20034_Metrolina Expo_Phase I and II ESA_20001113

Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment
Metrolina Fairgrounds Property
7100 Statesville Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
November 13, 2000
TURNER HART & HICKMAN, PC
501 Minuet Lane, Suite JOI
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
[phone] Fax [phone]
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 1
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Purpose and Scope of Services .............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Methodology Used ................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment.. ......................................................................... 6
2.4 Special Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................... 6
3.0 Site and Area Description ...................................................................................................... 7
3.1 General Site Description and Use .......................................................................................... 7
3.2 Description of Site Structures and Improvements ................................................................. 7
3.3 Property Owner, Manager, and Occupants ............................................................................ 8
3.4 Vicinity Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 8
3.5 Physical (Geologic) Setting ................................................................................................... 9
4.0 Records Revie,v ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ........................................................................... .11
4.1.1 Federal Records ............................................................................................................. 11
4.1.2 State Records ................................................................................................................. 15
4.1.3 Other Records Review (Including Land Fann) ............................................................. 20
4.2 Historical Use Information .................................................................................................. 25
4.2.1 Aerial Photographs ........................................................................................................ 25
4.2.2 City Directories and Fire Insurance Maps ..................................................................... 27
4.2.3 Other Sources ................................................................................................................ 27
4.2.4 Historical Use Sun1n1ary ................................................................................................... 28
s·\aaa master archives\mlb-01\m!b-Ol phi & ii2 doc
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
5.0 Site Reconnaissance and Intervie,vs .................................................................................... 29
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ............................................................................... 29
5.2 Hazardous Substances and Identified Uses ......................................................................... 29
5.3 Storage Tanks and Smnps .................................................................................................... 29
5.4 Water and Wastewater Issues .............................................................................................. 30
5.5 Indications of PCBs ............................................................................................................. 31
5.6 Indications of Solid Waste Disposal. ................................................................................... 32
5.7 Asbestos-Containing Materials ............................................................................................ 33
5.8 Surface Conditions .............................................................................................................. 34
5.9 Stormwater .......................................................................................................................... 34
6.0 Sampling Activities ............................................................................................................... 36
6.1 Land Application Area Sampling Activities ........................................................................ 36
6.2 Diesel UST Area Sampling Activities ................................................................................ .40
7.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 42
8.0 Signatures of Environmental Professionals ........................................................................ 47
9.0 Qualifications of Environmental Professionals Conducting the Phase I ESA ............... .48
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
List of Tables
Monitor Well Data Summary
Ground Water Sampling Analytical Results
Soil Sampling Field Screening Results
Soil Sampling Analytical Results -Land Faim Application Area
Soil Sampling Analytical Results -Diesel Underground Storage Tank Area
11
s:\a.aa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2.doc R
Site Location Map
Site Map
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Land Application Area Sampling Locations
UST Area Sampling Locations
List of Appendices
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B VISTA Environmental Database Report
Appendix C Phase II ESA Laboratory Analytical Data
Appendix D Land Fann Permit
Appendix E Former Aviation Fuel UST Closure Information
Appendix F Untested Land Farm Cell Locations
Appendix G Recent Land Farm Monitoring Data
Appendix H Wastewater Lagoon Information
111
s:\aaa master archives\rnlb-Ol\rnlb-01 phi & ii2 doc.
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment
Metrolina Fairgrounds Property
7100 Statesville Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
1.0 Findings, Opinions and Conclusions
Turner Hart & Hickman, PC (TH&H) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) in general confonnance with the scope and limitations of ASTM-E 1527-00 of the
Metrolina Fairgrounds property located at 7100 Statesville Road in Charlotte, North Carolina and
approximately 4 acres of the adjacent property currently owned by Metrolina Mini-Storage
( collectively referred to as the "subject property"). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this
practice are described in this report. TH&H also conducted Phase II ESA sampling to further
evaluate potential environmental concerns. The results of the Phase I and II assessment have
revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property
except for the following:
• The subject property is identified by VISTA on the leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
and Spills databases. A review of information concerning these database reports indicates
that three gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in
August 1994. The USTs were associated with a former airstrip located in the southern
portion of the site. Soil contamination by gasoline-range total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH) at a concentration of 592 mg/kg was identified in closure samples beneath the USTs.
Approximately 1,250 cubic yards of impacted soils were reportedly removed from an area
encompassing the former UST basins and associated dispenser island. Based on soil samples
collected after soil was removed, which indicated no detectable concentrations of TPH, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued a closure letter
dated April 20, 19995 stating that "no further action is required at this time." Based on the
confirmation sampling results and closed status of the fonner UST incident, no further
assessment or remediation associated with the former USTs appears warranted.
s,\.aaa master archives\mlb~O l \mlb~O l ph i & ii2.doc
• A kerosene aboveground storage tank (AST) is located in the site maintenance area. The
AST is situated over an unpaved storage area and is not equipped with secondary
containment. No staining was observed in the vicinity of the AST at the time of the site visit.
Recommendation: TH&H recommends placement of secondary containment beneath the
kerosene AST as a release prevention measure if this AST is to be used.
• One approximately 3,000-gallon diesel UST and associated fueling dispenser are located in
the maintenance area. The UST is utilized for fueling maintenance vehicles and therefore is a
regulated UST which requires registration, annual permitting, and upgrades to meet current
leak detection and spill protection regulations. Based upon our review, this UST does not
appear to be registered or upgraded in accordance with DENR requirements. To determine
the potential for impact from the UST system, TH&H collected three soil samples in the
vicinity of the UST and associated dispenser. Neither gasoline-range nor diesel-range TPH
were not detected in any of the three UST area soil samples. Based upon the soil sample
results, there is no evidence to indicate that a significant release has occurred from the UST.
Recommendation: TH&H recommends that the diesel UST be properly closed or brought
into compliance with applicable DENR regulations.
• A former sanitary wastewater lagoon was used on the subject property prior to about 1992.
No closure letter for this lagoon was identified in DENR's files and the location of sludge
reported to have been removed from the lagoon is unknown. Because the wastewater lagoon
reportedly only treated domestic wastewater, the potential for property impact from the
lagoon appears to be low.
• TH&H conducted a visual asbestos survey of the site buildings on October 27, 2000 to
identify potential asbestos containing building materials. In accordance with our authorized
scope of work, potential asbestos containing building materials were not sampled. Potential
asbestos containing building materials were observed in Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 and in a
2
s.\.aaa master archives\mlb~Ol\mlb~OI phi & ii2 doc
restroom building adjacent to an off-site speedway. TH&H observed the potential asbestos
containing building materials to be in good condition at the time of the site visit.
Recommendation: TH&H recommends that potential asbestos containing materials be
sampled by a certified asbestos inspector prior to renovation or demolition activities which
would disturb the materials. If asbestos containing materials are identified, they should be
managed in accordance with a site-specific Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan.
• An approximate 19-acre portion of a permitted 26-acre petroleum-contaminated soil land
application farm (land farm) is operated on the subject property by DeBruhl Environmental
Excavating, Inc. The land farm is permitted by DENR and requires soil sample
documentation, ground water monitoring, and post-treatment soil sampling. Contaminated
soils are spread over an area and treatment occurs by promoting biodegradation and
volatilization of soil contaminants. Environmental concerns associated with the land farm
are described in this rep01i including a potential infringement of a permit-specified 50 ft
buffer in the area of treatment cell 564. Approximately three acres of the land farm are still
undergoing treatment, with the remaining on-site areas indicated to have completed
treatment. TH&H sampled soils within those portions of the land farm where soil treatment
was reported to be complete. Results of the soil samples indicated the presence of diesel-
range total petroleum hydrocarbons and oil and grease above permitted treatment levels and
DENR action levels in some areas.
Recommendations: TH&H recommends that the property boundary location relative to
treatment cell 564 be detem1ined to assess if the 50 ft buffer condition has been violated. If
the land farm is in violation of this condition, the soils should be removed to comply with the
boundary requirements.
TH&H recommends that additional samples be collected in the land fam1 area on a grid
where treatment is indicated to be complete to refine the areas in need of further treatment.
Upon determination of the areas requiring further treatment, TH&H recommends that those
3
s:\aaa master archivcs'im!b-Ol\mlb-Ol phi & ii2 doc
area be treated using land fam1ing techniques. Because some of the areas of the land farm
have received multiple soil applications, the soil thickness requiring treatment will likely be
larger than the 6 to 8 inches that has typically been treated. Therefore, larger tilling
equipment may be required which is capable of treating soils up to approximately 24 inches
in depth.
TH&H also recommends that confirmation samples be collected after treatment is indicated
to be complete by DeBruhl in those treatment cells still undergoing active treatment.
4
s·\aaa master archives\mlb-OJ\mlb-01 phi & ii2 doc R RT
2.0 Introduction
This rep011 presents the results of a Phase I and II ESA of the Metrolina Fairgrounds property
located at 7100 Statesville Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. The results of the Phase I ESA are
presented in Sections 1.0 through 5.0, and the Phase II ESA sampling results are provided in
Section 6.0. This assessment was conducted for Daily Mail and General Trust pie in accordance
with our authorized scope of work.
2.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this assessment was to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the processes
prescribed herein, recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Such
environmental conditions include the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or
petroleum products on the property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past
release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products m
structures on the property, or into the ground, ground water, or surface water on the property.
2.2 Methodology Used
The Phase I ESA portion of this project was performed in general conformance with ASTM
procedure E 1527-00, Standard Practice for ESAs: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process. The Phase I ESA process consisted of four tasks: records review, interviews with
current property owners/occupants, site and area reconnaissance, and evaluation and report
preparation.
5
S'\aaa master archives\rnlb-Ol\mfb-01 phi & ii2,doc
2.3 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment
The following items were beyond the scope of this assessment and thus were not addressed in
this report: cultural, historical, and archaeological sites survey; asbestos sampling; radon testing;
sampling of drinking water; wetlands; and lead-based paint survey.
2.4 Special Terms and Conditions
The conclusions presented in this report are professional opm1ons, based solely upon visual
observations of the site and vicinity and our interpretation of the available historical information,
documents reviewed, and analytical results as described in this report. They are intended
exclusively for the purpose outlined herein, the site location, and the project indicated. This
report is intended for the sole use of Daily Mail and General Trust plc and Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP. The scope of services performed in execution of this investigation may not be
appropriate to satisfy the needs of other users, and any use or re-use of this document or the
findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented herein is at the sole risk of said user. Any
unauthorized use or re-use of this document is at sole risk of said user.
It should be recognized that this study was not intended to be a definitive investigation of
contamination at the subject property. It is possible that currently unrecognized contamination
may exist at the site. Opinions and recommendations presented herein apply to site conditions
existing at the time of our investigation and those reasonably foreseeable. They necessarily
cannot apply to site changes of which TH&H is unaware and has not had the opportunity to
evaluate.
6
s.\aaa master arcl1ives'm!b-O l \mlb~O I ph i & ii2 doc
3.0 Site and Area Description
3.1 General Site Description and Use
The subject site is located at 7100 Statesville Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. The site
consists of approximately 95 acres of land and contains a total of approximately 151,000 ft2 of
office and warehouse space. The property is utilized as a fairgrounds for various exhibitions.
The central portion of the site contains exhibition warehouses and the northwestern and
southeastern portions of the site are undeveloped grassed land utilized for parking. A former
domestic wastewater lagoon is located in a wooded area in the northwestern portion of the site.
Approximately 19 acres in the northernmost portion of the site have been utilized for treatment
of petroleum-contaminated soils by land fam1ing. A site location map and site layout map are
included as Figures 1 and 2, respectively.
3.2 Description of Site Structures and Improvements
The subject property contains approximately 21 metal-frame warehouse exhibition buildings
and/or open exhibition sheds (or "malls") in the central portion of the property. A trailer and
three open sheds are situated in the maintenance area to the north of the warehouse buildings.
The trailer is utilized as a residence. The 21 exhibition buildings are primarily constructed of
sheet metal on concrete slab. The roofs of these buildings are composed of metal supported by
steel framing. The three sheds in the maintenance area are constructed of wood and sheet metal
with metal roofs.
Building 1 is an approximate 40,000 ft2 warehouse building that primarily consists of showroom
space, with an office area and cafeteria areas in the southwestern and southeastern comers.
Buildings 2 and 3 are large (approximately 15,000 ft2 to 20,000 ft2) showrooms connected by an
approximate 15,000 ft2 open mall area. Building 4 is an approximate 2,700 ft2 showroom
adjacent to Building 2. Buildings 5 through 8 and 10 through 18 are two separate rows of 3,000
ft 2 showrooms located to the south and southeast of Buildings 1 through 4. An open shed is
7
s:\aaa master archives\mib-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2_doc
located between these two rows of buildings. Buildings 19 and 20 are cinderblock mini-storage
buildings located to the southeast of Buildings 5 through 18. No Building 9 exists. Several
smaller structures such as restrooms, admission booths and guard houses are also located on the
property.
The subject site is accessed from Statesville Road in the western portion of the site and from Old
Statesville Road in the southeastern portion of the site. The site is asphalt-paved in the area
surrounding the showroom buildings, with asphalt-paved driveways extending through grassed
parking areas in the southwestern portion of the site. Grass-covered areas with asphalt and gravel
driveways and woods make up the northern third of the subject site. A chain-linked security
fence surrounds most of the central and northern portions of the site.
3.3 Property Owner, Manager, and Occupants
The subject site has been owned and operated as Metrolina Fair Ltd. by Ms. Linda Hackney since
approximately 1983. The site is primarily used as a marketplace for various commercial
exhibitions and concerts.
3.4 Vicinity Characteristics
The subject property is bordered to the north by Long Creek Business Park, to the northeast and
east by wooded and residential areas, to the southeast by the Metrolina Speedway, to the
southwest by Con-Way Southern Express, NAPA Auto Parts and Metrolina Mini Storage, to the
west by Statesville Road with Mecklenburg Equipment Company (MEC) and Briggs Equipment
located beyond, and to the northwest by wooded areas and Wilson Trucking Company.
According to the Derita, No1ih Carolina United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
quadrangle map dated 1993, the general topographic gradient is to the northeast. The prope1iy
elevation, based on the topographic map, is estimated at 810 feet above mean sea level.
8
s:\aaa master archives'mlb-01 \mlb~O l ph i & ii2 doc .\' !'(
3.5 Physical (Geologic) Setting
The Charlotte area, including the subject property, is located within the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina. The subject property lies within the upland section of the Piedmont,
which is an uplifted, submaturely to maturely dissected peneplain formed upon moderately
resistant rocks. The land surface of the Charlotte area is characterized by a series of fairly level
interstream areas that become hilly near the larger streams.
The Piedmont physiographic provmce is underlain by a complex sequence of igneous and
metamorphic rocks that are subdivided into geologic belts. Each belt is distinguished by an
assemblage of rock types that are associated with a certain degree of metamorphism. The belts
trend northeastward and metamorphic grade increases toward the west. The subject site lies
within the Charlotte Belt Hydrogeologic Unit of the Piedmont. The basement rocks of the
Charlotte Belt include metavolcanics, gneiss, metamorphosed granite, metagabbro, granite, and
gab bro.
In the Piedmont, the bedrock is overlain by a mantle of weathered rock or saprolite. The
saprolite consists of unconsolidated clay, silt, and sand with lesser amounts of rock fragments.
Due to the range of parent rock types and their variable susceptibility to weathering, the saprolite
ranges widely in color, texture, and thickness. Generally, the saprolite is thickest near
interstream divides and thins toward stream beds. In profile, the saprolite nonnally grades from
clayey soils near the land surface to highly weathered rock above the competent bedrock.
The occurrence and movement of ground water in the Piedmont is within two separate but
interconnected water-bearing zones. A shallow water-bearing zone occurs within the saprolite
and a deeper zone within the underlying bedrock.
Ground water in the shallow saprolite zone occurs in the interstitial pore spaces between the
grains comprising the saprolite soils. Ground water in this zone is typically under water table or
9
s:\aaa master archives\mlb-Ol\mlb-01 phi & ii2 doc
unconfined conditions. Ground water movement is generally lateral from recharge areas to small
streams which serve as localized discharge points.
The occurrence and movement of ground water in the underlying water-bearing zone ,vithin the
crystalline bedrock is controlled by secondary joints, fractures, and faults within the bedrock. On
a regional scale, the direction of ground water flow is typically from uplands to major streams
and ground water sinks. The saprolite has a higher porosity than the bedrock and serves as a
reservoir which supplies water to a network of fractures in the bedrock.
10
s \aaa master archivcs\m!b~O I \rnlb-01 ph i & ii2 doc LR
4.0 Records Review
4.1 Standard Environmental Recor·d Sources
TH&H utilized VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. (VISTA), an environmental database search
service company, for a cursory review of Federal and State environmental regulatory database
files regarding regulated facilities within the ASTM search radii. A copy of the VISTA database
search is included as Appendix B. The following databases were searched by VISTA on October
16, 2000.
4.1.1 Federal Records
• National Priorities List (NPL) -The NPL is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) database of the nation's worst uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
identified for remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (Superfund Act). The database was last
updated in April 2000.
VISTA reported no NPL sites within a 1.0-mile radius of the subject site.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) -The CERCLIS list is a compilation by the EPA of sites that the EPA has
investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA. This database was last updated in April
2000.
VISTA reported no CERCLIS sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject site.
• NFRAP Summary (NFRAP) -The No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) data is a
collection of sites removed from CERCLIS where, following an initial investigation, no
11
s.\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2 doc /!,.\fl?
contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site
to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal
Superfund Action. NFRAP sites have been investigated by EPA and the States, and EPA
plans no further federal action. Some of the sites were removed because States or potentially
responsible parties are addressing remedial actions. The database was last updated in April
2000.
VISTA reported no NF RAP sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject property.
• CORRACTS -This is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective Action Activity. This report
includes corrective action core events that have occuned for handlers with corrective action
activity. The CORRACTS database was last updated in March 2000.
VISTA reported no CORRACTS site within a 1.0-mile radius of the subject site.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage, or Disposal (TSD)
Facility data is obtained from the RCRA Information System (RCRIS). RCRIS contains data
compiled for RCRA and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, EPA Form 8700-12, was the initial instrument for
collecting the data. The file was updated with information compiled from the Application for
a Hazardous Waste Part A Permit, EPA Form 8700-23. TSD sites are defined in 40 CFR
260.10 as any facility that treats, stores, or disposes of RCRA regulated hazardous waste.
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (CME) data available to the public excludes
enforcement sensitive data defined as: (1) Enforcement records representing referrals to the
Department of Justice or State Attorney General; (2) Evaluations which identify violations
and no written notice or formal enforcement action has been taken; and (3) Evaluations
which do not identify violations (and may still be under review). The database was last
updated in March 2000.
VISTA reported no RCRIS TSD facilities within a 1.0-mile radius of the property.
12
s·\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-O! phi & ii2 doc Nl
• RCRA Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) -This is a compilation by the EPA of facilities
which generate at least 1000 kilograms per month of non-acutely hazardous waste, or 1
kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. The database was last updated in March
2000.
VISTA reported no RCRA LQGs within a 0.25-mile radius of the subject property.
• RCRA Small Quantity Generators (SQGs)-This is a compilation by the EPA of facilities that
generate more than 100 but less than 1000 kilograms of non-acutely hazardous, or less than 1
kilogram of acutely hazardous waste per month. The database was last updated in March
2000.
VISTA reported one RCRA SQG within 0.25 mile of the subject site. Mecklenburg
Equipment Company (MEC) located at 7203 Statesville Road is situated west and directly
across Statesville Avenue from the entrance to the subject site. MEC's inclusion on the
RCRA SQG database is discussed further in the RCRIS-Violations database summary below.
• RCRIS-Violations (RCRIS-VIOL) -This database includes information on RCRIS facilities
with violations. The database was last updated in March 2000.
VISTA reported one RCRIS-VIOL site within a 0.25-mile radius of the subject property.
MEC is reported by VISTA as a RCRA-Violation site with generator incidents reported on
November 23, 1994 and October 19, 1995. The specific nature of the incidents was not
reported. Regarding the first violation, compliance is reported to have been obtained on
January 4, 1995. Regarding the second violation, compliance is reported to have been
obtained on April 24, 1997. Due to the resolution of the RCRA, violations and the lack of
other reported environmental incidents, the potential for impact to the site is considered low.
• Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) -This list is a national database used to
collect information on repmied releases of hazardous substances, including petroleum. The
13
s:\aaa master archives\mlb~Ol'1mlb-OI phi & ii2.doc
database contains information from spill reports made to federal authorities including the
EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Response Center, and the Department of
Transportation. The database was last updated in August 1999.
VISTA reported one ERNS site within 0.25 mile of the subject site. The Duke Power site
located at 7005 Statesville Road was fonnerly situated directly across Statesville A venue
from the subject site. On February 5, 1993, 5 gallons of ethylene glycol were reportedly
spilled onto surface soils at the Duke Power site. TH&H previously reviewed a Duke Power
Chemical Release Report that confirmed that 3 to 5 gallons of ethylene glycol were spilled
from a 55-gallon drum staged in a drum storage area. According to the Duke Power report,
the impacted soils were placed in a DOT approved drum for disposal off-site. Due to the
small spill volume and the excavation of affected soils, the potential for impact to the subject
property appears to be low.
• Toxics Release Inventory System (TRIS) -This is a list compiled by the EPA of the amounts
of over 410 toxic chemicals that manufacturers release directly to air, water or land, or are
transferred to off-site facilities that treat or dispose of wastes. The database is updated
annually but requires approximately two years to update and verify before becoming
available to the public. The date of the government version is January 1998.
VISTA reported no TRIS sites within a 1.0-mile radius of the subject site.
• Facility Index System (FINDS)-contains both facility information and "pointers" to other
sources that contain more detail. VISTA includes the following FINDS databases in this
report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System),
DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection
Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions
for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State
14
s:\aaa master archives\mlb-O!\mlb-01 phi & ii2 doc
Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). The date of the
government version is February 1999.
VISTA reported three FINDS sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject site. The
Mecklenburg Equipment Company is identified by VISTA as RCRA Small Quantity
Generator and a RCRA Violations site and is discussed above in those sections. The other
two sites are A.G. Boone Sales and Service located at 6634 Statesville Road and Springs
Service Alignment Co. located at 6613 Statesville Road. These two facilities are situated
greater than 0.25 mile from the subject site. Due to the distance of these two sites from the
subject property, the potential for impact to the subject site is low.
4.1.2 State Records
• State Priorities List (SPL) -The SPL database is the State's equivalent of the NPL and is
provided by the North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Superfund Section. The database was last updated in November 1998.
VISTA identified no SPL sites within a 1.0-mile radius of the subject property.
• State CERCLIS List (SCL) -The SCL database is the State's equivalent of CERCLIS and is
provided by the DENR Superfund Section. The database was last updated in November
1998.
VISTA reported no SCL sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject property.
• North Carolina UST Summary -Registered Underground Storage Tank (UST) data are
obtained from DENR. This infom1ation includes facility, owner, and tank information as
submitted on registration forms. The database was last updated in July 1999.
15
s:\aaa master archives\mlb-Ol\mlb-01 phi & ii2.doc
VISTA reported three UST facilities within a 0.25-mile radius of the subject site. The Duke
Power Corporate Rebuild Facility (CRF) is reported by VISTA to be located at 7005
Statesville Road, which is directly across Statesville Road from the subject site (also
discussed in the SPILLS, LUST and ERNS summaries). This listing indicates that one 2,000-
gallon gasoline UST and one 2,000-gallon diesel UST manufactured of fiberglass reinforced
plastic are located at CRF and that one 500-gallon steel waste oil UST was removed from
CRF.
TH&H previously reviewed an incident file for the CRF facility at the DENR Mooresville
Regional Office (MRO). According to the reviewed information, two former 2,000-gallon
USTs (one gasoline and one diesel) were removed from the site in 1988 and were replaced by
similar-sized USTs. A 550-gallon waste oil UST and associated oil-water separator were
removed in December 1996. Releases have occurred from the 2,000-gallon gasoline UST
and the 550-gallon waste oil UST. These incidents are discussed further in the leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) section below.
Con-Way Southern Express at 7001 Statesville Road was formerly located across Statesville
Road west of the site. The VISTA report indicates that two 10,000-gallon diesel USTs and
one 1,000-gallon oil UST were removed from the site but no incidents were reported. Based
on the lack of reported incident, the potential for impact to the subject site appears to be low.
Duke Power Company on Highway 21 North is reported by VISTA to be located 0.04 mile
northwest of the subject site. This is most likely the same location as the Duke Power CRF
facility listed at 7005 Statesville Road, which is directly across from the subject site
(discussed further in the Spills, LUST and ERNS summaries). The VISTA report indicates
that a 2000-gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000-gallon gasoline UST were removed from the
site but no incidents were reported for these US Ts. Based on the lack of reported incident,
the potential for impact to the subject site from these USTs appears to be low.
16
s.\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-OJ phi & ii2.doc
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports -The LUST reports contain an
inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The database was last
updated December 1999.
Subject Site
According to the VISTA report, three gasoline USTs were removed from the property in
August 1994. TH&H reviewed an incident file for the subject site at the DENR Mooresville
Office. The incident file confirmed that one 4,000-gallon gasoline and two 2,000-gallon
gasoline USTs associated with a former airfield located on the site were removed from the
southern portion of the property (see Figure 2). Soil contamination by gasoline-range total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) at a concentration of 592 mg/kg was identified in closure
samples beneath the USTs.
Approximately 1,250 cubic yards of impacted soils were reportedly removed from an area
encompassing the former UST basins and associated dispenser island. Soils were excavated
to a maximum depth of 30 feet below grade. A total of five closure samples were collected
from the excavation side walls and base for confirmation of impacted soil removal. None of
the closure samples indicated the presence of gasoline-range TPH above DENR's 10 mg/kg
action level.
Based on the closure results, DENR issued a closure letter dated April 20, 1995 stating that
"no further action is required at this time." Information concerning the UST incident is
provided in Appendix E. Based on the confirmation sampling results and closed status of the
incident, no further assessment or remediation in association with the former USTs appears
warranted.
Off-Site LUST Incidents
VISTA reported three additional LUST facilities within a 0.5 mile radius of the subject site.
17
::r\;i.aa mas1er archives\m!b-01\mlb~Ol phi & ii2.doc r
Duke Power at 7005 Statesville Road is identified in the VISTA report as having a leaking
2000-gallon gasoline UST (with a release date of May 1988) and a leaking 550-gallon waste
oil UST (with a release date of December 1996). TH&H reviewed information regarding the
Duke Power LUST incidents at the DENR Mooresville office. The following inf01mation
was obtained:
A former leaking 2,000-gallon gasoline UST was situated within a UST basin adjacent to a
2,000-gallon diesel UST. VISTA reported that the 2,000-gallon gasoline UST failed a tank
tightness test in May 1988. According to reports provided by Duke Power, 620 gallons of
gasoline were released at that time. Petroleum related hydrocarbons have been detected in
soil and ground water in the vicinity of this UST basin. Maximum soil total petroleum
hydrocarbon concentrations detected in 1988 were 2,800 mg/kg. Ground water impacts are
present in the vicinity of the UST basin and extend at least 80 feet downgradient of the UST
basin. Recent ground water sampling data indicate the presence of petroleum-related
constituents in high concentrations in the source area with lower concentrations near the
southern property boundary. Ground water flow at the former Duke Power facility is
reported to flow south-southwest, which is away from the subject property.
VISTA reported that a 550-gallon waste oil UST was also removed from the former Duke
Power site in December 1996. During the removal of the waste oil UST, a release was
discovered. Soil sampling in the vicinity of the fom1er waste oil UST and associated oil-
water separators indicated the presence of oil and grease (up to 20,000 mg/kg), toluene,
ethyl benzene, xylenes, and low levels of chlorinated VOCs including chloroethane, 1, 1-DCE,
methylene chloride, 1, 1-dichloroethane, and 1, 1, I-trichloroethane.
Based on the reported ground water flow direction towards the south-southwest at the former
Duke Power facility (away from subject property), these LUST incidents have a low potential
to impact the subject site.
18
s:\aaa master archives\m!b-01\mlb~OI phi & ii2.doc
The Con-Way Southern facility located at 7001 Statesville Road 0.1 mile west of the subject
property is reported by VISTA to have removed seven USTs in January 2000, at which time
soil contamination was confirmed. TH&H attempted to review information regarding this
incident at the DENR Mooresville office, but no information could be located for the Con-
Way facility. The topography of the site area and information from the Duke Power incident
indicates that Con-Way is downgradient of the subject property. Based on its downgradient
location, the potential for impact to the subject site is considered low.
The fonner Auten residence at 7700 Statesville Road is another LUST site near the subject
property. This LUST incident is located greater than 0.25 mile from the subject property.
Based on its distance, the potential for impact to the subject property from the Auten LUST
incident is low.
• North Carolina Spills Summary -Emergency Release Repo1is (Spills) data is provided by
DENR and consists of State Spills sites and LUST sites. Details on the report pertain only to
the spill reported at the site. The database was last updated in July 2000.
VISTA reported one Spills incident at the subject site. This incident is discussed in the above
LUST section.
Two Spills incidents are identified in the VISTA report to have occuned at the Duke Power
facility. According to VISTA, product was released at the former Duke Power site from an
underground hydraulic oil line in November 1990. The underground hydraulic lines were
replaced in 1997 and are now contained in concrete. TH&H previously reviewed an incident
file for the Duke Power site at the DENR Mooresville office, which contained documents
regarding this release. The reviewed information confirmed that a release of hydraulic oil
was rep01ied to DENR on November 27, 1990 and that 7.5 cubic yards of impacted soil were
removed from the site for off-site remediation and disposal. No confirmation samples were
reported to have been collected following soil removal. Based on the small amount of
product released, the potential for impact to the subject site is considered to be low. The
19
s:\aaa master archivcs\mlb-Ol\mlb~OI phi & ii2.doc fll{
other Spills incident that occurred at the Duke Power site is the leaking 2,000-gallon gasoline
UST discussed above in LUST section.
VISTA reported one additional Spills incident within a 0.5 mile radius of the subject site.
Con-Way Southern Express is located at 7001 Statesville Road 0.1 mile west of the subject
site. The site is reported by VISTA to have discharged oil from the facility garage area onto
the rear portion of the Con-Way site and onto an adjacent property. TH&H reviewed an
incident file for the facility at the DENR Mooresville Office. Based on a map included in the
incident report, the subject property was not affected by the Spills incident. Based on this
information, the potential for impact to the subject site is considered low.
The aforementioned former Auten residence 1s also reported as a Spills Site due to the
leaking UST discussed above.
• North Carolina Solid Waste Summary -Pennitted Solid Waste data are obtained from the
DENR. This information includes facility location and permit numbers as submitted on the
registration forms. The database was last updated in September 1999.
VISTA reported no Solid Waste sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the subject site.
4.1.3 Other Records Review (Including Land Farm)
TH&H contacted local environmental agencies that might have jurisdiction over the subject site.
The following sections summarize the information found.
DENR and Other Records
As mentioned above, TH&H reviewed files at the DENR Mooresville Office to obtain
information on the subject site and for properties in the vicinity of the subject property. Much of
the reviewed information is discussed above in conjunction with the VISTA database records.
20
s.\a.aa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2.doc I'(
Information concerning an on-site petroleum-contaminated soil land application area is provided
below.
A portion of a 26 acre petroleum-contaminated soil land application farm (land fam1) is operated
on a portion of the subject property by Debruhl Environmental Excavating, Inc. Approximately
19 acres of the 26 total acre land farm is located on the northern portion of the subject property
(Figure 2). The remaining 7 acres are located within the speedway situated on the adjacent
property to the east of the subject property.
The land farm is permitted to operate by DENR under Pe1mit No. SR0300078. According to the
permit, the land farm can accept soil containing petroleum products and other non-hazardous
contaminants from off-site sources. The permit establishes minimum buffers for the land farm
operation. For example, a 50 ft buffer is required between the soil disposal area and the property
boundary and a 100 ft buffer is required between land application areas and places of public
assembly under separate ownership. The land fam1 is currently permitted by DENR to operate
until March 31, 2003. A copy of the land farm pe1mit is included as Appendix D.
Two buffer conditions of the permit may currently be violated. During our October 2000 site
visit, it appeared that land applied soil may be located within 50 ft of the property boundary. The
soil application area in cell 564 appears to be within 40 ft of the northern property boundary.
Based on a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Bograd of DENR's Mooresville Office, DENR
considers the 100 ft buffer requirement between the land application area and places of public
assembly to mean that no parking or other activities should be conducted within 100 ft of the
land application area even on the subject property. Mr. Bograd's rationale is that the land farm is
owned and operated by a different person (Mr. Randy DeBruhl) than the property owner (Ms.
Linda Hackney). If this is the case, use of the land application areas for exhibition parking may
be in violation of Mr. DeBruhl's permit. Mr. Bograd also stated that land farm soils with
detectable concentrations of petroleum must be treated to non-detectable levels or managed and
disposed of as a petroleum contaminated soil if the soil is disturbed.
21
s-\aaa master archives\m!b-01\m!b-01 ph i & ii2.doc RT
TH&H recommends that the property boundary location relative to treatment cell 564 be
determined to establish if the 50 ft buffer condition has been violated. If the land farm is in
violation with this condition, soils should be removed to comply with the pennit conditions.
The land fam1 treats contaminated soils by conventional rate application by promoting
biodegradation and volatilization of soil contaminants. Contaminated soil is to be applied at a
thickness of three inches. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers) and lime (to adjust the
pH to between 6.0 and 8.0) are then incorporated into the contaminated soil by tilling to a depth
of six to eight inches. Then, the disposal area is given time for soil treatment.
Monitoring and reporting requirements for the land fann are specified in the permit. Each soil
batch received by the site that is greater than 50 cubic yards is placed in a dedicated portion of
the land farm. Following remediation or every six months, samples are collected on half acre
land fam1 areas (or from each application area (or cell) that is less than one-half acre) for
laboratory analysis in accordance with the type of petroleum-contaminated soil present (gasoline
range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), diesel range TPH, and oil and/or grease). For soil
batches less than 50 cubic yards, no soil testing is required. The confirmation soil sampling
results are reported to DENR semi-annually. Following demonstration of remediated soils,
additional contaminated soils can be applied to previous disposal areas for treatment.
The land farm permit specifies that oil and grease (O&G) confirmation samples be analyzed by
EPA Method 9071. Based on a review of the most recent soil confinnation data on the land
farm, Mr. DeBruhl has been using EPA Method 9071A for O&G analysis. EPA Method 9071A
includes preparation of the sample with silica gel which is used to remove non-petroleum related
organic matter (i.e., leaves, roots, etc.) which could contribute to O&G concentrations. DENR
may not consider EPA Method 9071A a valid analytical method for O&G. Should this be the
case, DENR may require that Mr. DeBruhl resample O&G affected areas.
In addition to soil confinnation sampling, three ground water monitoring wells are sampled every
November for target compounds. Two of the three monitoring wells are located downgradient of
22
s:\aaa master archives\mlb-01 \mlb-01 phi & ii2 doc \LR Jl HT
the land application areas and the other monitoring well is located upgradient of the land
application area. Ground water monitoring results are submitted to DENR annually.
General permit conditions are also specified in the permit. One of the general conditions
specifies that, in the event of a land transfer, the pem1ittee shall provide a new land owner with a
complete set ofrecords compiled during operation of the facility.
TH&H identified a reference to a DENR Notice of Violation (NOV) dated March 18, 1996 in a
letter from DeBruhl Environmental Excavating to DENR dated April 15, 1996. The actual NOV
was not found, but the response to the NOV indicated that several permit conditions were not
being met at the time the facility was inspected by DENR on January 30, 1996. The violations
included foreign debris (plastic) in the disposal area, the lack of a seed crop in two sections of the
disposal area, a stockpile stored longer than 45 days, and the lack of sufficient records.
According to the April 15, 1996 response letter, the deficiencies were conected.
TH&H reviewed the most recently submitted soil and ground water confirmation sampling
results for the land farm received by DENR on June 15, 2000 and February 1, 2000, respectively.
The soil data indicated that soil target levels were met in the tested cells. No ground water
impacts were reported (Appendix G).
Of the approximate 19 acres utilizing for land fanning on the property, approximately 3 acres are
still undergoing active treatment and have not been tested. These untested cells include nos. 564,
568, 577, 579, 580, 581, 584, and 586 (See Figure 2 and Appendix F). The remainder of the land
farm area soils were indicated to have been remediated to below permit levels.
As noted in Section 6.0, soil and ground water samples were collected from the land farm area to
confirm soil remediation and the lack of impact to ground water. As discussed in Section 6.0,
diesel range TPH and O&G were detected in excess of the remediation standards specified in the
pennit in areas indicated by DeBruhl to have been remediated below permit levels.
23
s·\.aaa ma5ter nrchives\mlb~OJ\mlb-01 phi & !i2.duc
24
s_\aaa master archives\mlb-Ol\mlb-01 phi & ii1.doc
Local Records
Fire Department: TH&H contacted Mr. Bart Massey of the Mecklenburg County Fire
Department to inquire about records of fires, spills, or other environmental incidents in the
vicinity of the subject site. At the time of rep011 preparation, Mr. Massey had not responded to
TH&H's inquiry.
CMUD: TH&H reviewed files at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD)
regarding a former wastewater treatment lagoon located on the property. The findings of the
CMUD file review are discussed in Section 5.4.
4.2 Historical Use Information
4.2.1 Aerial Photographs
TH&H reviewed aerial photographs of the subject site dated 1938 and 1951 at the Mecklenburg
County Soil Conservation office in Charlotte, NC and aerial photographs dated 1966, 1978,
1983, 1990, and 1997 at the Charlotte Mecklenburg County Mapping office in Charlotte, NC.
The following is a summary of the findings:
1938; (scale 1"= 1,320'): The subject site and the surrounding properties appear to be
undeveloped agricultural and wooded land.
1951; (scale 1 "= 1,320'): The subject site and the sunounding properties primarily appear to
remain undeveloped agricultural and wooded land, with some residential development along Old
Statesville Road to the n011heast of the site. An apparent airstrip is located along the
southwestern property boundmy of the subject site. Some development is apparent to the
southwest of the airstrip on the subject site.
25
s:\aaa master archives\mlb·Ol\mlb·Ol phi & ii2,doc ·\' 'r)f' . ' f ,.
1966; (scale 1" = 200'): The subject site and surrounding area are similar in this photograph to
the 1951 photograph, with increased residential development along Old Statesville Road to the
northeast, east and southeast.
1978; (scale 1" 400'): In the 1978 photograph, buildings 1 through 3 and the open mall area
connecting Buildings 2 and 3 are present. Approximately four structures are located to the north
of these site buildings where the current maintenance area is located. The wastewater lagoon
appears in the northwestern p01iion of the site. Most of the northern portion of the site is cleared
and vacant. Small airplanes are visible in the southern portion of the site, indicating that the
airstrip was still active in 1978. A racetrack borders the site to the east. Development has
increased along Statesville Road and Old Statesville Road in the vicinity of the subject site. A
trucking company is adjacent to the site to the southwest. Undeveloped, wooded land remains
north of the site.
1983; (scale 1" = 200'): The subject site is similar to the 1978 photograph except that Building 4
and the open shed southeast of Buildings 1 through 4 are visible in the central portion of the
property. Several unpaved roadways are apparent in the undeveloped northern portion of the site.
The sunounding properties appear similar to the 1978 aerial photograph.
1990; (scale 1" 200'): The subject site is similar to the 1983 photograph except that Buildings
5 through 8 and Buildings 10 through 18 are present. Several campers or trailers are parked on
the undeveloped northern portion, and a large amount of cars are parked in the central portion of
the property. The cars are likely associated with a fairgrounds event. The surrounding properties
appear similar to the 1983 aerial photograph.
1997; (scale l" = 200'): The subject site and the surrounding properties appear similar to their
current configuration, except that Buildings 19 and 20 are not apparent in this photograph.
26
s:\aaa master archivcs\mlb-01\m!b-Ol phi & ii2_doc
4.2.2 City Directories and Fire Insurance Maps
TH&H reviewed select city directories dated 1940 to 1998 at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Public
Library. Based on the city directory review, the subject site has operated as the Metrolina Expo
since the 1960's, although the street addresses along Statesville Road appear to have changed in
the 1980's. Statesville Road does not appear in city directories prior to approximately 1970.
Mecklenburg Equipment Company has been located along Statesville Road since the 1960's.
Statesville Road in the vicinity of the subject site was predominantly residential in nature through
the 1970's. The former Duke Power facility began operating in the 1970's. Since the late
l 970's, properties with frontage along Statesville Road in the vicinity of the subject site have
primarily consisted of trucking companies, trailer storage and construction companies.
TH&H attempted to review Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Public
Library. Sanborn map coverage does not exist for the subject site.
4.2.3 Other Sources
TH&H interviewed Ms. Linda Hackney, site owner and fair grounds operator, and Mr. Randy
DeBruhl of DeBruhl's Environmental Excavating (land farm operator) regarding current and past
uses of the subject site. Ms. Hackney indicated that she has owned the subject site and several
surrounding properties since approximately 1983, when she inherited the property from her
father. Ms. Hackney's father owned and operated the subject site as an exhibition fairgrounds
and private airstrip (known as "Brockenbrough airport") from 1962 until 1983. Prior to this
time, the subject site was reportedly agricultural land and a private airstrip. Mr. DeBruhl has
leased the northern portion of the subject site since late 1991 for treatment of petroleum-
contaminated soils by land farming.
27
s:\aaa master archives\m!b~Ol\mlb~Ol phi & ii2.doc
4.2.4 Historical Use Summary
A general summary of the site history based on the reviewed information is as follows:
• Prior to 1962: Based upon the review of aerial photographs and city directories, the subject
site appears to have been primarily undeveloped agricultural land until 1962 with the
exception of the airstrip. The southern portion of the site was operated as an airstrip
beginning between 193 8 and 19 51.
• 1962 to present: The subject site appears to have been developed as the Metrolina
Fairgrounds in 1962. Additional exhibition buildings have been constructed on the subject
property through time. Residential development along Old Statesville Road increases
through the 1970' s and commercial/industrial development along Statesville Road increases
through time beginning in the 1960' s to 1970' s. The Long Creek Business Park to the north
is developed in mid 1990's.
28
s:\aaa master archives\m!b-0 l \mlb~O l ph i & ii2 doc HT
5.0 Site Reconnaissance and Interviews
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
A visual recom1aissance of the site was conducted by Ms. Sally Hartness, Mr. Matt Bramblett
and Mr. Matthew Ingalls of TH&H on October 17, 26 and 27, 2000. During the visits, the
weather conditions were mostly sunny with temperatures around 70° F. General photographs of
the site are included as photographs #1 through #5 and are contained in Appendix A.
5.2 Hazardous Substances and Identified Uses
TH&H observed several small quantity containers (five-gallons or less) of construction and
repair products (such as paint, joint adhesive, etc.) in the maintenance area. No evidence of
staining was observed in the vicinity of these containers.
Additionally, TH&H observed that the site utilizes kerosene, propane and diesel fuel in
conjunction with the fueling of maintenance equipment such as a tractor, lawn mowers, etc. Fuel
storage is discussed further in Section 5.3.
5.3 Storage Tanks and Sumps
Kerosene and propane aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) with capacities of approximately 300
gallons are located in the maintenance area (Photograph #6). The ASTs are situated over an
unpaved storage area and the kerosene AST is not equipped with secondary containment. No
staining was observed in the vicinity of the ASTs at the time of the site visit.
One approximate 3,000-gallon diesel UST and associated fueling dispenser are also located in
the maintenance area (Photograph #7). The UST is utilized for fueling maintenance vehicles and
therefore is a regulated UST, which requires registration, annual permitting, and upgrades to met
current leak detection and spill protection requirements. Based on our review, this UST does not
appear to be registered or meet upgrade requirements. To determine the potential for impact,
29
s:\.aaa master archivcs\rnlb·Ol\mlb-01 phi & ii2,doc
TH&H collected soil samples in the vicinity of the diesel UST and fuel dispenser. The results of
the UST sampling activities are discussed further in Section 6.2.
Two water holding AS Ts ( one large -1,000+ gallons and one small -100+ gallons) were
observed in the wooded area adjacent to the maintenance area. These tanks were reportedly used
in conjunction with a former water supply well used to supply water to the site prior to the
availability of municipal water service.
No other tanks or sumps were observed on the subject property at the time of the site visit.
With regard to storage tanks at the site, TH&H recommends that the diesel UST be properly
closed or brought into compliance with applicable DENR regulations. TH&H also recommends
placement of secondary containment beneath the kerosene AST as a release prevention measure
if this AST is to be used.
5.4 Water and Wastewater Issues
The subject site currently receives municipal water and sewage service from the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD). CMUD sewage service has been provided to the
facility since approximately 1992. Prior to this time, sanitary sewage was discharged to a
permitted on-site wastewater lagoon equipped with effluent tablet chlorination and cascade
aeration. TH&H reviewed CMUD files which included activity reports from 1991 and 1992. A
field inspection report indicates that a sewage spill likely occurred at an outfall near the lagoon
sometime prior to October 14, 1991. A CMUD follow-up activity report dated February 21,
1992 indicated that no sewage or unusual conditions had been observed by Metrolina personnel
since the October 14, 1991 inspection. The lagoon discharged to an unnamed tributary of Long
Creek located northeast of the site under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit No. NC0050571. Following connection of the site to the CMUD sanitary
sewer, the wastewater lagoon has received only stormwater from overland flow.
30
s:\aaa master archivc.s\mlb-01 \mlb-01 ph i & ii2 doc JI ' /'(.
TH&H reviewed files regarding the wastewater lagoon at DENR's Mooresville office and the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP). The facility's NPDES
permit was allowed to expire in August 1996. A Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI)
conducted by DENR in August 1996 indicated that the lagoon sludge was removed and land
farmed on-site by DeBruhl under an existing permit and that the facility intended to backfill the
lagoon with clean fill dirt. According to DeBruhl, the lagoon sludge was not applied into his
land farm. At the time of the site visit, the banks of the lagoon were approximately five feet in
depth and the lagoon contained approximately two feet of standing water (Photograph #8). Soils
in the lagoon appeared to consist of native red clay and no sludge, odors, or staining were
observed.
Although site personnel indicate that the facility received closure with respect to the former
lagoon, a closure letter from DENR was not identified in regulatory files, and site personnel
could not provide closure documentation. According to site personnel, the sludge was removed
and disposed on site at an unknown location in 1996 which is consistent with DENR's CEI
report. Regulatory information on the former wastewater lagoon is provided in Appendix H.
Because the wastewater lagoon reportedly only treated domestic wastewater, the potential for
property impact from the lagoon is considered to be low.
Prior to municipal water service availability at the subject site, the site reportedly utilized an on-
site water supply well to provide water to the site. TH&H observed water holding tanks and an
apparent former well house in the wooded area adjacent to the maintenance area. The actual
water supply well was not identified, but soil observed within the center of well house suggests
that the former well has been abandoned by filling it with soil.
5.5 Indications of PCBs
31
s'\aaa master archives\mlb-Ol',mlb-01 phi & ii2.doc
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are sometimes found in mineral oils used in electrical
equipment including transformers or in hydraulic oils. PCBs are a potential environmental
contaminant.
Electricity is supplied to the site area by Duke Power. TH&H observed one pad-mounted
transformer adjacent to the north side of Building #1 (Photograph #9) and approximately 26
pole-mounted transformers located in the central and northern portions of the site. TH&H
contacted Duke Power who verified that the transformers are owned by Duke Power. Duke
Power could not verify the PCB content within the transformers without testing the insulating
oils within them for a fee. The transformers appeared to be in good condition with no evidence
of staining to the transformers or to the ground surface below the transformers. The transformers
are the responsibility of Duke Power and the owner is not responsible for leaks or spills from the
site transformers.
5.6 Indications of Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste is collected in three roll-off box type dumpsters located in the central portion of the
site. There was no evidence of staining or dumping of potentially hazardous materials into the
dumpsters.
32
s \aaa master archivcs\mlb-01\m!b-O l phi & ii2.doc R.\l:R RT fltCK.HA
5. 7 Asbestos-Containing Materials
TH&H conducted a visual asbestos survey of the site buildings on October 27, 2000 to identify
potential asbestos containing building materials. During our survey, potential asbestos
containing building materials were identified by Mr. Matthew Ingalls of TH&H (NC Asbestos
Inspector #11433) and their conditions were assessed. Per our authorized scope of work
potential asbestos containing building materials were not sampled.
Potential asbestos containing building materials observed at the site included the following:
Building #1
• floor tile (12-inch by 12-inch; black/white) and associated mastic located in the Expo
Cafe snack bar (800 square feet);
• drywall ceiling material located in the foyer area (300 square feet);
• floor tile (12-inch by 12-inch; light brown) and associated mastic located in the facility
office area (1,200 square feet); and
• ceiling tiles located in the facility office area (1,200 square feet).
Building #2
• drywall wall material located in the restroom (750 square feet); and
• drywall ceiling material located in the restroom (250 square feet).
Building #3
• floor tile (12-inch by 12-inch; black/white) and associated mastic located in the snack bar
(180 square feet);
• drywall wall material located in the electric room ( 180 square feet);
• drywall wall material located in the restroom (750 square feet); and
• drywall ceiling material located in the restroom (250 square feet).
Building #4
• ceiling tiles (2,000 square feet).
33
S'\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-OJ phi & ii2,doc \ER '/'(
Restroom Building (located adjacent to the Speedway)
• d1ywall ceiling material (500 square feet).
TH&H observed of the potential asbestos containing building materials to be in good condition at
the time of the site visit. TH&H recommends that potential asbestos containing materials be
sampled by a certified asbestos inspector prior to renovation or demolition activities which
would disturb the materials. If asbestos containing materials are identified, they should be
managed in accordance with a site-specific Asbestos Operation and Maintenance Plan.
5.8 Surface Conditions
In the central portion of the site, surface conditions consisted primarily of asphalt-paved parking
and driving areas. The northern and southern portions of the site are primarily covered in grass
and gravel. No substantial surface staining was observed at the site.
The nmihemmost portions of the subject site have been utilized by DeBruhl Environmental
Excavating for land application of petroleum contaminated soils since approximately late 1991.
Most of the land application area appears as undeveloped grassed land (Photograph #10).
Approximately three acres in the northwestern comer of the land application area are not yet
remediated and were recently tilled (Photograph # 11 ). At the time of the site visit, TH&H
observed areas of the tilled soil to have a slight petroleum odor. TH&H conducted soil sampling
activities in the land application areas reported to be remediated. Soil sampling activities and
results are discussed further in Section 6.1.
5.9 Stormwater
The general stormwater flow directions vary depending upon site areas. Stormwater in the
central portion of the site flows surficially across the asphalt-paved areas to storm drains located
throughout the central portion of the site. Stormwater in the northern portion of the site appears
34
s·\aaa master archivcs\mlb-Ol\m!b-0 l phi & ii2.doc RT !'C
to flow surficially across the grass and gravel surfaces to the northwest and towards a drainage
ditch located along the northern site boundary. Stormwater in the southern portion of the site
appears to flow surficially across the asphalt and gravel surfaces to a drainage ditch located along
Statesville Road. TH&H observed no evidence of staining to the soils or vegetation within site
drainage ditches.
35
s \aaa master archives\mib-01\m!b-OJ phi & ii2.doc
6.0 Sampling Activities
TH&H conducted Phase II ESA soil and ground water sampling activities at the subject site on
October 26, 2000. Phase II ESA analytical data is summarized in Tables 1 through 5. Analytical
data sheets are provided as Appendix C.
The purpose of the sampling was to evaluate potential soil and/or ground water impacts to areas
of environmental concern identified during the Phase I ESA. The two areas of environmental
concern identified for Phase II ESA sampling include the petroleum-contaminated soil land
application area and the existing diesel underground storage tank (UST) and associated fuel
dispenser.
6.1 Land Application Area Sampling Activities
Soil Sampling Activities
Soil samples were collected in the land farm areas which were reported to have been treated to
confirm that soils had been adequately remediated. TH&H collected 25 soil samples using a
hand auger in an estimated grid pattern over approximately 16 acres throughout the land
application area. Composite soil samples were collected over the total depth of the borings
(approximately 2 to 3 feet). The borings were extended from the surface down to the apparent
contact with native soils. Soil samples collected were field screened using a photoionization
detector (PID). TH&H did not collect soil samples from the land application areas that have not
yet been fully remediated or tested by DeBruhl.
Based on field screening results, TH&H collected 10 soil samples with highest PID readings for
laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260, semi-VOCs by
EPA Method 8270, gasoline-range TPH by EPA Method 8015M/5030, diesel-range TPH by EPH
Method 8015M/3550, O&G by EPA Method 9071, lead and chromium. Soil samples were
placed in laboratory supplied containers, marked with identifying labels, and placed in an iced
cooler for shipment under chain-of-custody to a ce1iified laboratory for analyses. Soil sample
36
s·\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-OI pb i & ill.doc \ER
collection depths and PID readings are provided m Table 3. Soil screenmg and sampling
locations are shown on Figure 3.
Neither VOCs, semi-VOCs, nor gasoline-range TPH were detected in the 10 soil samples.
However diesel-range TPH, O&G, lead and chromium were detected in some samples (Table 4).
Diesel-range TPH was detected above the DENR action level and land farm treatment level of 40
mg/kg in four of the soil samples collected. An additional soil sample collected contained 18
mg/kg diesel-range TPH. The maximum diesel-range TPH concentration detected was 940
mg/kg.
O&G was detected above the DENR action level and land farm treatment level of 250 mg/kg in
three of the soil samples collected (L-5, L-15 and L-21) and above method detection limits in
four soil samples collected. The maximum O&G concentration detected was 5, 100 mg/kg.
Chromium and lead were detected in each sample. The maximum lead concentration detected
was 23 mg/kg in samples L-4 and L-22 and the maximum chromium concentration was 140
mg/kg in L-19. Chromium and lead are naturally occurring metals in soil in the region. Because
the land farmed soils are from sites all over the region, it is not possible to compare the levels to
site-specific "background" levels. As such, TH&H compared the levels to typical background
levels reported in the literature. According to Element Concentrations in Soils and Other
Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States (USGS, 1984), naturally occurring
chromium concentrations in the Eastern United States range from 1 mg/kg to 3,000 mg/kg and
lead concentrations range from < 10 mg/kg to 300 mg/kg. All of the detected soil metal
concentrations at the subject site are on the low end of this range. Based on this information,
TH&H believes that the detections of chromium and lead in land application soils are naturally
occurring. It should be noted that the DENR Ground Water Section action levels for chromium
and lead in soil (based upon soil to ground water leaching) are 27 mg/kg and 270 mg/kg,
respectively. None of the lead concentrations exceed the action level, however several of the
chromium concentrations do. However, because the chromium concentrations appear to be
naturally occurring, this does not pose a significant concern.
37
s.\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2 doc R
Based on the constituents detected (diesel-range TPH and O&G) and the lack of VOCs or semi-
VOCs, it appears that the soils have been adequately treated for the more volatile or "lighter end"
petroleum hydrocarbons. The presence of diesel-range TPH and O&G ("heavier end" petroleum
hydrocarbons) above DENR and permit action levels indicates that additional soil treatment is
warranted in accordance with the land farm permit.
TH&H recommends that additional soil sampling be conducted in the land farm area on a grid to
refine the areas in need of further treatment. Upon refinement of the areas requiring additional
treatment, TH&H recommends that those area be further treated using land farming techniques.
Because some of the areas of the land farm have received multiple soil applications, the soil
thickness requiring treatment will likely be larger than the 6 to 8 inches that has typically been
treated. Therefore, larger tilling equipment may be required which is capable of treating soils up
to approximately 24 inches depth.
Because the samples collected by TH&H were composite samples over the depth of land fanned
soil, the depth(s) which is contributing to the elevated concentrations is not known. The above
recommended sampling scheme could include samples from multiple depths to correspond with
application layers. Sampling at multiple depths may provide useful information for designing
additional soil treatment plans. The limitation of multiple depth sampling is that if deeper layers
are found to be impacted, treatment would still need to be conducted at depths which are
underneath layers below action levels. TH&H does not believe that it would be practical to
remove clean soil layers from the top of impacted soils to facilitate deeper soil treatment.
Therefore, the entire disturbed soil column may need to be treated regardless of the impacted
depth.
Ground Water Sampling Activities
Ground water sampling activities were conducted on October 26, 2000. Two monitor wells,
M W-1 and MW-2, are located downgradient of the land application area in the northeastern and
southeastern comers of the land application area, respectively (Figure 3). Although target
compounds have not previously been detected in these wells, TH&H attempted to sample them
38
s.\aaa master archives'lm!b-01\mlb~Ol phi & ii2.doc r & llrn
because they have not been sampled since November 1999. MW-1 was located and found to be
dry. TH&H and Mr. DeBmhl could not locate MW-2.
Because of the significant distance between the two existing downgradient monitor wells
(approximately 1,300 ft) and lack of ground water sampling directly beneath the land application
area, TH&H installed two one-inch diameter temporary monitor wells. Temporary monitor well
TW-1 was installed within the land application area and well TW-2 was installed on the
downgradient edge of the land application area, approximately halfway between the existing
wells (Figure 3).
The temporary wells were installed usmg direct push technology (DPT). During boring
advancement, soil samples were collected in continuous 4-foot intervals to the total depth of the
borings, which was 32 feet for each boring. Following collection, each of the soil samples was
visually inspected for lithologic purposes and evidence of potential contamination (i.e., staining,
odors, etc.). The soil generally consists of clayey silt and silty clay with increasing sand content
with depth. No apparent soil impacts were observed in the temporary well soil samples.
Both of the temporary monitor wells were installed using a 2-inch diameter PVC screen (15-foot
length) and casing to a total depth of approximately 32 feet below ground surface. The water
table was encountered at approximate depths of 25 ft below grade in TW-1 and 28 ft below grade
in TW-2 (Table 1).
Following installation, the temporary wells were developed and sampled. The ground water
samples were collected utilizing bailers. The ground water samples were poured in laboratory-
supplied containers, marked with identifying labels, and placed in an iced cooler for shipment
under chain-of-custody to a state-certified laboratory for analysis.
Ground water samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260 plus tentatively identified
compounds (TICs) and semi-VOCs by EPA Method 8270 plus TICs. Following sampling, the
39
s:\aaa master archives\mib-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2.doc \ PC
temporary well casmgs were removed and the borings abandoned with bentonite and then
backfilled with soil cuttings.
No VOCs, semi-VOCs (Table 2) or TICs were detected above method detection limits in either
ground water sample collected. Laboratory analytical data are provided in Appendix C.
TH&H could not develop a ground water flow map in the vicinity of the land farm due to the
inability to collect water levels in monitor wells MW-1 and MW-2.
6.2 Diesel UST Area Sampling Activities
To evaluate the potential for a release from the diesel UST and associated dispenser, TH&H
collected three soil samples. Prior to sampling adjacent to the diesel UST, TH&H measured the
depth and diameter of the UST through the fill port. The UST is approximately 5.7 ft diameter
and the base of the tank is approximately 8.5 ft below grade. The UST was empty at the time of
the site visit. Based on the locations on the dispenser, vent and fill port, TH&H believes that the
tank is oriented in a line from the fill port to the dispenser but could not confirm this orientation
(Figure 4). The distance from the fill port to the dispenser is approximately 15 ft. Assuming the
UST is 15 ft long and 5.7 ft in diameter, the tank capacity would be about 3,000 gallons.
TH&H advanced three soil borings in the vicinity of the existing diesel UST using DPT. One
boring was advanced adjacent to each assumed end of the UST (borings UST-1 and UST-2) to a
depth of 12 ft below grade. The third boring (UST-3) was advanced adjacent to the fuel
dispenser to a depth of approximately 3 feet below grade.
During boring advancement, soil samples were collected continuously and screened in the field
utilizing a PID. The soil sample from each boring exhibiting the highest PIO reading was
submitted for laboratory analysis. San1pling depths were 9 to 10 ft in boring UST-1 and 6 to 8 ft
in boring UST-2. The dispenser sample UST-3 was collected from a depth of 2 to 3 ft. The soil
samples from each boring were analyzed for diesel-range and gasoline-range TPH by EPA
40
s·\aaa master archivcs\Jnlb-Ol\rnlb-01 phi & ii2.doc
Methods 8015M/3550 and 8015M/5030 in accordance with DENR UST guidelines. Diesel UST
soil sample analytical results are summarized in Table 5.
Neither gasoline-range nor diesel-range TPH were detected in any of the three UST area soil
samples. Based on the soil sample results, there is no evidence that a release has occurred from
the diesel UST system.
41
s \an.a master a.rchives\m!b-01\rnlb-01 phi & ii2.doc
7.0 Summary
Turner Hart & Hickman, PC has completed Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments
(ESAs) of the Metrolina Fairgrounds site located at 7100 Statesville Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina. The Phase I ESA was performed in general conformance with the scope and
limitations set forth in ASTM E 1527-00 and our authorized scope of work. A summary of the
findings of the site assessment is presented below.
• The subject site consists of approximately 95 acres of land which contains a total of
approximately 151,000 ft2 of office and warehouse exhibition space. The property is utilized
as a fairgrounds for various exhibitions. The central portion of the site contains exhibition
warehouses and the northwestern and southeastern portions of the site are undeveloped
grassed land utilized for parking. A former domestic wastewater lagoon is located in the
wooded area in the no1ihwestern portion of the site. Approximately 19 acres in the
northernmost portion of the site have been utilized for treatment of petroleum-contaminated
soils by land farming.
• The subject property is bordered to the north by Long Creek Business Park, to the northeast
and east by wooded and residential areas, to the southeast by the Metrolina Speedway, to the
southwest by Con-Way Southern Express, NAP A Auto Parts and Metrolina Mini Storage, to
the west by Statesville Road with Mecklenburg Equipment Company (MEC) and Briggs
Equipment located beyond, and to the northwest by wooded areas and Wilson Trucking
Company.
• Based upon the review of aerial photographs and city directories, the subject site appears to
have been primarily undeveloped agricultural land until 1962, with the exception of an
airstrip which operated in the southern po11ion of the site beginning between 193 8 and 1951.
The subject site appears to have been developed as the Metrolina Fairgrounds in 1962.
Additional exhibition buildings have been constructed on the subject prope11y through time.
42
s:\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb-Ol phi & ii2.doc
• No reported off-site environmental incidents with a high potential to impact the subject site
were identified.
• The subject property is identified by VISTA on the leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
and Spills databases. A review of infom1ation concerning these database reports indicates
that three gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the property in
August 1994. The USTs were associated with a former airstrip located in the southern
portion of the site. Soil contamination by gasoline-range total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH) at a concentration of 592 mg/kg was identified in closure samples beneath the USTs.
Approximately 1,250 cubic yards of impacted soils were reportedly removed from an area
encompassing the former UST basins and associated dispenser island. Based on soil samples
collected after soil was removed, which indicated no detectable concentrations of TPH,
DENR issued a closure letter dated April 20, 19995 stating that "no further action is required
at this time." Based on the confirmation sampling results and closed status of the former
UST incident, no further assessment or remediation associated with the former USTs appears
warranted.
• A kerosene aboveground storage tank (AST) is located in the site maintenance area. The
AST is situated over an unpaved storage area and is not equipped with secondary
containment. No staining was observed in the vicinity of the AST at the time of the site visit.
Recommendation: TH&H recommends placement of secondary containment beneath the
kerosene AST as a release prevention measure if this AST is to be used.
• One approximately 3,000-gallon diesel UST and associated fueling dispenser are located in
the maintenance area. The UST is utilized for fueling maintenance vehicles and therefore is a
regulated UST which requires registration, annual permitting, and upgrades to meet current
leak detection and spill protection regulations. Based upon our review, this UST does not
appear to be registered or upgraded in accordance with North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) requirements. To determine the potential for
43
s:\aaa master archives\mlb-01\mlb~OI phi & ii2.doc l'C
impact from the UST system, TH&H collected three soil samples in the vicinity of the UST
and associated dispenser. Neither gasoline-range nor diesel-range TPH were not detected in
any of the three UST area soil samples. Based upon the soil sample results, there is no
evidence to indicate that a significant release has occurred from the UST.
Recommendation: TH&H recommends that the diesel UST be properly closed or brought
into compliance with applicable DENR regulations.
• A fom1er sanitary wastewater lagoon was used on the subject property prior to about 1992.
No closure letter for this lagoon was identified in DENR's files and the location of sludge
reported to have been removed from the lagoon is unknown. Because the wastewater lagoon
reportedly only treated domestic wastewater, the potential for property impact from the
lagoon appears to be low.
• Prior to municipal water service availability at the subject site, the site reportedly utilized an
on-site water supply well to provide water to the site. TH&H observed water holding tanks
and an apparent former well house in the wooded area adjacent to the maintenance area. The
actual water supply well was not identified, but soil observed within the center of well house
suggests that the former well has been abandoned by filling it with soil.
• TH&H conducted a visual asbestos survey of the site buildings on October 27, 2000 to
identify potential asbestos containing building materials. In accordance with our authorized
scope of work, potential asbestos containing building materials were not sampled. Potential
asbestos containing building materials were observed in Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 and in a
restroom building adjacent to an off-site speedway. TH&H observed the potential asbestos
containing building materials to be in good condition at the time of the site visit.
Recommendation: TH&H recommends that potential asbestos containing materials be
sampled by a certified asbestos inspector prior to renovation or demolition activities which
44
s:\aaa master archivcs\m!b-0\'.mlb-Oi phi & ii2 doc \El< f?T
would disturb the materials. If asbestos containing materials are identified, they should be
managed in accordance with a site-specific Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan.
• An approximate 19-acre portion of a permitted 26-acre petroleum-contaminated soil land
application farm (land farm) is operated on the subject property by DeBruhl Environmental
Excavating, Inc. The land farm is permitted by DENR and requires soil sample
documentation, ground water monitoring, and post-treatment soil sampling. Contaminated
soils are spread over an area and treatment occurs by promoting biodegradation and
volatilization of soil contaminants. Environmental concerns associated with the land farm
are described in this report including a potential infringement of a permit-specified 50 ft
buffer in the area of treatment cell 564. Approximately three acres of the land farm are still
undergoing treatment, with the remaining on-site areas indicated to have completed
treatment. TH&H sampled soils within those portions of the land farm where soil treatment
was reported to be complete. Results of the soil san1ples indicated the presence of diesel-
range total petroleum hydrocarbons and oil and grease above permitted treatment levels and
DENR action levels in some areas.
Recommendations: TH&H recommends that the property boundary location relative to
treatment cell 564 be determined to assess if the 50 ft buffer condition has been violated. If
the land farm is in violation of this condition, the soils should be removed to comply with the
boundary requirements.
TH&H recommends that additional samples be collected in the land farm area on a grid
where treatment is indicated to be complete to refine the areas in need of further treatment.
Upon determination of the areas requiring further treatment, TH&H recommends that those
area be treated using land farming techniques. Because some of the areas of the land farm
have received multiple soil applications, the soil thickness requiring treatment will likely be
larger than the 6 to 8 inches that has typically been treated. Therefore, larger tilling
equipment may be required which is capable of treating soils up to approximately 24 inches
in depth.
45
s.\aaa master archives\mlb-Ol'nilb~Ol phi & ii2.doc
TH&H also recommends that confirmation samples be collected after treatment is indicated
to be complete by DeBruhl in those treatment cells still undergoing active treatment.
• Other than fuels, small quantities of paint, and repair products used for site maintenance, no
hazardous substances were identified at the site.
• TH&H installed two one-inch diameter temporary monitor wells to confirm ground water
quality within the land farm area. No VOCs or semi-VOCs were detected above method
detection limits in either ground water sample collected. No ground water impacts have been
detected at the subject property in these temporary wells or pe1manent wells sampled in
association with the land farm.
46
s:\aaa master archivcs\mlb-0!1Jnlb-Ol phi & ii2.doc R.\l:R T f
8.0 Signatures of Environmental Professionals
Steven C. Hart, PG
Principal
Matt Bramblett, PE
Project Manager
Sally Hartness
Project Geologist
Matthew J. Ingalls
Environmental Scientist
s·\a:ia master archives\rr1lb~O l\mlb~O I ph i & ii2 doc
47
9.0 Qualifications of Environmental Professionals Conducting the Phase I ESA
Steven C. Hart, PG, Principal, has over ten years of experience conducting site assessments at
industrial facilities, commercial sites, RCRA and CERCLA facilities, petroleum bulk storage
tenninals and underground storage tank sites.
Matt Bramblett, PE, Project Manager, has over six years of experience in environmental
assessments, modeling, and remediation. He specializes in technical evaluations of natural
attenuation corrective actions and fate and transport modeling.
Sally Hartness, Project Geologist, has over five years of expenence m conducting
environmental site assessments. Ms. Hartness was responsible for research and preparation of
this report.
Matthew J. Ingalls, Environmental Scientist, has over eight years of expenence m
environmental site assessments, asbestos and lead projects. Mr. Ingalls is a US EPA certified
asbestos building inspector and management planner.
48
s:\aaa master archives\rnlb-Ol\rnlb-0! phi & ii2 doc
Table 1
Monitor Well Data Summary
Metrolina Fairgrounds Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
Well TOC Elevation (ft Ground Elevation Well Depth (ft) TOC Depth to
msl)
MW-1 794.71
MW-2 807.83
TW-1 806.35
TW-2 804.29
Notes:
TOC -Top of Casing
NA -Not Available
msl -Mean Sea Level
S:IAAA-Master Projects\Morgan Lewis\MLB-01 \analytical.xis.MW
Date:2/1/2016
(ft msl) Water (ft)
794.19 19.22 DRY
NA NA NA
802.95 32 27.94
801.07 32 30.99
Ground Water Elevation (ft
msl)
NA
NA
778.41
773.30
Sample ID
Units
Table 2
Ground Water Analytical Results
Land Farm Application Area
Metrolina Fairgrounds Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
TW-1 TW-2
(µg/1) (µg/1)
voes (EPA Method 8260 glus
Tl Cs ND ND
Semi-VOCs (EPA Method 8270
glus TICs) ND ND
Notes:
NC DENR
Action Level
NA
NA
NC DENR -North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
voes -Volatile Organic Compounds
ND -Not Detected
NA -Not Applicable
TICs -Tentatively Identified Compounds
S: \AAA-Master Projects \Morgan Lewis \M LB-01 \analytical. xis \GW
Date:2/112016
Screening Location
ldenfication
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
L-11
L-12
L-13
L-14
L-15
L-16
L-17
L-18
L-19
L-20
L-21
L-22
L-23
L-24
L-25
Notes:
Depth of soils in inches.
ppm = parts per million.
PID = photoionization detector.
Table 3
Soil Field Screening Results
Land Farm Application Area
Metrolina Fairgrounds Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
Total Depth of
Disturbed Soils
6-8
6-8
8-10
8-10
6-8
18-20
18-20
18-20
18-20
6-8
10-12
18-20
28-30
12-14
14-16
24-26
10-12
12-14
14-16
14-16
24-26
> 46
16-18
22-24
10-12
S:\AAA-Master Projects\Morgan Lewis\MLB-01\analytical.xls\LFfield
Date:2/1/2016
PID
Reading (ppm)
4.6
8.2
2.9
6.8
5.4
3.4
1.5
0.2
5.4
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
5.4
2.5
1.8
1.8
29.8
0.6
22.8
3.7
1.5
13.5
0.5
Sample ID L-1 L-2 L-4
Total Depth (6-8") (6-8") (8-1 O')
TPH
GRO (EPA Method 8015M/5030) < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
ORO (EPA Method 8015M/3550) 47 < 6.8 < 7.5
Oil & Grease (EPA Method 9071) 180 22 29
Metals (EPA Method 601 O}
Total Chromium 26 58 57
Total Lead 16 21 23
Table 4
Soil Analytical Results
Land Farm Application Area
Metrolina Fairgrounds Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
L-5 L-9 L-15 L-19
(6-8") (18-20") (14-16") (14-16")
< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
940 18 279 < 6.9
700 < 10 5,100 < 10
44 41 15 140
18 14 16 22
L-21 L-22 L-24 Background
(24-26") (>46") (22-24") Range(*)
< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 Not Applicable
94 < 7.1 < 7.1 Not Applicable
670 31 < 10 Not Aoolicable
35 77 46 1 to 1,000
18 23 14 <10to300
voes {EPA Method 8260) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Not Applicable
Semi-VOCs (EPA Method 8270} ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Not Applicable
Notes:
Results are in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
NC DENR -North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC DENR Action Levels from Groundwater Section Guidelines for the Investigation & Remediation of Soil and Groundwater, July 2000.
Chromium exceeds NC DENR target levels for select samples; lead does not exceed NC DENR target levels in any samples.
Chromium and lead detections appear to be naturally occurring.
TPH -Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
GRO -Gasoline-Range Organics
ORO -Diesel-Range Organics
voes -Volatile Organic Compounds
ND -Not Detected; no VOCs or SVOCs were detected in the landfarm area soil samples collected.
NA -Not Applicable
* Range for Eastern US reported in Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous US (USGS, 1984)
S:IAAA-Master Projects\Morgan Lewis\MLB-01\analytical.xls.LFsoil
Date:2/1 /2016
NC DENR
Action Level
10
40
250
See Notes
See Notes
NA
NA
Sample ID
Sample Depth
TPH
Table 5
Soil Analytical Results
Diesel Underground Storage Tank Area
Metrolina Fairgrounds Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
TH&H Job No. MLB-01
UST-1 UST-2
(9-1 O') (6-8')
GRO (EPA Method 8015M/5030) < 1.0 < 1.0
ORO (EPA Method 8015M/3550) < 8.2 < 7.4
Notes:
Results are in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
UST-3
(2-3')
< 1.0
< 7.6
NC DENR -North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC DENR Action Levels from August 24, 1998 UST Closure Policy Memorandum
TPH -Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
GRO -Gasoline-Range Organics
ORO -Diesel-Range Organics
S:\AAA-Master Projects\Morgan Lewis\MLB-01 \analytical.xls\U STsoil
Date:2/1 /2016
NC DENR
Action Level
10
10
; /
l .
,/ l
'> /.
} / . / . , ....
~
............
.. ·. :± .'.
{
(
J •
. ~v· • . ·. \
~··:-:.··.).
~, I/ •.' • .•~ ··: :: .. · .. ·· .. ·' .. ' ' . ·: · ... ' ,
® APPROXIMATE TITLE
0 2000 4000 SITE LOCATION MAP
SCALE IN FEET PROJECT
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
DERITA, NC 1993
QUADRANGLE DATE: 10-18-00 REVISION NO: 0
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) JOB NO: MLB-01 FIGURE NO:
WOOOEO
WOODED
LEGEND
------PROPERTY LINE
FENCE LINE
G)
®
0
POLE-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
THREE TRANSFORMERS POLE-MOUNTED
0
-...___ LONG CREEK BUSINESS PARK
-------
APPROXIMATE
500
SCALE IN FEET
CON-WAY SOUTHERN
EXPRESS
1000
Tm.£
PROJECT
DATE:
TRAILER AREA
WOODED
WOO OED
SITE LAYOUT MAP
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTTE, NC
TURNER
HART &
HICKMAN, P. c.
EDgilleen t, Scientists
10-31-00
501 Minuet Laue -Suite 101
Cbu/otte, North Carollmi 28217
(rr>I) 588--/J()(/? (7tH} 588-om tu
REVISION NO. 0
JOB NO: MLB-01 FIGURE NO. 2
SHED
WOODED
I
I LAND APPLICATION AREA
RECENTLY TILLED LAND •MW-1
(DRY)
FORMER
LAGOON
L-24
0
L-9
L-13 o L -1 6 ...___...... •
L-5
0
• -¢-
L-21
0
•
L-15 0
TW-1 • L-20
• L-19 L-14
0
L-18 •
\
L-12
• L-8 L-4 • 0
WOODED
L-11 L-7 • • L-3 • -¢-
TW-2 I
L-10 L-6
• • L-2
0
L-1
0
I
MW-2 ._
(NOT LOCATED) I 0
D
J-----_ _J
TITL£
LAND APPLICATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PROJECT METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTIE, NC
TURNER u. ~ & 5QI Jlinuet UUJe -SUile IOI
IlA.n 1 Charlotte, North Coro/iru 2/IZJr
JlJCKMAN, P. C. (7'H) 5BIJ-DO(J7 (7'H) 58tHl373 tu
ED,iIJeen, J: Scien lists
..... ~~;;;;;;;;;;;~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~sooro_A_T_E_:_1_0_-_3_1_-_o_o~~~-t-R-EV~IS_IO_N __ N_O_._o~~-----;
JOB NO: MLB-01 FIGURE NO. 3
LEGEND
• UST-1
PROPANE
AST
KEROSENE D
AST D
PROPER1Y LINE
FENCE LINE
BORING LOCATION
GATE
MAINTENANCE
AREA
PAVED/ASPHALT
TITLE
0
@
TRAILER
HOME
APPROXIMATE
50
SCALE IN FEET
CJ
0
100
UST AREA SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PROJECT METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTIE, NC
TURNER
HART &
HICKMAN, P. C. lfDlineen t Sdev.tms
DATE: 11-7-00
JOB NO: MLB-01
501 JliD.uet i.uJe -Suite 101
Clurwtte, North Carolin• /!8217
('llH) 561HJIJIJ? ('llH) 5811-03T3 tu
REVISION NO. 0
FIGURE NO. 4
s;\aaa master archives\rnlb~O I \rnlb-0 I ph i & ii2 doc
Appendix A
Site Photographs
& Y,
Photograph I: North side of Building # I (facing south).
Photograph 2: South side of Buildings #3 and #4 (facing north).
T URNER HART & HICKMAN, P.C.
Enl{lnoors & Sclondsts
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
9 co ...J ~
Photograph 3: Southwest side of Buildings #5 th.rough #8 and open shed (facing northwest).
Photograph 4: Northeast side of Buildings #IO th.rough # l 8 (facing southeast).
TURNER HART & HICKMAN, P.C.
Engineers & Scleodsts
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CIHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
Photograph 5: Northwest side of Buildings # 19 and #20 (facing southeast).
Photograph 6: Propane and kerosene ASTs in maintenance area (facing south).
TURNER HART & H ICKMAN, P.C.
Engiooors & Sclendsts
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
Photograph 7: Diesel UST dispenser in maintenance area (facing west).
Photograph 8: Former wastewater lagoon (facing south).
TURNER HART & HICKMAN, P.C.
Engineers & Scientists
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
Photograph 9: Pad-mounted transformer owned by Duke Power on north side of Buildu1g # I (facing east).
Photograph I 0: Land application area (facing south).
TURNER HAR T & HICKMAN, P.C.
Englnoors & SclontJsts
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
Photograph 11 : Recently applied soils in northwest comer of land application area (facing south).
TURNER HART & HICKMAN, P.C.
Eoglnoors & Sclondsts
METROLINA FAIRGROUNDS
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA