20045_Powers_Assessment Work Plan Package_013117

State of North Carolina | Environmental Quality | Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center | 217 West Jones Street | Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 T

February 2, 2017
Sent Via E-mail

Mr. Ivon Rohrer III
Bridgestream LLC
4201 Congress St, Suite 174
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
[e-mail]

Subject: Work Plan Approval
Powers Site
536 West Tremont Avenue
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Brownfields Project No. 20045-16-060

Dear Mr. Rohrer:

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Brownfields Program received
and reviewed the Brownfields Assessment Work Plan dated December 7, 2016 and provided
comments by e-mail on December 9, 2016. A Brownfields Assessment Work Plan (Revision I)
dated December 19, 2016 was received and subsequently reviewed by DEQ. DEQ provided
comments by email on December 21, 2016 and a Brownfields Assessment Work Plan (Revision II)
was submitted on January 4, 2017. Final comments were provided by DEQ on January 24, 2017
and a Brownfields Assessment Work Plan (Revision III) was received on February 2, 2017. All
comments have been incorporated; therefore, the Brownfields Assessment Work Plan (Revision
III) is approved.

Be advised that this approval from the Brownfields Program does not waive any applicable
requirement to obtain any necessary permits, licenses, or certifications for the above listed
activities nor does it waive any requirement to comply with applicable law for such activities. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 704-235-2166, or via e-mail at
[e-mail].

Sincerely,
Jordan Thompson
Brownfields Project Manager

ec: Mr. Ed Stephens, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Andrew Kosse, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Richard Kane, Poyner Spruill
Tracy Wahl, DEQ

-i- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................1
2.0 ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION PLAN ...............................................................3 2.1 Regulatory Guidelines ............................................................................................ 3
2.2 Phase II Data Collection ......................................................................................... 3 2.3 Additional Assessment Data Collection ................................................................. 3 2.3.1 Geophysical Survey .....................................................................................3 2.3.2 PCB and TCLP Testing of Identified Foundry Waste Casting Sand ...........4 2.3.3 Evaluation of Potential for Methane in Fill Soils ........................................4
2.3.4 Additional Sampling in the Southeast Area for Risk-Based Parameters ....................................................................................................6 2.3.5 Soil Sampling Beneath Identified Debris/Material Stockpiles and Waste Oil Drum ...........................................................................................7 2.3.6 Brownfields Property Receptor Survey .......................................................7
2.4 Sample Analytical Methods and Quality Assurance .............................................. 7 2.4.1 Sample Analytical Test Methods .................................................................7 2.4.2 Sample and Analytical Quality Assurance ..................................................8 FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Map
Figure 2 - Sampling Location Map Sheet C-4.0 - Grading Plan (from Urban Design Partners) TABLES
Table 1 – CEC Phase II Soil Sampling Results Table 2 – CEC Phase II Groundwater Sampling Results Table 3 – Sampling Schedule

-1- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
1.0 BACKGROUND

The Powers Site is an approximately 3.46-acre parcel located at 536 W. Tremont Avenue,
Charlotte, NC. The parcel was recently purchased by Development Management, Inc. for the
purpose of redeveloping the site for use as commercial storage. The site is currently occupied by
an AM radio antenna and ancillary equipment shed. A site map is presented as Figure 1.

Phase I and II environmental site assessments (ESAs) have been performed at the site. The
previous Phase I ESAs identified several recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that were
generally associated with potentially impacted fill materials at the site and petroleum releases
associated with more than 40 years of auto salvage yard/repair operations. Additionally, RECs
were identified with regard to potential petroleum impacts to site groundwater from the non-
adjacent Beacham and Steve Lit Properties, and potential metals impacts to site soils as the result
of waste dumping at the adjacent former Dynatech site.

The Phase II ESA identified several organic and inorganic soil contaminants associated with four
potential sources including:

1) Petroleum-related VOC and PAH impacts and metals impacts related to the
disposal and management practices of the former auto salvage operations and repair
shop, including surface releases and deeper soil impacts likely related to the former
presence of an undocumented waste oil UST and/or an undocumented hydraulic lift
system;
2) PAH impacts that include petroleum compounds commonly related to the presence
of asphalt pavement which was identified to be mixed throughout the fill soils;
3) VOC, PAH, metals, and PCB impacts related to the deposition of foundry waste
casting sand on the site; and
4) VOC, PAH, and metals impacts which appear to be result of the deposition of
previously impacted soils, or the placement of fill over previously impacted areas
of the site as evidenced by the presence of highly impacted soils beneath several or
more feet of what appears to be relatively “clean” fill.

-2- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017

Approximate Phase II soil sampling locations are shown on Figure 1, and soil sampling results
obtained by CEC are summarized in Table 1.

Approximate Phase II groundwater sampling locations are shown on Figure 1. Phase II
groundwater sampling results obtained by CEC are summarized in Table 2. Groundwater samples
obtained during the Phase II ESAs identified methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) at 490 µg/l in one
monitoring well. Although, MTBE was detected in other Phase II wells; its 15A NCAC 2L
Standard of 20 µg/l was exceeded in only one well. The minimal groundwater impacts identified
during the Phase II ESA are likely the result of on-site activities and are not likely attributable in
any significant way to off-site sources identified in the Phase I ESA.

-3- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
2.0 ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION PLAN

2.1 REGULATORY GUIDELINES

This work plan has been prepared to meet the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup.

2.2 PHASE II DATA COLLECTION

Soil boring and temporary monitoring well locations established by CEC during the previous Phase
II ESA will be located by survey that will be conducted by an NC-registered land surveyor. These
surveyed locations will be mapped on the final plat. Phase II temporary monitoring wells
previously installed by CEC have been abandoned by an NC-certified well driller, and well
abandonment records will be provided to the NCDEQ.

2.3 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION

2.3.1 Geophysical Survey

CEC or its subcontractor will perform remote sensing geophysical surveys employing EM-61 High
Sensitivity Metal Detection (EM-61) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) in the area where an
oil UST and hydraulic lift system were reportedly operated at the site. An EM-61 survey will be
performed initially, and the resultant data analyzed in the field for significant anomalies. GPR will
then be used to further characterize the source of significant EM-61 anomalies. Contour and/or
color scheme maps will be generated to assist in identifying anomalous areas that may be
associated with USTs. The surface trace of detected features, if any, will be marked on the ground
with spray paint and/or stakes with flagging ribbon.

Should significant EM-61 and/or GPR anomalies be detected that suggest an abandoned buried
UST or a hydraulic lift system tank reservoir, hand auger borings will be installed to confirm the
presence of a subsurface system. Following which, the Brownfields Project Manager will be

-4- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
immediately notified of these findings. Confirmation sampling will include the advancement of
two borings per identified UST (one boring at each end of the tank) and one boring per identified
hydraulic lift. The depth of sample collection for each identified UST and lift will be 0 to 2 feet
below the anticipated base of the UST or lift. Confirmation samples will be analyzed for VOCs,
SVOCs, and PCB Congener Specific Analysis. Sample analytical methods are defined in Section
2.3.

As required by the Brownfields Program, any confirmed on-site USTs or hydraulic lift systems
will be removed. Identified subsurface systems will be removed during additional assessment
activities.

2.3.2 PCB and TCLP Testing of Identified Foundry Waste Casting Sand

Samples of the foundry waste casting sand identified during the previous Phase II ESA will be
collected at two site locations as approximately shown on Figure 2 and described in Table 3.
Samples will be collected with a Geoprobe® MacroCore sampler or stainless steel hand auger.
The samples will be submitted to an NC-certified environmental laboratory to perform the
analytical testing. The samples will be analyzed for PCBs using the PCB Congener Specific
Analysis. Also, a Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) leachate sample will be
analyzed for RCRA metals. As required by Republic Services - Charlotte Motor Speedway
Landfill, samples of the waste casting sand will also be collected and analyzed in accordance with
their waste characterization requirements to determine acceptability of these materials should
export be required during the project. Sample analytical methods are defined in Section 2.3.

2.3.3 Evaluation of Potential for Methane in Fill Soils

Soil boring logs will be generated when soil borings are advanced for geotechnical data collection
and for additional environmental sample collection. These logs will be reviewed for the presence
and volume of organic debris or materials for a qualitative evaluation of the potential for methane
generation in the site subsurface. Soil boring logs will be included in the assessment report. Please
note that household-domestic waste, garbage, or other landfill type materials, which could be

-5- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
expected to generate methane gas, were not found at the subject property. Based on the assessment
work to-date, the site fill consists of soils, aggregates, and concrete and asphalt debris.

In addition, six temporary soil gas sampling wellpoints will be installed at locations beneath
planned building footprints on the site followed by subsequent collection of soil gas samples for
methane measurements. Approximate locations of soil gas wellpoints are shown on Figure 2. The
gas sample collection depth will be approximately two feet below the anticipated final grade of
the location of the respective wellpoint. As based on the attached Grading Plan prepared by Urban
Design Partners, the anticipated final grade (i.e., Basement Floor Elevation) of each sampling point
is specified in Table 3.

Soil gas wellpoints will be installed using direct push technology (Geoprobe® DPT). At each
selected sampling location, a specially designed stainless steel vapor sampling tip will be advanced
to the desired depth (AMS Dedicated Tip, Geoprobe® Implant, or equal). An appropriate length
of 1/4" O.D. plastic tubing (polyethylene or Teflon®) will be connected to each tip and extended
to above the ground surface to allow for the collection of a soil gas sample. Filter sand will be
placed in the annular space around the vapor sampling tip to one foot above the tip. The sand and
tip will then be sealed with a two-foot thick layer of hydrated bentonite to prevent short circuiting.
The remainder of the borehole will be backfilled with sand.

After installation, each soil gas wellpoint will be allowed to equilibrate for 24 to 48 hours prior to
sample collection. A methane reading will be obtained as specified in this Section before purging
the wellpoint. At least three times the volume of the tubing will be extracted from the wellpoint
using an air pump, then a second methane reading will be obtained. Well purging and sampling
will be performed at a flow rate of approximately 200 milliliters per minute to limit the potential
for short-circuiting.

Methane measurements will be taken with a Landtec GEM™ 2000 PLUS Landfill Gas Analyzer
and Extraction Monitor. Field calibration of the meter will be performed in accordance with the
GEM™ 2000 PLUS Operation Manual. A field calibration will be performed each day before any
meter readings are taken and at the end of the work day. In addition, a bump test to verify meter

-6- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
calibration and accuracy will be performed prior to, at mid-day, and after each day’s meter use.
The bump test will be performed to ensure the gas monitor is working properly by briefly exposing
the unit to a known concentration of methane gas. The meter reading will be compared to the
actual quantity of gas as stated on the test cylinder. If the bump test reading is within an acceptable
range of ±3% (per specified instrument accuracy range at full scale) of the actual test gas
concentration, then the meter calibration is verified. If the bump test results are not within the
acceptable tolerance, a full instrument calibration will be performed. Instrument calibration will
be verified before meter use. Calibration sheets for the methane meter will be included in the
sampling report as well as all field logs of instrument readings.

Prior to taking an actual reading, the meter will be allowed to warm up until the indicator indicates
a reading can be obtained. To obtain a reading, the tip of the meter will be instantly connected to
the tubing that extends into the wellpoint. The methane concentration will be continuously read
on the face of the meter until the percent methane reading has stabilized. The percent methane
will be recorded by the technician on the Methane Monitoring Field Data Sheet.

2.3.4 Additional Sampling in the Southeast Area for Risk-Based Parameters

Surface (0-2 ft) and deeper subsurface soil samples will be collected with Geoprobe® MacroCore
sampling tools in the southwest area of the site where impacts of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TPH) above the NCDEQ UST Section Screening Criteria were previously identified during the
Phase II ESA performed by Enviroassessments. Specifically, this sampling will be conducted in
the proximity of previous locations of Phase II borings S-7, S-8, and S-9 as shown on Figure 1 and
described in Table 3. A deeper subsurface sample will be collected from the depth interval where
soils exhibit the most elevated soil vapor levels as measured with a MiniRAE 2000 Photoionization
Vapor Detector. Collected samples will be submitted to an NC-certified environmental laboratory
for analyses of VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals. One surface sample will be analyzed for PCBs
using the PCB Congener Specific Analysis. Sample analytical methods are defined in Section 2.3.

-7- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
2.3.5 Soil Sampling Beneath Identified Debris/Material Stockpiles and Waste Oil Drum

Surface (0-2 ft) soil samples will be collected with a stainless hand auger from beneath
debris/material stockpiles and an abandoned waste oil drum that are located on Figure 1. The
approximate sampling locations are shown on Figure 2 and described in Table 3. These soil
samples will be submitted to an NC-certified environmental laboratory for analyses of VOCs,
SVOCs, and RCRA metals. Sample analytical methods are defined in Section 2.3.

2.3.6 Brownfields Property Receptor Survey

A receptor survey will be performed to obtain the information needed to complete the NCDEQ
Division of Waste Management Brownfields Program Brownfields Property Receptor Survey
form. The survey will include a description of the physical site conditions, known buried utilities,
surface water/wetland features, site/area water supply sources, and listing of sensitive area
receptors. The completed referenced survey form will be included in the assessment report.

2.4 SAMPLE ANALYTICAL METHODS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

2.4.1 Sample Analytical Test Methods

Typically, samples will be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and RCRA metals. A select number of
collected soil or fill material samples will also be analyzed for PCBs as outlined in Table 3.
Samples will be submitted to an NC-certified environmental laboratory to conduct the required
analytical test methods. The following test methods, which comply with the NCDEQ Inactive
Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) analytical method requirements, will be used to analyze the
collected samples:

-8- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) SW-846 Method 8260
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOCs)1 SW-846 Method 8270
RCRA Metals EPA Method 6010 and 7470 or 7471
for mercury
PCB Congeners EPA Method 1668 (209 Congener
List)2
Notes
1- Includes a library search (using the National Institute of Standards and Technology mass
spectral library) to produce a list of tentatively identified compounds (TICs). The library search should identify TICs for the largest 10 peaks in each analytical fraction that have reasonable agreement with reference spectra (i.e., relative intensities of major ions agree within ± 20%).
2 – Referenced method is for soils only. If required, water samples will be analyzed for Total
PCBs.

Evaluations for hazardous toxicity characteristic will be performed by Toxicity Characteristic
Leachate Procedure (TCLP) using EPA Method 1311.

2.4.2 Sample and Analytical Quality Assurance

Sampling Quality Assurance

The following samples will be collected and analyzed for quality assurance evaluation:

(a) One duplicate sample per media per method will be collected for analysis for every 10% of
sample collected.
(b) At least one matrix spike and one matrix spike duplicate per sample delivery group or 14-
day period, whichever is more frequent, will be collected for analysis (control limits must be
specified).

-9- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
Laboratory Analytical Quality Assurance

The following laboratory analytical quality assurance will be performed:

(a) A standard Level II QA/QC data package from an NC-certified environmental laboratory
will be requested.
(b) At least one method blank per sample delivery group or 12-hour period, whichever is less,
will be analyzed.
(c) System monitoring compound surrogate recovery required by the method and laboratory
control sample analysis (acceptance criteria must be specified). All samples that exceed
control limits/acceptance criteria must be flagged in the laboratory report.

Analytical Data Reporting

Laboratory reports submitted with remedial investigation reports must include the items listed
below. Full CLP documentation packages are not required.

(a) The laboratory report must state that the laboratory is either certified for applicable
parameters under 15A NCAC Subchapter 2H .0800 and provide its certification number, or
that it is a contract laboratory under the USEPA's Contract Laboratory Program.

(b) A signed statement from the laboratory that the samples were received in good condition, at
the required temperature and that analysis of the samples complied with all procedures
outlined in the analytical method used, unless otherwise specified. Any deviation from the
methods, additional sample preparation, sample dilution and unrectified analytical problems,
must be justified in a narrative with the laboratory report.

(c) Laboratory sheets for all analytical results, including sample identification, sampling dates,
date samples were received by laboratory, extraction dates, analysis dates, analytical
methods, dilution factors, and sample quantitation limits.

-10- Powers Site – Assessment Work Plan (Rev 3) January 31, 2017
Note: The laboratory must provide a written explanation for any sample having sample
quantitation limits that exceed 10 times the USEPA method detection limits.

(d) Laboratory sheets for all laboratory quality control samples, including results for bias and
precision and control limits used. The following minimum laboratory quality control sample
reporting information must be provided: (a) at least one matrix spike and one matrix spike
duplicate per sample delivery group or 14-day period, whichever is more frequent (control
limits must be specified); (b) at least one method blank per sample delivery group or 12-hour
period, whichever is less; and (c) system monitoring compounds, surrogate recovery required
by the method and laboratory control sample analysis (acceptance criteria must be specified).
All samples that exceed control limits/acceptance criteria must be flagged in the laboratory
report.

(e) The results of any library searches performed for “tentatively identified compounds” (TICs).

(f) Data quality should be reviewed and validated by both the remediating party and the
laboratory. Any quality control concerns, data qualifiers or flags should be evaluated and
discussed in the associated report.

(g) All constituents detected must be reported even if they were not definitively quantified. All
estimated concentrations with data qualifiers must be reported.

(h) Completed chain-of-custody with associated air bill (if applicable) attached.

(i) The laboratory report should include the names of the individuals performing each analysis,
the quality assurance officer reviewing the data and the laboratory manager.

FIGURES

DATE:DWG SCALE:
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
EHS FIGURE NO.:
161-6501" = 50'DECEMBER 2016
JKS EHS
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.
www.cecinc.com
1900 Center Park Drive - Suite A - Charlotte, NC 28217
Ph: 980.237.0373 · Fax: [phone]
NORTH
LEGEND
1
Powers Site
SITE MAP
DATE:DWG SCALE:
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.:
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
161-6501" = 50'JANUARY 2017
JKS EHS EHS 2
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.
POWERS SITE

www.cecinc.com
1900 Center Park Drive - Suite A - Charlotte, NC 28217
Ph: 980.237.0373 · Fax: [phone]
NORTH
LEGEND

TABLES

TA
B
L
E

1
CE
C

P
H
A
S
E

I
I

E
S
A

S
O
I
L

S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

A
N
A
L
Y
T
E

D
E
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
PO
W
E
R
S

S
I
T
E
CE
C

P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O

1
6
1
-
6
5
0
B-
1

(
5
'
-
1
0
'
)

B
-
2

(
2
3
'
-
2
4
'
)

B
-
2

(
2
4
'
-
2
8
'
)

B
-
3

(
1
2
'
-
1
5
'
)

B
-
4

(
6
'
-
1
2
'
)

B
-
5

(
3
-
8
'
)

B
-
5

(
1
5
-
2
7
'
)

B
-
6

(
2
'
-
3
'
)

S
-
1

(
1
'
-
1
.
5
'
)

S
-
2

(
1
'
-
1
.
5
'
)
4/2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
7
/
1
6
4/2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
7
/
1
6

5
/
1
3
/
1
6

5
/
1
3
/
1
6
1-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
90
-
1
2
-
0
5.
8

0
.
8
3

7
3

1
8
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
91
-
5
7
-
6
7.8

1
.
3

6
0
0

4
8
Ac
e
n
a
p
h
t
h
e
n
e
83
-
3
2
-
9
32

6
.
5

9
,
0
0
0

7
2
0
Ac
e
n
a
p
h
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
20
8
-
9
6
-
8
0.
6
7

N
A

N
A
An
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
12
0
-
1
2
-
7
39

1
3

4
6
,
0
0
0

3
,
6
0
0
Ar
o
c
l
o
r

1
2
5
4

(
P
C
B
)
80
8
2
A
0.0
2
6

0
.
0
6
9
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
56
-
5
5
-
3
0.
7
2

0
.
3
2

5
4

2
6
2.
9

0
.
1
6
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
50
-
3
2
-
8
0.5
7
0.
5
3

0
.
3
7

5
3

2
7
0.2
9

0
.
0
1
6
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
20
5
-
9
9
-
2
0.7
2

0
.
7
7

0
.
4
1

6
6

3
5

0
.
5
5
2.
9

0
.
1
6
Be
n
z
o
(
g
,
h
,
i
)
p
e
r
y
l
e
n
e
19
1
-
2
4
-
2
0.2
5

3
0

1
6

N
A

N
A
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
20
7
-
0
8
-
9
0.1
4
18

1
1
29

1
.
6
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
21
8
-
0
1
-
9
0.
6
5

0
.
3
1
45

2
3
29
0

1
6
Dib
e
n
z
o
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
53
-
7
0
-
3
5.
9
0.2
9

0
.
0
1
6
Flu
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
20
6
-
4
4
-
0
1.3

0
.
4
5

1
4
0

3
5

0
.
7
9

6
,
0
0
0

4
8
0
Flu
o
r
e
n
e
86
-
7
3
-
7
32

6
.
9

6
,
0
0
0

4
8
0
In
d
e
n
o
(
1
,
2
,
3
-
c
d
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
19
3
-
3
9
-
5
0.2
7

3
6

2
0
2.
9

0
.
1
6
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
91
-
2
0
-
3
18

4
.
0
17

3
.
8
Ph
e
n
a
n
t
h
r
e
n
e
85
-
0
1
-
8
0.
7
9

0
.
2
5

1
6
0

3
3

0
.
5

N
A

N
A
Py
r
e
n
e
12
9
-
0
0
-
0
1.2

0
.
5
0

1
3
0

3
6

0
.
6
9

4
,
6
0
0

3
6
0
Me
r
c
u
r
y
74
3
9
-
9
7
-
6
0.
0
6
5

0
.
9
2

0
.
0
3
1

1
.
1

0
.
7
1

0
.
8
7

0
.
0
7
9

0
.
1
2
0

3
.
1
3

2
.
2
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
74
4
0
-
3
8
-
2
1.
9

1
4

2
.
1

2
.
0

5
.
9

9
.
1

9
.
0

4
.
9
3.
0

0
.
6
8
Ba
r
i
u
m
74
4
0
-
3
9
-
3
66

1
6
0

3
8

9
1

8
7

4
6
0

1
3
0

6
0

4
4
,
0
0
0

3
,
0
0
0
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
74
4
0
-
4
3
-
9
19
0.5
0

1
.
2

7
.
4

1
.
3

1
9
6

1
4
.
2
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
16
0
6
5
-
8
3
-
1
31

3
5

3
3

2
9

2
7

2
4

2
2

3
0

3
1

3
7

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

2
4
,
0
0
0
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
-
V
I
18
5
4
0
-
2
9
-
9
6.
3

0
.
3
Le
a
d
74
3
9
-
9
2
-
1
6.
4

3
1
0

6
.
1

3
2

7
3

3
0
0
1,3
0
0
37
0

8
0
0

4
0
0
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
77
8
2
-
4
9
-
2
0.
7
4

1
,
1
6
0

7
8
Sil
v
e
r
74
4
0
-
2
2
-
4
3.
1

0
.
3
8

0
.
4
0

0
.
7
4

0
.
9
8

1
,
1
6
0

7
8
1,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
95
-
6
3
-
6
0.0
0
3
2
48

1
1
.
6
Ac
e
t
o
n
e
67
-
6
4
-
1
0.
0
4
3

0
.
2
9

0
.
0
1
3

0
.
0
7
6

0
.
0
8
7

0
.
0
7
4

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

1
2
,
2
0
0
Be
n
z
e
n
e
71
-
4
3
-
2
0.0
0
7
0
5.1

1
.
2
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
10
0
-
4
1
-
4
0.0
0
3
6
25

5
.
8
Dii
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l

E
t
h
e
r
10
8
-
2
0
-
3
0.0
0
5
7

0
.
0
0
5
8
1,8
8
0

4
4
0
Is
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

(
C
u
m
e
n
e
)
98
-
8
2
-
8
0.0
0
3
7

2
.
4

2
6
8

2
6
8
m,p
-
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
8 -3
8
-
3
,

1
0
6
-
4
2
-
3
0.
0
1
9
38
8

1
1
2
Me
t
h
y
l

E
t
h
y
l

K
e
t
o
n
e
78
-
9
3
-
3
0.
0
7
6

0
.
0
0
9
5

0
.
0
0
9
6

0
.
0
3
4
0

3
8
,
0
0
0

5
,
4
0
0
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
91
-
2
0
-
3
0.0
0
6
1

0
.
0
0
4
6
14
0.0
1
4

0
.
0
1
1

1
7

3
.
8
n-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
10
4
-
5
1
-
8
0.0
0
2
0

7
.
6

0
.
0
0
1
3

1
0
8

1
0
8
n-
P
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
10
3
-
6
5
-
1
0.
0
1
3

1
0

0
.
0
0
3
8

0
.
0
0
1
5

2
6
4

2
6
4
o-
X
y
l
e
n
e
95
-
4
7
-
6
0.0
0
3
3
43
4

1
3
0
se
c
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
13
5
-
9
8
-
8
0.0
0
3
9

1
1

0
.
0
0
2
6

0
.
0
0
1
6

1
4
5

1
4
5
te
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
98
-
0
6
-
6
0.
8
6

1
8
3

1
8
3
To
l
u
e
n
e
10
8
-
8
8
-
3
0.0
0
2
1
81
8

8
1
8
Xy
l
e
n
e
s
,

t
o
t
a
l
13
3
0
-
2
0
-
7
0.
0
2
2
26
0

1
1
6
Me
t
h
y
l

t
e
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l

E
t
h
e
r
16
3
4
-
0
4
-
4
0.4
6

1
.
2

0
.
0
0
2
6

2
1
0
47
IH
S
B

R
e
s
.

P
S
R
G

-

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
6

I
n
a
c
t
i
v
e

H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

S
i
t
e

B
r
a
n
c
h

P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

H
e
a
l
t
h

B
a
s
e
d

S
o
i
l

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n

G
o
a
l
s

IH
S
B

I
n
d
.
/
C
o
m
m
.

P
S
R
G

-

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
6

I
n
a
c
t
i
v
e

H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

S
i
t
e

B
r
a
n
c
h

P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

H
e
a
l
t
h

B
a
s
e
d

S
o
i
l

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d

a
n
d

b
o
l
d

v
a
l
u
e
is

a
n

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

P
S
R
G
Re
s
u
l
t

(
m
g
/
k
g
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
A
S

N
o
.
Standards
Bo
l
d

v
a
l
u
e
i
s

a
n

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
S
R
G
Sa
m
p
l
e

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
a
t
e
IH
S
B

In
d
.
/
C
o
m
m
.

PS
R
G

(
m
g
/
k
g
)
IHSB Residential PSRG (mg/kg)
TA
B
L
E

2
CE
C

P
H
A
S
E

I
I

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G

R
E
S
U
L
T
S
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

D
E
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
RI
S
K
-
B
A
S
E
D

A
N
A
L
Y
T
I
C
A
L

P
A
R
A
M
E
T
E
R
S
GW
-
1

G
W
-
2

G
W
-
5
4/
2
7
/
1
6

4
/
2
8
/
1
6

4
/
2
8
/
1
6
1,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

8
2
6
0
B
0.
5
0
2.
0
400

2
8
,
5
0
0
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

8
2
6
0
B
5.
0
20

4
.
8
6,000

6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

8
2
6
0
B
0.
5
0
1.
1
600

8
4
,
5
0
0
Is
o
p
r
o
p
y
l

E
t
h
e
r

8
2
6
0
B
0.
5
0
12
70

7
0
,
0
0
0
m,
p
-
X
y
l
e
n
e
s

8
2
6
0
B
1.
0
3.
0
500

8
5
,
5
0
0
Me
t
h
y
l
-
t
e
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l

E
t
h
e
r

8
2
6
0
B
5.
0
49
0
20

2
0
,
0
0
0
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e

8
2
6
0
B
1.
0
0.
9
8
6

6
,
0
0
0
o-
X
y
l
e
n
e

8
2
6
0
B
0.
5
0
1.
6
500

8
5
,
5
0
0
NC
G
W
Q
S

-

N
C

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

(
1
5
A

N
C
A
C

2
L
.
0
2
0
2

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
GC
L

-

N
C

G
r
o
s
s

C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
v
e
l
s

f
o
r

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Sa
m
p
l
e

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
a
t
e

NC GWQS

G
C
L
Re
s
u
l
t

(
u
g
/
L
)

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

M
e
t
h
o
d
Re
p
o
r
t

L
i
m
i
t

(u
g
/
L
)
Table 3
Sampling Schedule
Powers Site
CEC Project No. 161-650
Boring ID Location (See
Figure 2)Boring Depth (ft bgs)Sampling Depth
(ft bgs)Analyses Assessment Target
0-2
VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals, PCB
Congeners
highest PID level VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals
0-2 VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals
highest PID level VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals
Two
borings Southeast corner Anticipated at 7 to 10 ft
0-2 ft below base
of UST
VOCs, SVOCs, PCB
Congeners Each Confirmed UST
One
boring Southeast corner Anticipated at 7 to 10 ft
0-2 ft below base
of hydraulic lift
VOCs, SVOCs, PCB
Congeners
Each Confirmed Hydraulic
Lift
SB-3 at Phase II boring B-
6 location 4 0-2
SB-4 at Phase II boring B-
3 location 17 15-17
SB-5 Southeast 2 0-2
SB-6 South-central 2 0-2
SB-7 South-central 2 0-2
SB-8 South-central 2 0-2
SB-9 Southwest 2 0-2
VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals Waste Oil Drum Location
Anticipated Final Grade * Sampling Depth **
SB-10 beneath building
footprint 693.0 ft MSL 691.0 ft MSL
SB-11 beneath building
footprint 693.0 ft MSL 691.0 ft MSL
SB-12 beneath building
footprint 693.0 ft MSL 691.0 ft MSL
SB-13 beneath building
footprint 693.0 ft MSL 691.0 ft MSL
SB-14 beneath building
footprint 693.0 ft MSL 691.0 ft MSL
SB-15 beneath building
footprint 693.0 ft MSL 691.0 ft MSL
** Sampling depth is 2 feet below anticipated final grade.
Former Hydraulic Lift and
UST Area
Material/Debris StockpilesVOCs, SVOCs, RCRA
Metals
Should a hydraulic oil UST or lift system be identified by geophysical survey, the following sampling schedule will be applicable.
15 ft, unless apparent
impacts are identified at
15 ft, in which case
continue to 20 ft
SB-1 Southeast Corner
SB-2 Southeast corner
15 ft, unless apparent
impacts are identified at
15 ft, in which case
continue to 20 ft
Methane Monitor Well in
Fill Materials
Percent Methane via
Landtec GEM2000
PLUS Landfill Gas
Analyzer
* Anticipated final grade per Grading Plan prepared by Urban Design Partners (December 2, 2016) - See attached Sheet No. C-4.0
Foundry Casting Sand
Waste Characterization
PCB Congeners, TCLP
RCRA Metals