HomeMy WebLinkAboutWindsor Oil_Phase II ESA_Soil Testing-OCR
July 23, 2014
Mr. Brent Kanipe
Town of Williamston
Post Office Box 506
Williamston, North Carolina 27892
Subject: SOIL TESTING ADDENDUM
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK AND WINDSOR OIL SITES
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
WILLIAMSTON, MARTIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04025 & 4095
Dear Mr. Kanipe:
We are pleased to present this Soil Testing Addendum to our Phase II Environmental
Site Assessment Report for the above-referenced site. We appreciate the opportunity to
provide environmental services to the Town of Williamston. Please contact me at 919-
250-9918 if any questions arise or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
MID-ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
Darin M. McClure
Principal Engineer
Enclosure
SOIL TESTING ADDENDUM
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK AND
WINDSOR OIL SITES
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared For:
Mr. Brent Kanipe
Town of Williamston
Post Office Box 502
Williamston, North Carolina 27892
Prepared By:
Mid-Atlantic Associates, Inc.
409 Rogers View Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Mid-Atlantic Job No. 000R2284.00 T04025 & 4095
July 23, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A-3. DISTRIBUTION LIST
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 3
2.1 Soil and Vapor Sampling Activities ....................................................................... 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .................................................. 5
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE ......................................................................................... 6
4.1 Property-Specific Corrective Actions .................................................................... 7
4.2 Quality Control Parameters .................................................................................. 7
4.2.1 Precision and Accuracy .................................................................................. 7
4.2.2 Representativeness ........................................................................................ 8
4.2.3 Completeness ................................................................................................. 8
4.2.4 Comparability .................................................................................................. 9
4.2.5 Sensitivity ........................................................................................................ 9
4.3 Laboratory Data Evaluation .................................................................................. 9
4.3.1 Qualitative Data – Level A ............................................................................ 10
4.3.2 Quantitative Data – Level B .......................................................................... 10
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 11
DRAWINGS
Drawing 1.1 Topographic Site Map
Drawing 1.2 1966 Aerial Photograph with Soil and Groundwater Sample
Locations (2013)
Drawing 2.1 Soil Addendum Boring Locations
Drawing 3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Above Residential Action Levels (Soil)
Drawing 3.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Above Residential Action Levels
(Soil)
Drawing 3.3 Extent of Contaminated Soil Above Residential Action Levels
TABLES
Table 2.1 Soil Sample Field Screening Results
Table 3.1 Chemical Constituents Detected in Soils, Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Table 3.2 Chemical Constituents Detected in Soil Samples: Semi-VOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Sample Laboratory Analytical Reports and Chain-of-Custody
Records
Appendix B Letter from Prism Laboratories Regarding High Shipping
Temperature
A-3. DISTRIBUTION LIST
The following personnel will receive and follow applicable sections of the Soil Testing Addendum to our
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, dated November 18, 2013:
Agency Number of Copies
David Egetter, Brownfields Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4,
Atlanta Federal Building
Waste Management Division
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 562-8250
Email: egetter.david@epa.gov
1
EPA Designated Approving Official (DAO)
David Egetter, Brownfields Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4,
Atlanta Federal Building
Waste Management Division
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 562-8250
Email: egetter.david@epa.gov
1
Brent R. Kanipe, Town of Williamston Project Manager
Town of Williamston
Post Office Box 506,
Williamston, North Carolina 27892
Phone: (252)-792-5142, ext 227
Email: rbkanipe@yahoo.com
1
Sharon Poissant Eckard, PG
Brownfields Project Manager
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Divison of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Phone (919) 707-8379
Email: sharon.eckard@ncdenr.gov
1
Darin M. McClure, Project Manager
Mid-Atlantic Associates, Inc.
409 Rogers View Court
Raleigh, NC 27610
Phone: (919) 250-9918
Email: dmcclure@maaonline.com
1
Daniel H. Nielsen, QA/QC Officer
Mid-Atlantic Associates, Inc.
409 Rogers View Court
Raleigh, NC 27610
Phone: (919) 250-9918
Email: dnielsen@maaonline.com
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Version 1.1 of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated
March 14, 2012 and the Site Specific QAPP (SSQAPP) Addendum C-1.B dated March
28, 2014, Mid-Atlantic Associates, Inc. (Mid-Atlantic) has prepared this Soil Testing
Addendum to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report for the former
Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil parcels located on River Road in Williamston, North
Carolina (Drawing 1.1). The former Royster-Clark (RC) site consists of two irregular-
shaped parcels of land totaling approximately 5.4 acres and are the western parcels
denoted on Drawing 1.1. The RC property is owned by Royster-Clark Realty, LLC and
recorded as Parcel ID Numbers 0503174 and 0502874 by the Martin County Tax
Administrator’s Office (Tax Office). The former Windsor Oil (WO) site consists of one
irregular-shaped parcel of land totaling approximately 2.00 acres, owned by Greenwood
Acres, LLC and recorded as Parcel ID Number 0500102 by the Tax Office. Both sites are
currently vacant and only one warehouse building remains on the WO site. Former
aboveground and below ground petroleum and fertilizer storage tanks have been removed
from the RC and WO sites along with aboveground piping leading from the bulk
fuel/fertilizer storage areas to former loading docks on the Roanoke River. The southern
one-half of both former facilities are located on generally level ground situated at a higher
elevation than the northern portion of both properties, which is occupied by wooded
marshland frequently flooded by the Roanoke River. In this report, the acronym RCWO is
used to refer to both sites together.
In July and August 2013, Mid-Atlantic completed fieldwork as part of a Phase II ESA at
the RCWO site (report dated November 18, 2013). The Phase II ESA scope of work was
outlined in SSQAPP Addendum C-1.A dated June 14, 2013, and was completed to
evaluate potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the
RCWO site as documented in two prior Phase I ESA reports completed individually for
the RC and WO sites. The RECs documented in the two Phase I ESA reports included:
• The historical use of the RC site as a bulk petroleum storage facility and bulk
fertilizer storage and the documented releases of petroleum at this site;
• The historical use of the WO site as a bulk petroleum storage facility;
• The prior release(s) and documented soil and groundwater contamination
associated with the historical aboveground petroleum storage activities at the
WO site;
• The prior release(s) and documented soil and groundwater contamination
associated with the former orphan underground storage tanks (USTs) at the WO
site; and
• The potential presence of underground transfer lines associated with the
historical operation of aboveground storage tank (AST) and/or UST systems at
the WO site.
The soil and groundwater sample locations from the July and August 2013 work are
shown on Drawing 1.2, an aerial photograph from 1966 showing the site at its
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 2
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
maximum historical development. Based on the results from the Phase II ESA as they
pertained to the proposed redevelopment, Mid-Atlantic concluded:
• Contaminants in soil were present at concentrations above the residential health-
based North Carolina soil remediation goals (SRGs), EPA regional screening
levels (RSLs) and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) action levels established
by the UST Section, Division of Waste Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR);
• Contaminants were detected in groundwater above North Carolina’s groundwater
quality standards;
• Contaminants detected in the sub-slab soil gas samples and groundwater did not
exceed their respective Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) screening levels
for vapor intrusion;
• Exposure to groundwater contaminants did not appear to be a concern if the
current restriction on groundwater use was maintained and development in the
low-lying marsh area was limited to elevated structures; and,
• Vapor intrusion did not appear to be a concern in the vicinity of the on-site
building and site monitoring wells based on the groundwater data and sub-slab
soil gas data collected to date.
The Town of Williamston (Town) is in the process of entering this site into DENR’s
Brownfields Program. At the time this report was issued, the Brownfields Agreement
(BFA) between the Town and DENR had been negotiated, including the proposed
cleanup goals for the site soils (residential SRGs established by DENR’s IHSB) and the
work to be performed to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. As such, soil impacted
in excess of the residential SRGs will need to be addressed/remediated in compliance
with the BFA to facilitate the planned redevelopment of the site. Drawing 3.5 of the
aforementioned report shows the extent of these areas that was estimated using
laboratory results from grab samples tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
from composite soil samples tested for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The
original SSQAPP Addendum C-1.A, dated June 14, 2013, included collection of
composite soil samples for SVOC and other analyses because of the large size of the
site and in order to cost effectively assess the site.
In 2013, between four and eight grab soil samples were mixed together to make up
each composite sample. As a result of the 2013 investigation, it was apparent that the
horizontal extent of SVOC impacted soil needed better definition to facilitate cleanup
planning. The work scope outlined in SSQAPP Addendum C-1.B was intended to
delineate where soil exceeding SVOC SRGs and RSLs was located. Additional soil
samples were to be collected around the perimeter of the previously assessed areas.
The goal of SSQAPP Addendum C-1.B was to further delineate the amount of
contaminated soil to facilitate preparation of an Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 3
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
Alternatives (ABCA) for the site. DENR’s approval of mitigation or remediation
measures in the ABCA are necessary to facilitate implementation of the ABCA and site
redevelopment.
2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES
2.1 Soil and Vapor Sampling Activities
Mid-Atlantic completed soil sampling activities during April 22 and 23, 2014 from 26 soil
boring locations. Samples were collected from depths located between 0 and 10 feet
below land surface (BLS) on both the RC and WO properties (Table 2.1). Groundwater
was encountered at a generally shallow depth ranging from 4.2 to 7.9 feet BLS. The low-
lying, northern portions of both properties were flooded by the Roanoke River on both
days. Soil boring services were provided by Quantex, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina.
Soil Sample Locations
Soil borings were advanced and laboratory samples collected (one from each boring) at
the following locations, as shown on Drawing 2.1.
• Six soil borings were drilled within the estimated extents of soil contamination in
the former bulk petroleum fuel and fertilizer tank farm (TF) area and former fuel
distribution structure (DS) area of the RC site including TF-1, TF-2, TF-3, DS-1,
DS-2 and DS-3;
• Three soil borings were drilled within the estimated extent of soil contamination in
the former tank farm area on the WO site including W-1, W-2 and W-3;
• Eight soil borings were drilled on the RC site around the perimeters of the TF and
DS areas, including TF-4, TF-5, TF-6, TF-7, TF-8, DS-4, DS-5 and DS-6;
• Six soil borings were drilled on the WO site around the perimeter of semi-VOC
impacted soils requiring remediation including W-4, W-5, W-6, W-7, W-8 and W-9;
Samples TF-1 to TF-3, DS-1 to DS-3 and WO-1 to WO-3 were collected to refine the
extent of soil impacted by SVOCs in areas where composite soil samples were previously
collected. Samples TF-4 to TF-8, DS-4 to DS-6 and W-4 to W-9 were collected to refine
the extent of SVOC impacted soils in areas where results of previous grab samples
exceeded applicable clean up goals.
In addition to the samples specified in the March 28, 2014 SSQAPP and listed above, the
DENR’s Brownfields Program requested on April 10, 2014 that Mid-Atlantic collect two or
three grab soil samples from shallow soils where a Native-American heritage feature
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 4
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
(Teepee) is planned at the site. Three soil samples (TP-1 to TP3) were collected in this
area from a depth of 1 foot BLS and submitted to the laboratory for testing.
Soil Sampling and Screening Procedure
Using a GeoProbe “macrocore” sampling device and direct push technology (DPT),
continuous soil samples were collected at each soil boring and scanned for the presence
of total VOCs using a toxic vapor analyzer (TVA), equipped with a flame ionization
detector (FID). Mid-Atlantic observed field indicators of contamination and/or elevated FID
readings (>10 parts per million (ppm)) from 18 boring locations. Elevated readings above
100 ppm were observed at most of these sample locations, primarily located in and
around the former RC and WO tank farms. Table 2.1 notes the FID readings collected
from each boring. Several borings (16) listed in Table 2.1 exhibited elevated readings
near or below the estimated depth of the water table. In general, soil samples selected for
laboratory analysis had the highest FID readings from soils located above the water table
(unsaturated zone). Mid-Atlantic field personnel described soils as emitting noticeable
petroleum odors at DS-3, DS-6 and TF-8. In general, the lithology at the site consisted of
sandy clay and silty clay in the southern part near River Road. Sand becomes more
prevalent below a depth of approximately 5 to 7 feet BLS in the TF area and below most
of the WO area. Fine sand was present near the surface and extending to total depth at
W-1, W-7 and W-8.
A total of 28 soil samples were collected from the subject site for laboratory analysis,
including 26 grab primary samples and 2 grab duplicate samples. New nitrile gloves were
worn during the collection of each sample, and samples selected for laboratory submittal
were placed into laboratory-supplied bottles. The samples were then packed into an ice-
filled cooler and shipped under chain-of-custody to Prism Laboratories, Inc. (Prism) in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Most soil samples collected as grab samples were submitted
for analysis of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) SVOC compounds according to
EPA Method 8270C SIM. The SIM method, discussed in the approved SSQAPP, has the
advantage of a lower detection limit for PAH compounds compared with the EPA Method
8270 test for SVOCs (personal communication with Prism Laboratories, 2014). The
SSQAPP noted that the previous SVOC analytes detected at the site were PAHs, so Mid-
Atlantic selected the 8270 PAH SIM test. Selected soil samples were also tested for
VOCs according to EPA Method 8260B.
Duplicate soil samples were collected from two soil sample locations including W-8 (1-2’)
and W-4 (3-4’) as noted in Table 2.1. The samples were collected by splitting recovered
soils into jars planned for the primary sample and duplicate sample.
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 5
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
3.0 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The laboratory analytical report and chain-of-custody records for the soil samples collected
at the site are provided in Appendix A. Tables included in this report for soil samples
(Tables 3.1 and 3.2) summarize only the soil samples that exhibited chemical constituent
concentrations at detectable levels. Action levels established by DENR include the IHSB
SRGs while action levels established by EPA include the RSLs. Both sets of action levels
have values associated with the protection of groundwater (PGW) from migrating
contaminants, and health-based action levels for the protection of human populations in
residential and industrial/commercial settings. The PGW action levels are typically the
most stringent, however for selected low mobility semi-VOCs the residential SRG or RSL
are higher.
Soil Sample Results
As documented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, 18 soil borings had samples where constituents
were detected at concentrations equal to above one or more regulatory action levels
established by the DENR or EPA. However, only six of the soil samples exhibited
concentrations above the IHSB SRG’s, the assumed cleanup goals for the site. Borings
with samples detected with constituents above proposed cleanup levels are summarized
by assessment area below:
Site and Sampling Area # of Borings
# of Samples from
Borings with > PGW
and Higher (health-
based) Action Level
RC TF (Inside) 3 2
RC TF (Perimeter) 5 0
RC DS (Inside) 3 1
RC DS (Perimeter) 3 2
WO (Inside) 3 0
WO (Perimeter) 6 0
TP (Inside) 3 1
Totals 26 6 Samples
RC = Royster-Clark
WO = Windsor Oil
TP = Teepee Location
TF = Former RC Tank Farm
DS = Former RC Distribution Structure
SVOCs = Semi-volatile Organic
Compounds
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 6
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
VOCs: Samples from four borings exhibited VOC constituents at concentrations above the
laboratory method detection limit (MDL). Benzene was detected in three samples at
concentrations above the most stringent action levels, the PGW SRG and/or the PGW
RSL (Drawing 3.1). The sample from W-3 required dilution prior to analysis so the
laboratory reported an elevated detection limit for benzene above the PGW SRG and
PGW RSL. Additional VOCs reported above the PGW SRG and/or PGW RSL in the
samples included four at TF-7, one at W-3, and five at W-9 (Table 3.1). Both samples W-3
and W-9 had elevated detection limits. Among the four borings, W-9 exhibited the most
VOC contaminants and highest concentrations. However, the concentration levels were
below the proposed cleanup goals (IHSB residential SRGs) and the health based action
levels established by EPA.
Semi-VOCs: Samples from 16 borings exhibited semi-VOC constituents at concentrations
above the MDL. Samples from 14 of the 16 boring locations were detected with
concentrations above the most stringent (lowest) action levels for individual constituents
(Drawing 3.2 and Table 3.2). Six of the 14 borings, all located on the RC site, had semi-
VOC contaminants that exceeded the proposed cleanup goals (IHSB residential SRGs)
and the health based RSLs, including TF-1, TF-3, DS-3, DS-5, DS-6 and TP-1. Three soil
samples (TF-1, TF-3 and DS-6) exhibited the highest levels of contamination. The
contaminants that exceeded Residential health-based action levels in samples TF-1, TF-3
and DS-6 included:
• TF-1: benzo[a]pyrene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
• TF-3: benzo[a]pyrene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene and naphthalene;
• DS-6: benzo[a]pyrene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
Summary: Soil is present at the site with contaminant concentrations in excess of the
IHSB residential SRGs, the assumed cleanup levels for soil at the site for the proposed
redevelopment. Depending on the placement of structures, caps and/or impervious
surfaces, this soil may impede the redevelopment without some type of corrective actions,
institutional controls and/or engineering controls. Drawing 3.3 depicts the estimated
horizontal extent of soil at the site with concentrations in excess of the IHSB residential
SRGs.
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The QAPP and the Addendum set forth the procedures and methods for data collection,
and defined the specific procedures and adjustments necessary to maintain data quality to
support the project decision. The Phase II ESA required both field and laboratory checks
to monitor conformance to project quality limits.
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 7
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
4.1 Property-Specific Corrective Actions
A field methods audit was not conducted during the fieldwork for this site. During the
fieldwork, field practices were generally conducted in a method consistent with the
methodology of the QAPP and relevant standard operating procedures.
A data verification audit from was completed by Mid-Atlantic before this report was
prepared. No field-related deficiencies were discovered.
4.2 Quality Control Parameters
To assess whether quality assurance objectives for this project have been achieved, the
following QC parameters were considered: precision, accuracy, representativeness,
comparability, completeness and sensitivity.
4.2.1 Precision and Accuracy
As described in the QAPP, precision is evaluated using the relative percent difference
(RPD) between an actual sample and a duplicate sample. In accordance with the
Addendum, two duplicate soil samples and one trip blank sample were collected during
the limited ESA activities. A comparison of the sample duplicates and their corresponding
sample results was made to evaluate the reproducibility of the sample results based on
the laboratory analysis and sample collection and transportation procedures. Where the
duplicate sample or primary sample result was less than five times the higher of the two
reporting limits, the comparison was made by the absolute difference between the results
(sample - duplicate). For the soil samples, if the absolute difference was less than twice
the magnitude of the (higher) reporting limit, precision was considered “acceptable”. If
these differences were within two times the “acceptable” limits, they were considered
“slightly high”. Absolute differences beyond two times the acceptable limit were considered
“high”).
Where both the sample and duplicate results were greater than five times the higher of the
two reporting limits, then the precision was assessed by calculating the %RPD (difference
in results divided by the average of the two results times 100). A %RPD <35% was
considered “good/acceptable”, a %RPD >35% but < 50% indicated that the variability was
“slightly high”, and a %RPD >50% indicated a “high” degree of variability.
Among the two duplicate soil samples, none of the soil samples could be evaluated for
precision. This was due to the both the primary and duplicate soil samples not having
detectable levels of individual constituents.
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 8
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
Accuracy is evaluated using a percent recovery measured in spiked and unspiked
samples. Accuracy is a function of the laboratory method, and parameters regarding
accuracy are included in the lab report provided by the laboratory.
4.2.2 Representativeness
Mid-Atlantic has evaluated the representativeness of the limited ESA activities to
document the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represents a
characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an
environmental condition. Review of field methods and procedures indicated that one
deficiency occurred related to sample handling and transportation procedures by the
laboratory (Prism). To perform the SVOC testing, Prism shipped the samples to a
subcontract laboratory, Gulf Coast Analytical Labs (GCAL), on April 28, 2014. GCAL
received the samples on April 29, 2014 at 10:30 AM at a reported temperature of 10.1 °C.
Sample receiving personnel at GCAL noted that the samples were received on ice. Mid-
Atlantic contacted Prism about the issue on May 7, 2014, shortly after we received the
Prism report which includes the GCAL case narrative and test results (Appendix A).
Prism responded to our inquiry in a letter dated May 20, 2014 and included in Appendix
B. Mr. Helmuth Janssen, the Laboratory Director/Quality Assurance Manager, stated that
“although the temperature at receipt exceeded the regulatory value of 6 °C, it is unlikely
that the results are affected considering that they were received on ice, that they are soil
samples, and that the analysis is for semi-volatile compounds. However, it is depending on
the sensitivity of the project and the data validator if the data is useable.” Based upon Mr.
Janssen’s letter and the nature of the analyses (for SVOCs), Mid-Atlantic considered the
data as usable for assessment purposes. On May 15, 2014, Ms. Sharon Eckard of the
DENR Brownfields Program indicated that she was comfortable using the SVOC test
results since contaminant loss from the sealed containers was anticipated to be minimal.
However, she indicted that Mid-Atlantic should include footnotes to the tables indicating
the samples exceeded 6 degrees Celsius.
4.2.3 Completeness
A total of 29 soil samples1 were collected for analysis of the following tests: VOCs (10
samples) and SVOCs (28 samples). For organic analyses, the SSQAPP specified
analyses of 8 samples for VOCs (including testing of one duplicate soil sample and one
trip blank for VOCs) and 25 samples for SVOCs. Mid-Atlantic collected 2 extra soil
samples for VOCs and 3 extra soil samples for SVOC testing to evaluate the proposed
Native American Teepee area. These samples were requested by the NCBP after the
1 Including two duplicate soil samples and one trip blank.
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 9
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
SSQAPP was written as noted earlier. Therefore, completeness for VOC testing was
125%. Completeness for semi-VOC testing was 112%.
4.2.4 Comparability
To produce comparable data, the units specified for analytical results obtained during the
field activities are consistent throughout this project and are listed in milligrams per
kilogram (mg/Kg). Standardized analytical methods have been used for each parameter.
4.2.5 Sensitivity
Laboratory quantitation limits (reporting limit and/or MDL) for soils were sufficient to report
concentrations below the action levels in undiluted samples. The EPA 8270C SIM
analyses was chosen over the EPA 8270D test due to the lower detection limits
achievable by the method as noted earlier.
4.3 Laboratory Data Evaluation
The laboratory completed validation and verification of laboratory processes and data, and
delivered a laboratory report to the Mid-Atlantic Project Manager. The laboratory report
and the QC information contained therein documents compliance to the QAPP, except for
the sample temperature during shipping issue discussed in Section 4.2.2.
The following qualifiers were used by the contract laboratory in this report when presenting
data for the limited ESA samples and QA/QC samples collected by Mid-Atlantic:
Qualifiers for Soil Samples from Prism Laboratories (Prism):
“CVL” - CCV result is below the control limits. LCS recovery within the limits. Analyte not
detected in the sample. No further action taken.
“DM” – Sample diluted and RL increased due to the matrix.
“IH” - Internal standard area below the QC limit. Compound reported with possible high
bias.
“J” - Detected but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated
concentration (CLP J-Flag).
“SR” - Surrogate recovery outside the QC limits.
“MDL” - Method Detection Limit
“BRL” - Below Reporting Limit
“RPD” - Relative Percent Difference
“*” - Results reported to the reporting limit. All other results are reported to the MDL with
values between MDL and reporting limit indicated with a J.
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 10
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
Qualifiers for Soil Samples from Laboratory subcontracted by Prism (GCAL):
“U” – Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected.
“J” – Indicates the result is between the MDL and RDL
Data usability determination is also a part of data evaluation. After data validity has been
assessed, that is, the analytical data has been reviewed and qualifier codes have been
applied, these data were individually identified and assessed for usability. Sample data
(both with and without qualifier codes) may be generally spoken of as either qualitative
(Level A), quantitative (Level B), or unusable. Obviously, within any matrix it is likely
certain samples may have parameters that require qualifier codes. A discussion of these
qualifier codes for each level is provided below.
4.3.1 Qualitative Data – Level A
Qualitative data are often referred to as Level A data. All screening data is considered
Level A data. Screening data may not be considered as Level B data, and cannot be used
to make site management decisions. Data in this level also include “J” coded data. These
data are considered to be an estimated quantity, i.e., a presence or absence value. Data
having been given a “J” code were not automatically classified as qualitative data only;
these data were considered as Level B (quantitative) data depending on bias, and were
evaluated on a case by case basis. Data reported with “BRL” or “U” codes can also be
classified as Level B data provided the detection limit was not above an applicable
regulatory action level for that analyte. All field-screening and field-instrument-derived data
was accepted as Level A. These data were not considered for inclusion as Level B data
and will not be used to make site decisions. These data include FID data collected during
soil core screening. All analytical data received as part of the analytical package for this
site were accepted as Level A data.
4.3.2 Quantitative Data – Level B
Data at this level are referred to as Level B data. Only data meeting all field and analytical
data usability requirements may be classified as Level B data. This means all quality
assurance parameters have been satisfied, including quality control and quality
assessment. Only data that were found to be analytically valid and passed all criteria for
Level A were considered for classification at Level B. These data are considered definitive
and may be used for any purpose.
Soil samples shipped by Prism to a GCAL were received at an elevated temperature of
10.1 °C, above the 6 °C temperature prescribed by EPA for sample preservation. Mid-
Atlantic determined that the data was usable (Section 4.2.2).
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 11
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
In reviewing the laboratory results, several analytes are reported as detections with “J”
data qualifiers, indicating the reported value is an estimate reported within the 95%
confidence interval. These compounds were detected above the MDL, but below the
reporting limit or “RL”. The MDL is the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be
detected in a sample by the particular laboratory method used. “Detected” indicates that
the analyte can be distinguished from the blank with reasonable certainty. The report limit
(also called practical quantitation limit, or PQL) is approximately five times the MDL or the
lower calibration standard, whichever is higher. Results above the report limit can be
distinguished from the blank and fall within applicable standard curves. For the purposes
of this assessment, all “J” qualified data are considered acceptable for making site
management decisions as these data are not the sole determinant of “clean.” These data
are accepted as Level B data, and such qualified data has been considered against
applicable action levels in evaluating extent of impacts.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This Soil Testing Addendum to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
(ESA) was prepared to further evaluate soil contaminant conditions at the RCWO site to
facilitate preparation of an Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) and the
subsequent redevelopment of the site for hospitality, retail and recreational uses. The
original assessment results were reported to the Town of Williamston, DENR’s
Brownfields Program and EPA within our original Phase II ESA report dated November
18, 2013.
Soil samples were collected from the three impacted areas on April 22-23, 2014. In
addition, soil samples were also collected around the perimeter of the three areas
planned for remediation, and within a new area proposed for a Native American cultural
feature. Sampling around the perimeter and in the new area was done to evaluate if
excavation is needed outside of the previously defined three areas. Based upon the
results of this assessment, Mid-Atlantic concludes:
• The April 2014 sampling work discovered new SVOC contaminated soil to the
south and west of the former petroleum distribution structure. Elsewhere, the soil
samples collected from around the perimeter of the planned excavation areas
indicate that VOC and SVOC contaminants were adequately defined to the
residential action levels.
• The estimated extent of soils with VOC contaminants at concentrations above
the residential action levels is defined on the RCWO site, except for five small
areas adjacent to the existing pit on the WO property where it is inferred that
Soil Testing Addendum, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report July 23, 2014
Former Royster-Clark and Windsor Oil Site Page 12
722 & 736 River Road
Williamston, North Carolina
soils exhibiting high TPH concentrations would exceed the residential action
levels. On the north and west sides of the pit, samples with VOC concentrations
below the action levels were collected not far away from these areas. Therefore,
the anticipated excavation limits and volume is known.
• The estimated extent of soils with SVOC contaminants at concentrations above
the residential action levels is generally defined on the RCWO site, except for
small areas adjacent to the existing pit on the WO property where it is inferred
that soils exhibiting high TPH concentrations would exceed the residential action
levels for SVOC contaminants. The general excavation limits for the four small
areas near the WO pit are known. One area of semi-VOC impacted soil is
located within a wetland area in the low-lying northern section near the Roanoke
River and is not planned for remediation (approved by Ms. Sharon Eckard of
DENR’s Brownfields Program).
• Lead was detected above the residential and industrial/commercial SRGs and
RSLs at one location B-98, located in the northwest portion of the RC site near
Moratoc Park. Abundant, dense ground vegetation covering fallen tree limbs and
shells were observed in this area. The source for the lead is not known.
• Based on the estimated areas of contaminated soil shown on Drawing 3.3, site
observations and the depths of impacted soil samples, we anticipate that
approximately 3,658 cubic yards of soil is impacted with concentrations above
the cleanup goals. An ABCA is currently in preparation for each site.
This soil addendum did not address contaminants that have been discovered in
groundwater below the RC and WO sites. Four contaminants are present in
groundwater at concentrationsIn above the NCGQS. However, the contaminants are not
present at concentrations that exceed their respective IHSB screening levels for vapor
intrusion. Upon execution of the BFA, both the RC and WO sites will be subject to
perpetual land use restrictions that will restrict groundwater use and certain forms of
development on the property.
Sub-slab gas (vapor) samples were previously collected from the warehouse on the WO
property. Contaminants were not detected in the vapor samples at concentrations
above IHSB screening levels.
Mid-Atlantic recommends that this report be submitted to the EPA and DENR’s
Brownfields Program for review and comment.
DRAWINGS
´
TOPOGRAPHIC SITE MAPFORMER ROYSTER-CLARKAND WINDSOR OIL FACILITIES722 & 736 RIVER ROADWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO:
REFERENCES:SCALE:
PITT
BERTIE
MARTIN
BEAUFORT
HALIFAX
AREA SHOWN WITHINMARTIN COUNTY
NOVEMBER 2013
R2284.00 T4025, 4095
01G-R2284T95-9 TOPO1.1
1. WILLIAMSTON, NC DIGITAL RASTER GRAPHIC, USGS. SCANNED FROM 1:24,000-SCALE WILLIAMSTON, NC TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, PUBLISHED 1982, USGS. 2. INSET MAP DIGITAL DATA FROM 2002 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ATLAS, BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS, WASHINGTON, D.C.3. PROPERTY BOUNDARY DATA FROM MARTIN COUNTY GIS.
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 METERS
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
ROYSTER-CLARKPARCELS
1:12,000
EBA
EBA
DMM
WINDSOR OILPARCEL
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
BARGE LOADING DOCK
FORMER WINDSOROIL SITE
UST
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK SITE
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
WAREHOUSE
FORMER USTAREA
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
MW-104
MW-102MW-101
MW-103
MW-107
MW-106
MW-105
B-9
B-8
B-7
B-6
B-5
B-4
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-96
B-50
B-51
B-52
B-35
B-32
B-14
B-31
B-66B-65
B-30
B-29
B-10
B-12
B-11
B-13
B-15B-36
B-28
B-26
B-25
B-21 B-20
B-19B-24
B-23
B-22
B-16
B-18
B-17
B-97
B-95
B-98
B-59
B-57
B-56
B-53
B-58
B-33
B-34
B-47B-48
B-49
B-46B-45
B-43
B-41
B-42
B-40
B-39
B-38
B-37
B-14R
B-54 VI-1
B-55 VI-2
1966 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS (2013)FORMER ROYSTER-CLARKAND WINDSOR OIL FACILITIES722 & 736 RIVER ROADWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO: 1.2
REFERENCES:SCALE:
JULY 2014
000R2284.00 T04098
1G-R2284.00 T98-2 66 AERIAL
1. PARCEL LINE DATA FROM MARTIN COUNTY GIS. 2. 1966 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (M535, NO. 242) FROM N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.3. MID-ATLANTIC FIELD NOTES.
0 60 120 180
Feet
1:720
LEGEND
!.SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
!A MONITORING WELLS
EXISTING UST SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
PARCEL LINES
OFFICEBUILDING
STORAGEBUILDING
TRUCK TRANSFERBUILDING
NOTE:SAMPLE LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FORMER WINDSOR OIL UST AREA NOT SHOWN.
19
´
EBA
EBA
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
BARGE LOADING DOCK
FORMER WINDSOROIL SITE
UST
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK SITE
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
WAREHOUSE
FORMER USTAREA
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
W-2
W-7
W-6
W-5
W-4
W-9
W-8
W-1
W-3
TF-5
TP-3
TP-2
TP-1
DS-6
DS-5
DS-4
DS-3
DS-2 DS-1
TF-8
TF-6
TF-7
TF-4
TF-3
TF-2
TF-1
SOIL ADDENDUM BORING LOCATIONSFORMER ROYSTER-CLARK /WINDSOR OIL722 & 736 RIVER ROADWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO:
REFERENCES:SCALE:
JULY 2014
000R2284.00 T04098
01G-R2284 T98-1 SB0414
1. PARCEL LINE DATA AND 2009 AERIAL IMAGERY FROM MARTIN COUNTY GIS. 2. MID-ATLANTIC FIELD NOTES.
0 100 200
Feet
1:1,200
LEGEND
")SOIL ADDENDUM BORING LOCATIONS (APRIL 2014)ESTIMATED EXTENT, SOIL CONTAMINATION > RESIDENTIAL SRG/RSL [BEFORE APRIL WORK]
CONSTITUENTS EXCEED SRG/RSL (INFERRED FROM 2013 INVESTIGATION)
EXCEEDANCE FROM TPH RESULTS (INFERRED FROM 2013 INVESTIGATION)
COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULT ABOVE RESIDENTIAL SRG/RSL (INFERRED FROM 2013 INVESTIGATION)
UST SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
PARCEL LINES
FORMER ABOVE GROUND PIPING
OFFICEBUILDING
STORAGEBUILDING
FORMER DISTRIBUTIONSTRUCTURE (TRUCKTRANSFER)
NOTE:SAMPLE LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FORMERWINDSOR OIL UST AREA NOT SHOWN.
´
EBA
2.1
EBA
EBA
DMM
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
"/
")
"/
"/
")
")
")
BARGE LOADING DOCK
FORMER WINDSOROIL SITE
UST
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK SITE
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
WAREHOUSE
FORMER USTAREA
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
W-9
W-3
TF-8
TF-7
B-8
B-4
B-3
B-66
B-27
B-10
B-12 B-11
B-21B-20
B-19B-23
B-40B-39
B-37
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ABOVERESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELSFORMER ROYSTER-CLARK /WINDSOR OIL SITE722 & 736 RIVER ROADWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO:
SCALE:
JULY 2014
000R2284.00 T04098
01G-R2284 T98-3 VOCs
REFERENCES:
1. PARCEL LINE DATA AND 2009 AERIAL IMAGERY FROM MARTIN COUNTY GIS. 2. MID-ATLANTIC FIELD NOTES.
0 100 200
Feet
1:1,200
LEGEND
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (2013) WITH RESPECT TO ACTION LEVELS
!(CONCENTRATION < PGW ACTION LEVELS
!(CONCENTRATON > PGW BUT < RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS
!(CONCENTRATION > RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVEL(S)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (2014) WITH RESPECT TO ACTION LEVELS
")CONTAMINANTS < ACTION LEVELS
")CONTAMINANTS > PGW BUT < RES. ACTION LEVELS
"/CONTAMINANTS > PGW BUT < RES. ACTION LEVELS [SVOCs ALSO]SOIL EXTENT > RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS, VOCs
ESTIMATED HORIZONTAL EXTENT
ESTIMATED HORIZONTAL EXTENT INFERRED FROM TPH RESULTS
UST SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
PARCEL LINES
FORMER ABOVE GROUND PIPING
OFFICEBUILDING
STORAGEBUILDING
FORMER DISTRIBUTIONSTRUCTURE(TRUCK TRANSFER)
NOTE:SAMPLE LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FORMER WINDSOR OIL UST AREA NOT SHOWN.
´
EBA
3.1
EBA
EBA
DMM
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
BARGE LOADING DOCK
FORMER WINDSOROIL SITE
UST
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK SITE
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
WAREHOUSE
FORMER USTAREA
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
W-2
W-7
W-6
W-5
W-4
W-9
W-8
W-1
W-3
TF-5
TP-3
TP-2
TP-1
DS-6
DS-5
DS-4
DS-3
DS-2 DS-1
TF-8
TF-6
TF-7
TF-4
TF-3
TF-2
TF-1
B-9
B-8
B-7
B-6
B-5
B-4
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-96
B-50
B-51
B-52
B-35
B-32
B-14
B-31
B-66B-65
B-30
B-29
B-27
B-10
B-12
B-11
B-13
B-15B-36
B-28B-26
B-25 B-21
B-20
B-19B-24
B-23
B-22
B-16
B-18
B-17
B-97
B-95
B-98
B-59
B-57
B-56
B-53
B-58
B-33
B-34
B-44
B-47
B-48
B-49
B-46B-45
B-43
B-41
B-42
B-40
B-39
B-38
B-37
B-14R
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSABOVE RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS (SOIL)FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK /WINDSOR OIL722 & 736 RIVER ROADWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO:
REFERENCES:SCALE:
JULY 2014
000R2284.00 T04098
01G-R2284 T98-4 RES SOIL
1. PARCEL LINE DATA AND 2009 AERIAL IMAGERY FROM MARTIN COUNTY GIS. 2. MID-ATLANTIC FIELD NOTES.
0 60 120 180
Feet
1:720
LEGEND
ESTIMATED HORIZONTAL EXTENT > RESIDENTIAL SRGs
ESTIMATED HORIZONTAL EXTENT > RESIDENTIAL SRGs INFERRED FROM TPH RESULTS
APRIL 2014 SOIL ADDENDUM SAMPLES
")NO, LESS THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SVOCs
")YES, GREATER THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SRGs
2013 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS > RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS
!.NO, LESS THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SVOCs
!.YES, GREATER THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SVOCs
!.MAYBE, PART OF COMPOSITE SAMPLE FOR SEMI-VOCS
UST SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
PARCEL LINES
FORMER ABOVE GROUND PIPING
OFFICEBUILDING
STORAGEBUILDING
FORMER DISTRIBUTIONSTRUCTURE(TRUCKTRANSFER)
NOTE:SAMPLE LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FORMERWINDSOR OIL UST AREA NOT SHOWN.
´
EBA
3.2
EBA
EBA
DMM
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
BARGE LOADING DOCK
FORMER WINDSOROIL SITE
UST
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK SITE
LOCATION OF FORMERTANK FARM
WAREHOUSE
FORMER USTAREA
ROA
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
W-2
W-7
W-6
W-5
W-4
W-9
W-8
W-1
W-3
TF-5
TP-3
TP-2
TP-1
DS-6
DS-5
DS-4
DS-3
DS-2 DS-1
TF-8
TF-6
TF-7
TF-4
TF-3
TF-2
TF-1
B-9
B-8
B-7
B-6
B-5
B-4
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-96
B-50
B-51
B-52
B-35
B-32
B-14
B-31
B-66B-65
B-30
B-29
B-27
B-10
B-12
B-11
B-13
B-15B-36
B-28B-26
B-25 B-21
B-20
B-19B-24
B-23
B-22
B-16
B-18
B-17
B-97
B-95
B-98
B-59
B-57
B-56
B-53
B-58
B-33
B-34
B-44
B-47
B-48
B-49
B-46B-45
B-43
B-41
B-42
B-40
B-39
B-38
B-37
B-14R
B-54 VI-1
B-55 VI-2
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATED SOILABOVE RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELSFORMER ROYSTER-CLARK /WINDSOR OIL722 & 736 RIVER ROADWILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY:DATE:
ENG. CHECK:
JOB NO:
APPROVAL:
DRAFTCHECK:GIS NO:
DWG NO:
REFERENCES:SCALE:
JULY 2014
000R2284.00 T04098
01GV10-R2284 T98-5 RES ALL
1. PARCEL LINE DATA AND 2009 AERIAL IMAGERY FROM MARTIN COUNTY GIS. 2. MID-ATLANTIC FIELD NOTES.
0 60 120 180
Feet
1:720
LEGEND
ESTIMATED HORIZONTAL EXTENT, SOIL WITH > RESIDENTIAL SRGs
APRIL 2014 SOIL ADDENDUM SAMPLES
")NO, LESS THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SVOCs
")YES, GREATER THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SRGs
2013 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS > RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS
!.YES, GREATER THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SVOCs
!.MAYBE, PART OF COMPOSITE SAMPLE FOR SEMI-VOCS
!.NO, LESS THAN RESIDENTIAL ACTION LEVELS FOR SVOCs
UST SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
PARCEL LINES
FORMER ABOVE GROUND PIPING
OFFICEBUILDING
STORAGEBUILDING
FORMER DISTRIBUTIONSTRUCTURE(TRUCKTRANSFER)
NOTE:SAMPLE LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FORMERWINDSOR OIL UST AREA NOT SHOWN.
´
EBA
3.3
EBA
EBA
DMM
TABLES
Depth (ft)Reading
(ppm)
1'-0.9
4'85.3
5'260
8'0.15
2'-0.95
4'0.3
7'0.4
9'-0.74
3'280
5'400
6'80
8'115
9'37.95
2'-1.5
4'-1.39
5'-1.15
1'0.05
3'-0.4
6'-0.3
9'-0.1
2'850
4'240
6'45.6
8'8.35
9'26.05
~7.19' Based on MW-103
DS-6 (2' - 2.25')
SVOCs (PAH)
Minor Petroleum
Odor0' - 10.0'DS-6
DS-5 (2' - 3')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'DS-5
DS-3 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
Petroleum Odor0' - 10.0'DS-3
DS-2 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
DS-1 (5' - 6')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'DS-1
DS-4 0' - 8.0'
DS-4 (5' - 6')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'DS-2
TABLE 2.1
SOIL SAMPLE FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04095
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK / WINDSOR OIL
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 22 & 23, 2014
TVA Results,
FID Detector (ppm)Estimated Depth (ft) to
Groundwater Based on
Nearby Wells*
Laboratory Sample ID
(Depth (ft)) and Tests
Technician
Comment
Boring Depth
Below Land
Surface (ft)
Boring
ID
PAGE 1 OF 6
Depth (ft)Reading
(ppm)
TABLE 2.1
SOIL SAMPLE FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04095
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK / WINDSOR OIL
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 22 & 23, 2014
TVA Results,
FID Detector (ppm)Estimated Depth (ft) to
Groundwater Based on
Nearby Wells*
Laboratory Sample ID
(Depth (ft)) and Tests
Technician
Comment
Boring Depth
Below Land
Surface (ft)
Boring
ID
2'72
3'108
4'86
5'80
7'151
8'128
10'5
4'330
5'18
8'70
2'22
3.5'5600
5'1600
7.5'2170
8'3600
10'800
4.5'28
7'310
9'40
2.5'40
4'46
6.5'140
0' - 10.0'TF-5
TF-3 (2.5' - 3.5')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'TF-3
TF-4 (4.5' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'TF-4
~7.89' Based on MW-101
TF-1 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
TF-5 (3' - 4')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'TF-1
TF-2 (3' - 4')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'TF-2
~7.57 Based on MW-102
PAGE 2 OF 6
Depth (ft)Reading
(ppm)
TABLE 2.1
SOIL SAMPLE FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04095
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK / WINDSOR OIL
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 22 & 23, 2014
TVA Results,
FID Detector (ppm)Estimated Depth (ft) to
Groundwater Based on
Nearby Wells*
Laboratory Sample ID
(Depth (ft)) and Tests
Technician
Comment
Boring Depth
Below Land
Surface (ft)
Boring
ID
2'44
4'110
6'39
1.5'0.74
3'13.5
6'14
2'0.04
4'78
5'30
7'250
8'4000
9'3000
10 5000
TP-1 0' - 10.0' 1'1.07
TP-1 (1')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
TP-2 0' - 10.0' 1'3.13
TP-2 (1')
SVOCs (PAH)
TP-3 0' - 10.0' 1'1.01
TP-3 (1')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
~7.89' Based on MW-101
~7.89' Based on MW-101
TF-7 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
0' - 10.0'TF-7
TF-8 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
Strong Petroleum
Odor0' - 10.0'TF-8
TF-6 (4' - 4.5')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'TF-6
PAGE 3 OF 6
Depth (ft)Reading
(ppm)
TABLE 2.1
SOIL SAMPLE FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04095
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK / WINDSOR OIL
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 22 & 23, 2014
TVA Results,
FID Detector (ppm)Estimated Depth (ft) to
Groundwater Based on
Nearby Wells*
Laboratory Sample ID
(Depth (ft)) and Tests
Technician
Comment
Boring Depth
Below Land
Surface (ft)
Boring
ID
2'-1.3
3'-1.35
5'-1.4
7'-0.55
10'-1.64
1'-0.2
2.5'3
4'45.2
4.5'300
5'1400
8'8040
10'1080
1.5'24
2.5'160
4'156
5'60.25
7.5'1060
9'450
10'290
1'0.56
2'1.84
3'3.88
5'0.14
7'14.3
8.5'460
10'98.1
~6.35' Based on MW-107
W-1 (1' - 2')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'W-4
~6.47' Based on MW-106
W-3 (2.5' - 3')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
0' - 10.0'W-3
W-4 (3' - 4')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
0' - 10.0'W-1
W-2 (2' - 3')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'W-2
PAGE 4 OF 6
Depth (ft)Reading
(ppm)
TABLE 2.1
SOIL SAMPLE FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04095
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK / WINDSOR OIL
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 22 & 23, 2014
TVA Results,
FID Detector (ppm)Estimated Depth (ft) to
Groundwater Based on
Nearby Wells*
Laboratory Sample ID
(Depth (ft)) and Tests
Technician
Comment
Boring Depth
Below Land
Surface (ft)
Boring
ID
1.5'0.09
2.5'0.13
4'0.63
6'3.83
8'1015
10'6800
1'1.04
2'2.8
4'7
5'19.08
7'41.05
10'39.8
2'3.4
4'2.1
6'1.2
10 1.32
2'-0.32
4'-0.6
7'610
10 9000
1'5
2.5'450
4.5'70
7.5'15
9.5'240
0' - 10.0'
~6.35' Based on MW-107
W-7 (1.5' - 2.5')
SVOCs (PAH)
W-9 (2.5' - 3.5')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
W-9
W-6 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'W-6
W-5 (4' - 5')
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
0' - 10.0'W-5
0' - 10.0'W-7
W-8 (1' - 2')
SVOCs (PAH)
0' - 10.0'W-8
~4.24' Based on MW-105
~6.47' Based on MW-106
PAGE 5 OF 6
Depth (ft)Reading
(ppm)
TABLE 2.1
SOIL SAMPLE FIELD SCREENING RESULTS
WILLIAMSTON, NORTH CAROLINA
MID-ATLANTIC JOB NO. 000R2284.00 T04095
FORMER ROYSTER-CLARK / WINDSOR OIL
722 & 736 RIVER ROAD
SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED APRIL 22 & 23, 2014
TVA Results,
FID Detector (ppm)Estimated Depth (ft) to
Groundwater Based on
Nearby Wells*
Laboratory Sample ID
(Depth (ft)) and Tests
Technician
Comment
Boring Depth
Below Land
Surface (ft)
Boring
ID
Duplicate #1
(W-8)0' - 10.0'
Duplicate #1
SVOCs (PAH)
See Sample W-8
Duplicate #2
(W-4)0' - 10.0'
Duplicate #2
SVOCs (PAH)
VOCs
See Sample W-4
Notes:
(ppm) - Parts per Million
All TVA Results = Instrument Reading - Background
SVOC PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds
* = Wells guaged on 4/23/2014
See Sample W-8
See Sample W-4
PAGE 6 OF 6
TF
-
7
TF
-
8
W-
3
W-
9
(4
-
5
'
)
(4
-
5
'
)
(2
.
5
-
3
'
)
(
2
.
5
-
3
.
5
'
)
4/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
TV
A
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
P
P
M
)
-
F
I
D
u
n
l
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
14
30
16
0
45
0
VO
L
A
T
I
L
E
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
S
82
6
0
B
Sa
m
p
l
e
D
i
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
b
y
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
)
8
2
6
0
B
1x
1x
10
0
x
10
0
x
Ac
e
t
o
n
e
82
6
0
B
--
--
--
--
12
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
24 6,100
6
,
3
0
0
0
.
2
4
Be
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
1
5
0.
0
1
9
<0
.
1
3
0.
2
6
J
1.
1
5.
4
0.0073 1.1 5.4
0
.
0
0
0
2
1,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
4
6
--
<0
.
1
3
<0
.
1
2
12
52
6.7 6 26
0
.
0
0
2
1
1,
3
,
5
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
1
--
<0
.
1
8
<0
.
1
7
16
0
18
0
6.7 78 1,000
0
.
0
1
2
4-
I
s
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
--
--
--
0.
2
2
J
NE
NE
0.68 NE NE NE
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
2
7
--
<0
.
0
8
1
1.
7
3.
6
18
0.21 3.6 18
0
.
0
0
0
4
7
n-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
0
9
3
--
0.
4
6
J
2.
4
11
0
11
0
2.4 390
5
,
1
0
0
0
.
2
5
n-
P
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
0
6
5
--
<0
.
1
6
2.
0
26
0
26
0
1.5 340
2
,
1
0
0
0
.
0
9
9
se
c
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
0
5
9
0.
0
0
3
4
J
0.
6
7
1.
1
1,
6
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2.2 780
1
0
,
0
0
0
0
.
4
6
te
r
t
-
B
u
t
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
--
--
<0
.
1
7
<0
.
1
6
1,
6
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1.7 780
1
0
,
0
0
0
0
.
1
1
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
0
4
9
--
<.
0
1
4
<0
.
1
3
5.
4
27
8.1 5.4 27
0
.
0
0
1
5
Is
o
p
r
o
p
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
(
c
u
m
e
n
e
)
82
6
0
B
0.
0
1
3
0.
0
0
1
9
J
<0
.
1
6
0.
9
2
27
0
27
0
1.3 210
1
,
1
0
0
0
.
0
6
4
Me
t
h
y
l
E
t
h
y
l
K
e
t
o
n
e
82
6
0
B
--
--
<0
.
1
3
<0
.
1
3
5,
6
0
0
2
8
,
0
0
0
16 2,800
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
.
1
To
l
u
e
n
e
82
6
0
B
0.
0
0
6
8
--
<0
.
1
5
<0
.
1
4
82
0
82
0
5.5 500
4
,
5
0
0
0
.
0
5
9
Xy
l
e
n
e
s
,
t
o
t
a
l
82
6
0
B
0.
0
4
8
--
<0
.
4
1
<0
.
3
8
13
0
26
0
5.8 63 270
0
.
0
1
9
m
g
/
K
g
=
M
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
K
i
l
o
g
r
a
m
-
-
=
N
o
t
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
A
b
o
v
e
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
(
M
e
t
h
o
d
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
i
m
i
t
)
E
=
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
n
g
e
.
PP
M
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
J
=
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
;
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
RS
L
=
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
,
E
P
A
A
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
F
I
D
=
F
l
a
m
e
I
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
TV
A
=
T
o
x
i
c
V
a
p
o
r
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
r
N
E
=
N
o
t
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
IH
S
B
=
I
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
i
t
e
s
B
r
a
n
c
h
N
T
=
N
o
t
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Bo
l
d
= Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
at
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
S
R
G
o
r
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
S
L
P
G
W
=
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
Bo
l
d
a
n
d
s
h
a
d
e
d
=
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
P
G
W
S
R
G
a
n
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
S
R
G
a
n
d
/
o
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
S
L
S
R
G
=
S
o
i
l
R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
I
H
S
B
A
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
.
TA
B
L
E
3
.
1
CH
E
M
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
S
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
I
N
S
O
I
L
S
:
V
O
L
A
T
I
L
E
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
C
O
M
P
O
U
N
D
S
LI
M
I
T
E
D
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
-
A
P
R
I
L
2
0
1
4
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G
FO
R
M
E
R
R
O
Y
S
T
E
R
-
C
L
A
R
K
/
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
O
I
L
72
2
&
7
3
6
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
T
O
N
,
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
MI
D
-
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
J
O
B
N
O
.
0
0
0
R
2
2
8
4
T
A
S
K
4
0
2
5
&
4
0
9
5
CO
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
m
g
/
K
g
o
r
P
P
M
)
CH
E
M
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
-
B
a
s
e
d
USEPA REGIONAL SCREENING LEVELS (mg/Kg) NOVEMBER 2013, THQ = 1.0
AN
A
L
Y
T
I
C
A
L
ME
T
H
O
D
PGWIndustrial Soil Residential SoilPGW
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
-
B
a
s
e
d
NC
I
H
S
B
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S
O
I
L
R
E
M
E
D
I
A
T
I
O
N
GO
A
L
S
(
m
g
/
K
g
)
,
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
2
0
1
4
DS
-
1
DS
-
2
DS
-
3
D
S
-
5
D
S
-
6
W
-
2
W
-
3
W
-
9
(5
-
6
'
)
(4
-
5
'
)
(4
-
5
'
)
(
2
-
3
'
)
(
2
-
2
.
.
5
'
)
(
2
-
3
'
)
(
2
.
5
-
3
'
)
(
2
.
5
-
3
.
5
'
)
4/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
TV
A
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
P
P
M
)
-
F
I
D
u
n
l
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
26
0
0.
3
40
0
-
0
.
4
8
5
0
3
1
6
0
4
5
0
SE
M
I
-
V
O
L
A
T
I
L
E
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
S
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
8
2
7
0
D
82
7
0
D
82
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
Sa
m
p
l
e
D
i
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
b
y
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
)
8
2
7
0
D
1x
1x
1x
1x
1
x
1
x
1
x
1
x
Ac
e
n
a
p
h
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
0.
2
8
5
-
-
0
.
1
9
6
0
.
0
3
0
5
0.
0
5
1
2
0.
1
9
7
6
8
0
6,600 8.4 340
3
,
3
0
0
0
.
4
1
Ac
e
n
a
p
h
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
0.
0
8
4
5
-
-
0
.
2
1
1
-
-
0
.
0
3
5
1
0
.
1
3
NE NE 21 NE NE NE
An
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
0.
0
2
5
8
0.
0
0
0
9
J
0
.
1
0
6
0
.
0
3
3
9
0
.
0
0
9
1
5
0
.
0
0
4
6
1
3
,
4
0
0
3
4
,
0
0
0
660 1,700
1
7
,
0
0
0
4
.
2
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
2
0
--
0.
0
2
1
4
0.
0
2
7
5
--
--
--
0.
1
5
2.1 0.18 0.15 2.1 0.01
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
--
0.
0
1
8
3
--
0.
0
2
0
1
0.
0
1
9
7
--
--
--
0.
0
1
5
0.21 0.059 0.015
0
.
2
1
0
.
0
0
3
5
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
1
5
6
--
0
.
0
1
9
1
0
.
0
2
1
4
-
-
--
--
0.
1
5
2.1 0.6 0.15 2.1
0
.
0
3
5
Be
n
z
o
(
g
,
h
,
i
)
p
e
r
y
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
--
0
.
0
0
7
3
4
0
.
0
0
8
5
6
-
-
--
--
NE NE 7,800 NE NE NE
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
0
6
1
--
0
.
0
0
8
2
7
0
.
0
0
6
3
5
-
-
--
--
1.5 21 5.9 1.5 21 0.35
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
0
4
--
0
.
0
0
9
0
8
0
.
0
0
1
4
3
-
-
--
--
15 210 18 15 210 1.1
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
--
--
--
--
0.
0
1
9
3
--
--
--
0.
0
1
5
0.21 0.19 0.015
0
.
2
1
0
.
0
1
1
Fl
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
0
4
7
0.
0
0
6
2
0.
0
0
8
4
4
0
.
0
1
0
4
0
.
0
5
3
1
0
.
0
0
3
6
9
J
0
.
0
1
2
5
-
-
46
0
4,400 330 230
2
,
2
0
0
7
Fl
u
o
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
0.
2
5
5
--
0.
4
2
8
0.
0
8
7
6
0
.
1
6
0
0
.
0
9
9
7
4
6
0
4,400 56 230
2
,
2
0
0
0
.
4
In
d
e
n
o
(
1
,
2
,
3
-
c
d
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
--
0
.
0
5
6
0
.
0
5
5
7
-
-
--
--
0.
1
5
2.1 2 0.15 2.1 0.2
1-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
1.
6
4
--
3.
5
8
0.
3
5
2
0.
7
3
2.
0
4
16 53 0.055 16 53
0
.
0
0
5
1
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
1.
3
3
--
5.
3
8
--
--
1.
1
8
46 370 1.6 23 220
0
.
0
1
4
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
0.
0
4
7
2
--
2.
0
4
--
--
0.
4
3
3
3.6 18 0.21 3.6 18
0
.
0
0
0
4
7
Ph
e
n
a
n
t
h
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
0.
4
6
6
0
.
0
0
5
4
2
0
.
8
6
6
0
.
0
7
9
7
0
.
0
7
8
7
0
.
0
2
6
6
N
E
NE 68 NE NE NE
Py
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
0
4
8
0.
0
1
1
2
0.
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
8
8
7
0
.
0
7
0
2
0
.
0
1
6
7
0
.
0
1
4
9
-
-
34
0
3,400 220 170
1
,
7
0
0
0
.
9
5
mg
/
K
g
=
M
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
K
i
l
o
g
r
a
m
-
-
=
N
o
t
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
A
b
o
v
e
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
(
M
e
t
h
o
d
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
i
m
i
t
)
PP
M
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
A
=
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
S
o
l
i
d
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
7
-
d
a
y
h
o
l
d
t
i
m
e
.
RS
L
=
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
J
=
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
;
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
IH
S
B
=
I
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
i
t
e
s
B
r
a
n
c
h
F
I
D
=
F
l
a
m
e
I
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
TV
A
=
T
o
x
i
c
V
a
p
o
r
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
r
N
E
=
N
o
t
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
Bo
l
d
= Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
at
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
S
R
G
(
N
C
)
o
r
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
S
L
(
E
P
A
)
N
T
=
N
o
t
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Bo
l
d
a
n
d
s
h
a
d
e
d
=
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
P
G
W
S
R
G
a
n
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
S
R
G
a
n
d
/
o
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
S
L
PG
W
=
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
MI
D
-
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
J
O
B
N
O
.
0
0
0
R
2
2
8
4
T
A
S
K
S
4
0
2
5
&
4
0
9
5
USEPA REGIONAL SCREENING LEVELS (mg/Kg), NOVEMBER 2013, THQ = 1.0
AN
A
L
Y
T
I
C
A
L
ME
T
H
O
D
NC
I
H
S
B
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S
O
I
L
R
E
M
E
D
I
A
T
I
O
N
GOALS (mg/Kg), JANUARY 2014
TA
B
L
E
3
.
2
(
P
A
G
E
1
O
F
2
)
CH
E
M
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
S
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
I
N
S
O
I
L
S
:
S
E
M
I
-
V
O
L
A
T
I
L
E
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
C
O
M
P
O
U
N
D
S
(
S
V
O
C
s
)
LI
M
I
T
E
D
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
-
A
P
R
I
L
2
0
1
4
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G
FO
R
M
E
R
R
O
Y
S
T
E
R
-
C
L
A
R
K
/
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
O
I
L
S
I
T
E
72
2
-
7
3
6
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
T
O
N
,
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
CH
E
M
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
-
B
a
s
e
d
Preliminary Industrial Health-BasedPGWResidential SoilIndustrial Soil PGW
TF
-
1
TF
-
2
TF
-
3
T
F
-
4
T
F
-
6
T
F
-
7
T
P
-
1
T
P
-
3
(4
-
5
'
)
(3
-
4
'
)
(
2
.
5
-
3
.
5
'
)
(
4
.
5
-
5
'
)
(
4
-
4
.
5
'
)
(
4
-
5
'
)
(
1
'
)
(
1
'
)
4/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
-
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
-
1
4
4
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
TV
A
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
P
P
M
)
-
F
I
D
u
n
l
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
86
33
0
5,
6
0
0
2
8
1
1
0
1
3
.
5
1
.
0
7
1
.
0
1
SE
M
I
-
V
O
L
A
T
I
L
E
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
S
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
8
2
7
0
D
82
7
0
D
82
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
8
2
7
0
D
1x
1x
1x
1x
1
x
1
x
1
x
1
x
Ac
e
n
a
p
h
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
--
0
.
0
1
1
1
-
-
--
--
--
68
0
6,600 8.4 340
3
,
3
0
0
0
.
4
1
Ac
e
n
a
p
h
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
--
--
0
.
0
0
6
3
8
-
-
--
--
--
NE NE 21 NE NE NE
An
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
0
2
7
J
--
0
.
0
0
5
6
7
0
.
1
5
9
-
-
--
--
3,
4
0
0
3
4
,
0
0
0
660 1,700
1
7
,
0
0
0
4
.
2
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0.
0
3
2
9
--
0.
0
1
7
9
--
--
--
--
0.
0
2
1
9
0.
1
5
2.1 0.18 0.15 2.1 0.01
Be
n
z
o
(
a
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0.
0
2
4
3
--
0.
0
1
5
8
--
--
--
--
0.
0
2
0
2
0.
0
1
5
0.21 0.059 0.015
0
.
2
1
0
.
0
0
3
5
Be
n
z
o
(
b
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
2
3
6
--
0.
0
1
1
9
-
-
--
--
--
0
.
0
1
9
0
.
1
5
2.1 0.6 0.15 2.1
0
.
0
3
5
Be
n
z
o
(
g
,
h
,
i
)
p
e
r
y
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
1
5
4
--
0.
0
0
1
J
-
-
--
--
--
0
.
0
0
5
2
N
E
NE 7,800 NE NE NE
Be
n
z
o
(
k
)
f
l
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
1
9
6
--
0.
0
0
4
9
-
-
--
--
--
0
.
0
0
7
2
1
.
5
21 5.9 1.5 21 0.35
Ch
r
y
s
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
1
7
9
--
0.
0
0
1
8
J
-
-
--
--
--
0
.
0
0
5
2
1
5
210 18 15 210 1.1
Di
b
e
n
z
(
a
,
h
)
a
n
t
h
r
a
c
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0.
0
3
1
1
--
0.
0
1
9
4
--
--
--
--
--
0.
0
1
5
0.21 0.19 0.015
0
.
2
1
0
.
0
1
1
Fl
u
o
r
a
n
t
h
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
1
1
6
--
--
--
0
.
0
3
1
5
-
-
0
.
0
0
7
7
0
.
0
0
7
4
4
6
0
4,400 330 230
2
,
2
0
0
7
Fl
u
o
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
0
7
6
0.
2
0
9
0
.
0
3
9
4
0
.
2
6
2
-
-
--
--
46
0
4,400 56 230
2
,
2
0
0
0
.
4
In
d
e
n
o
(
1
,
2
,
3
-
c
d
)
p
y
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
6
3
9
--
0.
0
5
3
5
-
-
--
--
--
--
0.
1
5
2.1 2 0.15 2.1 0.2
1-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
5
1
9
4.
4
5
0.
0
2
0
2
0.
3
0
4
0.
0
0
6
7
6
--
--
16 53 0.055 16 53
0
.
0
0
5
1
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
n
a
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
3
7
6.
7
1
0.
0
1
0
9
0.
0
2
1
4
0.
0
1
3
6
-
-
--
46 370 1.6 23 220
0
.
0
1
4
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
0
6
4
4.
3
--
0.
0
1
3
9
0
.
0
0
6
7
6
-
-
--
3.6 18 0.21 3.6 18
0
.
0
0
0
4
7
Ph
e
n
a
n
t
h
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
-
-
0.
0
1
4
8
0.
0
4
6
5
0
.
0
4
0
8
0
.
7
6
6
-
-
--
--
NE NE 68 NE NE NE
Py
r
e
n
e
82
7
0
C
S
I
M
0
.
0
1
2
1
--
--
--
0
.
0
8
2
9
-
-
0
.
0
0
5
7
0
.
0
0
6
3
3
4
0
3,400 220 170
1
,
7
0
0
0
.
9
5
mg
/
K
g
=
M
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
K
i
l
o
g
r
a
m
-
-
=
N
o
t
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
A
b
o
v
e
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
(
M
e
t
h
o
d
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
i
m
i
t
)
PP
M
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
A
=
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
S
o
l
i
d
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
7
-
d
a
y
h
o
l
d
t
i
m
e
.
RS
L
=
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
F
I
D
=
F
l
a
m
e
I
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
IH
S
B
=
I
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
i
t
e
s
B
r
a
n
c
h
J
=
D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
;
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
TV
A
=
T
o
x
i
c
V
a
p
o
r
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
r
N
E
=
N
o
t
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
Bo
l
d
= Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
at
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
S
R
G
(
N
C
)
o
r
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
S
L
(
E
P
A
)
N
T
=
N
o
t
A
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Bo
l
d
a
n
d
s
h
a
d
e
d
=
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
P
G
W
S
R
G
a
n
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
S
R
G
a
n
d
/
o
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
S
L
P
G
W
=
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
TA
B
L
E
3
.
2
(
P
A
G
E
2
O
F
2
)
CH
E
M
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
S
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
I
N
S
O
I
L
S
:
S
E
M
I
-
V
O
L
A
T
I
L
E
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
C
O
M
P
O
U
N
D
S
(
S
V
O
C
s
)
LI
M
I
T
E
D
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
I
T
E
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
-
A
P
R
I
L
2
0
1
4
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G
FO
R
M
E
R
R
O
Y
S
T
E
R
-
C
L
A
R
K
/
W
I
N
D
S
O
R
O
I
L
S
I
T
E
72
2
-
7
3
6
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
T
O
N
,
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
Sa
m
p
l
e
D
i
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
b
y
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
)
NC
I
H
S
B
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S
O
I
L
R
E
M
E
D
I
A
T
I
O
N
GOALS (mg/Kg), JANUARY 2014
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
-
B
a
s
e
d
PGWPreliminary Industrial Health-Based
MI
D
-
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
J
O
B
N
O
.
0
0
0
R
2
2
8
4
T
A
S
K
S
4
0
2
5
&
4
0
9
5
USEPA REGIONAL SCREENING LEVELS (mg/Kg), NOVEMBER 2013, THQ = 1.0
AN
A
L
Y
T
I
C
A
L
ME
T
H
O
D
CH
E
M
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
CO
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
m
g
/
K
g
o
r
P
P
M
)
PGWIndustrial Soil Residential Soil
APPENDIX A
SOIL SAMPLE LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS
AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORDS
Page 1 of 84
Page 2 of 84
Page 3 of 84
Page 4 of 84
Page 5 of 84
Page 6 of 84
Page 7 of 84
Page 8 of 84
Page 9 of 84
Page 10 of 84
Page 11 of 84
Page 12 of 84
Page 13 of 84
Page 14 of 84
Page 15 of 84
Page 16 of 84
Page 17 of 84
Page 18 of 84
Page 19 of 84
Page 20 of 84
Page 21 of 84
Page 22 of 84
Page 23 of 84
Page 24 of 84
Page 25 of 84
Page 26 of 84
Page 27 of 84
Page 28 of 84
Page 29 of 84
Page 30 of 84
Page 31 of 84
Page 32 of 84
Page 33 of 84
Page 34 of 84
APPENDIX B
LETTER FROM PRISM LABS REGARDING
ELEVATED SHIPPING TEMPERATURE
May 20, 2014
Full Service Analytical and
Environmental Solutions
Mr. Eric Aufderhaar
Mid-Atlantic Associates
409 Rogers View Court
Raleigh, NC 27610
Dear Mr. Aufderhaar:
Main Office:
449 Springbrook Road
P.O. Box 240543
Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: 704/529-6364
1/800/529-6364
Fax: 704/525-0409
www.prismlabs.com
This letter is in reference to 28 soil samples from the Royster & Windsor project sampled on April 22
and 23, 2014 for the analysis of PAH by 8270 SIM. The samples were received on April 25, 2014 at
07:30 in good condition at 3.0 °C, stored at <6 °C, and logged in under Work Order ID 4040478.
On April 28, 2014, the samples were shipped to the subcontract laboratory Gulf Coast Analytical
Labs. They received the samples on April 29, 2014 at 10:30. They were received on ice at 10.1 °C.
Although the temperature at receipt exceeded the regulatory value of 6 °C, it is unlikely that the
results are affected considering that they were received on ice, that they are soil samples, and that
the analysis is for semi-volatile compounds. However, it is depending on the sensitivity of the project
and the data validator if the data is useable.
Currently, we are looking into what we could have done to prevent this from occurring. We are
planning to use more ice and to add a temperature blank in future shipments to assure proper
temperature and temperature readings.
If you need additional information, please contact me at 1-800-529-6364.
Sincerely,
PRISM LABORATORIES, INC.
~~
Helmuth M.B. Janssen
Laboratory Director I QA Manager
c.c.: Angie Overcash -Project Manager