HomeMy WebLinkAbout16050_Windsor Oil_EMP_final 201603211
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
NORTH CAROLINA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
This form is to be used to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for projects in the
North Carolina Brownfields Program at the direction of a project manager for the program.
Prospective Developers and/or their consultants must complete and submit this form and all
pertinent attachments to their project manager prior to any site earthmoving or other
development related activities. For the resultant EMP to be valid for use, it must be completed,
reviewed by the program, and signed by all signers at the bottom. Consult your project
manager if you have questions.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: 3/21/2016
Brownfields Assigned Project Name: Royster-Clark – Windsor Oil Site
Brownfields Project Number: 16050-12-059
Brownfields Property Address: 721, 722 & 738 River Road, Williamston, Martin County, North Carolina
Brownfields Property Area (acres): 7.4
Is Brownfields Property Subject to RCRA Permit? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes enter Permit No.: Click here to enter text.
Is Brownfields Property Subject to a Solid Waste Permit? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, enter Permit No.: Click here to enter text.
COMMUNICATIONS
Prospective Developer (PD): Town of Williamston
Phone Numbers: Office: …..Mobile: Click here to enter text.
Email: Click here to enter text.
Primary PD Contact: Brent Kanipe
Phone Numbers: Office: 252-792-5142 ext 227 Mobile: Click here to enter text.
Email:
Environmental Consultant: Mid-Atlantic Associates
Phone Numbers: Office: 919-250-9918…..Mobile: Click here to enter text.
Email: dnielsen@maaonline.com
Brownfields Program Project Manager: Sharon Eckard
Office: 919-707-8379
2
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
Email: sharon.eckard@ncdenr.gov
Other DENR Program Contacts (if applicable, i.e., UST Section, Inactive Hazardous Site Branch,
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste): Click here to enter text.
NOTIFICATIONS TO THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
Advance Notification Times to Brownfields Project Manager: Check each box to accept minimum
notice periods (in calendar days) for each type of onsite task:
On-site assessment or remedial activities: Within 10 days ☒
Construction or grading start: Within 10 days ☒
Discovery of stained soil, odors, USTs, buried drums or waste, landfill, or other signs of previously
unknown contamination: Within 48 hours ☒
Implementation of emergency actions (e.g. dewatering, flood, or soil erosion control
measures in area of contamination, venting of explosive environments):
Within 48 hours ☒
Installation of mitigation systems: Within 10 days ☒
Other notifications as required by local, state or federal agencies to implement
redevelopment activities: (as applicable): Within 30 days ☒
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
1) Type of Redevelopment (check all that apply):
☐ Residential ☒ Recreational ☐ Institutional ☐ Commercial ☒ Office ☒Retail ☐ Industrial
☒ Other specify: restaurant, educational heritage center
2) Summary of Redevelopment Plans (attach conceptual or detailed plans as available):
a) Do plans include demolition of structure(s)?: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
b) Do plans include removal of building foundation slab(s) or pavement:
☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
c) Provide brief summary of redevelopment plans, including demolition, removal of building
slabs/pavement and other structures: Most structures have already been razed. Some
foundations and pavement have been displaced, but remain onsite. These materials will be
removed and disposed. Near surface soils known to contain petroleum in excess of Residential
Preliminary Soil Remedial Goals will be excavated, removed from the site and disposed at a
permitted facility. Clean backfill will be used in these areas to serve as a cap precluding
exposure to underlying soils that may contain petroleum. After demolition activities are
3
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
complete, the site will be redeveloped for recreational use as a riverside park and educational
heritage center.
3) Which category of risk-based screening level is used or is anticipated to be specified in the
Brownfields Agreement?
☒ Residential ☐ Non-residential or Industrial/Commercial
Note: If children frequent the property, residential screening levels shall be cited in the Brownfields
Agreement for comparison purposes.
4) Schedule for Redevelopment (attach construction schedule):
a) Phase I start date and anticipated duration (specify activities during each phase):
Click here to enter a date.
Phase I for this project is the demolition and remediation activities described above. These
activities are scheduled to start by March 31, 2016 with completion by August 31, 2016.
b) If applicable, Phase 2 start date and anticipated duration (specify activities during each
phase): Click here to enter a date.
Phase II of this project is the redevelopment as a riverside park and educational heritage
center. It is currently anticipated that these activities will be completed by March 31, 2018.
c) Additional phases planned? If yes, specify activities if known:
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Not in the foreseeable future ☐Decision pending
d) Provide the planned date of occupancy for new buildings: Click here to enter a date.
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Contaminated Media (attach tabulated data summaries for each impacted media and figure(s) with
sample locations):
Part 1. Soil: ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected
Part 2. Groundwater: ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected
Part 3. Surface Water: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected
Part 4. Sediment: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected
Part 5. Soil Vapor: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected
Part 6. Sub-Slab Soil Vapor: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected
Part 7. Indoor Air: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Suspected
4
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
PART 1. SOIL – Please fill out the information below, using detailed site plans, if available, or estimate
using known areas of contaminated soil and a conceptual redevelopment plan. Provide a figure
overlaying new construction onto figure showing contaminated soil and groundwater locations.
1) Known or suspected contaminants in soil (list specific compounds): Acenaphthalene, Benzene,
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 4-Isopropyltoluene, Lead, Ethylbenzene, Naphthalene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(g,h,i)pyrene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Phenanthrene,1-Methylnaphthalene TPH DRO, TPH
GRO, C5-8 Aliphatics, C9-C12 Aliphatics, C-12-C18 Aliphatics, C9-C10 Aromatics and C12-C22
Aromatics.
2) Depth of known or suspected contaminants (feet): Detections were generally in the 0 to 3 foot
deep range. Greater depths generally not tested, groundwater is approximately 7 feet bls.
3) Area of soil disturbed by redevelopment (square feet): Approximately 21,000 square feet to be
disturbed by excavation to remove petroleum impacted soil near the land surface.
4) Depths of soil to be excavated (feet): Excavation only planned for removal of petroleum impacted
soil from land surface to 1 foot bls. Excavation limited to 7 separate areas of the site within the two
parcels. See attached drawing with the estimated areal extent on excavation based on past soil data.
5) Estimated volume of soil (cubic yards) to be excavated (attach grading plan): 763. Analysis of
Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives attached (one for each parcel that comprise the site)
6) Estimated volume of excavated soil (cubic yards) anticipated to be impacted by contaminants:
763
7) Estimated volume of contaminated soil expected to be disposed of offsite, if applicable: 763
IMPORTED FILL SOIL
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? 763 cubic yards to backfill shallow
petroleum impacted soil removal. There is an open excavation on the site from previous
remediation work. 1,256 cubic yards of fill will be required to backfill existing excavation for a total
of 2,019 cubic yards
3) If yes, what is the depth of fill soil to be used at the property? The shallow surface soil excavation
will be filled with one foot of material. The existing excavation that will be backfilled ranges in depth
from 2 to 6 feet bls.
If a range of depths, please list the range.
4) PRIOR TO ITS PLACEMENT AT THE BROWNFIELDS PROPERTY, provide plan to analyze fill soil to
demonstrate that it meets acceptable standards and can be considered clean for use at the
Brownfields property (Check all that apply):
☒ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
☒ Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
☒ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium (speciated), mercury, lead,
selenium and silver)
☐ Metals –Hazardous Substance List -14 (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium
(speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc)
5
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
☐ Metals – EPA Priority Pollutant List – 13 (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (speciated
according to IHSB protocol), copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, silver, thallium, and
zinc)
☐ Other Constituents & Analytical Method: Click here to enter text.
☒ Known borrow material (DESCRIBE SOURCE AND ATTACH SAMPLING PROFILE): Borrow
material will be used to fill excavations conducted on site during the remediation of petroleum
impacted soil. Approximately 2,019 cubic yards of soil will be brought on site from the borrow source.
Prior to bringing the borrow material it will be tested for the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA
metals. If the borrow source is a demonstrated clean quarry site, the North Carolina Brownfields
Program will be consulted to determine what testing will be required. Approximately one soil sample
will be collected for every 200 cubic yards of borrow material brought to the subject site (ten total
samples anticipated). The borrow material will be brought to the subject site only after it has been
confirmed through this testing that it meets Residential Preliminary Soil Remedial Goals.
MANAGING ONSITE SOIL
1) If soil in known or suspected areas of contamination is anticipated to be excavated from the
Brownfield Property, relocated on the Brownfields Property,or otherwise disturbed during site
grading or other redevelopment activities, please provide a grading plan that clearly illustrates
areas of cut and fill (approximate areas & volumes are acceptable, if only preliminary data
available).
2) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION – Does the soil contain a LISTED WASTE as defined in the
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section under 40 CFR Part 261.31-261.35? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, explain why below, including the level of knowledge regarding processes generating the
waste( include pertinent analytical results as needed). Click here to enter text.
If yes, do the soils exceed the “Contained-Out” levels in Attachment 1 of the North Carolina
Contained-In Policy? ☐ Yes ☐ No
NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND EXCEEDS THE
CONTAINED-OUT LEVELS IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE NORTH CAROLINA CONTAINED-IN POLICY THE
SOIL MAY NOT BE RE-USED ON SITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DENR
HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
3) HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION – Does the soil contain a CHARACTERISTIC WASTE?:
☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, mark reason(s) why below (and include pertinent analytical results).
☐ Ignitability
☐ Corrosivity
☐ Reactivity
6
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
☐ 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: The contaminated soil identified at the subject site is the result of releases of
virgin petroleum products.
NOTE: IF SOIL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A CHARACTERISTIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE SOIL MAY NOT
BE RE-USED ON SITE AND MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH DENR HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION RULES AND REGULATIONS.
4) Screening criteria by which soil disposition decisions will be made (e.g., left in place, capped in
place with low permeability barrier, removed to onsite location and capped, removed offsite):
☒ Preliminary Health-Based Residential SRGs Click here to enter a date.
☐ Preliminary Health-Based Industrial/Commercial SRGs Click here to enter a date.
☐ Site-specific risk-based cleanup level, or acceptable concentrations determined via
calculated cumulative risk. Enter details of methods used for determination/explanation:
Click here to enter text.
5) Check the following action(s) to be taken during excavation and management of said soils:
☐ Manage fugitive dust from site:
☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, describe method; If no, explain rationale: Site is in a low damp area with historically
low dust level, therefore dust emmissions are not anticipated.
☐ Field Screening:
☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, describe method; If no, explain rationale: Areas of impacted soil have been adequately
defined by extensive historic soil sampling.
☐ Soil Sample Collection:
☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, describe method (e.g., in-situ grab, composite, stockpile, etc.); If no, explain rationale:
Areas of impacted soil have been adequately defined by extensive historic soil sampling. All borrow
material brought to the subject site will be tested prior to coming to the subject site.
☐ Stockpile impacted soil in accordance with NCDENR IHSB protocol in the current version of
the “Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup”, and providing erosion control, prohibiting
7
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
contact between surface water/precipitation and contaminated soil, and preventing
contaminated runoff. Explain any variances:
Click here to enter text.
☐ Analyze potentially impacted soil for the following chemical analytes:
☐ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
☐ Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
☐ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium (speciated), mercury,
lead, selenium and silver)
☐ Metals –Hazardous Substance List -14 (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium (speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc)
☐ Metals – EPA Priority Pollutant List – 13 (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium
(speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc)
☐ Other Constituent(s) & Analytical Method(s): Click here to enter text.
☐ Proposed Measures to Obtain Pre-Approval for Reuse of Impacted Soil within the
Brownfields Property Boundary
☐ Provide documentation of analytical report(s) to Brownfields Project Manager
☐ Provide documentation of final location, thickness and depth of relocated soil on
site map to Brownfields Project Manager once known
☐ Use geotextile to mark depth of fill material (provide description of material)
☒ Manage soil under impervious cap ☐ or clean fill ☒
Describe cap or fill: Each soil excavation area will be excavated to a depth of one foot.
Clean imported backfill (borrow material) will be placed in the excavation to prevent exposure
to underlying soil. (provide location diagram)
☐ Confer with NC BF Project Manager if Brownfield Plat must be revised (or re-
recorded if actions are Post-Recordation).
☐ Other: Click here to enter text.
☐ Final grade sampling of exposed soil (i.e., soil that will not be under buildings or permanent
hardscape): [if not checked provide rationale for not needing]
Provide diagram of soil sampling locations, number of samples, and denote Chemical
Analytical Program with check boxes below (Check all that apply):
☐ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260
☐ Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270
☐ Metals RCRA List (8) (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium (speciated), mercury,
lead, selenium and silver)
8
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
☐ Metals –Hazardous Substance List -14 (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium (speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc)
☐ Metals – EPA Priority Pollutant List – 13 (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium
(speciated according to IHSB protocol), copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc)
☐ Pesticides
☐ PCBs
☒ Other Constituents & Analytical Method: Phase I ESA activites identified historical
use of the site and probable source areas. Extensive near surface soil sampling (over 120 samples) has
been conducted at the subject site based on this identification of probable source areas. The results of
this work were used to identify the areas requiring remediation and areas that were tested and do not
show the presence of contamination. In addition, large portions of the site do not present an
exposure pathway because they are in low lying wetland areas, often inundated with water, and will
not be developed. All borrow material used to fill the new and existing excavations will be tested and
shown to meet IHSB Residential Preliminary Soil Remedial Goals prior to being brought on site. These
pre-remediation activities will eliminate the need for final grade sampling since the entire surface of
the site will either be unused marsh land, land with no historical evidence of being a source area, land
that has previously been tested and shown clean or land that has been filled with clean imported
borrow material.
OFFSITE TRANSPORT & DISPOSITION OF EXCAVATED SOIL
NOTE: Unless soil will be transported offsite for disposal in a permitted facility under applicable
regulations, no contaminated or potentially contaminated soil may leave the site without approval
from the brownfields program. Failure to obtain approval may violate a brownfields agreement,
endangering liability protections and making said action subject to enforcement. Justifications
provided below must be approved by the Program in writing prior to completing transport activities.
☒ Transport and dispose of impacted soil offsite (documentation of final disposition must be sent to
Brownfields Project Manager)
☐ Landfill – analytical program determined by landfill
☒ Landfarm or other treatment facility The soil excavated from the subject contains
petroleum compounds and will be disposed at petroleum-containing soil at a permitted land farm.
☐ Use as Beneficial Fill Offsite – provide justification: Click here to enter text.
☐ Use as Beneficial Fill at another Suitable Brownfields Site – (Note: a determination that a
site is a “Suitable Brownfields” site will require, at a minimum, that similar concentrations of the same
or similar contaminants already exist at both sites, use of impacted soil as beneficial soil will not
increase the potential for risk to human health and the environment at that site, and that notarized
documentation of the acceptance of such soil from the property owner of the receiving site is
provided to Brownfields. Provide justification: Click here to enter text.
MANAGEMENT OF UTILITY TRENCHES
☐ Install liner between native impacted soils and base of utility trench before filling with clean fill
(Preferred)
9
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
☐ Last out, first in principle for impacted soils (if soil can safely be reused onsite and is not a
hazardous waste), i.e., impacted soils are placed back at approximately the depths they were
removed from such that impacted soil is not placed at a greater depth than the original depth from
which it was excavated.
☐ Evaluate whether necessary to install barriers in conduits to prevent soil vapor transport, and/or
degradation of conduit materials due to direct impact with contaminants? Result: Yes □ No □
If no, include rationale here. Click here to enter text.
If yes, provide specifications on barrier materials
Other comments regarding managing impacted soil in utility trenches: The use of utility trenches in
areas of known impacted soil contamination are not anticipated with redevelopment of this site.
PART 2. GROUNDWATER – Please fill out the information below and attach figure showing
distribution of groundwater contaminants at site
What is the depth to groundwater at the Brownfields Property? Approximately 7 feet
Is groundwater known to be contaminated by ☒onsite ☐ offsite ☐ both ☐ or unknown sources?
Describe source(s): Historical petroleum storage in above and below ground tanks.
What is the direction of groundwater flow at the Brownfields Property? Northeast, generally towards
the Roanoke River.
Will groundwater likely be encountered during planned redevelopment activities? ☒ Yes ☐ No
If yes, describe these activities: A boardwalk is planned along the rivers edge. Groundwater and
surface water coincide in the area where the boardwalk is planned. Support structures for the
boardwalk will penetrate into the water table. However, we do not anticipate that contaminated
groundwater is present in this area of the subject site and exposure to groundwater during
installation of support structures will be negligible.
In the event that contaminated groundwater is encountered during redevelopment activities (even if
no is checked above), list activities for contingent management of groundwater (e.g., dewatering of
groundwater from excavations or foundations, containerizing, offsite disposal, discharge to sanitary
sewer, or sampling procedures): In the event petroleum impacted groundwater is encountered, work
will cease and an environmental consultant will be called to evaluate the situation. Since
development plans do not call for structures requiring deep foundations (aside from the piers for the
boardwalk), excavations or utility trenches this scenario appears unlikely.
PART 3. SURFACE WATER – Please fill out the information below.
Attach a map showing the location of surface water at the Brownfields Property.
10
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
Is surface water at the property known to be contaminated: ☐ Yes ☒ No
Will workers or the public be in contact with surface water during planned redevelopment activities?
☒ Yes ☐ No
In the event that contaminated surface water is encountered during redevelopment activities, or
clean surface water enters open excavations, list activities for management of such events (e.g.
flooding, contaminated surface water run-off, stormwater impacts): Workers will be exposed to
surface water while constructing the boardwalk. In the event petroleum impacted surface water is
encountered, work will cease and an environmental consultant will be called to evaluate the
situation.
PART 4. SEDIMENT – Please fill out the information below.
Is sediment at the property known to be contaminated: ☐ Yes ☒ No
Will workers or the public be in contact with sediment during planned redevelopment activities?
☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, attach a map showing location of known contaminated sediment at the property.
In the event that contaminated sediment is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such events (stream bed disturbance): Workers will be exposed to river
bank soil while constructing the boardwalk. In the event petroleum impacted river bank soil is
encountered, work will cease and an environmental consultant will be called to evaluate the
situation.
PART 5. SOIL VAPOR – Please fill out the information below.
Do concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the Brownfields property exceed the following
vapor intrusion screening levels in the following media:
IHSB Residential Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
Groundwater: ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Screening Levels:
Soil Vapor: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unknown
Groundwater: ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
11
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
Attach a map showing the location of soil vapor contaminants that exceed site screening levels.
If applicable, at what depth(s) is soil vapor known to be contaminated?
Will workers encounter contaminated soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities (trenches,
manways, basements or other subsurface work, list activities for management of such contact: In the
event soil gas is encountered, work will cease and an environmental consultant will be called to
evaluate the situation.
PART 6. SUB-SLAB SOIL VAPOR -please fill out the information below if existing buildings or
foundations will be retained in the redevelopment.
Are sub-slab soil vapor data available for the Brownfields Property? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
If data indicate that sub-slab soil vapor concentrations exceed screening levels, attach a map showing
the location of these exceedances.
At what depth(s) is sub-slab soil vapor known to be contaminated? ☒ 0-6 inches ☐ Other, If other
describe: Sub slab soil gas assessment was conducted at the one subject site structure. Test results
show residential sub slab soil gas screening levels were not exceeded as described in the July 19, 2014
email sent to the NCBF program.
Will workers encounter contaminated sub-slab soil vapor during planned redevelopment activities?
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
In the event that contaminated soil vapor is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact: A site-specific risk analysis for the use of the current on-
site building was submitted via email to Sharon Eckard of the NCBP on July 29, 2014. There are
currently no plans for additional structures at the site based on its proposed redevelopment. In the
event sub-slab soil gas is encountered, work will cease and an environmental consultant will be called
to evaluate the situation.
12
EMP Form ver.1, October 23, 2014
PART 7. INDOOR AIR – Please fill out the information below .
Are indoor air data available for the Brownfields Property? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
If yes, attach a map showing the location where indoor air contaminants exceed site screening levels.
If the structures where indoor air has been documented to exceed risk-based screening levels will not
be demolished as part of redevelopment activities, will workers encounter contaminated indoor air
during planned redevelopment activities?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
In the event that contaminated indoor air is encountered during redevelopment activities, list
activities for management of such contact: Sub-slab data previously collected beneath the on-site
structure and a subsequent site-specific risk assessment does not suggest that vapor intrusion
conditions exist for this structure. In the event contaminated indoor air is encountered, work will
cease and an environmental consultant will be called to evaluate the situation.
PART 8 – Vapor Mitigation System – Please fill out the information below .
Is a vapor intrusion mitigation system proposed for this Brownfields Property?
☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unknown
If yes, provide the date the plan was submitted to the Brownfields Program.
Click here to enter a date.
Attach the plan.
Has the vapor mitigation plan been approved by the NC Brownfields Program?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
Has the vapor mitigation plan been signed and sealed by a North Carolina professional engineer? ☐
Yes ☐ No
What are the components of the vapor intrusion mitigation system?
☐ Sub-slab depressurization system
☐ Sub-membrane depressurization system
☐ Block-wall depressurization system
☐ Drain tile depressurization system
☐ Passive mitigation methods
☐ Vapor barriers
☐ Perforated piping vented to exterior
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
FORMER WINDSOROIL SITE
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK SITE
ROANO
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO:
REFERENCES:SCALE:
JANUARY 2016
000R2284.01 T2000
04G-R2284.01 T2000-2
1. PARCEL LINE DATA AND 2012 AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP. 2. MID-ATLANTIC FIELD NOTES.0 100 200Feet1:1,200
LEGEND
PARCEL LINES
!.SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
AREA OF PLANNED EXCAVATION
UST SOIL EXCAVATION AREA TO BE BACKFILLED
´
2
AREAS PLANNED FOR SOIL REMEDIATIONFORMER ROYSTER-CLARK AND WINDSOR OIL SITEWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRA
F
T