.0007 mg/L and 0.0014 mg/L, respectively, which are above the GWQS of 0. 0.00003 mg/L. Vinyl chloride was detected in sample GW-2 at a concentration of 0.78 mg/L, which is above both the GWQS and the GCL of 0.03 mg/L.
• SVOCs – Four (4) SVOCs (benzo(b)fluoranthene, pyrene, benzoic acid, and phenanthrene) were detected above the laboratory reporting limit. Of these, only one (1) compound reported a concentration that exceeded the regulatory screening level:
o Benzo(b)fluoranthene was detected in sample GW-1 at a concentration of 0.0015 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is above both the GWQS of 0.00005 mg/L and the GCL of 0.00075 mg/L. A summary of the groundwater analytical detections is provided in Table 2 and presented in
Figure 3. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as Attachment C.
Sub-slab Soil Gas Sub-slab soil gas and exterior soil gas samples were screened against the NCDEQ Non-Residential Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL).
• VOCs - Fifteen (15) VOCs (benzene, methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone), carbon disulfide, chloromethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, ethylbenzene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK), tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, vinyl chloride, m,p-xylene, and o-xylene) were detected above the laboratory reporting limit. Of these, three (3) compounds reported concentrations that exceeded regulatory screening levels:
o Tetrachloroethylene was detected in sample SS-1 at a concentration of 200,000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), which is above the NCDEQ VISL of 3,500 ug/m3.
o Trichloroethylene was detected in samples SS-1 and SS-2 at a concentration of 110,000 ug/m3 and 190 ug/m3, respectively, which are above the NCDEQ VISL of 180 ug/m3.
Mr. Hayes Brown April 10, 2020 Page 5 of 6
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
www.oneenv.com
o Vinyl chloride was detected in sample SS-1 at a concentration of 14,000 ug/m3, which is above the NCDEQ VISL of 2,800 ug/m3. Each sample was also evaluated for multiple contaminant cumulative risk exposure concentrations using the NCDEQ Risk Calculator. Samples were analyzed using the cumulative target cancer risk (TCR) value of 1 x 10−4 and a non-carcinogenic Hazard Index (HI) of 1. The results of the risk calculation reported an exceedance of the acceptable TCR and HI at sub-slab soil gas sample SS-1 with a calculated TCR of 4.6 x 10-4 and a HI of 140. A summary of the sub-slab soil gas analytical results is provided in Table 3 and presented in Figure
4. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included in the TVS Field Report provided as
Attachment B. The NCDEQ Risk Calculator outputs are included as Attachment D.
Indoor Air Indoor air samples were screened against the NCDEQ Non-Residential Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL).
• VOCs - Thirteen (13) VOCs (benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone), styrene, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, trichlorofluoromethane, m, p-xylene) were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limit; however, all reported concentrations were below regulatory screening levels. Each sample was also evaluated for multiple contaminant cumulative risk exposure concentrations using the NCDEQ Risk Calculator. Samples were analyzed using the most conservative acceptable cumulative target cancer risk (TCR) value of 1 x 10−4 and a non-carcinogenic Hazard Index (HI) of 1. No exceedances of the acceptable TCR or HI were reported. A summary of the indoor air analytical results is provided in Table 4 and presented in Figure 5. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included in the TVS Field Report provided as Attachment
B. The NCDEQ Risk Calculator outputs are included as Attachment D.
Conclusions The results of the Limited Phase II Investigation have identified constituents of concern (COC) above regulatory screening levels in groundwater and sub-slab soil gas. The primary COCs are identified as chlorinated solvents; PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride. Their breakdown products, cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, were also detected in groundwater at concentrations above drinking water quality standards. Corresponding soil samples collected and analyzed reported minimal or no detection of the aforementioned COCs, including no exceedance of the regulatory soil screening levels. Groundwater at the Property was recorded at relatively shallow depths with an average measurement of 2.81 feet bgs.
Mr. Hayes Brown April 10, 2020 Page 6 of 6
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
www.oneenv.com
The cumulative evaluations of sub-slab soil gas concentrations at the Property reported an exceedance of the acceptable TCR and HI, indicating a risk of vapor intrusion. However, indoor air analytical results reported no exceedance of the regulatory indoor air screening levels and no exceedance of the acceptable cumulative thresholds. At this time, the Property is connected to and provided with municipal water. The Property’s indoor air results indicate that the structure slab is effectively minimizing vapor intrusion to concentrations well below regulatory screening levels. Based on the known history of the Property and of the surrounding area, the source of the detected chlorinated solvents appears to be from offsite. An active chlorinated solvent plume has been reported for the up gradient/northwest adjacent property (827 W. Morgan Street) and appears to be the source of the chlorinated solvents. The adjacent site has been identified as former Eakes Cleaners (NONCD0001192) and is currently being investigated by both the NCDEQ Dry Cleaning Solvent Act (DSCA) and Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) programs.
Recommendations It is ONE’s recommendation that routine monitoring be performed at the Property to ensure the continued and adequate function of the structure slab. Moreover, the implementation of engineering and institutional controls is recommended if activities involving structural or land disturbance (i.e. redevelopment or construction) are anticipated for the Property. ONE appreciates the opportunity to provide environmental consulting services to Asana Partners. If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]. Sincerely,
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC Eli Holland, PG Principal Enclosures: Figure 1 – Sample Location Map Figure 2 – Soil Analytical Map Figure 3 – Groundwater Analytical Map Figure 4 – Sub-Slab and Soil Gas Analytical Map Figure 5 – Indoor Air Analytical Map Table 1 – Summary of Soil Analytical Detections Table 2 – Summary of Groundwater Analytical Detections Table 3 – Summary of Sub-Slab and Soil Gas Analytical Detections Table 4 – Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Detections Attachment A – Well Construction Records Attachment B – Total Vapor Solutions Field Report Attachment C – Soil and Groundwater Laboratory Analytical Report Attachment D – NCDEQ Risk Calculator Outputs

FIGURES

TABLES

Table 1Summary of Soil Analytical Detections823 West Morgan Street, Durham, NCMarch 20, 2020ParameterAcetoneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(a)pyreneChrysenecis-1,2-Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneFluorantheneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyreneTetrachloroethyleneToluene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenem,p-XylenesXylenes, totalSample IDSB‐1 (0‐2)BRL 0.092 J 0.13 J 0.050 J 0.067 J 0.092 J 0.085 J BRL BRL 0.16 J 0.068 J BRL 0.046 J 0.13 J BRL BRL BRL BRL BRLSB‐2 (0‐2)0.014 J 0.037 J 0.071 J BRL 0.045 J 0.045 J 0.041 J 0.039 0.0024 J 0.055 J BRL 0.00039 J BRL 0.054 J 0.0010 J 0.0012 J 0.00046 J 0.0013 J 0.0013 JNCDEQ Commercial/Industrial MSCC360000 8 8 78 12264 0.78 780 4000 8200 16400 8 8176 12264 12264 10 32000 4088 81760 81760NCDEQ Commercial/Industrial Health Based PSRG140000 1.1 21 210 NR 2.1 2100 470 4700 6000 21 18 NR 4500 82 9700 370 500 530Notes:NCDEQ = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality MSCC = Maximum Soil Contaminant ConcentrationPSRG = Preliminary Soil Remediation GoalBRL = Below Reporting LimitNR = Not regulatedJ = Detection is below the laboratory reporting limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration.mg/kg = milligram(s) per kilogramResults (mg/kg)ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC 1 of 1 Asana Partners
Table 2Summary of Groundwater Analytical Detections823 West Morgan Street, Durham, NCMarch 20, 2020ParameterAcetoneBenzoic AcidBenzo(b)fluoranthene1,1-Dichloroethylenecis-1,2-Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl Butyl Ketone (2-Hexanone)NaphthalenePhenanthrenen-PropylbenzenePyreneTetrachloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl ChlorideSample ID GW‐10.0045 J BRL0.0015 J0.00037 J 0.033 0.00046 J BRL 0.00028 J BRL BRL BRL 0.0015 J0.15 0.036 0.0007GW‐2BRL BRL BRL 0.021 J14 0.120.052 BRL BRL BRL 0.035 J BRL6.8 8.8 0.78GW‐3 0.0052 0.023 J BRL BRL 0.019 0.00022 J BRL BRL 0.00041 J 0.0013 J BRL BRL0.0057 0.0078 0.0014NCDEQ GWQS6 30 0.00005 0.35 0.07 0.1 0.6 4 0.006 0.2 0.07 0.2 0.0007 0.003 0.00003NCDEQ GCL6000 1700 0.00075 350 70 100 84.5 4000 6 0.41 30 0.2 0.73 0.03Notes:NCDEQ = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality GWQS = Groundwater Quality StandardGCL = Gross Contamination LevelJ = Detection is below the laboratory reporting limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration.mg/L = milligram(s) per literResults (mg/L)Bold/highlighted yellow = Exceedance of NCDEQ GWQSBold/highlighted orange = Exceedance of NCDEQ GWQS and GCLONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC 1 of 1 Asana Partners
Table 3Summary of Sub-Slab and Soil Gas Analytical Detections 823 West Morgan Street, Durham, NCMarch 26, 2020Parameter‡œ‡‡‡–Š›Ž–Š›Ž‡–‘‡ȋʹǦ—–ƒ‘‡Ȍƒ”„‘‹•—Žˆ‹†‡ŠŽ‘”‘‡–Šƒ‡…‹•ǦͳǡʹǦ‹…ŠŽ‘”‘‡–Š‡‡–”ƒ•ǦͳǡʹǦ‹…ŠŽ‘”‘‡–Š‡‡–Š›Ž„‡œ‡‡ͶǦ‡–Š›ŽǦʹǦ‡–ƒ‘‡ȋȌ‡–”ƒ…ŠŽ‘”‘‡–Š›Ž‡‡‘Ž—‡‡”‹…ŠŽ‘”‘‡–Š›Ž‡‡ͳǡʹǡͶǦ”‹‡–Š›Ž„‡œ‡‡‹›ŽŠŽ‘”‹†‡ǡ’Ǧ›Ž‡‡‘Ǧ›Ž‡‡Non-Residential Cumulative Carcinogenic RiskNon-Residential Cumulative Non-Carcinogenic Target Hazard IndexSample IDSV-1ʹͳ ͵Ͳ ͳ͸ ʹǤʹ ͳͻͲ  ͸Ǥʹ ͳͳ ʹ͹ ͸͸ ʹ͵ ͷǤʹ ͵͸Ͳ ͳͻ ͹Ǥͻ ͳǤͷͲǦͲ͸ͲǤͲ͵ͻSS-1    ʹ͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ʹǡͻͲͲ  200,000110,00014,000 4.60E-04 140SS-2  ʹ͹  ͳͺͲ ͳ͵ ͷǤͺ  ͳǡ͵ͲͲ ʹͲ190  ʹͷ ͺǤ͹ ͻǤʹͲǦͲ͹ ͲǤʹͻNCDEQ Non-Res VISLͳǡ͸ͲͲ ͶͶͲǡͲͲͲ ͸ͳǡͲͲͲ ͹ǡͻͲͲ   ͶǡͻͲͲ ʹ͸ͲǡͲͲͲ ͵ǡͷͲͲ ͶͶͲǡͲͲͲ ͳͺͲ ͷǡ͵ͲͲ ʹǡͺͲͲ ͺǡͺͲͲ ͺǡͺͲͲͳǤͲͲǦͲͶ ͳNotes: α‘”–Šƒ”‘Ž‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ—ƒŽ‹–›αƒ’‘”‹–”—•‹‘•…”‡‡‹‰Ž‡˜‡Žα‘Ǧ†‡–‡…–α‘–ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ„Ž‡—‰Ȁ͵Ꮛ…”‘‰”ƒȋ•Ȍ’‡”…—„‹…‡–‡”‘Ž†ȀŠ‹‰ŠŽ‹‰Š–‡†‘”ƒ‰‡αš…‡‡†ƒ…‡‘ˆ‘Ǧ‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ……‡’–ƒ„Ž‡ƒ”…‹‘‰‡‹…—‹•ƒ‰‡ƒ†ƒš‹—‘Ǧƒ…‡”ƒœƒ”††‡šNCDEQ Non-Res Acceptable Carcinogenic Sum Risk Range and Maximum Non-Cancer Hazard IndexResults (ug/m3)‘Ž†ȀŠ‹‰ŠŽ‹‰Š–‡†›‡ŽŽ‘™αš…‡‡†ƒ…‡‘ˆ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ
”‘—’‘ˆƒ”‘Ž‹ƒǡͳ‘ˆͳ•ƒƒƒ”–‡”•
Table 4
Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Detections
823 West Morgan Street, Durham, NC
March 26, 2020
ParameterBenzeneCarbon TetrachlorideChloromethaneDichlorodifluoromethane cis-1,2-DichloroetheneMethylene chloride (Dichloromethane)Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)StyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichlorofluoromethane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenem,p-XyleneNon-Residential
Cumulative
Carcinogenic
Risk
Non-Residential
Cumulative Non-
Carcinogenic
Target Hazard
Index
Sample ID
IA-1 0.42 0.51 1.1 1.3 1 1.1 2.2 0.73 1.5 1 1.3 0.55 0.62 5.50E-07 0.023
AA-1 0.42 0.51 1.1 1.4 ND ND 0.84 ND ND 1.4 1.2 ND 0.62
NCDEQ Non-
Res VISL 1,600 2,000 7,900 8,800 NA 53,000 440,000 3,500 3,500 440,000 NA 5,300 8,800
1.00E-04 1
Notes:
NCDEQ = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
VISL = Vapor intrusion screening level
ND = Non-detect
NA = Not applicable
ug/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter
NA
NCDEQ Non-Residential Acceptable Carcinogenic Sum Risk Range and Maximum Non-Cancer Hazard Index
NA
Results (ug/m3)
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC 1 of 1 Asana Partners
REFERENCE 23
Mr. Perry Gaughan
November 30, 2021
Page 2
TOLIN 0097-014
Eakes Cleaners
REMOVAL SITE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
As part of the RSE, Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) sampled numerous existing monitoring wells that were
previously installed by other parties as part of other environmental assessments. These wells are
summarized in Table 1. The locations of sampled wells are depicted on Figure 1.
Table 1: Existing Wells Sampled
Well ID Parcel ID Associated Assessment
MW-3 103141 Former Durham Dry Cleaners
MW-4 103146 Former Durham Dry Cleaners
MW-9 103132 Former Durham Dry Cleaners
MW-10 103144 Former Durham Dry Cleaners
MW-14 103186 One Hour Koretizing
MW-15 103186 One Hour Koretizing
Additionally, Tetra Tech installed two temporary monitoring wells (TW-01 and TW-02) and sampled one
PVC pipe of unknown origin on parcel 103153. Temporary well TW-01 was advanced to 10 feet below
ground surface and TW-02 was advanced to 7 feet below ground surface. After sampling, the two
temporary monitoring wells were abandoned and an asphalt patch was applied to the top of the borehole.
The PVC pipe of unknown origin is located along the southeastern side of the east corner of the Shooters
II building. The pipe is approximately 3.5-feet deep and contained approximately 1.5 feet of water at the
time of sampling.
Groundwater sampling was conducted in accordance with USEPA Region 4 Laboratory Support and
Applied Science Division (LSASD) Field Branch Quality Systems and Technical Procedures (FBQSTP)
Groundwater Sampling, using low-flow methodology for the existing monitoring wells and grab sampling
for the temporary wells. Samples were delivered to the Pace Analytical Services, LLC, service center in
Cary, North Carolina, for analysis in their Huntersville, North Carolina laboratory. All samples were
submitted for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis using USEPA Method 8260D. A summary of
analytical detections is presented in Table 2, with USEPA groundwater Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
(VISLs) for commercial exposure provided for comparison.
During the sampling event, Tetra Tech collected indoor air samples from various commercial buildings to
determine if groundwater contamination was contributing to harmful indoor air contamination. Tetra Tech
collected indoor air samples with 6-liter Summa canisters from the gas station at 1016 West Main Street
(EC-IA-1016), the retail space (EC-IA-1010RS) and warehouse space (EC-IA-1010WH) of the office
supply store at 1010 West Main Street, the architecture firm at 213 Gregson Street (EC-IA-213GREG),
the café at 823 West Morgan Street (EC-IA-GOJO), and an ambient air sample (EC-IA-AMBIENT)
collected from the fence line near monitoring well MW-15. Sample locations are depicted in Figure 1.
The samples were analyzed for VOCs using USEPA Method TO-15. A summary of detections is presented
in Table 3, with results compared to USEPA Removal Management Levels (RMLs).
Mr. Perry Gaughan
November 30, 2021
Page 3
TOLIN 0097-014
Eakes Cleaners
Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Analytical Detections
Analyte Units
Commercial
Groundwater
VISL
MW-03 MW-04 MW-09 MW-09-
DUP MW-10 MW-14 MW-15 TW-01 TW-02 PVC
Pipe
1,1-Dichloroethene Micrograms per liter820 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 1.1 J 2.5 U 1.0 U 50.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 150 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.0 U 2.1 J+ 1.0 U 50.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 9.8 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.0 U 7.2 1.0 U 50.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U
2-Butanone (MEK) 9,400,000 5.0 U 5.0 U 12.5 U 12.5 U 10.0 U 12.5 U 5.0 U 250 U 25.8 5.0 U
Acetone 95,000,000 25.0 U 25.0 U 62.5 U 62.5 U 50.0 U 62.5 U 25.0 U 1,250 U 34.5 25.0 U
Bromodichloromethane 3.8 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.0 U 2.5 U 1.0 U 50.0 U 2.2 1.0 U
Chloroform 3.6 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.0 U 2.5 U 1.0 U 50.0 U 9.6 1.0 U
Diisopropyl ether 29,000 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 0.82 J 15 1.0 U 50.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 2,000 1.0 U 1.0 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 1.7 J 357 1.0 U 50.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U
Tetrachloroethene 65 1.0 U 1.0 U 3.2 J 2.5 U 139 228 1.0 U 103 1.0 U 1.0 U
Trichloroethene 7.4 1.0 U 1.0 U 30.0 27.8 51.4 14.1 1.0 U 333 1.0 U 1.0 U
Vinyl chloride 2.5 1.0 U 2.6 11.6 17.3 1.1 J 2.5 U 1.0 U 180 4.7 1.6
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Not listed 1.0 U 1.3 375 363 200 7.7 1.0 U 8,080 117 1.8
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not listed 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.6 J 1.5 J 2.0 2.5 U 1.0 U 57.6 1.2 1.0 U
Notes:
J The analyte was detected in the sample. The reported value is an estimate.
J+ The analyte was detected in the sample. The reported value is an estimate, biased high.
U The analyte was not detected in the sample. The reported value is the reporting limit.
VISL U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Vapor Intrusion Screening Level, based on VISL Calculator Version 3.5 (Target Hazard Quotient = 1;
Target Risk = 1.00E -06)
BOLD The analyte was detected in the sample.
SHADED The sample result exceeded the VISL.
Mr. Perry Gaughan
November 30, 2021
Page 4
TOLIN 0097-014
Eakes Cleaners
Table 3: Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Detections
Industrial Air RML EC-IA-
1010WH
EC-IA-
1010RS EC-IA-1016 EC-IA-
AMBIENT
EC-IA-
GOJO
EC-IA-
213GREG
Analyte Units HQ=1.0 HQ=3.0 Paper Shop -
Warehouse
Paper Shop-
Retail Gas Station Ambient Air GoJo Café 213 Gregson
1,2-Dichloroethane
Microgramsper cubic meter31 47 0.81 U 0.81 U 1.55 0.81 U 0.81 U 0.81 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 880 2,600 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Not listed Not listed 0.793 U 0.793 U 12.5 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 180 530 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U 0.793 U 36.7
Tetrachloroethylene 180 530 1.36 U 1.36 U 9.44 1.36 U 1.36 U 2.93
Trichloroethylene 8.8 26 1.07 U 1.07 U 4.51 3.49 1.07 U 1.07 U
Vinyl chloride 280 280 0.511 U 0.511 U 0.511 U 0.511 U 0.511 U 0.511 U
Notes:
EC Eakes Cleaners
HQ Hazard Quotient
IA Indoor Air Sample
RML U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Removal Management Level
RS Retail Space
U The analyte was not detected in the sample. The reported value is the reporting limit.
WH Warehouse
BOLD The analyte was detected in the sample.
TOLIN 0097-014
Eakes Cleaners
Mr. Perry Gaughan
November 30, 2021
Page 5
DISCUSSION
Laboratory analysis of groundwater samples identified the presence of chlorinated solvents at levels that
exceed VISLs, indicating the potential to create harmful conditions for workers in surrounding buildings.
However, indoor air sampling of nearby buildings indicated no contamination levels that exceed USEPA
RMLs. This does not rule out the possibility that these potentially harmful conditions may be present at
buildings where we were unable to obtain access. Vapor intrusion can vary widely from building
to building, based on building layout, HVAC design or airflow, and construction.
Figure 2 presents a potentiometric map of groundwater conditions during the sampling event. The map
shows groundwater from around Shooters II being funneled to the southeast, and then potentially to the
northeast, towards the Durham School of the Arts. At this time, we are unable to confirm this based on
no access to the property.
If you have any questions or need additional copies of this trip report, please call me, John Snyder, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
John Snyder PG, PE Andrew F. Johnson
Tetra Tech START V Project Manager Tetra Tech START V Program Manager
cc: Katrina Jones, USEPA Project Officer
Angel Reed, Tetra Tech START V Document Control Coordinator
~ t ~
TOLIN 0097-014
Eakes Cleaners
FIGURES
(Two Sheets)
Legend
")Indoor Air Sam ple
@A Sam pled Well
Shooters II
File: C:\ST ART _V\97-014_Eak es_Cleaners_RSE\m xd\Eakes_Sam ple_Locations.m xd
Sam ple Locations
State:County:City:
11/15/2021Date:
dale.vonbuschAnalyst:
United StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyRegion 4
TOLIN No.:
Site Name:
97-014
/0 100 200
Feet
North CarolinaDurhamDurham
FIGURE 1
Eakes Cleaners RSE
Notes:1010WH – 1010 Main Street Warehouse1010RS – 1010 Main Street Retail Space213GREG – 213 Gregson SteetEC - Eakes CleanersGOJO – GoJo Restaurant IA - Indoor Air Sam pleMW - Monitoring WellT W - T em porary Well
Map Sources:Bing Aerial Im agery, 2018-2019.
[ 11: I TETRA TECH
Legend
@A Sampled Well
Shooters II
Groundwater Flow Direction
Groundwater Contour
File: C:\START_V\97-014_Eakes_Cleaners_RSE\mxd\Eakes_Potentiometric_Surface_20210824.mxd
Potentiometric SurfaceAugust 24, 2021
State:County:City:
11/23/2021
Date:
dale.vonbuschAnalyst:
United StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyRegion 4
TOLIN No.:
Site Name:
97-014
/
0 100 200
Feet
North CarolinaDurhamDurham
FIGURE 2
Eakes Cleaners RSE
Notes:MW - Monitoring Well
Map Sources:Bing Aerial Imagery, 2018-2019.374'376'378'380'382'384'386'[ 11: I TETRA TECH
REFERENCE 24
FINAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
EAKES CLEANERS
DURHAM, DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 4
Atlanta, GA 30303
Contract No. : 68HE0519D0006
TOLIN No. : 97-014
Date Prepared : July 27, 2021
EPA Task Monitor : Perry Gaughan
Telephone No. : [phone]
Prepared by : Tetra Tech, Inc.
START V Project Manager : John Snyder
Telephone No. : [phone]
Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
John Snyder, PG PE
START V Project Manager
David J. Reed
START V Technical Reviewer Andrew F. Johnson
START V Program Manager
CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Distribution List ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project/Task Organization............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Problem Definition/Background ................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Project/Task Description ............................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data ................................................................ 3
1.6 Special Training/Certification Requirements ................................................................................ 5
1.7 Documentation and Records ......................................................................................................... 5
2.0 DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION ................................................................................ 6
2.1 Sampling Process Design .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Sample Methods Requirements .................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements............................................................................... 6
2.4 Analytical Method Requirements ................................................................................................. 7
2.5 Quality Control Requirements ...................................................................................................... 7
2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements ............................... 7
2.7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency .......................................................................................... 7
2.8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables ......................................... 8
2.9 Non-Direct Measurement Requirements....................................................................................... 8
2.10 Data Management ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT ................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Assessment and Response Actions ............................................................................................... 9
3.2 Corrective Action .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Reports to Management ................................................................................................................ 9
4.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY .................................................................................... 10
4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Requirements .......................................................... 10
4.2 Verification and Validation Methods .......................................................................................... 10
4.3 Reconciliation of the Data to the Project-Specific DQOs ........................................................... 10
Attachments:
1.Tetra Tech START V Contract Level QAPP
2.Tetra Tech START V Contract Level QMP
3.Laboratory Quality Management System Manual
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
1 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Site Name: Eakes Cleaners City, County:State:
Durham, Durham County North Carolina
Prepared
By:Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) Date: July 27, 2021
Approved
By:John Snyder Date: 7/23/2021 Signature:
Title: Tetra Tech Project Manager (PM)
Approved
By:David Reed Date: 7/21/2020 Signature:
Title: Tetra Tech Quality Assurance (QA) Manager
Approved
By:Andrew F. Johnson Date: 7/23/2021 Signature:
Title:
Tetra Tech Superfund Technical Assessment
and Response Team
(START) V Program Manager
Approved
By: Perry Gaughan Date: 7/27/2021 Signature: approved via email on July 27, 2021
Title:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
On-scene Coordinators and EPA Region 4 QA
Manager’s Designated Approving Officials
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Distribution List
EPA Region 4: Tetra Tech:
Perry Gaughan, EPA OSC
Katrina Jones, Project Officer
Angel Reed, START V Document Control
Coordinator
1.2 Project/Task Organization
Perry Gaughan will serve as the EPA Project Manager (PM) for the Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) at the Eakes
Cleaners (EC) site described in this quality assurance project plan (QAPP). John Snyder of Tetra Tech will serve as the
site manager and is responsible for maintaining an approved version of this QAPP. Jessica Vickers of Tetra Tech will
serve as the quality assurance (QA) manager and is responsible for provision of Tetra Tech’s approval of this QAPP,
coordination of data validation, final sign-off on data, and final approval of data quality. EPA Region 4 Scientific
Support Section will provide a risk assessor, if needed. Field team members will be selected at a later date. The EPA
PMs have authority to issue a Stop Work Order. Specific Tetra Tech field personnel will be selected before
mobilization as defined under the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) V Contract No.
68HE0519D0006 and will be organized in accordance with the organizational chart on QAPP Worksheet #5, page 12,
in the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, February 2021.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
2 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
1.3 Problem Definition/Background
The Eakes Cleaners RSE site is located at 827 West Morgan Street in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. It
consists of a former dry-cleaning facility that is currently a night club (“Shooters II”). The single-story building is
approximately 6,600 square feet located on approximately 0.3 acres in downtown Durham.
A 1996 soil and groundwater assessment revealed “…significant soil and groundwater contamination”, primarily
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and its degradation products. The North Carolina Superfund Section determined that there
was no groundwater exposure pathway but did not discount a vapor intrusion exposure pathway. The Section identified
the Durham Magnet School (currently the Durham School of the Arts) as the only building within the potential plume
with a basement (all other buildings in the area were slab-on-grade construction). The Superfund Section conducted
indoor air sampling at the school. No contaminants were detected in the samples and the Section recommended No
Further Action.
In 2019, at the request of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and on behalf of the
owner of Shooters II, Leaf Environmental conducted indoor air sampling within Shooters II to evaluate potential
occupant exposure to residual contamination under the building. Based on the laboratory results of the samples, “…the
carcinogenic risk to a Non-Residential Worker has not been exceeded.”
In 2021, NCDEQ requested that USEPA Region 4 conduct an RSE at the site to evaluate potential exposure risks to
surrounding properties presented by the residual contamination associated with the former dry cleaner. This QAPP
presents the proposed assessment plan.
1.4 Project/Task Description
This RSE will evaluate groundwater contamination around the EC site as an initial screening tool to assess the potential
for vapor intrusion exposure to surrounding property occupants. There are already numerous permanent monitoring
wells on nearby parcels, installed as part of other assessments conducted under various NCDEQ programs. EPA has
obtained access to sample many of these existing wells, along with permission to install additional wells as needed.
Following EPA Region 4 Lab Services and Applied Sciences Divisions (LSASD) Field Branches Quality System and
Technical Procedures (FBQSTP) Groundwater Sampling (SESDPROC-301-R4), April 2017, Tetra Tech proposes the
sampling of the following existing groundwater monitoring wells:
Upgradient wells MW-14 and MW-15, installed in the parking lot to the northwest of the EC site as part of the
“One Hour Koretizing” site investigation,
Unknown PVC pipe observed immediately east of the front of Shooters II. The depth and construction of this
pipe is unknown, but it appears to have groundwater in it and will be sampled as a monitoring well,
Monitoring well MW-9, installed approximately 600 feet south of the EC site, as part of the “Durham Dry
Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring well MW-3, installed approximately 330 feet southeast of the EC site, as part of the “Durham Dry
Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring well MW-4, installed approximately 540 feet southeast of the EC site, as part of the “Durham Dry
Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring well MW-10, installed approximately 430 feet southeast of the EC site, as part of the “Durham
Dry Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring wells MW-11D and MW-11S, collocated on the Durham School of the Arts property along West
Morgan Street.
Following EPA Region 4 LSASD FBQSTPs Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells (SESDGUID-101-R2)
January 2018, Tetra Tech proposes installing two temporary monitoring wells in the parking lot to the southeast of
Shooters II. These wells will be installed, sampled, and then decommissioned during the same sampling event.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
3 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
1.4 Project/Task Description (continued)
Groundwater samples will be submitted to a subcontract laboratory for the following analysis:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260,
START will collect aqueous VOC samples in 40-milliliter (mL) vials pre-preserved with hydrochloric acid, which have
a hold time of 14 days.
Tetra Tech will collect global positioning system (GPS) coordinates from the location of each sample. Tetra Tech will
collect photographic and written/logbook documentation of activities and of the site.
Sample nomenclature will consist of the following elements separated by dashes: site name (“EC” for Eakes Cleaners);
medium sampled (“GW” for groundwater); and a unique designator for the location. Station numbers and Station IDs
will be assigned in the field at the time of sample collection.
The below table summarizes details for each matrix proposed. The number of samples of each matrix will be
determined in the field but is not expected to exceed 20.
Matrix Matrix
Code
Laboratory
Analysis
Method/ Container/ Holding Time/
Preservation/ Sample Volume Quality Control Requirements Location
Groundwater GW see above (Section 1.4)
1 duplicate and 1 matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicate per 20
samples. 1 field blank, one
preservative blank
The wells listed
above (Section 1.4)
Schedule: The RSE is expected to commence in early August 2021.
1.5 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
Identification of the seven steps of the data quality objectives (DQO) process: To support objectives of the sampling
event, DQOs were established for the site to specify quantity and quality of data to be acquired. DQOs were developed
by application of the seven-step process outlined in the following guidance documents: “EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans,” EPA QA/R-5, March 2001; “Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans,” EPA QA/G-5,
December 2002; and “Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process,” EPA QA/G-4,
February 2006.
Step 1:
State the
Problem
Stakeholders: EPA, NCDEQ, property owner
Site History/Conceptual Site Model: Previous drycleaning activities have contributed to contaminated
groundwater at the site which may pose a risk to nearby occupants. For additional information, see Section 1.3
of this QAPP.
Statement of Problem: Groundwater samples for laboratory analysis will be required to delineate the
presence and nature of contamination at the site.
Step 2:
Identify the
Goals of the
Study
Study Questions: Have contaminants associated with the plume migrated to the surrounding environment? Is
contamination present at the site at concentrations that exceed vapor intrusion screening criteria?
Decision Statements: Analytical results from environmental samples collected at the site will be used to
determine if contamination is present. The analytical data will be evaluated to determine whether contaminant
concentrations exceed comparison criteria listed in Step 5 of this QAPP.
Step 3:
Identify
Information
Inputs
Inputs: Site history conveyed in Section 1.3 of this QAPP.
Step 4:
Define Study
Boundaries
Spatial Boundary: The Site includes the former Eakes Cleaners property and surrounding parcels.
Temporal Boundaries: The sampling is expected to commence in August 2021. Sampling will end when
all wells have been sampled and the temporary wells have been abandoned.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
2 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
1.3 Problem Definition/Background
The Eakes Cleaners RSE site is located at 827 West Morgan Street in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. It
consists of a former dry-cleaning facility that is currently a night club (“Shooters II”). The single-story building is
approximately 6,600 square feet located on approximately 0.3 acres in downtown Durham.
A 1996 soil and groundwater assessment revealed “…significant soil and groundwater contamination”, primarily
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and its degradation products. The North Carolina Superfund Section determined that there
was no groundwater exposure pathway but did not discount a vapor intrusion exposure pathway. The Section identified
the Durham Magnet School (currently the Durham School of the Arts) as the only building within the potential plume
with a basement (all other buildings in the area were slab-on-grade construction). The Superfund Section conducted
indoor air sampling at the school. No contaminants were detected in the samples and the Section recommended No
Further Action.
In 2019, at the request of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and on behalf of the
owner of Shooters II, Leaf Environmental conducted indoor air sampling within Shooters II to evaluate potential
occupant exposure to residual contamination under the building. Based on the laboratory results of the samples, “…the
carcinogenic risk to a Non-Residential Worker has not been exceeded.”
In 2021, NCDEQ requested that USEPA Region 4 conduct an RSE at the site to evaluate potential exposure risks to
surrounding properties presented by the residual contamination associated with the former dry cleaner. This QAPP
presents the proposed assessment plan.
1.4 Project/Task Description
This RSE will evaluate groundwater contamination around the EC site as an initial screening tool to assess the potential
for vapor intrusion exposure to surrounding property occupants. There are already numerous permanent monitoring
wells on nearby parcels, installed as part of other assessments conducted under various NCDEQ programs. EPA has
obtained access to sample many of these existing wells, along with permission to install additional wells as needed.
Following EPA Region 4 Lab Services and Applied Sciences Divisions (LSASD) Field Branches Quality System and
Technical Procedures (FBQSTP) Groundwater Sampling (SESDPROC-301-R4), April 2017, Tetra Tech proposes the
sampling of the following existing groundwater monitoring wells:
Upgradient wells MW-14 and MW-15, installed in the parking lot to the northwest of the EC site as part of the
“One Hour Koretizing” site investigation,
Unknown PVC pipe observed immediately east of the front of Shooters II. The depth and construction of this
pipe is unknown, but it appears to have groundwater in it and will be sampled as a monitoring well,
Monitoring well MW-9, installed approximately 600 feet south of the EC site, as part of the “Durham Dry
Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring well MW-3, installed approximately 330 feet southeast of the EC site, as part of the “Durham Dry
Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring well MW-4, installed approximately 540 feet southeast of the EC site, as part of the “Durham Dry
Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring well MW-10, installed approximately 430 feet southeast of the EC site, as part of the “Durham
Dry Cleaners” site investigation,
Monitoring wells MW-11D and MW-11S, collocated on the Durham School of the Arts property along West
Morgan Street.
Following EPA Region 4 LSASD FBQSTPs Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells (SESDGUID-101-R2)
January 2018, Tetra Tech proposes installing two temporary monitoring wells in the parking lot to the southeast of
Shooters II. These wells will be installed, sampled, and then decommissioned during the same sampling event.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
3 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
1.4 Project/Task Description (continued)
Groundwater samples will be submitted to a subcontract laboratory for the following analysis:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260,
START will collect aqueous VOC samples in 40-milliliter (mL) vials pre-preserved with hydrochloric acid, which have
a hold time of 14 days.
Tetra Tech will collect global positioning system (GPS) coordinates from the location of each sample. Tetra Tech will
collect photographic and written/logbook documentation of activities and of the site.
Sample nomenclature will consist of the following elements separated by dashes: site name (“EC” for Eakes Cleaners);
medium sampled (“GW” for groundwater); and a unique designator for the location. Station numbers and Station IDs
will be assigned in the field at the time of sample collection.
The below table summarizes details for each matrix proposed. The number of samples of each matrix will be
determined in the field but is not expected to exceed 20.
Matrix Matrix
Code
Laboratory
Analysis
Method/ Container/ Holding Time/
Preservation/ Sample Volume Quality Control Requirements Location
Groundwater GW see above (Section 1.4)
1 duplicate and 1 matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicate per 20
samples. 1 field blank, one
preservative blank
The wells listed
above (Section 1.4)
Schedule: The RSE is expected to commence in early August 2021.
1.5 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
Identification of the seven steps of the data quality objectives (DQO) process: To support objectives of the sampling
event, DQOs were established for the site to specify quantity and quality of data to be acquired. DQOs were developed
by application of the seven-step process outlined in the following guidance documents: “EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans,” EPA QA/R-5, March 2001; “Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans,” EPA QA/G-5,
December 2002; and “Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process,” EPA QA/G-4,
February 2006.
Step 1:
State the
Problem
Stakeholders: EPA, NCDEQ, property owner
Site History/Conceptual Site Model: Previous drycleaning activities have contributed to contaminated
groundwater at the site which may pose a risk to nearby occupants. For additional information, see Section 1.3
of this QAPP.
Statement of Problem: Groundwater samples for laboratory analysis will be required to delineate the
presence and nature of contamination at the site.
Step 2:
Identify the
Goals of the
Study
Study Questions: Have contaminants associated with the plume migrated to the surrounding environment? Is
contamination present at the site at concentrations that exceed vapor intrusion screening criteria?
Decision Statements: Analytical results from environmental samples collected at the site will be used to
determine if contamination is present. The analytical data will be evaluated to determine whether contaminant
concentrations exceed comparison criteria listed in Step 5 of this QAPP.
Step 3:
Identify
Information
Inputs
Inputs: Site history conveyed in Section 1.3 of this QAPP.
Step 4:
Define Study
Boundaries
Spatial Boundary: The Site includes the former Eakes Cleaners property and surrounding parcels.
Temporal Boundaries: The sampling is expected to commence in August 2021. Sampling will end when
all wells have been sampled and the temporary wells have been abandoned.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
4 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
1.5 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data (continued)
Step 5:
Develop the
Analytical
Approach
Analytical Methods: Laboratory analyses of samples will include:
EPA Method 8260 for VOCs in water
All analyses will be performed by subcontracted laboratories procured by Tetra Tech.
Comparison Criteria: Analytical results will be compared with the comparison criteria listed as
follows:
Groundwater analytical results will be imputed into the EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening
Level (VISL) calculator and compared to commercial/industrial screening levels.
Decision Rules: Analytical results will be compared to the criteria listed above. Decisions
regarding the interpretation of the results will be at the discretion of EPA.
Step 6:
Specify
Performanc
e or
Acceptance
Criteria
Initial acceptance of analytical results will be determined via data validation by Tetra Tech that will
evaluate usability of the data. Level IV data packages will be requested from the Tetra Tech-
procured laboratory. Tetra Tech will perform a Stage 3 validation of the data packages. Any
qualified or rejected data and reasons for qualification or rejection will be summarized in the data
validation report. During the data validation process, Tetra Tech will ensure that results meet
requirements of the analytical methods and the START Program Level QAPP, February 2021.
Specific information on criteria for acceptance of analytical results, including quality control (QC)
samples, should be included in the Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual. A copy of the
Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual will be provided upon request.
Step 7:
Develop the
Plan for
Obtaining
Data
Optimized Design: The number and location of samples collected throughout the evaluation
process will be at the sole discretion of the EPA PM and will be based on conditions present during
the evaluation. Station numbers and Station IDs will be assigned at the time of collection.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
5 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
1.6 Special Training/Certification Requirements
OSHA 29 CFR
1910.120
Special Equipment/Instrument
Operator
(describe below):
Other :
Special Requirements: The analytical laboratory chosen will be accredited through the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA) and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NVLAP).
1.7 Documentation and Records
The most current version of this QAPP will be distributed to the entire distribution list presented in Section 1.1. The
Tetra Tech site manager will be responsible for maintaining the most current revision of this QAPP and for distributing
it to all personnel and parties involved in the field effort. Field records that may be generated include the following:
Chains-of-Custody Forms Health and Safety Plan (HASP)
Field Instrument Calibration Logs Photographic log
Field Monitoring and Screening Results Site Logbook/field sheets
Tailgate Sign-In Sheet Site Maps and Drawings
Soil Boring Logs Well Construction Logs
Field documentation and records will be generated and maintained in accordance with requirements specified in the
EPA Region 4, Laboratory Services and Applied Sciences Division (LSASD) Field Branches Quality System and
Technical Procedures (FBQSTP)guidance document for Logbooks (SESDPROC-1002-R0), October 2017. This
document is accessible at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/quality/quality-system-and-technical-
procedures-sesd-field-branches. All field-generated data also will be maintained in the project file and included, as
appropriate, in project deliverables in final form after all reviews and applicable corrective actions.
Formal deliverables for EPA associated with this project are specified in the EPA task order, and include draft and final
QAPPs, a Health and Safety Plan, and draft and final Removal Site Evaluation Reports. The Removal Site Evaluation
Report will be prepared to summarize field activities and findings, and present laboratory analytical results. All project
records under Tetra Tech’s control will be maintained and retained in accordance with requirements of EPA START V
Contract No. 68HE0519D0006, and Section 5.0 of the Tetra Tech START Quality Management Plan (QMP), February
2020.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
6 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
2.0 DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION
2.1 Sampling Process Design
Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of this QAPP present details on types and numbers of samples to be collected, sampling locations
and rationale, sample containers, analytical parameters, sample matrices, laboratory analytical methods, performance or
acceptance criteria, preservation method, and sample holding time. Rationale for this sampling design is based on the
DQO process discussed in Section 1.5 of this QAPP. The location, number, and type of samples collected will be at the
discretion of the EPA PM and will be determined based on conditions encountered during the removal. All samples will
be submitted to the subcontracted laboratory procured by Tetra Tech.
2.2 Sample Method Requirements
Matrix EPA and Tetra Tech Standard Operating Procedures and Guidance
Water Refer to EPA Methods 8260; the EPA Region 4 LSASD FBQSTP for Groundwater Sampling
(SESDPROC-301-R4), April 2017. Also refer to Worksheet #18, page 72, of the Tetra Tech START
Program Level QAPP, February 2021. A list of applicable Safe Work Practices is included in the HASP,
which will be available on site.
Other Sample Method Requirements: The Tetra Tech site manager, in coordination with the EPA PMs, will be
responsible for identifying failures in sampling and field measurement systems, overseeing any corrective actions,
ensuring that corrective actions are documented in site logbooks and other appropriate records, and assessing
effectiveness of corrective actions.
GPS data will be acquired in the field in accordance with the EPA Region 4, LSASD FBQSTP for Global Positioning
System (SESDPROC-110-R5), May 2020. Field decontamination, if necessary, will accord with the procedures
provided in the EPA Region 4, LSASD FBQSTP for Field Equipment Cleaning and Decontamination (SESDPROC-
205-R4), June 2020, available at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/quality/quality-system-and-technical-
procedures-sesd-field-branches.
Equipment required for this sampling event includes sample containers; sample packaging materials, such as coolers
and suitable packing material; a peristaltic pump; water quality meter; tubing; and personal protective equipment (PPE)
identified in the HASP (including disposable nitrile gloves and boot covers).
2.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
Sample handling and chain-of-custody record keeping will be conducted in accordance with the EPA Region 4, LSASD
FBQSTP for Packing, Marking, Labeling, and Shipping of Environmental and Waste Samples (SESDPROC-209-R4),
February 2020; and Sample and Evidence Management (SESDPROC-005-R3), May 2016. Both documents are
available at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/index.html. Once collected, all
samples will be kept in a custody-sealed cooler in a secure location. The Tetra Tech site manager will ensure that
custody of samples is maintained until they are couriered to the laboratory. Chain-of-custody records will be used to
document samples collected and delivered to the laboratory. Also refer to Worksheets #26 and #27, Pages 107 and
108, of the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, February 2021.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
7 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
2.4 Analytical Method Requirements
Analytical parameters and associated laboratory analytical methods applied for this project are listed in Section 1.5 of
this QAPP. A turnaround time of 14 business days for final results will be requested from the Tetra Tech-procured
subcontracted laboratory. Tetra Tech will review each data package upon receipt to ensure completeness.
Also refer to Worksheet #30 of the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, page 130, February 2021.
2.5 Quality Control Requirements
The only field measurement data to be acquired during this investigation will be GPS data by use of a Trimble Geo-
series GPS receiver. QC requirements for GPS data collection are provided in the manufacturer’s instruction manual
and the EPA Region 4, LSASD FBQSTP for Global Positioning System (SESDPROC-110-R5), May 2020, available
at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/quality/quality-system-and-technical-procedures-sesd-field-
branches.
QC requirements for field sampling are provided in the EPA Region 4, LSASD FBQSTP for Groundwater Sampling
(SESDPROC-301-R4), April 2017 and the EPA Region 4, LSASD FBQSTP Field Sampling Quality Control
(SESDPROC-011-R5), April 2017. All are available at the following web address:
http://www.epa.gov/quality/quality-system-and-technical-procedures-sesd-field-branches.
2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements
For instrument testing, inspection, and maintenance requirements for field monitoring, refer to the EPA Region 4,
LSASD FBQSTP for Equipment Inventory and Management (LSASDPROC-1009-R1), February 2020; Global
Positioning System (SESDPROC-110-R5), May 2020. These documents are available at the following web address:
http://www.epa.gov/quality/quality-system-and-technical-procedures-sesd-field-branches. Also refer to the
manufacturer’s operating manual for further instructions on field instrument testing, inspection, and maintenance, as
well as to Worksheet #22 of the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, page 87, February 2021. This following is
a list of field equipment to be used on site:
Trimble GPS Decon bucket Paper towels Coolers Garbage bags
Peristaltic Pump Luminox Logbook Nitrile gloves Sharpies
Water Quality Meter Deionized water Scrub brushes Eyewash Buckets
Tubing Aluminum foil Sample containers 1st aid kits Sample labels
The Tetra Tech site manager or designee will be responsible for ensuring correct operation of all field equipment.
Spare parts or extra equipment can be sourced from the Tetra Tech Duluth office and couriered overnight via FedEx.
No field decontamination is anticipated. All relevant sampling equipment is disposable, single-use.
Laboratory instrument testing, inspection, and maintenance requirements are specified in the respective analytical
methods.
2.7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency
For instrument calibration and frequency requirements for field monitoring, refer to the EPA Region 4, LSASD QSTP
for Equipment Inventory and Management (LSASDPROC-1009-R1), February 2020; Global Positioning System
(SESDPROC-110-R5), May 2020. These documents are available at the following web address:
http://www.epa.gov/quality/quality-system-and-technical-procedures-sesd-field-branches. Also refer to the equipment
manufacturers’ operating manuals for further instructions on calibration, as well as to Worksheet #22, page 87, of the
Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, February 2021.
Instrument calibration and frequency requirements for analytical methods are specified in the respective analytical
methods,the instrument and equipment manufacturer’s operating manuals associated with the analytical methods, the
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
8 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
laboratory QAM, and on Worksheet #24, page 100, of the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, February 2021.
2.8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
Supplies and consumables (sample containers, sampling implements, sample packaging materials, and PPE identified
in the HASP, including disposable nitrile gloves and boot covers) required for this sampling event will be inspected
and accepted by the Tetra Tech site manager or designated field team member. All sample containers will be pre-
cleaned certified and meet the required detection limits established by EPA in the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response Directive 9240.0.05A Specifications and Guidance for Contaminant-Free Sample Containers.
Sampling implements will be either disposable, one-time use devices or sealed, decontaminated equipment with a
chain-of-custody seal. Sampling equipment and packaging materials will meet requirements of the EPA Region 4,
LSASD FBQSTP for Packing, Marking, Labeling and Shipping of Environmental and Waste Samples, (SESDPROC-
209-R4), February 2020. Also see Worksheet #26, page 107 of the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, February
2021. Policies and procedures used for laboratory supplies and consumables are provided in the attached laboratory
Quality Assurance Manual.
2.9 Non-Direct Measurement Requirements
Information pertaining to the site (including photographs, maps, and so forth) has been compiled from file information
obtained from NCDEQ. The extent to which these data and information, if any, are used to achieve the objectives of
this project will be determined by Tetra Tech in cooperation with the EPA PMs. Any justifications and qualifications
required for use of these data and information will be provided in the reports generated for this project. Refer to
Worksheet #29, page 128, of the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, February 2021.
2.10 Data Management
All reference materials generated during this investigation and included in the final reports will be submitted to the
EPA PM in portable document format (PDF) on via email. In addition, a Scribe database will be created for the site to
store analytical results and field data, including sample coordinates. Information in the Scribe database will be
exported via appropriate electronic data delivery (EDD) files and checked for QC by use of the EQuIS data processor
(EDP) for uploading into EQuIS and will be submitted to EPA with the transmittal by the site manager.
Scribe fields associated with each sample will include:
Sample #
EventID
Location
Sub Location
Sample Date
Sample Time
Matrix
Collection
Sample Type
All field-generated data, including GPS data, electronic field forms, field sheets, chains-of-custody, and logbooks;
laboratory-generated data; and other records (electronic and hardcopy), including project deliverables generated or
obtained during this project will be managed and retained according to the requirements of EPA START V Contract
No. 68HE0519D0006, as well as Worksheet #29, page 128, of the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP; and the
Tetra Tech START QMP.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
9 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
3.0 ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
3.1 Assessment and Response Actions
Field and laboratory audits will not occur during this project. All deliverables to which Tetra Tech contributes in
whole or in part, including the draft and final reports, will be subject to a corporate three-tiered review process, which
includes a technical review, an editorial review, and a QC review. Each reviewer will sign off on a QC review sheet,
recording any issues or revisions and how these will have been addressed. These reviews will be performed by
qualified individuals in accordance with the requirements of EPA START V Contract No. 68HE0519D0006 and with
Worksheet #32, page 138, of the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, February 2021.
3.2 Corrective Action
The Tetra Tech site manager, in coordination with the EPA PM, is responsible for (1) identifying failures in sampling
and in field measurement systems, (2) overseeing any corrective actions, (3) ensuring that corrective actions are
documented in site logbooks and other appropriate records, and (4) assessing effectiveness of corrective actions.
Corrective actions that deviate from the approved QAPP will be discussed in the draft and final reports. Corrective
action requirements for sample collection, field measurements (GPS data collection), and laboratory analyses appear
on Worksheet #32, page 138, of the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, February 2021.
3.3 Reports to Management
Tetra Tech is responsible for notifying the EPA PMs if any circumstances arise during the field investigation that may
impair the quality of data acquired. All formal deliverables to EPA associated with this project will be prepared,
reviewed, and distributed in accordance with requirements of the EPA START V Contract No. 68HE0519D0006,
Worksheet #31, page 134, of the Tetra Tech START Program Level QAPP, and under supervision of the Tetra Tech
QA manager, Jessica Vickers or appropriate designee.
A draft Removal Site Evaluation Report will be submitted to EPA within 14 days of receipt of the final data package
from the subcontract laboratory. A final Removal Site Evaluation Report will be submitted within 5 days of receipt of
comments from the EPA PM.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (SHORT FORM)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 4 & TETRA TECH, INC.
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT NO. 68HE0519D0006
10 TOLIN 97-014
Eakes Cleaners
Quality Assurance Project Plan
4.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Requirements
All field-generated data and records (such as field sampling sheets, GPS coordinates of samples and other locations,
and field logbook notes) will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the Tetra Tech site manager and
appropriate designees. Field records will be reviewed at the end of each day so that corrective actions, as necessary,
can occur before field crews demobilize from the site.
GPS data generated in the field will be downloaded and reviewed by the Tetra Tech site manager to ensure accuracy of
these data. Any errors will be discussed with a Tetra Tech geographic information system (GIS) analyst, corrected,
and noted in the logbook.
Initial acceptance of laboratory analytical results (except results for asbestos analysis) from the samples collected will
be determined via data validation by Tetra Tech and will allow an evaluation of usability of the data. A Stage 3
validation of the data packages will be performed in accordance with the EPA National Functional Guidelines (NFG)
for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA-540-R-2017-002), January 2017 (accessible at
https://www.epa.gov/clp/superfund-clp-national-functional-guidelines-data-review) and Worksheet #35, page 145, of
the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, February 2021. Any qualified or rejected data and the reasons for
qualification/rejection will be summarized in the data validation report.
4.2 Verification and Validation Methods
All field-generated data will be maintained in the project file and included (as appropriate) in project deliverables in
final form after all reviews and associated corrective actions. Laboratory analytical data will be verified as described
in Step 6 of Section 1.5 above. Data validation reports will include a summary of all data qualifier flags and
explanations of these. Laboratory data also will be included (as appropriate) in project deliverables in final, validated
form (including all data validation qualifiers) after completion of data validation and associated reviews. Also see
Worksheets #34 and #35, pages 142 and 145, of the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, February 2021.
4.3 Reconciliation of the Data to Project-Specific DQOs
The Tetra Tech site manager, in cooperation with the EPA PM and Tetra Tech QA manager, will be responsible for
reconciling the data and other project results with requirements specified in this QAPP and by data users and decision
makers. Ultimate acceptance of the data is at the discretion of the EPA PMs. Depending on how specific data quality
indicators do not meet project requirements, the data may be discarded, and resampling and reanalysis of the subject
samples may be required. Resampling, reanalysis, or other out-of-scope actions identified to address data quality
deficiencies and data gaps will require approval by the EPA PMs, EPA Project Officer, and EPA Contracting Officer.
Limitations of the data and data qualification (including rejection) will be identified during the data package review
process conducted by Tetra Tech. To assess the data relative to objectives of the project, the data will be reviewed to
determine whether any data are rejected and whether any data qualifiers or limitations assigned during the validation
process affect usability of the data, as defined in Section 1.5 of this QAPP. Tetra Tech will review all final laboratory
data packages to evaluate whether the site-specific DQOs, as defined in Section 1.5 of this QAPP, are met. The data
will be reconciled with project-specific DQOs also in accordance with EPA guidance documents, including “Guidance
on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process,” EPA QA/G-4, February 2006. Also see
Worksheet #37, page 154, of the Tetra Tech START Program QAPP, February 2021.
REFERENCE 25
REFERENCE 26
EVALUATION OF THE DURHAM TRIASSIC BASIN OF
NORTH CAROLINA AND TECHNIQUE USED TO
CHARACTERIZE ITS WASTE-STORAGE POTENTIAL
By George L. Bain and Charles E. Brown
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Open-Fae Report 80 1295
1981
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
JAMES G. WATT, Secretary
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dallas L. Peck, Director
For additional information write to:
Chief Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
421 National Center
Reston, Virginia 22092
1981
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract .............................................................. 1
Introduction .......................................................... 2
Purpose and objectives ........................................... 2
Location and distribution ........................................ 2
Previous work .................................................... 4
General geology .................................................. 5
Acknowledgements ................................................. 8
Criteria for waste disposal evaluation ................................ 9
Distribution of natural resources ..................................... 11
Geophysical investigation (structural geometry) ....................... 15
Seismic reflection and refraction studies ........................ 16
Seismic line 1 .............................................. 16
Seismic lines 2 and 3 ....................................... 21
Seismic velocity of Triassic rocks .......................... 24
Airborne magnetometer survey ..................................... 25
Side-looking radar lineations .................................... 28
Gravity measurements ............................................. 31
Resistivity profiles ............................................. 39
Section A-A 1 ................................................ 41
Section B-B 1 ................................................ 44
Landsat lineations ............................................... 45
Structural significance of diabase intrusives .................... 50
The Triassic continental environment .................................. 53
Comparison of areal geology to depositional model ................ 54
Paleocurrent studies ............................................. 56
Palynology and stratigraphic correlation ......................... 58
Test drilling and borehole geophysics ................................. 62
General lithology ................................................ 62
Spontaneous potential log ........................................ 64
Resistivity logs ................................................. 64
Density-porosity log ............................................. 68
Neutron porosity log ............................................. 68
Sonic log ........................................................ 75
Gamma-ray log .................................................... 84
Temperature and borehole televiewer logs ......................... 84
Correlation with Groce No. 1 well ................................ 87
Hydrologic testing .................................................... 89
Porosi ty ......................................................... 89
Transmissivity ................................................... 91
Permeabi1i ty ..................................................... 95
Injection tests .................................................. 95
Ground-water circulation ......................................... 97
Investigation of water chemistry ...................................... 99
Water quality from wells ......................................... 99
Water quality from electric logs ................................. 104
Formation factor and SSP1 ................................... 104
Page
Evaluation of techniques ................................................ 116
Geologle mapping ................................................... 116
Paleocurrent mapping ............................................... 116
Palynology and paleontology ........................................ 117
Side-looking airborne radar (SLAR) ................................. 117
Aeromagnetic mapping ............................................... 118
Gravity ............................................................ 118
Resistivity profiling .............................................. 119
Seismic profiling .................................................. 119
Test drilling ...................................................... 120
Borehole geophysics ................................................ 120
Water sampling ..................................................... 120
Hydrologic testing ................................................. 121
Analysis of rock properties ........................................ 121
Summary ................................................................. 122
Selected references ..................................................... 126
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1. Distribution of East Coast Triassic basins ........................ 3
2. Durham Triassic basin and tectonic features within the Durham
Triassic basin .................................................... 6
3. Reconnaissance geologic map for part of the Durham Triassic
basin, North Carolina (modified from Bain and Harvey, 1977) ....... 7
4. Potential natural resources map of the Durham Triassic basin ...... 12
5. Index map of seismic traverses .................................... 17
6. Resistivity depth points and gravity profile along seismic line l.% 18
7. Side-looking airborne radar (SLAR) lineaments in the vicinity
seismic line 1 .................................................... 20
8. Refraction time-distance curve for (A) seismic line 3 (top)
(B) seismic line 2 (bottom)..... 22
9. Generalized geologic map of seismic lines 2 and 3 ................. 23
10. Aeromagnetic map for part of the Durham Triassic basin ............ 26
11. Aeromagnetic map for Eastern border south of Sanford, North Carolina 27
12. Side-looking airborne radar lineaments of the Durham Triassic basin 29
13. Rose diagrams showing strike of side-looking airborne radar
1i neaments......................................................... 30
14. Side-looking airborne radar lineaments on the aeromagnetic map of
the Durham Triassic basin ......................................... 32
15. Side-looking airborne radar lineaments and residual-gravity
anomaly map Durham Triassic basin ................................ 33
16. Bouguer gravity map with locations of gravity profiles in the
Durham Triassic basin ............................................. 35
17. Bulk density of Triassi'c core versus depth ........................ 37
18. Gravity profiles across the Durham Triassic basin ................. 38
19. Locations of geophysical data points .............................. 40
20. Geophysical profiles and resistivity sectron A-A 1 - Durham subbasin 42
21. Geoelectric section for resistivity line B-B 1 - Sanford subbasin .. 43
22. Landsat lineations in the vicinity of the Durham and Danville
Triassic basins ................................................... 46
23. Diagram showing angular relationship of stress direction to
first- and second-order wrench faulting ........................... 48
24. Cartesian plot of SLAR and Landsat lineaments and diabase dikes ... 49
25. Diabase intrusives of the Durham Triassic basin ................... 51
26. Paleocurrent directions in the Durham Triassic basin .............. 57
27. Generalized strati graphic correlation chart of the East Coast
Triassic basins (modified from McKee and others, 1959)............. 61
28. Bulk density verus sonic velocity for Triassic rocks in the
Sears No. 1 well .................................................. 77
Page
Figure 29. Neutron porosity versus sonic velocity for Triassic rocks in
the Sears No. 1 well ............................................. 78
30. Bulk density versus apparent limestone porosity for rocks of
the Sears No. 1 well ............................................. 79
31. Density versus sonic velocity of cores and selected clean
sandstones ....................................................... 81
32. Mineral crossplots derived from geophysical logs ................. 82
33. Correlation of temperature logs with caliper and sample logs ..... 86
34. Temperature, differential temperature, caliper and acoustic
relevance logs, Sears No. 1 well ................................. 88
3£. Decay of head with time of slug test of the 247 m to 264 m zone .. 92
36. Increase of head with time from bailer test of the 247 m
to 264 m zone .................................................... 93
37. Decay of head with time from slug test of the 1,009 m
to 1,143 m zone .................................................. 94
38. Decay of head with time for water injection tests of the
1,009 m to 1,143 m zone .......................................... 96
39. Ground-water sample locations for Durham Triassic basin .......... 98
40. Resistivity of water versus calculated formation factors of core
samples .......................................................... 105
41. Density porosity and sonic porosity versus resistivity and
conductivity of Triassic rock in the Sears No. 1 well ............ 108
42. Formation factor versus measured porosity of core samples ........ 109
43. Formation factor versus depth .................................... 110
44. Areas meriting further study in the Durham Triassic basin......... 126
TABLES
Table 1. Physical properties of core samples from the Sears No. 1
wel1 ............................................................. 63
2. Selected log data from the Sears No. 1 ........................... 66
3. Log crossplot data - Sears No. 1 well ............................ 69
4. Physical properties of core from the Deep River coal
field, North Carolina ............................................ 90
5. Chemical analyses of ground-water from the Durham subbasin
basin, North Carolina ............................................ 100
6. Chemical analyses of water from the Sears No. 1 well ............. 102
7. Formation factor at selected depths - Sears No. 1 well ........... 106
8. Resistivity of formation water from spontaneous potential
log - Sears No. 1 well ........................................... 112
9. Formation factors from spontaneous potential and
induction logs - Sears No. 1 well ................................ 114
PLATE
Plate 1. Geophysical log chart of the Sears No. 1 test well and laterolog
of Groce NO. 1 well, (follows text) .............................
EVALUATION OF THE DURHAM TRIASSIC BASIN OF NORTH CAROLINA AND TECHNIQUES
USED TO CHARACTERIZE ITS WASTE-STORAGE POTENTIAL
BY GEORGE L. BAIN AND CHARLES E. BROWN
ABSTRACT
The fault system that produced the Durham Triassic basin is expressed
at the surface as a series of en echelon positive and downdropped blocks.
The resulting basin contains a facies distribution that reflects changing
tectonic-climatic elements and sychronous deposition in separate parts of
the basin. The Cumnock, Sanford, and Pekin Formations as previously mapped
by Reinemund (1965) are in part facies of one another. The geological
characteristics of this basin are believed analogous to that of the Basin
and Range Province and the Salton Trough of California. Paleocurrent data
suggest an extra-basin source of sediment for much of the basin. Longitudinal
streams were active in the distribution of basin-margin fan sediments. The
eastern border is stepfaulted into a series of southeasterly rotated,
post-depositional slices that trend approximate N. 45° E. subparallel to
the eastern border of the Deep River and Wadesboro subbasins. Unfractured
diamond- and triangular-shaped blocks are terminated on the northeast and
sometimes southwest by north-trending faults. The rocks exhibit low porosity
and permeability as a result of extensive lithification and cementation.
Lineament mapping from SLAR imagery combined with magnetic and Bouguer
gravity maps provided much information on basin architecture, whereas
residual gravity, magnetic, seismic, borehole geophysics, and resistivity
profiles described basin-fill geometry and basement topography. Resistivity
profiling is the only method other than seismic that is suited for detailing
spatial facies relationships which must be known to completely assess the
waste storage potential of the Triassic rocks.
The Durham Triassic basin does not appear to be suitable for injection
of liquid wastes without further hydrologic testing.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
This report contains some of the results of a continuing U.S. Geological
Survey investigation of the feasibility of storing liquid wastes in
Triassic rocks of the Eastern United States. For the most part, this
study has concentrated on the use of geophysical and remote sensing
techniques for determination of the structural geometry contained in the
Durham Triassic basin. The East Coast Triassic study!/ is part of a
larger effort by the U.S Geological Survey to ascertain factors relevant
to waste storage in different geologic environments in several places in
the United States. There is no intent by the U.S. Geological Survey to
emplace waste fluid in the Earth's crust--only to determine where such
storage is possible at the smallest risk to our environment.
An earlier report (Bain, 1973) entitled "Feasibility Study of East
Coast Triassic Basins for Waste Storage - Data Availability" contains the
results of a search of the literature and public and private files for the
data necessary to evaluate subsurface waste disposal and offers some
tentative conclusions. The principal conclusion, however, was that the
subsurface data in the literature were too few, contradictory, and sporadic
to evaluate the waste potential of the East Coast Triassic basins.
Subsequently, the Durham Triassic basin was selected for a detailed
investigation of the structural geometry of one "graben" and the character
and spatial distribution of its sedimentary fill. The data, geophysical
techniques, and conceptual models developed may be used for a rapid,
comprehensive, and accurate evaluation of subsurface conditions in other
East Coast Triassic basins.
Location and Distribution
Triassic basins are distributed along the Atlantic seaboard from
Nova Scotia to Florida where they exist in the subsurface. They extend
eastward beneath the Cenozoic cover onto the Continental Shelf where they
are being discovered by exploratory drilling and geophysical work. Figure 1
illustrates the known East Coast distribution of basins subparallel to the
Appalachian trend. The Durham Triassic basin in North Carolina is the
southernmost exposed basin formed in tectonically negative areas.
!/ Some of the East Coast Triassic basins are now considered Triassic
and Jurassic in age, but for the purposes of this report they are called
Triassic basins.
65«
PENNSYLVANIA
.> VIRGINIA
* * ' NORTH
CAROLINA
SOUTH
CAROLINA
EXPLANATION
EXPOSED TRIASSIC BASINS
BURIED TRIASSIC BASINS
300 400 MILES
100 200 300 400 500 600 KILOMETERS
25
Figure 1. Distribution of East Coast Triassic basins.
Previous Work
The existence of rocks of Triassic age in the Durham Triassic basin
has been known since at least 1820 when Olmsted reported the association
of sandstone and coal in the Sanford area. Later, Olmsted (1825) outlined
the limits of the Deep River coal basin.
Emmons (1852, 1856) in his reports on the geology of North Carolina
recognized a stratigraphic sequence from extensive fossil collections in
the Durham Triassic basin and proposed a Triassic age for the younger beds
and a Permian age for the older beds. Subsequent examination of Emmons 1
fossil collection by Redfield (1856) and Fontaine (1883) established the
age equivalence of the rocks of the Durham Triassic basin to the Upper
Triassic rocks of the Newark and Connecticut basins. Russell (1892), who
began his studies in New Jersey, is largely responsible for first bringing
together the early knowledge of the Triassic basins on the East Coast.
Woodworth (1902) discussed the geologic relationships and chemical
analyses of the Triassic coal and gave production statistics for the
Virginia and North Carolina mines. Campbell and Kimball (1923) did the
first comprehensive study of the Deep River coal field near Sanford,
North Carolina. They defined and named the Cumnock, Sanford, and Pekin
Formations. They also described the geologic and structural aspects of
the coal deposit and described the quality, thickness, and geographic
extent of the coal.
Reinemund (1955) made the most comprehensive study to date of the
Deep River coal basin. Reinemund found the Deep River coal field of
North Carolina to be part of a southeast tilted and downfaulted trough-
shaped block of Triassic rocks similar to the Connecticut basin. According
to Reinemund, the source of the basal conglomerate in the Sanford area was
a short distance to the northwest, but most of the overlying sediments
were derived from the southeast, beyond the eastern boundary fault. After
deposition ceased, these sediments were broken by tensional cross fractures,
were later cut by longitudinal faults, and were then intruded by basic
magma along bedding planes and open cross fractures.
Conley (1962) in his report on the geology of Moore County recognized
a western border as well as an eastern border fault in the Wadesboro and
Deep River subbasins. He found Triassic (?) grey conglomerate overlying
the eroded Sanford Formation and proposed that parts of the Cumnock,
Sanford, and Pekin Formations were contemporaneous.
Journal articles and theses by many individuals have been used in the
preparation of this report. The following reports were especially valuable.
Harrington (1951) described the tectonic structure of the western border of
the Durham subbasin; Randazzo and others (1970) described the geology and
tectonic aspects of the Wadesboro subbasin; Hooks and Ingram (1955) described
clay types found in the Durham subbasin; Dennison and Wheeler (1975) described
the uranium potential of the Durham Triassic basin. Ebasco Services (1975)
presented a detailed geologic examination of the site of a proposed nuclear
power plant in the Durham subbasin; and Bell and others (1974) described the
geology of the Crowburg basin beyond the southwestern extremity of the Durham
Triassic basin in South Carolina. The most recent and detailed work in the
Durham Triassic basin is contained in a report by Parker (1978).
General geology
The East Coast Triassic basins are mostly half grabens or tilted
grabens containing continental fluvial sedimentary fill. The Durham Triassic
basin is bounded on the east and southeast by a high angle normal fault
zone traditionally known as the Jonesboro fault. The basin trends
southwestward (fig. 2) from near the North Carolina-Virginia line to a
point a short distance across the North Carolina-South Carolina line. It
is about 226 km long and averages about 16 km in width. The Durham Triassic
basin is traditionally divided into four substructures which from north to
south are the: Durham subbasin, Colon cross structure, Sanford (or Deep
River) subbasin, and Wadesboro subbasin. The term "Durham Triassic basin"
is used in this report to refer collectively to the above four substructures.
Most of the present study has concentrated on the Durham substructure.
The Durham Triassic basin is surrounded and presumed underlain by the
crystalline Piedmont complex composed of acid igneous instrusives,
metavolcanics, metasediments, and high-grade metamorphic rocks.
Continental sediments preserved in the Durham Triassic basin include
maroon to grey fanglomerate, conglomerate, feldspathic sandstone, graywacke,
argillite, siltstone, mudstone, black shale, and minor amounts of chert and
coal (fig. 3). The exposed sediments can be assigned to sedimentary
environments of alluvial fan, interfan, lake, and swamp.
Fanglomerate composed of scree from nearby Piedmont rocks is found
adjacent to the Jonesboro fault on the east and is found in some places on
the west. Conglomerate and poorly sorted coarse sandstone make up most of
the alluvial fans that extend into the basin normal to the basin's edge in
large thick tongues.
The finer grained rocks composed of muddy, silty, argillaceous
sediments are confined to the distal extremities of the fans and to interfan
areas. They are typically deep maroon in color. Facies change rapidly
both vertically and laterally. Coarse "cut and fill" channel sandstones
record where distributary channels cut through fine deltaic muds.
80(85° 35°-J--EXPLANATIONL-LJ- Normal fault......... Dashed whereapproximateELIZABETH CITY.x^JONESBORO.WINSTON-SALEM / ^X"*" FAULTNORTH js«H*H-r/. CAROLINA RALEIGHSUBBASINd_^WADESBOROSUBBASIN _... CHARLOTTE*^ffi"-ASIN b 1 «R/ y/»</ y NCOL*SANFORDSUBBASIN (DEEP RIVER)0100 i200COLON CROSS STRUCTUREWILMINGTON300 KILOMETERS75°-tFigure 2. Durham Triassic basin and tectonic features within tlie Durham Triassic basin.
36'OOf
R«d mudttono - londtlena -
congtomtroM focitt, undiff«r«ntiat«d
33° 30'33*30'
79-301
F"niir<a
79-00'
neolnnir mnr» lr»r nnrt r»f the D irhnm Trin««ir hn«in
The past existence of Triassic lakes in the Durham Triassic basin is
indicated by limy red mudstones, flaggy sandstones, varved argillities,
graywacke, and chert. Limy mudstones, nodular and thin limestones, and chert
are generally confined to the interfan areas. Argillite, graywacke, and also
some chert are found along the western edge of the basin.
Coal and black shale are found tyetween the alluvial fan areas where
sedimentation was restricted at times when the basin was obviously
tectonically stable. All of these lithologies, as did their respective
environments, grade laterally and vertically into one another. Only the
thin chert and coal beds are useful temporal marker horizons.
The Upper Triassic sedimentary rock mass was intruded by diabase
dikes and sills in Late Triassic and Early Jurassic time. Individual
dikes are spaced about 1 km apart and range in width from 0.3 to 20 m and
as much as 16 km in length. Dikes trend north, northwest, northeast, and
east, but the trend is predominately north and northwest.
The basin is faulted longitudinally and transversally creating
individual horsts and grabens that are as small as 1 km by 3 km. Most are
rotated to the east and southeast. A few horst and graben structures are
tilted to the north. Vertical displacement along the largest known
intrabasin fault is at least 300 m and perhaps as much as 600 m. All
known faults are high angle and normal. Extensive strike slip movement is
suspected but has not been demonstrated.
Acknowledgments
This project and the resulting report have benefitted from the
contributions and cooperation of many individuals whose assistance is
acknowledged. Individuals and corporations who have helped in the
interpretation and processing of data include: Officials of Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc., Mobil, and Amoco Oil Companies; Drs. D. M. Stewart, R. Ingram, and
P. Raggland of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Officials
of the North Carolina Division of Earth Resources; Dr. J. M. Parker,
University of North Carolina at Raleigh; Norman Til ford and John Ferguson
of Ebasco Corp.; and Bruce Harvey, Campbell College, Buies Creek,
North Carolina.
8
CRITERIA FOR WASTE DISPOSAL EVALUATION
There are many sociological, political, and engineering considerations
related to the emplacement and storage of waste in subsurface rocks. The
geological considerations that are a concern of this report are the adequacy
of the Triassic rocks of the Durham Triassic basin to accept liquid waste,
the competency of the host and overlying rock to contain and isolate the
waste for a length of time sufficient for acceptable degradation to occur,
and the identification and evaluation of those natural resources from which
the waste must be contained.
The task of identification, location, and evaluation of those
subsurface natural resources that need protection from waste contamination
is essentially one of determining the local spatial distribution of those
resources that are of economic importance today or have a reasonable chance
of being so over the life of the waste reservoir.
The ability of rocks to accept waste in the subsurface depends
primarily on porosity, permeability, and the nature of chemical
compatibility of the native fluid with the injected wastes. A subsurface
geological horizon having high permeability and porosity values is therefore
desirable. Injection into formations having reduced porosity and
permeability not only reduces the amount and rate of injection, but raises
the risk of fracturing the reservoir rock because of the increased head
use to maintain injection rates. However, where waste toxicity is high
and volumes are low, the "tight" formation may be worthy of consideration.
The chemical composition of the waste fluid to the native fluid can
drastically affect injection rates. Chemical reaction at the native-
wastewater interface can completely plug the available rock pores and
reduce injection rates. Likewise, the chemistry of the rock may be very
important if, for instance, swelling clays such as montmorillite are present.
The saturation and pore pressure of the reservoir rock is no less
important. A completely saturated reservoir accepts other fluids only by
compression of the native fluid, compression of the aquifer skeleton,
displacement of native fluid across adjacent rock boundaries or to a surface
outcrop, or by rupture of subjacent and superjacent confining layers.
The conditions that control the ability of a waste reservoir to contain
and isolate the injected wastes until pollution levels have been reduced to
some acceptable level include but are not limited to:
1. the competency or strength of the reservoir rock, that is, the degree
to which the rock will react plastically or rigidly to seismic and man-made
stress.
2. the nature and extent of the confining layers surrounding the waste
reservoir; their permeability should be low enough that waste fluid will not
escape and their strength great enough that they will not normally be breached
by seismic or hydraulic stress.
3. the internal hydraulic gradient; that is, the hydraulic
properties and spatial limits of the reservoir need to be sufficiently
known so that the rate, direction, and ultimate discharge of the waste are
predictable.
4. the extent to which internal chemical reactions between injected
wastes and native fluids and rock minerals cause clay swelling, abnormally
high reservoir pressures, or degradation of the confining layers.
The above criteria have guided the data-gathering activities of this
project and are used in this report to evaluate the suitability of the
Durham Triassic basin for liquid waste storage.
10
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The feasibility of waste storage in rocks in the Durham Triassic
basin depends in part on the identity, location, and value of any natural
resources which are presently economic or have a fair chance of becoming
an economic resource during the life of the stored waste.
The Durham Triassic basin contains coal, oil shale, oil, gas,
calcium phosphate, ammonium sulfate, ground water, uranium, and thorium.
Figure 4 shows the general distribution of the basin's resources. Only
coal and water are of proven economic importance and the coal only
marginally so.s* ?
Coal "* -
The Cumnock Formation of the Sanford subbasin contains bituminous
coal in two beds about 8.5 to 12 m apart (Reinemund, 1955). The uppermost
coal bed is known as the Cumnock coal. It is the thicker and has produced
all but a few hundred tons of the total production from the basin. The
Gulf coal below is thinner and has a mineable thickness over a much smaller '
area than does the Cumnock. The Cumnock coal occurs in three benches over
an area of 194 km2 (fig. 4). It is thickest in the northern part of the
Deep River area where it reaches 1.2 m. It thins laterally by an increase
in shaliness, finally being replaced by shale, siltstone, and sandstone.
The Gulf coal underlies an area of only about 67 km2 , being I
thickest and of best quality in the northern part. Generally, it is
confined to one bench which is up to 0.8 m thick.
Other coal seams are found elsewhere in the Durham Triassic basin.
Reinemund reports a shaley coal between Brickhaven and Moncure that is
13 cm thick (fig. 5) and one north of Merry Oaks which is 28 cm thick.
Both were tentatively correlated with the Cumnock Formation by Reinemund
(1955). Cornet (personal communication, 1977) reports that coal collected
by Emmons (1856) near the Copper Creek Coal prospect west of Moncure has a
Pekin age; however, the coal prospect north of Merry Oaks is in a basal
position and may also be Pekin in age. -
Fossiliferous black shale containing conchostracons, ostracoda, and
plant fragments is found in the central part of the Durham Triassic basin
(fig. 3) in what appears to be a lacustrine environment. These fragments
are tentatively assigned to the Cumnock Formation. Gray shale containing
plant fragments is occasionally found in a basal position in the Durham
Triassic basin and is probably a Pekin equivalent. It is possible that coal
occurs elsewhere in the Durham Triassic basin in the deepest parts. If so,
such deposits are most likely of small areal extent for there is no surface
evidence of a large paludal environment outside the Deep River coal area.
11
36»00'-
EXPIANATION
IHIIIII COAL PROSPECT - PotoMiol uranium - thorium
Oft" RIVER COAL BASIN - Oil. get. oil »l«olt olM occur. PotoMiol uranium -thortwB
['.; ' !; '.] LACUSTRINE UNIT - Conteiim IMn chtrl o** bl«ck »h«ta. ' ' ' ' ' ' Peitibt* urwiium - thorwfl) eiMCMtlo*
TAN ARKOSIC FLUVIAL UNIT - ConUiMi OM III yrcnium theriym *»*mm*
DEEPEST BASINS-Unnploratf:
WM(Of) «
SALINE WATER-Aroot «k«;« Mtor of Mfk toM 4iMOl««4
wlidt ro*on««
t^\ MAMSt SILLS
O NEW HILL TEST WELL
-36»00'
7VSO1
Figure 4. Potential natural resources of the Durham Triassic basin
The coal in the Deep River area is offset by faults and intruded by
diabase dikes and sills. The faulting causes local thinning and thickening
near the faults that increases the mining difficulty and cost. The diabase
dikes have coked the coal for several meters on either side of the dikes
(Reinemund, 1955). The sills have coked the adjacent coal for several
meters beyond which the coal grades from anthracite to unaltered bituminous
coal. .
The main bench of the Cumnock coal has a fixed carbon content of 53 to
60 percent, a sulfur content of 1 to 4 percent, and a heat rating of 27,900
to 32,600 kJ/kg (kilojoule per kilogram). Total recoverable (assuming
50 percent recovery) reserves were calculated by Reinemund to be
60.5 X 106 Mg (megagrams).
Oil Shale
Black shale containing kerogen is associated with the coal in the
Deep River basin and shows of oil and gas were encountered in core holes
drilled by Reinemund and in Chevron's Groce No. 1 test well. Tests made
by Vilbrant (1927) and the U.S. Geological Survey (Reinemund, 1955) indicate
that .the oil yield ranges from a trace to 66.8 L/Mg from beds that range
from 0.3 to 15 m thick. Reinemund calculated shale oil reserves of
1.026 X 109 L between depths of 0 to 915 m, assuming an average yield of
121 L/Mg.
Blackband and Fertilizer
The black shale of the Deep River area also contains calcium phosphate
and ammonium sulfate which have been used for fertilizer. Analyses of the
blackband and shale beds by the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department
of Agriculture show that beds near the coal contain as much as 35.5 kg of
(NH«+)2SO«+ and 15.5 kg of CaafPO^Jz per megagram. Reinemund estimated reserves
of 732,000 Mg of (NH<*)2SO<* and 976,000 Mg of Ca3(P(K) above a depth
of 915 m.
Iron Ore
The blackband beds also contain limonite and siderite having a metallic
content averaging about 15 percent. Limited use was made of the ore locally
following the Civil War.
13
Ground Water --1
Potable ground water in the Durham Triassic basin in amounts suitable
for domestic supplies is generally confined to the upper 90 m of Triassic
rock. Below that depth yields are so low that the small amount of additional
water obtained does not justify the increased cost of drilling. Ground
water, however, near the surface in the Triassic rocks occurs in the primary
and secondary interstices which have been enhanced by weathering and leaching
of cement. The apparent resistivity of the formation water in the Sears
No. 1 test well indicates that water having dissolved solids concentrations
less than about 5000 mg/L occurs to at least 1009 m in parts of the basin.
The yield of rocks at those depths is extremely low, and the water,
therefore, is probably of no economic value. There are no data that suggest
that major supplies of potable ground water exist at depths greater than
300 m in the Durham Triassic basin; however, only two wells have been
drilled deeper than 300 m. i
Uranium - Thorium
Reinemund reports that tests made on 140 m of core of the Cumnock
Formation show that the uranium content ranges from 0.001 to 0.003 percent.
Analyses of inhole gamma spectrometry logs for the Sears No. 1 well
showed that uranium and thorium are present in small quantitities in rocks
penetrated by the well (Keys, written communication, 1976). The high gamma-
ray anomalies with which the uranium-thorium "shows" have been identified
are apparently confined to a medium- to coarse-grained, fluvial, arkosic
sandstone. The individual anomalies appear associated with both thin
bedded sandstone and shale of possible lacustrine origin. Until the ;
diagenetic history of the uranium-thorium "shows" are known and their
association with a particular depositional facies determined, the spatial
distribution as well as the economic value of uranium-thorium prospects
must be speculative. The geographic extent of the arkosic sandstone unit
with which the uranium-thorium shows are probably associated is shown in
figure 4.
The areal distribution of the natural resources that needs to be
considered in evaluation of the feasibility of waste disposal in Triassic
rocks is shown in figure 5.
GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION (STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY) '
, i. *j
The external and internal geometry of the Durham Triassic basin must
be known before its waste-disposal potential can be considered. Normally,
the character and geometry of individual lithofacies and the subsurface
architecture of the depositional basin is determined from existing well
logs and samples. However, well data, for wells penetrating to underlying
crystalline rocks, are practically nonexistent for the East Coast Triassic
basins. The determination of the structural geometry of the Durham
Triassic basin by the usual surface geologic mapping techniques is
complicated by a combination of rapid facies changes, faulting, low
relief, extensive vegetation, deep weathering, and a veneer of post-Triassic
alluvium in places. The scarcity of outcrops and subsurface data has
been alleviated by use of remote sensing and geophysical techniques.
These techniques, described below, include: aeromagnetic mapping, side-looking
airborne radar (SLAR), Landsat lineament interpretation, seismic profiling,
electrical sounding, and gravity mapping.
The geophysical data discussed below describe a fault graben more
complex than previously thought. The fault that produced the Durham
Triassic basin probably was a deep crustal one expressed at the surface
as a series of en echelon positive fault blocks which supplied sediment
and negative fault blocks which received sediment. The irregular linear
basin which resulted from faulting contains a spatial facies distribution
controlled by the then existing combination of tectonic-climatic elements.
The Durham Triassic basin is not a simple half graben formed by a
single master fault and the Triassic rocks of the basin do not dip
monoclinally toward the Jonesboro fault. Instead, the eastern border is
step faulted, and the basin is sliced by faults trending N. 45° E. parallel
to the eastern border of the Sanford and Wadesboro subbasins. The subbasins
have been rotated toward the east-southeast by postdepositional faulting.
The slices are terminated to the northeast and in some places to the
southwest by faults or fracture zones that trend nearly due north to
northwest subdividing the basin into diamond- and triangular-shaped
horsts and grabens. Most of the horsts and grabens tilt to the east and
southeast. A few tilt north. The presence of a step-faulted eastern
border implies that some of the conglomerate-fanglomerate along the
eastern border formerly thought to be a late deposition product is actually
an earlier one.
The position of paludal and lacustrine deposits on the eastern side
of the Durham subbasin and on the western side of the Sanford subbasin
and the presence of fanglomerate on the eastern side of the Durham subbasin
and on the western side of the Wadesboro subbasin suggest that, during
most of Triassic sedimentation, subsidence occurred on the east side of
the Durham subbasin and on the west side of the Wadesboro and Sanford
subbasins. Rotation to the east by faulting occurred before the intrusion
of diabase.
15
An exhaustive review of the literature concerning the origin and
structural development of the Durham Triassic basin is beyond the scope of
this report. For greater insight, the interested reader is referred to
Bain (1973), Bain and Harvey (1977), deBoer (1960), Glaeser (1966), Krynine
(1950), McKee (1959), and Saunders (1963).
Seismic Reflection and Refraction Studies
The feasibility of subsurface waste storage in Triassic rocks is
somewhat dependent upon their thickness and stratigraphic characteristics.
Seismic reflection and refraction were used in the Durham Triassic basin
to help determine the sedimentary and structural geometry of the Triassic
rocks. Three traverses were shot in 1973-75 in cooperation with the Geology
Department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These
seismic traverses, totaling 16 km injlength, are located in the basin on
either side of U.S. 64 between Gary and Pittsboro, North Carolina (fig.
5). The longest is a 10-km reflection section that crosses the Jonesboro
fault at the basin's eastern edge. The. second and third are refraction
profiles that were located near the basin's western edge.
Seismic Line 1 - Gary to Green Level
Instrumentation used for each traverse consisted of a 24-trace
Electrodynamic Instrument Corp., Protable~ Reflection Seismic System, Model
PSS-1A.1 /- Total line length for any single shot was 2,300 m. The
shooting technique was a split spread with each successive shot overlapping
to obtain multiple coverage for purposes of common-depth-point stacking.
Figure 6 is a generalized geologic depth section based upon
interpretation of the seismic profile and a careful inspection and analysis
of the records. Although the records were noisy and difficult to interpret,
the following deductions can be salvaged from the data with some confidence.
1. The deepest portion of the basin as indicated on the traverse is
about 1,400 m west of, but not immediately adjacent to, the Jonesboro
fault. In fact, figure 6 indicates this deepest part of the basin to be
located 5.7 to 7.3 km to the west of the Jonesboro fault.
2. Immediately adjacent to the Jonesboro fault the crystalline-rock
basement "steps up" eastward toward the fault.
3. The basement is broken into many horsts and grabens, the maximum
structural relief indicated to be about 1000 m in this traverse.
L_/ The use of the brand name in this report is for identification
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological
Survey.
16
N4__5 MILES -678 KILOMETERSFigure 5. Index map of seismic traverses.
-00-25345 DISTANCE IN KILOMETERS8EXPLANATIONBouguer gravity profile Resistivity depth basement10Figure 6. Resistivity depth points and gravity profile along seismic line 1.
4. Basement is shallowest (about 490 m) near the west end of the
traverse about 8 km west of the Jonesboro fault.
5. Most of the faulting appears to be vertical, including the
Jonesboro fault. Deviation from the vertical is probably not more than
+_ 5 degrees.
6. Immediately beneath the base of the Triassic sediments (within
600 m) are some diffractions in the data that could be caused by faulting.
Figure 7 is a map showing seismic traverse No. 1 relative to SLAR
(side-looking radar imagery) lineaments, mapped faults, and roadcut
geology. The lineaments on this map were transferred from the SLAR imagery
using a zoom transfer scope. The black circles along the seismic traverse
are the points where the vertical faults drawn in figure 6 intersect the
traverse. The transfer of the SLAR lineaments and interpretation of the
seismic profile in figure 6 were done indepedently by different people.
The correlation is good. However, there are lineaments on figure 6 shown
to cross the line of traverse which are not matched by SLAR lineaments on
figure 7. The most noticeable example of the latter situation are the two
faults just west of the Jonesboro fault. However, these two points are
exactly in line along strike from two northeast-trending SLAR lineaments.
Thus some, if not most, of the SLAR lineaments appear to be the surface
expression of normal, near vertical faults. Correlation of the lineaments
with lithologic contacts is less obvious. The most easterly of the northwest
trending lineaments marks the contact between fanglomerate-conglomerate
and red sandstone-mudstone, but the contact of the red sandstone-mudstone
with the coarse tan to pink sand is not marked by an obvious SLAR
lineament. Therefore, their contact may be a normal facies change rather
than a fault.
19
o/ \GREEN LEVEL,ARY........ LINE 1 (ALONG S.R. 1615)4 KILOMETERSEXPLANATION- MAPPED FAULTS (HACHURED ON DOWNTHROWN SIDE)- -SLAR LINEAMENT-LINEAMENT EXTENSION -INTERSECTION OF LINEAMENT AND VERTICAL EXTENSION OF SEISMIC DISCONTINUITY OF FIGURE 5 SEISMIC TRAVERSEFigure 7. Side-looking airborne radar(SLAR) lineaments in the vicinity of seismic line 1
Seismic Lines 2 and 3
Seismic lines 2 and 3 (located on fig. 5) were recorded using the same
equipment that was used on seismic line 1, but with only 100 percent
coverage that is, no stacking. The basement was shallow at this site,
and the principal data were from refraction first breaks. However, some
primary reflections were seen with two-way reflection times yielding
similar depths as the refraction data. On several records, multiples
were also seen which further corroborated the validity of the refraction
analysis.
Figure 8 is the time-distance curve (line fitted by eye) for seismic
lines 2 and 3 respectively. Gaps with no plotted points represent geophone
failures. Plotted times are considered to be accurate to within
_+ 0.005 s. Calculated depths are referenced to a datum of 60 m above
mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929).
Traverses 2 and 3 are near the present-day western border of the
Durham Triassic basin. An outlier of "Slate Belt" type rocks lies
immediately southwest of these traverses. From examination of field
relationships, aerial photos, and SLAR lineaments this outlier of
metasediment and metatuff appears to be an upthrown horst-block. Figure
9 shows the location of traverses 2 and 3 relative to known and suspected
structural elements. Local Triassic lithologies include the argillite-
graywacke-conglomerate and the red mudstone-siItstone-sandstone sequences
intruded by northwest-trending diabase dikes. The sequences appear to
be in fault contact. Both gravity and aeromagnetic data discussed in
following chapters show a strong northeast-trending positive anomaly
parallel to and just east of the fault labeled Bonsal-Morrisville on
figure 9.
If the fault-block boundaries (see fig. 9) exist, the postdepositional
structural history of the basin is even more complex. The sedimentary
rocks here appear fractured by two sets of conjugate shears with rotation
of most of the individual blocks to the southeast. Although the refraction
data indicate the possibility of a fault separating the two traverses, no
geologic lineament was observed in the field crossing the site in a north
or northwesterly direction.
21
0.3-
22° W. of N.
100 200 300 400 500 600
22° E. of S.
700 800 900
Velocities rounded to nearest 100 m/s
Times rounded 10 nearest O.OOS s
Distances rounoed to nearest '0 m
Error oars for times ol plotted points =±0.005 s = {
All points elevation corrected to 60 m above National Geodetic Vertical Datum ot 1929
0.2-
0.1-
00aio
0.0-
Reversed Intercept
^_ Times0.070 s"~X
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.3
-0.2
-0.1
-5" W. of N.
300 600
800
5° E of S.-
900
0.0
900 1200 1500 1800
Velocities 'ounaea to nearest 100 m/s
Times rounded to nearest O.OOS s
Distances rounded to nearest 10 m
Error oars tor times ot plotted points = ± 0.005 s = $
All points elevation corrected to 60 m aoove National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
Forward intercept
=0 065 s Reversed Intercept
Time = 0.060s \<b
forward cntical
/Distances 760mReversed critical Distance =880 mX
0.1 J
0.0
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
DISTANCE, !N METERS
Figure 8. Refraction time-distance curves for (A) seismic line 3, (B) seismic line 2.
22
IN5 COBONSAL-MORRISVILLE FAULT\/X Argillite-graywacke-conglomerate I j Red mudstone-sillslone-sandslone |-liNJ,Crystalline rocks~* -> Known fault "*" - Probable faultContactSeismic lineFigure 9. Generalized geologic map of seismic lines 2 and 3
Rounded to the nearest 10 m, calculated depths to basement for line 2
were 170 m on the north end and 180 m on the south end. Considering the
possible errors in plotted times, determinations of critical distances,
and intercept times, these depths are probably accurate to within _+ 15 m.
Hence, there may or may not be any real dip in the basement surface from
north to south. Calculated depths for line 3 were all about 150 m
regardless of which end of the traverse and which formula was used. Hence,
although there is little or no dip along each line, there must either be
some inclination in the basement surface or the basement is faulted.
Seismic Velocity of Triassic Rocks
The rocks of the Durham Triassic basin are typical of Triassic basins
elsewhere - mostly sandstones and shales. The characteristic velocities of
these rocks, however, are not typical of sandstone and shales from
non-Triassic environments. Typical values for non-Triassic sandstones and
shales (Birch, 1942) range from 1,800 to 3,600 m/s. The refraction data
of lines 2 and 3 indicate seismic velocities ranging from 3,400 to 4,200
m/s. Sonic-log measurements taken by Marine (oral personal communication,
1977) in the buried Dunbarton basin in South Carolina, indicate velocities
in excess of 5,800 m/s for Triassic rocks in that basin. Sonic-log
velocities in a nearby test well drilled to 1143 m ranged from approximately
3,600 to 5,500 m/s below a depth of 152 m. Laboratory analysis of core
from this test well under simulated overburden conditions indicated
velocities ranging from 3,300 to 5,100 m/s. There is apparent but not
conclusive evidence of a velocity anisotrophy within the Triassic rocks.
Measurements made on three pieces of core at 120° spacings normal to the
horizontal axes of the core indicated a maximum p-wave anisotrophy of
4 percent.
Airborne Magnetometer Survey
An airborne magnetometer survey of the Durham Triassic basin was made
to determine the degree to which (1) the magnetic anomalies thus mapped
would aid delineation of the lateral continuity of Triassic lithologies
and subbasins and (2) the broad changes in magnetic susceptibility would
be related to depth of sedimentary rocks.
The total magnetic intensity in and surrounding the Durham Triassic
basin was mapped at 152 m above ground level with an airborne magnetometer
with flight lines spaced 0.3 km apart. The mapping was a cooperative
project of the U.S. Geological Survey, the North Carolina Department of
Mineral Resources, and the Wake County Planning Commission. Figure 10 is
a generalized contour map of the measured data, on which the magnetic
reference field has been removed and the rectified data contoured at a
60-gamma contour interval. Removal of the magnetic reference field enhances
the anomalies resulting from local inhomogeneities in the Earth's crust.
The areal distribution and shape of magnetic anomalies suggest a
structural model of alternating intrabasin horsts and grabens that are
alined in a 40° E. direction. The horst and grabens are crossfaulted,
intruded by diabase dikes, predominantly rotated to the southeast, and
stepped up toward the eastern boundary fault.
The depth to basement along the upthrown side of the Bonsai-Morrisville
fault was estimated from half-slope and maximum-slope methods to range from
610 to 1,200 m. Depth to basement on the downthrown side was calculated to
be 1,800 m, assuming an estimated magnetic susceptibility contrast across
the fault of 0.0025. If the basement rocks are more basic, the computed
throw and therefore the depth to basement on the downthrown side is somewhat
less. The resistivity profile A-A 1 (fig. 20) indicates that depth to
basement on the upthrown side is about 500 m and on the downthrown side is
about 1,100 m. The same susceptibility contrast across the Jonesboro
fault has been used to estimate maximum depth to basement along the eastern
side of the Durham Triassic basin to be approximately 2,100 m near Apex.
Note, however, that the magnetic pattern does not change appreciably across
the fault between Apex and Holly Springs indicating very little susceptibility
contrast across the fault or very shallow depths to basement. The Jonesboro
fault is better defined on the aeromagnetic map (than on the gravity map)
where rocks of apparent major differences in magnetic susceptibility are
in contact.
Side-look ing Radar Li neations
Side-looking airborne radar (SLAR) imagery was collected to ascertain
effectiveness of this exploration technique to define faults and diabase
dikes in the deeply weathered and heavily vegetated rocks of the Durham
Triassic basin.
Radar energy effectively penetrates cloud cover, vegetation, and the
upper few millimeters of soil. Part of the broadcasted radar energy is
returned to the airborne radar recorder in proportion to the character of
the ground and cultural features. In general, longer-wavelength radar imagery
gives sharper definition of culture but poorer geologic information. Shorter-
wavelength imagery gives better definition of geologic character but poorer
cultural definition.
Imagery of the latter type has been collected by the Geological Survey
over the Durham Triassic basin from Wadesboro to Oxford, North Carolina.
The lineations observed on the radar imagery from the Durham area have been
transposed to a corrected base and are shown in figure 12. The declination
of these lineations is presented in figure 13 from each look direction and
is combined on a Cartesian plot (fig. 24) of East Coast lineaments.
Lineations observed on the SLAR imagery as well as Landsat imagery can
be identified in the field or from maps as diabase dikes, faults, lithologic
contacts, streams, roads, power lines, pipelines, and field-edge corner
reflectors. Power lines, pipelines, and most field-edge corner reflectors
and roads can be defined on the imagery by their extreme linearity.
Abandoned roads, logging trails, slightly sinuous roads, and property
lines that trend in one direction (usually due north and due east) are
more difficult to delineate.
T9'30'79*00'78-3O*
3G*OO*
EXPLANATION
LESS THAN -34O GAMMAS
-280 TO -340 GAMMAS
|^V?^| -220 TO -280 GAMMAS
Ulli -I6O TO -22O GAMMAS
| | -IOO TO -ISO GAMMA8
QH -4O TO -IOO SAMMAS
^r.-jj +20 TO -40 GAMMAS
+ 0 TO 4tO GAMMAS
I!} GREATER THAN +SO GAMMA6
A-A'-RESISTIVITY PROFILE
CHAPEL HILL
33-301
SANFOROI
3G«OO'
38" SO'
Figure 10. Aeromagnetic map for part of the Durham Triassic basin
noa.Ti"2V0__ 1 23 4MIIES 0 f 2 3~ 4 BKIlOMFTtRSNORTH CARttlNAEXPLANATION -fOO Gammas...- " nuinemiRKl (19551 mapjiat borrtni ^^^ Diahaso dikn Vottical Btniiliiml sounding^^. » " SlHJ{)f3SlH(l Sl !() loi^lQUADRANGIEIOCADON B' RfBislivily fxiilili? (see lifliim iniFigure 11. Aeromagnelic map of eastern border south of Sanford, N.C.
Of more importance to this study are the variations in shape and
intensity of the magnetic field caused by local variations in the composition
of the Earth's crust. Specifically, the rocks of the Triassic basins and
the surrounding and underlying Piedmont complex differ in their magnetic
susceptibility (ease of magnetization) and intrinsic magnetization. In
general, sedimentary rocks are usually weakly magnetic as are most acidic
igneous rocks. Mafic igneous rocks tend to be much more magnetic depending
largely on their percentage composition of such iron-bearing minerals as
magnetite, ilmenite, hematite, and pyrrhotite.
The detailed aeromagnetic map from which figure 10 was generalized
reveals broad areas of alternating higher and lower magnetic grain
trending northeast-southwest subparallel to the basin. Major exceptions
are a large, intense oval-shaped magnetic high on the central western edge
of the map and an arcuate, northwest-trending magnetic high truncating the
regional structural grain at the southeast corner of the map.
The magnetic map gives somewhat better definition of basin boundaries
and intrabasin structure than does the gravity. South of Sanford at the
point where the resistivity profile B-B' crosses the east edge of the
basin, (fig. 11), the amplitude and frequency of the magnetic anomalies
indicate that basement is shallow at that point. In addition, the frequency,
location, and trend of the step-fault slices are also revealed by the
magnetic pattern. Because the dikes mapped by Reinemund (1955) are clearly
right-laterally offset, the age of the step faults are at least post-diabase
intrusive.
Farther northeast (fig. 10) the magnetic patterns indicate shallower
basement along the Jonesboro fault near Holly Springs and Apex and the area
along the basin edge between Morrisville and the Raleigh-Durham airport.
The entire western side of the Durham subbasin from Chapel Hill
northward is underlain by highly magnetic basement rock or is intruded by
thick diabase "sills." The major magnetic feature within the basin is a
northeast-trending intrabasin fault appearing as a well-defined "positive"
anomaly that bisects the basin and dies out to the northeast. As on the
Bouguer and residual gravity maps (figs. 10 and 15), the positive magnetic
anomaly over this fault is interpreted as downthrown to the northwest
fault effectively separating the two areally smaller 100 mgal anomalies
from the much larger one to the southeast (see also section A-A' of fig.
20). A basin similar to the one west of the Jonesboro fault is created
on the northwest side of this intrabasin fault.
f 36*30'
OXFOHO
36*00'-
CHAPCL HILL
33*13'- 33-I31
Figure 12. Side-looking airborne radar lineaments of the Durham Triassic basin.
29
\
\
w e
LINEAMENTS
(West looking radar)
\
\
w -
LINEAMENTS
(East looking radar)
Figure 13. Rose diagrams showing strike of side-looking airborne radar lineaments.
30
Some observed lineations cannot be identified on the ground. However,
some are parallel to known geologic elements and are therefore assumed to
have some geologic significance.
Although not differentiated on the above figures, diabase dikes,
which are discussed later, give unique raised outlines on SLAR imagery and
are readily mapped as such where their length and thickness permits their
resolution. Faults and fractures appear as linear depressions, or en echelon
offsets. Roads and streams appear as linear depressions but the stream
depression on radar imagery is generally broader in cross section.
The strike of observed radar lineaments cluster in narrow zones along
N. 15° W. to N. 3° E., N. 50°-62° E., and N. 20°-30° W. Very few lineaments
are observed in an east-west direction because this apparently was the
"look direction" approximately perpendicular to the flight path.
The close agreement between radar lineations and magnetic anomalies
is exhibited by figure 14. Major discontinuities in magnetic expression
have a relationship to radar lineaments. Many of these radar lineaments
have been identified on the ground as faults or dikes. Comparison of
radar imagery to the residual gravity anomaly map shows the same general
agreement (fig. 15). From comparison of these radar lineaments with gravity
and magnetic anomalies and with the basin margins, most of the lineaments
are related to geologic features. The analysis of radar lineaments has
proven to be a valuable tool to refine and extend the structural-
strati graphic model produced from sparse outcrop data.
Gravity Measurements
A field gravity mapping program was started in the Durham Triassic
basin during this project to obtain better definition of the Triassic
subbasin and their individual depths.
The gravity data available for the Durham Triassic basin at the
project's inception are published in Mann and Zablocki, 1961. Over 1,200
stations were measured in or near the Durham Triassic basin by Zablocki
(1959) who produced Bouguer and residual anomaly maps and eight gravity
profiles from the data. The Bouguer anomaly map shows a general ESE
"descending" gradient across the basin of 20 to 35 mgal with local 3- to
10-mgal closures. Removal of the regional gradient by Mann and Zablocki
produced a residual map with better definition of positive and negative
gravity anomalies within the basin. The five major negative anomalies
shown on the Mann-Zablocki map are presumed underlain by the thickest,
less dense Triassic rocks. They are roughly elliptical in shape and have
the steepest gradient on the southeast side.
The southeastern border of the Durham Triassic basin is broadly
defined by the separation of anomalies on the residual gravity map. The
border is not readily apparent on the Bouguer map. The deepest parts of
the basin are inferred from the negative anomalies to occur through most
of the central area of the Wadesboro basin, in the Sanford area of the
Deep River subbasin, and between Moncure and Gary and in a long narrow
area from Carpenter to Oxford in the Durham basin.
31
T9*30'79-00'78*30'
16-00'
35*30'
EXPLANATION
LESS THAN -340 GAMMAS
-280 TO -340 GAMMAS
[ , ; [ -220 TO -zee GAMMAS
-160 TO -220 GAMMAS
( | -100 TO -160 GAMMAS
40 TO -100 GAMMAS
[ ] +20 TO -40 GAMMAS
+80 TO +20 GAMMAS
GREATER THAN +80 GAMMAS
A-A'-RESISTIVITY PROFILE 36*00'
35*30
Figure 14. Side-looking airborne radar(SLAR) lineaments on the aeromagnetic map
of the Durham Triassic basin
32
79W78"30'35°50' ~CO CO35"40' -EXPLANATION- - SIAR llnearnenlA Point on profile A - A' USGS lesl well Limits of Triassic bo»!nFigure 15. Side-looking airborne radar lineaments and residual-gravity anomaly map Durham Triassic basin.
The eight gravity profiles presented were constructed by graphically
removing the regional gradient. All profiles by Mann and Zablocki (1961)
show some relief on the basement floor interpreted to be caused by faults
or dikes. The southermost profiles show a faulted western border.
Estimates of the thickest parts of the Durham Triassic basin were
calculated using an infinite-slab model and as assumed density contrast of
0.1 g/cm3 . Calculated depths at several locations were: 1,600 m depth
east of Creedmore (5 mgal), 945 m depth between Durham and Raleigh
(4.5 mgal), 1,980 m depth southwest of Gary (8.5 mgal), 610 m depth
southeast of Moncure of the Colon cross structure (2.5 mgal), 1,770 m
depth near Sanford (7.5 mgal), 1,860 m depth near Carthage (8 mgal), 2,350 m
depth east of Candor beneath the Coastal Plain overlap (10 mgal), and
1,160 m depth near Wadesboro.
Additional gravity measurements were made in the Durham Triassic basin
for this project to supplement the data set of Mann and Zablocki. An
additional 600 gravity stations were measured to increase coverage.
The resulting more detailed Bouguer and residual gravity maps support
the general subbasinal character of the Durham Triassic basin outlined by
Mann and Zablocki, but they also reveal it to be structurally more complex
than previously thought (see figs. 15 and 16). In particular the maps show
that the gravity low in the Apex area is separated from the northern part
of the basin by a northeast trending fault zone or horst in the basement.
This horst or fault zone extends northeasterly from the Slate Belt "window"
3 km north of Moncure to at least the vicinity of Morrisville. The trend
and attitude of the above structure is also supported by the resistivity,
aeromagnetic, surface geology, and lineament studies and is further
discussed in those sections. The more detailed maps also reveal an
additional gravity and magnetic low on the northwest side of this structure
which is interpreted to be a down-faulted wedge of Triassic rocks. The
shape and gradient of the gravity anomalies along the eastern border of
the basin indicate the possibility that there is much variation in depths
to basement along it.
The regional gravity gradient was removed graphically along six sections
across the Bouguer map of this project to determine the thickness and
general geometry of the Triassic sedimentary deposits. The locations of
these sections are shown in figure 16.-»
Section H-H 1 (see figs. 16 and 18) is approximately east-west from a
point 3.2 km south of Apex on the eastern side. Use of the infinite-slab
model and a density contrast of 0.117 g/cm3 yields depth estimates consistent
with depths determined by electrical sounding along this profile. Depth to
basement at the New Hill well site is estimated from the residual anomaly
profile to be 1,390 m and at the deepest point along the profile to be 1,695 m,
34
79*30'79»00'78*30'
79*30'79*00's s y ; t ?78^0'
Figure 16. Bouguer gravity map with locations of gravity
profiles in the Durham Triassic basin.
35
The average bulk density of the Durham Triassic rocks is 2.556 g/cm3
based on 99 determinations from the Sears No. 1 well density log (fig. 28).
Figure 17 illustrates the relationship of core densities to depth, the
underlying crystalline rocks, then, have a density of slightly over 2.67 g/cm3
a reasonable density for acid igneous and pyroclastic rocks. Use of the
0.117 g/cm3 gravity contrast in areas of the basin underlain by more
basic rocks will result in estimates that are too deep.
Section A-A 1 (fig. 18) shows the Bouguer profile from the Chapel Hill
area to a point on the border of the Durham basin 9 km southwest of Holly
Springs. Note that both the Bouguer and residual gravity profiles show the
basin divided into three negative gravity anomalies that become larger and
more negative to the southeast. Geologically, they represent three fault
slices on half grabens which are downthrown to the southeast. The Bonsal-
Morrisville fault zone discussed above is represented by the sharp
positive anomaly approximately in the center of the profile. Maximum
depths along the profile are estimated from the gravity profile to be
approximately 915, 1,224, and 1,677 m in each of the subbasins. The
corresponding resistivity profile agrees in general shape with the residual
gravity.
Section L-L 1 is along a NE-SE line across a negative anomaly south of
Oxford where an electrical sounding has been made. The residual gravity
anomaly indicates a depth of approximately 2,226 m at a point where the
electrical sounding depth is estimated at 1,982 m. The maximum depth
indicated by the 15 mgal anomaly is 3,050 m. Although the gravity depth
estimates agree within about 10 percent with the electrical depth
estimates, their correctness depends on the accuracy of the gravity
contrast, the slope of the regional gravity gradient, and the validity of
the infinite-slab model. j
Section I-I 1 is a NW-SE line coinciding with resistivity profile B-B 1
south and west of Sanford. The residual gravity profile agrees reasonably
well with the electrical sounding profile. Sounding 128 is at the site of
the Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Groce No. 1 well where basement was penetrated
at about 1,555 m. The maximum depth of the Sanford subbasin along this
profile is estimated from the residual gravity and resistivity values to
be between 1,756 and 1,960 m. Both curves particularly the resistivity--
indicate that the basin is shallower (or steps up) near the eastern border
fault.
1200
1100
IOOC EXPLANATION
©CORE FROM DEEP
RIVER COAL FIELD
A CORE FROM NEW
HILL TEST WELL
2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
DENSITY, IN GRAMS PER CUBIC CENTIMETER
Figure 17. Bulk density of Triassic core versus depth.
37
Residual profile AA1 along resistivity profile AA1
Residual profile HH*
900 "00
KX»
1900
2000
1 Bouquir prof ill-
I ! zaoo t-
-i-h-I 1-1
. I
Residual profile 00*
I4200
ffOUffVff profit* .
Residual profile JJ'
mi ftT3-TT
I 200O4
Bovgttir proftt*\
/
Residual profile 11* along resistivity profile BB*Residual profile LL*
LOCATIONS OF PROFILES SHOWN IN FIGURE 16
Rgure 18. Gravity profiles across the Durham Triassic basin
I L'T
; \
Section J-J 1 is a NW-SE line across the most negative part of the
gravity low southwest of Sanford and is about 7.2 km southwest of section
I-I 1 . The deepest part of the basin here is about 2,652 m deep and is on
the northwestern side. The basin shallows to approximately 1,220 m at a
point 12.8 km farther to the southwest. Section D-D 1 is a combined
resistivity, gravity, and seismic profile from Green Level to Gary. The
correlation between the resistivity and seismic depths is good and their
correlation with the residual gravity profile is fair.
The point along the profile where the basin is deepest is about 2.6 km
from the end showing Green Level. Both the seismic and resistivity depth
estimates indicates that the depth is approximately 1,524 m. The shallow
steplike character of the basement at the eastern border is shown by the
seismic profile and perhaps corroborated by the convex charcter of the
gravity profile on the eastern side.
Resistivity Profiles
The direct-current electrical resistivity method was used in the
Durham Triassic basin to determine if sufficient resistivity contrast
existed between the Triassic sedimentary rocks and among the individual
units of that fill to make the resistivity method an effective exploration
tool.
Subsurface exploration using the resistivity or electrical sounding
method depends on the contrast in electrical conductivity of earth materials
and their thicknesses relative to their depth. Best results are obtained
where the geologic units are thick and their resistivity contrasts large.
Interpretative precision decreases with depth as well as with decreases in
bed thickness and resistivity contrast. Differences in porosity, clay
content, and chemistry of interstitial water are the primary causes of
contrasting electrical resistivity. Sixty-two Schlumberger electrical
soundings were made along roads in the Durham Triassic basin in an effort
to determine basin geometry, the depth of the sedimentary infill, and the
spatial distribution of individual facies. Figure 19 shows the
distribution of these soundings and the location of the resistivity
profiles.
The symmetric quadrapole method was used wherein a pulsed direct
current of up to 2 amperes is fed into the earth through two outer current
electrodes, and the resulting potential difference is observed between two
closely spaced inner electrodes at the center of the array (Ackermann and
others, 1976). Maximum current electrode half-spacings were increased
until plotted apparent resistivities clearly indicated the effects on
basement rocks.
39
T9»00'
36*15'
36*00'-j-
35-45
J6*30
3615'
Chapel Hill -.^..(
. f
*Green Level //M'
EXPLANATION
Electrical soundings
<x') Seismic profiles
x Magnetic depth estimate
Seismic depth estimate
Test we
6' Resistivity line
Figure 19. Locations of geophysical data points.
-4-35*45"
35*30*
35*16'
Field measurements in the Durham area showed a range in resistivity of
1,000 to 7,000 ohm-meters for the resistivity of the Piedmont crystalline rocks
Subsequent measurements in the Triassic rocks indicated that resistivities
characteristically range from 30 to 350 ohm-meters and that the underlying
basement rocks have resistivities similar to those for rocks measured
outside the basin.
The individual smoothed sounding curves (apparent resistivity versus
distance) were interpreted by inverting them into units of certain
thicknesses and resistivities using a digital computer (see Zohdy and
Bisdorf (1975) and Zohdy (1974)).
To restrict the range of possible solutions and to obtain an
acceptable model, several geologic and electrical constraints were applied
from knowledge of the local geology and of the characteristic rock
resistivities. Contraints on known geological and geophysical
interpretation included a single basement depth from an exploratory oil
well (Groce No. 1) at sounding 128, resistivity logs from this well, and
Geological Survey well data (Sears No. 1) at sounding 17. In addition to
restricting resistivities greater than 1,000 ohm-meters to the Piedmont
crystalline rocks and those less than 350 to the Triassic rocks, the layer
immediately overlying basement was limited to a resistivity range of 250
to 350 ohm-meters. Additional constraints were applied to shallower layers
to minimize differences in lateral resistivities, thereby improving
correlation between soundings. Lateral changes still remaining are those
that could not be removed easily and therefore most probably represent
faulting and facies changes.
Section A-A'
To better illustrate the vertical and lateral distribution of
resistivity across the basin, cross sections or resistivity profiles were
constructed from the individual soundings (figs. 20 and 21). Figure 20 is
a section trending NNW for 23 km from a point 7 km southwest of Holly
Springs through New Hill to a point 6 km NW of Green Level. The horst and
graben character of the basement floor and of the overlying sedimentary
rocks is clearly displayed. Movement of the Bonsal-Morrisville fault has
caused apparent vertical separation of the overlying Triassic rocks of up
to 600 m. The southeastern edge of the basin is not defined on this section
by a single master fault, but by a fault zone several km wide which causes
the crystalline basement floor to "step down" into the basin. As a result
the geoelectrical section has a synclinal shape. Near Green Level the
basin shallows to approximately 380 m at sounding 12. The deepest part of
the basin along this profile is predicted at sounding 110 to be 1,800 m.
41
MAGNETIC INTENSITY SCALE. IN GAMMAS
Ba 2000-QB'!23 122 12! kHORIZONTAL SCALE>2000 OHM-METERS2 MILESrFigure 21. Geo-electric section for resistivity survey line B B' Stanford sub basin.0123 KILOMETERS VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 2126 ELECTRICAL SOUNDING SITEAVERAGE LAYER RESISTIVITY IN OHM-METERS
The following data support the conclusion that the resistivity
sections are similar to the actual geologic sections.
1. A basement depth interpreted from sounding 128 compared within 4
percent with the basement depth from the Groce No. 1 well near Sanford
(fig. 21).
2. The interpretation of sounding 17 at the site of the Sears No. 1
well predicted a basement depth of 1,350 m. The well was completed to a
total depth of 1,142 m in Triassic sedimentary rocks indicating that
basement is at least greater than 1,142 m at that point.
3. The known location and sense of displacement of the Bonsal-
Morrisville fault was correctly shown by the electrical section A-A 1 .
4. The eastern limit of the Triassic basin along both sections A-A 1
and B-B 1 agrees with known locations of the Jonesboro fault.
5. The depths on the electrical sections agree with the estimates
obtained from aeromagnetic, gravity, and seismic data.
To construct the profile in figure 20, vertically adjacent electrical
units of relatively similar resistivity were combined into larger units of
more convenient ranges. The individual electrical units may or may not
correspond to Triassic rock units. In general, rocks are formed of quartz,
feldspar, and other silicates which are relatively poor conductors. The
resistivity of such rocks is a function of two independent variables, (1)
the shape, size, and degree of interconnection (F) of the pore spaces and
(2) the resistivity of their contained fluid (Guyod, 1944). Thus,
variations in conductivity of water from the Traissic rocks may mask
vertical and lateral changes in resistivity caused by facies changes.
Aside from the overall increase in resistivity with depth caused by
the normal decrease in liquid filled pores, an electrical inversion is
noted between 100 and 1,000 m on most soundings. That is, resistivity
decreases with depth between 100 and 1,000 m below which resistivity
increases progressively to the bottom of the section. This inversion may
reflect an increase in ground-water conductivity (salinity) with depth.
The point at which the vertical trend changes (from decreasing resistivity
to increasing resistivity with depth) may represent the point where the
rocks do not contain uncombined water.
Section B-B'
Figure 21 is a resistivity section 13 km in length trending NW-SE,
beginning at a point 10 km due west of Sanford, and ending 7 km due south
of that city just east of the basin edge (fig. 19). This section also
exhibits the lateral discontinuities in resistivity seen in profile A-A 1
that are due either to faulting, facies changes, differences in porosity,
or differences in water quality.
44
Sounding 128, located on the west edge of this section, is at
the site of the Groce No. 1 well where the depth to basement (1,550 m) is
known. This section shows that to the east of sounding 128 the basement
floor and the overlying Triassic rock dip progressively eastward. However,
the eastern edge of the section shows different characteristics. There is
no resistivity evidence for a master Jonesboro fault with 1,500 to 2,200 m
of throw. Rather, the basement floor exhibits a step!ike pattern within 2
to 5 km of the eastern edge, and the cumulative throw is distributed among
the fault slices. As erosion proceeds in future millennia, the location
of the Jonesboro fault will appear to move westward as successive basement
steps of this fault zone are exhumed. There should be faults lying
immediately east of and parallel to the Durham Triassic basin that mark
the edges of fault slices or basement steps previously exhumed. The
occurrence of quartz dikes parallel and east of the Durham subbasin near
the Raleigh-Durham airport described by Shearer (1927) and Prouty (1931)
may indicate that quartz dikes mark the traces of such fault lines.
Landsat Li neations
High-altitude multispectral Landsat imagery of the Durham Triassic
basin was studied to determine if it could be used successfully for
identification and recognition of Triassic geologic elements not
necessarily visible from the ground surface (see, for example, Hogson and
others (1974)). Landsat images of the Durham area show a complex tonal
grain, some of the elements of which can be resolved into individual
lineaments. The lineaments are particularly apparent on data from MSS
(multispectral scanning) Band 7 (0.8 to 1.1 ym) at low sun angle.
Some of the apparent lineaments are not geological but can be identified
as roads, pipe lines, or other cultural elements. However, many of the
linear tonal characteristics apparently are related to differences in
vegetation, soil water content, soil type, fracture frequency, and changes
in rock type. They are thereby useful in deciphering the geology of the
area.
Figure 22 shows the location of lineaments observed on the
January 11 and 12, 1973, imagery of the central Piedmont of North Carolina
in the vicinity of the Durham and Danville Triassic basins. Although on
these images there are large cloud-effected areas due to a passing snowstorm,
there are sufficient areas without cloud effects to show the correspondence
of some lineaments to the present-day outlines of the basins. The NNE and
NE lineaments outline the notches in the western border of the Durham
basin particularly well. The character of the intersecting lineaments
along the Gold Hill fault about 13 km southeast of Lexington is very similar
to the pattern of notches along the western edge of the Durham Triassic
basin between Moncure and Chapel Hill where northeast trending lineaments
pass through and on either side of the Farrington Pluton.
45
00
37e OO'-i-37° 00'
60
1 MILES
20.. i 40i 60i e 100
_l_____I KILOMETERS
Figure 22. Landsat lineations in the vicinity of the Durham and Danville Triassic basins
46
The principal observed lineament directions are N. 70° W.,
N. 20°-30° W., N. 65° E., and N. 15-30° E. The former two directions and
the latter two form two sets of apparent orthogonal fracture systems (see
figs. 23 and 24). The N. 55-65° E. linear is associated with the
northeastern extension of the Brevard and its Catawba River--Winston-Salem
splay. The N. 70° W. lineament direction is parallel to the direction of the
swarm of east-west fractures near North Wilkesboro that extend to the
vicinity of Liberty in northwest Randolph County. The southernmost of
this group of lineaments appears to cross the Brevard zone near Morganton,
North Carolina, follow the Catawba River--Winston-Salem fracture swarm,
and pass the northern end of the Durham Triassic basin. Still farther
south a lineament beginning west of Atlanta, Georgia, near the southern
tip of the Sequatchie anticline crosses Georgia and South Carolina in a
east-northeasterly direction passing south of the Kings Mountain structure,
Gold Hill fault, and Durham Triassic basin.
The similar-en echelon-parallelism of the northern one-half of the
Durham Triassic basin to the Gold Hill fault and Kings Mountain structure
appears to have some tectonic significance. Of the two longest regional
lineaments, the Catawba River--Winston-Salem trend has the most obvious
genetic relationship to the Gold Hill fault. The Kings Mountain structure,
the Henderson granite gneiss, the Gold Hill fault, the Durham Triassic
basin all terminate in or south of this 16-km-wide zone. This zone also
effectively separates the northwest dipping Danville and other Virginia
Triassic basins to the north from the southeast tilted Durham Triassic
basin. The Kings Mountain and Gold Hill lineaments also appear terminated
to the south by a N. 70° E. trending lineament parallel to the Brevard and
Catawba--Winston-Salem zones on an East Coast mosaic discussed later.
There are numerous other obvious examples on the Landsat photos where
the observed lineaments lie parallel to, border, or otherwise coincide
with known geologic or geophysical elements. But more importantly, the
lineations occur in patterns and directions which are helpful in
deciphering the tectonic development of the Durham Triassic basin, and
therefore the intrabasin structure and probable spatial distribution of
sedimentary facies.
Moody and Hill (1956), Anderson (1951), Hubbert (1951), Hafner (1951),
Wilcox and others (1973), McKinstry (1953), Chinnery (1966) and many others
have shown that the angular relationships of such fractures are predictive
in a wrench fault system and are useful in recognizing first- and second-
order shear sets and fracture patterns associated with a uniaxial stress
axis (see fig. 23).
47
00
A. Simple shear right-lateral couple
FIRST-pRDEfl RIGHT
WRENCH
B. First- and second-order wrench faults
Figure 23. Diagram showing angular relationship of stress direction to first- and second-order wrench faulting
617
CUMULATIVE LENGTH
-n (5'
3ro-u
nQ
<D v>
Q
-D_
£ ?
(A51
oIT5'
(O
Q ?"
cr o
Q
Q.Q
Q 3 CLen Q
5'
<DQ
(D3
v>
Q3CL
Q.5'
o-
Q en (D
Q.
5r
(D
Figure 24 is a cartesian plot of the azimuths versus cumulative
length of lineaments observed on the Landsat mosaic of the eastern
United States. A sampling interval of 3° was used with the 75° and 80°
west meridians serving as base lines. The traverse east-northeast
lineaments previously mentioned cluster about the 76° and 89° points on
this graph--the north-northeasterly ones cluster about the 24° and 30°
points.
The strikes of side-looking radar lineaments from a northeast oriented
flight over the Durham subbasin are also plotted (the middle dashed curve).
The plot at the top of this graph represents the Durham subbasin diabase
dike directions weighted by length. The N. 70° W. and N. 15°-30° E.
orthogonal set is still represented. The N. 20°-30° W. and N. 65° E. is
less obvious.
Thus, even in the comparatively small area of the Durham subbasin
there is good agreement between some of its lineament strike directions
and those of the entire East Coast. Randazzo, Soper, and Waskom (personal
commmunication, 1976) found three regional joints sets in the Slate Belt
at N. 60° E., N. 30° W., and N. 65° W.
Most of the East Coast Triassic grabens trend N. 45° E. parallel to
the Brevard trend south of Pennsylvania but range from due north to due
east to the northeast in orientation (fig. 1). They exhibit a clockwise
offset pattern and are subparallel to the folded Appalachians. If most
are tension structures under pure shear parallel to a maximum compression
along N. 45° E., conjugate shears should occur at approximately N. 75° E.
(left lateral) and N. 15° E. (right lateral). If produced by a couple in
the simple-shear system, N. 45° E. tension structures should result from
an east-west left-lateral couple or a north-south right-lateral couple
(fig. 23). In both orientations, the conjugate shears would be
approximately at N. 75° E. (left lateral) and N. 15° E. (right lateral).
Structural Significance of Diabase Intrusives
The Triassic basins as well as the surrounding Piedmont and New England
provinces of the Eastern United States were intruded by swarms of diabase
dikes in Late Triassic (?) and Jurassic time.
Their attitude and outcrop pattern (fig. 25) indicates that these
tholeiitic magmas were injected along two sets of fracture systems in Late
Triassic (?) and Early Jurassic time after sediment 1 Unification and
subbasin rotation. Their location and frequency are an important aspect of
the waste disposal evaluation of the Triassic basins because their inherent
difference in permeability and the shearing that attended intrusion tend
to compartmentalize the basins sediments into small hydrologic regimes.
50
79-15'79-00'78T45'
36'15' -
DIABASE SILLS
36-00' -
NOTE: Location and continuity of some
dikes inferred from aeromagnetic
data.
35-45" -
35-30'
36-15'
- - 36-00'
- - 35-45'
EXPLANATION
Diabase intrusives
35-30'
SCALE6 ' ' ' ' A IS MILESI I 1 I 1 I 0 5 10 19 20 25 KM
Figure 25. Diabase intrusives of the Durham Triassic basin.
51
The diabase dikes are deep crustal tholeiites changing composition
from predominately olivine normative in the south to high and low titanium
quartz normative in the north. The older diabase dikes appear to be in
the south with a progressive change to younger age to the north. The
diabase dikes change trend from NW in the southern Piedmont to nearly NE
in New England. Most of the dikes in the Durham area trend between due
north and northwest directions. Their outcrop pattern presumably represents
a fossil tensional stress system(s) of Late Triassic (?) and Early Jurassic
time.
Diabase dikes cross the Durham as well as the other Triassic basins
(fig. 25) without change in trend, and although widespread in the east,
their westward occurrence ends abruptly as if confined to a specific
crustal zone. They are much more difficult to distinguish from the rocks
of the Piedmont, but the aeromagnetic map from which figure 10 is derived
indicates that they are just as numerous in the surrounding crystalline
rocks. They are discernable on the SLAR images by their unique raised
outline, and their parallelism to Landsat lineations is evident in figure
24.
52
THE TRIASSIC CONTINENTAL ENVIRONMENT
A knowledge of the nature, distribution, and thickness of the various
rock types in a sedimentary basin is a prerequisite to its evaluation for
waste storage purposes because of the obvious clues to the occurrence of
suitably porous and permeable reservoir rock and rock seals. Similarly,
an understanding of the special tectonic and climatic environment present
at the depositional loci leads to a predictable sedimentary facies model.
As pointed out in the "structural geometry"'section, the literature
on East Coast Triassic basins contains many different tectonic, climatic,
and depositional models not necessarily supported by the actual rock
associations a problem no doubt caused in part by the general lack of
subsurface data. The lithologic variety and associations, mineralogy,
and depositional structures preserved in the Durham Triassic basin were
examined specifically for clues to more accurate tectonic, paleotopographic,
climatic, and sediment dispersal models.
The alluvial fans, the angularity of the sand, the poor sorting of
the fines, the size of the boulders in the fanglomerates, and the freshness
of the feldspar in the Durham Triassic basin all point to short transport
distance from an elevated source area to a nearby valley floor or graben
of low relief. The depositional environment was not unlike deposition in
the low intermontane basins of the Basin and Range Province or in the
Sal ton Trough of Southern California.
Typically in this environment alluvial fans form as a direct result
of a sharp break in slope and a corresponding decrease in stream competency.
The decrease in stream competency is further aggravated by loss of water
through the permeable alluvium by "sieving." The resulting high ratio of
rock detritus to water at the fan surface creates shallow braided streams
that slowly prograde the coarse proximal fan deposits over the finer distal
ones. Individual facies within the fan are quite localized and are caused
by intermittant faulting and attendant increased relief, by meandering
bifurcating channels, and by variability of stream discharge.
Braided streams on the fan surface create longitudinal and traverse
bars which migrate downstream. Sedimentary features of both the upper and
lower flow regime are characteristic; that is, parallel laminae, thin
lenticular shales, many interclastics, cut-and-fill structures, and planar
and trough cross stratification (Smith, 1970). There is a general
down-the-fan-slope increase in the ratio of planar over horizontal cross
stratification due to the decrease in flow regime. Longitudinal bars
consisting of coarse, poorly sorted debris are most common in the upper
reaches of the braided stream. Transverse bars containing finer, better
sorted material are most common at the distal end of the fan.
The finer grained sediment at the distal end of the fan is carried
onto the basin floor into a playa, bolson, or lake or is further
distributed in the floodplain of through-flowing longitudinal streams.
53
Springs and seep lines, which develop in the valley floor near the
boundary fault(s) of these fault-controlled intermontane valleys, support
local swamps and peat bogs. Swamps also form in shallow water in low-lying
sites remote from active deposition such as exist parallel to natural
levees of through-flowing streams of low gradient and along the edge of
ponds and lakes. Organic matter accumulates on the lake or bog floor to
form peat where a reducing environment prevents its biologic destruction.
Preservation of organic rich mud produces a black or brown shale, the
laminations of which record periodic or seasonal changes in sediment or
vegetative supply. Preservation and compaction of peat produces coal.
Where evaporation exceeds precipitation because of either seasonal or
perennial aridity, such as exists in a playa environment, dissolved salts
are concentrated in starved lakes, and large expanses of salt flats develop.
Various chemical deposits accumulate on the lake floor including normal
carbonate, chert, anhydrite and gypsum, glauberite, and salt either in
discrete beds or in fine dispersal in the bottom muds. Chert precipitates
where there is a seasonal fluctuation in alkalinity and an abundance of
detrital silica. Silica which is taken into solution at pH 9 and greater
is precipitated when the pH is rapidly reduced by the rotting vegetation
caused by drying of the lake (Peterson and Borch, 1965). Analcime is
sometimes formed in the bottom muds of those lacustrine environments marked
by seasonal aridity and soda-rich sediment (Van Houten, 1977).
Comparison of Areal Geology to Depositional Model
The surface Triassic geology in the Durham area was mapped at a
reconnaissance scale to gain insight into basin geometry, type and geometry
of lithofacies, and degree of faulting. The geologic map that evolved
reflects depositional environments modified by later faulting (fig. 3).
The fanglomerate-conglomerate association shown in figure 3 marks the
locations of greatest relief of the land and least transportation of the
sediments. This unit which is associated with the border faults is
principally developed on the east side in the Durham subbasin and on the
west side in the Wadesboro subbasin. The fanglomerates represent scree
and mud-flow deposits from the steep terrain along the bounding fault
scarps. Fanglomerates and conglomerates also mark the points where major
intermittent (?) streams entering the basin dropped their bedload. The presence
of conglomerates in thinner beds near the middle of the Durham subbasin
record the locations of major braided stream channels and times of movement
on the boundary faults. There is no known evidence that longitudinal or
transverse growth faults were active during sedimentation to produce midbasin
conglomerates.
The fanglomerate-conglomerate association on both sides of the basin
contains clasts identical in compostion to the crystalline rocks immediately
adjacent, attesting to the process of local infill from both sides. Mixed
with the clasts, especially along the western border in the argillite-
graywacke-conglomerate facies (fig. 3), however, are rounded to subrounded
quartz pebbles and cobbles which indicate greater transport distance and
or a mixed supply.
54
The coarse tan feldspathic sandstone facies (granite wash) best
developed between Carpenter and Apex and north and east of Creedmoor
represents the midfan braided stream deposits of one such alluvial fan.
This particular facies is the uppermost unit penetrated in the Sears No. 1
test well and is approximately 610 m thick at that point. It grades
laterally and vertically into the red and grey, finer, less sorted deposits.
Although possibly not the same rock stratigraphic unit, this midfan
facies is also represented on the western side of the basin between Durham
and Chapel Hill (fig. 3), on the western side of the Sanford subbasin in
the subsurface, and throughout much of the Wadesboro subbasin. The general
lack of red color is due to the absence of hematitic cement probably caused
by the winnowing of the hematitic muds or its general absence from the
source materials. Fluvial conditions along probable longitudinal streams
are indicated by channel and point-bar sands and overbank muds. Coarse
cut-and-fill channel sandstones record where distributary channels cut
through fine deltaic muds. The poorly sorted overbank and distal fan
deposits into which the above facies grade are represented by mudstones,
siltstones, and massive argil!ites in a down-fan direction and by bimodal
coarser sandstones in an upfan direction. They are best represented in
the Durham subbasin (fig. 3) in the area south of Apex and West of Holly
Springs toward Brickhaven, from the Raleigh-Durham airport north to Oak
Grove and southwest from that point toward Farrington. In the Sanford
area, they are characteristic of both the Pekin and Sanford Formations
indicating that this particular facies was being deposited somewhere in
the basin throughout the Late Triassic. Locally this facies is
unquestionably lacustrine.
Triassic lakes are represented by limy, evaporitic, red mudstones,
flaggy micaceous sandstones, red and black fossiliferous shale, and chert.
Limy redbeds, thin nodular limestones, and chert are generally confined to
the interfan areas. Lacustine conditions occurred in at least two places
in the basin at different times. In the Pekin Formation on the Colon
cross-structure (fig. 3) and southward at the base, flaggy sandstone and
freshwater fossilbearing argillite occur, overlain by chert. Reinemund
(1955) also reports limy shales, coal, and chert in the Sanford area.
Farther north and somewhat later, lacustrine and paludal conditions
are marked in the Oak Grove-Bethesda-Research Triangle-Morrisville area by
thin-bedded micaceous sandstone which is overlain by two thin beds of red
to black fossiliferous shale succeeded by a thick section of limy redbeds
containing widespread chert beds. One additional fossiliferous zone is
present in this facies, higher in the section, between the Olive Branch
Church community and the Raleigh-Durham airport.
55
The grey to buff paludal shales and thin coal zones in the Pekin
Formation from west of Sanford to north of Moncure (Olive Chapel), the
relatively thick coal and humic shale of the Cumnock Formation of the
Sanford area and its thinner equivalents near Brickhaven, and the thin
black shales centered around the Research Triangle Park occur in the same
geographic area as the lacustrine facies and are interbedded with them,
they are obviously products of the same tectonic environment within the
basin. Coal, shale, limy redbeds, or chert formed in swamp, lake, or
playa in response to different combinations of climate, water depth, and
sediment supply.
Paleocurrent Studies
Few studies have attempted to determine the specific source area or
character of the Durham Triassic basin parent material or its
redistribution within the basin. Whitehead (1962) concluded from a study
of the major rock types exposed at the surface in the Sanford subbasin
that the grain composition indicated a source consisting of metamorphosed
Precambrian rocks now largely eroded away. More specifically, he proposed
that the source lithology consisted predominately of moderate-grade
metamorphic rocks interbedded with lesser amounts of low grade metamorphic
granitic and volcanic rock. Klein (1969) proposed that the sediment source
was from both sides of the basin based on K-Ar and paleocurrent measurements.
The paleocurrent direction of the coarse tan feldspathic sandstone
facies (granite wash), previously described as an example of midfan
braided stream deposits of an alluvial fan, was studied in some detail.
Paleostream direction data of Custer (1967) indicate that this particular
deposit may have originated from the southeast side perhaps south and
west of Holly Springs. The macroscopic petrography, however, indicated a
plutonic source. Although there is a small granite pluton south and west
of Holly Springs, the volume and general lack of metamorphic clasts indicate
a larger, mostly granitic source such as the Rolesville pluton to the
northeast. Contrary to Custer's conclusion, paleocurrent data gathered by
Dittman (1979) for this project do indicate that the prevalent paleostream
direction in this facies is toward the south and southwest both in the
Carpenter-Apex area and in the Creedmoor-Oxford area.
Paleocurrent data gathered elsewhere by Dittman (fig. 26) show that
basin-margin streams flowed into the basin normal to the edge and that
midbasin or longitudinal streams flowed almost universally to the south-
southwest parallel to the basin trend. Patterson (1969) also indicated a
strong southwest direction across the Colon cross-structure.
56
36°30' ~T~
79°30- 78°3C
\
\ *
\
/CARPEW-
f HOLLY
t SPRINGS
EXPLAMATIQM
^-'Currttil dirtetion
Fiaure 26. Paleocurrent directions in the Durham sub-basin.
' 35°15
Reinemund (1955) found that the basal conglomerate and sandstone in
the Sanford subbasin contain clasts identical to metamorphic rock types in
the Slate Belt west of the basin. Crossbedded arkosic sandstone containing
schist-arenite channel deposits indicated that streams flowed from the
west and northwest into the basin on the west side (base of section) and
from the southeast in the middle and upper part of the section. He also
noted an increase in coarseness in the Sanford Formation to the southeast,
an increase in arkose toward a Carboniferous granite pluton to the southeast,
and an abundance of muscovite from rock types exposed on the east side of
the basin.
Bell and others (1974) reported that the Wadesboro subbasin shows no
coarsening of the sediments toward the southeast, although an arkosic
conglomerate clearly derived from a granite along the eastern border occurs
near the western border. Randazzo and others (1970) found that arkose (K
feldspar) increases to the east in the Wadesboro subbasin. It is therefore
obvious only that there was coarse sediment contribution from both sides
of the Durham Triassic basin, that streams depositing the alluvial fans
flowed into the basin more or less at right angles to the borders, and
further sediment dispensal and reworking was parallel to the basin by
through-flowing probably intermittent streams.
Palynology and Stratigraphic Correlation
Lateral correlation of chronostratigraphic units in the Durham
subbasin is complicated by the rapid facies changes described above and
extensive faulting which has placed units.of different ages into
juxtaposition. Most workers have proposed a tripartate division of the
rocks in the Durham Triassic basin solely on the basis of a coal and black
shale occurrence in the Cumnock Formation in the Sanford area near the
middle of the section. According to this system, the Cumnock Formation is
overlain by the Sanford and underlain by the Pekin Formations. Cross
section (A-B) showing facies correlation in figure 3 is an attempt to
illustrate the vertical and lateral facies relationship that is thought to
exist between the Durham and Sanford subbasins based on the latest structural
models, paleocurrent directions, palynology, and surface geology.
The coal and the black shale of the Cumnock Formation near Sanford
and their thinner equivalent near Brickhaven, the grey shales and thin
coal zones of the Pekin Formation on the Colon cross-structure and the
thin black shales of the Research Triangle Park-Bethesda area all contain
plant remains and freshwater biota--ostracods, fish bones and scales, and
branchiopoda. Fossil collections from these rocks are adequately described
in Emmons (1856), Jones (1862), Redfield (1856), Fontaine (1883), Ward
(1899), Murray, Jr. (1938), Prouty (1931), Hope and Patterson (1969),
Delevoryas and Hope (1971), and Swain and Brown (1972). Many of the same
fossils are represented in all the shales. Almost without exception they
indicate a Late Triassic age. Unfortunately, their age ranges are too
long to be very diagnostic of specific horizons within the Durham Triassic
basin.
58
Recent work by Cornet and Traverse (1975) and Cornet (1977) on the
palynoflorules of the rocks of the East Coast Triassic basins demonstrates
that spores and seeds can be used not only to correlate between the basins,
but also to establish temporal zones within the basins. As a direct result
of their work, coal from the Copper Creek prospect near Moncure formerly
placed in the Cumnock Formation is now found to belong to the Pekin
Formation. The reassignment has greatly simplified the stratigraphic
problems of the Moncure area. Chert in the Moncure area, which is an
apparent down-strike equivalent of the Copper Creek prospect, cannot be
traced laterally across the Bonsal-Morrisville fault zone into the chert
of the Research Triangle Park. Chert and the associated black shales in
the Research Triangle Park area are thought now to be slightly younger
than the Cumnock Formation on the basis of the faunal evidence. The other
possibility that the two chert beds were age equivalents requires that
the entire west and northwest part of the Durham subbasin be older than
Pekin or the basal part of the Colon cross-structure be a Cumnock
equivalent.
Cornet's (1977) facies correlations between the basins indicate
sedimentation began first in the North Carolina and Virginia basins in
Late Triassic time (Middle Carnian) and then progressed to the northern
basins. Cornet's facies correlations between the basins and to the facies
correlation section (fig. 3) indicate that lacustrine and paludal
conditions occurred in different basins at different times, probably in
response to a combination of tectonic framework and climate. This means
that the traditional assumption that the lacustrine-paludal facies postion
near the middle of the basins indicates middle postion in the simple,
monoclinal, half-graben model used (Bain, 1973, and Sumner, 1977) is in
error.
The data presented in this report indicate that the triparte division
used in the Sanford subbasin is not applicable to the remainder of the
Durham Triassic basin. The chert at Moncure was not penetrated in the
Sears No. 1 test well at New Hill (fig. 3) even though correlation of the
basal 350 m of the Sears well with the basal section of the Groce No. 1
well west of Sanford shows that the Sears well was within 90 m of
penetrating the entire section of the Pekin Formation. Although the lower
section of the Sears well correlates with the lower section of the Groce
No. 1 well, the Cumnock is very thin or absent in the Sears well. The
Sanford Formation is also absent in the Sears well; therefore, the upper
section of both wells are in entirely different facies.
59
The position of the fanglomerate at the surface along the downfaulted
side of the Durham and other subbasins is frequently cited as evidence for
continued periodic movement along the downthrown side. Recent resistivity,
gravity, and aeromagnetic evidence show that the basin floor "steps up"
near the border fault causing exposure of some of the basal fanglomerates.
Thus, the evidence for or against continued movement throughout the time
of deposition in the Durham Triassic basin is eroded away. In fact, part
of the eastern side of the Sanford subbasin now mapped as Sanford Formation
is most probably Pekin in age. The presence of the basal conglomerate
does indicate strong initial relief and may indicate only the time of
maximum local relief between Piedmont and basin floor.
60
EAST COAST
Southeast
Coastal Plain:
subsurface North Carolina Virginia
Maryland
and southern Pennsylvania
Eastern
Pennsylvania
Southwestern
and central New Jersey
Northern
New Jerseyand New York
Connecticut and southern Massachusetts
Northern
Massachusetts
Sanford
formation
Cuntnock
formation
Pekin
formation
:"."Vi»t how
Brunswick
formation
Stockton formation
[ 2nd flow;
i Ut flow ..................K
Brunswick
formation
Lockatong formation^>-^
^***^ Stockton fm
Portland arkose
p, g Vampdtnaiabaiembi
7".'.9.'^.'!!?f..^HfF.. ..'.. Holyok* diabau mbr
Talcait diabast mbr
New Haven
arkose
Sugarloaf
formation
i;iw' Boscabel ai| boulder beds;
Figure 27.--Generalized stratinraphic correlation chart of the East Coast Triassic
(Modified from McKee and others, 1959)
TEST DRILLING AND BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICS
A deep test well was drilled to 1142 m in the early part of 1976 in
the Durham subbasin near New Hill, on the property of W. H. Sears (Sears
No. 1) by the Geological Survey. The test well was specifically
designed and drilled to:
1. Calibrate surface and airborne project geophysical data; seismic
reflection, gravity, aeromagnetic, and electrical sounding data.
2. Test the validity of structural and stratigraphic models developed
from surface reconnaissance studies.
3. Obtain core samples from deep lithologic units for measurements
of porosity and permeability.
4. Obtain samples of formation fluids to determine water chemistry.
5. Obtain continuous drilling samples to determine the vertical
distribution of the sedimentary sequence.
6. Determine aquifer characteristics of reservoir rock penetrated.
Drill cuttings were sampled at 1.5 m intervals from which the
lithologic log of plate 1 was prepared. Cores were taken at five different
intervals for physical property determinations. Results of physical property
tests are described below and are summarized in table 1. Borehole logs
obtained at completion of drilling (plate 1) include temperature, neutron
porosity, gamma ray, gamma-gamma density, sonic, dual-induction laterolog,
microlaterolog, microlog, caliper, and borehole televiewer. Two zones in
the test well were isolated with hydraulic packers to collect reservoir
fluids for chemical analysis and to determine aquifer characteristics.
General Lithology
The Triassic strata penetrated in the Sears No. 1 well can be
grouped into at least three rock stratigraphic units. They are from
bottom to top: (1) a basal argillite-greywacke-conglomerate facies at
least 122 m in thickness, (2) succeeded by a 670 m sequence of massive
mudstone, argillite, and quartz conglomerate, and (3) overlain at the top
by 640 m of arkosic sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. This interval
becomes predominatly more sandy toward the surface by a decrease in mudstone
and an increase in thickness and frequency of arkosic sandstones in the
bottom 340 m. These units do not necessarily conform to the traditional
boundaries of the Pekin, Cumnock, and Sanford Formations of the Sanford
subbasin.
The rocks penetrated have inherent low porosity and permeability,
above average density, high acoustic velocity, high resistivity, low
gravity in contrast to the Piedmont crystallines, and drill slowly because
they are indurated and poorly sorted.
62
Table 1 - Physical Properties of Core Samples from the Sears No. 1 Well
Sample
depth
(meters
154
j j , i
Bulk Water | Gas
[density content! porosity
Lithology (g/cm 3 ' (percent) (percent
I
{ i i r~
Sandstone^ 5
154 1 -do- j 2.3
157
157
329
329
330
330
330
744
745
961
1138
1142
-do- 1 8.9
-do-
Grey arg.
-do-
Siltstone
-do-
-do-
Red Ss.
Cong.
-do-
Arg.gryw.
i Permeability Velocity Resistivity Formation Unconfined Porosity (per-
i Liquid Air (km/s) R0 Factor Strength cent) from
(Millidarcys) Longi- Shear (ohm-meters) p = R 0 (kPa x 10*0 neutron
tudinal f Rw f log at indi-
i ; cated depth
.00000046 .llj i 1/58 IL 2.74
j i/3.73 !
2.2 ll| ; 1/422 1/24.1 ;
1 12.0 = i 1/3.82
1.3 ! ? 1/3.28
i
1
ii
2.65 0.6
2.60 1.1
2.65 0.5
2.66 0.1
2.73 0.1
Sample
failed J .01
4.7 .0000049
i
2.2
2.8 i
0.9
6.2
2.8
2.5
0.9
.000002
.000017
.000005
.000007
.000004
.02
£/.4.26
4.50
4.71
5.14
5.14
.0001 4.55
i i; 1 i;
2.37
2.60
3.04
3.02
2.36
i
1L 80
72
130
1060
736
195
>11
i i
1/3.64
j
1/6.5 8.8
12 11.4
1/.96 13.9
3/67 1 11.1
1/18 1 12.2
13-14 at 156.6
15-18 at 153.4
13-14 at 158.7
1.6-9 at 326.5
4-15 at 329.0
7-18 at 329.3
1-24 at 331.7
0-16 from 742.7-
745.1 _j
^
I/ Calculated from R 0 = Ff X Rw,
2/ Measured at 15169 kPa.
3/ At overburden pressure.
4/ At 13790 kPa.
Spontaneous Potential Log
The SP or spontaneous potential log measures the natural electric
current potential between the borehole fluid and the surrounding rock.
Generally, the conductivity of the borehole fluid is less than that of the
surrounding rock causing apparent negative SP deflections to the left
opposite clean sand and to the right opposite shale. The SP log of the
Sears No. 1 well shows a number of zones above 640 m where negative
anomalies up to 40 millivolts mark the occurrence of more permeable
sandstones.
Between depth of 6,40 and 990 m, the SP log shows little contrast
between the rock and borehole fluid and indicates shaliness. The lithologic
log shows this zone to consist of mudstone, massive argillite, and minor
occurrences of conglomerate. Thus, the subdued character of the SP in
this interval is caused by the shale content of the rock. A similar but
much thinner facies occurs between 308 and 338 m. The negative SP
anomalies below 990 m occur opposite conglomerate on the lithic log.
The SP contrast between borehole and formation fluids is used
elsewhere in this paper to predict dissolved-solids content of the formation
waters. The general subdued character of the SP curve indicates formation
fluids are not much more saline than the fluid in the borehole. Dissolved-
solids content in the drilling mud was less than 300 mg/L throughout the
drilling. From all indications, the New Hill well did not penetrate rock
containing brine.
Resistivity Logs
The resistivity of a rock depends on the resistivity of the rock-
mineral matrix and its contained fluid. Rocks that are composed primarily
of quartz and feldspar, which are poor conductors, contain water that is
usually a better conductor. Thus, the resistivity of a sandstone generally
depends only on the geometry of its pore space and the resistivity (or
salinity) of its contained fluid. As permeability and porosity decrease,
resistivity increases with no change in formation fluid.
Five separate resistivity logs were run in the Sears No. 1 well;
they are: a microlog, microlaterolog, laterolog, and a medium and deep
induction log. Resistivity on these logs is expressed in ohm-meter2/meter.
The log response to the difference in resistivity of different
lithologies is useful in determining the vertical distribution and
thickness of rock types. Conventionally, some type of resistivity curve
(plate 1) is recorded with the SP log. The SP-resistivity log combination
is useful in ground-water investigations to identify the more permeable,
water-yielding zones. Normally, in an area of saline ground water such a
zone has a sizeable negative deflection on the SP curve and a right
deflection (more resistive) on the resistivity curve. Examples of such
opposing deflections occur at 192, 229, and 250 m in the Sears No. 1 well
(plate 1).
In permeable zones, drilling mud invades the formations and displaces
the native fluid because of the higher hydrostatic head maintained on the
drilling mud. Thus, the depth of mud invasion is a qualitative measure of
permeability. The five types of logs have different depths of investigation,
The dual induction-!aterolog combination is specifically designed to
determine the depth of mud invasion. In table 2 the known effect of mud
invasion on the true resistivity (Rt) of the formation is compensated for
through the application of the ratios of Rild (deep-induction tool), Rilm
(medium-induction tool), and R118 (laterolog 8) to each other.
In the first four zones (154 m to 248 m) the radius of the invaded
zone is so large that a meaningful measure of Rt from the Rild curve is
not possible (that is, invasion is deeper than the depth of investigation
of the tool). Below 248 m a reasonable accurate formation resistance can
be calculated from the Rild log response or read directly from it. Above
a depth of 396 m invasion is evident (see R118, Rilm, Rild) in the more
permeable sandstones and is negligible from 396 m to 1,006 m. Below
1,006 m evidence of shallow invasion by the drilling mud indicates some
permeability to 1,130 m.
The resistivity logs reveal a cyclic or alternating sequence of
sandstones and massive shales. The average resistivity of "shale" on the
deep induction curve is about 40 to 50 m2/m throughout the well. The
sandstones and conglomerates, however, are typically 5 to 10 times more
resistive. One sandstone or conglomerate is as thick as 10 m near a depth
of 793 m, but the vast majority of the sandy zones are 0.67 to 3 m in
thickness. If the lithologies of the well are arbitrarily divided into
sandstone and shale, the ratio of sandstone to shale is approximately 2:3.
The sample log and the gamma-ray logs also exhibit a cyclic pattern.
This pattern is most pronounced on the microlaterolog particularly between
732 and 793 m and between 915 and 960 m where it has an inverted stairstep
character. Cycle frequency is about 5.5 m, and resistivity amplitude is
about one order of magnitude. The cycles start at the bottom of the well
with a highly resistive conglomerate which fines progressively upward into
massive red argillite or mudstone. The fining-upwards cycles are also
apparent higher in the hole such as at 518 m and 427 m.
Cycles having a frequency of 3 m to 6 m can also be identified in the
upper more sandy portion of the hole. Here, however, the change from
coarse to fine is much more abrupt, and the geologic material is obviously
better sorted.
The conglomerate-massive argillite is probably a consequence of the
normal settling out of sedimentary debris from periodic influxes of coarse
sediment into standing water as might be caused by fault movement or storms.
The abrupt change from coarse to fine in the upper part of the hole results
from braided-stream, cut-and-fill, erosion and deposition through overbank
or distal-fan deposits.
65
Table 2 - Selected log data from the Sears No. 1 well
Dual
Induction-LL 8
Dej)th
Center of Zone
(meters)
353
350
339
273
262
259
258
250
248
242
233
229
220
192
1119
1111
1103
1102
1098
1096
Rt or
Rild
(ft m)
95
75
65
25
53
40
45
45
28
55
Sonic
Velocity
At
(km/s)
4.12
4.18
4.42
Density
P
(g/cm3 )
2.45
2.65
2.5
3.81 2.4
4.23
3.91
3.81
3.67
3.46
2.5
2.45
2.50
2.46
2.42
4.12 2.55
50 3.86 | 2.45
120 1 3.72
200
220
150
85
160
150
95
63
1089 48
1085 | 65
1080 i 160
1077
1062
45
70
3.91
3.72
4.92
5.00
2.45
2.46
2.48
2.65
2.65
5.00 i 2.75
5.12
4.69
4.62
4.18
4.18
4.88
2.72
2.73
2.70
--
_-
2.67
3.86 2.74
Porosity
(percent)
12
2
8
15.5
11
13
11
13
16
8
13
13.4
13
10.2
1.8
1.5
-3
-2
-3
-1
0
-4
4.55 i 2.70 j 0
66
Table 2 - Selected log data from the Sears No. 1 well
Continued
Dual
Induction-LL 8 Rt or
Depth | Rild
Center of Zone
(meters) (ft m)
1056 375
in/ic oon
Some
Velocity
At
(km/s) i '- t
5.40
C C4
Density
p
(g/cm 3 )
2.68
O CO
Porosity
<j>
(percent)
0n
1044
1041
1026
155
279
282
289
307
378
399
414
440
477
479
508
527
570
583
6TO
633
999
1020
1082
1105
400
250
110
140
39
47
64
75
38
64
65
90
47
55
190
120
100
140
170
130
100
150
160
200
49
35
5.12
79
57
93
4.18
4.23
4.12
.26
.48
.45
.76
.84
.88
.84
.84
,00
.92
,17
,21
,54
2.71
2.67
2.72
2.45
2.42
2.5
2.46
2.47
,48
.46
,56
.50
,45
.57
,58
,60
2.57
,57
,70
,55
,67
,68
,69
5.00 2.72
-2
-.1
-3
14
16
11
13
11
10.1
13.6
8.3
10
13
7
5
3
6
7
-1
8
0.6
0-1.5
-3
67
Density-Porosity Log
The gamma-gamma density tool measures the apparent density of the
borehole environment by recording the loss of gamma radiation caused by
collision with electrons of the rock matrix and contained fluids. The
attenuation of gamma radiation from the tool source depends on the electron
density of the formation. Bulk density in grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc)
depends, then, on porosity and the electron density of the rock matrix and
fluid. In practice a shielded gamma ray source is pressed against and
moved along the borehole wall. The attenuated radiation is received at
two points at different distances from the source in order to adjust for
the effect of mud thickness and irregular hole diameter. The density-porosity
curve of plate 1 has been adjusted electronically for mud thickness and
hole diameter changes except where there are extreme washouts.
The density log confirms the dense, generally low porosity character
of the Triassic sedimentary rocks. Recorded densities range from an
average 2.55 at 152 m to nearly 2.70 g/cc below 610 m. Above 610 m the
densest beds are the massive argillaceous rocks. Below this depth the
sandstones and siltstones appear to be as dense if not denser than the
argillaceous rocks.
Bulk densities and corresponding porosities have been selected from
the density log at points where the borehole is relatively free of
washouts. These values are presented in table 3 for direct comparison
with porosities from the neutron and sonic logs.
The density log indicates that there is very little primary porosity
between 655 and 905 m. Sandstones and conglomerate at 833, 911, 1,020,
954, 1,110, and 1,131 m have apparent density porosities up to 4 percent.
Reference to the SP log at these points indicate that formation fluids are
present.
Neutron Porosity Log
The neutron logging tool responds to the amount of hydrogen in the
borehole environment which includes hydrogen bound up in water and in the
rock matrix. In clean (nonshaly) formations, the neutron log is a measure
of liquid filled porosity. For shaly formations and minerals such as
gypsum (CASO/+*2H20) the indicated porosity is erroneous because this tool
also measures the hydrogen associated with bound water and water of
crystallization.
In principle, high energy, electrically neutral particles are emitted
from a radioactive source which collide with the nuclei of the surrounding
environment. Greatest loss of energy occurs when the neutrons collide
with particles of their own mass such as hydrogen. The neutron tool is
generally designed to count either thermal neutrons or the gamma radiation
resulting from neutron capture by hydrogen (Schlumberger, 1972b).
68
Table 3 - Log Crossplot Data - Sears No. 1 Well
= At log - Atma
Atf - Atma
ell 1
depth
(m)
3.6
53.3
58.6
60.0
63.2
66.4
70.7
72.2
81.2
84.4
87.4
91.1
97.5
100.5
!06.0
og
LLS
1800
?
125
80
120
55
40
48
40
75
65
950
40
30
70
ILD
45
?
70
40
50
60
40
30
20
55
95
210
40
30
30
HD
_.
< * «
..
..
< *

< *
< *

< * M
< *

< *
*.__
YAP I
120
100
80
175
100-
120
110
120
100
222
120
260
80
105
225
140
<j>D
14
18
14
5
9
-1.5
3
16
18?
15
8.5
11
17
0
, 10
Pb
2.45
2.43
2.45
2.60
2.55
2.7
2.64
2.42
2.37
2.43
2.54
2.47
2.40
2.69?
2.50
At
81
84
81
69
76
71
72
85
103
81
93
98
85
79
LOO+
<J)N
14
16
13
14
13
8
12
17
31
14
13
12
15
10
15
189-Aty.ni
pb-1.0
0.74
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.63
0.76
0.62
0.62
0.74
0.65
<.59
1.0-d>N
pb-1.0
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.54
0.56
0.54
0.54
0.58
0.50
0.60
0.56
0.60
0.61
0.53
0.57
Atlog
81
84
81
69
76
71
72
85
103
81
93
98
85
79
100+
Ma=4.7
km/s
12.9
15.3
12.9
03.2
08.9
04.8
05.6
16.1
30.6
12.9
22.6
26.6
16.1
11.3
28.2
Ma=5.3
km/s
18.2
20.5
18.2
09.1
14.4
10.6
11.4
21.2
34.8
18.2
27.3
31.0
21.2
16.7
32.6
Ma=6.0
km/s
21.7
23.9
21.7
08.7
18.1
14.5
15.2
24.6
37.7
21.7
30.4
34.0
24.6
20.2
35.5.
Remarks
Positive
Limy?
Fractured?
Anhydrite?
Fractured.
Anhydrite?
! - Resistance in ohm-meters
LLS - Later!og 8
ILD - Deep induction
ID - Hole diameter, in inches
rAPI - Gamma radiation, in API units )D - Density log porosity, in percent
At - Sonic velocity, in microsecond/ft
pb - Bulk density, in gm/cm3
<}>M - Neutron log porosity, in percent
Ma - Matrix, in percent
M, N - Symbols for values used in mineral cross plots (fig. 32)
Table 3 - Log Crossplot Data -
Continued
Sears No. 1 Well
<j> = 4tlog -
Atf - Atma
Well 1
depth
(m)
208.5
215.2
220.0
221.6
224.0
228.6
239.6
249.0
271.3
275.7
289.2
296.6
279.2
306.9
326.4
328.9
329.2
og
LLS
240
80
700
60
60
1200
280
350
35
30
900
22
24
80
45
40
50
ILD
80
90
700
60
60
120
60
45
30
45
70
50
40
800
60
40
40
HD

..
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.5
..
*»
9.8
7.4
9-
13
8.8
7.6
8.3
8.5
8.3
YAP I
80
140
80
180
220
85
110
80
215
180
54
190
80
73
110
140
120
<|>D
11
4
13
4
2
13.5
11
14
4
18.5
12
10
17
10
8
4
r 10
Pb
2.49
2.60
2.46
2.60
2.64
2.46
2.50
2.47
2.60
2.23
2.48
2.50
2.39
2.50
2.55
2.62
2.51
At
80
64
80
78
70
82
75
86
82
87
73
101
83
102
67
76
74
4>N
10
5
9.5
12.5
9.5
11
09
12
18
31
12.5
32
16
12.6
9
15
18 ,
189-Aty.ni
pb-1.0
0.73
0.78
0.75
0.69
0.73
0.73
0.76
0.70
0.67
0.83
0.78
0.59
0.76
0.58
0.79
0.70
0.76
1.0-ON
pb-1.0
0.60
0.59
0.62
0.55
0.55
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.51
0.56
0.59
0.45
0.60
0.58
0.59
0.52
1 0.54
At log
80
64
80
75/
78
70
82
75
86
82
87
73
101
83
102
67
76
74
Ma=4.7
km/s
12.1
-00.8
12.1
08. 1/
10.5
04.0
13.7
08.1
16.9
13.7
17.7
06.5
29.0
14.5
29.8
01.6
08.9
07.3
Ma=5.3
km/s
17.4
05.3
17.4
13. 6/
15.9
09.8
18.9
13.6
22.0
18.9
22.7
12.1
33.3
19.7
34.0
07.6
14.4
12.9
Ma=6.0
km/s
21.0
09.4
21.0
17. 4/
19.6
13.8
22.5
17.4
25.4
22.5
26.1
15.9
36.2
23.2
37.0
11.6
18.1
16.7
Remarks
Limy?
Shale
Low SP, High Y
Sandstone
Do.
High Sp, Clean
Sandstone
High Y
Gypsum?
Lowest Y
Sandstone
Thin fracture,
Low SP
Sandstone,
Low SP
Sandstone,
Anhydrite?
Shale
Shale
Table 3 - Log Crossplot Data - Sears No
Continued
1 Well
M
<t> = At log - Atma
Atf - AtmaWell i
deptt
(m)
331.6
334.0
335.9
338.9
342.0
344.4
352.0
357.8
360.0
377.6
394.1
398.0
417.9
419.4
440.4
449.2
465.1
og
i
LLS
50
40
60
65
100
100
800
45
90
130
180
500
80
80
90
50
80
ILD
50
40
60
190
60
80
85
45
60
40
70
80
80
60
70
60
80
HD
9.4
8.7
8.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
8.8
7.9
8.0
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.6
8.6
8.0
yAPI
150
95
110
110
80
115
50
165
95
65
65
150
250
325
55
60
i 80
<|>D
0114-
16
-2
09
08
06
14
02
12
11
09
13
03
03
10
14
05
pb
2.52
2.35
2.70
2.52
2.55
2.57
2.44
2.64
2.48
2.48
2.52
2.46
2.72
2.72
2.50
2.45
2.60
At
75
76
68
69
73
66
75
76
70
73
69
72
64
65
69
75
64
<|>N
24
09
11
12
7.5
05
13
15
12
11
6.5
12
06
07
09
14
07
189-At x .m
pb-1.0
0.75
0.84
0.71
0.79
0.75
0.78
0.79
0.69
0.80
0.78
0.79
0.80
0.73
0.72
0.80
0.79
0.78
1.0-4.N
pb-1.0
0.50
0.67
0.52
0.58
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.52
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.60
0.55
0.54
0.61
0.59
0.58
At log
75
76
68
69
73
66
75
76
70
73
69
72
64
65
69
75
64
Ma=4.7
km/s
08.1
08.9
02.4
03.2
06.5
00.8
08.1
08.9
04.0
06.5
03.2
05.6
-00.8
0
03.2
08.1
-00.8
Ma=5.3
km/s
13.6
14.4
08.3
09.0
12.1
06.8
13.6
14.4
09.8
06.0
09.0
11.4
05.3
06.0
09.0
13.6
i 05.3
Ma=6.0
km/s
17.4
18.1
12.3
12.0
15.9
10.9
17.4
18.1
13.8
15.9
12.0
15.2
09.4
10.1
13.0
17.4
09.4
Remarks
Shale
Sandstone
Shale
Sandstone
Si It stone
Sandstone,
High SP
Shale
Thin sandstone
Cycle skip just
beneath.
Radioactive
Sandstone
Low SP,
Sandstone
r
Table 3 - Log Crossplot Data -
Continued
Sears No. 1 Well
= Atlog - Atma
R
Well log
depth
(m) LLS ILD
488.9
495.9
498.9
500.8
508.4
526.1
534.6
549.8
550.4
569.3
570.9
576.3
581.5
585.2
596.8
609.6
619.3
60
50
80
80
120
70
70
50
300
90
100
70
60
120
200
300
50
50
60
90
60
120
100
90
50
60
90
100
80
70
125
140
170
55
HD
7.5
7.8
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.5
12
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.1
7
7.3
7.0
7.7
[yAPI
70
150
230
76
90
220
90
60
140
215
250
225
90
220
80
70
140
11
02
09
090-
02
0
10
12
22
02
16?
01
09
09
08
-2
0-
01
Pb
2.49
2.64
2.53
2.52
2.6-
2.7
2.68
2.54
2.49
1.85
2.63
2.42?
2.65
2.52
2.54
2.55
2.70
2.68
At
67
67
67
63
59
64
65
64
82
67
72
64
66
62
61
57
73
10.5
13
07
07
04
08
06
11
45
11
15
07
06
05
09
03
10
M N
189-Aty 01 1.0-d>N
pb-1.0
0.82
0.74
0.80
0.83
0.76-
0.81
0.74
0.80
0.84
1.27
0.75
0.82
0.76
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.78
0.69
pb-1.0
0.60
0.53
0.61
0.61
0.56-
0.60
0.55
0.61
0.60
0.67
0.55
0.60
0.56
0.62
0.62
0.59
0.57
0.54
Atlog
67
67
67
63
59
64
65
64
82
67
72
64
66
62
61
57
73
Ma=4.7
km/s
01.6
01.6
01.6
-01.6
-04.8
-00.8
0
-00.8
13.7
01.6
05.6
-00.8
00.8
-02.4
-03.2
-06.5
06.5
At f -
Ma=5.3
km/s
07.6
07.6
07.6
04.5
01.5
05.3
06.0
05.3
18.9
07.6
11.4
05.3
06.8
03.8
03.0
0
12.1
Atma
Ma=6.0
km/s
11.6
11.6
11.6
08.7
05.9
09.4
10.1
09.4
22.5
11.6
15.2
09.4
10.9
08.0
07.2
04.3
15. 9,
Remarks
Sandstone
Shale
Sandstone?
Sandstone
Limy sandstone
High Y
Sandstone
Sandstone
Fractured
High Y
High Y
High Y
Siltstone
Sandstone
Siltstone
Shale
Table 3 - Log Crossplot Data - Sears No. 1 Well
Continued
<t> = At log - Atma
- Atma
Well 1
depth
M|
624.5
639.4
638.2
641.9
654.7
670.5
694.9
696.7
715.6
742.5
743.1
743.7
744.3
744.9
788.9
828.4
853.4
og
i
LLS
70
50
200
100
70
120
70
180
80
50
35
50
70
100
150
110
70
ILD
80
60
130
105
90
120
65
90
65
50
45
50
70
100
120
110
, 80
HD
7.1
7.2
7.2
»
..
6.8
7.7
7.1
8.0
8.0
8.4
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
,7.2
YAP I
75
13080-
100
70
100
70
100
65
90
95
100
85
85
60
60
60
90
4>D
08
0
0
07
-1
0-
01
0-
01
02
04
06
0
0
0
03
01
01
-1
Pb
2.54
2.67
2.70
2.58
2.70
2.67
2.68
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.65
2.68
2.68
2.62
2.66
2.66
2.70
At
65
70
59
61
62
59
68
59
63
72
71
65
62
64
60
59
64
<j>N
07
12
3.5
05
06
5.5
14
05
09
16
15
12
08
08
05
06
9.5
189-Ati.m
pb-1.0
0.80
0.71
0.76
0.81
0.75
0.78
0.72
0.79
0.79
0.75
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.77
0.78
0.78
0.74
1.0-<j>N
pb-1.0
0.60
0.53
0.57
0.60
0.55
0.57
0.51
0.58
0.57
0.54
0.52
0.52
0.55
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.53
Atlog
65
70
59
61
62
59
68
59
63
72
71
65
62
64
60
59
64
Ma=4.7
km/s
0
04.0
-04.8
-03.2
-02.4
-04.8
02.4
-04.8
-01.6
05.6
04.8
0
-02.4
-00.8
-04.0
-04.8
-00.8
Ma=5.3
km/s
06.0
09.8
01.5
03.0
03.8
01.5
08.3
01.5
04.5
11.4
10.6
06.0
03.8
05.3
02.2
01.5
05.3
Ma=6.0
km/s
10.1
13.8
05.8
07.2
08.0
05.8
12.3
05.8
08.7
15.2
14.5
10.1
08.0
09.4
06.5
05.8
09.4
Remarks
Sandstone
Shale
Very low SP,
Sandstone
Siltstone?
Conglomerate
Shale
Conglomerate
Calcareous
shale
Shale
Shale
Shale?
Conglomerate
Conglomerate
j
Table 3 - Log Crossplot Data - Sears No. 1 Well
Continued
M
= At log - Atma
Atf - Atma
Well 1
depth
(m)
882.7
894.2
907.0
917.1
925.3
936.9
946.1
976.8
1019.2
1039.3
1061.3
1055.2
1079.2
1109.1
1115.5
1125.3
1130.8
og
LLS!
160
100
50
190
50
500
40
600
1200
90
1200
?
?
?
?
?
ILD I
70
?
80
50
110
60
210
30
150
240
70
40
120
160
105
100
200
HD
6.6
7
6.8
7
6.8
._

..

6.6
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
YAP I
70
60
95'
60
100
60
105
70
70
125
70
80
70
135
175
?
<f>D
03
04
0
05
-1
01
<50
0
0
-4
-1
03
03
-3
-3
4.5
Pb
2.52
2.61
2.70
2.60
2.69
2.66
1.65
2.68
2.68
2.74
2.69
2.63
2.63
2.72
2.72
2.60
At
59
59
65
57
66
57
76
59
56
67
55
63
61
66
7262-
63
<|>N
06
09
9.5
04
10
04
42
07
06
14
05
7.5
07
12
16
5.5
189-At x .oi,
pb-1.0
0.86
0.81
0.73
0.82
0.73
0.80
1.74
0.77
0.79
0.70
0.79
0.77
0.78
0.72
0.68
0.79
1.0-<|>N
pb-1.0
0.62
0.57
0.53
0.60
0.53
0.58
0.89
0.55
0.56
0.49
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.51
0.49
0.59
Atlog
59
59
65
57
66
57
76
59
56
67
55
63
61
66
7262-
, 63
Ma=4.7
km/s
-04.8
-04.8
0
-06.5
00.8
-0.65
08.9
-04.8
-0.73
01.6
-08.1
-01.6
-03.2
-00.8
05.6
-02. 4/
i -01.6
Ma=5.3
km/s
01.5
01.5
06.0
0
06.8
0
14.3
01.5
-00.8
07.6
-01.5
04.5
03.0
06.8
11.4
03.8/
04.5
Ma=6.0
km/s
05.8
05.8
10.1
04.3
10.9
04.3
18.1
05.8
03.6
11.6
02.9
08.7
07.2
10.9
15.2
07. 8/
08.7
Remarks
Conglomerate
i
Shale?
j Cycle skip
In practice the SNP (sidewall neutron porosity) tool consists of a
neutron source and a shielded neutron detector that is pressed against
and moved along the borehole wall.
The neutron porosity log presented in plate 1 is scaled linearly in
percent porosity. The tool and the automatic porosity compensation system
is designed to calculate a porosity from the tool signal that would result
if the borehole environment were water filled limestone. The recorded
porosity must be corrected for other lithologies, fluids, and gases.
Unconnected apparent limestone porosities are presented in Table 3.
Care was taken to select porosity values from the neutron log opposite
points in the borehole when the caliper log indicated the hole was reasonably
smooth. Much of the shift toward higher apparent porosities in zones such
as at 305 to 335, 445 to 949, 662 to 726, and 796 to 826 m is due to
formation shaliness. Extreme high porosity spikes caused by poor logging
tool contact with the borehole wall occur opposite fractures and washouts.
However, high porosity spikes at 181, 201, and 274 m occurring opposite
high gamma-ray anomalies probably indicate the location of radioactive,
evaporite-rich beds. There is a slight but overall decrease in minimum
porosity with depth. The lowest porosity value, however, occurs at 610 m
opposite a dense, 1.8-m thick bed which appears to be cherty and quartzose
from the cuttings. Minimum neutron porosities average 4 percent in
sandstones thought to be non-porous. This apparent discrepancy is probably
caused by the increased shale content of the sandstones.
Sonic Log
The speed of sound in rock is determined principally by the lithology
and porosity of the rock. Indurated sandstones, limestones, and dolomite
have high compressional velocities. Salt, gas, and water have relatively
low velocities. The sonic log on plate lisa recording of the travel
time of a compressional wave through the rock parallel- to the well bore.
The log is recorded in microseconds per foot which is the reciprocal of
the compressional wave velocity and called the interval transit time.
75
Since sonic log response is dependent on porosity and independent of
fluid content for lower porosities, it is an excellent porosity log.
Shaliness tends to increase interval transit time (At) because the
characteristic velocity of shale matrix is slower than that of sandstone.
Thus, porosities calculated for shaly sandstones assuming a clean sandstone
matrix velocity are too high.
Wyllie and others (1956) and Wyllie (1958) have developed a formula
that relates porosity to interval transit time in clean sandstone.
4> sandstone = At - Atma
At f - At ma
where:
At = the interval transit time from the sonic log in
microseconds/foot.
Atma = the inherent interval transit time of the rock matrix.
Atf = the interval transit time of water.
Porosities were calculated from the sonic log by the Wyllie formula
for selected intervals of the Sears No. 1 well and are presented in table
3. The accuracy of these calculated porosities is dependent on the accuracy
of estimated matrix velocity. An error of 1.0 microsecond/foot changes
the computer porosity about 0.5 percent.
Crossplots of sonic velocity-bulk density, sonic velocity-neutron
porosity, bulk density, and apparent limestone porosity (figs. 28, 29, 30)
have been made to gain insight into the applicable matrix velocities of
the Sears No. 1 well lithologies. It is readily apparent from these figures
that a major portion of these points plot in the limestone-sandstone range
having matrix velocities between 5,500 and 6,400 m/s (vtma = 55.6 to 47.6 s/ft)
It is equally obvious that many if not most of the points on the density-sonic
crossplot plot in the dolomite range. Many of these points are identified
as mudstones and argillites, and their displacement into the dolomite
region of the chart is not the result of their having a dolomite matrix,
but rather a result of their high density and low matrix velocity (higher Vt ma )
The measured high densities also indicate that the shales penetrated in
the New Hill well are not overpressured.
76
2.2
2.3
2.4
UJ
UJ
I 2.5
Z
UJo
o
m M C 2.6
O
<r
UJa.
co 27-s.
<r
0
z
£
COZUJo
2.9
3 /» .C
/
/
GYPSUM
y' i/
/ /X^ /
/n,/
/ ^s*f fvy
POUY HALITE
LANGBEINITE
'ANHYDRITE
V
/&vv* /
'^"/ /
/ /
(\T
/
/ A
/ 3 >/ A*
\ !
_-^ »_
A A
/
nPy' ,/
/ /
/ /
/'/
&*/
7 *
A
f
Q V°
> a
i
A
x<f
/\
//(/
fa/ ^¥7/// -
9
.
' //
Y*A?7
YcSy7
A
A
EXPLANATION
o Multiple data points
Single data point
Q Shaly
a Gamma count > 200 (American
Petroleum Institute)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1!
SONIC VELOCITY, IN MICROSECONDS PER FOOT
Figure 28. Bulk density versus sonic velocity f or Triassic rocks in the Sears No. 1 Well.
77
CO
EXPLANATION
Multiple data points
Single data point
Shaly
A Gamma count > 200 API
10 20 30
NEUTRON POROSITXcKIN PERCENT
Figure 29. Neutron porosity versus sonic velocity for Triassic rocks in the Sears No. 1 Well.
§
u
5
LU 0.
CO
O
z
CO
1
40
15
Figure 30.
0 10 20 30
SNP NEUTRON INDEX (APPARENT LIMESTONE POROSITY, IN PERCENT}
Bulk density versus apparent limestone porosity for rocks in the Sears
No. 1 Well.
79
Figure 31 is a sonic-density crossplot of sandstones from the New Hill
well. Figure 31 and figure 32 both reveal that all of the lithologic
points plot above a vt of 56.5 microseconds/ft, and below a density of
2.73 gm/cm3 .
The sonic logging tool has two transmitters that are pulsed
alternately. The received signals are integrated to give the recorded
interval transit time and integrated travel time. The travel time between
any two depths in the hole may be computed by totaling each millisecond
pulse between the desired depths.
The first signal arriving at the sonic receiver is generally the
compressional wave that has traveled through the rock adjacent to the
borehole. However, if that signal is attenuated by gas, salt, or fractures
in the formations, the receiver will record some later arrival. The result
is a large displacement of the log curve to the left toward lower velocities
(higher At) called "cycle skipping." Examples of this problem in the
Sears No. 1 well occur at approximately 1,003, 887, 729, and 393 m. Cycle
skipping can be caused also by badly washed out hole conditions. Although
the occurrence of small amounts of gas cannot be ruled out in the Sears
No. 1 well, the caliper log indicates that these cycle skips occur opposite
greatly enlarged parts of the well bore.
The sonic log also has several sharp spikes or deflections to the
right below 848 m. Although these could represent thin-bedded anhydrite
zones, the recorded transit time is faster than is normal for anhydrite;
therefore, these high velocity spikes are assumed to be noise spikes caused
by cable and tool noise triggering the sonic receiver in a low signal area
of the borehole.
80
3.0
3.5
U
ft
a. toae.
4.0
8
4.5
\.
A \
O \
A \
O \
O
O
0
O
A
0
20
\
\
,
0
O
A
O
15
Assumed:
Arf =1.61km/s-
/\ 35.49km/s ma
Compaction factor aO
\
\
\
\
^
C
10
EXPLANATION
A Core data
O Log data
\
\
5 0
1 i i i i ! i i i i F i ! i i 1 i i i i l\
\
5.0
5.52.4 2.5 2.6 27
DENSITY, IN GRAMS PER CUBIC CENTIMETER
2.8 2.9
Figure 31. Density versus sonic velocity of cores and selected
clean sandstones.
81
1.3
1.2
I.I
1.0
.9
.7
M-N x-plot___ 152 to 640m
^Secondary
Porosity
Shale
N =
EXPLANATION
o Multiple data points
. Single data point
o Shaly
& Gamnxi count > 200 API
1.2
I.I
M
.7
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7N .8
M-N x-plot 640 to 1140m.
PSUM
OOLOMITt
Secondary
Porosity
Shale
\
-0N
EXPIANATION
0 Multiple dalo points
Single data point
O Shaly
& Gamma count > 200 API
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8N ~
Figure 32. Mineral crossplots derived from geophysical logs.
The sonic log, being matrix-velocity dependent, is a good lithology
tool and is commonly used for correlation purposes. The overall character
of the Sears No. 1 sonic log confirms the cyclic character of the sedimentary
rocks and the 793 to 1,134 m interval correlates quite well with the 1,174 m
to 1,524 m interval of the Groce No. 1 well.
The data from sonic, density, and neutron logs are sometimes
crossplotted to give additional information on mineral composition of the
rocks penetrated. Figure 32 is an M-N crossplot (Schlumberger, 1972) of
the above logs from the Sears No. 1 well
where:
Atf - AtM = -r-L x 0.01
pb - pt
..
pb - pf
and:
Atf = interval transit time of the fluid.
At = interval transit time of the logged interval.
pb = bulk density of the logged interval.
pf = density of the fluid.
(*n)f = 1.0
(<j>n) = percentage neutron porosity of the logged interval.
The plotted points are lithology dependent. Thus, binary mineral
mixtures under ideal conditions should plot along lines connecting any two
minerals and trinary mixtures should plot in the triangular areas
connecting their respective end points. In practice gas and salty mud
cause a shift of the data plot to the upper right, and shaliness causes a
shift to the lower center. Figure 33 indicates that the upper 640 m of
the Sears No. 1 hole is a relatively clean mixture of quartz, calcite, and
anhydrite but below that point there is a major displacement of the data
field downward toward the shale region. This interpretation corresponds
to the sample data (plate 1).
83
Gamma Ray Log
The gamma ray tool measures the natural emmission of gamma-ray
particles by the borehole environment resulting from the decay of
radioactive minerals. Measurement is generally made with a borehole
scintillation counter and recorded in American Petroleum Institute (API)
units as in plate 1. Gamma-ray radiation is random; therefore, a time
constant and logging speed is chosen to give a good average measurement.
The gamma-ray curve illustrates, as do the resistivity and sonic logs,
the alternating sandstone-shale, cyclic nature of the Triassic rocks at
Sears No. 1 well in the Durham subbasin. The "cleaner" sandstones occur
at 289, 351, 537, and 782 m and have radiation values of 50 to 55 API
units. Most of the units identified on the sample log as sandstones have
radiation levels between 60 to 80 API units. The SP curve opposite the
sandstone zones has a higher negative deflection indicating that they are
water filled and more permeable. The lack of a good SP deflection opposite
the 782 m zone indicates that if it contains water its chemistry is close
to that of the drilling mud and/or that this sandstone is nonpermeable.
The gamma-gamma density log indicates that it has a porosity no greater
than 2 percent.
The shaly sediments in the Sears No. 1 well consist predominately of
massive argillite and mudstone. There is little evidence of thin
laminated fissile shale in the cuttings. The grey massive argillaceous
unit between 308 m and 338 m is a good example of the "shale" radiation
level of the upper part of the Sears No. 1 well. The red mudstone and
argillite facies below 640 m, however, has a lower radiation level of
around 100 API units.
The upper 610 m of this log have a number of thin gamma-ray anomaly
peaks having intensities greater than 200 API units. The largest of these
occurs at 420 m. That part of the gamma-ray log run in the cased part of
the hole (0 to 151 m) apparently has 3 or 4 zones having gamma-ray
intensities greater than 200 API units. Adjustment of the larger anomalies
in the cased part for attenuation increases the 140 API measurements to
about 225 API units.
The gamma-ray log anomalies at 161, 188, 398, 499, 571, and 585 m appear
from sample logs and log crossplots to occur in sandstone. Some anomalies
definitely occur at the base of the sandstones. The sandstone at 161 m is
calcareous. Anomalies at 181, 271, 418, and 420 m are probably in shale.
The anomaly at 201 m is perhaps in siltstone. Some of the anomalies such
as at 181 and 188 m are opposite washed out parts of the hole.
Temperature and Borehole Televiewer Logs
A thermal gradient exists between the Earth's core and crust. The
temperature gradient near the surface is generally about l°C/55 m.
Departure from this average gradient is caused by differences in the
thermal conductivity of rocks, the degree of meteoric water circulation,
and the depth to magmatic activity.
Borehole-temperature logging is usually accomplished with a sonde
having a thermistor whose internal resistance changes in response to
temperature change (Keys and McCary, 1971). In addition to determining
gross thermal gradients the temperature log is used to detect entry and
flow of liquids and gases in the borehole, thermal conductivity of
individual beds, and the location of new cement grout behind casings.
The temperature logs of the Sears No. 1 well are presented in
plate 1 and figure 33. The Geological Survey and Schlumberger logs in
figure 33 are plotted beside the caliper and sample logs to facilitate
examination of the temperature anomalies. The Schlumberger and Geological
Survey temperature logs in plate 1 are not exactly at the same scale,
thus it is difficult to compare temperature differences. The temperature
gradient at the Sears No. 1 well was l°C/66 m, but at the Groce No. 1 well
near Sanford the gradient ranged from 1°C/16 m for the upper 366 m to
l°C/36 m from 366 to 1,616 m.
The Geological Survey log records a temperature of 20.7°C at a
point where the Schlumberger log records 21.7°C. The maximum temperature
recorded by the Geological Survey log is 30.7°C, and the thermal gradient
as recorded by the Geological Survey log is steeper. The difference is
thought to be caused by the circulation of colder drilling fluid with the
warmer borehole environment prior to the Geological Survey temperature
logging. Despite the differences in logging sondes, logging dates, and
elapsed times since circulation, both the Geological Survey and Schlumberger
logs, with few exceptions, show the same temperature anomalies at the same
depths.
Most of the temperature anomalies occurring above 500 m appear
caused by cooler water moving down the well bore and outward opposite more
permeable sandstones. Most of the anomalies below that point appear opposite
points identified on the caliper log as fractures. The small anomaly at
550 m appears caused by warmer water moving up the hole and discharging
into the fracture at that point. The low temperature gradient of this
well probably indicates deep circulation of ground water.
In addition, an acoustic televiewer logging tool was used to examine
the detailed physical character of the borehole opposite recorded
temperature and caliper anomalies. Figure 34 illustrates the apparent
fractures and washouts observed between the depths of 590 to 620 m and 650
to 660 m that are typical for parts of the borehole. Vertical drilling
tool marks and horizontal and dipping fractures or partings can be observed
on the televiewer log. Most caliper anomalies and televiewer borehole
enlargements occur opposite corresponding temperature anomalies (Keys and
others, 1979) in this borehole.
85
OALiPtH (menu). Ti i i »T! i H i i Jg. M
°C 21 22 23 24 25 26
°F 70 72 74 76 78
?00
600
900
hooo
1300
11500
1600
1700
0
00
250
300
350
400
450
500
Pi 1800 -
1900
2000
2100
2300
2400
2500
2700
2900
50
500
D50
'00
750
800
850
82 84 86 81
"27 28 29 555~
Figure 33. Correlation of
temperature logs with
caiiper and sample logs.
EXPLANATION
SAMPLE LOS
NO SAMPLE
FINE-GRAINED ARKOSIC
SANDSTONE
MEDIUM-GRAINED ARKO-
___ SIC SANDSTONE
.'-. .:1 COARSE-GRAINED ARKO- :y-'-\ SIC SANDSTONE
JJsiLTSTONE
^^ SHALE
[ '.V/j GREYWACKE
(; ;[ LIMESTONE NODULES
.CORE INTERVAL
Correlation with Groce No. 1 Well
The basal 350 m of the Sears No. 1 well is correlated with the
basal 396 m of the Pekin Formation in the Groce No. 1 well of the Sanford
area because of similar log response in plate 1 where the dual induction
laterologs of the two wells are displayed. There is some suggestion from
these logs that as much as 590 m of the basal part of the Sears No. 1 well
may correlate with the basal 640 m of the Groce No. 1 well. There is no
indication that a unit equivalent to the carbonaceous, coal and oil-shale
bearing Cumnock Formation or one equivalent to the Sanford Formation of
the Groce No. 1 well is present in the Sears No. 1.
The stratigraphic relationships between the two wells suggest
(see fig. 3) that the environments of deposition were similar in both the
Durham and Sanford areas during Pekin time and possible into early Cumnock
time. Thereafter a stable, swampy, reducing, low sediment-input environment
was created in the Sanford area at the same time that a higher energy
environment was creating channel sands and point bars in the finer alluvial
fan deposits of the New Hill area. In the Sanford area the paludal deposits
were succeeded by red, poorly sorted sands and mudstones. In the Mew Hill
area a different source area contributed increasingly greater amounts of
grey to buff granite wash to the sediment pile.
87
590
TELEVIEWER LOG
N S N
620
26.5 27.0
Q.at 660o
27.0 27.5 18 20 22 24
Temperature,
in K
Differential
Temperature
Caliper Log,
Hole diameter, in cm
Figure 34. Graph showing temperature, differential temperature,
caliper, and acoustic televiewer logs, Sears No. 1
well, Raleigh, N.C. (From Keys, and others, 1979)
88
HYDROLOGIC TESTING
The Triassic rocks of the Durham Triassic basin have inherent low
porosity and permeability as stated previously, because they are
continental type sediments which are not well sorted. Much of the initial
or primary porosity has been lost through diagenesis, lithification, and
compaction. Consequently ground-water yields are low generally below 2.6
L/s in the shallow domestic wells (Bain and Thomas, 1966).
The ability of a subsurface rock formation to accept waste depends
primarily on its porosity and permeability and the compatibility of the
native fluid with the injected wastes. A subsurface geological horizon
having large permeability and porosity values is therefore desirable.
Injection into formations having reduced porosity and permeability not
only reduces the amount and rate of injections, but raises the risk of
fracturing the reservoir rock because of the increased higher head normally
used to maintain reasonable injection rates. However, where waste toxicity
is high and volumes low, the "tight" formation may be worthy of
consideration.
Porosity
Laboratory porosity and permeability tests on representative core
samples from the Deep River coal study (Reinemund, 1955) in the Sanford
area and on core from the Sears No. 1 test well are presented in tables 1
and 4. Continuous porosity values for the Sears No. 1 well are available
from the neutron porosity and gamma-gamma density logs of plate 1. In
addition porosity values calculated for matrix velocities of 4.7, 5.3, and
6.0 km/s are presented in table 3.
The porosities determined from the geophysical logs show little
relation to laboratory porosity values on core from equivalent depth.
There is little consistency between the density, neutron, and acoustic
porosity values in table 3. The Sears No. 1 well was badly washed out and
the resulting hole diameter effects on the log porosity values are obvious.
The neutron-log response is particularly vulnerable to the shaly matrix of
the Triassic rocks.
Log values presented in table 3 were picked at depths where the hole
was reasonably smooth and not washed out. Explanations for the apparent
inconsistencies among the log porosities are given in the "Remarks" column
of table 3. In sandstone the gamma-gamma and neutron-porosity values
generally agree within 15 percent, and the corresponding acoustic porosity
is found in the higher matrix-velocity columns. If the lithology is shale,
the neutron value is erroneously high. The more nearly correct acoustic
porosity value and the value closer to the gamma-gamma value is found in
the lowest matrix-velocity column.
89
Table 4 - Physical Properties of Core from the Deep River Coal Field
Well
No.
DH-2V
BH-11
BH-10
BH-7
BH-9
Specimen
No.
1
2
3
4A
B2/
5
6
7
8
9
10
11A
B2/
12 3 /
Depth
(m)
290
324
434
443
409
53
68
75
19
32
352
145
Density
(S.G.)(g/cm3 )
2.64
Broken
2.62
2.65
V
2.65
2.66
2.68
2.71
2.71
2.66
2.68
Bulk(g/cm3 )
2.58
2.53
2.62
2.37
2.53
2.49
2.00
2.49
2.64
2.37
Porosity]
0
(pet.)
2.04
3.35
.88
10.7
4.82
7.11
26.4
8.00
.83
11.8
Permeability ym2
4.9 X 10-5
4.0 X 10-5
3.0 X 10-5
4.3 X 10-1*
V
4.3 X 10-1*
2.1 X 10-3
9.9 X 10-5
2.0 X 10-5
5.9 X 10-1*
Tensile
strength
(kPa)
12170
V
V 14286
17596
5192
4385
9970
4999
7502
12549
9998
5440
V Specimen unable to be extracted from core.
2 / Duplicate tested tensile strength only.
3 / Oil saturation 3.25 percent.
V Refer to Reinemund, 1955 for sample locations.
90
The lower laboratory porosity values and lack of consistency between
laboratory-measured and well logging values are not understood. Factors
which could cause such differences include:
1. The nonrepresentati veness of the small laboratory test plug to the
volume of rock being sampled by the logging tool.
2. Crystal structure changes in the rock core between the time the
rock was cored and tested in the laboratory.
3. Incorrect calibration of the logging tools for grain density, and
matrix velocity.
Whatever the explanation, laboratory determined gas porosities range from
0.83 to 12 percent in tables 1 and 4 below 152 m. The average is about
3.5 percent.
Transmissivity
Two zones in the Sears No. 1 well were isolated with inflatable
packers for hydrologic tests and water sampling. A slug test, swabbing or
bailer test, and a pressure-injection test were tried on the upper zone
between 247 and 264 m.
In the slug test the drill stem above the packer was filled to the
surface with water, the packer was then opened to the isolated formation,
and the subsequent decay in head was observed with time. The test data
and a plot of the ratio of residual head to initial head with time is
shown on figure 35. The transmissivity of the 247 to 264 m zone is calculated
to be 1.19 x 10-3 m2 /d (Cooper and others, 1967).
This zone was then swabbed for water samples. At the same time the
change in head over several swabbing intervals was used to conduct a
"Skibitske" bailer test (see Ferris and others, 1962). The results of one
such test was illustrated by figure 36. The transmissivity calculated
___ from T = "TOTS1!
where V = volume of water.
S' = change in head between swabbing intervals.
t = time between swabbings intervals.
gives a transmissivity of 4.4 x 10~3 m2/d of the same order of magnitude
as that from the slug test.
A single packer was used to isolate a zone betwen 1,009 m and the bottom
of the well at 1,143 m in the Sears No. 1 well. The second slug test was
conducted in the same manner as the first. The test data are plotted in
figure 38. The calculated transmissivity of 8.46 x 10~5m2 /d compare
favorably to a transmissivity value of 8.6 x 10~6m2 /d estimated from
a low permeability value for rocks of that zone.
91
ro
o
1.0
0.9
0.8
<-®-<
Sears No. 1 test well
First slug test (24 7- 2 64 meters)
Oia. of drill pipe t 2.151" « 5.46 c
H0 « 61ft.
T
1.0 rc2
t
1 -I.OM7.46)
5 'x HD4 1.38
1.19 x
m.
H
x 10
MD-
"
>
cm
i2 /
<
V
/c
'*-
f
1
" ^s
V ^ft s e
rc2 * ~^
At 54,000 s
ex « |O"2
NOFE: Curve extended
jfrom type curves of
'Cooper and others
1(1967)
10 100 1,000 10.000
TIME, (t), IN SECONDS
Figure 35. Decay of head with time of slug test of 247 to 264 meter zone.
100,000
00
oz
I
CO3 220
CD
>-
-J
-1
III
X
$o_j
UJen
g 230
UJHUJ
2
Z MM
JUJ>
UJ-J
5 240
H
<
$
IL
O
X1-
0.
UJ
0
"Sklbits
1
ke" boiler t si
from swabbing test data
(Ferrls et aL t962)
Swabbed dry to 240.2m.
Water level ro
(S'«l2.8m.)
/
s*
/r
i rNL
/
se
^
to
X
^*~Top of ^pt
2
/
c
2
s
(i
7>
x
r
Im. in on
t
e ho
^
*r
ur
^
/
>
f'
s
V * 29.9 liters
S1 * 12.8 meters
t * hour
T « Ys't
* 4.4xlO'3 m^
-%-
.1 10 100
TIME, (t), IN MINUTES
1,000
Figure 36. Increase of head with time from bailer test of the 247 to 264 meter zone.
10,000
.9
.8
1'
QS'
1
.9
.4
3
T. '-
T » 9.
- f « 01 O.
-^e -©.-<
0 re* _
t
8 XIO'
46 X K
,,.
i.o x
\
7.46
7.6 X 10*
t .
)-9m*/d
^
X
^s s
y
\N
\,
\
\
L
\
<
\
r
\
\
' s 1.
at T= 7
HQTE: jfroiti Coop
11961
|
V^
0
6 X
Curvt »yp« er an r)
10
»excur^ do
fei teathe
id
0
rs
-
0d f
00 1.000 10.0OO 100,000 1.000.000 10.000.000
TIME, (t), IN SECONDS
Figure 37. Decay of head with time from slug test of the 1009 to 1143 meter zone.
Permeability
Laboratory air permeability tests (tables 1 and 4) of Triassic core
from the New Hill well and Deep River coal drill holes illustrate the low
permeabilities characteristic of the Triassic rocks below the zone of
weathering. Most values are in the microdarcy and nanodarcy range.
Attempts to determine liquid permeability with water reconstructed from
laboratory analyses of water pumped during packer tests of the Sears No. 1
well resulted in rupture of some samples having extremely low permeability.
The apparent sensitivity to the water indicates swelling of clays (or
other mineralogic changes) caused by use of water of probable different
chemistry. Montmorillonite has been identified as the most abundant clay
in samples from the Sears No. 1 well (Lee Avery, written communications,
1977). The logical explanations for water of different chemistry are:
1. The laboratory water used had the correct salinity but a different
ionic make up.
2. The water samples pumped during testing of the Sears No. 1 well are
not representative of the native formation water.
Average permeability of the sandstone between 247 and 264 m depth in the
Sears No. 1 well can be calculated from the transmissivity of the zone which
was derived from a slug test and is 1.19 x 10~3m2 /d
T K. H
- 7.1 x 10-5m/d
- 1 x lO'1* urn2
= 100 microdarcies.
where K = the hydraulic conductivity
T = the transmissivity
and H = the thickness of the aquifer.
Triassic rocks in well ORB 10 in the buried Dumbarton basin,
South Carolina, is reported to have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately
6 x 10~6 m/d or about 8 microdarcies.
Injection Tests
Pressure injection tests were run by raising the head on the water
filled packer and drill-stem assembly with the mud pump, observing the
decay of pump pressure with time, and calculating the volume of water
injected from the pump displacement. The data plot for the 1,009 to 1,143 m
test are given in figure 38.
10CT>
\\\<s
\
\
y
-\
\c
A
10
L
\
\
""
\
^t
r <
a
\
a
.t
\ T'
^
1.0
.7X10
loo
s
T « «-(
t » 4.
T * 3.
600
Drc
t
38 1
78 »
t
U(
n*/
) '
d
1.4
1.
en
3X
t X
,*/.
7.46
10
0 000
1
0 ,000
TIME, (t), N SECONDS
Figure 38. Decay of head with time for water injection tests of the 1009 to 1143 meter zone.
Treating both tests as slug tests gives transmissivities 6.44 x 10"2m 2 /d
and 3.78 m2 /d for the 247 to 264 m and 1,009 to 1,143 m zones
respectively. The test in the upper zone appeared to be a normal test.
The lower zone appeared to fracture as the head increased above hydrostatic
because pressure decay was much more rapid.
Ground-Water Circulation
Insufficient subsurface-head-distribution data are available to
establish a predictable ground-water circulation pattern. The few near
surface ground-water potentials indicate that the flow pattern is normal--
that is, recharge occurring along the interstream areas and discharge
occurring along and beneath the major streams. Ground water having
dissolved-solids content greater than 2,400 mg/L chiefly calcium-sodium
chloride types occurs along the eastern edge of the basin from Morrisville
to Gary and southwest to Holly Springs (fig. 39). The location of these
occurrences relative to the downfaulted blocks (fig. 3) along the east
side of the basin indicates that the probable source of the high dissolved-
solids content water is from flushing of saltwater upward along fracture
zones that bound the blocks. No unusual head relationships were encountered
in drilling the Sears No. 1 test well. The temperature log, however,
indicated upward movement of water to the 550 m zone and downward movement
to the 500 m zone. The resistivity and spontaneous potential (SP) logs
from that well indicate that the native water of the formation is relatively
fresh (<4,500 mg/L dissolved-solids content) to the bottom of the hole.
The steep slope (lower gradient) of the Sears No. 1 temperature log tends
to suggest deep meteroic circulation at New Hill. In contrast the
temperature gradient of the Groce No. 1 well indicates poor ground-water
circulation in the Sanford area.
The low permeabilities of the core samples and the low temperature
gradient indicate the probability that circulation in the unweathered rock
in the subsurface is through fractures.
97
79°30'79°CO'78°30'
OXFORD ; '.
36°00'
CHAPEL HILL
.= "' RALEIGH
DURHAM TRIASSIC BASIN
10 MILESI
CARTHAGE
10 15 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
.? Water sample site
25 Number in Table 5
35c15'i
INVESTIGATION OF WATER CHEMISTRY
The degree of compatibility of the waste to be injected to the fluid
in the host rock can have a drastic affect on injection rates. Chemical
reaction at the native-waste water interface can completely plug the available
rock pores and change injection rates. Likewise, the chemistry of the
rock may be important if swelling clays such as montmorillite are present.
Water Quality From Wells
Most shallow ground water (less than 90 m) (fig. 3) thus far tested is
predominately a calcium bicarbonate type water (table 5). Dissolved-solids
content is generally less than 250 mg/L. Softer water tends to be a NaHCOs
type. However, in the area west and northwest of Gary, north of the Raleigh-
Durham airport, and north of Carpenter, shallow ground water having high
dissolved-solids content (greater than 2,400 mg/L) is present. From Gary
near the eastern fault border and in a basinward direction there appears to
be a progressive change from,sodium and calcium sulfate types to calcium
chloride and sodium chloride types. North of Carpenter near the common
corners of Durham, Chatham, and Wake Counties water has a high dissolved-
solids content.
All of the wells having high dissolved-solids content are on the
northwestern side of major faults and penetrate red mudstone or
conglomerate having a red mudstone matrix. Thus it is possible that all
are in a similar hydrogeologic situation at the discharge end of the basin's
subsurface flow pattern. The high dissolved-solids content of water found
in shallow wells in the conglomerate and fanglomerate near Gary occur near
the deeper downfaulted parts of the basin.
Water from the 115 m zone of the Sears No. 1 well (table 6) appears
to be a sodium chloride type similar to that from wells 4 and 38. The
sample from 247 to 264 m (if representative) is similar to wells 4 and 38
having only a slight increase in the concentration of calcium over sodium.
The sample from the 1,009 to 1,143 m zone although higher in dissolved-
solids content and calcium content than the water from either the 115 or
247 to 264 m zones or the drilling water, is known to be a mixture of the
drilling (mud filtrate) water and the formation water. The small amount
of water that did move into the test packer assembly from the 1,009 to
1,143 m zone is most probably from the invaded area and is a mixture of
mud filtrate and formation water.
The similiarity of the ionic makeup (chiefly sodium-calcium chloride
types) of water from the Dunbarton, South Carolina, Triassic basin to that
of the Durham basin is striking. In contrast, ground water from the
Culpepper, Virginia, basin to the northeast tend to be calcium sulfate
types presumably caused by the widespread presence of gypsum. Water from
well 32 (table 5) near Cary shows an ionic makeup characteristic of the
gypsum bearing Permian Castile Formation near Jumping Springs, New Mexico,
and the Triassic redbeds of the Newark basin, New Jersey.
99
o .
T5= C (D -r-
£ o
O)u- u
O 1C
I/I (/) 0) -*J VI E >> O
in *- o
0) i 1
r~
(-K) uiru^uoais' J i
I uintpos
; "MIS
(P9A[OSSLP)
i anptsay
| (UinS p9}BinD[BD)
: enptsey
j umisstiod
| (Piau) Hd
WUM-:
; 9S9UB6UBW
i uirusauBBw
i
UOJJSS8iKS
SSSUpJBlj
' 93.EUOQJBDUON
; epuonu
j (DM1" ri)
i
apt jo mo
1 WWW,
^LULL^LV
O) O CO Z
1 I
CO
O) » O)
09 O CO
r C/l
0) x^ "- _J
x:~" £\E3 o s^
o
CM
CM
0
CM
CM
CO
oCOin
CO
0
o0<5-
1
0
CO
o oCO CM
Cft JOF |CM |CM
cojco coicojcojco
colojo
oloOKr«3-CO
0(0« ro CM!
rojro(i
*r|oCOl- to kr ICM
olo ow-
ro|ro
*r
ro
CO
VD
I
O rx
voVD
0
0inVD
Orx.
ro
O
0 CM «
CM
0invo
O
0
o in
CO
CM
Cftrx
O
vo inCO*rCO
o
CMroCO CMvo ro
05/09/73
O
o
vo
c. - er. ' j r; o "~ co s: z: u_ to ti
S
in
rx
CO

o
0
ro
o^
o rxCM
O CM»
ro
o
vo vo
O
o
o
IDin
ID CO
ro in
O
CMoCO*r cn
o
COorx
in ro
rorx*x.
Cft
0
in0
0 CM 0 CM
CM
«
CO
vo
«
o
0
oCM
o ro
0of""
orx CO
^~
0
o o ro ro
oCMcn
o
o
no
CM
soCM
Oro
0
«
o cr> «
en
O
CMrx ^r in ro
ro
~x,
Cft
O^x,
S
in
rx.
0 COvo
in
ro
CO
rx
O
o
1 1
«
1 1
rx CO
o
o
«
o
o
ro
1
o
o
CO CM
0srCM
rx
Cft
0
Cft<rCft
0
« o rx
in ro
rorx
Cft
O
u?C-
VDlCMlrMO rojro
O
0 ro
CM
o
VO
ro
o
to in
w
o ro
inoCM
O
O CM
o ojo
tolo oio CM voro- CM kr VOJCM
miin ro CNJ
rxCM
O VOr-
o in
CMto
oo|vo|co
ojinjo
0 CO
cMkricft o *r . |vo
CM
CM|mcot fr
§lo IJ""
CO|VO|CM

CO
ID
cn
o
o
d
PH.
O
d
o
o
0
CM
O
Oro ro
CO^
o
0
KMCM
kf rx.
ro«a-
0
in«es-
in en
0
cn rorx.
inro
i
i
_
'"
O ro
in
VO
rx
O
O
1 1
ro
i
in«
o
o
CM
O
0 «3-
CM
C«
o
o
^
o*3-
in
0
§
CO
o
Cft
«Tin ro
rorx
O
inO
ro
O
roin
vo
CM
0
rx
CM
CM
1
rx
rx
i i
CM Cft
O
0
ro|ro
rx. Cft CM
OcnCM
rx|GO
<
O
CO
o
0
1
CM
CO
1 1
o
P
O
O
00
0 rx CM
O
o
o
CM
IDin
CO CM
O
COoCMinCO
o
CO Orx O in ro
ro rx0~
in0
ro
O
COrx.
rx
0 ro ro
O
O
o
ro
OoCM
«
vo
o
in ro ro CO
0
o
VO« in ro
rorx
O
in O
CMro
O
ro
CO
~-
00
VO
^r
o
:
CM-
I
O in
O
o
CM
O
O O in
vo in
O
O
CM*r
^j- oCM
rx. vo
O
*r
in inCft
o rx
Cftvo
rx
»
Cft
in
ro
Cft
o^
cn
o
oCM
rop
O
CM
»
O
rx vo
in
O
0
in
ro
ro
£
O
vo o vo
Cft
ojo
ro vo in in ro
rorx
O
in O
vo rx
«
CMvo
in ro
rorx
0
in
0
cr>
T
roCM
Cft
rx. ro
O
O CM CM
r^CM
CO
o^J-rx
Cft
CM
loLjoo voU
o0*3~
0 CO
010olo ,_,vo
tn
^y
«-|«-kr
«-|ro ro
sbf ICM
0vo 0
CM
COJCft
o
in
ID
«
o
1
CO
«
1
o in
o
0
ro
O
0 CMCM
«
CM
O
o
CM
CM
CO
rxID
O
CO
rx
cn
O
o in voISro
ro rx
O
ino
i
i i
-
0
«
ID
«
O
i
«
rx
i
oCM
O
o
CM
0
o rx ro
CM«
O
o
in ro
CMin
inKM
O
Cft CMrx
00
O
O in vo
in ro
rorx
O
ino
rx
"r
CO ro
CO ICMCOIVOrojcM
O CO ro
rx
O
in
tx,
«3-
0
I
O
If)
i
0in
O
o
ro
0
o inID
oCO
o
o
CMin
CMroCM
O en
0
inCM
0cn
O
rx. rorx. 0 in ro
rorx
O
ino
CMro
O
Cft LD
CM ICO
Cftro
0 ro
COvoCM
ojo rxim
CM [CM
rxjvo
0
p
rx
O
o
o o^
*r«
2
oCM1^^
O
0
ro
o
in ro*»
CO«r
o
o
o««r
00rx
VDw
O
CO
Cft
cn
O
CM CMrx O in ro
rorx
inO
ro
VC
o
rx. ro
«er
o
in
O
rx«
o
CM
CM
COvo
CM|_ rojcM
okrCftKO«-|co
5|co
rx
o
«
rx, (rx
cn
O
oIX,ro
r "
O
O ro
0
o
ro
0
oCM «
KMCM
O
o
in *o
CO
cn
IX.
O
in
SCMcn
O
CO«3-vo o vo ro
rorx
in O
i
«Tro
in
0
o
o
CO
ro
o ro
OinCM
cnCO
in
CM
«
rx
CM
vo
o
CMin
0 ro
O rx in
O a-
CM
CM (TO
d|d
o
rx
0 ro
O
o
CO tx,
IDcn
VD
O
rx in
0 CM Cft
O
ro
§ in ro
rorx.
in o
-
O
5
o inCM
O
o
O*r
e-
0«
p"ro ro
O
Cft« roCM CO
0
W«
in ro
i
CMro
o|o
!
0ro ^
O voCO
Cftr
rx ro
COoCM
0 0 CM
vo
Oo
CM
1
S
O vo ro
Ok- O ro
CM
CM
o o in
0
in
Cft|rx
0
rx
rx
O
O
O COCM
rx
ro
o
0 CM
in
ro
O
0oro
O
0
o
CM«
in O
O
roO«
inCO
o
s
o in ro
ro rx
in0
1
1
voL. coc ( r
o
in
rx
PM
ro
OCft
O
«
O ID
0 CM CM
0
°
CM
0
OinCO
o o
0
o
oCO
oCOro
CM
ro
o
rxin ro
CO
0
CM
O
in ro
rorx.
in0
CM
d
o ro
5
CMin
o co ro
O
ro
CM

CM
VO
5
o
rx
Oco
orx
O in ~
r~
o
o rx. in
O
o
o
o^r
^rCM
O CM
0
CM
*r
en
O
oCM Cfto in ro
rorx.
in0
CM
s!
cn
i-
(D
toE
cn O
o
4->
C. (D
o o
-a
a>
o to to
S) uiruaucuis » no;oioio.'o;O'o;o!O!o;oioioio oio Q i ivd<yir^»ir^»i^'icMicvi!Onoicvi nn«Tioiro cviico ' iif iroiroiroii ' i n i« i
uirupos oi oli no,. imlin:mi^rioloiO!Onoicni«-lo>< , roiroiLf>i^|«-|iot^.icMicMtcvii* icnirvii* i~ ' . : i : . ; i !
"UK
(P9AIOSSLP)l cm r-» ^-HOIC"--JCVI, |f
oioicnioloioioioioioioloio oiotoj ! ( icviivDHoiiniroimiroicvi cnwico'CM CM-- ) ( if |«3-|Cvlif ! ^-tr^lr l! ' . I ! ' ' I I ' I
i- v>«*- \fl
I, I
f C
re ou o
roi roirolroiro!r«vjr*.|rN.|r
COi Iroic ,, (f ieMJCMlCMiOj
injinlmi rnimirniml mimiinim jmimlmimivoO|OlOjOIO!OIO|OIO|O!Oj JOIOIOIOIO
CM en'CMlco' l^o|roicM cn|
O OjO|O|^-|O|O|O|Oi« !O OIOJOjOIOIOlOl
i ! I ! i M ' ; L i i I i i
F- D. EC QJ«-'
c. cr. ro o T- cc srzu.ro
. ,_ - .. _ roirv»i. icvifcMiCO ^IcniCvuroicMicoiOicriiroimicC'
i ! . ' i f !
CU -P
CO
E
cn o
o
4->
Co>34-> r
CO
O
-o
CD
CO
CO
.. t
Table 6 - Chemical analysis of water from Sear No. 1, N.C. Test Well
(Dissolved constituents are in mg/L unless otherwise indicated)
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
|7-
!
Depth (m)
source Date
115 i 12/21/75
Mud
Line
259
259
1018
1018
1018
04/04/76
04/16/76
04/16/76
04/17/76
04/17/76
I 04/18/76
Lat.
354133
354133
354133
354133
354133
354133
, 354133
Long.
0785635
0785635
0785635
0785635
0785635
0785635
1 0785635
coo(Oop
(O4->
Oh-
*\>,
Seq.
No.
11
12
01
04
08
09
10
4J r-c
(O^
<c
85
0
0
0
0
COooa:
0)4-><a£=
OJDS-
(Q
O r
CO
104
0
0
0
0
>v^
p
-o
o
Ers'i
-o
(Oo
0
3
4
1

too
Ers r
Or
(Oo
18
62
30
96
.
COoo
a>4->(O
£=0 JDS-
(Oo
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
r
O
a> o
*r~s-
0
JCo
93
83
41
200
75
^r
OO
+->r
(OJD OO
0
32
14
31
rso
s-O)CLCL 0O
1
300
130
420
u_
0)
T3 r~s- ors
u_
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.9
1.4
V)
V)O)£=~os-<o
IE

JQS-ta o
£=
Oz:
0
170
84
250
V)
V)0)
C-O
S-(O31
'fO
4->
Oh-
52
39
47
170
84
250
I/ Dissolved constituent in yg/L
Table 6 - Chemical analyses of water from Sears No. 1 N.C. Test Well
[Dissolved constituents are in mg/L unless otherwise indicated.]
Continued
^v^
H-»
0>UL.
Cf5
£_1
10
26000
12000
31000
^_r
o
O.
o
to0>
0
2000
2000
4200
o>]y
E3 r
10o>c:0tos:
2.3
0.3
0.4
2.6
2.1
3.4
.
f
c*Sf
0>
10<ucfO
t7)c:(Os
380
3400
1600
4300
X x ^3
r~
0)
u_
v^^
reQ.
8.9
8.0
8.5
8.9
9.0
9.0
8.9
N^
E
r
l/J
10to-M
00.
3.2
4.5
4.8
10
5.7
11
E
oo
o
0)
to
<U f 3 3 o o
r- r~"
10 0)0) OfV » _ ^
283
342
179
535
C£i^
CO
7.9
5.9
5.6
3.2
1.9
3.6
CM
O r
OO
to0 r-f r
00
3.9
28
19
34
82
to
E3 r~ o
Ooo
130
84
88
96
40
130
^j-ooo
CD
tot|_r
3OO
23
16
14
9.7
1.4
^v^
r-»
CM
OC r~
M
30
12000
11000
10000
o
CO
Water Quality From Electric Logs
Formation Factor and SSP
The borehole geophysical logs were used to crosscheck the accuracy and
representativeness of samples taken from the 247 to 264 m and 1009 to
1143 m zones and to give additional insight into the native-water chemistry
of the remainder of the hole.
The salinity of formation waters is commonly estimated from the
borehole logs by using one or both of the following relationships:
i Rmf * SSP = -K log ^5-
where SSP = the static spontaneous potential in millivolts.
K = a constant related to absolute temperature.
Rmf = the resistivity of the drilling mud filtrate in ohm-meters
at a specified temperature.
Rw = the resistivity of the interstitial water in ohm-meters
at a specified temperature.
2. The relationship of the formation factor (f) to porosity (<j>),
water resistance (Rw), and resistivity of the water saturated formation
(Rt).
_ Rt 1F = Rw = ^2
Water resistivities at six depths in the Sears No. 1 well derived from
the relation /Rw = ) are given in table 7 and plotted on figure 40.
F values are from laboratory analyses, Rt values are taken from the deep
induction curve (ILD) of plate 1.
Figure 40 shows that Rw calculated from laboratory-measured formation
factors ranged from about 1.0 ohm-meters to about 14 ohm-meters. This
indicates that formational waters at the Sears No. 1 test site could have a
dissolved-solids equivalent ranging anywhere from about 350 to 5,500 mg/L
sodium chloride.
The water analyses from the 247 to 264 m zone indicate a dissolved-
solids of approximately 560 mg/L when corrected to equivalent sodium
chloride. Alger (1966), Schlumberger (1972), or Brown (1971) indicate
that, at 25°C, water containing 560 mg/L dissolved-solids should have a
resistivity of about 10 ohm-meters. No laboratory formation-factor (Ff)
data are available for the 247 to 264 m zone; however, water resistivities
calculated from Ff values above and below the sampled zone are approximately
10 ohm-meters.
104
CDcn
14
12
10
til Q?7\ o
UJ
O
Of
2
0
C
V
\
\
a t ,4.
i
1 Of
V
\
\
A=Te
o = Cc
\.
rra Tek Lab
>re Laboratc
oratory ddk
)ry data po
3 point
nt
A
> 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10(
MEASURED FORMATION FACTOR (F f)
Figure 40. Resistivity of water versus calculated formation factors of core samples.
Table 7 - Formation Factors at Selected Depths - Sears No. 1 Well
Depth
(Meters)
154
157
330
744
745
961
1138
1142
Formation
Factor - Ff
(meas.)
2.74
25.0
3.64
6.5
12
96
67
18
Rt
(LLD lOg - Ohm
meters)
40
80
50
75
40-110
100-200
>100
>100
p _ Rt
W Frrf meas.
14.6
3.2
13.7
11.5
9.2
1.04-2.08
Porosity
(meas. -
percent)
5
Formation
Factor -
Ff = l
T $2
(Calculated)
400
8.9 : 127
4.7 452
0.9 ; 12346
R = Rt
W cF f (calcu.)
0.10
0.63
0.11
0.006
6.2 i 69.4 0.58-1.58
2.8 1275 , 0.078-0.157
2.5 1600
0.9 12346
Similarly, Ff values from laboratory measurements and Rt from the ILD
log indicate interstitial water below 960 m is not highly saline. This
formation water at 1 to 2 ohms at 25°C is equivalent to a sodium chloride
concentration of 2,200 to 4,500 mg/L. The analysis of the water sampled
from the 1,018 to 1,143 m zone is much less saline than this indicating a
mixed (diluted) sample was collected.
Water resistivities calculated (table 7) using Ff values derived from
log porosities ((j>) using the relation:
_ J?! 1 Ff = Rw = <j>m
where Ff, Rt, Rw, and 4 have the values stated above and m = the
"appropriate" cementation factor (Schlumberger, 1972), are one to two
orders of magnitude lower than those from laboratory calculated Ff values.
Figure 41 is a plot of porosity from the density and sonic logs versus
resistivity from the induction log (ILD).
Apparent water resistivities from these curves at Ff = 25 and <j> = 20
(Ff value from the standard curve for F 1 ) are 0.9 ohm-meter from the
(j>2
sonic-porosity plot and 0.7 ohm-meter from the density-porosity plot. By
comparison, Rw calculated for a measured Ff of 24 for the 157.2 m sample is
3.3 ohm-meters.
Apparent Rw's calculated by Schlumberger (written communication, 1977)
from the same log data and the same relationship of
1 _ J?tF = ~72 = Rw
range from 0.41 ohm-meter at 152 m to 0.35 ohm-meter at the bottom, indicating
sodium chloride concentrations of about 11,000 mg/L.
The explanation for the disparity is apparently related to the assumption
that pf = _1_ at low dissolved-solids concentrations and low porosities.
<j>2
Alger (1966) states, ". . .the customary relationships between F and porosity
used in oil field interpretations usually do not apply to fresh water
sands. ... F varies in fresh water sands not only with porosity, but
also with Rw and grain size."
Figure 42 shows the relation of measured formation factor versus the
measured porosity of core samples. Formation factors appear to be controlled
by an entirely different set of physical laws below a porosity of 0.04.
Figure 43 illustrates the relation of formation factor to depth.
107
t>00
400
iOO
200
>- 150
>
O
Q IOO-
50
40-
30
20
10
5-
-
-
o
-»,
X
--
-
...
"~
o 1
x
-
"A ,
.-EL
^
A
X
...-

0
ATl
For
-
F= -
0 s 2
Ro %l«
* F
1
w
TDS
-
X*-

- -
^
L
07.
j t(
U
a to
> 3C
30
)
X
-

.7520
- (I6 1 al 95'F- l2.e| 0| 95 F
- 1300 to 3300 mgl
X
10
s
..

o
^
J
^
<dv
6
S*
I
_..
X
X
*
---
X
.__
r-

.._

_.
in ohm meters )
in
in
Vcr
'd 5
3
35
4
45
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
20
25
30
40
50
too
200
--
-
...

1 1 1 1
EXPLANATION '
X - Core Lob sample
A- Terra Tek ot> s
f - Minimum value
o - Log, parosily va

aw

P)Q
O
O
o
e
.._
0
eo
-flT
-A-
s
lues

0
>°
les
i
o
Q

o

1
-A-
-

oe
_..

>
o
> _
o
o

D
A
e
_-

-e-
i
-

.&
-or

....
D
0
F
Ro
Rw
TOS ;
j i
^
--

-
....
« 20%
-

--
« 25
« 22 to 42
22 to 4
--
-
-x
._
2 .,
3 25 "
= 1700 to 3600
j i J i
_-.-.

._.
_.
,
1.75
'»y/i. i
c\>
25
30
35
40
45
60
70
80
90
too
120
I4O
I6O
200
25O
30O
400
500
1000
20OO
bOOO
IOOO 2000
<o o:UJ»-
UJ
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
POROSITY, 0, IN PERCENT, FROM DENSITY LOG
50 60 7O 80 90
SONIC VELOCITY. IN MICROSECONDS PER FOOT
6 3 (P 9 12 J5 18 "2J 24 27 30
POROSITY, 0, IN PERCENT, FOR SSma " 5.49 KILOMETERS PER SECOND
Figure 41. Density porosity and sonic porosity versus resistivity and conductivity of Triassic rock in Sears No. 1 Well.
60 L
FORMATION FACTOR
n(5'
c-i
(D
^IO
oQMl
C
oQ. o
O
O
o
O31 o
Z
o
m 7 o m z
_c
r\>
4k
O»
CD
O
ru
A
0>
CD
POO
)
^
\
k -0*
C
C^-
\\
5
^ »
\c\
IN
C
^
»
%YV
>>
-.
V$
oc
V -
fr\
4
>
r
\
\
^ c
Fp=~5,
k
\
k >
*.
^
\\
c
C

\^
it
>
^I<
V
0c
?V
>)
-.
^
c
***-®-
J )
**.
a c> >
""
<rc
*
>>
-^-
c c
^
> )c
**.
5
«^,
^
C
J
)>O
C
J)4
C
k
)
Ui
O
100 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26
200
300
4OO
500
600
700
800
900
1000
100
1200
EXPLANATION
BCore lobs
& Terra Tek
ai Determined from use of Rt, SSp, Rw
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20
FORAAATION FACTOR (Ff)
Figure 43. Formation factor versus depth.
22 24 26
no
Data from computation of interstitial water resistivity based on the
relation
SP = -K log Rmf/RW
are presented in table 8. The SSP values given in table 8 are those
assumed from a log deflection of 5 millivolts per division. Formation
factors calculated from the SP log-derived Rw and Rt from the ILD curve
are given in table 9. Calculated Rw for the 247 to 264 m zone range from
5.3 to 12.4 ohm-meters at 25°C. This is equivalent to a range of
concentrations of 400 to 920 m zone. However, the Rw values in table 8
increase with depth contrary to most natural occurrences. This may be
caused in part by the increased shale content with depth. In fact, use of
the SSP deflection to obtain reliable Rw values opposite very low
permeability formations such as are represented by the deeper parts of the
New Hill well may be invalid (Schlumberger, 1972).
Table 8 - Resistivity of Formation Water using SP Log - Sears No. 1 Well
Temp .
Depth 0
Top SSP
SSP SSP, ;
(m) (mv) °F °C ,
154 +10 71.5 22
191 -11 72 22
220 -17 : 73 23
229 -36 , 73 23
248 -39 ! 74 23
257 -16 74 23
259 -21 74 23 ,
262 -15 74 ; 23
270 -18 74.5 23
278 -18 75 24 !
282 -15 75 24
289 -23 75 24 ,
306 -17 76 ; 24
338 -17 j 76.5' 24 j
377 -20 j 78 i 26
398 -34 78 j 26
413 i -20 78.5 26i
Rmf Rwe
0 Rmf /Rwe P
Form. Form. Temp.
Temp. (K = 70) (ft m)
(ft m) (ft m) Rwe = Rmf
Rmf/RWP
21.6 .72 30
21.6 1.48 14.6
21.4 1.70 12.6
21.4 3.25 6.58
21.2 3.70 5.73
21.2 1.70 12.5
21.2 2.03 10.4
21.2 1.65 12.8
21.1 1.77 11.9
21.1 1.77 11.9
21.1 1.65 12.8
21.1 2.30 9.17
20.9 ; 1.70 12.3
20.9 1.80 11.6
20.4 ' 1.96 10.4
20.4 3.20 | 6.38
20.3 1.96 10.36
Rwe
77°F
(NaCl)
(ft m)
28
13.6
12.2
6.2
5.3
12.1
10
12.4
; 11.4
'; 11.4
12.4
9.0
: 12.0
11.6 '
10.5
6.27
10.7 ,
1
Rw @
77°F
(NaHCOs)
(B m)
49
25
21
11
9
21
18
22
20
20
22
16
21
20
18
11
19
Table 8 - Resistivity of Formation Water using SP Log - Sears No. 1 Well
Continued
Depth
Top
SSP
(m)
440
477
478
508
526
570
582
609
633
999
1019
1025
1043
1057
1082
1102 :
1108
SSP,
(mv)
-25
-15
-14
-4(?)
-16
-7
-20(?)
-4
-15
-5
-26
-14
-13
-8
-5
-6
-5
°F
79
80.5
80.5
81
82
83
83
84
84.5
93.5
94
94
95
95
95.5
96.5
97
Temp. - Rmf '
@ @ Rmf/Rwe SSP Form. Fc
Temp. (K = 70)
°C (ft m) (ft m) R
26 20.1 2.33
27 19.8 1.65
27 19.8 1.60
27 19.7 1.11
28 19.5 1.70
28 19.3 1.20
28 19.3 1.96
29 19.1 1.11
29 19.0 1.65
34 17.0 1.17
34 ; 16.9 2.35
34 16.9 1.60
35 16.7 1.52
35 ; 16.7 1.28i
35 16.6 1.17
j i
S 36 16.4 1.20
i j -
\ 36 ! 16.3 1.17
i i
Rwe : Rwe j
@ ; 0 Rw @
rm. Temp. 77°F : 77°F
(ft m) (NaCl) (NaHCOs)
we = Rmf (ft m) : (ft m)
Rmf/RWe
8.62 8.9 16
13.2 14.5 25
12.4 13.0 j 23
17.7 19.0 33
11.5 12.3 22
16.1 17.0 ' 30
9.85 11.0 19
17.2 19.0 33
11.5 13.6 24
14.5 17.5 31
7.19 8.7 15
10.6 13.0 23
13.9 17.0 30
13.0 16.0 28
14.2 17.2 ; 30
13.7 16.8 29
! i
13.9 17.5 31
Table 9 - Formation Factors from SP and Induction Logs - Sears No. 1 Well
Top
Depth
(m)
338
273
262
259
257
247
229
219
191
1025
1101
1057
1042
154
278
282
289
306
377
398
413
440
468
478
508
526
Rt
(Form. Temp.
(Q m)
84
22
57
39
39
27
120
220
<220
100
150
380
400
<40
39
47
64
75
38
64
65
90
47
55
190
120
Rw
(from SP NcHCO-
equiv. at 77°F]
(n m)
20
20
22
18
21
9
11
21
25
23
29
28
30
49
20
22
16
21
18
11
19
16
25
23
33
22
F* = Rt
f Rw
42
1.0
2.5
.94
1.8
2.9
0.4-3.2
0.4-3.0
0.2-2.6
5.4
6.4
16.6
16.5
<.76
1.9
2.1
3.9
3.5
2.2
5.9
3.5
5.7
1.9
2.5
6.1
5.7
Rt
(25°C)
(n m)
84
21
54
17
37
26
4-35
8-63
5-65
125
185
465
495
<37
38
46
62
73
39 i
65
66
91
48
57
200
126
Porosity
(percent)
2-12
15.5
11
13
11
13-16
13.4
13
10.2
1.5
-2
0
-2
14
16
11
13
11
10.1
13.6
8.3
10
13
7
5
3
Table 9 - Formation Factors from SP and Induction Logs - Sears No. 1 Well
Continued
Top
Depth
(m)
570
582
609
633
998
1019
1082
1108
Rt
(Form. Temp.)
(n m)
100
140
170
130
100
130
160
200
j Rw
(from SP NcHCOa
equiv. at 77°F)
(n m)
30
19 !
1
33 I
24
31 i
15
30 !
31 j
F* = Rt
f Rw
3.6
7.9
5.6
5.8
3.9
12
6.5
8.1
Rt
/ocop \(25 C)
(8 m)
109
150
184
140
120
180
196
250 1
Porositv1 w 1 W w I \+ j
(percent)
6
7
-1
0.8
0.6
0
-1.5
-3
EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES
The success of a technique used for subsurface waste-storage
evaluation must be the degree to which that method meets the data needs of
the study quickly and economically and (or) the degree to which that method
in combination with other methods reduces the number of possible models of
the subsurface environment. The "data needs" of this study are primarily
geological and hydrological ones concerning the ability of the host rock
to accept liquid waste, the competency of the host and overlying rock to
contain the waste isolated from man's environment while degradation occurs,
and the identification and evaluation of those natural resources that must
be protected from contamination.
The "techniques" used were selected for their possible definition of
several parameters which determine waste-disposal "suitability" in a rock
suite where subsurface data are almost nonexistent. These parameters
included: (1) the external geometry of the Durham Triassic basin for clues
to sedimentary thickness and tectonic evolution; (2) the internal geometry
of the basin lithofacies for their obvious control on spatial distribution
of porosity and permeability; (3) the occurrence and chemistry of ground
water for compatibility with and control of movement of waste fluids; and
(4) the physical character of rock samples representative of potential
rock reservoirs and seals.
Geologic Mapping
Reconnaissance geologic mapping helped define lithofacies (or
depositional environments) and the overall architecture of the Durham
Triassic basin. None of the existing maps were 100 percent usable "as is"
because of past emphasis on chronostratigraphic units which had no specific
relation to spatial distribution of porosity and permeability. The rapid
vertical and lateral facies changes characteristic of the bulk of the
Triassic deposits, the extensive postdepositional faulting, the weathered
nature and low density of outcrops make mapping extemely difficult except
on a gross scale. Chert and coal beds proved to be the only reliable
marker horizons. Many of the critical geological associations made in
figure 3 were made after the intrabasin structural relations had been
defined by other means. By itself, geologic mapping for definition of
permeability-porosity distribution is a very poor approach in the continental
sedimentary rock suite.
Paleocurrent Mapping
A map of paleocurrent direction in the fluvial sandstones proved to
be a valuable tool to define the depositional processes and geometry of
depositional environments in the Durham Triassic basin. The deposition of
coarse fan debris normal to the basin margins and the position of the
lacustrine and paludal deposits relative to them further support the tectonic
control on Triassic deposition. The existence and flow direction of
longitudinal streams and the associated reworked fluvial deposits were
established with this technique. The paleocurrent data in combination
with the structural and surface geologic data create a predictive model of
subsurface facies distribution.
Palynology and Paleontology
The temporal and lateral equivalency of Triassic and Jurassic spore
and pollen established by Cornet (1975, 1977) for the East Coast Triassic
and Jurassic basins was helpful in unravelling some of the structural
complexities of the Durham Triassic basin. Specifically, the knowledge of
the evanescence or non-evanescence of laterally discontinuous black shales
and coal zones solved the relative vertical displacement of some juxtaposed
intrabasin blocks. Expertise in this field and experience in the Triassic
are rare, thus its use will no doubt be limited to specific problems not
resolveable by other methods. The microfossils characteristic of the
Triassic have life spans too great to be useful for other than establishing
the nature of particular facies environment.
Side-looking airborne radar (SLAR)
Side-looking airborne radar mapping was used for the same purposes as
the Landsat imagery. It proved to be superior to Landsat imagery for
defining basin lineaments by giving much better detail. Basin outlines
were visible on most images as a difference in apparent relief and as a
tonal change. In addition diabase dikes had unique raised outlines and
could be mapped directly from the rectified image. Some tonal changes
could be identified with gross lithologic changes within the basin, but
SLAR mapping could not be used for direct mapping of geologic features.
The Geological Survey-owned, SLAR equipment used was of the
AN/APS-94D type developed for military surveillance and operates at a
lower frequency than most commercial types. Comparison with commercial
imagery for the same areas of the basins shows the Geological Survey
equipment to be far superior to the commercial for geologic illumination
but to have poorer geographic rectification and yawl control.
Commercial SLAR imagery is expensive, but large areas can be covered
quickly in any kind of weather. Linear geologic features parallel to the
SLAR look direction will not be illuminated necessitating flight lines
normal to one another for comprehensive coverage. The geologic information
derived from the SLAR images proved invaluable in extending and defining
the structural-stratigraphic model produced from sparse outcrop data and
geologic mapping.
117
Aeromagnetic Mapping
The shape and distribution of the magnetic anomalies on the
aeromagnetic maps of the Durham Triassic basin convey an immediate
qualitative feel for the lateral distribution of intrabasin features.
Some anomalies can be used for depth estimates of basin fill. The accuracy
of these estimates depends on the depth method used and input parameters.
The accuracy of one procedure depends on the degree to which the applicable
magnetic susceptibles are known. The shape and distribution of the magnetic
anomalies compare favorably with the distribution of SLAR lineaments. The
aeromagnetic map is superior to most other techniques for mapping diabase
dikes. Flight-line spacing must have smaller spacing than the maximum
dimension of the unit to be sensed, and the direction should be normal to
the regional trend for best results. Some detail is lost with
"state-of-the-art" computer contouring. Computer printing of flight-line
magnetic data, however, is worthwhile. The quality of aeromagnetic maps
from surveys flown at one-mile spacing in the Durham Triassic basin do not
compare favorably with those flown at one-half mile spacing. Aeromagnetic
mapping was very cost effective for this project and complements the SLAR
lineament map and the other geophysical interpretations.
Gravity
The gravity maps and profiles prepared for this project have probably
contributed most toward an understanding of the topography of the basement
surface and the consequent thickness of the Triassic rocks. Accurate
depth estimates to basement depend on accurate knowledge of the density
contrast between the Triassic rocks and basement. The average density of
the rocks in the Durham Triassic basin is now known from the subsurface
samples and acoustic velocity characteristics, but velocity vari-ations in
the underlying basement rock is not known with certainty.
Gravity work is time consuming but relatively inexpensive. Station
density must be great enough that the smallest desired gravity feature is
measured. Adequate bench mark or other spot vertical control is
absolutely essential for accurate work. Surveying in vertical control is
even more time consuming and expensive.
The profiles constructed from residual gravity profiles prepared for
this project compare favorably with the aeromagnetic and resistivity
models indicating that it is a highly useful for describing basin
geometry.
118
Resistivity Profiling
Electrical resistivity sounding data put together in profile form is
the only technique used in the Durham Triassic basin which offers any
potential to describe the spatial distribution of discrete facies. The
technique actually measures electrical conductivity of the Earth's surface
leading to an infinite number of bed thickness-resistivity combinations
that will satisfy the observed reading. Local empirical and field data
must be used to reduce the number of possible models to a practicable
level. A characteristic basement resistivity must be estabished by making
local soundings in representative crystalline rocks. The technique can be
further calibrated for depth, layer sequence and frequency, and
characteristic resistivities by making soundings at well sites where good
geophysical and geologic log data are available. The method also requires
several miles of reasonably straight road remote from electrical
interference such as pipe lines, powerlines, or fences.
The profiles constructed from the soundings made in the Durham Triassic
basin show good correlation with the gravity and aeromagnetic profiles
indicating that this technique can also be used to describe basin geometry.
In addition, with proper calibration the method gives a good to excellent
picture of lateral thickness and continuity of electrical units which, in
most cases, can be related to lithofacies distribution and faulting.
Seismic Profiling
Modern seismic reflection work using multiple stacking, digital
recording, and computer processing of the record is undoubtedly the best
technique possible to determine lateral continuity of facies, degree of
faulting, and basement topography in the Triassic basins. Use of less
sophisticated equipment and 6-fold stacking in the Durham Triassic basin
enabled construction of a basement profile that agrees reasonably well
with the local sounding and gravity data. However, resolution of individual
facies and layering was defeated by the obviously close-spaced faulting
and high background noise. The layering and basement configuration along
a line shot by a commercial company in the Sanford area compared favorably
with the resistivity profile along the same line.
The method requires reasonably straight roads, local governmental
permission to blast or run vibrating equipment, but more importantly, the
method is prohibitively expensive except in those instances where the need
for the data is known to justify the cost.
119
Test Drilling
Test drilling during a subsurface investigation or the data derived
from prior test drilling for other purposes is absolutely essential to the
evaluation of potential waste storage in the Triassic or any other rock
suite. Without test drilling there is no quantitative data on depth, rock
porosity and permeability, acoustic velocity, magnetic susceptibility, and
resistivity, layering sequence and thickness and water quality with which
to calibrate the other techniques used to extrapolate and mould the point-
potential data into a three-dimensional model. Project test drilling is
sometimes the only opportunity to do hydrologic testing.
Test drilling data is so important to the quality of the project
results and so expensive that its existing density and quality should
determine the inception and funding of subsurface investigations.
Borehole Geophysics
The stratigraphic test well offers a unique opportunity to obtain
continuous borehole geophysical data. The geophysical logs from the
Sears No. 1 and Groce No. 1 wells extended the usefulness of the well
samples and surface geophysical data measurably. This borehole technique
is unsurpassed for obtaining a more precise record of the vertical change
in porosity, density, resistivity, sonic velocity, and radioactivity.
It gives much more precise vertical limits to the individual drill samples.
The logs were especially helpful to cross-check and calibrate the
resistivity and seismic surveys and to establish a reliable average
density for the gravity work. The resistivity and SP logs complemented
the water sampling as a means of determining subsurface water quality.
Water Sampling
At least a gross concept of regional ground-water circulation
patterns in the Durham Triassic basin is possible from area! sampling of
water wells. Insufficient sampling was done in the Durham area to establish
other than that dissolved-solids increase toward the southeastern, deeper
part of the basin. There is some suggestion from the data that the
increases are related to the smaller substructures illustrated in figure 21.
Sampling with a packer such as was done in the Sears No. 1 well for
vertical change in water quality is difficult and time consuming if a
reliable sample of formation water rather than mud filtration is to be
obtained. Water samples are absolutely necessary for calibration if
subsurface water quality is to be determined from well logs. The well
must be allowed to flow or be pumped until water chemistry stabilizes.
Where it is not possible to obtain a representative sample of formation
water and sufficient control does exist (including calibrated resistivity,
temperature, and SP logs, resistance of the mud fluid, and some concept
of the ionic species probably present) the well-logging method is the
next best method of determining water chemistry.
120
Hydro!ogic Testing
The data value and effectiveness of the hydrologic testing
techniques used on the Sears No. 1 well are adequately documented
elsewhere. Stressing the aquifer or potential storage reservoir by
addition or removal of fluid gives data about in situ conditions that
cannot be simulated in the laboratory with rock samples.
No attempt was made to determine the rate and direction of ground-
water flow, except that head measurements were made in the Sears No. 1
test well at every opportunity. It is recognized, however, that the data
about the areal and vertical distribution of head is essential to an
understanding of ground-water circulation and a proper evaluation of the
basin's waste-storage potential.
Analysis of Physical Properties of Rock
Laboratory analyses of rock samples taken at six intervals in the
Sears No. 1 well were successfully used to calibrate or to cross-check
other data and techniques. Extreme care must be exercised in the
extrapolation of such data to actual subsurface conditions. Samples must
be unweathered and protected from drying insofar as possible. The
freshness of the "unweathered" road-cut sample is questionable. Fractured
rock can rarely be correctly sampled in a cored hole. The accuracy and
reliability of the laboratory data depends directly on the laboratory's
ability to simulate field conditions, that is, use of a laboratory prepared
water of the correct salinity but of different ionic constituents can
cause clay swelling and erroneous results when such water is flushed
through the laboratory sample.
SUMMARY
The geophysical and geologic data presented in this report describe
a fault graben more complex than has been previously described for the
Durham Triassic basin. The Durham Triassic basin was apparently produced
by a deep crustal master fault expressed at the surface as a series of en
echelon positive fault blocks which supplied sediment and negative blocks
to receive it. The resulting irregular linear basin contains a spatial
facies distribution that reflects a combination of changing tectonic-
climatic elements. For example, the Colon cross-structure was depressed
during earliest sedimentation and elevated later. Different facies
representing different environments were deposited in separate parts of
the larger graben at the same time. The Cumnock, Pekin, and Sanford
Formations as mapped by Reinemund (1965) are in part facies of one
another.
The present Durham Triassic basin is not a simple half graben
bounded on one side by a single master fault nor do the Triassic rocks dip
eastward monoclinally toward the Jonesboro fault. Instead, the eastern
border is step faulted and the Durham Triassic basin is cut into a series
of southeasterly rotated, post-depositional slices that trend approximately
N. 45° E. subparallel to the eastern border of the Sanford and Wadesboro
subbasins. The slices are terminated to the northeast and sometimes to
the southwest by faults that trend nearly due north causing the basin to
be subdivided into relatively unfractured diamond- and triangular-shaped
blocks by faults or wide fracture zones. The presence of a step-faulted
eastern border implies that some of the conglomerate-fanglomerate along
the eastern border formerly thought to be a late depositional product is
actually an earlier one.
The alluvial fans, the angularity of the sand, the poor sorting of
the fines, the size of the boulders in the fanglomerates, and the freshness
of the feldspar in the Durham basin all point to short transport distance
from an elevated source area to a nearby valley floor or graben of low
relief. The depositional environment is not unlike modern deposition in
intermontane basins of the Basin and Range Province or of the Salton Trough
of Southern California. The tentative paleocurrent data indicate a major
extrabasin source to the northeast for much of the Durham subbasin.
Sediment from the basin-margin fans was distributed southwestward by
longitudinal streams.
The low porosity and permeability measured or calculated for the
Durham Triassic rocks is in part a consequence of the poor sorting
characteristic of this environment, extensive lithification and cementation,
and possibly in part caused by swelling of montmorillite during laboratory
tests. The more porous rock principally horizons in the coarse arkosic
sandstone unit has porosities in the microdarcy range and transmissivities
ranging from 1 x 10-* to 1 x 10-7m2 /d (assuming test results
were not invalidated by swelling of montmorillite clay).
122
The low temperature gradient and apparent relatively freshwater to
the bottom of the Sears No. 1 test well indicates deep circulation through
fractures.
Several geophysical and remote sensing techniques were tried in the
Durham Triassic basin to overcome the almost total lack of subsurface data.
A combination of SLAR lineaments with aeromagnetic and simple Bouguer
gravity maps delineate the probable basin architecture. Residual gravity,
aeromagnetic, seismic, and resistivity profiles all give more specific
information about the geometry of the basin fill or basement topography.
All need to be calibrated to a certain degree with local data. Modern
seismic profiling gives the best data about basin structure and distribution
of lithofacies but is prohibitively expensive for most projects.
Resistivity profiling requires the most exhaustive calibration but is the
only method other than seismic that is suited for detailing spatial facies
relationships with minimum cost. Use of aeromagnetic, gravity, and
resistivity data synergistically to model Triassic basin internal and
external geometry, supplemented with reliable test-well data, offers the
most economical approach to defining a framework for more specific waste-
disposal studies.
The samples and borehole geophysical logs from the Groce No. 1 well
and the Sears No. 1 well confirm the simultaneous deposition of the
different facies in separate parts of the basin, the cyclicity of the
original sediments, and the general imperviousness of the rocks. The
samples and logs from the New Hill well indicate that slightly permeable
sandstones and siltstone of the tan arkosic unit interfinger with dense,
essentially nonpervious, red mudstones and argillites creating--!'n the
vertical sense--!ow permeability reservoirs sandwiched between impervious
facies. The lateral extent of reservoir rock is limited by the nearest
facies (permeability) change and the boundaries of the individual
structural blocks.
There is an apparent slightly higher porosity indicated from the
density logs than from the laboratory analysis of core. The mean density-
log porosity was 6.4 percent. That from tested core was 5.4 percent.
However, those porosities derived from the neutron and sonic logs are
substantially higher than either. Undoubtedly, part of the discrepancy is
assignable to poor log compensation for a badly washed out and irregular
hole and part perhaps to post-drilling mineralogical changes within the
tested core. However, the higher porosities exhibited by the New Hill
well are consistent with those observed from the Groce No. 1 well.
Transmissivities from various tests at two different depths range
about 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-1m2 /d. Permeabilities are in the
micro- and nanodarcy range. An estimate of permeability derived from the
transmissivity of 1.2 x 10-3m2 /d of the 247 to 264 m zone is
about 100 microdarcies compared to about 8 microdarcies for well DRB 10 of
the Dumbarton, South Carolina, basin.
Attempts to determine liquid permeabilities of core in the laboratory
resulted in rupture of some samples. The obvious sensitivity to water
suggests that interstitial clay swelling was caused by flushing with water
having ionic makeup different from the formation water. Indeed,
montmori1lonite was later found to be the most abundant clay present in
the Sears No. 1 well drill cuttings. The presence of montmori1lonite
probably affects much of the inhole and laboratory analyses.
Insufficient data were available to establish the rate and direction
of movement of ground water in the basin. The low temperature gradient of
the Sears Mo. 1 well compared to the Groce No. 1 well indicates deeper
circulation of meteoric water at the Sears No. 1 site than at the Groce
No. 1 site. No unusual head relations were observed in the Sears No. 1
well, and the sonic log does not indicate any of the shales are over-
pressured. The shape of the temperature anomalies on the Sears No. 1 log
suggests that there is low-volume water movement down the hole to the 550
m level and up the hole below that point. If correct, water must be
leaving the borehole through fractures or relatively permeable sandstone
at about the 550 m level. If deep circulation does occur at the New Hill
site and if the measured transmissivities are approximately correct, then
circulation must take place through an extensive fracture system.
Acoustic televiewer images of selected parts of the New Hill well
bore show many irregular openings. They appear to be parallel to bedding
and are probably caused by solution of circulating drilling fluid. A few
openings may be related to either fractures or crossbedding. Two short
vertical fractures are identifiable on the images. Both could possibly
have been induced by the drilling and testing procedures. Injection
pressure tests of the 1009 to 1143 m zone indicate that the rock fractures
at 9,500 kilopascal (kPa) above hydrostatic or that the packers failed
during the testing. No change in head was noted at the surface.
The spontaneous potential and resistivity log responses, though not
conclusive, indicate that the water in the formations at the New Hill site
ranges not greater than 350 to 5,500 mg/L equivalent sodium chloride from
top to bottom, respectively. This also suggests some circulation at depth,
The basin contains resources chief ly ground water, oil shale, and
coal. The coal and oil shale occur together, and the potential economic
occurrences are approximately confined to the Sanford area. No potable
ground water was found below 100 m in the Chevron well. Ground-water
yields of the Triassic rocks of the Durham Triassic basin are
characteristically low and domestic supplies are confined to the uppermost
rock units.
Target areas in the basin considered to merit further consideration
for waste storage are outlined in figure 44. The criteria used to prepare
this map include: remoteness from known or potential natural resources;
thickness of sedimentary section (depth to basement); and projection of
the locations where the slightly permeable facies are sandwiched between
or overlain by the dense, argillaceous rock types in the subsurface.
124
The low porosity and permeability, the general faulted and fractured
nature, the presence of swelling clays, the limited spatial extent of the
zones of slightly higher permeability indicate that large volumes of wastes
cannot be safely injected and stored in the Durham Triassic basin. It is
possible that a small volume of liquid waste could be injected and contained
within the more permeable layers until acceptable degradation occurs.
Data concerning the in situ pressures and the orientation with which
fracturing occurs in these rocks are not available to further evaluate
that possibility. It is also possible that the thick, dense, argillaceous,
essentially nonpervious rocks in the basin are suitable sites for subsurface
storage of liquid wastes in containers in man-made caverns.
125
79*30'
36*30-79*00'
36*00-
EXPLANATION
Area where tan artosic unit is most1
probably overlain oy red muastone focies
Areas in above unit wherein tan arkosic
unit i* probably deeper than 1500 meters
and has greatest chance of containing
saltwater
Diabase sills
OHAPaHIU.
RALEIGH
10 MILES
10 15 KILOMETERS
35»15
Figure 44. Areas meriting further study in the Durham Triassic basin.
10C
SELECTED REFERENCES
Abdel-Monen, A. A., and Kulp, J. L., 1968, Paleogeography and the source
of sediments of the Triassic basin, New Jersey, by K-Ar dating:
Geological Society of American Bulletin, v. 79, p. 1231-1241.
Ackerman, H. D., Bain, G. L., and Zohdy, A. A. R., 1976, Deep exploration
of an East-Coast Triassic basin using electrical resistivity: Geology,
v. 4, no. 4, p. 137-140.
Alger, R. P., 1966, Interpretation of electric logs in fresh water wells
in unconsolidted formations: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Society of Professional
Well Log Analysts, 7th Annual Logging Symposium, May 8-11, p. CC1-CC5.
Anderson, E. M., 1951, The dynamics of faulting and dyke formation, with
applications to Britain, 2nd ed.: Oliver and Boyd, 206 p.
Avary, Lee, 1977, Clay mineralogy of the Durham basin: North Carolina
University at Chapel Hill, N.C., 14 p.
Bain, G. L., 1973, Feasibility study of East Coast Triassic basins for
waste storage-data availability: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report, 113 p.
^ , 1977, Wrench-fault tectonic origin of East Coast Triassic
basins (abs.): Geological Society of America Abs. with programs,
Southeastern section, v. 9, No. 2.
Bain, G. L., and Bizdorf, R. J., 1977, Structural reinterpretation of the
Durham-Wadesboro basin, North Carolina (abs.): Geological Society of
America Abs. with Programs, Southeastern section, v. 9, no. 2.
Bain, G. L., and Harvey, B. W., 1977, Field guide to the geology of the
Durham Triassic basin: Carolina Geological Society fieldtrip
guidebook, North Carolina Division of Mineral Resources, 83 p.
Bain, G. L., and Thomas, J. D., 1966, Geology and ground-water in the
Durham area, North Carolina: N.C. Dept. Water Resources, Ground-Water
Bull. 7, 147 p.
Bell, Henry III, Butter, J. R., Howell, D. E., Whallen, W. H., 1974,
Geology of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain near Page!and, South Carolina
and Wadesboro, North Carolina: S. S. State Devel. Board, Div. of
Geol., (Carolina Geol. Soc. Field-Trip Guidebook), 23 p.
Birch, F., 1942, Handbook of physical constants: Geological Society of
America Special Paper 36.
Brown, D. L., 1971, Techniques for quality of water interpretations from
calibrated geological logs, Atlantic Coastal area: Ground Water,
July-Aug., v. 9, no. 4, 13 p.
197
Campbell, M. R., and Kinball, K. W., 1923, the Deep River coal field of
North Carolina: North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey Bull.
33, p. 25-28, 64-79.
Chinnery, M. A., 1966, Secondary Faulting: Canadian Journal of Earth Science,
v. 3, p. 163-190.
Conley, J. F., 1962, Geology and mineral resources of Moore County,
North Carolina: North Carolina Divison Mineral Resources Bull. 76, 40 p.
Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, I. S., 1967, Response
of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water, American
Geophysical Union, Water Resources Research, v. 3, no. 1, p. 263-269.
Cornet, Bruce, 1975, Geological history of the Newark super group in capsule
form: Unpub. paper, Pennsylvania State Univ., 3 p.
1977, The palynostratigraphy and age of the Newark super group:
Pennsylvania State Univ., PhD dissertation, 508 p.
Cornet, W. B., and Traverse, A. A., 1975, Palynological contributions
to the chronology and stratigraphy of the Hartford basin in Connecticut
and Massachusetts: GeoScience and Man, v. 11, p. 1-33.
Custer, R. L. P., 1966, Paleocurrents of the Triassic Durham basin
North Carolina: A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North
Carolina Univ. at Raleigh, 34 p.
1967, Occurrence of limestones in the Durham Triassic basin (abs.):
Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society Journal, v. 84, no. 3, p. 176.
deBoer, Jelle, 1960, Paleomagnetic-tectonic study of Mesozoic dike swarms
in the Appalachians: Journal Geophysical Research, v. 72, p. 2237-2250.
Delevoryas, T., and Hope R. C., 1971, A new Triassic Cycad and its phyletic
implications: Postilla, no. 150, 21 p.
Dennison, J. M., and Wheeler, W. H., 1975, Stratigraphy of Precambrian
through Cretaceous strata of probable fluvial origin in Southeastern
United States and their potential as uranium host rocks: Southeastern
Geology, Spec. Pub., no. 5, 210 p.
Dittmar, E. I., 1979, Environmental interpretation of paleocurrents in the
Triassic Durham basin: Unpub. Master's thesis, Univ. of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, N.C., 91 p.
Ebasco Services, 1975, Fault investigation-Shearon Harris nuclear power
plant for Carolina Power and Light Co.: Ebasco Services, Inc., New
York, N.Y., v. 1 and 2, 620 p.
Emmons, Ebenezer, 1852, Report of Professor Emmons on his geological
survey of North Carolina: Ex. Doc. no. 13, Seaton Gales, Raleigh,
N.C., 181 p.
1856, Geological report of the midland counties of North Carolina:
George P. Putman and Co., New York, N.Y., 347 p.
Ferris, J. G., Knowles, D. B., Brown, R. H., and Stallman, R. W., 1962,
Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1536-E, 174 p.
Fontaine, W. M., 1883, The older Mesozoic flora of North Carolina, pt. 3,
p. 97-128, in Contributions to the knowledge of the older Mesozoic
flora of Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 6, 144 p.
Glaeser, J. D., 1966, Provenance, dispersal and deposition environments of
Triassic sediments in the Newark-Gettysburg basin: Pennsylvania
Geological Survey Report G-43, 168 p.
Guyod, Hubert, 1944, Guyod's electrical well logging: Welex Bull. A132,
103 p.
Hafner, W., 1951, Stress distributions and faulting: Geological Society
of America Bull., v. 62, p. 373-398.
Harrington, J. W., 1951, Structural analysis of the west border of the
Triassic basin: Geological Society of America Bull., v. 62, no. 2,
p. 149-158.
Hodgson, R. A., Gay, S. P., Jr., and Benjamins, J. Y., editors, 1974,
Proceedings of the first international conference on the new basement
tectonics: Utah Geological Association Pub. No. 5, 636 p.
Hooks, W. G., and Ingram, R. L., 1955, The clay minerals and the iron
oxide minerals of the Triassic red beds of the Durham basin, N. C.,
Am. Jour. Sci., v. 253, p. 19-25.
Hope, R. C., and Patt;erson, 0. F., 1969, Triassic flora from the Deep
River basin, North Carolina: North Carolina Divison Mineral Resources
Spec. Pub. 2, 12 p.
Hubbert, M. K., 1951, Mechanical basis for certain familiar geologic
structures: Geological Society America Bull., v. 62, p. 355-372.
Jones, T. R., 1862, Monograph of the fossil Estheridae: Palaeontogr.
Soc. London, p. 1-134, pis. 1-5.
Keys, W. S., Eggers, D. E., and Taylor, T. A., 1979, Borehole geophysics
as applied to the management of radioactive waste site selection and
monitoring, in Carter, M. W., and others, eds., Management of Low-
Level Radioactive Waste: Elmsford, New York Pergamon Press, Inc., W.
2, p. 955-982.
129
Keys, W. S., and MacCary, L. M., 1971, Application of borehole geophysics
to water-resources investigation: Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 2, Ch. El. 126 p.
Klein, G. deV., 1969, Deposition of Triassic sedimentary rocks in separate
basins, eastern North America: Geological Society America Bull., v.
80, p. 1825-1832. Krynine, P. D., 1950, Petrology, stratigraphy and
origin of the Triassic sedimentary rocks of Connecticut: Connecticut
Geological and Natural History Survey Bull., v. 73, 247 p.
Mann, V. I., and Zablocki, F. S., 1961, Gravity features of the Deep River
Wadesboro Triassic basin of North Carolina: Southeastern Geology,
v. 2, no. 4, p. 191-215.
Marine, I. W., and Siple, G. E., 1974, Buried Triassic basin in the central
Savannah River area, South Carolina and Georgia: Geological Society
America Bulletin, v. 85, p. 311-320.
McKee, E. D., 1959, Paleotectonic map of the Triassic system: U.S. Geological
Survey Miscellaneous Geological Investigations Map 1-300, 33 p., 9 pis.
McKinstry, H. E., 1953, Shears of the second order: American Journal Science,
v. 251, p. 401-414.
Moody, J. D. and Hill, M. J., 1956, Wrench-fault tectonics: Geological
Society America Bulletin, v. 67, no. 9, p. 1207-1246.
Murrary, G. E., Jr., 1938, New fossil localities in the Durham Triassic
basin: Science, v. 87, p. 2261.
Olmstead, D., 1825, Report on the Geology of North Carolina conducted
under the Board of Agriculture: Board of Agriculture Report, Part
II, 44 p.
Parker, J. M., Ill, 1978, The geology and mineral resources of Wake County,
North Carolina: North Carolina Divison Mineral Resources Bulletin 86,
122 p.
Patterson, 0. F., Ill, 1969, The depositional environment and paleoecology
of Pekin Formation (Upper Triassic) of the Sanford Triassic basin,
North Carolina: Unpub. Master's Thesis, North Carolina State University
at Raleigh, North Carolina, 104 p.
Peterson, M. N., A., and von der Broch, C. C., 1965, Chert: modern
inorganic deposition in a carbonate precipitating locality: Science,
v. 149, p. 1501-1503.
Prouty, W. F., 1931, Triassic deposits of the Durham basin and their
relation to other Triassic basins of Eastern United States: American
Journal Science, 5th ser., v. 21, p. 473-490.
130
Randazzo, A. F., and Copeland, R. E., 1975, The geology of the northern
portion of the Wadesboro Triassic basin, North Carolina: Southeastern
Geology, v. 17, no. 3, p. 115-138.
Randazzo, A. F., Swe, W., and Wheeler, W. H, 1970, A study of the tectonic
influence in Triassic sedimentation -- the Wadesboro basin, Central
Piedmont: Journal Sedimentary Petrology, v. 40, no. 3, p. 998-1006.
Redfield, W. C., 1856, On the relations of the fossil fishes of the
sandstone of Connecticut and other Atlantic States to the Liassic and
other Oolitic periods: American Journal Science, 2nd ser., v. 22, no. 66,
p. 357-363.
Reinemund, J. A., 1955, Geology of the Deep River coal field, North Carolina:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 246, 159 p.
Russell, I. C., 1892, The Newark system: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 85,
344 p., 13 pis., 4 figs.
Sanders, J. E., 1963, Late Triassic tectonic history of northeastern
United States: American Journal Science, v. 261, p. 501-524.
Schlumberger, 1972a, Log interpretation charts: Schlumberger Limited,
92 p.
1972b, Log interpretation, volume 1 - principles: Schlumberger
Limited, New York, N.Y., 113 p.
Shearer, R. D., 1927, A cross section through the Triassic basin: Unpub.
Master's Thesis, Univ. North Carolina at Chapel Hill, N.C., 23 p.
Smith, N. D., 1970, The braided stream depositional environment:
comparison of the Platte River with some Silurian clastic rocks,
north-central Appalachians: Geological Society of America Bulletin,
v. 81, no. 10, p. 2993-3013.
Sumner, J. R., 1977, Geophysical investigation of the structural framework
of the Newark-Gettysburg Triassic basin, Pennsylvania: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 935-942.
Swain, F. M., and Brown, P. M., 1972, Lower Cretaceous Jurassic (?) and
Triassic Ostracoda from the Atlantic Coastal region: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 795, 55 p., 9 pis.
Van Houten, F. B., 1977, Triassic-Liassic deposits of Morocco and eastern
North America - comparison: American Association Petroleum Geologist
Bulletin, v. 61, no. 1, p. 79-99.
Vilbrant, F. C., 1927, Oil-bearing shales of the Deep River valley:
North Carolina Division Mineral Resources Bulletin, Economic Paper
59, 23 p.
Ward, L. F., 1899, Status of the Mesozoic floras of the United States:
U.S. Geological Survey 20th Annual Report, pt. 2, p. 211-748.
131
Whitehead, J. W., 1962, The petrology of the Sanford basin Triassic
sediments, North Carolina: A thesis presented to the Faculty of the
Graduate School, Missouri University, 174 p.
Wilcox, R. E., Harding, T. P., and Seely, D. R., 1973, Basic wrench
tectonics: American Association Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57,
p. 74-96.
Woodworth, J. B., 1902, The Atlantic coast Triassic coal fields: U.S.
Geological Survey 22nd Annual Report, pt. 3, p. 25-53.
Wyllie, M. R, J., Gregory, A. R., and Gardner, G. H. F., 1956, Elastic Wave
Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous Media: Geophysics, v. 21, no. 1
1958, An experimental investigation of factors affecting elastic
wave velocities in porous media: Geophysics, v. 23, no. 3.
Zablocki, F. S., 1959, A gravity study of the Deep River Wadesboro
Triassic basin of North Carolina: Unpub. Master's Thesis, North
Carolina University at Chapel Hill, N.C., 44 p.
Zohdy, A. A. R., 1974, The use of Dar Zarrouk curves in the interpretation
of VES data: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1313-D, 41 p.
Zohdy, A. A. R., and Bisdorf, R. J., 1975, Computer programs for the
forward calculation and automatic inversion of Wenner sounding curves:
National Technical Information Service, PB-247265/AS, Springfield,
Virginia.
A U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982- 361-614/59
132
REFERENCE 27
Soil Map—Durham County, North Carolina
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2021
Page 1 of 339858703985940398601039860803986150398622039862903985870398594039860103986080398615039862203986290688070688140688210688280688350688420688490688560688630688700688770
688070 688140 688210 688280 688350 688420 688490 688560 688630 688700 688770
36° 0' 11'' N 78° 54' 48'' W36° 0' 11'' N78° 54' 19'' W35° 59' 55'' N
78° 54' 48'' W35° 59' 55'' N
78° 54' 19'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 45 90 180 270
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,360 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Durham County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 24, Jun 2, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 21, 2019—Nov 6,
2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Durham County, North Carolina
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2021
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Ur Urban land 53.0 90.3%
WwC White Store-Urban land
complex, 0 to 10 percent
slopes
5.7 9.7%
Totals for Area of Interest 58.8 100.0%
Soil Map—Durham County, North Carolina
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/8/2021
Page 3 of 3
REFERENCE 28
REFERENCE 29
2725 East Millbrook Road
Suite 121
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.atcgroupservices.com
N.C. Engineering License No. C-1598

October 14, 2020

Mr. David Kwiatkowski
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646

RE: Groundwater Monitoring Report
Durham Dry Cleaners
200 Gregson Street
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
DSCA Site Identification No. DC320026

Dear Mr. Kwiatkowski:

ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) has completed groundwater monitoring activities
at the above referenced site on behalf of the North Carolina Dry-cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act
(DSCA) Program. The DSCA Program’s Groundwater Monitoring Report Forms and Analytical
Data Tables with required attachments are enclosed to document the results of one groundwater
sampling event conducted in June 2020.

If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Meghan
Greiner at [phone].

Sincerely,
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.

Emily J. Fuller Meghan E. Greiner, P.E.
Project Scientist Program Manager

GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT FORMS

DSCA ID No.:
Submittal Date:
Reporting Period:to
Type of Report:One-Time Event Quarterly
Semi-Annual Annual
10/14/2020
DC320026
Jun-20 Jun-20
Groundwater Monitoring Report Forms
for
North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Program
Prepared By:
Facility Name:Durham Dry Cleaners
200 Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
2725 East Millbrook Road, Suite 121, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
Table of Contents
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Form/Att
. No.
Check box
if included
Form 1 Report Summary
Form 2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
Form 3 Results, Conclusions and Recommendations
Att. 1
Att. 2
Att. 3
Att. 4
Att. 5
Disposal of IDW receipts from receiving facilities, or any required hazardous waste
GWMR TOC
Description
Groundwater Monitoring Report Attachments
Groundwater Monitoring Report Forms
Report Summary
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Dates samples were collected:
Number of existing monitoring wells:
List the sampled monitoring wells:
List the sampled water supply wells:
List surface water samples collected:
Date analyses were performed:
Were any holding times exceeded?
Dates monitoring/supply wells were gauged:
disposal?
Average depth to groundwater:
Groundwater flow direction:
Was the static groundwater level above the top of the well screen in any wells?
If Yes, indicate which wells:
Is the aquifer:
Were any existing monitoring wells damaged?
If Yes, indicate which wells:
Has the groundwater plume been defined?
Any ongoing assessment activities?
If Yes, provide details in the space below:
Any ongoing remediation activites?
If Yes, provide details in the space below:
Any significant changes in the subsurface conditions?
If Yes, provide details in the space below:
GWMR Form 1
6.32
6/25/2020
MW-1_DDC and MW-11S
7/2/2020
Does investigation derived waste (IDW) generated during these activities still remain at the site pending
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) concentrations in MW-1_DDC decreased to below the Title 15A NCAC 02L .0202
Groundwater Quality Standard (2L Standard). PCE concentration in downgradient well MW-11S increased from 0.023
mg/L to 0.121 mg/L.
6/25/2020
Northeast
MW-1_DDC, MW-3, MW-5D, MW-8, and MW-11D
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Yes No
Yes No
Confined Unconfined Perched
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Describe the specific sampling technicque employed during the collection of all ground water samples.
The EPA approved method for VOC analysis used to run groundwater samples from the site is SW846 8260.
The samples are directly injected into a gas chromatograph (GC) and then introduced directly to a capillary
column where they are flash evaporated for analysis. The column is temperature-programmed to separate the
analytes, which are then detected with a mass spectrometer (MS) interfaced to the GC. The holding time for
VOC analysis via EPA Method 8260 is 14 days from collection to analysis.
GWMR Form 2
Describe the standard quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures which are practiced in order to
ensure that the samples are representative of actual conditions and that analytical results are valid.
Describe the EPA approved methods used to extract and analyze the samples submitted the laboratory.
Reference the maximum holding time for each type of analysis performed.
ATC followed standard low flow sampling procedures for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as outlined in
the April 26, 2017 United States Environmental Protection Agency Science and Ecosystem Support Division
(US EPA SESD) Groundwater Sampling Operating Procedure. Field parameters, including pH,
oxidation/reduction potential, conductivity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and depth to
water were measured every three minutes during well purging. Stabilization was achieved when pH remained
constant within 0.1 Standard Units and specific conductance varied no more than 5 percent. The samples were
collected in three 40 milliliter vials preserved with hydrochloric acid and filled to zero headspace. Each sample
was then placed in an ice filled cooler. A chain-of-custody form was completed for the sampling event and
accompanied the samples to the laboratory. Chemical analyses were performed on groundwater samples by Pace
Analytical in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Extractions and analyses were performed in accordance with standard
EPA Method 8260 for VOCs.
Groundwater samples were collected using low flow sampling methods as outlined in the April 26, 2017 US
EPA SESD Groundwater Sampling Operating Procedure. Well purging and sampling were completed using a
peristaltic pump and the soda straw method. The polyethylene tubing was replaced at each monitoring well
location prior to sampling. Field parameters, including pH, oxidation/reduction potential, conductivity, specific
conductance, dissolved oxygen, and temperature, were measured every three minutes using a YSI multimeter
and flow-through cell. Before obtaining a sample, field parameters were allowed to stabilize within EPA
guidelines to ensure a representative groundwater sample was collected.
Results, Conclusions and Recommendations
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Sampling
Date Sample ID Concentration
[mg/L]
Sampling
Date Sample ID Concentration
[mg/L]
6/25/2020 MW-11S 0.121 2/13/1996 MW-7 2.715
6/25/2020 MW-11S 0.0121 2/13/1996 MW-7 1.19
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.00188J0 3/13/1996 French Drain 0.076
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.00704 2/21/2017 MW-9 0.56
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.000625 6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.000625
6/25/2020 MW-11S 0.000624 11/29/1995 MW-3 0.0027
6/25/2020 N/A ND 11/29/1995 MW-4 0.0013
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.000334J 11/29/1995 MW-2 0.569
6/25/2020 N/A ND 2/13/1996 MW-7 0.13
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.000251J 7/6/1995 B3 0.0774
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.000779 3/10/2005 MW-1_DDC 0.028
6/25/2020 MW-1_DDC 0.000729 3/10/2005 MW-1_DDC 0.78
6/25/2020 N/A ND 2/13/1996 MW-7 0.0161
Naphthalene (8270)6/25/2020 N/A NA 3/10/2005 MW-1_DDC 0.056
Benzo(a)anthracene 6/25/2020 N/A NA 6/7/2016 MW-2 0.0012
6/25/2020 N/A NA 6/7/2016 MW-2 0.0014
6/25/2020 N/A NA 6/7/2016 MW-2 0.0022
6/25/2020 N/A NA 6/7/2016 MW-2 0.00072
6/25/2020 N/A NA 6/7/2016 MW-2 0.00031
6/25/2020 N/A NA 6/7/2016 MW-2 0.0012
ND = Not Detected
NA = Not Analyzed
N/A = Not Applicable
Notes:
ATC recommends conducting groundwater sampling periodically to monitor groundwater contaminant concentration
trends. If funding is available, ATC recommends installation of additional monitoring wells to delineate the extent of
impacted groundwater.
Instructions: Discuss any trends or changes noted in analytical results.
Conclusions
Recommendations
The results of recent and historical groundwater sampling events indicate a plume of groundwater impacted by a
release at the former dry-cleaning facility. The recent event indicated PCE, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, 1,2-
dichloroethane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane at concentrations above the 2L Standards. The groundwater plume extends
approximately 650 feet downgradient of the source property. The horizontal and vertical extent of impacted
groundwater has not been delineated to 2L Standards and may be co-mingled with other known off-source releases
located in the vicinity of the site.
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Methy tert-butyl ether
Bromodichloromethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene (8260)
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
p-Isopropyltoluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
GWMR Form 3
Results
Maximum Concentration Detected in Groundwater
Chemical
Most Recent Event Detected at Site To-date
ATTACHMENT 1

DISPOSAL DOCUMENTATION FOR INVESTIGATIVE DERIVED WASTE

ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES

DSCA ID No.:
Submittal Date:
Analytical Data Tables
for
North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Program
Prepared By:
Facility Name:Durham Dry Cleaners
200 Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
2725 East Millbrook Road, Suite 121, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
10/14/2020
DC320026
Table of Contents
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Table/
Att. No.
Check box
if included
Table 1 Site Chronology
Table 2 Analytical Data for Soil
Table 3 Analytical Data for Sub-slab Gas
Table 4 Analytical Data for Soil Gas
Table 5 Analytical Data for Indoor and Outdoor Air
Table 6 Monitoring Well Construction Data
Table 7 Groundwater Elevation Data
Table 8 Analytical Data for Groundwater
Table 9 Analytical Data for Surface Water
Table 10 Water Well(s) Survey Data
Table 11 Analytical Data for Water Supply Well(s)
Table 12 Analytical Data for Natural Attenuation Parameters
Att. 1 Site map showing location(s) of soil boring(s).
Att. 2
Att. 3 Soil isoconcentration maps.
Att. 4 Site map showing location(s) of monitoring well(s).
Att. 5
Att. 6 Groundwater gradient map for each sampling event.
Att. 7
Att. 8
Att. 9 Map showing location(s) of surface water sample(s) (if applicable).
Att. 10
Att. 11
Att. 12
Att. 13
Att. 14 Air and soil gas concentration map showing the concentration at each sampling point.
Att. 15
Att. 16
Att. 17
Att. 18
Att. 19
Att. 20
Att. 21
Note:
1. All maps must include a bar scale, north arrow, site name, DSCA ID No., and date.
USGS Quad map with plotted water well location(s)within the 1,500 foot and 0.5
mile radii of the site (if applicable).
Signed laboratory analytical reports including chain-of custody and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC)documentation (only if not previously
submitted).
Soil contaminant concentration maps showing the concentration at each sampling
point.
Site map showing location(s) of indoor air, outdoor air, or soil gas samples.
Well completion diagrams and records of construction submitted to state.
PCE concentration map showing the concentration at each sampling point and
isoconcentration map.However,if there are significant plumes for other dry-
cleaning contaminants,contaminant concentration maps for each chemical of
concern should be included.
Surface water concentration map showing the concentration at each sampling
point (if applicable).
Site map showing location(s) of monitoring well(s) for natural attenuation parameters.
ADT TOC
Description
Attachments
Tables
Groundwater concentration trend plots.
Table 1: Site Chronology
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Chronology of Events
1927-1989
Durham Dry Cleaners operated at the site from 1927 through 1989. The property owner indicated that petroleum-based
solvent (varsol) was used during the time period he has been affiliated with the property, but he was not familiar with
operations throughout the site history. The former dry-cleaning building is currently occupied by Morgan Imports and
Lilly's Pizza.
August to September
1989
Two 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) and one 500-gallon UST were removed from the site. The USTs
were used to store varsol which was used in the former dry-cleaning operations. In addition to the removal of these tanks,
a 7,500-gallon gasoline UST and a 15,500-gallon #6 fuel oil UST were abandoned in place. During removal activities,
SGI Environmental & Engineering Services (SGI) collected two soil samples (DDC-1 and DDC-2) adjacent to the
number 6 fuel oil tank and the gasoline tank. Two soil samples (DDC-3 and DDC-4) were also collected from the
excavation beneath the former location of the varsol tanks. The soil samples collected around the varsol and fuel oil tanks
were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) diesel range organics (DRO). The soil sample collected near the
gasoline tank was analyzed for TPH gasoline range organics (GRO). The results of the laboratory analyses indicated
detectable TPH-DRO in samples DDC-3 and DDC-4 collected below the former varsol tanks.
2/27/1990
SGI completed an Initial Abatement, Site Check, and Phase II Investigation Report. The report documented excavation of
approximately 90 tons of soil from the area of the varsol USTs. Upon completion of the excavation, six soil samples were
collected from the bottom and sidewalls of the excavation (S-1 through S-6) for laboratory analysis of TPH-DRO. The
results of the laboratory analyses indicated detectable TPH-DRO in multiple samples.
5/4/1990
SGI completed an Initial Site Characterization and Subsurface Soil Investigation Report. The report documents
advancement of six additional soil borings (B-1 through B-6) and collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis of
TPH-DRO. The results of the laboratory analyses indicated detectable TPH-DRO in multiple samples.
9/4/1990
SGI completed a Second Phase Soil Excavation Report. The report documents excavation of approximately 200 tons of
soil from the area of the former varsol USTs. Upon completion of the excavation, six soil samples (S-1 through S-6) were
collected from the bottom and sidewalls of the excavation for laboratory analysis of TPH-DRO. The results of the
laboratory analyses indicated detectable TPH-DRO in multiple samples.
7/6/1995 A groundwater sample was collected from location B3; however, ATC has not been supplied a report documenting the
event.
11/29/1995 -
11/30/1995 Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-5D were installed and sampled.
2/8/1996 - 2/13/1996 Monitoring wells MW-6 and MW-7 were installed and sampled.
3/13/1996 A water and soil sample were collected from the French Drain located on the site property.
4/25/2005
SGI completed a Phase I Limited Site Assessment report. This report documents installation and sampling of well MW-
1_DDC and completion of a receptor survey. Groundwater samples collected from well MW-1 contained both petroleum
and chlorinated solvent constituents at concentrations above NC 2L Standards. The results of the receptor survey did not
identify water supply wells within 1,500 feet of the site.
2/27/2008 A Notice of Residual Petroleum (NORP) was filed with the Durham County Register of Deeds. The NORP contains a
land-use restriction prohibiting use of groundwater as a water supply on the property.
4/7/2008 The UST Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued No Further Action
status for the release discovered during the UST removal activates.
6/6/2016- 6/15/2016
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) performed a soil gas screening survey. A total of 48 sub-slab gas
monitoring points were installed and screened using a ppb-Rae. The points were abandoned following screening. In
addition, soil samples were collected from borings SB-1 through SB-3 and groundwater samples were collected from
wells MW-2 through MW-7.
1/23/2017 -
1/25/2017 ATC installed five monitoring wells (MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11S, and MW-11D).
Instructions:Brief description of all significant events that have occurred since a problem was
suspected at the facility.Commence with the first date a problem was suspected and continue
through the most recent activity described in the current report.
Date
ADT 1
Page 1 of 2
Table 1: Site Chronology
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Chronology of Events
Instructions:Brief description of all significant events that have occurred since a problem was
suspected at the facility.Commence with the first date a problem was suspected and continue
through the most recent activity described in the current report.
Date
ADT 1
2/14/2017 -
2/21/2017
ATC collected two indoor air samples (IA-1 and IA-2) from the basement of Morgan Imports. ATC installed two
permanent vapor pins (SS-1 and SS-2) in the basement of Morgan Imports and collected sub-slab gas samples. Soil
samples were also collected from soil borings SB-4 through SB-8, SB-10, SB-12, and SB-14 through SB-16. A
groundwater sampling event and monitoring well gauging event was completed with samples collected from monitoring
wells MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, and MW-11S/MW-11D.
4/13/2017 -
4/17/2017
ATC installed and sampled six near-slab soil gas monitoring points (SGMP-1 through SGMP-6) by the Durham School
of the Arts.
9/29/2017 -
10/5/2017
ATC installed soil gas monitoring points (SGMP-7 through SGMP-10) and collected a soil sample at SGMP-7 [SGMP-7
(0-1) and SGMP-7 (4-5)]. ATC was unable to collect soil gas samples from SGMP-7 and SGMP-8 due to water in the
line, therefore the points were abandoned. Soil gas samples were collected from points SGMP-9 and SGMP-10.
10/19/2017 ATC installed sub-slab points SS-3 and SS-4. Groundwater and sub-slab samples were collected at MW-2, and SS-3 and
SS-4, respectively.
10/25/2019
One Environmental Group (One) completed a Limited Phase II Investigation of the east-adjacent property (112 South
Duke Street) which included soil (SB-1 through SB-4), groundwater (TMW-2), and sub-slab soil gas sampling (SS-1
through SS-4, renamed SS-1 112 Duke through SS-4 112 Duke).
1/2/2020
One completed a Limited Phase II Investigation of Brightleaf Square which included the properties north, east, and west
of Durham Dry Cleaners. The investigation included sub-slab soil gas (SS-3, SS-7, SS-8, and SS-10, renamed SS-3 BS,
SS-7 BS, SS-8 BS, and SS-10 BS) and exterior soil gas sampling (SV-2 through SV-4).
6/25/2020 ATC completed a monitoring well gauging event and collected groundwater samples from monitoring wells MW-1_DDC
and MW-11S.
Page 2 of 2
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)Naphthalene (8260)TetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)AcenaphtheneAnthraceneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneFrench Drain Unknown 03/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA 3.6028 NA 0.0959 0.2823 0.5138 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-4 (1.5-2)1.5-2 02/20/17 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.010 <0.0060 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-4 (4-5)4-5 02/20/17 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0032 <0.0032 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0080 <0.0048 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-5 (1-2)1-2 02/17/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0036 <0.0036 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0089 <0.0054 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-5 (4-5)4-5 02/17/17 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 0.0019 J <0.0038 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0094 <0.0057 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-6 (1-2)1-2 02/17/17 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 0.00094 J <0.0034 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0086 <0.0051 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
SB-6 (4-5)4-5 02/17/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0036 <0.0036 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0089 <0.0054 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-7 (1-2)1-2 02/17/17 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0038 <0.0038 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0094 <0.0057 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
SB-7 (3-4)3-4 02/17/17 <0.0017 <0.0017 0.0038 0.0012 J 0.014 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0087 <0.0052 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
SB-8 (1-2)1-2 02/16/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0088 <0.0053 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-8 (2-3)2-3 02/16/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 0.0058 <0.0035 0.0089 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0088 0.017 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
SB-10 (1-2)1-2 02/20/17 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0041 <0.0041 0.0097 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.010 <0.0061 <0.21 <0.21 0.16 J 0.14 J 0.19 J 0.094 J 0.069 J
SB-10 (2-3)2-3 02/20/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0036 <0.0036 0.0012 J <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0090 <0.0054 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
SB-12 (1-2)1-2 02/20/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0036 <0.0036 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0089 <0.0054 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-12 (4-5)4-5 02/20/17 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.010 <0.0060 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-14 (1-2)1-2 02/16/17 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0041 <0.0041 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.010 <0.0062 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-14 (4-4.5)4-4.5 02/16/17 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0039 <0.0039 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0099 <0.0059 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-15 (1-2)1-2 02/16/17 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0083 <0.0050 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-15 (2-3)2-3 02/16/17 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0041 <0.0041 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.010 <0.0061 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-16 (2-3)2-3 02/20/17 <0.0058 <0.0058 <0.0058 <0.012 <0.012 <0.0058 <0.0058 <0.0058 <0.0058 <0.029 <0.0178 <0.90 <0.90 0.27 J 0.33 J 0.51 J 0.40 J <0.90
SGMP-7 (0-1)0-1 09/29/17 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0036 <0.0036 0.0043 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0091 <0.0052 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SGMP-7 (4-5)4-5 09/29/17 <0.11 0.047 <0.11 <0.11 <0.23 0.048 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.23 <0.34 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2-4 11/18/19 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0125 <0.0025 <0.00499 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833
8-10 11/18/19 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.011 <0.00219 <0.00438 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731
SB-2 8-10 11/18/19 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.0114 <0.00227 <0.00455 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758
SB-3 6.5-8.5 11/18/19 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.0111 <0.00221 <0.00443 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738
SB-4 2-4 11/18/19 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.0117 <0.00233 <0.00467 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233 0.177 0.123 0.148 0.159 0.21 0.0786 0.121
0.01 0.41 6.1 0.09 0.39 0.0063 8.3 0.62 0.021 0.00021 9.9 16 1,300 0.35 0.11 1.1 15,600 11
[mg/kg]
Table 2: Analytical Data for Soil
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Limited Phase II ESA Data
IHSB PSRGSample IDSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Depth[feet bgs]SB-1
ADT 2
Page 1 of 3
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateChryseneFluorantheneFluoreneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene2-MethylnaphthaleneNaphthalene (8270D)PhenanthrenePyrene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneAcetoneIsopropylbenzene (Cumene)n-Butylbenzenen-Propylbenzenep-Isopropyltoluene (p-Cymene)sec-ButylbenzeneFrench Drain Unknown 03/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-4 (1.5-2)2 02/20/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.10 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020
SB-4 (4-5)5 02/20/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.080 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016 <0.0016
SB-5 (1-2)2 02/17/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.089 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018
SB-5 (4-5)5 02/17/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.094 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019 <0.0019
SB-6 (1-2)2 02/17/17 <0.39 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.086 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017
SB-6 (4-5)5 02/17/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.089 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018
SB-7 (1-2)2 02/17/17 <0.43 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 0.0016 J <0.0019 <0.094 <0.0019 <0.0019 0.0012 J <0.0019 0.0011 J
SB-7 (3-4)4 02/17/17 0.19J <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.016 <0.0017 <0.087 0.039 0.019 0.095 0.016 0.033
SB-8 (1-2)2 02/16/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.088 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018
SB-8 (2-3)3 02/16/17 <0.42 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 14 5.9 <0.088 0.055 0.051 0.13 0.07 0.053
SB-10 (1-2)2 02/20/17 <0.41 0.17 J 0.32 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 0.12 J 0.28 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.026 J <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020
SB-10 (2-3)3 02/20/17 <0.41 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.0018 <0.0018 0.021 J <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018
SB-12 (1-2)2 02/20/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0018 <0.0018 0.023 J <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018
SB-12 (4-5)5 02/20/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.10 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020
SB-14 (1-2)2 02/16/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.10 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0021 <0.0021
SB-14 (4-4.5)4.5 02/16/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.099 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020
SB-15 (1-2)2 02/16/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0017 <0.0017 0.021 J <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017
SB-15 (2-3)3 02/16/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.10 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020
SB-16 (2-3)3 02/20/17 <1.8 0.37 J 0.65 J <0.90 <0.90 <0.90 <0.90 <0.90 0.76 J 0.0035 J <0.0058 0.074 J <0.0058 <0.0058 <0.0058 0.0051 J <0.0058
SGMP-7 (0-1)1 09/29/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.091 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018 <0.0018
SGMP-7 (4-5)5 09/29/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.11 0.029 <5.7 <0.11 0.12 <0.11 0.032 0.023
2-4 11/18/19 <0.412 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0833 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0499 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025
8-10 11/18/19 <0.361 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.0731 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.0438 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219 <0.00219
SB-2 8-10 11/18/19 <0.375 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.0758 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.0455 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227 <0.00227
SB-3 6.5-8.5 11/18/19 <0.365 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.0738 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.0443 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221 <0.00221
SB-4 2-4 11/18/19 <0.385 0.151 0.349 0.225 <0.0778 0.131 0.363 0.313 0.421 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.0467 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233 <0.00233
14 36 480 110 1.1 3.1 0.39 134 360 12 11 25 2.3 4.5 2.6 1.24 4.1Sample IDDepth[feet bgs]Sampling Date (mm/dd/yy)[mg/kg]
Table 2(1): Analytical Data for Soil (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
IHSB PSRG
Limited Phase II ESA Data
SB-1
ADT 2(1)
Page 2 of 3
tert-ButylbenzeneC5-C8 AliphaticsC9-C12 AliphaticsC9-C10 AromaticsC11-C22 AromaticC19-C39 AliphaticC9-C18 AliphaticChromiumLeadFrench Drain Unknown 03/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-4 (1.5-2)2 02/20/17 <0.0020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-4 (4-5)5 02/20/17 <0.0016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-5 (1-2)2 02/17/17 <0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-5 (4-5)5 02/17/17 <0.0019 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-6 (1-2)2 02/17/17 <0.0017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-6 (4-5)5 02/17/17 <0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-7 (1-2)2 02/17/17 <0.0019 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-7 (3-4)4 02/17/17 0.0084 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-8 (1-2)2 02/16/17 <0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-8 (2-3)3 02/16/17 0.013 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-10 (1-2)2 02/20/17 <0.0020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-10 (2-3)3 02/20/17 <0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-12 (1-2)2 02/20/17 <0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-12 (4-5)5 02/20/17 <0.0020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-14 (1-2)2 02/16/17 <0.0021 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-14 (4-4.5)4.5 02/16/17 <0.0020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-15 (1-2)2 02/16/17 <0.0017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-15 (2-3)3 02/16/17 <0.0020 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SB-16 (2-3)3 02/20/17 <0.0058 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SGMP-7 (0-1)1 09/29/17 <0.0018 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SGMP-7 (4-5)5 09/29/17 <0.11 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2-4 11/18/19 <0.0025 <6 <6 <6 3.08J <4.99 <3.75 62.4 23.7
8-10 11/18/19 <0.00219 <6 <6 <6 2.71J <4.38 <3.29 39.5 10.9
SB-2 8-10 11/18/19 <0.00227 <6 <6 <6 <9.66 <4.55 <3.41 31.9 22.0
SB-3 6.5-8.5 11/18/19 <0.00221 <6 <6 <6 2.33J 3.21J 2.58J 8.1 10.9
SB-4 2-4 11/18/19 <0.00233 <6 <6 <6 6.65J 26.7 4.45 18.7 77.9
3.1 110 19 0.29 2.4 16,000 19 23,000 270
Table 2(2): Analytical Data for Soil (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Sample IDDepth[feet bgs]Sampling Date (mm/dd/yy)[mg/kg]
SB-1
IHSB PSRG
Limited Phase II ESA Data
ADT 2(2)
Page 3 of 3
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)NaphthaleneTetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)Acetone1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneSS-1 12 12 G 02/15/17 NA <4.0 8.6 NA NA 57 NA <8.0 24 <2.6 33.1 NA 7.7 <5.0
SS-2 12 12 G 02/15/17 NA 92 <22 NA NA 15,000 NA <40 430 <13 <66 NA <25 <25
SS-3 8 8 G 10/19/17 <0.72 1.2 <0.98 <0.81 <1.2 230 2.7 <0.89 1.8 <0.57 3.1 52 1.6 <1.1
SS-4 8 8 G 10/19/17 0.79 <0.79 1.9 1.8 8 42 6.1 <0.79 <1.1 <0.51 13.8 230 23 6.2
SS-3 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <3.2 <4.0 <4.4 NA NA 12 6.1 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 <4.4 NA <5.0 <5.0
SS-7 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 4.1 <4.0 4.9 NA NA 32 20 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 23.9 NA 11 <5.0
SS-8 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <3.2 <4.0 <4.4 NA NA <6.9 12 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 <4.4 NA <5.0 <5.0
SS-10 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <3.2 <4.0 <4.4 NA NA 340 5.1 <8.0 17 <2.6 <4.4 NA 17 5.5
SS-1 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 4.5 <4.0 6.9 NA NA 140 22 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 44 NA 19 6.8
SS-2 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 11 <4.0 6.6 NA NA 22 54 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 50 NA 13 5.5
SS-3 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 34 <4.0 7.4 NA NA 18 50 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 62 NA 22 10
SS-4 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 530 <2,000 <2,000 NA NA <410 <4,100 <2,000 <410 <200 <2,000 NA <2,000 <2,000
160 NE 490 4,700 36 3,500 440,000 NE 180 280 8,800 2,700,000 5,300 5,300
Limited Phase II ESA Data
Table 3: Analytical Data for Sub-slab Gas
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
1 Indicate "G" for grab sample or for longer samples indicate the number of hours followed by "h".Sample IDSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Depth[inches bgs]Slab Thickness[inches]Sampling Duration 1DWM Non-Residential VISL SGSL (July 2020)
[µg/m3]
ADT 3
Page 1 of 2
ChloromethaneCarbon Disulfide2-ButanoneTrichlorofluoromethane1,1,1-TrichloroethaneChloroformSS-1 12 12 G 02/15/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS-2 12 12 G 02/15/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS-3 8 8 G 10/19/17 NA NA NA NA NA <1.1
SS-4 8 8 G 10/19/17 NA NA NA NA NA 6.4
SS-3 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <2.1 <6.3 <30 <5.6 <5.5 <4.9
SS-7 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <2.1 7.8 <30 <5.6 <5.5 <4.9
SS-8 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <2.1 <6.3 <30 <5.6 <5.5 <4.9
SS-10 BS Unknown Unknown Unknown 09/27/19 <2.1 <6.3 <30 <5.6 <5.5 <4.9
SS-1 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 6.6 12 <30 <5.6 <5.5 <4.9
SS-2 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 <2.1 18 <30 <5.6 <5.5 13
SS-3 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 <2.1 26 40 <5.6 <5.5 <4.9
SS-4 112 Duke Unknown Unknown Unknown 11/18/19 <2,000 <2,000 <10,000 <2,000 <2,000 <410
7,900 61,000 440,000 NE 440,000 53DWM Non-Residential VISL SGSL (July 2020)
Table 3(1): Analytical Data for Sub-slab Gas (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
1 Indicate "G" for grab sample or for longer samples indicate the number of hours followed by "h".Slab Thickness[inches]Sampling Duration 1[µg/m3]Sample IDDepth[inches bgs]Sampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Limited Phase II ESA Data
ADT 3(1)
Page 2 of 2
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)NaphthaleneTetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)Carbon Disulfide1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene2-ButanoneSGMP-1 5 G 04/17/17 NA 30 NA NA NA <6.9 NA <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SGMP-2 5 G 04/17/17 NA <4.0 NA NA NA 11 NA <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SGMP-3 5 G 04/17/17 NA <4.0 NA NA NA 550 NA <8.0 6.0 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SGMP-4 5 G 04/17/17 NA <4.0 NA NA NA 11 NA <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SGMP-5 5 G 04/17/17 NA <4.0 NA NA NA <6.9 NA <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SGMP-6 5 G 04/17/17 NA <4.0 NA NA NA <6.9 NA <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
12 NE 37 360 2.8 280 35,000 NE 14 5.6 700 4,900 420 35,000
SGMP-9 1.25 G 10/05/17 NA 8.5 NA NA NA 300 NA <8.0 34 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SGMP-10 2.3 G 10/05/17 NA <4.0 NA NA NA 430 NA <8.0 13 <2.6 NA NA NA NA
SV-2 Unknown Unknown 09/28/19 13 <4.0 <4.4 NA NA <6.9 32 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 18.1 58 5.2 <30
SV-3 Unknown Unknown 09/28/19 <3.2 7.4 <4.4 NA NA 830 14 <8.0 200 <2.6 <4.4 <6.3 <5.0 <30
SV-4 Unknown Unknown 09/28/19 5 <4.0 <4.4 NA NA <6.9 17 <8.0 <5.5 <2.6 9.1 140 <5.0 99
160 NE 490 4,700 36 3,500 440,000 NE 180 280 8,800 61,000 5,300 440,000DWM Non-Residential VISL SGSL (July 2020)
DWM Residential VISL SGSL (July 2020)
[µg/m3]
1 Indicate "G" for grab sample or for longer samples indicate the number of hours followed by "h".
Table 4: Analytical Data for Soil Gas
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Limited Phase II ESA DataSample Duration 1Sample IDSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Depth[feet bgs]ADT 4
Page 1 of 1
Table 5: Analytical Data for Indoor and Outdoor Air
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE)NaphthaleneTetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneIA-1 02/14/17 F P 8h NA 0.945 2.82 <0.183 NA 18.3 NA <0.197 0.716 <0.122 10.81 0.809 2.83
IA-2 02/14/17 F P 8h NA 0.778 3.06 <0.171 NA 20.1 NA <0.185 0.590 <0.115 11.60 0.873 3.14
16 NE 4.9 47 0.36 35 4,400 NE 1.8 2.8 88 53 53
Notes:
2 Indicate "SU" for summa canister, "FC" for flux chambers, "T" for tedlar bags, "P" for passive samplers, "O" for other.
3 Indicate "8h" for 8-hour, "24h" for 24-hour, "G" for grab sample, for other hours indicate the number of hours followed by "h" or "d" for days.Sample IDSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)1 Indicate "F" for former or current dry-cleaning facility, "AD" for adjacent space, "R" for residence, "C" for commercial not adjacent space. If sample was taken outdoors, leave blank.
[µg/m3]Sample Location 1Sampling Duration 3Sampling Method 2DWM Non-Residenial VISL IASL (July 2020)
ADT 5
Page 1 of 3
Table 5(1): Additional Data for Indoor and Outdoor Air
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Attachment:
Sampling location map that indicates where all indoor air samples were collected. The map should clearly indicate the names/types of businesses and residence names sampled and in the vicinity of the subject site
that may be of concern.
For any indoor air spaces tested, describe the current use of the space (for example - an ABC liquor store adjacent to the dry-cleaner, a residence approximately 200 feet from the dry-cleaner, etc.):
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Is dry-cleaning facility at the site: Operating Pick-up Only Abandoned
If facility is operating, solvents used are: Perc Petroleum Green Earth Other
For the active or former dry-cleaning space, describe the type and location of the air handling/HVAC unit (for example - a shared unit supplying two adjacent spaces; unit located on the roof):
113 S Gregson St, Durham, NC 27701 - Former Durham Dry Cleaners (currently Morgan Imports - Retail). Natural gas- HVAC: hot air circulation / central air conditioning mounted on roof. Building contains
basement, samples (IA-1 and IA-2) collected from basement.
For any other indoor spaces tested, describe the type and location of the air handling/HVAC unit (for example - a shared unit supplying two adjacent spaces; unit located on the roof):
ADT 5(1)
Page 2 of 3
Table 5(2): Additional Data for Indoor and Outdoor Air
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Sample ID Name and Address for Sampling Location Property Owner Name, Address, and Phone Number Tenant Name, Address, and Phones Number
IA-1 &
IA-2
Morgan Imports, Ltd.
113 S. Gregson St.,
Durham, NC 27701
Durham Laundry Co.
5055 Isabella Cannon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612-4806
919-754-7124
Morgan Imports, Ltd.
113 S. Gregson St.,
Durham, NC 27701
919-688-1150
ADT 5(2)
Page 3 of 3
Table 6: Monitoring Well Construction Data
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Well ID Date Installed
(mm/dd/yy)Number of Samples Well Depth
[feet]
Well Diameter
[inch]
Screen Interval
[feet]
Status
(Active/Inactive)
MW-1_DDC 03/09/05 2 25 2 10-25 Active
MW-1 11/29/95 1 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-2 11/29/95 4 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-3 11/29/95 2 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-4 11/29/95 2 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-5D 11/30/95 2 30 2 25-30 Active
MW-6 02/08/96 2 20 2 5-20 Active
MW-7 02/08/96 2 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-8 01/24/17 1 25 2 15-25 Active
MW-9 01/23/17 1 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-10 01/23/17 1 15 2 5-15 Active
MW-11S 01/23/17 2 15 1 5-15 Active
MW-11D 01/23/17 1 40 2 35-40 Active
ADT 6
Page 1 of 1
Table 7: Groundwater Elevation Data
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Groundwater
Sampling Point
Sampling Date
(mm/dd/yy)
TOC Elevation
[feet]
Depth to Water
[feet bgs]
Groundwater
Elevation
[feet]
Depth to NAPL
[feet bgs]
NAPL Thickness
[feet]
Corrected*
Groundwater
Elevation [feet]
03/11/05 NA 5.53 NA NA NA --
02/20/17 7.21 382.12 NA NA --
06/25/20 6.18 383.15 NA NA --
12/27/95 6.06 93.94 NA NA --
02/19/96 5.96 94.04 NA NA --
06/06/16 Unable to locate --NA NA --
02/19/18 6.98 --NA NA --
06/25/20 Unable to locate --NA NA --
12/27/95 4.87 93.40 NA NA --
02/19/96 4.40 93.87 NA NA --
06/06/16 4.13 94.14 NA NA --
02/20/17 3.46 375.88 NA NA --
02/19/18 4.94 374.40 NA NA --
06/25/20 Unable to locate --NA NA --
12/27/95 4.15 93.11 NA NA --
02/19/96 4.55 92.71 NA NA --
06/06/16 4.61 92.65 NA NA --
02/20/17 4.92 373.50 NA NA --
02/19/18 4.23 374.19 NA NA --
06/25/20 4.15 374.27 NA NA --
12/27/95 9.03 91.78 NA NA --
02/19/96 8.95 91.86 NA NA --
06/06/16 8.85 91.96 NA NA --
02/20/17 7.86 374.13 NA NA --
02/19/18 7.49 374.50 NA NA --
06/25/20 8.60 373.39 NA NA --
12/27/95 6.25 93.43 NA NA --
02/19/96 6.21 93.47 NA NA --
06/06/16 6.33 93.35 NA NA --
02/20/17 5.75 375.15 NA NA --
02/19/18 5.58 375.32 NA NA --
06/25/20 5.80 375.10 NA NA --
MW-1
NA
MW-1_DDC
98.27
97.26
100.81
99.68
MW-5D
MW-4
MW-3
MW-2
378.42
389.33
100
381.99
380.90
379.34
ADT 7
Page 1 of 2
Table 7: Groundwater Elevation Data
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Groundwater
Sampling Point
Sampling Date
(mm/dd/yy)
TOC Elevation
[feet]
Depth to Water
[feet bgs]
Groundwater
Elevation
[feet]
Depth to NAPL
[feet bgs]
NAPL Thickness
[feet]
Corrected*
Groundwater
Elevation [feet]
ADT 7
02/19/96 6.41 95.09 NA NA --
06/06/16 6.26 95.24 NA NA --
02/20/17 6.64 376.05 NA NA --
02/19/18 6.34 376.35 NA NA --
06/25/20 6.60 376.09 NA NA --
02/19/96 6.17 94.99 NA NA --
06/06/16 5.12 96.04 NA NA --
02/20/17 5.52 376.87 NA NA --
06/25/20 5.71 376.68 NA NA --
02/20/17 7.88 381.89 NA NA --
02/19/18 7.66 374.73 NA NA --
06/25/20 7.16 382.61 NA NA --
02/20/17 6.69 378.30 NA NA --
02/19/18 7.35 377.64 NA NA --
06/25/20 7.24 377.75 NA NA --
02/20/17 5.38 375.50 NA NA --
02/19/18 5.12 375.76 NA NA --
06/25/20 5.81 375.07 NA NA --
02/20/17 6.36 369.15 NA NA --
02/19/18 6.34 369.17 NA NA --
06/25/20 6.32 369.19 NA NA --
02/20/17 6.11 369.54 NA NA --
02/19/18 6.05 369.60 NA NA --
06/25/20 6.00 369.65 NA NA --
101.16
101.50
MW-6
MW-7
MW-11D 375.65
MW-8 389.77
MW-9 384.99
MW-10 380.88
MW-11S 375.51
382.39
382.69
Page 2 of 2
Benzenecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneMethyl tert-butylether (MTBE)Naphthalene (8260)TetrachloroethyleneToluenetrans-1,2-DichloroethyleneTrichloroethyleneVinyl chlorideXylenes (total)1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethylene1,2-Dichloroethane(EDC)Chloroformtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene0.001 0.07 0.6 0.02 0.006 0.0007 0.6 0.1 0.003 0.00003 0.5 0.2 0.0006 0.35 0.0004 0.07 0.0004
B3 07/06/95 0.025 NA 0.0361 NA 0.0774 1.56 0.0153 <RL 0.182 0.0234 0.0345 0.0412 <RL <RL <RL <RL <RL
03/10/05 <0.0010 0.0070 0.0064 <0.0050 0.068 0.0039 <0.0050 <0.0010 0.0014 <0.0010 0.084 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA
06/25/20 0.000334J 0.00704 0.000343J <0.000500 0.000251J <0.000500 <0.000500 0.000320J <0.000500 0.00188J0 0.000405J <0.000500 0.000625 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500
French Drain 03/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA 0.354 NA <0.010 0.012 0.076 NA <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA <0.0005 0.0365 NA 2.55 <0.0005 0.0021 0.271 0.0162 <0.0015 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0006 <0.0005 0.0008
06/06/16
11/29/95 0.569 NA 0.16 <0.001 NA <0.005 0.42 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 0.439 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.0005
06/07/16 0.0082 <0.0050 0.0018 J <0.0050 0.0037 J <0.0025 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 0.0052 J <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0025
10/19/17
Unfiltered NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
10/19/17
Filtered NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11/29/95 0.0204 NA 0.0039 <0.001 NA <0.005 0.0188 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0052 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0027 0.001 <0.0005
06/07/16 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA <0.0005 <0.001 NA <0.005 0.0007 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0015 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0084 0.0013
06/06/16 <0.0010 0.00061 J <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.00067 J <0.0030 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA <0.0005 0.0309 NA 1.95 <0.0005 0.0008 0.138 0.0062 <0.0015 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005 0.0008
06/06/16 <0.010 0.22 <0.010 0.0059 J <0.020 0.34 <0.010 <0.010 0.24 <0.020 <0.030 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020 <0.0050
02/13/96 0.0005 NA <0.0005 <0.001 NA 0.0509 0.0005 0.0019 0.0188 0.0291 0.009 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0071 <0.0005
06/06/16 <0.0010 0.043 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050 <0.0010 0.00068 J 0.0012 0.0041 <0.0030 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050
02/13/96 <0.0005 NA <0.0005 0.13 NA 2.715 0.0005 0.0038 1.19 0.0014 <0.0015 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.001 <0.005 0.0032 <0.0005
06/06/16 <0.010 0.042 <0.010 0.018 <0.020 0.26 <0.010 <0.010 0.06 <0.020 <0.030 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020 <0.0050
MW-8 02/21/17 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.00050
MW-9 02/21/17 <0.040 0.56 <0.040 <0.040 <0.080 2.3 <0.040 <0.040 0.74 0.016 J <0.120 <0.040 <0.040 <0.020 <0.040 <0.080 <0.020
MW-10 02/21/17 0.0033 0.077 <0.0020 0.0014 J <0.0040 0.12 <0.0020 0.0019 J 0.03 0.00056 J <0.0060 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0010 <0.0020 <0.0040 <0.0010
02/21/17 <0.0010 0.017 <0.0010 0.00012 J <0.0020 0.023 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.012 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.00050 0.00035 J <0.0020 <0.00050
06/25/20 <0.000500 0.00114 <0.000500 <0.000500 0.000222J 0.121 <0.000500 <0.000500 0.0121 <0.000500 0.000238J <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 0.000624 <0.000500 <0.000500
MW-11D 02/21/17 <0.0010 0.00058 J <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0020 0.049 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0068 <0.0020 <0.0030 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.00050 0.00023 J <0.0020 <0.00050
TMW-2 11/18/19 <0.0005 0.00426 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.001 0.00181 <0.000500 <0.000500 0.00077 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500
Limited Phase II ESA Data
MW-4Groundwater Sampling PointSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)[mg/L]
MW-7
MW-6
MW-5D
MW-2
MW-3
Table 8: Analytical Data for Groundwater
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
NC 2L Standard
MW-1_DDC
MW-11S
MW-1 Unable to locate
ADT 8
Page 1 of 3
Bromodichloro-methanen-Butylbenzenesec-Butylbenzenetert-ButylbenzeneIsopropylbenzenep-Isopropyltoluenen-Propylbenzene1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneVolatile PetroleumHydrocarbons (C9-C12 Alphalitics)Extractable PetroleumHydrocarbons (C9-C18 Alphalitics)Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene 0.0006 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.025 0.07 NE 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 2 0.00005 0.000005 0.08 0.2
B3 07/06/95 <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.01 NA NA NA NA
03/10/05 <0.0010 0.017 0.021 0.0065 0.026 0.028 0.043 NA 0.78 0.16 0.13 0.20 NA NA NA NA NA
06/25/20 <0.000500 0.00237 0.00512 0.00189 0.00433 0.000779 0.00325 0.000388J 0.000729 <0.000500 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
French Drain 03/13/96 <0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/07/16 <0.0025 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0011 J <0.0050 0.0024 J NA <0.0050 <0.0050 NA NA 0.00044 0.0012 0.0014 0.00028 J 0.000080 J
10/19/17
Unfiltered NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.000075 J <0.000050 0.000041 J 0.000079 J <0.00030
10/19/17
Filtered NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.00019 <0.000047 <0.000095 <0.00028 <0.00028
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/07/16 <0.00050 0.00015 J 0.00027 J 0.00012 J <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11/29/95 0.0007 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11/29/95 <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 NA <0.010 <0.010 NA NA <0.00020 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.00030 <0.00030
02/13/96 <0.0005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
02/13/96 0.0161 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 NA <0.010 <0.010 NA NA <0.00020 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.00030 <0.00030
MW-8 02/21/17 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MW-9 02/21/17 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 NA <0.040 <0.040 NA NA <0.00020 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.00030 <0.00030
MW-10 02/21/17 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 NA <0.0020 <0.0020 NA NA <0.00020 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.00030 <0.00030
02/21/17 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/25/20 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MW-11D 02/21/17 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TMW-2 11/18/19 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 <0.000500 NA NA <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 NA <0.00200
Limited Phase II ESA DataSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Groundwater Sampling Point[mg/L]
Unable to locate
MW-7
MW-2
Table 8(1): Analytical Data for Groundwater (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
NC 2L Standard
MW-1_DDC
MW-11S
MW-1
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5D
MW-6
ADT 8(1)
Page 2 of 3
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene (8270D)n-PropylbenzenePhenanthrene Pyrene 1-Methylnaphthalene2-Methylnaphthalene2-Hexanone (MBK)AcetoneCarbon Disulfide Diisopropyl Ether (DIPE)0.00005 0.2 0.0005 0.005 0.000005 0.3 0.3 0.00005 0.006 0.07 0.2 0.2 NE 0.03 0.04 6 0.7 0.07
B3 07/06/95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
03/10/05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.056 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0050
06/25/20 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.00500 <0.0250 0.000124J <0.000500
French Drain 03/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11/29/95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16
11/29/95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/07/16 0.0022 0.0011 0.00072 0.0013 0.00031 0.0025 0.00018 J 0.0012 0.0034 0.0024 J 0.00054 0.0018 <0.0050 0.00039 <0.05 <0.25 <0.020 <0.0025
10/19/17
Unfiltered 0.000061 <0.00050 <0.000020 0.000049 J <0.00020 0.00010 J 0.000097 J <0.00020 0.014 NA 0.00015 0.000080 J 0.0014 J 0.0019 NA NA NA NA
10/19/17
Filtered <0.000047 <0.00047 <0.00019 <0.00019 <0.00019 <0.00047 <0.00095 <0.00019 0.0063 NA <0.000047 <0.00095 <0.0013 0.00032 J NA NA NA NA
11/29/95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/07/16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0010 NA NA NA NA <0.010 <0.050 <0.0040 <0.00050
11/29/95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0010 NA NA NA NA <0.010 <0.050 <0.0040 <0.00050
11/29/95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 0.000033 J <0.00050 <0.00020 0.000034 J <0.00010 0.000050 J <0.0010 <0.00020 <0.0010 <0.010 <0.000050 0.000039 J <0.0050 <0.001 <0.10 <0.50 <0.040 <0.0050
02/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.0010 NA NA NA NA <0.010 <0.050 <0.0040 <0.00050
02/13/96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
06/06/16 0.000028 J <0.00050 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.00020 <0.0010 <0.010 <0.000050 <0.0010 <0.0050 <0.001 <0.20 <0.50 <0.040 <0.0050
MW-8 02/21/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.010 <0.050 <0.0040 <0.00050
MW-9 02/21/17 <0.000050 <0.00050 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.00020 <0.0010 NA <0.000050 <0.0010 <0.0050 <0.0010 <0.40 0.66 J <0.16 <0.020
MW-10 02/21/17 <0.000050 <0.00050 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.00020 <0.0010 NA <0.000050 <0.0010 <0.0050 <0.0010 0.0031 J <0.10 <0.0080 0.00084 J
02/21/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.010 <0.050 <0.0040 <0.00050
06/25/20 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.00500 <0.0250 <0.000500 <0.000500
MW-11D 02/21/17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.010 1.1 <0.0040 <0.00050
TMW-2 11/18/19 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.00200 <0.000500 <0.00200 <0.00200 NA <0.00200 <0.00500 <0.00500 NA <0.0005
Table 8(2): Analytical Data for Groundwater (User Specified Chemicals)
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Unable to locateGroundwater Sampling PointSampling Date (mm/dd/yy)MW-7
Limited Phase II ESA Data
MW-3
MW-4
MW-2
[mg/L]
MW-1
MW-5D
MW-6
NC 2L Standard
MW-1_DDC
MW-11S
ADT 8(2)
Page 3 of 3
Table 12: Analytical Data for Natural Attenuation Parameters
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Sampling Date (mm/dd/yy)Dissolved oxygen (DO)NitrateSulfateMajor CationsMethaneFerrous IronOxidation reduction potential (ORP)AlkalinityChloride (optional)ConductivitypHTemperatureTotal organic carbon (TOC)TurbidityEthaneEtheneUnits mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mV mg/L mg/L μs/cm2 std unit ° C mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
MW-1_DDC 06/25/20 0.54 NA NA NA NA NA -298.9 NA NA 1,464 8.64 23.80 NA NA NA NA
MW-1 06/06/16
06/07/16 0.69 NA NA NA NA NA -35.1 NA NA 433 6.15 24.26 NA NA NA NA
10/19/17 2.16 NA NA NA NA NA -91.2 NA NA 899 6.37 24.73 NA 2.84 NA NA
MW-3 06/07/16 0.39 NA NA NA NA NA -68.4 NA NA 585 6.41 23.73 NA NA NA NA
MW-4 06/06/16 1.02 NA NA NA NA NA 127.9 NA NA 916 6.78 23.53 NA NA NA NA
MW-5D 06/06/16 0.86 NA NA NA NA NA 130.3 NA NA 769 6.81 22.19 NA NA NA NA
MW-6 06/06/16 0.49 NA NA NA NA NA 33.1 NA NA 495 6.03 22.14 NA NA NA NA
MW-7 06/06/16 0.89 NA NA NA NA NA 138.4 NA NA 541 5.41 20.66 NA NA NA NA
MW-8 02/21/17 2.86 NA NA NA NA NA 172.9 NA NA 407 6.14 16.29 NA NA NA NA
MW-9 02/21/17 7.97 NA NA NA NA NA 121.7 NA NA 697 6.65 18.22 NA NA NA NA
MW-10 02/21/17 3.82 NA NA NA NA NA 196.2 NA NA 996 5.61 18.48 NA NA NA NA
02/21/17 2.88 NA NA NA NA NA 175.3 NA NA 759 6.68 16.48 NA NA NA NA
06/25/20 0.77 NA NA NA NA NA -101.1 NA NA 1,201 7.19 21.26 NA NA NA NA
MW-11D 02/21/17 1.46 NA NA NA NA NA 139.7 NA NA 511 7.28 17.69 NA NA NA NASample IDMW-2
MW-11S
Unable to locate
ADT 12
Page 1 of 1
FORMERDURHAM DRYCLEANERSFORMER SCOTT ANDROBERTS DRY CLEANERSLEGEND:PARCELSSTORM SEWERHAND AUGER SB-10Boring IdentificationVOCs = VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSSVOCs = SEMI-VOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSSOIL IMPACTED ABOVE IHSB PSRGs(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)(mg/kg)SOIL GAS MONITORING POINTSGMP-7Point IdentificationFORMER GASOLINEUST-ABANDONED INPLACEFORMER FUEL OILUST-ABANDONED INPLACEFORMER VARSOLUST'sWEST MAIN STREETGREGSON STRE
E
TWEST PEABODY STREETDU
K
E

S
T
R
E
E
T TRACT 8TRACT 15TRACT 7TRACT 14TRACT 13TRACT 6TR
A
C
T

5 TRACT 4FRENCHDRAINIHSB = INACTIVE HAZARDOUS SITES BRANCHSOIL BORINGBoring IdentificationSB-1SCALE: 1" = 60'206004060NAttachment:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-SOIL.DWG, ATT1.2.3
SOIL CONCENTRATION MAP3/20SEE LOWER LEFTDURHAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNBH
AW1/2/3NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented to
a stated accuracy.
2.Depth = Feet below ground surface.
3.All concentrations measured in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
4.Boxes show PCE plus any other constituents detected above Preliminary
Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs).
5.BOLD = Concentration above lowest PSRG.
6.NA = Not Analyzed.
7.J= Estimated Value
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
DSCA ID:
DC320026
MAIN STREETWEST PEABODY STREETAL
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

S
T
R
E
E
TWEST PETTIGREW STREETMEMORIAL STREETN
O
R
T
H

G
R
E
G
S
O
N

S
T
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H

D
U
K
E

S
T
R
E
E
T LAMOND AVENUEFERNWAY AVENUEWEST MORGAN STREETWATTS STREETONE HOURKORETIZING(DC320029)JOHNSONPREVOST(DC320033)SCOTT ANDROBERTS(DC320025)EAKESCLEANERS(DC320004)DURHAM DRYCLEANERS(DC320026)MW-12MW-13MW-1MW-15RW-2MW-14MW-3MW-2*MW-10MW-5DMW-4MW-7MW-6MW-9MW-8MW-1_DDCMW-11DLEGEND:PARCEL LINENOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATEMONITORING WELLMW-1RECOVERY WELLRW-2Well IdentificationMW-1*Well IdentificationRelative Groundwater Elevation (ft)MW-11SDURHAM SCHOOLOF THE ARTSINDIGOMONTESSORISCHOOLHOWERTON BRYANFUNERAL HOMEBROWNFIELDS SITE20071-16-032RESIDENTIAL50SCALE: 1" = 200'2000100150200NPARCEL OF INTERESTFigure:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-SITE.DWG, ATT4
SITE MAP08/17/2020SEE LOWER LEFTDUHRAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNDH
EF4NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented
to a stated accuracy.
2.* = Unable to Locate.
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
MAIN STREETWEST PEABODY STREETALBEMARLE STREETWEST PETTIGREW STREETN
O
R
T
H

G
R
E
G
S
O
N

S
T
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H

D
U
K
E

S
T
R
E
E
T
FERNWAY AVENUEWEST MORGAN STREETJOHNSONPREVOST(DC320033)SCOTT AND ROBERTS(DC320025)EAKESCLEANERS(DC320004)DURHAMDRY CLEANERS(DC320026)MW-3MW-2*MW-10MW-5DMW-4MW-7MW-6MW-9MW-8MW-1_DDCMW-11DMW-1*369.65374.27375.07375.10376.09376.68377.75383.15382.61MW-11S369.19373.39DURHAM SCHOOLOF THE ARTSHOWERTON BRYANFUNERAL HOMEBROWNFIELDS SITE20071-16-032370372374376378380382ONE HOURKORETIZING(DC320029)LEGEND:PARCEL LINENOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATEMONITORING WELLMW-3RECOVERY WELLRW-2Well IdentificationWell Identification374.27Relative Groundwater Elevation (ft)386INFERRED GROUNDWATERELEVATION CONTOUR (ft)GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONPARCEL OF INTERESTTMW-2TEMPORARYMONITORING WELLWell IdentificationSCALE: 1" = 100'1000251005075N371373375377379381383Figure:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-POT.DWG, ATT6A
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP-
SITE WELLS08/17/2020SEE LOWER LEFTDUHRAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNDH
EF6ANOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented
to a stated accuracy.
2.Groundwater elevations were measured on June 25, 2020.
3.* = Unable to Locate.
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
MAIN STREETWEST PEABODY STREETAL
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

S
T
R
E
E
TWEST PETTIGREW STREETMEMORIAL STREETN
O
R
T
H

G
R
E
G
S
O
N

S
T
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H

D
U
K
E

S
T
R
E
E
T LAMOND AVENUEFERNWAY AVENUEWEST MORGAN STREETWATTS STREETONE HOURKORETIZING(DC320029)JOHNSONPREVOST(DC320033)SCOTT ANDROBERTS(DC320025)EAKESCLEANERS(DC320004)DURHAM DRYCLEANERS(DC320026)MW-12MW-13MW-1MW-15RW-2MW-14MW-3MW-2*MW-10MW-5DMW-4MW-7MW-6MW-9MW-8MW-1_DDCMW-11DLEGEND:PARCEL LINENOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATEMONITORING WELLMW-1RECOVERY WELLRW-2Well IdentificationMW-1*Well Identification380.88Relative Groundwater Elevation (ft)386INFERRED GROUNDWATERELEVATION CONTOUR (ft)GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION385.70NM388.82392.30386.05369.65374.27375.07375.10376.09376.68377.75383.15382.61MW-11S369.19373.39DURHAM SCHOOLOF THE ARTSINDIGOMONTESSORISCHOOLHOWERTON BRYANFUNERAL HOMEBROWNFIELDS SITE20071-16-032RESIDENTIAL50SCALE: 1" = 200'2000100150200N392390
38
8
382
380
378
376
370372374386
384 PARCEL OF INTERESTFigure:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-POT1.DWG, ATT6B
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP
SITE AND ONE HOUR KORETIZING (DC320029) WELLS08/17/2020SEE LOWER LEFTDUHRAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNDH
EF6BNOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented
to a stated accuracy.
2.Groundwater elevations were measured on June 25, 2020.
3.NM = Not Measured.
4.Deep wells MW-5D and MW-11D not used to construct contours.
5.* = Unable to Locate.
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
FORMER GASOLINEUST-ABANDONED INPLACEFORMER FUEL OILUST-ABANDONED INPLACEFORMER VARSOLUST'sFORMERDURHAM DRYCLEANERSTRACT 8TRACT 15TRACT 7TRACT 14TRACT 13TRACT 6TRA
C
T

5 TRACT 4TRACT 4TRACT 12FRENCHDRAIN4'H x 8'WWEST MAIN STREETGREGSON STREETWEST PEABODY STREETWEST MORGAN STREETDUK
E

S
T
R
E
E
T
FORMER SCOTT ANDROBERTS DRY CLEANERSDURHAMSCHOOL OFTHE ARTS0.
0
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
7
0.7
SCALE: 1" = 100'1000251005075NLEGEND:PARCELSSTORM SEWERTEMPORARY MONITORING WELLWell IdentificationTWM-2MONITORING WELLWell IdentificationMW-20.07TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE)ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR (mg/L)(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)MW-2*MW-1*Attachment:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-GW.DWG, ATT7
GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION MAP10/20SEE LOWER LEFTDUHRAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNBH
AW7NOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented
to a stated accuracy.
2.BOLD = Concentrations above NC 2L Standards.
3.mg/L = Milligrams per liter.
4.J = Estimated value between the laboratory reporting and method
detection limits.
5.Boxes show PCE plus any other constituents detected above NC 2L
Standards.
6.* = Unable to Locate.
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
DSCA ID:
DC320026
TRACT 8TRACT 15TRACT 7TRACT 14TRACT 13TRACT 6TR
A
C
T

5 TRACT 4FRENCHDRAINWEST MAIN STREETGREGSON STR
E
E
TWEST PEABODY STREETDU
K
E

S
T
R
E
E
T FORMERDURHAM DRYCLEANERSLEGEND:PARCELSNOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATESTORM SEWERINDOOR AIRIA-1Sample IdentificationNO RISK EXCEEDANCESS-1Sample IdentificationNON-RESIDENTIAL RISK EXCEEDANCESS-1Sample IdentificationSUB-SLAB GAS-SUB-SLAB GAS-Attachment:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-SS IA.DWG, ATT13A.14A
INDOOR AIR AND SUB-SLAB GAS
CONCENTRATION MAP8/20SEE LOWER LEFTDUHRAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNBH
AW13A/14ANOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented
to a stated accuracy.
2.Values in BOLD exceed DSCA Programs Acceptable Risk Levels.
3. µg/m³ = Micrograms per cubic meter.
4.Boxes show all detected constituents.
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
DSCA ID:
DC320026
TRACT 8TRACT 15TRACT 7TRACT 14TRACT 13TRACT 6TRA
C
T

5 TRACT 4TRACT 4TRACT 124'H x 8'WWEST MAIN STREETGREGSON STREET
WEST MORGAN STREETDURHAMSCHOOL OFTHE ARTSFORMERDURHAM DRYCLEANERSFORMER SCOTT ANDROBERTS DRY CLEANERSDURHAMSCHOOL OFTHE ARTSLEGEND:PARCELSNOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATESTORM SEWERSGMP-1NO RISK EXCEEDANCEBoring IdentificationSV-3RESIDENTIAL RISK EXCEEDANCEBoring IdentificationSOIL GASSOIL GASSCALE: 1" = 100'1000251005075NAttachment:Drawing File:
Project Number:
Ckd. By:
Drn. By:
App'd By:
Ckd. Date:Scale:Date:H:\2020\OTHER OFFICES\NORTH CAROLINA\NCDEQ-DWM-DSCA PROGRAM\32-0026 DURHAM DRY CLEANERS\DC3226SL03-SGMP.DWG, ATT13B.14B
SOIL GAS CONCENTRATION MAP8/20SEE LOWER LEFTDUHRAM DRY CLEANERS
200 GREGSON STREET
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DC3226SL03AS SHOWNDH
AW13B/14BNOTES:
1.Features shown are not an authoritative location, nor are they presented
to a stated accuracy.
2.Values in BOLD exceed DSCA's respective risk levels.
3.µg/m³ = Micrograms per cubic meter.
4.Boxes show all detectable constituents.
5.NA* = Not applicable because there is no known vapor intrusion risk
associated with detected compound.
COORDINATE SYSTEM:
NAD 1983 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE FIPS 3200, US SURVEY FEET
DSCA ID:
DC320026
ATTACHMENT 15

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT

ANALYTICAL REPORT
July 02, 2020
ATC Group Services LLC
Sample Delivery Group:L1234229
Samples Received:06/27/2020
Project Number:DC320026
Description:Durham Dry Cleaners
Site:DURHAM, NC
Report To:Jeremy Robbins
2725 E. Millbrook Road, Ste 121
Raleigh, NC 27604
Entire Report Reviewed By:
July 02, 2020
[Preliminary Report]
Heather J Wagner
Project Manager
Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided, and as the samples are received.
12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 1 of 15
July 02, 2020
Heather J Wagner
Project Manager
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 1 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cp: Cover Page 1
Tc: Table of Contents 2
Ss: Sample Summary 3
Cn: Case Narrative 4
Sr: Sample Results 5
MW11S L1234229-01 5
MW1DDC L1234229-02 7
Qc: Quality Control Summary 9
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D 9
Gl: Glossary of Terms 13
Al: Accreditations & Locations 14
Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 15
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 2 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 2 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
MW11S L1234229-01 GW Troy Johnston 06/25/20 11:42 06/27/20 08:45
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D WG1502809 1 07/02/20 03:18 07/02/20 03:18 ADM Mt. Juliet, TN
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
MW1DDC L1234229-02 GW Troy Johnston 06/25/20 12:36 06/27/20 08:45
Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location
date/time date/time
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D WG1502809 1 07/02/20 03:38 07/02/20 03:38 ADM Mt. Juliet, TN
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 3 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 3 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.CASE NARRATIVE
All sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the
appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times, unless qualified or notated within
the report. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples
have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control
are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form
or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my
knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the
quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been
knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data.
[Preliminary Report]
Heather J Wagner
Project Manager
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 4 of 15
Heather J Wagner
Project Manager
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 4 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 01
L1234229
MW11S
Collected date/time: 06/25/20 11:42
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D
Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time
Acetone U 11.3 25.0 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Acrylonitrile U 0.671 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Benzene U 0.0941 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Bromobenzene U 0.118 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Bromodichloromethane U 0.136 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Bromochloromethane U 0.128 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Bromoform U 0.129 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Bromomethane U 0.605 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
n-Butylbenzene U 0.157 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
sec-Butylbenzene U 0.125 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
tert-Butylbenzene U 0.127 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Carbon disulfide U 0.0962 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Carbon tetrachloride U 0.128 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Chlorobenzene U 0.117 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Chlorodibromomethane U 0.140 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Chloroethane U 0.192 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Chloroform U 0.111 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Chloromethane U 0.960 1.25 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
2-Chlorotoluene U 0.106 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
4-Chlorotoluene U 0.114 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane U 0.276 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2-Dibromoethane U 0.126 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Dibromomethane U 0.122 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 0.107 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U 0.299 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U 0.120 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Dichlorodifluoromethane U 0.374 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.100 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.624 0.0819 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.188 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.14 0.126 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.149 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2-Dichloropropane U 0.149 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1-Dichloropropene U 0.142 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,3-Dichloropropane U 0.109 1.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.111 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.118 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene U J0 0.467 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
2,2-Dichloropropane U 0.161 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Di-isopropyl ether U 0.105 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Ethylbenzene U 0.137 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene U 0.337 1.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
2-Hexanone U 0.787 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
n-Hexane U 0.749 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Iodomethane U 0.554 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Isopropylbenzene U 0.105 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
p-Isopropyltoluene U 0.120 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
2-Butanone (MEK)U 1.19 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Methylene Chloride U 0.430 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)U 0.478 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Methyl tert-butyl ether U 0.101 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Naphthalene 0.222 J 0.174 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
n-Propylbenzene U 0.0993 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Styrene U 0.118 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.147 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.133 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 5 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 5 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 01
L1234229
MW11S
Collected date/time: 06/25/20 11:42
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D
Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane U 0.180 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Tetrachloroethene 121 0.300 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Toluene U 0.278 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene U 0.164 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U 0.481 1.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1,1-Trichloroethane U 0.149 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,1,2-Trichloroethane U 0.158 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Trichloroethene 12.1 J0 0.190 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Trichlorofluoromethane U 0.160 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2,3-Trichloropropane U 0.237 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene U 0.322 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene U 0.104 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene U 0.104 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Vinyl acetate U 0.692 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Vinyl chloride U 0.234 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
Xylenes, Total 0.238 J 0.174 1.50 1 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
(S) Toluene-d8 105 80.0-120 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 97.6 77.0-126 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
(S) 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 111 70.0-130 07/02/2020 03:18 WG1502809
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 6 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 6 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 02
L1234229
MW1DDC
Collected date/time: 06/25/20 12:36
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D
Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time
Acetone U 11.3 25.0 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Acrylonitrile U 0.671 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Benzene 0.334 J 0.0941 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Bromobenzene U 0.118 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Bromodichloromethane U 0.136 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Bromochloromethane U 0.128 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Bromoform U 0.129 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Bromomethane U 0.605 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
n-Butylbenzene 2.37 0.157 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
sec-Butylbenzene 5.12 0.125 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
tert-Butylbenzene 1.89 0.127 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Carbon disulfide 0.124 J 0.0962 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Carbon tetrachloride U 0.128 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Chlorobenzene U 0.117 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Chlorodibromomethane U 0.140 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Chloroethane U 0.192 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Chloroform U 0.111 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Chloromethane U 0.960 1.25 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
2-Chlorotoluene U 0.106 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
4-Chlorotoluene U 0.114 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane U 0.276 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2-Dibromoethane U 0.126 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Dibromomethane U 0.122 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 0.107 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U 0.299 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U 0.120 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Dichlorodifluoromethane U 0.374 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.100 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.0819 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.188 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 7.04 0.126 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.320 J 0.149 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2-Dichloropropane U 0.149 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1-Dichloropropene U 0.142 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,3-Dichloropropane U 0.109 1.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.111 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.118 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene U J0 0.467 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
2,2-Dichloropropane U 0.161 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Di-isopropyl ether U 0.105 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Ethylbenzene 0.343 J 0.137 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene U 0.337 1.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
2-Hexanone U 0.787 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
n-Hexane U 0.749 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Iodomethane U 0.554 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Isopropylbenzene 4.33 0.105 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
p-Isopropyltoluene 0.779 0.120 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
2-Butanone (MEK)U 1.19 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Methylene Chloride U 0.430 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)U 0.478 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Methyl tert-butyl ether U 0.101 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Naphthalene 0.251 J 0.174 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
n-Propylbenzene 3.25 0.0993 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Styrene U 0.118 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.147 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.133 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 7 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 7 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 02
L1234229
MW1DDC
Collected date/time: 06/25/20 12:36
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D
Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane U 0.180 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Tetrachloroethene U 0.300 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Toluene U 0.278 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene U 0.164 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U 0.481 1.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1,1-Trichloroethane U 0.149 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.625 0.158 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Trichloroethene U 0.190 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Trichlorofluoromethane U 0.160 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2,3-Trichloropropane U 0.237 2.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.729 0.322 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 0.388 J 0.104 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene U 0.104 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Vinyl acetate U 0.692 5.00 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Vinyl chloride 1.88 J0 0.234 0.500 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
Xylenes, Total 0.405 J 0.174 1.50 1 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
(S) Toluene-d8 97.0 80.0-120 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 77.0-126 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
(S) 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 110 70.0-130 07/02/2020 03:38 WG1502809
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 8 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 8 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1502809
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D L1234229-01,02
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3545513-2 07/01/20 23:28
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l
Acetone U 11.3 25.0
Acrylonitrile U 0.671 5.00
Benzene U 0.0941 0.500
Bromobenzene U 0.118 0.500
Bromodichloromethane U 0.136 0.500
Bromochloromethane U 0.128 0.500
Bromoform U 0.129 0.500
Bromomethane U 0.605 2.50
n-Butylbenzene U 0.157 0.500
sec-Butylbenzene U 0.125 0.500
tert-Butylbenzene U 0.127 0.500
Carbon disulfide U 0.0962 0.500
Carbon tetrachloride U 0.128 0.500
Chlorobenzene U 0.117 0.500
Chlorodibromomethane U 0.140 0.500
Chloroethane U 0.192 2.50
Chloroform U 0.111 0.500
Chloromethane U 0.960 1.25
2-Chlorotoluene U 0.106 0.500
4-Chlorotoluene U 0.114 0.500
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane U 0.276 2.50
1,2-Dibromoethane U 0.126 0.500
Dibromomethane U 0.122 0.500
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 0.107 0.500
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U 0.299 0.500
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U 0.120 0.500
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene U 0.467 5.00
Dichlorodifluoromethane U 0.374 2.50
1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.100 0.500
1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.0819 0.500
1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.188 0.500
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.126 0.500
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.149 0.500
1,2-Dichloropropane U 0.149 0.500
1,1-Dichloropropene U 0.142 0.500
1,3-Dichloropropane U 0.109 1.00
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.111 0.500
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.118 0.500
2,2-Dichloropropane U 0.161 0.500
Di-isopropyl ether U 0.105 0.500
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 9 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 9 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1502809
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D L1234229-01,02
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3545513-2 07/01/20 23:28
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l
Ethylbenzene U 0.137 0.500
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene U 0.337 1.00
2-Hexanone U 0.787 5.00
n-Hexane U 0.749 5.00
Iodomethane U 0.554 5.00
Isopropylbenzene U 0.105 0.500
p-Isopropyltoluene U 0.120 0.500
2-Butanone (MEK)U 1.19 5.00
Methylene Chloride U 0.430 2.50
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)U 0.478 5.00
Methyl tert-butyl ether U 0.101 0.500
Naphthalene U 0.174 2.50
n-Propylbenzene U 0.0993 0.500
Styrene U 0.118 0.500
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.147 0.500
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.133 0.500
Tetrachloroethene U 0.300 0.500
Toluene U 0.278 0.500
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane U 0.180 0.500
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene U 0.164 0.500
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U 0.481 1.00
1,1,1-Trichloroethane U 0.149 0.500
1,1,2-Trichloroethane U 0.158 0.500
Trichloroethene U 0.190 0.500
Trichlorofluoromethane U 0.160 2.50
1,2,3-Trichloropropane U 0.237 2.50
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene U 0.104 0.500
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene U 0.322 0.500
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene U 0.104 0.500
Vinyl acetate U 0.692 5.00
Vinyl chloride U 0.234 0.500
Xylenes, Total U 0.174 1.50
(S) Toluene-d8 102 80.0-120
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 97.8 77.0-126
(S) 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 111 70.0-130
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 10 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 10 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1502809
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D L1234229-01,02
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3545513-1 07/01/20 22:48
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec.Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier
Analyte ug/l ug/l %%
Acetone 25.0 35.1 140 19.0-160
Acrylonitrile 25.0 33.6 134 55.0-149
Benzene 5.00 5.28 106 70.0-123
Bromobenzene 5.00 5.08 102 73.0-121
Bromodichloromethane 5.00 5.13 103 75.0-120
Bromochloromethane 5.00 6.01 120 76.0-122
Bromoform 5.00 5.36 107 68.0-132
Bromomethane 5.00 5.73 115 10.0-160
n-Butylbenzene 5.00 5.30 106 73.0-125
sec-Butylbenzene 5.00 5.24 105 75.0-125
tert-Butylbenzene 5.00 5.31 106 76.0-124
Carbon disulfide 5.00 5.40 108 61.0-128
Carbon tetrachloride 5.00 6.17 123 68.0-126
Chlorobenzene 5.00 5.72 114 80.0-121
Chlorodibromomethane 5.00 5.60 112 77.0-125
Chloroethane 5.00 5.83 117 47.0-150
Chloroform 5.00 5.27 105 73.0-120
Chloromethane 5.00 6.21 124 41.0-142
2-Chlorotoluene 5.00 5.36 107 76.0-123
4-Chlorotoluene 5.00 5.43 109 75.0-122
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 5.00 5.00 100 58.0-134
1,2-Dibromoethane 5.00 5.60 112 80.0-122
Dibromomethane 5.00 5.62 112 80.0-120
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5.00 5.73 115 79.0-121
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5.00 5.66 113 79.0-120
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5.00 5.60 112 79.0-120
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 5.00 3.24 64.8 33.0-144
Dichlorodifluoromethane 5.00 6.09 122 51.0-149
1,1-Dichloroethane 5.00 5.55 111 70.0-126
1,2-Dichloroethane 5.00 5.86 117 70.0-128
1,1-Dichloroethene 5.00 5.68 114 71.0-124
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.00 5.31 106 73.0-120
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.00 5.58 112 73.0-120
1,2-Dichloropropane 5.00 5.98 120 77.0-125
1,1-Dichloropropene 5.00 5.77 115 74.0-126
1,3-Dichloropropane 5.00 5.59 112 80.0-120
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 5.00 5.22 104 80.0-123
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 5.00 5.26 105 78.0-124
2,2-Dichloropropane 5.00 6.45 129 58.0-130
Di-isopropyl ether 5.00 5.97 119 58.0-138
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 11 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 11 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1502809
Volatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS) by Method 8260D L1234229-01,02
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3545513-1 07/01/20 22:48
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec.Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier
Analyte ug/l ug/l %%
Ethylbenzene 5.00 5.64 113 79.0-123
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 5.00 4.53 90.6 54.0-138
2-Hexanone 25.0 28.7 115 67.0-149
n-Hexane 5.00 6.45 129 57.0-133
Iodomethane 25.0 27.2 109 33.0-147
Isopropylbenzene 5.00 5.59 112 76.0-127
p-Isopropyltoluene 5.00 5.40 108 76.0-125
2-Butanone (MEK)25.0 33.7 135 44.0-160
Methylene Chloride 5.00 5.53 111 67.0-120
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)25.0 30.1 120 68.0-142
Methyl tert-butyl ether 5.00 5.96 119 68.0-125
Naphthalene 5.00 5.08 102 54.0-135
n-Propylbenzene 5.00 5.44 109 77.0-124
Styrene 5.00 5.42 108 73.0-130
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 5.00 5.85 117 75.0-125
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 5.00 5.37 107 65.0-130
Tetrachloroethene 5.00 5.80 116 72.0-132
Toluene 5.00 5.17 103 79.0-120
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 5.00 5.74 115 69.0-132
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 5.00 4.59 91.8 50.0-138
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5.00 4.61 92.2 57.0-137
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.00 6.11 122 73.0-124
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5.00 5.57 111 80.0-120
Trichloroethene 5.00 5.77 115 78.0-124
Trichlorofluoromethane 5.00 5.94 119 59.0-147
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 5.00 5.96 119 73.0-130
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 5.00 5.03 101 77.0-120
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5.00 5.32 106 76.0-121
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 5.00 5.40 108 76.0-122
Vinyl acetate 25.0 29.0 116 11.0-160
Vinyl chloride 5.00 5.92 118 67.0-131
Xylenes, Total 15.0 16.6 111 79.0-123
(S) Toluene-d8 102 80.0-120
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 100 77.0-126
(S) 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 111 70.0-130
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 12 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 12 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report
The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not
intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative.
Results Disclaimer - Information that may be provided by the customer, and contained within this report, include Permit Limits, Project Name,
Sample ID, Sample Matrix, Sample Preservation, Field Blanks, Field Spikes, Field Duplicates, On-Site Data, Sampling Collection Dates/Times, and
Sampling Location. Results relate to the accuracy of this information provided, and as the samples are received.
Abbreviations and Definitions
MDL Method Detection Limit.
RDL Reported Detection Limit.
Rec.Recovery.
RPD Relative Percent Difference.
SDG Sample Delivery Group.
(S)
Surrogate (Surrogate Standard) - Analytes added to every blank, sample, Laboratory Control Sample/Duplicate and
Matrix Spike/Duplicate; used to evaluate analytical efficiency by measuring recovery. Surrogates are not expected to be
detected in all environmental media.
U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable).
Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes
reported.
Dilution
If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the
standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the
laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the
result reported has already been corrected for this factor.
Limits
These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal
for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or
duplicated within these ranges.
Qualifier
This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result
reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and
potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable.
Result
The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was
no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL”
(Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL
(Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect
or report for this analyte.
Uncertainty
(Radiochemistry)Confidence level of 2 sigma.
Case Narrative (Cn)
A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol
observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will
be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report.
Quality Control
Summary (Qc)
This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or
analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not
being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material.
Sample Chain of
Custody (Sc)
This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and
date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This
chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the
samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis.
Sample Results (Sr)
This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided
by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for
each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported.
Sample Summary (Ss)This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and
times of preparation and/or analysis.
Qualifier Description
J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J0 J0: The identification of the analyte is acceptable, but the reported concentration is an estimate. The calibration met
method criteria.
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 13 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 13 of 15
ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.
Pace National is the only environmental laboratory accredited/certified to support your work nationwide from one location. One phone call, one point of contact, one laboratory. No other lab is as
accessible or prepared to handle your needs throughout the country. Our capacity and capability from our single location laboratory is comparable to the collective totals of the network
laboratories in our industry. The most significant benefit to our one location design is the design of our laboratory campus. The model is conducive to accelerated productivity, decreasing
turn-around time, and preventing cross contamination, thus protecting sample integrity. Our focus on premium quality and prompt service allows us to be YOUR LAB OF CHOICE.
* Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report.
* Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace National.

State Accreditations
Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05
Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN-03-2002-34
Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975
Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002
California 2932 New Mexico ¹n/a
Colorado TN00003 New York 11742
Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375
Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹DW21704
Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³41
Georgia ¹923 North Dakota R-140
Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069
Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915
Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002
Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979
Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356
Kentucky ¹ ⁶90010 South Carolina 84004
Kentucky ²16 South Dakota n/a
Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴2006
Louisiana ¹LA180010 Texas T104704245-18-15
Maine TN0002 Texas ⁵LAB0152
Maryland 324 Utah TN00003
Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006
Michigan 9958 Virginia 460132
Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847
Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233
Missouri 340 Wisconsin 9980939910
Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA

Third Party Federal Accreditations
A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789
A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵1461.02 DOD 1461.01
Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234
EPA–Crypto TN00003
ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS

¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable

Our Locations
Pace National has sixty-four client support centers that provide sample pickup and/or the delivery of sampling supplies. If you would like assistance from one of our support offices, please contactour main office. Pace National performs all testing at our central laboratory.
1 Cp
2Tc
3Ss
4Cn
5Sr
6Qc
7Gl
8Al
9Sc
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 13:56 14 of 15
ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE:
ATC Group Services LLC DC320026 L1234229 07/02/20 16:32 14 of 15
REFERENCE 30
Water Quality & Treatment 
WATER PROFESSIONALS WATER QUALITY REPORT
Everyone expects to turn on their tap and have clean, safe drinking water flow out. But this
takes committed water professionals who work together to fulfill the City’s needs 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. And they do it in full compliance with all local,
state, and federal regulatory requirements--that’s how you know your water is healthy,
safe, and pure.
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
1 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
Curious about how your water is made safe and healthy? Take a look at our annual Water
Quality Report (pdf) to see all the details.
The Water Quality Report is compiled every year to share with Durham residents the
many ways we manage the City’s water. We move raw water from the lakes to the
treatment plants. We test and analyze to ensure what flows from your tap is fresh and
healthy. And we improve the facilities and equipment to meet growing need and make the
system better.
MAIN WATER
SOURCES
WATER
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
WATER
TREATMENT
PROCESS
CHEMICALS
ADDED
WATER
STORAGE
Durham has two main sources of raw water. These are Lake
Michie, which was completed in 1926, and Little River Reservoir,
which was completed in 1987. Lake water is delivered to the
City’s treatment plants using a combination of gravity flow and
electric and hydro-powered pumping. This keeps electricity costs
as low as possible.Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
2 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
PIPES AND
FLUSHING
WATER
METERS
TESTING FOR
LEAD
DRINKING
WATER
The staff of the Water Supply and Treatment Division are in
charge of the Lake Michie and Little River pumping stations.
They also operate the City’s two water treatment facilities.
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
3 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
The pumps at Lake Michie and Little River send raw, untreated
water to Durham’s two water treatment plants, where it’s stored
in reservoirs. The reservoir at Brown Water Treatment Plant
(pictured) holds approximately 90 million gallons and the
reservoir at Williams Water Treatment Plant holds about 45
million gallons.
◦ Williams was completed in 1917.
◦ Brown was completed in 1979.
◦ They have a combined capacity of 64 million gallons of
water a day.
◦ Durham residents and businesses use an average of 27
million gallons a day.
Together, those reservoirs store two or three days’ worth of water
for the City of Durham. That's why we can handle a line break,
routine maintenance, or unexpected disruption and still provide
continuous service.
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
4 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
The raw water from the reservoirs flows into clarifier tanks, where
clouds of floating particles are removed through processes called
coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation.
◦ Coagulation happens when positively-charged chemical
coagulants attract particles of sediment and organic
matter.
◦ These particles then clump together and form flocs,
through a process known as flocculation.
◦ Sedimentation occurs when these flocs of particles settle
to the bottom of the clarifier tank, where rake-like
equipment scoops them out.
Filtration comes next. Clear, sediment-free water leaves the
clarifier to flow through filters made of crushed anthracite coal,
sand, and gravel. This removes any tiny particles the earlier
processes missed.
You can learn more about the water treatment process to find out
how our water professionals do this important work.
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
5 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
Several chemicals are added to the water as it’s treated. The
concentrations of each of the majority of these chemicals must
meet EPA standards.
◦ Chloramines for disinfection
◦ Orthophosphate to prevent pipe corrosion
◦ Sodium hydroxide for pH balance
◦ Fluoride to promote dental health.
Once treated and disinfected, drinking water is stored in covered
tanks called clear wells. The City stores several millions of
gallons of treated water in clear wells on the treatment plant sites
ready for distribution. Treated water is also stored in elevated
and ground level water storage tanks located throughout
Durham. Levels in the towers are monitored remotely and usually
filled each evening using off-peak pumping strategies. Towers
and elevated tanks help maintain pressure in the distribution
system so that each household and business has sufficient flow.Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
6 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
◦ Water Supply and Treatment personnel respond to
questions and complaints about water quality.
◦ They analyze and adjust the treatment process each day
as needed.
◦ They spend time collecting and analyzing samples to
monitor water quality across the system.
The distribution system delivers water from the treatment
facilities through 1,400 miles of water lines to approximately
95,000 connections in Durham. These homes, businesses, and
institutional customers rely on staff to maintain both the quality of
the water and the integrity of the lines, pipes, and other
infrastructure. Flushing is one mechanism used to move water
quickly through the lines for a number of reasons.
In areas where there are dead-end pipes or areas of low water
use, small particles can settle in the pipes. Over time, these
deposits might cause color, odor, or taste issues. They can also
become stirred up if there’s a water line break. This is why, when
crews respond to a break and complete the repairs, hydrants in
the area are often flushed to clear the water flowing into
customers’ taps.
Periodically, our employees conduct planned flushing to address
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
7 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
these issues.
◦ See the Flushing FAQs (PDF) to learn more about this
practice.
Flushing is also recommended for businesses, schools, or
facilities after an extended closure, as water left standing in the
pipes can become stagnant and present certain health risks.
◦ See our Flushing Water Systems FAQs (PDF) for
guidelines.
The Meter Maintenance work group conducts meter reading and
provides routine and emergency response to water meter
problems including leaks, unusual consumption rates, and water
pressure concerns.
One major undertaking of the Meter Maintenance work group is
oversight of the Automated Meter Reading (AMR) project. The
benefits of an automated meter reading system include
convenience for both the City and the customer. With AMR, the
meter readers can collect meter readings much quicker and
more safely by simply driving past meter locations.
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
8 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
The electronic meters will assist customers in detecting leaks
and will assist utility staff in detecting malfunctioning or tampered
meters. Additionally, this timely information, coupled with
analysis, can help both utility staff and customers better manage
the City’s potable water usage.
The City of Durham is required to test for lead and copper every
three years.
Our most recent results come from tests conducted in 2019. The
analysis found no detectable lead in the drinking water leaving
our treatment facilities. During a testing year, samples are
collected and analyzed after standing unused in the plumbing of
a number of volunteer homes for at least six hours --usually
overnight.
Government Websites by CivicPlus®
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
9 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
We’re happy to announce our water wins taste tests!
Panelists at the 2019 Annual Conference of the N.C. Water
Works Association - Water Environment Association sampled tap
water from across the state. They declared water from our
Williams Water Treatment Plant the best in North Carolina!
It was the second year in a row we received that honor and we’re
quite pleased. We couldn’t agree more!
Select Language
Water Quality & Treatment | Durham, NC https://www.durhamnc.gov/1154/Water-Quality-Treatment
10 of 10 9/14/2022, 12:49 AM
REFERENCE 31
2725 East Millbrook Road
Suite 121
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.atcassociates.com
N.C. Engineering License No. C-1598

January 12, 2018

Mr. Billy Meyer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment Quality
Division of Waste Management
Superfund Section - DSCA
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646

RE: Assessment Report
Durham Dry Cleaners
200 Gregson Street
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
DSCA Site Identification No. DC320026

Dear Mr. Meyer:

ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) has completed assessment of impacts associated
with dry-cleaning solvent releases at the above referenced facility. The following DSCA Program
reporting forms with required attachments are enclosed to document the results of the
assessment:

• Assessment Report Forms
• Analytical Data Tables

If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Ashley
Winkelman at [phone].

Sincerely,
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.

Jeremy J. Robbins Ashley M. Winkelman, P.G.
Staff Scientist Program Manager

ASSESSMENT REPORT FORMS

DSCA ID No.:
Submittal Date:
Assessment Report Forms
for
North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Program
Prepared By:
Facility Name:Durham Dry Cleaners
200 Gregson Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
2725 East Millbrook Road, Suite 121, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
1/12/2018
DC320026
Table of Contents
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Form/Att
. No.
Check box
if included
Form 1 Facility Information
Form 2 Site History
Form 3 Land Use and Receptor Survey
Form 4 Groundwater Use, Surface Water Use, and Ecological Survey
Form 5 Site Stratigraphy and Hydrogeology
Form 6 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Information
Att. 1 Site location map.
Att. 2 Historical aerial photograph.
Att. 3 Historical maps and fire insurance records.
Att. 4 Facility as-building drawings.
Att. 5
Att. 6
Att. 7
Att. 8
Att. 9 Area geologic map/relevant cross-sections.
Att. 10
Att. 11 Site map showing location(s) of soil sample(s).
Att. 12
Att. 13 Soil isoconcentration maps.
Att. 14 Site map showing location(s) of monitoring well(s).
Att. 15
Att. 16 Groundwater gradient map.
Att. 17
Att. 18
Att. 19
AR TOC
Scaled vicinity map illustrating surrounding land use within 500 foot and 0.5 mile
radii of the site.
Description
Assessment Report Attachments
Assessment Report Forms (Page 1 of 2)
Facility layout diagram indicating the following (if applicable):
(i)Service doors,(ii)current and historic location of drycleaning equipment,(iii)
solvent/waste storage areas (including ASTs and USTs),(iv)distillation unit,(v)
location of septic tank/drainfield or sanitary sewer lateral line,(vi)floor drains,
(vii) storm sewer,(viii)expansion joints and cracks in floor,(ix) location of
utilities, and (x) location of dumpsters.
Groundwater contaminant concentration maps showing the concentration at each
sampling point and isoconcentration maps.
Map showing location(s) of surface water sample(s) (if applicable).
Surface water concentration map showing the concentration at each sampling point
(if applicable).
Utility records, including videos of sewer lines and pressure testing.
USGS Quad map with plotted water well location(s) within the 1,500 foot and 0.5
mile radii of the site.
Soil boring logs which must include the following:
(i)OVA or other field screening readings,(ii)depth of samples collect, (iii)odor,
(iv)staining,(v)blow counts (if applicable),(vi)interval recovery,(vii) structures
and/or bedding,(viii) moisture content,and (ix)borehole disposition
(abandonment or conversion to monitor well).
Soil contaminant concentration maps showing the concentration at each sampling
point.
Well completion diagrams and records of construction submitted to state.
Table of Contents
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Form/Att
. No.
Check box
if included
AR TOC
Description
Att. 20
Att. 21
Att. 22
Att. 23
Att. 24
Att. 25
Note:
1. All maps must include a bar scale, north arrow, site name, DSCA ID No., and date.
Indoor Air and Sub-Slab Gas Concentration Map
Soil Gas Concentration Map
Vapor Intrusion Risk Calculators
Laboratory analytical reports including chain-of custody and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) documentation.
Assessment Report Attachments continued (Page 2 of 2)
Map showing location(s) of water supply well(s) (if applicable).
Facility Information
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Currently operating facility since
Previously operating facility since
Temporarily out of service from to
Permanently out of service since
Facility name:
Facility telephone number (if applicable):
Facility Owner's Name:
Owner's Mailing Address:
Owner's Telephone number:
Contractor Date
Printed Name Company Name
1927
Provide information on businesses that occupied the facility that may use or have used solvents and
other chemicals. Identify solvents and chemicals used at the facility (if applicable).
1989
Durham Dry Cleaners
Provide the name, address and telephone number of the current dry-cleaning business and the dry-
cleaning business owner. If no current business at the facility, provide the name and address of the
last dry-cleaner doing business at the site.
Durham Laundry Company
5055 Isabella Cannon Drive
Not Applicable
Facility address (include name of shopping
centre and the county where facility is
located):
Raleigh, NC 27612-4806
Durham Dry Cleaners operated from approximately 1927 to 1989. Information regarding the types
of chemicals used in the dry-cleaning operations during the entirety of that period has not been
confirmed. However, three underground storage tanks (USTs) formerly containing varsol were
removed from the property in 1989. In addition, analytical data indicates chlorinated solvents have
also likely been used. The facility building is currently occupied by a retail store (Morgan Imports)
and a restaurant (Lilly's Pizza). There are at two other DSCA sites in the area [Johnson Prevost
(DC320033) and One Hour Koretizing (DC320029)] that have had releases potentially contributing
to a comingled plume.
1927- Durham Dry Cleaners
AR Form 1
I certify that the prioritization assessment as stated in this report was prepared under my
supervision.
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
1/12/2018
Ashley W. Winkelman, P.G.
A. Marshall Goad: 919-754-7124
Provide the earliest known date of the facility use for dry-cleaning buisness and the name of the dry-
cleaning buisness (if applicable).
Report Prepared By
200 Gregson Street
Durham, Durham County, NC 27701
Page 1 of 3
Site History
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Number of dry-cleaning machines used at current or former facility:
Type of dry-cleaning solvents used by each type of machine.
Provide information about the current/historical waste management practices,including types of wastes
that are/were generated and how the waste are/were stored and managed.
AR Form 2
Are chlorinated dry cleaning solvents delivered to the facility by means of a closed, direct-coupled
delivery system?
Unknown
Are virgin (new)solvents stored in containers other than the dry-
cleaning machine?
Are or were any USTs or ASTs used to store any petroleum or
hazardous substances other than dry-cleaning solvents at the facility
Unknown
Unknown
Type of dry-cleaning machines used at current or former facility (e.g., transfer, dry-to-dry with vented
exhaust, etc.).
Unknown
Unknown
What methods of disposal are used or have been used for separator water?
If yes,provide information about the substance stored,year taken out of service,virgin solvent or
waste solvent, etc.
One 15,500-gallon #6 fuel oil UST and one 7,500-gallon gasoline UST abandoned in place in August
1989. Two 1,000-gallon and one 500-gallon varsol USTs removed in August 1989.
Unknown
Where are/were the dry-cleaning solvents stored at the facility site? (Machine base tanks, UST(s),
AST(s), etc.)
Unknown
Yes No
Yes No
Page 2 of 3
Site History
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
AR Form 2
Unpaved
Paved % area paved:
Any visible cracks in pavement?
Have the utilities been screened for vapor levels?
If YES, attach documentation of vapor monitoring results.
Depth
[feet]
Type of
Material
Flow
Direction
Impacted
by Release
Potentially
Impacted
by Release
Sanitary sewer Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Septic drainfields
Covered storm sewer Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Open ditch
Water line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Gas line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Electric line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Telephone line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Other
Has the release been abated?
Is native soil impacted?
Is groundwater impacted?
Is surface water impacted?
UST(s)/AST(s) removal Known spill incident
Inventory control Citizen complaint
Facility remodeling/Construction activity Assessment on adjacent property
Environmental assessment Unknown
Other (specify)
9/13/1989
Potential release from vasol USTs
Release Discovery
Maximum PCE concentration of 2.715 mg/L.
100
Release Characterization
Maximum PCE concentration of 3.6028 mg/kg.
Date the release was discovered
Date the release was reported
Type of release (explain)
9/13/1989
Ground Surface Conditions
Subsurface Utilities
Indicate which of the following utilities currently act as conduits, or are likely to become conduits,
under the columns entitled "Impacted by Release," and "Potentially Impacted by Release," respectively.
In the space provided for additional notes,please indicate the location and distance from soil and/or
groundwater contamination to the nearest subsurface utility line and access point (e.g., manhole).
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Page 3 of 3
Site History
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
AR Form 2

Spills/Overfills Tanks
Piping Unknown
Other (specify)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Ethylbenzene
1,1,2-Trichloroethanae Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
1,1-Dichloroethane Naphthalene
1,1-Dichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)Toluene
Benzene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene Trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride Vinyl chloride
Chloroform Xylenes (total)
Others
Additional Notes
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
p-Isopropyltoluene
Source(s) of Release
Potential for additional unknown sources of release
Chemicals of Concern
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Land Use and Receptor Survey
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
On-site Land Use Current Future
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Other
Justify the choice for future land use:
North:
Northeast:
Northwest:
South:
Southeast:
Southwest:
West:
East:
Nearest residential site:
Nearest commercial/industrial site:
If site is vacant, nearest inhabited building:
Nearest school, hospital, day care, nursing home etc.:
Nearest public supply well:
Nearest private supply well:
Nearest surface water body:
Additional Notes
The nearest residence is located approximately 600 feet north of the site. The site property is currently
used for commercial purposes. The nearest school is the Durham School of Arts, located northeast of the
site. No private or public wells have been identified in the site's vicinity. The nearest point of exposure is
assumed to be the downgradient site property boundary. The nearest surface water body is located
approximately 2,760 feet west of the site.
700 Downgradient
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
0
N/A
Downgradient
Nearest ecologically sensitive area (agricultural areas,
parks/recreational areas, widlife sanctuaries, wetlands):
Nearest point of exposure (current or potential) for
groundwater ingestion:
600
Railroad-Commercial (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
Brightleaf Square-Commercial (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
Downgradient
Commercial/Retail Building (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
List the distance and the direction (downgradient, upgradient, or crossgradient)to these facilites within
0.5 mile radius of the site (If necessary provide details in additional notes).
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AR Form 3
Land Use
Distance [feet]Direction
Brightleaf Square-Commercial (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
Brightleaf Square-Parking (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
Brightleaf Square-Commercial (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
Railroad-Commercial (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
Railroad-Commercial (Zoned Downtown Design-Support 1)
The site property has been used for commercial purposes since at least 1927. As a result, ATC assumes
the property will continue to be used for commercial purposes for the forseeable future.
Immediate Off-site Land Use (within 500 feet -at a minimum, state whether,residential,
commercial/industrial, agricultural,or ecologically sensitive area).Indicate distances to
residential/commercial/industrial buildings having basements which are occupied.
Receptor Survey
Groundwater Use, Surface Water Use, and Ecological Survey
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Is the groundwater used on-site?
If yes, specify the use:
Potable domestic supply
Non-potable domestic supply
Public/Municipal supply
Industrial supply
Agriculture
Other (explain in space provided below)
Is a surface water body present in 1,000 feet radius of the site?
If yes, specify the following:
Type of water body
North Carolina classification of water body
Does the water discharges into lake or reservoir?
Surface water use:
Potable domestic supply
Non-potable domestic supply
Public/Municipal supply
Industrial supply
Agriculture
Other (explain in space provided below)
2. Are there private water supply wells within 1500 feet radius from the site?
Additional Notes
The nearest surface water body is an unnamed tributary of Sandy Creek located approximately 2,760 feet
west of the site.
1. Are there public/municipal water supply wells within 0.5 mile radius from
the
AR Form 4
Water Well(s) Information
Surface Water Use
Ecological Receptors and Habitats
1. Are there any ecological receptors or habitats present within 500 feet radius
from the site?
2. Are there visible indications of stressed receptors or habitats on or near the
site that may be a result of chemical release?
Groundwater Use
Yes No
River Wet weather creek Drain ditch Regular creek
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Other:
Yes No
Yes No
Site Stratigraphy and Hydrogeology
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Depth [feet]
0 to 15-30
Predominent Soil Type:
Depth [feet]
15-30 to Unknown
Type of Aquifer?
Underlying predominent aquifer name:
Aquifer classification (if applicable):
Range of groundwater level fluctuations [feet bgs]:
Average depth to water table/static water level:
Flow direction:
Hydraulic gradient (i) [--]:
Hydraulic conductivity (K) [cm/year]:
Darcy velocity (K x i) [cm/year-calculated]:
Groundwater velocity (K x i/Porosity) [cm/year]:
Annual precipitation (average for last 30 years) [inches/year]:
Interbedded mix of clayey sand, silt, and clay
Clayey Sand and Silt
Chatham Group within the Deep River basin
Clayey sandstone, interbedded w/ dark to dark-grey sandstone and mudstone
3653
47.81
Type of Bedrock and Geological Formation
Hydrogeology of the Saturated Impacted Zone
69.41
6.05
AR Form 5
Stratigraphy of Site
North Northeast
0.019
Surficial
Not Applicable
0.37
Description of Soil
Additional Notes
The average depth to groundwater is based on all data collected at the site to date.
The hydraulic gradient is based on February 2017 data collected from wells MW-1_DDC and MW-
11S.
Hydraulic conductivity has not been measured at the site. Therefore, ATC used the hydraulic
conductivity measured at Durham Dry Clenaers (DC320015) located approximately 2 miles west of the
site which has a similar lithology. The slug testing documentation can be found in an Assessment
Report submitted for DSCA site DC320015 on March 2, 2009.
Annual precipitation in Durham, NC was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center's Normal
Annual Precipitation available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals.
3.46 - 9.03
Confined Unconfined Perched
Values/Range Method
Dry bulk density [g/cm3]1.63 Estimated Measured
Total porosity [cm3/cm3]:0.45 Estimated Measured
Effective porosity [cm3/cm3]:0.2 Estimated Measured
Water content [cm3/cm3]:0.18 Estimated Measured
Fractional organic carbon content [g-C/g-soil]:0.006 Estimated Measured
Values/Range Method
Dry bulk density [g/cm3]1.63 Estimated Measured
Total porosity [cm3/cm3]:0.45 Estimated Measured
Effective porosity [cm3/cm3]0.2 Estimated Measured
Water content [cm3/cm3]:0.45 Estimated Measured
Fractional organic carbon content [g-C/g-soil]:0.002 Estimated Measured
Dry bulk density value is based on published references for a sandy clay loam (Environmental Quality
Management, Inc., 2004).
Total and effective porosity values are based on published references for silt (McWorter and Sunada,
1977).
Water content in the vadose zone is based on the average moisture content of soil samples collected in
June 2016, February 2017, and September 2017. Moisture content in the saturated zone is assumed to
be equal to total porosity.
Fractional organic carbon content value is the DSCA Program default.
Additional Notes
Vadose Zone Characteristics
Saturated Zone Characteristics
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Information
DSCA ID No.: DC320026
Was NAPL discovered at the site:
If Yes, type of NAPL discovered: LNAPL DNAPL
Date LNAPL was discovered?
Type of LNAPL discovered (if known):
Number of monitoring wells/points currently at site:
Has LNAPL removal started?
If No, cite reason:
If Yes, specify method of removal (bailer, pump, etc.):
Removal points (MW #, Boring #, etc.):
Total number of recovery events to date:
Total amount of purge-water recovered:
Total amount of LNAPL recovered:
Date of latest LNAPL removal report submitted:
Date DNAPL was discovered?
Type of DNAPL discovered (if known):
Number of monitoring wells/points currently at site:
Has DNAPL removal started?
If No, cite reason:
If Yes, specify method of removal (bailer, pump, etc.):
Removal points (MW #, Boring #, etc.):
Total number of recovery events to date:
Total amount of purge-water recovered:
Total amount of DNAPL recovered:
Date of latest DNAPL removal report submitted:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AR Form 6
Summary of LNAPL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of monitoring wells/points containing DNAPL (Note if any, list the monitoring wells/points
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Additonal Notes
N/A
N/A
Number of monitoring wells/points containing LNAPL (Note if any,list the monitoring wells/points
containing NAPL):
Summary of DNAPL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes No
REFERENCE 32
2725 East Millbrook Road
Suite 121
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.atcgroupservices.com
N.C. Engineering License No. C-1598
1

January 11, 2019

Mr. Billy Meyer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646

RE: Assessment Report
One Hour Koretizing
1016 West Main Street
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
DSCA Site Identification No. DC320029

Dear Mr. Meyer:

ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) has completed this Assessment Report for the
above referenced site under contract to the North Carolina Dry-cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act
(DSCA) Program. The DSCA Program’s Assessment Report Forms and Analytical Data Tables
with required attachments are enclosed to document the assessment.

1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Based on historical references, One Hour Koretizing performed dry-cleaning operations in a
stand-alone building at the site from the late 1960s to 1972. The source property was used as a
petroleum filling station both before and after the dry-cleaning operation. In 2016,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was identified in the groundwater at a candidate Brownfields property
previously developed as the Howerton-Bryan Funeral Home. Based on a review of historical
documents from previous petroleum releases, One Hour Koretizing was determined to be a
source of PCE in the groundwater. This site is located in downtown Durham and is in close
proximity to four other former dry-cleaners: Johnson Prevost (DSCA Site #DC320033), Eakes
Cleaners, Durham Dry Cleaners (DSCA Site #DC320026), and Scott and Roberts (DSCA Site
#DC320025). Assessment at Durham Dry Cleaners began under the DSCA Program in 2016 and
is currently ongoing. A release has been confirmed at the former Eakes Cleaners and the DSCA
Project Manager is currently working with the property owner to get this site entered into the
DSCA Program. No evidence of dry-cleaning solvent releases were found at the Scott and
Roberts and Johnson Prevost facilities. A site location map is included as Attachment 1 of the
Assessment Report Forms.

At present, the source property is occupied by a petroleum station owned by M.M. Fowler, Inc.
Two historical petroleum release incidents have been reported in association with former
Assessment Report One Hour Koretizing, DSCA Site #DC320029
2

underground storage tank (UST) systems located on the source property (North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality [NCDEQ] UST Section Incident Numbers 3561 and
33581). Both incidents have been issued No Further Action status by the NCDEQ UST Section.

1.1 Tops Texaco Mart (Incident #3561)
On November 18, 1987, Tops Petroleum Corporation (Tops) employees noticed gas leaking from
cracks in the concrete due to a release from the UST system. Approximately 80 to 100 gallons of
regular leaded gasoline was released with approximately 40 gallons recovered. Impacted soil
was removed and disposed of off-site. In January 1988, three monitoring wells were installed
and sampled on the property with PCE concentrations ranging from 5 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) to 680 ug/L. To prevent additional contaminant migration off-site, a pump and treat
system was installed in August 1989. In December 1991, petroleum vapors and petroleum
product were found in the basement sump in the adjacent Brame building. Initially, this was
assigned a separate incident number (Incident #7139) but was later consolidated under Incident
#3561 as the Tops facility was later identified as the source. Tops identified evidence of an
additional petroleum release in the vicinity of the USTs in February 1992. In March 1992, Tops
removed three gasoline USTs, one diesel UST and all associated product lines. Since the diesel
UST was in almost new condition, this UST was put back into the ground for continued use.
During this excavation, four orphan tanks were discovered and also removed. The area of
excavation is depicted in Attachment 11/12/13A of the Assessment Report Forms.
Approximately 2,010 tons of impacted soil were removed during the excavation. A
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) was submitted on June 30, 1992. During the CSA, PCE
was detected in seven wells with a maximum concentration of 1,300 ug/L. Nine soil borings
were completed. Laboratory analysis found PCE and/or trichloroethylene (TCE) in four of the
borings, however all concentrations above the Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs)
were collected below the groundwater table. The soil boring locations and concentrations are
shown in Attachment 11/12/13A of the Assessment Report Forms. Although the pump and treat
system that was installed at the site in 1989 was still operating at this point, Environmental
Investigations noted that the existing system was not designed for the level of contamination
detected during the 1992 assessment and proposed a new pump and treat system in a Corrective
Action Plan (CAP) submitted in July 1992. One recovery well, RW-2, was installed in October
1992 along Morgan Street with the intent on using it with the new pump and treat system,
however the CAP was never implemented due to needing further assessment activities. A revised
CAP was submitted in November 1995 proposing pump and treat from three recovery wells,
RW-1 through RW-3, and from the sump in the basement of the Brame building. The site was
reclassified as low-risk when the risk-based rules petroleum UST site became effective and no
additional groundwater remediation was ever completed. In May 1998, RUST Environmental &
Infrastructure (RUST) submitted a Soil Cleanup Report with Site Closure Request for the Tops
facility, which indicated soil contamination at the site did not exceed Industrial/Commercial
Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentrations (MSCC) and groundwater did not exceed Gross
Contamination Levels (GCLs). The facility was issued a Notice of No Further Action (NFA) on
August 31, 1998.

1.2 Trinity Park Family Fare #432 (Incident #33581)
During site re-development activities conducted in September 2008, three 10,000-gallon gasoline
USTs, one 2,000-gallon diesel UST and associated product lines and dispensers were removed
from the property. The soil boring locations and concentrations are shown in Attachment
Assessment Report One Hour Koretizing, DSCA Site #DC320029
3

11/12/13B of the Assessment Report Forms. During UST removal activities, another release
(Incident #33581) was identified. EMS Environmental, Inc. (EMS) submitted an Initial
Abatement Action Report in December 2008 which detailed the removal of approximately
24,000 gallons of impacted groundwater and 1,000 tons of impacted soil. The area of excavation
is depicted in Attachment 11/12/13B. Two monitoring wells, MW-1 and MW-2, were installed
during the course of this site assessment with PCE concentrations of 6,000 ug/L and 16,000
ug/L, respectively. Since all post-excavation soil samples were below Residential MSCCs and
only PCE was found to exceed GCLs, EMS requested that the site be granted NFA. A Limited
Site Assessment (LSA) was completed by EMS and the report was submitted in March 2009. As
a part of the LSA, a receptor survey was completed for a radius of 1,500 feet around the site. No
water supply wells were found and the closed surface water body was noted to be approximately
2,500 feet to the northeast. Additional groundwater samples were collected in February 2009
from MW-1 and MW-2 and were found to have PCE concentrations of 1,700 ug/L and 4,000
ug/L, respectively. Based on the LSA, NCDEQ issued a NFA for Incident #33581 on October 5,
2009.

2.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

The site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Region and is underlain by the Chatham
Group, Undivided. The Chatham Group, Undivided consists of sedimentary rocks located in a
Triassic Basin which include conglomerate, fanglomerate, sandstone and mudstone. Common
rock types include tan, medium to coarse-grained micaceous arkosic sandstone, sandstone and
mudstone layers interbedded with chert and limestone, and brown clayey sandstone interbedded
with brown to dark gray sandstone and mudstone. The soil types observed during assessment
activities are described as a mixture of silt, sand, and clay. A geologic transect map and cross-
section are included as Attachments 9A and 9B of the Assessment Report Forms. Based on
historical assessment activities, bedrock is estimated to be approximately 30 feet below ground
surface (bgs).

Groundwater at the site flows to the east-southeast. The nearest surface water body is Sandy
Creek Tributary D, located approximately 1,900 feet west and upgradient of the site. Sandy
Creek Tributary D is classified as a water supply and nutrient sensitive (WS-V, NSW) surface
water body and ultimately flows into B. Everett Jordan Lake, a source of drinking water for the
area. Groundwater occurs at depths ranging from 4.92 feet bgs to 8.09 feet bgs. A hydraulic
gradient of 0.03 was calculated from groundwater elevation data collected in February 2018.

3.0 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

No water supply wells have been identified within 1,500 feet of the site. The nearest surface
water body is Sandy Creek Tributary D, located approximately 1,900 feet west and upgradient
of the site. Sandy Creek Tributary D is classified as a WS-V, NSW surface water body and
ultimately flows into B. The nearest downgradient surface water body is an unnamed tributary
located approximately 2,450 feet east of the source property. Everett Jordan Lake, a source of
drinking water for the area. Municipal water is provided to the area by the City of Durham.

Assessment Report One Hour Koretizing, DSCA Site #DC320029
4

4.0 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

4.1 Soil Contamination

As detailed in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above, excavations and soil sampling was completed on the
former One Hour Koretizing property as a part of two petroleum releases, however many
samples were not analyzed for PCE. During the 1992 sampling, two samples [SB-1 (7-9) and
SB-2 (9-11)] were found to have PCE however both samples were collected below the historical
water table. During the 2008 sampling, one sample (OE-PL-7) was found to have PCE with a
concentration of 0.008 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) collected at a depth of 5.5 bgs.

In November 2017, ATC collected samples from five soil borings (SB-1 through SB-5) on the
source property and adjacent Brame building property. Due to property owner request, soil
boring locations on the source property were limited. Concentrations of benzene exceeding the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) were
identified for soil samples SB-3 and SB-4 collected on the Brame building property. Impacted
soil was not identified on the source property during the sampling. Figures showing recent and
historical soil analytical data for the site are included as Attachments 11/12/13A, 11/12/13B and
11/12/13C.

4.2 Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater assessment activities were initiated on this property in January 1988 due to a
petroleum release, at which time PCE was detected in groundwater above Title 15A NCAC 02L
.0202 Groundwater Quality Standards (2L Standards). Environmental Investigations submitted a
CSA for the Tops facility, which included the advancement of nine soil borings. Five soil
borings were installed as permanent monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, and MW-
6). Groundwater samples were collected from the newly installed monitoring wells and existing
monitoring wells B-1 and B-3. PCE was detected in seven wells associated with the petroleum
release with a maximum concentration of 1,300 ug/L. Additional groundwater assessment was
completed on the source property in 2008 and 2009 due to a second petroleum release. PCE was
detected in two wells associated with the petroleum release with a maximum concentration of
16,000 ug/L.

One Environmental Group submitted a Limited Phase II Investigation Letter Report which
documented environmental site assessment activities conducted for the property previously
developed as the Howerton-Bryan Funeral Home located at 1001 West Main Street, and located
south of the former One Hour Koretizing property, which consist of seven parcels (parcel ID
#103162, 103163, 103164, 103177, 103178, 103179, 103180). The results of the investigation
indicated petroleum and chlorinated solvent compounds in groundwater at concentrations
exceeding the 2L Standards on the off-source property.

During a site reconnaissance, ATC found two existing wells from the previous petroleum
releases. Based on the historical figures, well diameter, and well depth, the existing wells were
assumed to be MW-1 from Incident #33581 and RW-2 from Incident #3561. In November 2017,
ATC collected a groundwater sample from the basement sump in the adjacent Brame building.
Laboratory analytical results indicated petroleum and chlorinated solvent compounds detected at
Assessment Report One Hour Koretizing, DSCA Site #DC320029
5

concentrations exceeding 2L Standards. In February 2018, ATC installed and sampled
monitoring wells MW-12 and MW-13 on the source property, MW-14 and MW-15 on the
adjacent Brame building property, and one temporary monitoring well (TW-1) in the right of
way along Albemarle Street downgradient of the Brame building property. ATC also sampled
existing wells MW-1 and RW-2. Laboratory analytical results indicated petroleum and
chlorinated solvent compounds in monitoring wells MW-13, MW-14, MW-15 and TW-1
exceeding 2L Standards. Based on groundwater sampling data for the site, impacts extend off the
source property onto the downgradient adjacent properties to the east and southeast. PCE
isoconcentration contour maps are included as Attachments 17A and 17B of the Assessment
Report Forms.

5.0 VAPOR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT

Initial vapor intrusion sampling was completed by ATC in 2017. ATC collected four indoor air
samples (IA-1 through IA-4) and four sub-slab gas samples (SS-1 through SS-4) from the source
property and adjacent Brame building property in November 2017. Indoor air sample IA-1 was
collected inside the gas station on the source property, indoor air samples IA-2 and IA-3 were
collected from the first floor of the Brame building, and IA-4 was collected from the basement of
the Brame building. Evaluation of the indoor air data indicated cumulative risk levels below the
levels considered acceptable by the DSCA Program based on current property use. Sub-slab
sample SS-1 was collected on the source property outside the building beneath the pavement,
and samples SS-2 through SS-4 were collected from the first floor of the Brame building.
Evaluation of the sub-slab gas data indicated cumulative risk levels below the levels considered
acceptable by the DSCA Program based on the current property use.

In April 2018, ATC installed and sampled soil gas monitoring points SGMP-1 and SGMP-2 on
the former Johnson Prevost property downgradient from the site. Evaluation of the soil gas data
indicated cumulative risk levels below the levels considered acceptable by the DSCA Program.

ATC has completed assessment activities associated with the dry-cleaning solvent release at the
former One Hour Koretizing site. The following DSCA reporting forms are enclosed to
document the results of the assessment:

 Assessment Report Forms
 Analytical Data Tables

ATC appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have questions or require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].

Sincerely,
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
Kristen Speight, P.G. Meghan E. Greiner, P.E.
Project Manager Program Manager

Attachments: Assessment Report Forms, Analytical Data Tables

ASSESSMENT REPORT FORMS

DSCA ID No.:
Submittal Date:
Assessment Report Forms
for
North Carolina Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Program
Prepared By:
Facility Name:Former One Hour Koretizing
1016 West Main Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
2725 East Millbrook Road, Suite 121, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
1/11/2019
DC320029
Table of Contents
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Form/Att
. No.
Check box
if included
Form 1 Facility Information
Form 2 Site History
Form 3 Land Use and Receptor Survey
Form 4 Groundwater Use, Surface Water Use, and Ecological Survey
Form 5 Site Stratigraphy and Hydrogeology
Form 6 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Information
Att. 1 Site location map.
Att. 2 Historical aerial photograph.
Att. 3 Historical maps and fire insurance records.
Att. 4 Facility as-building drawings.
Att. 5
Att. 6
Att. 7
Att. 8
Att. 9 Area geologic map/relevant cross-sections.
Att. 10
Att. 11 Site map showing location(s) of soil sample(s).
Att. 12
Att. 13 Soil isoconcentration maps.
Att. 14 Site map showing location(s) of monitoring well(s).
Att. 15
Att. 16 Groundwater gradient map.
Att. 17
Att. 18
Att. 19
AR TOC
Scaled vicinity map illustrating surrounding land use within 500 foot and 0.5 mile
radii of the site.
Description
Assessment Report Attachments
Assessment Report Forms (Page 1 of 2)
Facility layout diagram indicating the following (if applicable):
(i) Service doors, (ii) current and historic location of drycleaning equipment, (iii)
solvent/waste storage areas (including ASTs and USTs), (iv) distillation unit, (v)
location of septic tank/drainfield or sanitary sewer lateral line, (vi) floor drains,
(vii) storm sewer, (viii) expansion joints and cracks in floor, (ix) location of
utilities, and (x) location of dumpsters.
Groundwater contaminant concentration maps showing the concentration at each
sampling point and isoconcentration maps.
Map showing location(s) of surface water sample(s) (if applicable).
Surface water concentration map showing the concentration at each sampling point
(if applicable).
Utility records, including videos of sewer lines and pressure testing.
USGS Quad map with plotted water well location(s) within the 1,500 foot and 0.5
mile radii of the site.
Soil boring logs which must include the following:
(i) OVA or other field screening readings, (ii) depth of samples collect, (iii) odor,
(iv) staining, (v) blow counts (if applicable), (vi) interval recovery, (vii) structures
and/or bedding, (viii) moisture content, and (ix) borehole disposition
(abandonment or conversion to monitor well).
Soil contaminant concentration maps showing the concentration at each sampling
point.
Well completion diagrams and records of construction submitted to state.
Table of Contents
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Form/Att
. No.
Check box
if included
AR TOC
Description
Att. 20
Att. 21
Att. 22
Att. 23
Att. 24
Att. 25
Note:
1. All maps must include a bar scale, north arrow, site name, DSCA ID No., and date.
Indoor Air and Sub-Slab Gas Concentration Map
Soil Gas Concentration Map
Risk Calculators
Environmental Data Resources Report
Laboratory analytical reports including chain-of custody and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) documentation.
Assessment Report Attachments continued (Page 2 of 2)
Map showing location(s) of water supply well(s) (if applicable).
Facility Information
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Currently operating facility since
Previously operating facility since
Temporarily out of service from to
Permanently out of service since
Facility name:
Facility telephone number (if applicable):
Facility Owner's Name:
Owner's Mailing Address:
Owner's Telephone number:
Contractor Date
Printed Name Company Name
late 1960s
Provide information on businesses that occupied the facility that may use or have used solvents and
other chemicals. Identify solvents and chemicals used at the facility (if applicable).
1972
One Hour Koretizing
Provide the name, address and telephone number of the current dry-cleaning business and the dry-
cleaning business owner. If no current business at the facility, provide the name and address of the
last dry-cleaner doing business at the site.
4220 Neal Road
Durham, NC 27705-2322
M.M. Fowler, Inc.
Facility address (include name of shopping
centre and the county where facility is
located):
Based on historical references, One Hour Koretizing performed dry-cleaning operations in a stand-
alone building at the site in 1969. The source property was used as a petroleum filling station both
before and after the dry-cleaning operation. At present, the source property is occupied by a
petroleum station owned by M.M. Fowler, Inc. Two historical petroleum release incidents have
been reported in association with former underground storage tank (UST) systems located on the
source property (NC UST Section Incidents 3561 and 33581). Both incidents have been issued No
Further Action status by the NC UST Section.
1969 - One Hour Koretizing
AR Form 1
I certify that the prioritization assessment as stated in this report was prepared under my
supervision.
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
1/11/2019
Meghan E. Greiner, P.E.
919-309-2925
N/A
Provide the earliest known date of the facility use for dry-cleaning business and the name of the dry-
cleaning business (if applicable).
Report Prepared By
1016 West Main Street
Durham, NC 27705
Durham County
Site History
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Number of dry-cleaning machines used at current or former facility:
Type of dry-cleaning solvents used by each type of machine.
Provide information about the current/historical waste management practices, including types of wastes
that are/were generated and how the waste are/were stored and managed.
AR Form 2
Are chlorinated dry cleaning solvents delivered to the facility by means of a closed, direct-coupled
delivery system?
Unknown
Are virgin (new) solvents stored in containers other than the dry-
cleaning machine?
Are or were any USTs or ASTs used to store any petroleum or
hazardous substances other than dry-cleaning solvents at the facility
Unknown
Unknown
Type of dry-cleaning machines used at current or former facility (e.g., transfer, dry-to-dry with vented
exhaust, etc.).
Unknown
Unknown
What methods of disposal are used or have been used for separator water?
If yes, provide information about the substance stored, year taken out of service, virgin solvent or waste
solvent, etc.
Unknown
Where are/were the dry-cleaning solvents stored at the facility site? (Machine base tanks, UST(s),
AST(s), etc.)
Unknown
Yes No
Yes No
Page 6 of 13
Site History
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
AR Form 2
Unpaved
Paved % area paved:
Any visible cracks in pavement?
Have the utilities been screened for vapor levels?
If YES, attach documentation of vapor monitoring results.
Depth
[feet]
Type of
Material
Flow
Direction
Impacted
by Release
Potentially
Impacted
by Release
Sanitary sewer Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Potentially
Septic drainfields
Covered storm sewer Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Potentially
Open ditch
Water line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Potentially
Gas line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Potentially
Electric line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Potentially
Telephone line Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Potentially
Other
Has the release been abated?
Is native soil impacted?
Is groundwater impacted?
Is surface water impacted?
UST(s)/AST(s) removal Known spill incident
Inventory control Citizen complaint
Facility remodeling/Construction activity Assessment on adjacent property
Environmental assessment Unknown
Other (specify)
Unknown
Monitoring wells installed as a part of the historical UST releases
Release Discovery
95
Release Characterization
is unknown.
indicated detectable chlorinated solvent constituents in groundwater, however, the exact release scenario
Date the release was discovered
Date the release was reported
Type of release (explain)
Unknown
Ground Surface Conditions
Subsurface Utilities
Indicate which of the following utilities currently act as conduits, or are likely to become conduits, under
the columns entitled "Impacted by Release," and "Potentially Impacted by Release," respectively.
In the space provided for additional notes, please indicate the location and distance from soil and/or
groundwater contamination to the nearest subsurface utility line and access point (e.g., manhole).
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Page 7 of 13
Site History
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
AR Form 2
Spills/Overfills Tanks
Piping Unknown
Other (specify)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Ethylbenzene
1,1,2-Trichloroethanae Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
1,1-Dichloroethane Naphthalene
1,1-Dichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)Toluene
Benzene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Benzo(a)pyrene Trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride Vinyl chloride
Chloroform Xylenes (total)
Others
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was identified in the groundwater at a candidate Brownfields property
previously developed as the Howerton-Bryan Funeral Home. Based on a review of historical documents
from previous petroleum releases, One Hour Koretizing was determined to be a source of PCE in the
groundwater. This site is located in downtown Durham and is in close proximity to four other former dry-
cleaners: Johnson Prevost, Eakes Cleaners, Durham Dry Cleaners, and Scott and Roberts. Assessment at
Durham Dry Cleaners began under the DSCA program in 2016 and was determined to be a source of
chlorinated solvents in the area. A release has been confirmed at the former Eakes Cleaners and the
DSCA Project Manager is currently working with the property owner to get this site entered into the
DSCA Program. No evidence of dry-cleaning solvent releases were found at the Scott and Roberts and
Johnson Prevost facilities.
Additional Notes
Source(s) of Release
Chemicals of Concern
Page 8 of 13
Land Use and Receptor Survey
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
On-site Land Use Current Future
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Other
Justify the choice for future land use:
North:
Northeast:
Northwest:
South:
Southeast:
Southwest:
West:
East:
Nearest residential site:
Nearest commercial/industrial site:
If site is vacant, nearest inhabited building:
Nearest school, hospital, day care, nursing home etc.:
Nearest public supply well:
Nearest private supply well:
Nearest surface water body:
Additional Notes
The nearest ecologically sensitive area is considered to be the nearest surface water body located
approximately 1,900 feet west and upgradient of the source property. This surface water body is Sandy
Creek Tributary D, classified as a WS-V, NSW surface water body. The nearest downgradient surface
water body is an unnamed tributary located approximately 2,450 feet east of the source property. The
nearest location with a sensitive population is Indigo Montessori School, located approximately 100 feet
west of the source property. No water supply wells have been identified within 1,500 feet of the site. The
nearest point of exposure is the downgradient source property boundary.
100 Crossgradient
N/A N/A
1,900 Upgradient
N/A N/A
1,690
0
Crossgradient
Downgradient
Nearest ecologically sensitive area (agricultural areas,
parks/recreational areas, wildlife sanctuaries, wetlands):
Nearest point of exposure (current or potential) for
groundwater ingestion:
410
Retail and Restaurant / Downtown Design District - Support 1 (DDS-1)
Montessori School / Downtown Design District - Support 1 (DDS-1)
Upgradient
Retail / Downtown Design District - Support 1 (DDS-1)
List the distance and the direction (downgradient, upgradient, or crossgradient) to these facilities within
0.5 mile radius of the site (If necessary provide details in additional notes).
50
N/A
Downgradient
N/A
AR Form 3
Land Use
Distance [feet]Direction
Fast Food Restaurant / Downtown Design District - Support 2 (DDS-2)
Vacant Commercial / Downtown Design District - Support 2 (DDS-2)
Hotel / Downtown Design District - Support 2 (DDS-2)
Night Club / Downtown Design District - Support 1 (DDS-1)
Retail / Downtown Design District - Support 1 (DDS-1)
Currently, the site is used for commercial purposes. ATC is unaware of any future plans that would
indicate another type of land use.
Immediate Off-site Land Use (within 500 feet - at a minimum, state whether, residential,
commercial/industrial, agricultural, or ecologically sensitive area). Indicate distances to
residential/commercial/industrial buildings having basements which are occupied.
Receptor Survey
Groundwater Use, Surface Water Use, and Ecological Survey
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Is the groundwater used on-site?
If yes, specify the use:
Potable domestic supply
Non-potable domestic supply
Public/Municipal supply
Industrial supply
Agriculture
Other (explain in space provided below)
Is a surface water body present in 1,000 feet radius of the site?
If yes, specify the following:
Type of water body
North Carolina classification of water body
Does the water discharges into lake or reservoir?
Surface water use:
Potable domestic supply
Non-potable domestic supply
Public/Municipal supply
Industrial supply
Agriculture
Other (explain in space provided below)
2. Are there private water supply wells within 1500 feet radius from the site?
Additional Notes
Sandy Creek Tributary D is considered to be an ecological receptor.
1. Are there public/municipal water supply wells within 0.5 mile radius from
the
AR Form 4
Water Well(s) Information
Surface Water Use
Ecological Receptors and Habitats
1. Are there any ecological receptors or habitats present within 500 feet radius
from the site?
2. Are there visible indications of stressed receptors or habitats on or near the
site that may be a result of chemical release?
Groundwater Use
N/A
Sandy Creek Tributary D (WS-V; NSW) is located approximately 1,900 feet west of the source property. This
creek ultimately flows into B. Everett Jordan Lake, a source of drinking water. The nearest downgradient
surface water body is an unnamed tributary located approximately 2,450 feet east of the source property.
Yes No
River Wet weather creek Drain ditch Regular creek
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Other:
Yes No
Yes No
Site Stratigraphy and Hydrogeology
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Depth [feet]
0-20
Predominant Soil Type:
Depth [feet]
>20 ft
Type of Aquifer?
Underlying predominant aquifer name:
Aquifer classification (if applicable):
Range of groundwater level fluctuations [feet bgs]:
Average depth to water table/static water level:
Flow direction:
Hydraulic gradient (i) [--]:
Hydraulic conductivity (K) [cm/year]:
Darcy velocity (K x i) [cm/year-calculated]:
Groundwater velocity (K x i/Porosity) [cm/year]:
Annual precipitation (average for last 30 years) [inches/year]:
Brown to grey sandy clay and silt
Clay and silty to clayey sand
Triassic Basin; Chatham Group - Arkosic Sandstone/Siltstone
12,026.34
47.81
Type of Bedrock and Geological Formation
Hydrogeology of the Saturated Impacted Zone
384.84
6.50
AR Form 5
Stratigraphy of Site
Southeast
0.03
Surficial
Not Applicable
801.76
Description of Soil
Additional Notes
The range of groundwater level fluctuations and average depth to groundwater is based on all data
collected at the site to date.
Hydraulic gradient is based on February 2018 data for MW-12 and MW-14.
Hydraulic conductivity was measured at the site during a bail test conducted by Environmental
Investigations, Inc. on July 21 and 22, 1992 as part of corrective action activities. The results of the bail
test were documented in the Correction Action Plan prepared for Tops Texaco Mart on July 31, 1992.
Annual precipitation in Durham, NC was obtained from the National Climatic Data Center's Normal
Annual Precipitation available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.goc/cdo-web/datatools/normals.
4.92 to 8.09
Confined Unconfined Perched
Values/Range Method
Dry bulk density [g/cm3]1.49 Estimated Measured
Total porosity [cm3/cm3]:0.48 Estimated Measured
Effective porosity [cm3/cm3]:0.27 Estimated Measured
Water content [cm3/cm3]:0.24 Estimated Measured %Sol
Fractional organic carbon content [g-C/g-soil]: 0.006 Estimated Measured
Values/Range Method
Dry bulk density [g/cm3]1.49 Estimated Measured
Total porosity [cm3/cm3]:0.48 Estimated Measured
Effective porosity [cm3/cm3]0.27 Estimated Measured
Water content [cm3/cm3]:0.48 Estimated Measured
Fractional organic carbon content [g-C/g-soil]: 0.002 Estimated Measured
The following vadose zone characteristic values are based on published values: average dry bulk
density of silt and sandy clay- Environmental Quality Management, Inc., 2004; total porosity of silt -
McWorter and Sunada, 1977; effective porosity of silt - McWorter and Sunada, 1977. Fractional
organic carbon value is the DSCA Risk Assessment Guidance default value.
Vadose zone water content was measured by calculating an average percent moisture for soil samples
collected in November 2017 and multiplied by the estimated dry bulk density. The water content in the
saturated zone is expected to equal the total porosity.
Additional Notes
Vadose Zone Characteristics
Saturated Zone Characteristics
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Information
DSCA ID No.: DC320029
Was NAPL discovered at the site:
If Yes, type of NAPL discovered: LNAPL DNAPL
Date LNAPL was discovered?
Type of LNAPL discovered (if known):
Number of monitoring wells/points currently at site:
Has LNAPL removal started?
If No, cite reason:
If Yes, specify method of removal (bailer, pump, etc.):
Removal points (MW #, Boring #, etc.):
Total number of recovery events to date:
Total amount of purge-water recovered:
Total amount of LNAPL recovered:
Date of latest LNAPL removal report submitted:
Date DNAPL was discovered?
Type of DNAPL discovered (if known):
Number of monitoring wells/points currently at site:
Has DNAPL removal started?
If No, cite reason:
If Yes, specify method of removal (bailer, pump, etc.):
Removal points (MW #, Boring #, etc.):
Total number of recovery events to date:
Total amount of purge-water recovered:
Total amount of DNAPL recovered:
Date of latest DNAPL removal report submitted:
AR Form 6
Summary of LNAPL
Number of monitoring wells/points containing DNAPL (Note if any, list the monitoring wells/points containing
Additonal Notes
Number of monitoring wells/points containing LNAPL (Note if any, list the monitoring wells/points containing
NAPL):
Summary of DNAPL
Yes No
REFERENCE 33
REFERENCE 34
Durham County Stormwater
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Stormwater Pipes
City of Durham
Private/Others
Stormwater Structures
Catch Basin
Headwall/End Section
Junction Box/Manhole
Riser/Wier
Other
Possible Junction
Unclassified
September 22, 2021
2021
0 0.035 0.070.0175 mi
0 0.06 0.120.03 km
1:2,257

:
REFERENCE 35
259
261
164
1001
NC 86
US 70;NC 86 Truck
I 40
I40;I85;NC86 Truck
Fairview
Orange County
1009
1009
261
164 165
170 170
SR 1401
NC 57
NC 157
NC 157
US 70 Business
US 70 Business
NC 86
US 70
US 70 Bypass
US 70 Bypass
I 85
I 85;US70
Willowhaven
Eno RiverStateParkHillsborough
270
105A
105B
106
106
107
107
108A 15A
15B
108A16B
108D
16A
174A 174B
SR 1712 NC 751
SR 1777
SR 1733
NC 751
NC 751
NC 86
NC 86
NC 86
US 70Business
US 15 Business;US501Business
I 40
I 40
US 15;US 501
DukeUniversity
Duke ForestDurhamDivision
Carraway
180
182182
183
186A
186B186
NC 1103
US 501
US 501
US 501
US 501
US501 Business
I 85;US 15
I85
Little RiverReservoir
Lake Michie
West PointontheEno
Horton GroveNaturalPreserve
Durham County
12
11
12B
11
9
10
10B
11
14 14
176
175
177
176
177
11
286286
285178178
179
179180
US 15 Business;US501Business NC 98
NC 147
US 70
I 85;US 15
Durham
189
189
191
1700
1700
1700
NC56
NC 56
US 15
US 15
NC 50
I85
Falls LakeStateRecreationArea-SandlingBeach
Falls LakeStateRecreationArea-Beaver DamPark
Creedmoor
SR 2002
1831
NC50
NC 98 NC 98
Falls Lake
Falls LakeStateRecreationArea
Hasentree
Butner-FallsofNeuseGameLands
15-Mile Surface Water Pathway
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Esri Community
Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri
PWS All Sources 2021 Public
Surface Water Community
Groundwater Community
Groundwater Non-Transient, Non-Community
Groundwater Non-Community Transient
Groundwater Adjacent
9/30/2021, 11:12:48 PM
0 2.5 51.25 mi
0 4.5 92.25 km
1:144,448
ArcGIS Web AppBuilder
NCDOT GIS Unit | Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri |
REFERENCE 36
Waterway & Fishing Map Features
Below is a list of a features that make Fishidy one of the most popular social
©2022 Fishidy, Inc. Terms Privacy
Y
+
-
Click on a state or zoom in
to discover fishing maps.
Explore Fishidy's Fishing Maps
FISHIDY IS A WATERWAY LOCATION BASED SOCIAL NETWORK FOR
PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO FISH.
Explore The Interactive Map
— or —
Search
Waterway or zip code W
Privacy - Terms
Online Fishing Maps & Charts https://www.fishidy.com/fishing-maps
1 of 6 9/14/2022, 12:58 AM
Waterway & Fishing Map Features
Below is a list of a features that make Fishidy one of the most popular social
2
©2022 Fishidy, Inc. Terms Privacy
Y
+
-
Zoom in to view more features on the map
Online Fishing Maps & Charts https://www.fishidy.com/fishing-maps
1 of 6 9/14/2022, 12:57 AM
REFERENCE 37
NC Fishing Areas and Trout Waters
Town of Cary, State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin,
NGA, USGS, NPS
Fishing Areas
Sponsored by WRC -- NCWRC fishing regulations apply at these areas.
Non-WRC Affiliated -- These public access areas are provided as a convenience to anglers, but are not affiliated with the Commission. While every effort is made to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the conditions and accessibility of these areas is subject to change. Please contact the listed sponsor for additional information.
Game Lands
9/30/2021
0 2.5 51.25 mi
0 4.5 92.25 km
1:144,448
REFERENCE 38
Wetlands
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
October 1, 2021
0 0.4 0.80.2 mi
0 0.6 1.20.3 km
1:23,333
This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
REFERENCE 39
Natural Heritage Program Map
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri
Managed Areas
Dedicated Nature Preserve
Registered Heritage Area
Conservation Easement
Other Protection
Federal Ownership
State Ownership
Local Government Ownership
Private
September 30, 2021 0 0.7 1.40.35 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:41,589

REFERENCE 40
REFERENCE 41
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:28:27
Resident Air Inputs 1
Variable
Resident
Air
Default
Value
Site-Specific
Value
AFgw (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unitless 0.001 0.001
AFss (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless 0.03 0.03
EDres (exposure duration) years 26 26
ED0-2 (mutagenic exposure duration first phase) years 2 2
ED2-6 (mutagenic exposure duration second phase) years 4 4
ED6-16 (mutagenic exposure duration third phase) years 10 10
ED16-26 (mutagenic exposure duration fourth phase) years 10 10
EFres (exposure frequency) days/year 350 350
EF0-2 (mutagenic exposure frequency first phase) days/year 350 350
EF2-6 (mutagenic exposure frequency second phase) days/year 350 350
EF6-16 (mutagenic exposure frequency third phase) days/year 350 350
EF16-26 (mutagenic exposure frequency fourth phase) days/year 350 350
ETres (exposure time) hours/day 24 24
ET0-2 (mutagenic exposure time first phase) hours/day 24 24
ET2-6 (mutagenic exposure time second phase) hours/day 24 24
ET6-16 (mutagenic exposure time third phase) hours/day 24 24
ET16-26 (mutagenic exposure time fourth phase) hours/day 24 24
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 0.1 0.1
LT (lifetime) years 70 70
TR (target risk) unitless 1.0E-06 1.0E-06
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:28:27
Resident Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL)2
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied;
U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA = cancer; NC = noncancer.
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion
from Soil
Source?
(Cvp > Ci,a,Target?)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion from
Groundwater
Source?
(Chc > Ci,a,Target?)
Target
Indoor Air
Concentration
(TCR=1E-06
or THQ=0.1)
MIN(Cia,c,Cia,nc)
(µg/m3)
Toxicity
Basis
Target
Sub-Slab and
Near-source
Soil Gas
Concentration
(TCR=1E-06
or THQ=0.1)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
(TCR=1E-06
or THQ=0.1)
Cgw,Target
(µg/L)
Benzene 71-43-2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.60E-01 CA 1.20E+01 1.59E+00
Chloroform 67-66-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.22E-01 CA 4.07E+00 8.14E-01
Dichloroethane, 1,1-75-34-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.75E+00 CA 5.85E+01 7.64E+00
Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.08E-01 CA 3.60E+00 2.24E+00
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-75-35-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.09E+01 NC 6.95E+02 1.95E+01
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-156-59-2 Yes No No Inhal. Tox. Info No Inhal. Tox. Info ---
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.17E+00 NC 1.39E+02 1.09E+01
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.17E+00 NC 1.39E+02 5.76E+00
Toluene 108-88-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.21E+02 NC 1.74E+04 1.92E+03
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-71-55-6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.21E+02 NC 1.74E+04 7.42E+02
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-79-00-5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.09E-02 NC 6.95E-01 6.19E-01
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.09E-01 NC 6.95E+00 5.18E-01
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.68E-01 CA 5.59E+00 1.47E-01
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:28:27
Resident Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL)3
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied;
U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA = cancer; NC = noncancer.
Is Target
Groundwater
Concentration
< MCL?
(Cgw < MCL?)
Pure Phase
Vapor
Concentration
Cvp\
(25 ℃)\
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
Chc\
(µg/m3)
Temperature
for Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
(℃)
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
IUR
Ref
RfC
(mg/m 3)
RfC
Ref
Mutagenic
Indicator
Carcinogenic
VISL
TCR=1E-06
Cia,c(µg/m3)
Noncarcinogenic
VISL
THQ=0.1
Cia,nc(µg/m3)
Yes (5)3.98E+08 4.06E+08 25 1.20 U 7.80E-06 U 3.00E-02 U No 3.60E-01 3.13E+00
Yes (80)1.26E+09 1.19E+09 25 -2.30E-05 U 9.77E-02 U No 1.22E-01 1.02E+01
--1.21E+09 1.16E+09 25 5.40 U 1.60E-06 U -No 1.75E+00 -
Yes (5)4.20E+08 4.15E+08 25 6.20 U 2.60E-05 U 7.00E-03 U No 1.08E-01 7.30E-01
No (7)3.13E+09 2.58E+09 25 6.50 U -2.00E-01 U No -2.09E+01
1.04E+09 1.07E+09 25 3.00 U --No --
Yes (100)1.73E+09 1.73E+09 25 6.00 U -4.00E-02 U No -4.17E+00
No (5)1.65E+08 1.49E+08 25 -2.60E-07 U 4.00E-02 U No 1.08E+01 4.17E+00
No (1000)1.41E+08 1.43E+08 25 1.10 U -5.00E+00 U No -5.21E+02
No (200)8.90E+08 9.07E+08 25 8.00 U -5.00E+00 U No -5.21E+02
Yes (5)1.65E+08 1.55E+08 25 6.00 U 1.60E-05 U 2.00E-04 U No 1.75E-01 2.09E-02
Yes (5)4.88E+08 5.15E+08 25 8.00 U 4.10E-06 U 2.00E-03 U Mut 4.78E-01 2.09E-01
Yes (2)1.00E+10 1.00E+10 25 3.60 U 4.40E-06 U 8.00E-02 U Mut 1.68E-01 8.34E+00
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:28:27
Chemical Properties 4
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)MW
MW
Ref
Vapor
Pressure
VP
(mm Hg)
VP
Ref
S
(mg/L)
S
Ref
MCL
(ug/L)
Benzene 71-43-2 Yes Yes 78.12 U 9.48E+01 U 1.79E+03 U 5
Chloroform 67-66-3 Yes Yes 119.38 U 1.97E+02 U 7.95E+03 U 80
Dichloroethane, 1,1-75-34-3 Yes Yes 98.96 U 2.27E+02 U 5.04E+03 U -
Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 Yes Yes 98.96 U 7.89E+01 U 8.60E+03 U 5
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-75-35-4 Yes Yes 96.94 U 6.00E+02 U 2.42E+03 U 7
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-156-59-2 Yes No 96.94 U 2.00E+02 U 6.41E+03 U 70
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 Yes Yes 96.94 U 3.31E+02 U 4.52E+03 U 100
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes 165.83 U 1.85E+01 U 2.06E+02 U 5
Toluene 108-88-3 Yes Yes 92.14 U 2.84E+01 U 5.26E+02 U 1000
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-71-55-6 Yes Yes 133.41 U 1.24E+02 U 1.29E+03 U 200
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-79-00-5 Yes Yes 133.41 U 2.30E+01 U 4.59E+03 U 5
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Yes Yes 131.39 U 6.90E+01 U 1.28E+03 U 5
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 Yes Yes 62.50 U 2.98E+03 U 8.80E+03 U 2
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:28:27
Chemical Properties 5
HLC
(atm-m 3/mole)
Henry's
Law
Constant
(unitless)
H`
and
HLC
Ref
Henry's
Law
Constant
Used in
Calcs
(unitless)
Normal
Boiling
Point
BP
(K)
BP
Ref
Critical
Temperature
TC\
(K)
TC\
Ref
Enthalpy of
vaporization
at
the normal
boiling point
ΔHv,b\
(cal/mol)
ΔHv,b\
Ref
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
5.55E-03 2.27E-01 U 2.27E-01 353.15 U 5.62E+02 U 7340.00 U 1.20 U
3.67E-03 1.50E-01 U 1.50E-01 334.25 U 5.36E+02 U 6990.00 U -
5.62E-03 2.30E-01 U 2.30E-01 330.55 U 5.23E+02 U 6900.00 U 5.40 U
1.18E-03 4.82E-02 U 4.82E-02 356.65 U 5.62E+02 U 7640.00 U 6.20 U
2.61E-02 1.07E+00 U 1.07E+00 304.85 U 4.82E+02 U 6250.00 U 6.50 U
4.08E-03 1.67E-01 U 1.67E-01 333.25 U 5.36E+02 U 7220.00 U 3.00 U
9.38E-03 3.83E-01 U 3.83E-01 321.85 U 5.16E+02 U 6910.00 U 6.00 U
1.77E-02 7.24E-01 U 7.24E-01 394.15 U 6.20E+02 U 8290.00 U -
6.64E-03 2.71E-01 U 2.71E-01 384.15 U 5.92E+02 U 7930.00 U 1.10 U
1.72E-02 7.03E-01 U 7.03E-01 347.15 U 5.45E+02 U 7140.00 U 8.00 U
8.24E-04 3.37E-02 U 3.37E-02 387.15 U 6.02E+02 U 8320.00 U 6.00 U
9.85E-03 4.03E-01 U 4.03E-01 360.35 U 5.71E+02 U 7500.00 U 8.00 U
2.78E-02 1.14E+00 U 1.14E+00 259.85 U 4.25E+02 U 4970.00 U 3.60 U
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
Default VISL Results 1
Variable Value
Exposure Scenario Commercial
Temperature for Groundwater Vapor Concentration C 25
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 0.1
TR (target risk) unitless 0.0001
ATw (averaging time - composite worker)365
EFw (exposure frequency - composite worker) day/yr 250
EDw (exposure duration - composite worker) yr 25
ETw (exposure time - composite worker) hr 8
LT (lifetime) yr 70
AFgw (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unitless 0.001
AFss (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless 0.03
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL)2
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied;
E = RPF applied; U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA = cancer; NC = noncancer.
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion
from Soil
Source?
(Cvp > Ci,a,Target?)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion from
Groundwater
Source?
(Chc > Ci,a,Target?)
Target
Indoor Air
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
MIN(Cia,c,Cia,nc)
(µg/m3)
Toxicity
Basis
Target
Sub-Slab and
Near-source
Soil Gas
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
Cgw,Target
(µg/L)
Benzene 71-43-2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.31E+01 NC 4.38E+02 5.79E+01
Chloroform 67-66-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.28E+01 NC 1.43E+03 2.85E+02
Dichloroethane, 1,1-75-34-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 7.67E+02 CA 2.56E+04 3.34E+03
Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.07E+00 NC 1.02E+02 6.36E+01
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-75-35-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 8.76E+01 NC 2.92E+03 8.21E+01
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-156-59-2 Yes No No Inhal. Tox. Info No Inhal. Tox. Info ---
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.75E+01 NC 5.84E+02 4.57E+01
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.75E+01 NC 5.84E+02 2.42E+01
Toluene 108-88-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.19E+03 NC 7.30E+04 8.07E+03
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-71-55-6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.19E+03 NC 7.30E+04 3.11E+03
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-79-00-5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 8.76E-02 NC 2.92E+00 2.60E+00
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 8.76E-01 NC 2.92E+01 2.18E+00
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.50E+01 NC 1.17E+03 3.08E+01
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL)3
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied;
E = RPF applied; U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA = cancer; NC = noncancer.
Is Target
Groundwater
Concentration
< MCL?
(Cgw < MCL?)
Pure Phase
Vapor
Concentration
Cvp\
(25 ℃)\
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
Chc\
(µg/m3)
Temperature
for Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
(℃)
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
IUR
(ug/m 3)-1
IUR
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
RfC
Ref
Mutagenic
Indicator
Carcinogenic
VISL
TCR=0.0001
Cia,c(µg/m3)
Noncarcinogenic
VISL
THQ=0.1
Cia,nc(µg/m3)
No (5)3.98E+08 4.06E+08 25 1.20 CRC 7.80E-06 I 3.00E-02 I No 1.57E+02 1.31E+01
No (80)1.26E+09 1.19E+09 25 -2.30E-05 I 9.77E-02 A No 5.33E+01 4.28E+01
--1.21E+09 1.16E+09 25 5.40 CRC 1.60E-06 C -No 7.67E+02 -
No (5)4.20E+08 4.15E+08 25 6.20 CRC 2.60E-05 I 7.00E-03 P No 4.72E+01 3.07E+00
No (7)3.13E+09 2.58E+09 25 6.50 CRC -2.00E-01 I No -8.76E+01
1.04E+09 1.07E+09 25 3.00 CRC --No --
Yes (100)1.73E+09 1.73E+09 25 6.00 CRC -4.00E-02 X No -1.75E+01
No (5)1.65E+08 1.49E+08 25 -2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 I No 4.72E+03 1.75E+01
No (1000)1.41E+08 1.43E+08 25 1.10 CRC -5.00E+00 I No -2.19E+03
No (200)8.90E+08 9.07E+08 25 8.00 CRC -5.00E+00 I No -2.19E+03
Yes (5)1.65E+08 1.55E+08 25 6.00 CRC 1.60E-05 I 2.00E-04 X No 7.67E+01 8.76E-02
Yes (5)4.88E+08 5.15E+08 25 8.00 CRC 4.10E-06 I 2.00E-03 I Mut 2.99E+02 8.76E-01
No (2)1.00E+10 1.00E+10 25 3.60 CRC 4.40E-06 I 8.00E-02 A Mut 2.79E+02 3.50E+01
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
Chemical Properties 4
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)MW
MW
Ref
Vapor
Pressure
VP
(mm Hg)
VP
Ref
S
(mg/L)
S
Ref
MCL
(ug/L)
Benzene 71-43-2 Yes Yes 78.115 PHYSPROP 9.48E+01 PHYSPROP 1.79E+03 PHYSPROP 5
Chloroform 67-66-3 Yes Yes 119.38 PHYSPROP 1.97E+02 PHYSPROP 7.95E+03 PHYSPROP 80
Dichloroethane, 1,1-75-34-3 Yes Yes 98.96 PHYSPROP 2.27E+02 PHYSPROP 5.04E+03 PHYSPROP -
Dichloroethane, 1,2-107-06-2 Yes Yes 98.96 PHYSPROP 7.89E+01 PHYSPROP 8.60E+03 PHYSPROP 5
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-75-35-4 Yes Yes 96.944 PHYSPROP 6.00E+02 PHYSPROP 2.42E+03 PHYSPROP 7
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-156-59-2 Yes No 96.944 PHYSPROP 2.00E+02 PHYSPROP 6.41E+03 PHYSPROP 70
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 Yes Yes 96.944 PHYSPROP 3.31E+02 EPI 4.52E+03 PHYSPROP 100
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes 165.83 PHYSPROP 1.85E+01 PHYSPROP 2.06E+02 PHYSPROP 5
Toluene 108-88-3 Yes Yes 92.142 PHYSPROP 2.84E+01 PHYSPROP 5.26E+02 PHYSPROP 1000
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-71-55-6 Yes Yes 133.41 PHYSPROP 1.24E+02 PHYSPROP 1.29E+03 PHYSPROP 200
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-79-00-5 Yes Yes 133.41 PHYSPROP 2.30E+01 PHYSPROP 4.59E+03 PHYSPROP 5
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Yes Yes 131.39 PHYSPROP 6.90E+01 PHYSPROP 1.28E+03 PHYSPROP 5
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 Yes Yes 62.499 PHYSPROP 2.98E+03 EPI 8.80E+03 PHYSPROP 2
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
Chemical Properties 5
Output generated 05AUG2022:17:43:01
HLC
(atm-m 3/mole)
Henry's
Law
Constant
(unitless)
H` and HLC
Ref
Henry's
Law
Constant
Used in
Calcs
(unitless)
Normal
Boiling
Point
BP
(K)
BP
Ref
Critical
Temperature
TC\
(K)
TC\
Ref
Enthalpy of
vaporization
at
the normal
boiling point
ΔHv,b\
(cal/mol)
ΔHv,b\
Ref
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
5.55E-03 2.27E-01 PHYSPROP 2.27E-01 353.15 PHYSPROP 5.62E+02 CRC 7.34E+03 CRC 1.2 CRC
3.67E-03 1.50E-01 PHYSPROP 1.50E-01 334.25 PHYSPROP 5.36E+02 CRC 6.99E+03 CRC -
5.62E-03 2.30E-01 PHYSPROP 2.30E-01 330.55 PHYSPROP 5.23E+02 CRC 6.90E+03 CRC 5.4 CRC
1.18E-03 4.82E-02 PHYSPROP 4.82E-02 356.65 PHYSPROP 5.62E+02 CRC 7.64E+03 CRC 6.2 CRC
2.61E-02 1.07E+00 PHYSPROP 1.07E+00 304.85 PHYSPROP 4.82E+02 YAWS 6.25E+03 CRC 6.5 CRC
4.08E-03 1.67E-01 PHYSPROP 1.67E-01 333.25 PHYSPROP 5.36E+02 CRC 7.22E+03 CRC 3 CRC
9.38E-03 3.83E-01 PHYSPROP 3.83E-01 321.85 PHYSPROP 5.16E+02 CRC 6.91E+03 CRC 6 CRC
1.77E-02 7.24E-01 PHYSPROP 7.24E-01 394.45 PHYSPROP 6.20E+02 YAWS 8.29E+03 CRC -
6.64E-03 2.71E-01 PHYSPROP 2.71E-01 383.75 PHYSPROP 5.92E+02 CRC 7.93E+03 CRC 1.1 CRC
1.72E-02 7.03E-01 PHYSPROP 7.03E-01 347.15 PHYSPROP 5.45E+02 YAWS 7.14E+03 CRC 8 CRC
8.24E-04 3.37E-02 PHYSPROP 3.37E-02 386.95 PHYSPROP 6.02E+02 YAWS 8.32E+03 CRC 6 CRC
9.85E-03 4.03E-01 PHYSPROP 4.03E-01 360.35 PHYSPROP 5.71E+02 YAWS 7.50E+03 CRC 8 CRC
2.78E-02 1.14E+00 PHYSPROP 1.14E+00 259.85 PHYSPROP 4.25E+02 CRC 4.97E+03 CRC 3.6 CRC
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:09:34
Commercial Air Inputs 1
Variable
Commercial
Air
Default
Value
Site-Specific
Value
AFgw (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unitless 0.001 0.001
AFss (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless 0.03 0.03
ATw (averaging time - composite worker)365 365
EDw (exposure duration - composite worker) yr 25 25
EFw (exposure frequency - composite worker) day/yr 250 250
ETw (exposure time - composite worker) hr 8 8
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 0.1 0.1
LT (lifetime) yr 70 70
TR (target risk) unitless 1.0E-06 1.0E-04
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:09:34
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL)2
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied;
U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA = cancer; NC = noncancer.
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion
from Soil
Source?
(Cvp > Ci,a,Target?)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion from
Groundwater
Source?
(Chc > Ci,a,Target?)
Target
Indoor Air
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
MIN(Cia,c,Cia,nc)
(µg/m3)
Toxicity
Basis
Target
Sub-Slab and
Near-source
Soil Gas
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
Cgw,Target
(µg/L)
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.75E+01 NC 5.84E+02 2.42E+01
Is Target
Groundwater
Concentration
< MCL?
(Cgw < MCL?)
Pure Phase
Vapor
Concentration
Cvp\
(25 ℃)\
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
Chc\
(µg/m3)
Temperature
for Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
(℃)
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
IUR
Ref
RfC
(mg/m 3)
RfC
Ref
Mutagenic
Indicator
Carcinogenic
VISL
TCR=0.0001
Cia,c(µg/m3)
Noncarcinogenic
VISL
THQ=0.1
Cia,nc(µg/m3)
No (5)1.65E+08 1.49E+08 25 -2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 I No 4.72E+03 1.75E+01
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:09:34
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Risk 3
Chemical
CAS
Number
Site
Indoor Air
Concentration
Ci,a\
(µg/m3)
VI
Carcinogenic
Risk
CDI
(µg/m3)
VI
Carcinogenic
Risk
CR
VI
Hazard
CDI
(mg/m3)
VI
Hazard
HQ
IUR
(ug/m3)-1
IUR
Ref
Chronic
RfC
(mg/m 3)
RfC
Ref
Temperature
(℃)\
for
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration Mutagen?
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 1.90E+01 1.55E+00 4.03E-07 4.34E-03 1.08E-01 2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 IRIS 25 No
*Sum --4.03E-07 -1.08E-01 ---
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:09:34
Chemical Properties 4
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)MW
MW
Ref
Vapor
Pressure
VP
(mm Hg)
VP
Ref
S
(mg/L)
S
Ref
MCL
(ug/L)
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes 165.83 PHYSPROP 1.85E+01 PHYSPROP 2.06E+02 PHYSPROP 5
HLC
(atm-m 3/mole)
Henry's
Law
Constant
(unitless)
H` and HLC
Ref
Henry's
Law
Constant
Used in
Calcs
(unitless)
Normal
Boiling
Point
BP
(K)
BP
Ref
Critical
Temperature
TC\
(K)
TC\
Ref
Enthalpy of
vaporization
at
the normal
boiling point
ΔHv,b\
(cal/mol)
ΔHv,b\
Ref
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
1.77E-02 7.24E-01 PHYSPROP 7.24E-01 394.45 PHYSPROP 6.20E+02 YAWS 8288.72 CRC -
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:13:45
Commercial Air Inputs 1
Variable
Commercial
Air
Default
Value
Site-Specific
Value
AFgw (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unitless 0.001 0.001
AFss (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless 0.03 0.03
ATw (averaging time - composite worker)365 365
EDw (exposure duration - composite worker) yr 25 25
EFw (exposure frequency - composite worker) day/yr 250 250
ETw (exposure time - composite worker) hr 8 8
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 0.1 0.1
LT (lifetime) yr 70 70
TR (target risk) unitless 1.0E-06 1.0E-04
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:13:45
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL)2
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied;
U = user provided; G = see RSL User's Guide Section 5; CA = cancer; NC = noncancer.
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion
from Soil
Source?
(Cvp > Ci,a,Target?)
Is Chemical
Sufficiently
Volatile and Toxic
to
Pose Inhalation
Risk
Via Vapor
Intrusion from
Groundwater
Source?
(Chc > Ci,a,Target?)
Target
Indoor Air
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
MIN(Cia,c,Cia,nc)
(µg/m3)
Toxicity
Basis
Target
Sub-Slab and
Near-source
Soil Gas
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Target
Groundwater
Concentration
(TCR=0.0001
or THQ=0.1)
Cgw,Target
(µg/L)
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.75E+01 NC 5.84E+02 4.57E+01
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.75E+01 NC 5.84E+02 2.42E+01
Is Target
Groundwater
Concentration
< MCL?
(Cgw < MCL?)
Pure Phase
Vapor
Concentration
Cvp\
(25 ℃)\
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
Chc\
(µg/m3)
Temperature
for Maximum
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration
(℃)
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
IUR
(ug/m 3)-1
IUR
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
RfC
Ref
Mutagenic
Indicator
Carcinogenic
VISL
TCR=0.0001
Cia,c(µg/m3)
Noncarcinogenic
VISL
THQ=0.1
Cia,nc(µg/m3)
Yes (100)1.73E+09 1.73E+09 25 6.00 CRC -4.00E-02 X No -1.75E+01
No (5)1.65E+08 1.49E+08 25 -2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 I No 4.72E+03 1.75E+01
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:13:45
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Risk 3
Chemical
CAS
Number
Site
Indoor Air
Concentration
Ci,a\
(µg/m3)
VI
Carcinogenic
Risk
CDI
(µg/m3)
VI
Carcinogenic
Risk
CR
VI
Hazard
CDI
(mg/m3)
VI
Hazard
HQ
IUR
(ug/m 3)-1
IUR
Ref
Chronic
RfC
(mg/m3)
RfC
Ref
Temperature
(℃)\
for
Groundwater
Vapor
Concentration Mutagen?
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 3.67E+01 2.99E+00 -8.38E-03 2.09E-01 -4.00E-02 SCREEN 25 No
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.13E+00 1.74E-01 4.52E-08 4.86E-04 1.22E-02 2.60E-07 I 4.00E-02 IRIS 25 No
*Sum --4.52E-08 -2.22E-01 ---
Output generated 09DEC2022:11:13:45
Chemical Properties 4
Chemical
CAS
Number
Does the
chemical
meet
the
definition
for
volatility?
(HLC>1E-5
or VP>1)
Does the
chemical
have
inhalation
toxicity
data?
(IUR
and/or
RfC)MW
MW
Ref
Vapor
Pressure
VP
(mm Hg)
VP
Ref
S
(mg/L)
S
Ref
MCL
(ug/L)
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-156-60-5 Yes Yes 96.94 PHYSPROP 3.31E+02 EPI 4.52E+03 PHYSPROP 100
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Yes Yes 165.83 PHYSPROP 1.85E+01 PHYSPROP 2.06E+02 PHYSPROP 5
HLC
(atm-m 3/mole)
Henry's
Law
Constant
(unitless)
H` and HLC
Ref
Henry's
Law
Constant
Used in
Calcs
(unitless)
Normal
Boiling
Point
BP
(K)
BP
Ref
Critical
Temperature
TC\
(K)
TC\
Ref
Enthalpy of
vaporization
at
the normal
boiling point
ΔHv,b\
(cal/mol)
ΔHv,b\
Ref
Lower
Explosive
Limit
LEL
(%
by
volume)
LEL
Ref
9.38E-03 3.83E-01 PHYSPROP 3.83E-01 321.85 PHYSPROP 5.16E+02 CRC 6907.27 CRC 6.00 CRC
1.77E-02 7.24E-01 PHYSPROP 7.24E-01 394.45 PHYSPROP 6.20E+02 YAWS 8288.72 CRC -
REFERENCE 42
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
oneenv.com
September 23, 2021
Forrest Cherry
Asana Partners
1616 Camden Road, Suite 210
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Re: Limited Vapor Intrusion Investigation Letter Report
815 West Morgan Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Dear Mr. Cherry,
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC (ONE) appreciates the opportunity to submit this
letter report to Asana Partners (Asana) documenting the limited vapor intrusion investigation
performed at 815 West Morgan Street in Durham, North Carolina (“property” or “site”). This
investigation was conducted to assess the conditions of sub-slab soil gas and indoor air following
potential vapor intrusion concerns identified during a prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA). A summary of the prior Phase I ESA findings and a description of the completed limited
vapor intrusion investigation are presented below.
Project Background
A Phase I ESA was completed by ONE dated August 20, 2021. The assessment identified one (1)
Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) that was recommended for further investigation:
•REC - Chlorinated solvent releases from nearby properties to the west and south have
contributed to wide-spread contamination of groundwater in the area. The subject property
appears to be situated down-gradient of and within a potential area of identified chlorinated
solvents. There is a potential for groundwater beneath the property to be contaminated as
well as pose a risk of vapor intrusion.
Based on the identified REC, a limited sub-slab soil gas and indoor air investigation was
recommended to confirm the presence of any offsite chlorinated impacts to the property and to
evaluate the presence of any imminent threats to human health via vapor intrusion.
Limited Vapor Intrusion Investigation
On August 18, 2021, ONE personnel mobilized to the site to oversee and coordinate the limited
vapor intrusion investigation. ONE contracted Total Vapor Solutions (TVS) to complete the
installation and collection of three (3) paired sub-slab soil gas (SSSG) and indoor air (IA) samples at
the property. Each paired SSSG and IA sample was placed in each of the property’s three (3) suites
and labeled as SS-1 through SS-3 and IA-1 through IA-3. In addition, one (1) grab basement air
sample (BA-1) located beneath current tenant, The Retreat in Brightleaf, was collected as well as
one (1) ambient air sample (AA-1). The location of each sample is depicted in Figure 1.
All sub-slab soil gas samples and the grab basement air sample were collected in individually
certified 450-milliliter summa canisters. The remaining indoor air and ambient air samples were
Mr. Forrest Cherry
September 23, 2021
Page 2 of 4
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
oneenv.com
collected in individually certified 6-liter summa canisters equipped with 8-hour flow controllers.
The samples were submitted under proper chain of custody to Analytical Environmental Services,
Inc of Alpharetta, Georgia for analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA method TO-
15.Indoor air samples were placed on analytical hold pending the results of the SSSG and
basement air samples. The TVS field report is included as Attachment A.
Results
Sub-slab soil gas
The SSSG results were screened against the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) Non-Residential Sub-Slab Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs). Numerous VOCs were
detected above their respective laboratory reporting limits; however, only trichloroethylene (TCE)
was detected at a concentration that exceeded the regulatory screening level in one (1) sample
location:
•TCE was detected at a concentration of 1,500 ug/m3 in SS-1, which is above the Non-
Residential SGSL of 180 ug/m3.
Cumulative risk calculations performed for sample SS-1 identified a Hazard Index (HI) value of 1.7,
which is above the acceptable HI of 1.0. No exceedances of the Target Cancer Risk (TCR) were
identified.
Basement air
The basement air results were screened against the NCDEQ Non-Residential Indoor Air Screening
Levels (IASLs). Various VOCs were detected above their respective laboratory reporting limits;
however, only tetrachloroethylene (PCE), TCE and vinyl chloride were detected above the
corresponding IASLs:
•PCE was detected at a concentration of 170 ug/m3, which is above the Non-Residential IASL
of 35 ug/m3.
•TCE was detected at a concentration of 130 ug/m3, which is above the Non-Residential IASL
of 1.8 ug/m3.
•Vinyl chloride was detected at a concentration of 5.5 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 2.8 ug/m3.
Cumulative risk calculations performed for sample BA-1 identified a HI value of 16, which is above
the acceptable HI of 1.0. No exceedances of the Target Cancer Risk (TCR) were identified.
Indoor air
Based on the regulatory exceedance identified in sub-slab soil gas sample SS-1 and basement air
sample BA-1, corresponding indoor air sample IA-1 was requested to be analyzed. The indoor air
sample results were screened against the NCDEQ Non-Residential IASLs. Various VOCs were
detected above their respective laboratory reporting limits; however, only chloroform,
dichloroethane,1,2-, and isopropanol were detected above the corresponding IASLs:
•Chloroform was detected at a concentration of 7.7 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 0.53 ug/m3.
•Dichloroethane,1,2- was detected at a concentration of 8.3 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 0.47 ug/m3.
Mr. Forrest Cherry
September 23, 2021
Page 3 of 4
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
oneenv.com
•Isopropanol was detected at a concentration of 200 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 180 ug/m3.
Cumulative risk calculations performed for sample IA-1 identified no exceedances of the acceptable
cumulative risk thresholds.
A summary of sub-slab soil gas, basement air and indoor air analytical detections are presented in
Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. A summary of all analytical detections is depicted in Figure 2.
A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as Attachment B. The NCDEQ Cumulative
Risk Calculator Outputs are included as Attachment C.
Conclusions
ONE has completed a limited vapor intrusion investigation for the property located at 815 West
Morgan Street in Durham, North Carolina. The purpose of the investigation was to identify
potential impacts of chlorinated solvents (if any) from neighboring properties and to evaluate for
any immediate threats to human health via vapor intrusion. The investigation included the
collection and analyzation of property sub-slab soil gas and indoor air.
The results of the investigation reported detections of chlorinated solvent compounds in sub-slab
soil gas and in the basement of the property. Initial results screening identified regulatory
exceedances in only the samples associated with one (1) suite occupied by The Retreat in
Brightleaf. Based on the regulatory exceedance concentrations identified in sub-slab soil gas and in
the basement beneath The Retreat in Brightleaf, the corresponding indoor air sample was
requested to be analyzed. The indoor air sample results reported the detection of various VOCs
above non-residential IASLs; however, none of the regulatory exceeding constituents appeared to
be the same as those identified in sub-slab soil gas or the basement apart from isopropanol. The
concentration of isopropanol detected in indoor air was twice as greater than the detection in sub-
slab soil gas, indicating its presence is not likely the result of vapor intrusion.
Cumulative risk calculations were performed on each of the samples with concentrations that
exceeded the initial regulatory screening. The risk calculation results reported only SS-1 and BA-1
having exceeded the acceptable cumulative HI. The cumulative risk exceedances indicate that the
potential for vapor intrusion remains in this area of the Property; however, corresponding indoor
air results indicate that vapor intrusion is being mitigated by the building’s current slab and
condition.
Recommendations
Based on the results of the investigation, the suite in which The Retreat in Brightleaf is located is
considered an area of vapor intrusion concern. ONE recommends frequently inspecting the
integrity of the building’s slab and ensuring its continued effectiveness to mitigate vapors by
conducting visual assessments, observing for new cracks or openings, and conducting routine
monitoring of indoor air in The Retreat in Brightleaf space. Lastly, considering the high concentrations of TCE and PCE detected in the basement, it is recommended that Asana restrict
access to the basement and adhere to OSHA exposure guidelines.
The results of this investigation are considered reportable to the NCDEQ Dry-Cleaning Solvent
Cleanup Act (DSCA) program and may be submitted to assist with their ongoing assessment of
neighboring chlorinated solvent plumes.
Mr. Forrest Cherry
September 23, 2021
Page 4 of 4
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
oneenv.com
ONE appreciates the opportunity to submit this report to Asana. If you should have any questions
or comments pertaining to the report, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
Jenny Tang
Project Manager
Enclosures:
Figure 1 – Sample Location Map
Figure 2 – Analytical Detections
Table 1 – Summary of Sub-Slab Soil Gas Analytical Detections
Table 2 – Summary of Basement & Indoor Air Analytical Detections
Attachment A – Total Vapor Solutions Field Report
Attachment B – Laboratory Analytical Report
Attachment C – NCDEQ Cumulative Risk Calculator Outputs
FIGURES
SS-2
SS-3
AA-1
BA-1
IA-1
SS-1
IA-3
IA-2
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,USGS, Intermap,
ProjectManager:JT
DrawnBy: KRM
CheckedBy: JT
Figure 1Sample Location Map
815 West Morgan StreetDurham, North Carolina 27701
±
0 25 50Feet
Basement Air Sample
Indoor and Ambient Air Sample
Sub-Slab Soil Gas Sample
Approximate Suite Boundaries
Basement Area
Property Boundary
W M
o
r
g
a
n

S
t
N Gregson StSource: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,USGS, Intermap,
ProjectManager:JT
DrawnBy: KRM& CA
CheckedBy: KBS
Figure 2Analytical Detections
815 West Morgan StreetDurham, North Carolina 27701
±
0 50Feet
Property Boundary
Basement Area
Approximate Suite Boundaries
Basement Air Sample
Indoor and Ambient Air Sample
Sub-Slab Soil Gas Sample
Map generated by ONE Environmental Mid Atlantic, LLC on September 22, 2021.

TABLES

Table 1
Summary of Sub-Slab Soil Gas Analytical Detections
August 2021
SS-1 SS-2 SS-3
Acetone ND 34 1100 2,700,000
Carbon Disulfide 23 ND 23 61,000
Chloroform ND 10 ND 53
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-33 ND ND 18,000
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-2500 26 ND ~
Isopropanol 84 36 ND 18,000
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone)5.2 ND 5.2 440,000
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone)ND ND 10 260,000
Propylene ND 8.9 ND 260,000
Tetrachloroethylene 480 90 90 3,500
Tetrahydrofuran 460 8.4 ND 180,000
Toluene ND ND 7.7 440,000
Trichloroethylene 1500 34 ND 180
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-ND ND 7.1 5,300
Carcinogenic Target Cancer Risk 5.10E-06 3.20E-07 1.90E-08 1.00E-04
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index 1.7 0.045 0.0056 1.0
Notes:
All samples were collected on August 18, 2021.
All concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).
Results are screened against the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Non-Residential Soil Gas
Screening Levels (SGSLs).
~ = No regulatory screening level established.
ND = Non-detect
SGSL = Soil Gas Screening Level
Bold/Highlighted Yellow = Exceedance of a regulatory standard
Constituent
NCDEQ
SGSL
Sample ID
Non-Residential Cumulative Risk Calculation Summary
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC 1 of 1 Asana Partners
Table 2
Summary of Basement and Indoor Air Analytical Detections
August 2021
BA-1 IA-1 AA-1
Acetone 13 210 19 27,000
Benzene ND 0.83 0.93 1.6
Carbon Disulfide 12 ND ND 610
Chloroform ND 7.7 ND 0.53
Chloromethane ND 1.7 1.2 79
Dichlorodifluromethane ND 2.3 2.5 88
Dichloroethane, 1,2-ND 8.3 ND 0.47
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-5.9 ND ND 180
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-520 1.3 2.5 ~
Ethyl Acetate ND 1.5 ND 61
n-Hexane ND 1.1 4.8 610
Isopropanol ND 200 19 180
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone)ND 2.7 1.2 4,400
Styrene ND 1.1 ND 880
Tetrachloroethylene 170 ND ND 35
Toluene ND 1.7 2.2 4,400
Trichloroethylene 130 ND ND 1.8
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 1.1 1.3 ~
Vinyl Chloride 5.5 ND ND 2.8
m,p-Xylene ND 1.7 ND 88
Carcinogenic Target Cancer Risk 5.50E-05 3.30E-05 NA 1.00E-04
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index 16 0.54 NA 1.0
Notes:
All samples were collected on August 18, 2021.
All concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).
Results are screened against the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Non-Residential Indoor Air
Screening Levels (IASLs).
~ = No regulatory screening level established.
NA = Not applicable
ND = Non-detect
Bold/Highlighted Yellow = Exceedance of a regulatory standard
Constituent
NCDEQ
IASL
Sample ID
Non-Residential Cumulative Risk Calculation Summary
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC 1 of 1 Asana Partners
ATTACHMENT A Total Vapor Solutions Field Report
Created 2021-08-18 08:37:28 EDT by Jim Fineis
Updated 2021-08-18 14:31:58 EDT by Jim Fineis
Location 35.9990127, -78.9106128
Total Vapor Solutions
Project Name 815 W Morgan
Project Invoiced No
Job Site Photo
Client Name One Environmental
Client Onsite?No
Job Site Address 202 South Gregson Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Site or Location Name 815 W Morgan Street
Project Start Date 2021-08-18
Project End Data 2021-08-18
General Weather Conditions 75 partly cloudy
Total Vapor Responsible for Shipping Samples?Yes
815 W Morgan, 2021-08-18815 W Morgan, 2021-08-18
Project InformationProject Information
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 1 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant
Boring Number or ID IA-1
Longitude -78.90878
Latitude 36.00087
Implant Installed No
Helium Leak Test Information
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Indoor Air
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Indoor or Ambient Air Sample Duration 8-Hour
Laboratory Sample ID IA-1
Summa Canister Certification Batch Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
IA-1, IA-1IA-1, IA-1
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 2 of 34
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1213
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 28360
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 29
Ending Summa Vacuum 0
Sample Time Start 08:12
Sample End Time 08:38
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 3 of 34
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 4 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant

SS-1, SS-1SS-1, SS-1
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 5 of 34

Boring Number or ID SS-1
Longitude -78.90878
Latitude 36.00087
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 6 of 34
Implant Location (Address or Lat/Long)815 West Morgan Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Implant Installed Yes
Installation Date 2021-08-18
Installation Time 08:15
Temporary or Permanent Implant Temporary
Installation Method Hammer Drill (sub-slab)
Borehole Diameter in Inches 0.75
Implant Type Sub-Slab
Implant Material Air-stone
Tubing Type Nylaflow
Implant Depth in Inches 7
Concrete Slab Thickness (")5
Sand Thickness (")2
Bentonite Thickness (")5
Helium Leak Test Information
Helium Leak Test Performed Yes
Helium % Start 52
Helium % Final 47
Helium In Implant (PPM or %)0
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Sub-slab
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Laboratory Sample ID SS-1
Summa Canister Certification Batch Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1122
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Helium Leak Test InformationHelium Leak Test Information
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 7 of 34
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 1075
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 28
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 8 of 34
Ending Summa Vacuum 5
Sample Time Start 12:55
Sample End Time 12:59
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 9 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant

SS-2, SS-2SS-2, SS-2
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 10 of 34

Boring Number or ID SS-2
Longitude -78.90883
Latitude 36.00086
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 11 of 34
Implant Location (Address or Lat/Long)125 North Gregson Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Implant Location Description Roses kitchen
Implant Installed Yes
Installation Date 2021-08-18
Installation Time 08:57
Temporary or Permanent Implant Temporary
Installation Method Hammer Drill (sub-slab)
Borehole Diameter in Inches 0.75
Implant Type Sub-Slab
Implant Material Air-stone
Tubing Type Nylaflow
Implant Depth in Inches 5
Concrete Slab Thickness (")3
Sand Thickness (")2
Bentonite Thickness (")3
Notes:Gravel under the slab
Helium Leak Test Information
Helium Leak Test Performed Yes
Helium % Start 53
Helium % Final 47
Helium In Implant (PPM or %)0
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Sub-slab
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Laboratory Sample ID SS-2
Summa Canister Certification Batch Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1152
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Helium Leak Test InformationHelium Leak Test Information
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 12 of 34
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 3182
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 29
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 13 of 34
Ending Summa Vacuum 5
Sample Time Start 13:11
Sample End Time 01:15
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 14 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant
Boring Number or ID IA-2
Longitude -78.90883
Latitude 36.00086
Implant Installed No
Helium Leak Test Information
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Indoor Air
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Indoor or Ambient Air Sample Duration 8-Hour
Laboratory Sample ID IA-2
Summa Canister Certification Batch Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
IA-2, IA-2IA-2, IA-2
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 15 of 34
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1214
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 1235
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 29
Ending Summa Vacuum 0
Sample Time Start 08:19
Sample End Time 04:15
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 16 of 34
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 17 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant

SS-3, SS-3SS-3, SS-3
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 18 of 34
Boring Number or ID SS-3
Longitude -78.90892
Latitude 36.00066
Implant Location (Address or Lat/Long)125 North Gregson Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Implant Installed Yes
Installation Date 2021-08-18
Installation Time 09:10
Temporary or Permanent Implant Temporary
Installation Method Hammer Drill (sub-slab)
Borehole Diameter in Inches 0.75
Implant Type Sub-Slab
Implant Material Air-stone
Tubing Type Nylaflow
Implant Depth in Inches 5
Concrete Slab Thickness (")3
Sand Thickness (")2
Bentonite Thickness (")3
Notes:Olympic Fencing
Helium Leak Test Information
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 19 of 34
Helium Leak Test Performed Yes
Helium % Start 63
Helium % Final 54
Helium In Implant (PPM or %)0
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Sub-slab
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Laboratory Sample ID SS-3
Summa Canister Certification Batch Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1127
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 2984
Helium Leak Test InformationHelium Leak Test Information
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 20 of 34
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 28
Ending Summa Vacuum 5
Sample Time Start 12:42
Sample End Time 12:47
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 21 of 34
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 22 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant
Boring Number or ID IA-3
Longitude -78.90905
Latitude 36.00074
Implant Installed No
Helium Leak Test Information
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Indoor Air
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Indoor or Ambient Air Sample Duration 8-Hour
Laboratory Sample ID IA-3
Summa Canister Certification Individually Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
IA-3, IA-3IA-3, IA-3
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 23 of 34
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1215
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 1206
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 24 of 34
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 29
Ending Summa Vacuum 0
Sample Time Start 08:28
Sample End Time 16:15
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 25 of 34
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 26 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant
Boring Number or ID BA-1
Longitude -78.90905
Latitude 36.00074
BA-1, BA-1BA-1, BA-1
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 27 of 34
Sample Location Photo
Helium Leak Test Information
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type basement air
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Laboratory Sample ID BA-1
Summa Canister Certification Batch Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1118
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 28 of 34
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 1165
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 28
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 29 of 34
Ending Summa Vacuum 0
Sample Time Start 09:30
Sample End Time 09:33
Sample Tag Photo
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 30 of 34
Sample Collected from Existing Implant No
Photo of Implant
Boring Number or ID AA-1
Longitude -78.90905
Latitude 36.00074
Implant Installed No
Helium Leak Test Information
Sample / Summa Can Information
Sample Collected?Yes
Duplicate Sample Collected?No
Sample Type Ambient Air
Other Field Parameters Collected?No
Indoor or Ambient Air Sample Duration 8-Hour
Laboratory Sample ID AA-1
Summa Canister Certification Individually Certified
Sample Date 2021-08-18
Analysis Requested TO-15
Purge Volume (ml)60
AA-1, AA-1AA-1, AA-1
Sample ID / Location IDSample ID / Location ID
Soil Vapor Implant ConstructionSoil Vapor Implant Construction
Sample CollectionSample Collection
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 31 of 34
Shut In Test Completed Yes
Flow Controller ID 1203
Flow Controller Photo ID
Summa Canister ID 1077
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 32 of 34
Summa Can Photo ID
Beginning Summa Vacuum 29
Ending Summa Vacuum 0
Sample Time Start 08:08
Sample End Time 15:51
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 33 of 34
Sample Tag Photo
Laboratory AES
Sample Shipping Information
Method of Shipping or Delivery UPS
Scan Shipping Label 282710268887
Total Vapor Solutions
Jim Fineis
770-883-3372
www.atlas-geo.com
Page: 34 of 34
ATTACHMENT B Laboratory Analytical Report
2108M79-001
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 12:59:00 PM
SS-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
1,1,1-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane BRL 6.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,1-Dichloroethene 33 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene BRL 7.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,2-Dibromoethane BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,2-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,2-Dichloropropane BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,3-Butadiene BRL 2.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
1,4-Dioxane BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane BRL 4.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
2-Butanone 5.2 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
2-Hexanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
4-Ethyltoluene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
4-Methyl-2-pentanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Acetone BRL 12 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Allyl chloride BRL 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Benzene BRL 3.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Benzyl chloride BRL 5.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Bromodichloromethane BRL 6.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Bromoform BRL 10 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Bromomethane BRL 3.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Carbon disulfide 23 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Carbon tetrachloride BRL 6.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Chlorobenzene BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Chloroethane BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Chloroform BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Chloromethane BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2500 160 ug/m3 320764 2 08/20/2021 19:58 MD
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Cyclohexane BRL 3.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Dibromochloromethane BRL 8.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Dichlorodifluoromethane BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Ethyl acetate BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Ethylbenzene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-001
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 12:59:00 PM
SS-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
Freon-113 BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Freon-114 BRL 7.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 11 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Isopropyl alcohol 84 18 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
m,p-Xylene BRL 8.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Methylene chloride BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
n-Heptane BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
n-Hexane BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
o-Xylene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Propene BRL 1.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Styrene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Tetrachloroethene 350 6.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/24/2021 22:43 MD
Tetrahydrofuran 460 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Toluene BRL 3.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Trichloroethene 1500 210 ug/m3 320764 2 08/20/2021 19:58 MD
Trichlorofluoromethane BRL 5.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Vinyl acetate BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Vinyl bromide BRL 4.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Vinyl chloride BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Xylenes, Total BRL 13 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 89.5 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/24/2021 22:43 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 95.5 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/21/2021 19:07 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/20/2021 19:58 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-002
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 1:15:00 PM
SS-2
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
1,1,1-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane BRL 6.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,1-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene BRL 7.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,2-Dibromoethane BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,2-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,2-Dichloropropane BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,3-Butadiene BRL 2.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
1,4-Dioxane BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane BRL 4.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
2-Butanone BRL 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
2-Hexanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
4-Ethyltoluene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
4-Methyl-2-pentanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Acetone 34 12 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Allyl chloride BRL 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Benzene BRL 3.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Benzyl chloride BRL 5.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Bromodichloromethane BRL 6.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Bromoform BRL 10 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Bromomethane BRL 3.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Carbon disulfide BRL 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Carbon tetrachloride BRL 6.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Chlorobenzene BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Chloroethane BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Chloroform 10 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Chloromethane BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 26 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Cyclohexane BRL 3.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Dibromochloromethane BRL 8.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Dichlorodifluoromethane BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Ethyl acetate BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Ethylbenzene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-002
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 1:15:00 PM
SS-2
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
Freon-113 BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Freon-114 BRL 7.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 11 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Isopropyl alcohol 36 18 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
m,p-Xylene BRL 8.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Methylene chloride BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
n-Heptane BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
n-Hexane BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
o-Xylene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Propene 8.9 1.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Styrene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Tetrachloroethene 66 6.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/24/2021 23:23 MD
Tetrahydrofuran 8.4 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Toluene BRL 3.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Trichloroethene 34 5.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Trichlorofluoromethane BRL 5.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Vinyl acetate BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Vinyl bromide BRL 4.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Vinyl chloride BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Xylenes, Total BRL 13 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.2 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/21/2021 14:34 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 92.2 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/24/2021 23:23 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-003
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 12:47:00 PM
SS-3
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
1,1,1-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane BRL 6.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,1-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene BRL 7.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 7.1 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,2-Dibromoethane BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,2-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,2-Dichloropropane BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,3-Butadiene BRL 2.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
1,4-Dioxane BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane BRL 4.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
2-Butanone 67 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
2-Hexanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
4-Ethyltoluene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 10 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Acetone 1100 480 ug/m3 320764 2 08/20/2021 21:14 MD
Allyl chloride BRL 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Benzene BRL 3.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Benzyl chloride BRL 5.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Bromodichloromethane BRL 6.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Bromoform BRL 10 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Bromomethane BRL 3.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Carbon disulfide 23 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Carbon tetrachloride BRL 6.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Chlorobenzene BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Chloroethane BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Chloroform BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Chloromethane BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Cyclohexane BRL 3.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Dibromochloromethane BRL 8.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Dichlorodifluoromethane BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Ethyl acetate BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Ethylbenzene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-003
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 12:47:00 PM
SS-3
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
Freon-113 BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Freon-114 BRL 7.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 11 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Isopropyl alcohol BRL 18 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
m,p-Xylene BRL 8.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Methylene chloride BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
n-Heptane BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
n-Hexane BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
o-Xylene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Propene BRL 1.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Styrene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Tetrachloroethene 130 6.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/25/2021 00:42 MD
Tetrahydrofuran BRL 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Toluene 7.7 3.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Trichloroethene BRL 5.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Trichlorofluoromethane BRL 5.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Vinyl acetate BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Vinyl bromide BRL 4.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Vinyl chloride BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Xylenes, Total BRL 13 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/25/2021 00:42 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 97 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/21/2021 15:53 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/20/2021 21:14 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-004
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 9:33:00 AM
BA-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
1,1,1-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane BRL 6.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane BRL 5.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,1-Dichloroethene 5.9 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene BRL 7.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,2-Dibromoethane BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,2-Dichloroethane BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,2-Dichloropropane BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,3-Butadiene BRL 2.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL 6.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
1,4-Dioxane BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane BRL 4.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
2-Butanone BRL 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
2-Hexanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
4-Ethyltoluene BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
4-Methyl-2-pentanone BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Acetone 13 12 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Allyl chloride BRL 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Benzene BRL 3.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Benzyl chloride BRL 5.2 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Bromodichloromethane BRL 6.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Bromoform BRL 10 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Bromomethane BRL 3.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Carbon disulfide 12 3.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Carbon tetrachloride BRL 6.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Chlorobenzene BRL 4.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Chloroethane BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Chloroform BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Chloromethane BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 520 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Cyclohexane BRL 3.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Dibromochloromethane BRL 8.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Dichlorodifluoromethane BRL 4.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Ethyl acetate BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Ethylbenzene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-004
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 9:33:00 AM
BA-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
Freon-113 BRL 7.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Freon-114 BRL 7.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 11 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Isopropyl alcohol BRL 18 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
m,p-Xylene BRL 8.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 3.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Methylene chloride BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
n-Heptane BRL 4.1 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
n-Hexane BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
o-Xylene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Propene BRL 1.7 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Styrene BRL 4.3 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Tetrachloroethene 170 6.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/25/2021 01:21 MD
Tetrahydrofuran BRL 2.9 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Toluene BRL 3.8 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 4.0 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 4.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Trichloroethene 130 5.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Trichlorofluoromethane BRL 5.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Vinyl acetate BRL 3.5 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Vinyl bromide BRL 4.4 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Vinyl chloride 5.5 2.6 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Xylenes, Total BRL 13 ug/m3 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 90.8 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/21/2021 16:33 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 97.8 70-130 %REC 320764 2 08/25/2021 01:21 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-005
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 8:12:00 AM
IA-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
1,1,1-Trichloroethane BRL 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane BRL 1.4 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane BRL 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL 0.81 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,1-Dichloroethene BRL 0.79 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene BRL 1.5 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,2-Dibromoethane BRL 1.5 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL 1.2 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,2-Dichloroethane 8.3 0.81 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,2-Dichloropropane BRL 0.92 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,3-Butadiene BRL 0.44 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL 1.2 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL 1.2 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
1,4-Dioxane BRL 0.72 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane BRL 0.93 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
2-Butanone 2.7 0.59 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
2-Hexanone BRL 0.82 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
4-Ethyltoluene BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
4-Methyl-2-pentanone BRL 0.82 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Acetone 210 24 ug/m3 320767 2 08/26/2021 12:50 MD
Allyl chloride BRL 0.63 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Benzene 0.83 0.64 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Benzyl chloride BRL 1.0 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Bromodichloromethane BRL 1.3 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Bromoform BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Bromomethane BRL 0.78 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Carbon disulfide BRL 0.62 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Carbon tetrachloride BRL 1.3 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Chlorobenzene BRL 0.92 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Chloroethane BRL 0.53 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Chloroform 7.7 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Chloromethane 1.7 0.41 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.3 0.79 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 0.91 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Cyclohexane BRL 0.69 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Dibromochloromethane BRL 1.7 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.3 0.99 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Ethyl acetate 1.5 0.72 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Ethylbenzene BRL 0.87 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-005
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 8:12:00 AM
IA-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
Freon-113 BRL 1.5 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Freon-114 BRL 1.4 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Isopropyl alcohol 200 37 ug/m3 320767 2 08/26/2021 12:50 MD
m,p-Xylene 1.7 1.7 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 0.72 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Methylene chloride BRL 0.69 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
n-Heptane BRL 0.82 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
n-Hexane 1.1 0.70 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
o-Xylene BRL 0.87 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Propene BRL 0.34 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Styrene 1.1 0.85 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Tetrachloroethene BRL 1.4 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Tetrahydrofuran BRL 0.59 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Toluene 1.7 0.75 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 0.79 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 0.91 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Trichloroethene BRL 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.1 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Vinyl acetate BRL 0.70 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Vinyl bromide BRL 0.87 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Vinyl chloride BRL 0.51 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Xylenes, Total BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91.5 70-130 %REC 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:07 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93.8 70-130 %REC 320767 2 08/26/2021 12:50 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-008
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 1:51:00 PM
AA-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
1,1,1-Trichloroethane BRL 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane BRL 1.4 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane BRL 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL 0.81 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,1-Dichloroethene BRL 0.79 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene BRL 1.5 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,2-Dibromoethane BRL 1.5 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL 1.2 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,2-Dichloroethane BRL 0.81 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,2-Dichloropropane BRL 0.92 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,3-Butadiene BRL 0.44 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL 1.2 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL 1.2 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
1,4-Dioxane BRL 0.72 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane BRL 0.93 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
2-Butanone 1.2 0.59 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
2-Hexanone BRL 0.82 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
4-Ethyltoluene BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
4-Methyl-2-pentanone BRL 0.82 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Acetone 19 3.6 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Allyl chloride BRL 0.63 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Benzene 0.93 0.64 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Benzyl chloride BRL 1.0 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Bromodichloromethane BRL 1.3 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Bromoform BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Bromomethane BRL 0.78 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Carbon disulfide BRL 0.62 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Carbon tetrachloride BRL 1.3 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Chlorobenzene BRL 0.92 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Chloroethane BRL 0.53 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Chloroform BRL 0.98 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Chloromethane 1.2 0.41 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.5 0.79 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 0.91 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Cyclohexane BRL 0.69 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Dibromochloromethane BRL 1.7 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.5 0.99 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Ethyl acetate BRL 0.72 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Ethylbenzene BRL 0.87 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
2108M79-008
26-Aug-21Date:Analytical Environmental Services, Inc TO-15 Report
Analyses Date AnalyzedDilution
FactorBatchIDUnitsQualReporting
LimitResult
Client:
Air
8/18/2021 1:51:00 PM
AA-1
Matrix:
Collection Date:
Client Sample ID:
815 W. Morgan St.
Total Vapor Solutions
Lab ID:
Project Name:
Analyst
(TO-15)VOCs in Air by TO-15/TO-14A/AES SOP OA-11051
Freon-113 BRL 1.5 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Freon-114 BRL 1.4 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 2.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Isopropyl alcohol 19 3.7 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
m,p-Xylene BRL 1.7 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 0.72 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Methylene chloride 0.87 0.69 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
n-Heptane BRL 0.82 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
n-Hexane 4.8 0.70 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
o-Xylene BRL 0.87 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Propene 1.0 0.34 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Styrene BRL 0.85 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Tetrachloroethene BRL 1.4 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Tetrahydrofuran BRL 0.59 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Toluene 2.2 0.75 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL 0.79 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene BRL 0.91 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Trichloroethene BRL 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.3 1.1 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Vinyl acetate BRL 0.70 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Vinyl bromide BRL 0.87 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Vinyl chloride BRL 0.51 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Xylenes, Total BRL 2.6 ug/m3 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 88.5 70-130 %REC 320767 2 08/25/2021 23:55 MD
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds maximum contaminant level
BRL Below reporting limit
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
N Analyte not NELAC certified
B Analyte detected in the associated method blank
E Estimated (value above quantitation range)
S Spike Recovery outside limits due to matrix
Narr See case narrative
NC Not confirmed
< Less than Result value
> Greater than Result value J Estimated value detected below Reporting Limit
ATTACHMENT C NCDEQ Cumulative Risk Calculator Outputs
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Indoor Air
Version Date: June 2021
Basis: May 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS #Chemical Name:
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
67-64-1 Acetone 13 -2.7E+04 9.6E-05
75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 12 -6.1E+02 3.9E-03
75-35-4 Dichloroethylene, 1,1-5.9 -1.8E+02 6.7E-03
156-59-2 Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-520 --
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 210 4.7E+01 3.5E+01 4.5E-06 1.2E+00
79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 130 3.0E+00 1.8E+00 4.3E-05 1.5E+01
75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 5.5 2.8E+00 8.8E+01 2.0E-06 1.3E-02
Cumulative:5.0E-05 1.6E+01
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3F
** - Note that the EPA has no consensus on reference dose or cancer slope factor values for lead, therefore it is not possible to calculate carcinogenic
risk or hazard quotient. Lead concentrations are compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 0.15 μg/m3.
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Risks are calculated for these values if
indoor air concentrations are entered and indoor air screening levels have been established, but it should be noted that detections of these chemicals are
likely not associated with vapor intrusion.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
BA-1
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Indoor Air
Version Date: June 2021
Basis: May 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS #Chemical Name:
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
67-64-1 Acetone 210 -2.7E+04 1.5E-03
71-43-2 Benzene 0.83 1.6E+00 2.6E+01 5.3E-07 6.3E-03
67-66-3 Chloroform 7.7 5.3E-01 8.6E+01 1.4E-05 1.8E-02
74-87-3 Chloromethane 1.7 -7.9E+01 4.3E-03
75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.3 -8.8E+01 5.3E-03
107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2-8.3 4.7E-01 6.1E+00 1.8E-05 2.7E-01
156-59-2 Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-1.3 --
141-78-6 Ethyl Acetate 1.5 -6.1E+01 4.9E-03
110-54-3 Hexane, N-1.1 -6.1E+02 3.6E-04
67-63-0 Isopropanol 200 -1.8E+02 2.3E-01
78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)2.7 -4.4E+03 1.2E-04
100-42-5 Styrene 1.1 -8.8E+02 2.5E-04
108-88-3 Toluene 1.7 -4.4E+03 7.8E-05
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.1 --
1330-20-7 Xylenes 1.7 -8.8E+01 3.9E-03
Cumulative:3.3E-05 5.4E-01
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3F
** - Note that the EPA has no consensus on reference dose or cancer slope factor values for lead, therefore it is not possible to calculate carcinogenic
risk or hazard quotient. Lead concentrations are compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 0.15 μg/m3.
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Risks are calculated for these values if
indoor air concentrations are entered and indoor air screening levels have been established, but it should be noted that detections of these chemicals are
likely not associated with vapor intrusion.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
IA-1
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Soil Gas to Indoor Air
Version Date: June 2021
Basis: May 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS #Chemical Name:
Soil Gas
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Calculated
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 23 0.23 -6.1E+02 7.5E-05
75-35-4 Dichloroethylene, 1,1-33 0.33 -1.8E+02 3.8E-04
156-59-2 Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-2500 25 --
109-99-9 ~Tetrahydrofuran 460 4.6 -1.8E+03 5.3E-04
67-63-0 Isopropanol 84 0.84 -1.8E+02 9.6E-04
78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)5.2 0.052 -4.4E+03 2.4E-06
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 480 4.8 4.7E+01 3.5E+01 1.0E-07 2.7E-02
79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 1500 15 3.0E+00 1.8E+00 5.0E-06 1.7E+00
Cumulative:5.1E-06 1.7E+00
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3E
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Since these chemicals do not pose a vapor intrusion risk,
no risk values are calculated for these chemicals.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
SS-1
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Soil Gas to Indoor Air
Version Date: June 2021
Basis: May 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS #Chemical Name:
Soil Gas
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Calculated
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
67-64-1 Acetone 34 0.34 -2.7E+04 2.5E-06
67-66-3 Chloroform 10 0.1 5.3E-01 8.6E+01 1.9E-07 2.3E-04
156-59-2 Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-26 0.26 --
109-99-9 ~Tetrahydrofuran 8.4 0.084 -1.8E+03 9.6E-06
67-63-0 Isopropanol 36 0.36 -1.8E+02 4.1E-04
115-07-1 Propylene 8.9 0.089 -2.6E+03 6.8E-06
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 90 0.9 4.7E+01 3.5E+01 1.9E-08 5.1E-03
79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 34 0.34 3.0E+00 1.8E+00 1.1E-07 3.9E-02
Cumulative:3.2E-07 4.5E-02
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3E
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Since these chemicals do not pose a vapor intrusion risk,
no risk values are calculated for these chemicals.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
SS-2
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Soil Gas to Indoor Air
Version Date: June 2021
Basis: May 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS #Chemical Name:
Soil Gas
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Calculated
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
67-64-1 Acetone 1100 11 -2.7E+04 8.1E-05
75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 23 0.23 -6.1E+02 7.5E-05
78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)5.2 0.052 -4.4E+03 2.4E-06
108-10-1 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone)10 0.1 -2.6E+03 7.6E-06
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 90 0.9 4.7E+01 3.5E+01 1.9E-08 5.1E-03
108-88-3 Toluene 7.7 0.077 -4.4E+03 3.5E-06
95-63-6 Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-7.1 0.071 -5.3E+01 2.7E-04
Cumulative:1.9E-08 5.6E-03
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3E
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Since these chemicals do not pose a vapor intrusion risk,
no risk values are calculated for these chemicals.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
SS-3
REFERENCE 43

ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
Oneenv.com

June 10, 2022

Forrest Cherry
Asana Partners
1616 Camden Road, Suite 210
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Re: Indoor Air Monitoring Letter Report (April 2022)
815 West Morgan Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701

Dear Mr. Cherry,

ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC (ONE) appreciates the opportunity to submit this
letter report to Asana Partners (Asana) documenting the April 26, 2022 indoor air monitoring
event performed at 815 West Morgan Street in Durham, North Carolina (“property” or “site”). This
event was conducted to continue monitoring the conditions of indoor air following potential vapor
intrusion concerns identified during a prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a
subsequent Limited Vapor Intrusion Investigation conducted on August 18, 2021.

Project Background
ONE completed a limited vapor intrusion investigation at the property located at 815 West Morgan
Street in August 2021 to identify potential impacts of chlorinated solvents from neighboring
properties and to evaluate threats to human health via vapor intrusion. The investigation included
the collection and analyzation of property sub-slab soil gas and indoor air.

The results of the investigation reported detections of chlorinated solvent compounds in sub-slab
soil gas and in the basement of the property. Initial results screening identified regulatory
exceedances in only the samples associated with the suite occupied by The Retreat in Brightleaf.
Indoor air sample analysis reported several VOCs above non-residential IASLs; however, none of
the regulatory exceeding constituents appeared to be the same as those identified in sub-slab soil
gas or the basement apart from isopropanol.

Cumulative risk calculations indicated only sub-slab and basement samples exceeded the
acceptable cumulative HI. It was concluded that the potential for vapor intrusion remains, however
vapor migration was being mitigated by the building’s current slab and condition. Routine
monitoring of the Property indoor air was recommended.

Indoor Air Sampling (April 2022)
On April 26, 2022, ONE personnel mobilized to the site to conduct indoor air sampling at the
Property. One (1) indoor air sample (IA) was collected on the ground floor in the customer service
desk area, one (1) basement air sample (BA-1) was collected beneath current tenant, and one (1)
ambient air sample (AA-1) was collected at the exterior of the building near the front entrance. The
location of each sample is depicted on Figure 1.

Mr. Forrest Cherry
May 23, 2022
Page 2 of 3
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
Oneenv.com
All samples were collected in individually certified 6-liter summa canisters equipped with 8-hour
flow controllers. The samples were submitted under proper chain of custody to ENCO Laboratories
of Orlando, Florida for analysis of PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene and trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene by EPA method TO-15.

Results
Basement air
Three VOCs were detected above their respective laboratory reporting limits and above the NCDEQ
Non-Residential Indoor Air Screening Levels (IASLs):

• PCE was detected at a concentration of 38 ug/m3, which is above the Non-Residential IASL
of 35 ug/m3.
• TCE was detected at a concentration of 27 ug/m3, which is above the Non-Residential IASL
of 1.8 ug/m3.
• Vinyl chloride was detected at a concentration of 3.5 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 2.8 ug/m3.

Cumulative risk calculations performed for sample BA-1 identified a Non-Carcinogenic Hazard
Index (HI) value of 3.3, which is above the acceptable HI of 1.0. No exceedances of the Target
Cancer Risk (TCR) were identified.

Indoor air
Three VOCs were detected above their respective laboratory reporting limits and above the
corresponding IASLs:

• Chloroform was detected at a concentration of 0.73 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 0.53 ug/m3.
• Dichloroethane,1,2- was detected at a concentration of 1.8 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 0.47 ug/m3.
• Isopropanol was detected at a concentration of 1,200 ug/m3, which is above the Non-
Residential IASL of 180 ug/m3.

Cumulative risk calculations were performed for sample IA-1. It should be noted that isopropanol,
which is not a chlorinated solvent and is a common disinfectant and constituent of healthcare
products such as nail polish remover and alcohol-based hand sanitizer- which was observed at the
customer service desk, was not included in the risk calculation for this report (Attachment C). The
risk calculation performed for sample IA-1 identified no exceedances of the acceptable cumulative
risk thresholds.

Summaries of the basement air and indoor air analytical detections are presented in Table 1 and
depicted on Figure 1. A copy of the laboratory analytical report is included as Attachment A. The
NCDEQ Cumulative Risk Calculator Outputs are included as Attachment B.

Conclusions
ONE has completed an indoor air sampling event for the Property located at 815 West Morgan
Street in Durham, North Carolina. Similar to results of the previous indoor air sampling event
conducted in August 2021, three VOCs (chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, and isopropanol) were
Mr. Forrest Cherry
May 23, 2022
Page 3 of 3
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC
Oneenv.com
detected in the indoor air samples at concentrations above the non-residential IASLs and three
VOCs (tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were detected in the basement air
samples at concentrations above the non-residential IASLs. It should be noted that the reported
indoor air sample constituents are different than those identified in the basement air sample and
not considered to be attributable to vapor migration from the basement. One reported indoor air
constituent, isopropanol (known also as isopropyl alcohol), is a common disinfectant (including
alcohol-based hand sanitizer) was not included in the cumulative risk calculations for this report.

Cumulative risk calculations were performed on each of the samples with concentrations that
exceeded the initial regulatory screening. The risk calculation results reported only BA-1 having
exceeded the acceptable cumulative HI. The cumulative risk exceedances indicate that the potential
for vapor intrusion remains in this area of the Property; however, corresponding indoor air results
indicate that vapor intrusion is being mitigated by the building’s current slab and condition of the
structure.

Recommendations
Based on the results of the investigation, the suite in which The Retreat in Brightleaf is located is
considered an area of vapor intrusion concern. ONE recommends frequently inspecting the
integrity of the building’s slab and ensuring its continued effectiveness to mitigate vapors by
conducting visual assessments, observing for new cracks or openings, and conducting routine
monitoring of indoor air in The Retreat in Brightleaf space. Lastly, it is recommended that Asana
restrict access to the basement as much as possible and adhere OSHA guidelines.

The results of this investigation are considered reportable to the NCDEQ Dry-Cleaning Solvent
Cleanup Act (DSCA) program and may be submitted to assist with their ongoing assessment of
neighboring chlorinated solvent plumes.

Closing
ONE appreciates the opportunity to submit this report to Asana. If you should have any questions
or comments pertaining to the report, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC

Jason Volker, PE, LSS
Project Manager

Enclosures:
Figure 1 – Analytical Detections Map
Table 1 – Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Detections
Attachment A – Laboratory Analytical Report
Attachment B - NCDEQ Non-Residential Calculator Output
!(!(!(W MORGAN STN GREGSON STIA‐1AA‐1BA‐1ProjectManager:JPTDrawnBy:EJKCheckedBy:JPT±0 50 100FeetProperty BoundaryApproximate Suite BoundaryBasement Area!(Basement Air Sample!(Indoor and Ambient Air SampleFigure 1Analytical Detections815 West Morgan StreetDurham, North Carolina 277011.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.Notes:* Isopropanol, not associated with vapor migration (originating indoors through the use ofhealthcare productssuch as hand sanitizer, which was present during the sampling event) was not included inthe DEQ Risk Calculator.All samples were collected on April 26, 2022.All concentrations reported in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3)Results are screened against the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(NCDEQ) non-residential standardsCumulative risk values were calculated using the NCDEQ Risk Calculator (January 2022version)IASL= Indoor air screening levelNA=Not applicableD= The sample was analyzed at dilutionU= The analyte was not detected to the level shown, adjusted for actual sample preparationdata and moisture content, where applicableJ= The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and thelaboratory method reporting limit (MRL) adjusted for actual sample preparation data andmoisture content, where applicable.Constituent BA‐1IASLChloroform 0.52UD0.53Dichloroethane, 1,2-0.51UD0.47Isopropanol 0.99UD 180Tetrachloroethylene38D35Trichloroethylene27D1.8Vinyl Chloride3.5D2.8Carcinogenic Target Cancer Risk1.2E-051.00E-04Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index3.3E+001.0Cumulative Risk Constituent AA‐1IASLChloroform 0.51D0.53Dichloroethane, 1,2-0.50UD0.47Isopropanol 10D 180Tetrachloroethylene 0.42UD 35Trichloroethylene 0.47UD 1.8Vinyl Chloride 0.75UD 2.8Carcinogenic Target Cancer RiskNA1.00E-04Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index NA 1.0Cumulative Risk Constituent IA‐1IASLChloroform0.73JD0.53Dichloroethane, 1,2-1.8JD0.47Isopropanol*1,200D180Tetrachloroethylene 0.42UD 35Trichloroethylene 0.48UD 1.8Vinyl Chloride 0.76UD 2.8Carcinogenic Target Cancer Risk5.2E-061.00E-04Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index 0.06 1.0Cumulative Risk
Table 1
Summary of Indoor Air Analytical Detections
815 W Morgan Street, Durham NC
April 2022
BA-1 IA-1 AA-1
Chloroform 0.52UD 0.73JD 0.51D 0.53
Dichloroethane, 1,2-0.51UD 1.8JD 0.50UD 0.47
Isopropanol 0.99UD *1,200D 10D 180
Tetrachloroethylene 38D 0.42UD 0.42UD 35
Trichloroethylene 27D 0.48UD 0.47UD 1.8
Vinyl Chloride 3.5D 0.76UD 0.75UD 2.8
Carcinogenic Target Cancer Risk 1.2E-05 5.2E-06 NA 1.00E-04
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index 3.3E+00 6.0E-02 NA 1.0
Notes:
All samples were collected on April 26, 2022
All concentrations reported in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3)
Results are screened against the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) non-residential standards
Cumulative risk values were calculated using the NCDEQ Risk Calculator (January 2022 version)
IASL = Indoor air screening level
NA =Not applicable
D = The sample was analyzed at dilution
U = The analyte was not detected to the level shown, adjusted for actual sample preparation data and moisture content, where applicable
J = The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL), adjusted for actual sample preparation data and moisture content, where applicable.
Bold/Highlighted Yellow = Exceedance of a regulatory standard
* Isopropanol, not associated with vapor migration (originating indoors through the use of healthcare products such as hand
sanitizer, which was present during the sampling event) was not included in the DEQ Risk Calculator
Sample ID
Cumulative Risk
Constituent IASL
ONE Environmental Group of Carolina, PLLC 1 of 1 Asana Partners
10775 Central Port Drive
Orlando FL, 32824
407.826.5314 407.850.6945Phone:FAX:[TOC_1]ENCO Laboratories, Inc.[TOC]
ENCO Workorder(s): AF03032
Raleigh, NC 27616
Unless otherwise noted in an attached project narrative, all samples were received in
acceptable condition and processed in accordance with the referenced methods/procedures.
Results for these procedures apply only to the samples as submitted.
The analytical results contained in this report are in compliance with NELAC standards, except
as noted in the project narrative if applicable. This report shall not be reproduced except in
full, without the written approval of the Laboratory.
This report contains only those analyses performed by Environmental Conservation
Laboratories. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses were performed at ENCO Orlando. Data
from outside organizations will be reported under separate cover.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Enclosure(s)
Project Number: NC0283-0245, Project Name/Desc: 815 W Morgan Street, Durham, NC
Attn: Jason Volker
One Environmental Mid Atlantic, LLC (ON007)
3144 Daingerfield Drive
Ryya B Kumm For David Camacho
Project Manager
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
RE: Laboratory Results for
Dear Jason Volker,
Enclosed is a copy of your laboratory report for test samples received by our laboratory on
Friday, April 29, 2022.
Enclosure(s)
Page 1 of 8This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full.FINAL
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE SUMMARY/LABORATORY CHRONICLE [TOC_1]Sample Chronical[TOC]
IA-1 AF03032-01 Sampled:04/26/22 17:07 Received:04/29/22 13:50Client ID:Lab ID:
Prep Date/Time(s)Hold Date/Time(s)Parameter Analysis Date/Time(s)Preparation
TO-15 05/26/22 05/02/22 08:00 05/02/22 11:48NO PREP 2
IA-1 AF03032-01RE1 Sampled:04/26/22 17:07 Received:04/29/22 13:50Client ID:Lab ID:
Prep Date/Time(s)Hold Date/Time(s)Parameter Analysis Date/Time(s)Preparation
TO-15 05/26/22 05/02/22 08:00 05/02/22 13:14NO PREP 2
BA-1 AF03032-02 Sampled:04/26/22 17:15 Received:04/29/22 13:50Client ID:Lab ID:
Prep Date/Time(s)Hold Date/Time(s)Parameter Analysis Date/Time(s)Preparation
TO-15 05/26/22 05/02/22 08:00 05/02/22 12:34NO PREP 2
AA-1 AF03032-03RE1 Sampled:04/26/22 17:20 Received:04/29/22 13:50Client ID:Lab ID:
Prep Date/Time(s)Hold Date/Time(s)Parameter Analysis Date/Time(s)Preparation
TO-15 05/26/22 05/02/22 08:00 05/02/22 13:59NO PREP 2
Page 2 of 8This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full.FINAL
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE DETECTION SUMMARY [TOC_1]Detection Summary[TOC]
Lab ID:Client ID:IA-1 AF03032-01
Analyte MethodUnitsPQLResultsFlag NotesMDL
1.8 3.4 ppbv TO-15JD 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.50
0.73 3.4 ppbv TO-15JD Chloroform 0.52
Lab ID:Client ID:IA-1 AF03032-01RE1
Analyte MethodUnitsPQLResultsFlag NotesMDL
1200 68 ppbv TO-15D 2-Propanol 20
Lab ID:Client ID:BA-1 AF03032-02
Analyte MethodUnitsPQLResultsFlag NotesMDL
38 3.4 ppbv TO-15D Tetrachloroethene 0.42
27 3.4 ppbv TO-15D Trichloroethene 0.48
3.5 3.4 ppbv TO-15D Vinyl chloride 0.77
Lab ID:Client ID:AA-1 AF03032-03RE1
Analyte MethodUnitsPQLResultsFlag NotesMDL
10 3.4 ppbv TO-15D 2-Propanol 0.96
Page 3 of 8This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full.FINAL
www.encolabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
[TOC_1]Analytical Results[TOC]
IA-1Description:Lab Sample ID:AF03032-01 04/29/22 13:50Received:
AF03032Work Order:04/26/22 17:07Sampled:AirMatrix:
% Solids:Jason VolkerSampled By:Project:815 W Morgan Street, Durham, NC
[TOC_2]IA-1[TOC]
Volatile Organic Compounds by GCMS
NotesFlagPQLBatchByAnalyzedMethodMDLResultsUnitsDFAnalyte [CAS Number]
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 11:481,2-Dichloroethane [107-06-2]0.50 rgg2E010013.41.8 JD 1.36
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:142-Propanol [67-63-0]20 rgg2E01001681200D 27.2
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 11:48Chloroform [67-66-3]0.52 rgg2E010013.40.73 JD 1.36
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 11:48Tetrachloroethene [127-18-4]0.42 rgg2E010013.40.42 UD 1.36
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 11:48Trichloroethene [79-01-6]0.48 rgg2E010013.40.48 UD 1.36
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 11:48Vinyl chloride [75-01-4]0.76 rgg2E010013.40.76 UD 1.36
Surrogates Results Spike Lvl % Rec Batch Method Analyzed By% Rec Limits NotesDF
4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-13096 %rggTO-15 05/02/22 11:482E010013031.0 1
4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-13091 %rggTO-15 05/02/22 13:142E010012831.0 20
BA-1Description:Lab Sample ID:AF03032-02 04/29/22 13:50Received:
AF03032Work Order:04/26/22 17:15Sampled:AirMatrix:
% Solids:Jason VolkerSampled By:Project:815 W Morgan Street, Durham, NC
[TOC_2]BA-1[TOC]
Volatile Organic Compounds by GCMS
NotesFlagPQLBatchByAnalyzedMethodMDLResultsUnitsDFAnalyte [CAS Number]
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 12:341,2-Dichloroethane [107-06-2]0.51 rgg2E010013.40.51 UD 1.37
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 12:342-Propanol [67-63-0]0.99 rgg2E010013.40.99 UD 1.37
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 12:34Chloroform [67-66-3]0.52 rgg2E010013.40.52 UD 1.37
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 12:34Tetrachloroethene [127-18-4]0.42 rgg2E010013.438D 1.37
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 12:34Trichloroethene [79-01-6]0.48 rgg2E010013.427D 1.37
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 12:34Vinyl chloride [75-01-4]0.77 rgg2E010013.43.5 D 1.37
Surrogates Results Spike Lvl % Rec Batch Method Analyzed By% Rec Limits NotesDF
4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-13094 %rggTO-15 05/02/22 12:342E010012931.0 1
AA-1Description:Lab Sample ID:AF03032-03 04/29/22 13:50Received:
AF03032Work Order:04/26/22 17:20Sampled:AirMatrix:
% Solids:Jason VolkerSampled By:Project:815 W Morgan Street, Durham, NC
[TOC_2]AA-1[TOC]
Volatile Organic Compounds by GCMS
NotesFlagPQLBatchByAnalyzedMethodMDLResultsUnitsDFAnalyte [CAS Number]
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:591,2-Dichloroethane [107-06-2]0.50 rgg2E010013.40.50 UD 1.34
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:592-Propanol [67-63-0]0.96 rgg2E010013.410D 1.34
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:59Chloroform [67-66-3]0.51 rgg2E010013.40.51 UD 1.34
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:59Tetrachloroethene [127-18-4]0.42 rgg2E010013.40.42 UD 1.34
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:59Trichloroethene [79-01-6]0.47 rgg2E010013.40.47 UD 1.34
ppbv TO-15 05/02/22 13:59Vinyl chloride [75-01-4]0.75 rgg2E010013.40.75 UD 1.34
Surrogates Results Spike Lvl % Rec Batch Method Analyzed By% Rec Limits NotesDF
4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-13095 %rggTO-15 05/02/22 13:592E010012931.0 1
Page 4 of 8This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full.FINAL
www.encolabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA [TOC_1]QC Data[TOC]
Volatile Organic Compounds by GCMS - Quality Control
Batch 2E01001 - NO PREP 2
Prepared: 05/01/2022 17:47 Analyzed: 05/01/2022 23:48Blank (2E01001-BLK1)
FlagResult Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Analyte PQL
Spike Source %REC RPD
ppbv2.50.37 U 1,2-Dichloroethane
ppbv2.50.72 U 2-Propanol
ppbv2.50.38 U Chloroform
ppbv2.50.31 U Tetrachloroethene
ppbv2.50.35 U Trichloroethene
ppbv2.50.56 U Vinyl chloride
ppbv 31.0 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene 9228
Prepared: 05/01/2022 17:47 Analyzed: 05/01/2022 21:41LCS (2E01001-BS1)
FlagResult Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Analyte PQL
Spike Source %REC RPD
ppbv2.5 10.0 70-130909.0 1,2-Dichloroethane
ppbv2.5 10.0 10-180777.7 2-Propanol
ppbv2.5 10.0 70-130888.8 Chloroform
ppbv2.5 10.0 70-141848.4 Tetrachloroethene
ppbv2.5 10.0 70-130878.7 Trichloroethene
ppbv2.5 10.0 53-148989.8 Vinyl chloride
ppbv 31.0 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene 9831
Prepared: 05/01/2022 17:47 Analyzed: 05/01/2022 22:22LCS Dup (2E01001-BSD1)
FlagResult Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Analyte PQL
Spike Source %REC RPD
ppbv2.5 10.0 2570-13091 19.1 1,2-Dichloroethane
ppbv2.5 10.0 2510-18089 158.9 2-Propanol
ppbv2.5 10.0 2570-13090 29.0 Chloroform
ppbv2.5 10.0 2570-14189 58.9 Tetrachloroethene
ppbv2.5 10.0 2570-13090 39.0 Trichloroethene
ppbv2.5 10.0 2553-148101 310 Vinyl chloride
ppbv 31.0 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene 9730
Page 5 of 8This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full.FINAL
www.encolabs.com
FLAGS/NOTES AND DEFINITIONS [TOC_1]Flags/Notes[TOC]
The sample was analyzed at dilution.
The analyte was detected in the associated method blank.
The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and the laboratory method
reporting limit (MRL), adjusted for actual sample preparation data and moisture content, where applicable.
The analyte was analyzed for but not detected to the level shown, adjusted for actual sample preparation
data and moisture content, where applicable.
The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the
instrument. This value is considered an estimate.
Method Reporting Limit. The MRL is roughly equivalent to the practical quantitation limit (PQL) and is
based on the low point of the calibration curve, when applicable, sample preparation factor, dilution
factor, and, in the case of soil samples, moisture content.
MRL
E
U
J
D
B
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence (85% or greater
confidence) to make a tentative identification".
P Greater than 25% concentration difference was observed between the primary and secondary GC column.
The lower concentration is reported.
PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit. The PQL presented is the laboratory MRL.PQL
Calculated analyte - MDL/MRL reported to the highest reporting limit of the component analyses.[CALC]
Page 6 of 8This report relates only to the sample as received by the laboratory, and may only be reproduced in full.FINAL
IA-1
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Indoor Air
Version Date: January 2022
Basis: November 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS # Chemical Name:
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
67-66-3 Chloroform 0.73 5.3E-01 8.6E+01 1.4E-06 1.7E-03
107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2- 1.8 4.7E-01 6.1E+00 3.8E-06 5.9E-02
67-63-0 Isopropanol - 1.8E+02
Cumulative: 5.2E-06 6.0E-02
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3F
** - Note that the EPA has no consensus on reference dose or cancer slope factor values for lead, therefore it is not possible to calculate carcinogenic risk
or hazard quotient. Lead concentrations are compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 0.15 μg/m3.
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Risks are calculated for these values if
indoor air concentrations are entered and indoor air screening levels have been established, but it should be noted that detections of these chemicals are
likely not associated with vapor intrusion.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
BA-1
DEQ Risk Calculator - Vapor Intrusion - Non-Residential Worker Indoor Air
Version Date: January 2022
Basis: November 2021 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
CAS # Chemical Name:
Indoor Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Target Indoor
Air Conc. for
Carcinogens @
TCR = 1E-06
Target Indoor Air
Conc. for Non-
Carcinogens @
THQ = 0.2
Calculated
Carcinogenic
Risk
Calculated
Non-
Carcinogenic
Hazard
Quotient
107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2- 0.51 4.7E-01 6.1E+00 1.1E-06 1.7E-02
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 38 4.7E+01 3.5E+01 8.1E-07 2.2E-01
79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 27 3.0E+00 1.8E+00 9.0E-06 3.1E+00
75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 3.5 2.8E+00 7.0E+01 1.3E-06 1.0E-02
Cumulative: 1.2E-05 3.3E+00
All concentrations are in ug/m3
Output Form 3F
** - Note that the EPA has no consensus on reference dose or cancer slope factor values for lead, therefore it is not possible to calculate carcinogenic risk
or hazard quotient. Lead concentrations are compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 0.15 μg/m3.
Carcinogenic risk and hazard quotient cells highlighted in orange are associated with non-volatile chemicals. Risks are calculated for these values if
indoor air concentrations are entered and indoor air screening levels have been established, but it should be noted that detections of these chemicals are
likely not associated with vapor intrusion.
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator
REFERENCE 44