HomeMy WebLinkAbout23031- West Morehead II_EMP (11-6-23)
Environmental Management Plan
West Morehead II
2131, 2211, and 2233 W. Morehead Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 23031-19-060
H&H Job No. PHL-001
November 6, 2023
#C-1269 Engineering
#245 Geology
CONTENTS
Completed EMP Template Form
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results
Table 2 Summary of Temporary Well Construction & Groundwater Elevation Data
Table 3 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 4 Summary of Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Analytical Results
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site and Sample Location Map
Appendices
Appendix A Site Redevelopment Plan
Appendix B Cut/Fill Analysis
1
EMP Version 3, March 2023
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
This form is to be used to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for projects in
the North Carolina Brownfields Redevelopment Section at the direction of a Brownfields
project manager.
The EMP is a standard requirement of a Brownfields Agreement (BFA). Its purpose is to clarify
actions to be taken during demolition and construction at Brownfields properties in an effort
to avoid delays in the event of the discovery of new contamination sources or other
environmental conditions. The EMP provides a means to document redevelopment plans and
environmental data for each applicable environmental medium to inform regulatory‐compliant
decision‐making at the site. As much detail as possible should be included in the EMP,
including contingency planning for unknowns. Consult your project manager if you have
questions.
Prospective Developers and/or their consultants must complete and submit this form and all
pertinent attachments, see checklist below, to their Brownfields project manager prior to any
earthmoving or other development‐related activities that have the potential to disturb soil at
the Brownfields Property, including demolition. For the EMP to be valid for use, it must be
completed, reviewed by the Section, signed by all parties working on the project, and
approved by the Brownfields project manager. Failure to comply with the requirements of the
EMP could jeopardize project eligibility, or in the event of a recorded agreement, be cause for
a reopener.
The EMP is valid only for the scope of work described herein and must be updated to be
applicable for new phases of redevelopment or after significant changes in applicable
regulatory guidance. Risk characterization of a Brownfields Property to DEQ’s written
satisfaction is required prior to EMP approval.
Voluntary Metrics Tab
The NC Brownfields Redevelopment Section updates estimated capital investment (from the
Brownfields Property Application) and estimated jobs created (from the Brownfields
Agreement) whenever possible. As a voluntary measure, you may opt to complete the below
information for capital investment and jobs created as estimated by your final redevelopment
plans for the Brownfields Property:
1. Estimated capital investment in redevelopment project:
2. Estimated jobs created:
a. Construction Jobs:
b. Full Time Post-Redevelopment Jobs:
2
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Table of Contents
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION .................................................................. 1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 4
COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION ..................................................... 5
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 5
CONTAMINATED MEDIA ......................................................................................................................... 7
PART 1. SOIL ........................................................................................................................................ 8
PART 2. GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 19
PART 3. SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................. 20
PART 4. SEDIMENT ............................................................................................................................ 21
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR ......................................................................................................................... 21
PART 6. INDOOR AIR ......................................................................................................................... 23
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 23
CONTINGENCY PLAN ............................................................................................................................. 24
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING ..................................................................................................... 26
APPROVAL SIGNATURES ....................................................................................................................... 27
3
EMP Version 3, March 2023
So that the EMP provides value in protecting Brownfields eligibility and public health, the
preparer shall ensure that the following steps have been completed prior to submitting the
EMP for review. Any EMP prepared without completing all of the following is premature and may
be returned without comment.
☒ Site sampling and assessment that meets Brownfields’ objectives is complete and has
been reviewed and approved by the Brownfields project manager.
☒ Specific redevelopment plans, even if conceptual, have been developed for the project,
submitted and reviewed by the Brownfields project manager.
Please submit, along with the completed EMP form, the following attachments, as relevant
and applicable to the proposed redevelopment:
☒ A set of redevelopment plans, including architectural/engineering plans, if available; if
not, conceptual plans may suffice if updated when detailed plans are drafted.
☐ A figure overlaying redevelopment plans on a map of the extent of contamination for
each media.
☒ Site grading plans that include a cut and fill analysis.
☐ A figure showing the proposed location and depth of impacted soil that would remain
onsite after construction grading.
☐ Any necessary permits for redevelopment (i.e. demolition, etc.).
☒ A detailed construction schedule that includes timing and phases of construction.
☒ Tabulated data summaries for each impacted media (i.e. soil, groundwater, soil gas,
etc.) applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
☒ Figures with the sampling locations and contamination extents for each impacted media
applicable to the proposed redevelopment.
☐ A full final grade sampling and analysis plan, if the redevelopment plan is final.
☐ If known, information about each proposed potential borrow soil source, such as aerial
photos, historic site maps, historic Sanborn maps, a site history, necessary for
Brownfields approval.
☐ Information and, analytical data if required, for quarries, or other borrow sources,
detailing the type of material proposed for import to the Brownfields Property.
4
EMP Version 3, March 2023
☐ A work plan for the sampling and analysis of soil to be brought onto the Brownfields
Property. Refer to Issue Resolution 15 in Brownfields Redevelopment Section
Guidelines.
☐ A map of the Brownfields Property showing the location of soils proposed for export
and sampling data from those areas.
☐ If a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) is required by the Brownfields
Redevelopment Section, the VIMS plan will be signed and sealed by a NC Professional
Engineer. The VIMS Plan may also be submitted under separate cover.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: 11/6/2023 Revision Date (if applicable):
Brownfields Assigned Project Name: West Morehead II
Brownfields Project Number: 23031‐19‐060
Brownfields Property Address: 2131, 2211, and 2233 W. Morehead Street Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina (Figure 1)
Brownfields Property Area (acres): 4.68 acres
Is Brownfields Property Subject to RCRA Permit?.......................☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes enter Permit No.:
Is Brownfields Property Subject to a Solid Waste Permit….……..☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, enter Permit No.:
COMMUNICATIONS
A copy of this EMP shall be distributed to all the parties below as well as any contractors or site workers
that may be exposed to site vapors, soil, groundwater, and/or surface water. Additionally, a copy of the
EMP shall be maintained at the Brownfields Property during redevelopment activities in an area that is
prominently accessible to site workers. NOTE, THE EMP DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A SITE‐SPECIFIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN.
Prospective Developer (PD): WP Lower, LLC
Contact Person: John Joyner
Phone Numbers: Office: 980‐776‐1188 Mobile:
Email: john.joyner@panorama‐holdings.com
5
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Contractor for PD: Samet Corporation
Contact Person: Brandon Roberson
Phone Numbers: Office: 704‐697‐2125 Mobile:
Email: broberson@sametcorp.com
Environmental Consultant: Hart & Hickman, PC
Contact Person: Bo Cappleman, PG
Phone Numbers: Office: 704‐586‐0007 Mobile: 980‐200‐7911
Email: bcappleman@harthickman.com
Brownfields Redevelopment Section Project Manager: Carolyn Minnich
Phone Numbers: Office: Mobile: 704‐661‐0880
Email: carolyn.minnich@deq.nc.gov; BFPropertyManagement@ncdenr.gov
Other DEQ Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch,
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste):
Not applicable
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION
Written advance Notification Times to Brownfields project manager: Check each box to accept
minimum advance notice periods (in calendar days) for each type of onsite task:
On‐site assessment or remedial activities:……………………………………….…… 10 days Prior ☒
Construction or grading start:……………………………………….………………………. 10 days Prior ☒
Discovery of stained soil, odors, USTs, buried drums or waste, landfill, or other signs of previously
unknown contamination: ……………………………….……………………………………. Within 48 hours ☒
Implementation of emergency actions (e.g. dewatering, flood or soil erosion control measures in
area of contamination, ventilation of work zones):…………….……….……… Within 48 hours ☒
Installation of mitigation systems:………………………….………………….……….. 10 days Prior ☒
Other notifications as required by local, state or federal agencies to implement redevelopment
activities: (as applicable): ……………………….…………………………………………..… Within 30 days ☒
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply):
☒Residential ☐Townhomes (Prior written DEQ approval REQUIRED regardless of ownership
structure) ☐Recreational ☐Institutional ☒Commercial ☒Office ☒Retail ☐Industrial
6
EMP Version 3, March 2023
☐Other specify:
Parking
2) Check the following activities that will be conducted prior to commencing earth‐moving activities
at the site:
☒ Review of historic maps (Sanborn Maps, facility maps)
☒ Conducting geophysical surveys to evaluate the location of suspect UST, fuel lines, utility
lines, etc.
☐ Interviews with employees/former employees/facility managers/neighbors
3) Summary of Redevelopment Plans (MANDATORY: attach detailed plans or conceptual plans, if
detailed plans are not available. EMP review without such information would be premature):
Provide brief summary of redevelopment plans, including demolition, removal of building
slabs/pavement, grading plans and planned construction of new structures:
Planned redevelopment at the Brownfields property includes demolition of the existing
buildings, construction of a mixed‐use building in the western portion of the site, and
construction of a multi‐family residential building (apartments) in the eastern portion of the site.
The western building will consist of a parking garage along the majority of the ground level and a
leasing office, lobby, amenity areas, and utility rooms in the easternmost portion of the ground
level. Upper levels will include apartments, a co‐working space, commercial units, and a parking
garage. The eastern building will be split into two ground‐floor levels with an open‐air parking
deck between the building sections. A copy of the redevelopment plan prepared by Orsborn
Engineering Group is provided as Appendix A.
4) Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?:
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☒ If yes, please check here to confirm that demolition will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements, including without limitation those related to lead and asbestos
abatement that are administered by the Health Hazards Control Unit within the Division of Public
Health of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. If available, please
provide a copy of your demolition permit.
5) Are sediment and erosion control measures required by federal, state, or local regulations?
S&EC requirements can be found at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐mineral‐and‐land‐
resources/erosion‐and‐sediment‐control/erosion‐and‐sediment‐control‐laws‐and‐rules
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☒ If yes, please check here to confirm that earth‐work will be conducted in accordance with
applicable legal requirements. If soil disturbance is necessary to install sediment and erosion
control measures, they may not begin until this EMP is approved.
6) Which category of risk‐based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement? Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels shall
be cited in the Brownfields Agreement for comparison purposes.
☒ Residential ☐ Non‐Residential or Industrial/Commercial
7
EMP Version 3, March 2023
7) Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a) Construction start date: 1/1/2024
b) Anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
Building Demolition: January 2024
Grading: March 2024
Utility Installation: April 2024
Deep Foundations: May 2024
Shallow Foundations: June 2024
Vertical Construction: July 2024 to August 2026
Paving/Landscaping: August 2026
c) Additional phases planned? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, specify the start date and/or activities if known:
Start Date:
Planned Activity:
Start Date:
Planned Activity:
Start Date:
Planned Activity:
d) Provide the planned date of occupancy for new buildings: 9/1/2026
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Please fill out the sections below, using detailed site plans, if available, or estimate using known areas
of contaminated soil and a conceptual redevelopment plan. Provide a figure overlaying new
construction onto figure showing contaminated soil and groundwater locations.
1) Contaminated Media on the Brownfields Property
Part 1. Soil: ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 2. Groundwater: .................................... ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 3. Surface Water: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown ☒ N/A
Part 4. Sediment: .......................................... ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown ☒ N/A
Part 5. Soil Vapor: ......................................... ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 6. Sub‐Slab Soil Vapor: .......................... ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☐ Unknown
Part 7. Indoor Air: ......................................... ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected ☒ Unknown
8
EMP Version 3, March 2023
2) For the Area of Proposed Redevelopment on the Brownfields Property, attach tabulated data
summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with sample locations.
PART 1. SOIL
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list general groups of contaminants):
A tabular summary of soil analytical data in comparison to the January 2023 North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Residential and Industrial/Commercial Preliminary
Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) is included as Table 1. Soil sample locations are shown on Figure
2. A brief summary of the results is provided below.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Laboratory analytical results indicate that trace levels of the VOCs acetone and toluene were
detected at concentrations above the laboratory method detection limits in multiple soil
samples. No detected VOC concentrations exceed the DEQ Residential or Industrial/Commercial
Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) in soil samples collected at the site.
Semi‐Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Laboratory analytical results indicate that the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene were detected in the SB‐4 (0‐2 ft) soil sample at concentrations above
the Residential PSRGs. Additionally, the detected concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in the SB‐4
(0‐2 ft) soil sample exceeds the Industrial/Commercial PSRG. No other SVOCs were detected in
the soil samples at concentrations above Residential or Industrial/Commercial PSRGs.
Metals
No metals were detected at concentrations above PSRGs and published mean background
metals concentrations for North Carolina soils.
2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet):
Soil impacts have been confirmed at depths of approximately 0‐2 feet below ground surface (ft
bgs).
3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet):
The approximate 4.68‐acre site is expected to be disturbed during grading and construction
activities (approximately 204,000 square feet).
4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet):
A copy of the cut/fill analysis is provided as Appendix B. Planned cut depths as part of mass
grading are not expected to extend beyond 10 ft below current grade elevations. Deeper
excavations may be required at proposed elevator pits and utility trenches.
9
EMP Version 3, March 2023
5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan):
Grading activities for the proposed redevelopment at the site will generate approximately
13,500 cubic yards of cut soil to achieve proposed final grade elevations. Additional soil will
be excavated during construction of shallow building foundations and installation of subgrade
utilities.
6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
The volume of impacted soil to be excavated at the site is unknown. As noted in Part 1.A.
Section 4 (Soil Sample Collection), in‐situ composite soil sampling may be performed in proposed
cut areas at the site prior to redevelopment. Results from the in‐situ composite soil sampling
activities will be provided to the Brownfields Program and used to determine appropriate on‐site
management or off‐site disposal options.
7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable:
Soil excavated at the site is proposed to be re‐used in fill areas during redevelopment.
Additionally, soil management (including potential off‐site disposal) may be based on in‐situ
soil sample analytical data and risk evaluation by the Brownfields Program.
PART 1.A. MANAGING ONSITE SOIL
If soil is anticipated to be excavated from the Brownfield Property, relocated on the Brownfields
Property, or otherwise disturbed during site grading or other redevelopment activities, please
provide a grading plan that clearly illustrates areas of cut and fill (approximate areas & volumes are
acceptable, if only preliminary data available).
1) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION:
a) Does the soil contain a LISTED WASTE as defined in the North Carolina Hazardous
Waste Section under 40 CFR Part 261.31‐261.35?....................................... ☐Yes ☒No
☐ If yes, explain why below, including the level of knowledge regarding processes
generating the waste (include pertinent analytical results as needed).
☐ If yes, do the soils exceed the “Contained‐Out” levels in Attachment 1 of the
North Carolina Contained‐In Policy?................................................. ☐ Yes ☒ No
b) NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND EXCEEDS
THE CONTAINED‐OUT LEVELS IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
CONTAINED‐IN POLICY, THE SOIL MAY NOT BE RE‐USED ONSITE AND MUST BE
DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND
REGULATIONS.
c) Does the soil contain a CHARACTERISTIC WASTE?.................................... ☐ Yes ☒ No
☐ If yes, mark reason(s) why below (and include pertinent analytical results).
☐ Ignitability
10
EMP Version 3, March 2023
☐ Corrosivity
☐ Reactivity
☐ Toxicity
☐ TCLP results
☐ Rule of 20 results (20 times total analytical results for an individual
hazardous constituent on TCLP list cannot, by test method, exceed regulatory
TCLP standard)
☒ If no, explain rationale:
No VOCs, SVOCs, or metals were detected at concentrations above the Rule of
20 concentrations.
d) NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A CHARACTERISTIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE
SOIL MAY NOT BE RE‐USED ONSITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DEQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
2) Screening criteria by which soil disposition decisions will be made (e.g., left in place, capped in
place with low permeability barrier, removed to onsite location and capped, removed offsite):
☒ Preliminary Health‐Based Residential SRGs
☐ Preliminary Health‐Based Industrial/Commercial SRGs
☒ Division of Waste Management Risk Calculator (For Brownfields Properties Only)
☐ Site‐specific risk‐based cleanup level. Please provide details of methods used for
determination/explanation.
Additional comments:
3) If known impacted soil is proposed to be reused within the Brownfields Property boundary,
please check the measures that will be utilized to ensure safe placement and documentation of
same. Please attach a proposed location diagram/site map.
☒ Provide documentation of analytical report(s) to Brownfields project manager.
☒ Provide documentation of final location, thickness and depth of relocated soil onsite map to
Brownfields project manager once known.
☒ Geotextile to mark depth of fill material.
Provide description of material:
The use of a geotextile is not planned but will be considered.
☒ Manage soil under impervious cap ☒ or clean fill ☒
☐Describe cap or fill:
11
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Should potentially impacted soil or fill materials be encountered during redevelopment that
do not require removal for geotechnical or construction purposes, the potentially impacted
soil may be placed beneath impervious surfaces (asphalt pavement, sidewalks, access
roads, buildings, etc.) or a minimum of 2 ft of clean fill.
☒ Confer with NC BF project manager if Brownfield Plat must be revised (or re‐recorded if
actions are Post‐Recordation).
☒ GPS the location and provide site map with final location.
☐ Other. Please provide a description of the measure:
4) Please describe the following action(s) to be taken during and following excavation and
management of site soils:
☒ Check to confirm that management of fugitive dust from site activities will be handled in
accordance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements.
Field screening of site soil
At a minimum, contractors shall be made aware of protocols should impacted soils (e.g. staining,
unusual odors, fill materials) be identified.
Describe the field screening method, frequency of field screening, person conducting field
screening:
During soil disturbance at the site, the workers or contractors will observe soils for
evidence of potential impacts. Evidence of potentially impacted soil includes a distinct
unnatural color, strong odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of concerns (i.e.,
chemicals, tanks, drums, etc.). Should the above be noted during site work, the
contractor will contact the project environmental professional to observe the suspect
condition. If the project environmental professional confirms that the material may be
impacted, then the procedures below will be implemented. In addition, the DEQ
Brownfields project manager will be contacted within 48 hours to advise of the condition.
Soil sample collection
☒ Yes
The PD may perform in‐situ composite sampling to characterize soil for export purposes. The
proposed methodology and scope of work will be outlined in a Work Plan which will be submitted
to DEQ for approval prior to conducting in‐situ composite sampling activities.
☒ Not anticipated ‐ In order to avoid delays in construction, a plan shall be in place for sampling
of suspect soils should they be encountered during redevelopment. If soil sample collection is
not anticipated but the need to do so is identified during redevelopment, notify the Brownfields
project manager of the anticipated sample and report dates for scheduling purposes.
Describe the sampling method (e.g., in‐situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.) and confirm that all
procedures outlined in applicable DEQ guidance for assessment shall be followed Typically, at
least one representative sample (per 500 yd3 for residential and 1,000 yd3 for commercial)
consisting of a 3 to 5‐point composite sample with grab sample for VOCs based on the highest PID
12
EMP Version 3, March 2023
reading is required to determine soil management options:
If soil impact is encountered during grading and/or installation or removal of utilities,
excavation will proceed only as far as needed to allow grading or other construction‐
related activity to continue and/or only as far as needed to allow alternate corrective
measures as described below. Suspect impacted soil excavated during redevelopment
activities may be stockpiled and covered in a secure area to allow construction to
progress. Suspect impacted soil will be stockpiled in accordance with Figure 1, NCBP
Diagram for Temporary Containment of Impacted or Potentially Impacted Soil. At least
one representative soil sample (no less than 3 aliquot soil samples) at a sample ratio of 1
soil sample per every approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil will be collected for analysis
of total VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA metals, and hexavalent chromium. If the soil sample
laboratory analytical results indicate that the soil could potentially exceed toxicity
characteristic hazardous waste criteria, then the soil will also be analyzed by TCLP for
those compounds that could exceed the toxicity characteristic hazardous waste criteria.
Impacted soil will be handled in the manner described below based upon the laboratory
analyses:
i. If no organic compounds or metals are detected in a sample (other than which are
attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts or which are consistent with
background levels for metals) above protection of groundwater or Residential
PSRGs (whichever is lower for the detected compounds), the TCLP concentrations
are below hazardous waste criteria, and the cumulative risk calculator results are
acceptable, then the soil will be deemed suitable for use as on‐site fill or as off‐
site fill with DEQ approval. The proposed location(s) for off‐site placement of soil
(other than a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill [MSWLF] or other permitted facility)
along with the receiving facility’s written approval for acceptance of the soil will
be provided to DEQ for approval prior to taking the soil off‐site.
ii. If detectable levels of compounds are found which do not exceed Residential PSRGs
(other than which are attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts or which are
consistent with background levels for metals) and the TCLP concentrations are
below hazardous waste criteria, then the soil may be used on‐site as fill without
conditions.
iii. If detectable levels of compounds are found which exceed the Residential PSRGs
(other than which are attributable to sampling or laboratory artifacts or which are
consistent with background levels for metals) and the TCLP concentrations are
below hazardous waste criteria, then the soil, with DEQ’s written approval, may
be used on‐site as fill below an impervious surface, at least 2 ft of compacted
demonstrably clean soil, or overlain by a geotechnical fabric and at least 1 ft of
demonstrably clean soil. If the impacted soil with concentrations above
Residential PSRGs is moved to an on‐site location, its location and depth will be
documented and provided to DEQ and the impacted soil will be placed beneath at
least 2 ft of compacted demonstrably clean soil, an impervious surface, or
covered by a geotechnical fabric.
13
EMP Version 3, March 2023
iv. Impacted soil may be transported to a MSWLF or DEQ permitted landfarm provided
that the soil is accepted at the disposal facility. DEQ Solid Waste Section and DEQ
Brownfields Program approval will be requested for any potential export to an
off‐Site facility other than a MSWLF or DEQ permitted landfarm. If soil is
transported to a MSWLF or DEQ permitted landfarm, the facility’s written
approval in the form of waste manifests or similar will be included with the
annual redevelopment report. In the unlikely event that the sample data
indicates concentrations above TCLP hazardous waste criteria, then the soil must
be transported off‐Site to a MSWLF that can accept or treat hazardous waste.
* Please note that should the PD elect to transport export soil to a MSWLF, DEQ
permitted landfarm, or to a DEQ Brownfields pre‐approved receiving facility, soil will be
direct‐loaded onto trucks for transport off‐site.
Check applicable chemical analytes for soil samples:
☒ Minimum Sample Requirements: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method
8260; Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; and Metals RCRA
List + Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 6020/7199
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
☐ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (e.g. Herbicides):
☒ Check to confirm that by the owner’s signature and the North Carolina Professional
Engineer/Geologist sealing this EMP the consultant understands that no work plan for suspect
soil sample collection will be submitted beyond this EMP, and that it is the responsibility of the
sealing professional and property owner to ensure that all applicable guidelines and
methodologies are followed and reported to DEQ for determination and approval of soil
placement prior to final relocation.
If impacted soils above applicable PSRGs and/or site specific risk thresholds are proposed to be
relocated on‐site, prior to final placement on‐site, the following shall be submitted for DEQ
review/approval
‐ Analytical data that has been sampled in accordance with the above referenced frequency and
following procedures outlined in the most recent Brownfields Redevelopment Section
Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan Minimum Requirements Checklist (Checklist) and in
accordance with DEQ IHSB Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
(Guidelines)
‐ Figure outlining planned soil placement and any future site features including
buildings/hardscape/open areas
‐ A North Carolina PE/PG recommendation of placement
14
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Impacts
Options
Onsite Placement without
conditions
Onsite placement under 2 ft
of cap or clean fill1, 2
All Constituents below applicable
PSRGs X
Constituents3 below applicable
PSRGs; Metals below background
but above PSRGs
X
Constituents3 below applicable
PSRGs; Metals above Background
/PSRGs
X
Constituents above Applicable
PSRGs X
1: Requires Prior Written DEQ Approval
2: VOC impacted soils above applicable PSRGs shall not be placed directly beneath building footprints
without prior written DEQ approval.
3: Constituents indicate any samples evaluated for other than metals.
☒ Check to confirm that stockpiling of known or suspected impacted soils will be conducted in
accordance with Figure 1 of this EMP. Stockpile methodology should provide erosion control,
prohibiting contact between surface water/precipitation and contaminated soil, and preventing
contaminated runoff. Explain any variances or provide additional details as needed:
☒ Final grade sampling of exposed native soil (i.e., soil that will not be under buildings or
permanent hardscape). Select chemical analyses for final grade samples with check boxes below
(Check all that apply):
☒ Minimum Sample Requirements: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method
8260; Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; and Metals RCRA
List + Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 6020/7199
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
☐ Other Constituents & Respective Analytical Method(s) (e.g. Herbicides):
Please provide a scope of work for final grade sampling, including a diagram of soil
sampling locations, number of samples to be collected, and brief sampling methodology.
Samples should be collected from 0‐2 ft below ground surface, with the exception of VOCs
which should be taken from 1‐2 ft below ground surface. Alternatively, indicate if a work
plan for final grade sampling may be submitted under separate cover.
A Final Grade Sampling Plan will be prepared following review of final
landscape/hardscape plans for the site. The work plan will be submitted to DEQ
15
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Brownfields Program under separate cover. If no areas exist that warrant final grade
sampling, documentation will be provided to the DEQ Brownfields project manager and/or
the DEQ Brownfields Property Management Unit.
☐ If final grade sampling was NOT selected, please explain rationale:
PART 1.B. IMPORTED FILL SOIL
NO SOIL MAY BE BROUGHT ONTO THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM
THE BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION. According to the Brownfields IR 15, “Documenting
imported soil (by sampling, analysis, and reporting in accordance with review and written approval
in advance by the Brownfields Redevelopment Section), will safeguard the liability protections
provided by the brownfields agreement and is in the best interest of the prospective
developer/property owner.”
Requirements for importing fill:
☒ Check to confirm that the import volumes outlined below have been confirmed based on
geotechnical evaluations.
1) Will fill soil be imported to the site?................................................ ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
2) If yes, what is the estimated volume of fill soil to be imported?
3) If yes, what is the anticipated depth that fill soil will be placed at the property? (If a range
of depths, list the range.)
PRIOR TO SOIL PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, a Soil Import Request must be
submitted for DEQ Brownfields review and approval. The request shall consist of a data
package that details:
‐ Fill source location/history (Phase I if available, current aerials, etc.)
‐ Analytical data that has been sampled in accordance with the below frequency and
following procedures outlined in the most recent Brownfields Redevelopment Section
Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan Minimum Requirements Checklist (Checklist)
and in accordance with DEQ IHSB Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup of
Contaminated Sites (Guidelines)
‐ A table comparing the import soil to existing site concentrations
‐ A PE/PG recommendation of import
‐ All relevant attachments listed in the Checklist
16
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Soil Import Sampling Requirements:
Source Sample Frequency Sample Analysis
Virgin Material from DEQ
Brownfields Pre‐
approved Quarry
None (Contact Brownfields project manager for list of pre‐
approved Quarries
DEQ Permitted Quarry
(Not Brownfields Pre‐
approved)
At least one
representative sample
from area of planned
import
VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals, any site specific
COCs (e.g. pesticides,
PCBs, etc.)
Other NC DEQ
Brownfields Property
At least one
representative sample
per 1,000 yd3 consisting
of a 3‐point composite
sample with grab sample
for VOCs based on the
highest PID reading
VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals, any site specific
COCs (e.g. pesticides,
PCBs, etc.)
Off‐site
unpermitted/regulated
property
Bulk Landscape Material
from Commercial Vendor
(i.e. topsoil)
No Sampling Required
If other special considerations apply, discuss:
☒ Check to confirm that by the owner’s signature and the North Carolina Professional
Engineer/Geologist sealing this EMP the consultant understands that no work plan for suspect soil
sample collection will be submitted beyond this EMP, and that it is the responsibility of the sealing
professional and property owner to ensure that all applicable guidelines are followed and reported in
the Soil Import Request for DEQ approval. Failure to meet these requirements could result in
resampling and/or failure to approve import.
PART 1.C. SOIL EXPORT
NO SOIL MAY LEAVE THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT SECTION. Failure to obtain approval may violate a brownfields
agreement causing a reopener or jeopardizing eligibility in the Section, endangering liability
protections and making said action possibly subject to enforcement. Justifications provided
below must be approved by the Section in writing prior to completing transport activities. Refer
to Brownfields IR 15 for additional details.
1) If export from the Brownfields Property is anticipated, export soil must be sampled at a
frequency of one sample per 1,000 yd3 consisting of a 3‐point composite sample with a
grab sample for VOCs based on the highest PID reading. Samples shall be analyzed at a
minimum for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals plus any site specific COCs.
PRIOR TO EXPORT FROM THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, a Soil Export Request must be
submitted for DEQ Brownfields review and approval. The request shall consist of a Data
Package that details:
17
EMP Version 3, March 2023
‐ Proposed Receiving Facility
‐ Analytical data that has been sampled in accordance with the above referenced
frequency and following procedures outlined in the most recent Brownfields
Redevelopment Section Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan Minimum
Requirements Checklist (Checklist) and in accordance with DEQ IHSB Guidelines for
Assessment and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites (Guidelines)
‐ A table comparing the export soil to concentrations on the receiving site concentrations
including risk comparison (Note that calculated risk cannot be increased on the receiving
site)
‐ A North Carolina PE/PG recommendation of export
‐ Written approval from the receiving site property owner representative for export
‐ All relevant attachments listed in the Checklist
Soil Export Options
Impacts
Options
Use as
Beneficial Fill
Off‐site disposal at
other Brownfields
Property2,6,7
Off‐site disposal
at LCID/CD
Landfill1, 3
Off‐site disposal at Subtitle
D MSW/Permitted
Landfarm4
All Constituents below
applicable PSRGs X X X X
Constituents5 below
applicable PSRGs; Metals
below background but
above PSRGs
X X X
Constituents5 below
applicable PSRGs; Metals
above Background /PSRGs
X X X
Constituents above
Applicable PSRGs X X
1: Requires Prior Written DEQ Approval
2: VOC impacted soils above applicable PSRGs shall not be placed directly beneath building footprints
without prior written DEQ approval.
3: Requires comparison to site specific metals concentrations.
4: Facility to determine if they can accept soil within their permit.
5: Constituents indicate any samples evaluated for other than metals.
6: Requires written approval from receiving site property owner representative.
7. Site COCs must be in comparable concentrations to receiving site and not significantly raise risk of
the receiving site.
☒ Check to confirm that by the owner’s signature and the North Carolina Professional
Engineer/Geologist sealing this EMP the consultant understands that no work plan for suspect soil
sample collection will be submitted beyond this EMP, and that it is the responsibility of the sealing
professional and property owner to ensure that all applicable guidelines are followed and reported in
the Soil Export Request for DEQ approval. Failure to meet these requirements could result in
resampling and/or failure to approve export.
If other special considerations apply, discuss:
18
EMP Version 3, March 2023
PART 1.D. MANAGEMENT OF UTILITY TRENCHES
☐ Install liner between native impacted soils and base of utility trench before filling with clean fill
(Preferred)
☒ Last out, first in principle for impacted soils (if soil can safely be reused onsite and is not a
hazardous waste), i.e., impacted soils are placed back at approximately the depths they were
removed from such that impacted soil is not placed at a greater depth than the original depth
from which it was excavated.
☐ Evaluate whether necessary to install barriers in conduits to prevent soil vapor transport,
and/or degradation of conduit materials due to direct impact with contaminants.
☐ If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials or provide the results of this evaluation in the
Vapor Mitigation Plan. Note that if vapor mitigation is planned for site buildings, utility corridors
will need to be evaluated as part of mitigation designs:
☐ If no, include rationale here:
☒ Unknown, details to be provided in the Vapor Mitigation Plan for site buildings
Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches:
Although not anticipated, in the event that evidence of contaminated soil and/or vapors (e.g.,
unusual odors and/or stained soil) is encountered in utility trenches during redevelopment
activities, the trench will be evacuated, and appropriate safety screening of the vapors will be
performed to protect workers. If results indicate further action is warranted in response to
vapors to protect workers, appropriate engineering controls (such as use of industrial fans) will
be implemented.
The contractor and workers will observe soil for potential impacts during utility installation
activities. Evidence of potential significant impacted soil includes a distinct unnatural color,
strong odor, or filled or previously disposed materials of concern (i.e., chemicals, tanks, drums,
etc.). Should the above be noted during utility work, the contractor will contact the project
environmental professional to observe the suspect condition and screen the soil using a PID or
other similar vapor field screening instrument. If the project environmental professional
confirms that the material may be impacted, then the procedures outlined above in Managing
On‐Site Soil (Part 1.A.) will be implemented. In addition, the environmental professional will
contact the DEQ Brownfields project manager within 48 hours to advise that person of the
condition.
19
EMP Version 3, March 2023
PART 2. GROUNDWATER
1) What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property?
Groundwater has been measured in temporary wells at depths ranging from approximately 19
to 30 ft bgs. Depth to groundwater measurements in former temporary monitoring wells are
summarized in Table 2.
2) What is the maximum depth of soil disturbance onsite?
The maximum excavation depth is estimated to be approximately 10 ft. Additionally,
aggregate piers will be installed to depths of approximately 10 to 18 ft bgs at the site. Impact
piers have been proposed for the project; therefore, no spoils are anticipated.
3) Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ☐onsite ☒offsite ☐both or ☐unknown
sources? Describe source(s):
Previous groundwater assessment at the Brownfields property included collection of seven (7)
groundwater samples for laboratory analysis. Locations of the groundwater samples are shown
on Figure 2, and a tabular summary of groundwater sample laboratory analytical results is
included in Table 3. A brief summary of the groundwater assessment results is provided below.
VOCs and SVOCs
Groundwater assessment results indicate that tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in the
TMW‐1, TMW‐2, TMW‐4, TMW‐5, and TMW‐7/TMW‐DUP groundwater samples collected from
the western and central portions of the site at concentrations above the DEQ 2L Standard.
Additionally, trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in the TMW‐5 and TMW‐7/TMW‐DUP
groundwater samples collected from the southeastern and south‐central portions of the site,
respectively, at concentrations above 2L Standards. The detected concentration of TCE in the
TMW‐5 groundwater sample also exceeded the Residential and Non‐Residential DEQ DWM
Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs). The detected concentrations of TCE in
the TMW‐7/TMW‐DUP groundwater samples also exceeded the Residential GWSL. No other
organic compounds were detected at concentrations above the DEQ 2L Standards or GWSLs in
groundwater samples collected at the site.
Metals
No metals were detected at concentrations above the DEQ 2L Standards in groundwater samples
collected at the Site.
4) What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property?
Southeast
5) Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities (e.g.
footer/utility construction or helical pilings?)
☒Yes ☐No
If yes, describe these activities:
It is not anticipated that groundwater will be encountered during grading or other excavation
activities.
20
EMP Version 3, March 2023
In the event that groundwater is encountered during redevelopment activities (even if no is
checked above), list activities for contingent management of groundwater (e.g., dewatering
of groundwater from excavations or foundations, containerizing, offsite disposal, discharge to
sanitary sewer, NPDES permit, or sampling procedures).
Appropriate worker safety measures will be undertaken if groundwater gathers in an open
excavation within an area determined to be impacted (based on previous sampling data,
strong odor, unnatural color, sheen, etc.) during construction activities. The contractor will
contact the environmental professional to observe the area(s) suspected to be impacted. The
accumulated water will be allowed to evaporate/infiltrate to the extent time for dissipation
does not disrupt the construction schedule. Should the time needed for natural dissipation of
accumulated water be deemed inadequate, the water will be tested for the presence of VOCs,
SVOCs, and RCRA metals and disposed off‐site (if impacted), or tested and discharged to the
storm sewer (if not impacted above DEQ surface water standards) in accordance with
applicable municipal and State regulations for erosion control and construction stormwater
control.
6) Are monitoring wells currently present on the Brownfields Property?.................☐Yes ☒No
If yes, are any monitoring wells routinely monitored through DEQ or other
agencies?..................................................................................................................☐Yes ☐No
7) Please check methods to be utilized in the management of known and previously
unidentified wells.
☐ Abandonment of site monitoring wells in accordance with all applicable regulations. It
is the Brownfields Redevelopment Section’s intent to allow proper abandonment of
well(s) as specified in the Brownfields Agreement, except if required for active
monitoring through another section of DEQ or the EPA.
☐ Location of existing monitoring wells marked
☐ Existing monitoring wells protected from disturbance
☒ Newly identified monitoring wells will be marked and protected from further
disturbance until notification to DEQ Brownfields can be made and approval for
abandonment is given.
8) Please provide additional details as needed:
Please note, disturbance of existing site monitoring wells without approval by DEQ is not
permissible. If monitoring wells are damaged and/or destroyed, DEQ may require that the PD
be responsible for replacement of the well.
PART 3. SURFACE WATER
1) Is surface water present at the property? ☐ Yes ☒ No
2) If yes, attach a map showing the location of surface water at the Brownfields Property
3) Is surface water at the property known to be contaminated? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
4) Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment
21
EMP Version 3, March 2023
activities or as part of the final redevelopment? ☐ Yes ☒ No
5) In the event that contaminated surface water is encountered during redevelopment
activities, or clean surface water enters open excavations, list activities for management of
such events (e.g. flooding, contaminated surface water run‐off, stormwater impacts):
Surface water features are not present at the site.
If surface water run‐off gathers in an open excavation within an area suspected to be impacted
during construction activities, appropriate worker safety and groundwater management
measures will be undertaken. The contractor will contact the environmental professional to
observe the area(s) suspected to be impacted. The accumulated water will be allowed to
evaporate/infiltrate to the extent that the time for dissipation does not disrupt the construction
schedule. Should the time needed for natural dissipation of accumulated water be deemed
inadequate, the water will be tested for the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals and
disposed off‐site (if impacted), or tested and discharged to the storm sewer (if not impacted
above DEQ surface water standards) in accordance with applicable municipal and State
regulations for erosion control and construction stormwater control.
PART 4. SEDIMENT
1) Are sediment sources present on the property? ☐ Yes ☒ No
2) If yes, is sediment at the property known to be contaminated? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
3) Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment
activities? ☐ Yes ☒ No
4) Attach a map showing the location of known contaminated sediment at the property.
5) In the event that contaminated sediment is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such events (stream bed disturbance):
Not applicable
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR
1) Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the
vapor intrusion screening levels (current version) in the following media:
Groundwater Exterior Soil Vapor Sub‐Slab Soil Vapor
Residential ☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
Commercial ☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
☐ Yes ☒ No
☐ Unknown
☒ Yes ☐ No
☐ Unknown
2) Attach a map showing the locations of all soil vapor samples including any soil vapor
contaminants that exceeds screening levels and overlays planned site development features.
22
EMP Version 3, March 2023
3) If applicable, at what depth(s) is exterior soil vapor known to be contaminated?
4) If applicable, at what depth(s) is sub‐slab soil vapor known to be contaminated?
☒0‐6 inches ☐Other, please describe:
As part of the September 2022 Brownfields Assessment activities, five sub‐slab vapor samples
were collected from the existing site buildings. A tabular summary of the sub‐slab vapor
analytical results is provided in Table 4, and sample locations are presented on Figure 2.
The results of analysis of the sub‐slab vapor samples indicated the presence of TCE in sample SSV‐
2 collected from the footprint of the proposed western mixed‐use building at a concentration
above the Residential and Non‐Residential SGSLs. Additionally, TCE was detected in the SSV‐
5/DUP‐SSV sub‐slab vapor samples collected from the footprint of the proposed eastern
apartment building at concentrations above the Residential SGSL but below the Non‐Residential
SGSL.
As noted in Section 5, results of worst‐case risk calculations for both exposure units (i.e.,
proposed eastern apartment building and proposed western mixed‐use building) indicated the
presence of a potential vapor intrusion concern under a residential use scenario. As indicated in
Section 7, vapor mitigation is planned for the proposed future apartment buildings.
5) Will workers encounter contaminated exterior or sub‐slab soil vapor during planned
redevelopment activities? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
As part of Brownfields Assessment activities conducted at the Site in September 2022, 12 exterior soil
gas samples were collected at depths of approximately 6‐6 ft bgs within the proposed future building
footprints. Laboratory analytical results indicate the presence of multiple VOCs at concentrations
above the DEQ Vapor Intrusion Sub‐Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs). A tabular
summary of the soil gas laboratory analytical results is provided in Table 4, and sample locations are
presented on Figure 2.
Benzyl chloride was detected at a concentration above the Residential SGSL in the SG‐4 soil gas
sample collected from the footprint of the proposed western mixed‐use building. Analytical data for
soil gas sampling collected from the proposed eastern apartment building indicated the presence of
benzene, chloroform, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, TCE, and vinyl chloride at concentrations above the
Residential SGSLs in one or more samples.
Results of worst‐case risk calculations performed for the SG‐1 through SG‐5 and SSV‐1 through SSV‐3
soil gas and sub‐slab vapor samples collected from the footprint of the proposed western building
indicated a potential vapor intrusion concern under a residential use scenario. Additionally, results of
worst‐case risk calculations performed for the SG‐6 through SG‐12 and SSV‐4 and SSV‐5/DUP‐SSV soil
gas and sub‐slab vapor samples collected from the footprint of the proposed eastern building
indicated a potential vapor intrusion concern under a residential use scenario. As noted in Section 7,
the PD intends to install a vapor intrusion mitigation system in both proposed buildings.
23
EMP Version 3, March 2023
In the event that apparent contaminated soil vapor is encountered (based on elevated PID
readings, unusual odors, etc.) during redevelopment activities (trenches, manways, basements or
other subsurface work,) list activities for management of such contact, INCLUDING notification to
DEQ within 48 hours of identification of the issue for determination of additional requirements:
The environmental professional will remain on call on an as‐needed‐basis during redevelopment
activities at the site. If contaminated soil vapors are suspected during redevelopment activities
(based on unusual or strong odors, dizziness, lightheadedness, coughing, difficulty breathing,
etc.), the excavation area will immediately be evacuated, and the environmental professional will
be called to perform appropriate safety screening of the vapors. Safety screening activities
include monitoring the worker breathing zone with a calibrated multi‐gas monitor (or similar
instrument[s] capable of detecting VOCs and combustible gases) for VOCs, methane, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide photoionization detector. If results indicate further action
is warranted, appropriate engineering controls (such as use of industrial fans) will be
implemented. In addition, the environmental professional will contact the DEQ Brownfields
project manager within 48 hours regarding the condition.
PART 6. INDOOR AIR
1) Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ☐ Yes ☒ No
2) If applicable, attach a map showing the location(s) where indoor air contaminants exceed site
screening levels.
3) If the structures where indoor air has been documented to exceed risk‐based screening levels will
not be demolished as part of redevelopment activities, will workers encounter contaminated
indoor air during planned redevelopment activities? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown ☒ N/A
☐ If no, include rationale here:
4) In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact:
VAPOR INTRUSION MITIGATION SYSTEM
1) Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) proposed for this Brownfields Property?
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☐ If no or unknown, include rationale here as well as plans for pre‐occupancy sampling, as
necessary:
In the unlikely event there is evidence of potential indoor air issues (i.e., unusual odors are identified
or workers report lightheadedness or other unusual physical reaction) during future redevelopment
activities, the area will be evacuated, and appropriate safety screening of the indoor air will be
performed. If warranted, safety screening procedures will include periodically screening indoor air
for volatile organic vapors with a calibrated PID. If results indicate further action is warranted,
appropriate engineering controls (such as use of industrial fans) will be implemented.
24
EMP Version 3, March 2023
If yes, ☐ VIMS Plan Attached or ☐ VIMS Plan to be submitted separately
If submitted separately provide date:
A VIMS Plan will be submitted under separate cover to DEQ Brownfields for the proposed
mixed‐use development at the site.
VIMS Plan shall be signed and sealed by a NC Professional Engineer and follow the DEQ
Brownfields Redevelopment Section’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Design Submittal
Requirements.
Note that approval of this EMP does not imply approval with any vapor intrusion mitigation land
use restrictions or requirements of the recorded or draft Brownfields Agreement and that
separate approval of mitigation measures will be required.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
In this section, please provide actions that will be taken to identify or manage unknown
potential new sources of contamination. During redevelopment activities, it is not uncommon
that unknown tanks, drums, fuel lines, landfills, or other waste materials are encountered.
Notification to DEQ Brownfields project manager, UST Section, Fire Department, and/or other
officials, as necessary and appropriate, is required when new potential source(s) of
contamination are discovered. These Notification Requirements were outlined on Page 1 of this
EMP.
Should potentially impacted materials be identified that are inconsistent with known site
impacts, the DEQ Brownfields project manager will be notified, and a sampling plan will be
prepared based on the EMP requirements and site‐specific factors. Samples will generally be
collected to document the location of the potential impacts.
Check the following chemical analysis that are to be conducted on newly identified releases:
☒ Minimum Sample Requirements: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260;
Semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; and Metals RCRA List +
Hexavalent Chromium by EPA Method 6020/7199
☐ Pesticides: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
☐ PCBs: Specify Analytical Method Number(s):
☐ Other Constituents & Analytical Method(s) (e.g. Herbicides)
Please note, if field observations indicate the need for additional analyses, they should
be conducted, even if not listed here.
Please provide details on the proposed methods of managing the following commonly
encountered issues during redevelopment of Brownfields Properties.
Underground Storage Tanks – Note that UST Section guidelines must be followed for sample
frequency during UST closure. Unless damage to onsite structures to remain as part of
25
EMP Version 3, March 2023
redevelopment would occur, USTs shall be removed from the Brownfields Property:
In the event a UST or impacts associated with a UST release are discovered at the site during
redevelopment activities, the UST and/or UST related impacts will be addressed through the
Brownfields Program. DEQ Brownfields will be notified within 48 hours of discovery of the UST.
If an undocumented UST is encountered, residual fluids (if present) will be removed, sampled for
VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals, and transported off‐site for disposal at a suitable facility based on
the laboratory analytical results. Following the removal of residual fluids, the tank will be removed
and closure soil sampling will be performed. The number of soil samples will be consistent with
DEQ UST Section guidelines. The soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs,
SVOCs, RCRA metals, and hexavalent chromium. Impacted soil will be managed in accordance with
the Managing On‐Site Soil (Part 1.A.) section outlined above.
If the UST cannot be removed for geotechnical or construction purposes, DEQ will be notified for
approval of in‐place closure. Following DEQ approval, closure soil sampling will be performed in
general accordance with the DEQ UST Section guidelines. Where appropriate, the bottom of the
UST may be penetrated before abandonment to prevent fluid accumulation. If the UST contains
residual fluids, the fluids will be removed, sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals, and
transported off‐site for disposal at a suitable facility based on the laboratory analytical results. A
survey plat update may also be needed in the event of in‐place closure of USTs.
Sub‐Grade Feature/Pit:
If a sub‐grade feature or pit is encountered and does not require removal for geotechnical or
construction purposes, it will be filled with soil or suitable fill and construction will proceed. Where
appropriate, the bottom may be penetrated before back filling to prevent fluid accumulation. If the
pit has waste in it, the waste may be set aside in a secure area and will be sampled for waste
disposal purposes for TCLP VOCs, TCLP SVOCs, and TCLP metals and disposed off‐site at a permitted
facility or the waste will be managed in accordance with the Managing On‐Site Soil (Part 1.A.)
section outlined above, whichever is most applicable based on the type of waste present. If the pit
must be removed and the observed waste characteristics indicate the concrete may potentially be
contaminated to a significant degree, the concrete will be sampled and analyzed by methods
specified by the disposal facility.
Buried Waste Material – Note that if buried waste, non‐native fill, or any obviously filled materials
is encountered, the DEQ Brownfields Redevelopment Section must be notified to determine if
investigation of landfill gases is required:
If excavation into buried wastes or significantly impacted soils occurs, the contractor is instructed to
stop work in that location and notify the environmental consultant. The environmental consultant
will observe the suspect materials and collect samples if warranted. In this event, confirmation
sampling will be conducted at representative locations in the base and the sidewalls of the
excavation after the waste or significantly impacted soil is removed. The confirmation samples will
be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA metals, hexavalent chromium (or other analyses as appropriate
based on the type of waste material). Information will be provided to DEQ Brownfields regarding
26
EMP Version 3, March 2023
the permitted facility used for disposal of the waste or significantly impacted soil. Areas of
suspected contaminated soil that remain at the site after excavation is complete above the DEQ
Residential PSRGs will be managed pursuant to this plan.
Re‐Use of Impacted Soils Onsite:
Please refer to description outlined in the Managing On‐Site Soil section (Part 1.A.) of the EMP
above.
If unknown, impacted soil is identified onsite, management onsite can be considered after the
project team provides the necessary information, outlined in Part 1.A. Item 11, for Brownfields
project manager approval prior to final placement onsite.
If other potential contingency plans are pertinent, please provide other details or scenarios as
needed below:
POST‐REDEVELOPMENT REPORTING
☐ Check this box to acknowledge that a Redevelopment Summary Report will be required for the
project. If the project duration is longer than one year, an annual update is required and will be
due by January 31 of each year, or 30 days after each one‐year anniversary of the effective date of
this EMP (as agreed upon with the project manager). These reports will be required for as long as
physical redevelopment of the Brownfields Property continues, except that the final
Redevelopment Summary Report will be submitted within 90 days after completion of
redevelopment. Based on the estimated construction schedule, the first Redevelopment Summary
Report is anticipated to be submitted on 1/31/2025
The Redevelopment Summary Report shall include environment‐related activities since the last
report, with a summary and drawings, that describes:
1. actions taken on the Brownfields Property;
2. soil grading and cut and fill actions;
3. methodology(ies) employed for field screening, sampling and laboratory analysis of
environmental media;
4. stockpiling, containerizing, decontaminating, treating, handling, laboratory analysis and
ultimate disposition of any soil, groundwater or other materials suspected or confirmed
to be contaminated with regulated substances; and
5. removal of any contaminated soil, water or other contaminated materials (for example,
concrete, demolition debris) from the Brownfields Property (copies of all legally required
manifests shall be included).
☒ Check box to acknowledge consent to provide a NC licensed P.G. or P.E. sealed, Redevelopment
Summary Report in compliance with the site’s Brownfields Agreement.
27
EMP Version 3, March 2023
APPROVAL SIGNATURES
Brownfields Project Number: 23031‐19‐060
Brownfields Project Name: West Morehead II
PE/PG Professional License #: 2506
Firm PE/PG License #: C‐1269/C‐245
Insert PE/PG Seal Above
Date Prospective Developer: WP Lower, LLC
Printed Name/Title/Company: John Joyner/Director of
Asset Management/Panorama Holdings
Consultant: Hart & Hickman, PC Date
Printed Name/Title/Company: Bo Cappleman, PG/Due
Diligence Manager/Hart & Hickman, PC
Brownfields Project Manager: Carolyn Minnich Date
11/07/2023
28
EMP Version 3, March 2023
Table 1Summary of Soil Analytical ResultsWest Morehead II Brownfields PropertyCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. PHL-001LocationSoutheastern Portion of the Site Adjacent to Debris PileNortheastern Portion of the Site within Granite Storage YardSouthwestern Portion of Site Adjacent to Paint BoothSample IDSB-2 SB-3 SB-4Depth (ft bgs)0-2 0-2 0-2Date4/15/2020 4/15/2020 4/15/2020VOCs (8260D)Range MeanAcetone 0.0872 J 0.102 J<0.0092 <0.0093 <0.008712,000 140,000 -- --Toluene<0.0016 <0.00180.0017 J<0.0016 <0.0015990 9,700 -- --Trichloroethene3RCRA Metals (6020B/7471B/7199)Arsenic 3.27 2.82 1.41 2.97 1.570.68 3.01.0 - 18 4.8Barium 75.7 93.0 75.2 62.2 36.33,100 47,00050 - 1,000 356Cadmium<0.662 <0.582 <0.518 <0.504 <0.51814 2001.0 - 10 (3)4.3 (3)Chromium (Total) 53.8 78.2 28.4 46.1 33.0NS NS7.0 - 300 65Chromium, HexavalentNA <0.366 NA <0.316 NA0.31 6.5 NS NSChromium, TrivalentNA78.2NA46.1NA23,000 350,000 NS NSLead 17.4 18.0 21.7 59.2 8.83400 800ND - 50 16Mercury 0.0521 J 0.0502 J 0.0655 0.294 0.0331 J4.7 700.03 - 0.52 0.12Selenium<1.65 <1.45 <1.29 <1.25 <1.2978 1,200<0.1 - 0.8 0.42Silver<0.347 <3.05 <0.272 <0.264 <0.27278 1,200ND - 5.0 (4)NSSVOCs (8270E)Acenaphthene<0.115 <0.114 <0.102 <0.1051.9 720 9,000 -- --Anthracene<0.116 <0.115 <0.103 <0.1063.61 3,600 45,000 -- --Benzo(a)anthracene<0.142 <0.141 <0.126 <0.1305.351.1 21 -- --Benzo(a)pyrene<0.193 <0.192 <0.172 <0.1784.460.11 2.1 -- --Benzo(b)fluoranthene<0.180 <0.178 <0.160 <0.1655.71.1 21 -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene<0.174 <0.173 <0.155 <0.1602.94 NS NS -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene<0.188 <0.186 <0.167 <0.1732.64 11 210 -- --Chrysene<0.130 <0.128 <0.115 <0.1195.34 110 2,100 -- --Dibenz(a,h)anthracene<0.178 <0.177 <0.159 <0.1640.8930.11 2.1 -- --Dibenzofuran<0.112 <0.111 <0.0994 <0.1021.09 15 210 -- --Fluoranthene<0.135 <0.134 <0.120 <0.12411.4 480 6,000 -- --Fluorene<0.119 <0.118 <0.106 <0.1101.85 480 6,000 -- --Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene<0.204 <0.202 <0.182 <0.1872.621.1 21 -- --1-Methylnaphthalene<0.119 <0.118 <0.106 <0.1090.303 J 18 73 -- --2-Methylnaphthalene<0.114 <0.113 <0.101 <0.1040.477 48 600 -- --Naphthalene<0.107 <0.106 <0.0952 <0.09810.912 4.1 18 -- --Phenanthrene<0.112 <0.111 <0.100 <0.10312.6 NS NS -- --Pyrene<0.123 <0.122 <0.109 <0.1139.12 360 4,500 -- --Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) (January 2023).2) Range and mean values of background metals for North Carolina soils obtained from Elements in North American Soils by Dragun and Chekiri, 2005.3) North Carolina background values were not specified; therefore, background values for the southeastern United States are shown.4) North Carolina background values were not specified; therefore, background values for the conterminous United States are shown.With the exception of metals, only constituents detected in at least one sample are shown.Compound concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Bold concentrations exceed DEQ IHSB Residential PSRGs. Underlined concentration exceeds DEQ IHSB Industrial/Commercial PSRGs.Metals concentrations which are consistent with background are not shown in bold or underlined.Laboratory analytical methods are shown in parenthesesVOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Actft bgs = feet below ground surface; NS = not specified; -- = not applicable; ND = non-detectJ = estimated value between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory reporting limitPublished Background Metals Concentrations for North Carolina Soils (2)0-24/15/2020SB-1/SB-DUPNorthwestern Portion of the Site adjacent to 2211 W. Morehead Street BuildingResidential PSRGs (1)Industrial/ Commercial PSRGs (1)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Panorama Holdings - PHL/EMP/Tables/Combined Data Tables3/13/2023Table 1Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 2
Summary of Temporary Well Construction and Groundwater Elevation Data
West Morehead II Brownfields Property
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. PHL-001
Well Well Screened TOC Water Water Groundwater
Diameter Depth Interval Elevation Table Depth Table Depth Elevation
(inches) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) (ft) (ft bgs) (ft below TOC) (ft)
TMW-1 1 35 20-35 -- 28.43 -- --
TMW-2 1 30 15-30 -- 20.49 -- --
TMW-3 1 35 20-35 -- 29.78 -- --
TMW-4 2 29 14-29 100.00 -- 22.10 77.90
TMW-5 2 28 13-28 89.88 -- 22.82 67.06
TMW-6 2 33 18-33 92.32 -- 19.50 72.82
TMW-7 2 35 20-35 97.78 -- 22.48 75.30
Notes:
Depth to groundwater measurements were collected from the monitoring wells on March 28, 2019 (TMW-1 through TMW-3)
and April 17, 2020 (TMW-4 through TMW-7).
ft bgs = feet below ground surface; TOC = top of casing; -- = not measured
Groundwater Elevations are referenced to an arbitrary datum of 100.00 ft at TMW-4.
Monitoring Well
Identification
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Panorama Holdings - PHL/EMP/Tables/Combined Data Tables
3/13/2023
Table 2
Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 3Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsWest Morehead II Brownfields PropertyCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. PHL-001LocationWestern Portion of the Site and Downgradient of the Former Off-Site DrycleanerEast/Downgraident of the 2233 W. Morehead Street Site Building and Former Off-Site DrycleanerEast/Downgradient of the 2131 W. Morehead Street Site BuildingNorthwestern Portion of the Site adjacent to the 2211 W. Morehead Street Site BuildingSoutheastern Portion of the Site Adjacent to a Debris PileNortheastern Portion of the Site Within the Granite Storage YardSample IDTMW-1 TMW-2 TMW-3 TMW-4 TMW-5 TMW-6Date3/28/2019 3/28/2019 3/28/20194/16/2020 4/16/2020 4/16/2020VOCs (8260D)Acetone17.5 J<6.2 <6.2 <6.2 <6.26,000 NS NSChloroform 0.59<0.50 <0.502.7 J<2.3 <2.3 <2.3 <2.370 0.8 3.61,1-Dichloroethene<0.50 <0.50 <0.501.3<0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24350 39 160cis-1,2-Dichloroethene<0.500.60<0.50 <0.299.9<0.291.6 1.7 70 50 210Tetrachloroethene4.4 3.9<0.501.3 2.9<0.163.3 3.00.7 12 48Trichloroethene<0.500.86<0.50 <0.227.0<0.223.23.33.0 1.0 4.4RCRA Metals (6020B/7470A)ArsenicNA NA NA <0.735 <0.735 <0.735 <0.735 <0.73510-- --BariumNA NA NA47.5 41.6 22.9 73.5 70.6 700-- --CadmiumNA NA NA <0.478 <0.478 <0.478 <0.478 <0.4782-- --ChromiumNA NA NA <1.491.84 J 2.63<1.49 <1.4910-- --LeadNA NA NA <2.49 <2.49 <2.49 <2.49 <2.4915-- --MercuryNA NA NA <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1001-- --SeleniumNA NA NA <0.657 <0.657 <0.657 <0.657 <0.65720-- --SilverNA NA NA <0.513 <0.513 <0.513 <0.513 <0.51320-- --SVOCs (8270E)bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateNA NA NA2.6 J<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.03-- --Notes:1) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 15A NCAC 02L.0202 Groundwater Standards (NC 2L Standards) (April 2022) 2) DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Screening Levels (GWSLs) (January 2023)With the exception of metals, only those compounds detected in at least one sample are shown above.Concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter (µg/L).Bold concentrations exceed the NC 2L Standard.Underlined concentrations exceed NC 2L Standard and the Residential GWSLBold and highlighted concentrations exceed the NC 2L Standard and the Non-Residential GWSL.Method number follows parameter in parenthesisVOCs = volatile organic compounds; SVOCs = semi-VOCs; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ActNS = not specified; -- = not applicable; NA = not analyzed for specified constituentJ = estimated value between the laboratory detection limit and the laboratory reporting limitNC 2L Groundwater Standards (1)Residential GWSLs (2)Non-Residential GWSLs (2)4/16/2020TMW-7/TMW-DUPSouthwestern Portion of the Site Adjacent to the Paint Boothhttps://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Panorama Holdings - PHL/EMP/Tables/Combined Data Tables3/13/2023Table 3Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 4Summary of Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Analytical DataWest Morehead II Brownfields PropertyCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. PHL-001Evaluation AreaSample IDSG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 SSV-1 SSV-2 SSV-3Sample DateSample Type UnitsVOCs (TO-15)Acetone24 J17 J2443284125100NENEBenzene<1.21.7 J1.4 J<1.13.6<1.2<1.11.4 J12160Benzyl Chloride<1.4<1.3<1.33.4 J<1.5<1.4<1.3<1.41.925Carbon Disulfide<4.7<4.569<4.56.4 J<4.7<4.47.4 J4,90061,000Chloroform<1.9<1.9<1.81.9 J<2.1<1.9<1.8<1.94.153Chloromethane<4.7<4.5<4.420 J<5.0<4.7<4.4<4.76307,900Cyclohexane5.65.74.85.24.71.8 J2.5 J2.5 J42,000530,000Dichlorodifluoromethane3.1 J3.3 J3.4 J3.1 J<2.22.1 J3.4 J2.4 J7008,8001,1-Dichloroethene<2.2<2.1<2.1<2.1<2.4<2.2<2.1<2.21,40018,000cis-1,2-Dichloroethene<1.7<1.7<1.6<1.7<1.9<1.7<1.6<1.82803,500Ethylbenzene2.0 J128.2<1.25.6<1.2<1.21.5 J374904-Ethyltoluene<1.7<1.6<1.6<1.6<1.8<1.7<1.62.2 JNENEHeptane<1.8<1.8<1.7<1.72.6 J<1.8<1.7<1.82,80035,000n-Hexane<1.0<1.02.7 J<0.994.7<1.0<0.971.8 J4,90061,0002-Hexanone<8.1<7.9<7.7<7.8<8.7<8.1<7.7<8.22102,600Isopropyl Alchohol4.2 J<3.46.2 J21<3.88.0 J7.4 J941,40018,000Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)<4.0<3.9<3.812<4.3<4.0<3.85.1 J35,000440,0004-Methyl-2-Pentanone<1.3<1.2<1.2<1.2<1.4<1.3<1.21521,000260,000Naphthalene<1.4<1.3<1.3<1.3<1.5<1.4<1.3<1.42.836Propene<1.7<1.665<1.6<1.8<1.7<1.6<1.721,000260,000Styrene<1.617<1.5<1.5<1.79812<1.67,00088,000Tetrachloroethene421002.4 J9.924<1.87.23.9 J2803,500Tetrahydrofuran<1.3<1.2<1.2<1.2<1.4<1.3<1.2<1.314,000180,000Toluene13263.5 J1.9 J36126.612035,000440,000Trichloroethene<2.4<2.4<2.3<2.3<2.6<2.4210<2.414 180Trichlorofluoromethane3.3 J4.9 J1.9 J1.8 J<1.8<1.71.6 J<1.7NENE1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene<2.24.7 J<2.1<2.1<2.42.3 J<2.12.4 J4205,3001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene<1.64.1 J<1.6<1.6<1.8<1.6<1.5<1.64205,300Vinyl Acetate1,40018,000Vinyl Chloride<1.9<1.8<1.8<1.8<2.0<1.9<1.8<1.95.6280o-Xylene7.839161.6 J10<1.4<1.32.2 J7008,800m,p-Xylene1163401.5 J26<1.3<1.25.67008,800Notes:1) North Carolinia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Sub-Slab & Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) dated January 2023.Concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Laboratory analytical method is shown in parentheses.Only compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the above table.Bold values exceed the DWM Residential SGSL.Underlined values exceed the DWM Non-Residential SGSL.VOCs = volatile organic compounds; NE = not establishedJ = Estimated concentration that is above the laboratory method detction limit but below the laboratory reporting limitExterior Soil Gas Subslab VaporScreening Criteria Residential SGSLs (1)Non-Residential SGSLs (1)Western Proposed Mixed-Use Building9/2/2022µg/m3https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Panorama Holdings - PHL/EMP/Tables/Combined Data Tables3/13/2023Table 4 (Page 1 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
Table 4Summary of Sub-Slab and Exterior Soil Gas Analytical DataWest Morehead II Brownfields PropertyCharlotte, North CarolinaH&H Job No. PHL-001Evaluation AreaSample IDSG-6 SG-7 SG-8 SG-9 SG-10 SG-11 SG-12 SSV-4Sample DateSample Type UnitsVOCs (TO-15)Acetone 77 90 20 J 110 17 J 33 20 J 62 48 51 NE NEBenzene16 311.3 J366.3<1.21.8 J<1.1 <1.2 <1.212 160Benzyl Chloride<1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.3 <1.4 <1.41.9 25Carbon Disulfide 360 110<4.8630 130<4.797<4.6 <4.6 <4.74,900 61,000Chloroform7.42.6 J<2.02.5 J<2.0 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.94.1 53Chloromethane<4.8 <4.8 <4.8 <4.6 <4.8 <4.7 <4.6 <4.6 <4.6 <4.7630 7,900Cyclohexane 19 23 5.2 24 75 1.3 J 6.6 2.5 J 1.4 J 1.9 J 42,000 530,000Dichlorodifluoromethane 3.1 J 3.8 J 2.2 J 3.1 J<2.12.3 J 3.0 J 2.7 J 2.8 J 2.8 J 700 8,8001,1-Dichloroethene<2.24.0 J<2.2 <2.2 <2.3 <2.2 <2.1 <2.1 <2.2 <2.21,400 18,000cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 4.2 J 7.9<1.89.5 15<1.8 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7280 3,500Ethylbenzene 6.3429.3 26 23<1.32.6 J<1.2 <1.2 <1.237 4904-Ethyltoluene 2.2 J 7.0 5.6 20 4.0 J<1.7 <1.6 <1.6 <1.7 <1.7NE NEHeptane 10 31<1.858 23<1.82.8 J<1.8 <1.8 <1.82,800 35,000n-Hexane 35 48 2.9 J 96 95<1.06.6<1.0 <1.0 <1.04,900 61,0002-Hexanone<8.3 <8.2 <8.3 <8.0 <8.4 <8.2 <7.9 <7.9 <8.0 <8.1210 2,600Isopropyl Alchohol<3.611<3.65.9 J<3.6 <3.55.5 J 8.0 J<3.5 <3.51,400 18,000Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) 16 13<4.116<4.1 <4.0 <3.98.8 J<4.0 <4.035,000 440,0004-Methyl-2-Pentanone<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.2 <1.3 <1.3 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.321,000 260,000Naphthalene3.4 J1.5 J<1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.3 <1.3 <1.4 <1.42.8 36Propene 530 120<1.7600 740<1.725<1.6 <1.7 <1.721,000 260,000Styrene<1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.7 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.67,000 88,000Tetrachloroethene 36 25 7.1 J 3.6 J 1.9 J<1.8 <1.717 9.4 8.4 280 3,500Tetrahydrofuran 3.2 3.0 J<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3<1.2 1.5 J<1.3 <1.314,000 180,000Toluene 67 320 43 400 22 2.4 J 11 1.0 J 1.5 J 1.7 J 35,000 440,000Trichloroethene 5.3 J26<2.53.0 J 3.5 J<2.4 <2.45.677 9414 180Trichlorofluoromethane 2.2 J 2.0 J<1.71.9 J<1.8 <1.72.0 J<1.6 <1.7 <1.7NE NE1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 6.6 21 5.8 18 4.0 J<2.2 <2.1 <2.1 <2.2 <2.2420 5,3001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.5 J 9.1 2.5 J 6.3 2.4 J<1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6420 5,300Vinyl Acetate1,400 18,000Vinyl Chloride<2.02.4 J<2.01.9 J5.9<1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.95.6 280o-Xylene 9.0 65 26 29 46<1.46.0<1.4 <1.4 <1.4700 8,800m,p-Xylene 19 180 52 96 97 1.6 J 13<1.3 <1.3 <1.3700 8,800Notes:1) North Carolinia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Vapor Intrusion Sub-Slab & Exterior Soil Gas Screening Levels (SGSLs) dated January 2023.Concentrations are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).Compound concentrations are reported to the laboratory method detection limits.Laboratory analytical method is shown in parentheses. Only compounds detected in at least one sample are shown in the above table.Bold values exceed the DWM Residential SGSL. Underlined values exceed the DWM Non-Residential SGSL. VOCs = volatile organic compounds; NE = not establishedJ = Estimated concentration that is above the laboratory method detction limit but below the laboratory reporting limit Screening CritriaEastern Proposed Apartment BuildingSubslab VaporExterior Soil Gas 9/2/2022µg/m3SSV-5 / DUP-SSVResidential SGSLs (1)Non-Residential SGSLs (1)https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Panorama Holdings - PHL/EMP/Tables/Combined Data Tables3/13/2023Table 4 (Page 2 of 2)Hart & Hickman, PC
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP ElevationProgram, Geographic Names Information System, National HydrographyDataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, andNational Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. CensusBureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S.Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA NationalCenters for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Datarefreshed August, 2021.
SITE LOCATION MAP
WEST MOREHEAD II BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY2131, 2211, AND 2233 W. MOREHEAD STREETCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 4-27-22
JOB NO: PHL-001
REVISION NO: 0
FIGURE NO: 1
2923 South Tryon Street - Suite 100Charlotte, North Carolina 28203704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
TITLE
PROJECT
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE IN FEET
SITE
Path: S:\AAA-Master Projects\Panorama Holdings - PHL\Figures\Figure-1.mxdN
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP
CHARLOTTE EAST, NORTH CAROLINA 2019CHARLOTTE WEST, NORTH CAROLINA 2019
QUADRANGLE7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
TMW-1
TMW-2
TMW-3
SB-3 / TMW-6
SB-2 / TMW-5
SB-1 / TMW-4
SB-3 / TMW-6
SB-2 / TMW-5
SB-1 / TMW-4
SB-4 / TMW-7
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO. PHL-001
DATE: 3-28-23
FIGURE NO. 2
WEST MOREHEAD II BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY
2131, 2211, AND 2233 W. MOREHEAD STREET
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE AND SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PARCEL BOUNDARY
TRENCH DRAIN
POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
DUMPSTER
AIR COMPRESSOR
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
CO-LOCATED SOIL BORING/
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
SUB-SLAB VAPOR SAMPLE
SOIL GAS SAMPLE
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SPACE ON
GROUND FLOOR
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SPACE ON
GROUND FLOOR
PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE
(APARTMENTS LOCATED ON UPPER
FLOORS OF WESTERN PARKING
STRUCTURE)
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(f)
License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
TABERNACLE GOD
APOSTOLIC CHURCH
(2208 W. MOREHEAD
STREET)
EAGLE LEAGUE TATTOO
(2206 W. MOREHEAD
STREET)
JOY MART/FORMER
WRIGHT CLEANING CO.
(2210-2216 W. MOREHEAD
STREET)
WIMS, INC.
(2132 W.
MOREHEAD
STREET)
BURGESS SALE & SUPPLY
(2121 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
PAINT
BOOTH
COLONY PARK WEST OFFICE COMPLEX
(2301 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
PRECISION WALLS
(2198 WILKINSON BOULEVARD)
THE BRYANT APARTMENT COMPLEX
(2020 MORTON STREET)
SANITARY SEWER
LIFT STATION
SEDIMENT TRAP
VACANT WAREHOUSE
(2001 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
W. M
OREHEAD STREET
MOR
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
GREENLAND
AVENUE
BOAT
RESTORATION
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
THE MARBLE & STONE SHOP
(WAREHOUSE/FABRICATION SHOP)
(2131 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
WOOD DESIGN
(2233 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
THE MARBLE & STONE SHOP (OFFICES)
(2211 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
VACANT
(2200 W. MOREHEAD STREET)
SSV-2
SSV-1
SSV-3
SSV-4
SSV-5
SG-1
SG-2
SG-3
SG-5
SG-4
SG-6
SG-7
SG-8
SG-9
SG-10
SG-11
SG-12
NOTES:
1.AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG
COUNTY GIS, 2022.
2.SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDED BY ORSBORN
ENGINEERING GROUP, DATED 12-02-22.BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
S:\AAA-Master Projects\Panorama Holdings - PHL\EMP\Figures\PHL-001_Site_Map_20230327.dwg, FIG 2, SVincent
Appendix A
Site Redevelopment Plan
MORTON STREET(50' R/W) (D.B. 36542, PG. 343)WEST MOREHEAD STREET(60' PUBLIC R/W)BURGESS BROTHERS, LLCWPCP JULIAN, LPHC BRYANT PARK, LLCEDGE AT BRYANT PARK OWNER, LLCWILKINSON PEAK, LLCMOST INVESTMENTSCOMMERCIAL, LLCCOLONY PARK WESTCONDOMINIUMS700
6856
8
5
700
685695690695
685
685 695710 710
700
705
FORAPPROVED BY:DRAWN BY:SCALE: DATE:JOB #DATE
September 20, 2022 - 2:39pm By: mmccoolP:\22008 Project M\Dwg\22008 C3.0 OVGRAD.dwgTHIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY ORSBORN ENGINEERING GROUP, PA SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO ORSBORN ENGINEERING GROUP, PA. REVISIONSC3.0OVERALL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
PROJECT FALCON
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
PANORAMA HOLDINGS, LLC
3540 TORINGDON WAY, STE. 200
CHARLOTTE, NC 282772200809/20/20221" = 30'MLMJCO.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. DRAINAGE & GRADING””LEGENDSTORM LEGEND
Appendix B
Cut/Fill Analysis
7
0
0
685700
685695690695685
685
695710 710700705 October 03, 2022 - 11:36am By: mmccoolP:\22008 Project M\Dwg\22008 BGRAD.dwgTHIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY ORSBORN ENGINEERING GROUP, PA SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO ORSBORN ENGINEERING GROUP, PA.EARTHWORK EXHIBIT (10/03/2022)FORPROJECT M