21054_Fayetteville Mixex Use_Groundwater Assessment_20171005

DUNCKLEE
& DUNHAM

MAILING ADDRESS – POST OFFICE BOX 639 – CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27512
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS LICENSE C-3559
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD FOR LICENSING OF GEOLOGISTS LICENSE C-261
NC DEQ REGISTERED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT NUMBER 00061
DD ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGISTS & ENGINEERS
511 KEISLER DRIVE – SUITE 102
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
OFFICE: (919) 858–9898
WWW.DUNCKLEEDUNHAM.COM

VIA EMAIL TO: [e-mail]

September 19, 2016

Mr. Rob Stone, P.E.
Engineering and Infrastructure Director
City of Fayetteville
Engineering and Infrastructure Department
433 Hay Street
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5537

Reference: Letter Report of Environmental Services
Prince Charles Area Parcels Fayetteville, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Stone:

As authorized by the acceptance of our proposal dated August 12, 2016, Duncklee & Dunham, P.C.
(Duncklee & Dunham) is pleased to submit this letter report that summarizes the results of the
groundwater assessment we conducted at the above-referenced site.

Background Information

Duncklee & Dunham conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) at the Prince Charles
Area Parcels in Fayetteville (Figure 1) and prepared a report dated July 21, 2016. This site is comprised
of eight tax parcels adjacent to Hay Street, Maiden Lane, and Hillsboro Street. We identified the
following recognized environmental conditions in our Phase I report:

• the filling stations and gasoline tanks formerly located at parcels on the northern side of Hay Street,
as shown on the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps;
• the releases from the underground storage tanks (USTs) formerly beneath the buildings now occupied
by the Fayetteville Police Department on the southern side of Hay Street;
• the possible presence of a UST at the Prince Charles Hotel; and
• the filling station formerly located on the parcel adjacent to Hillsboro Street, now developed with two
detention basins.

Letter Report of Environmental Services
Prince Charles Area Parcels
Fayetteville, North Carolina
September 19, 2016
Page 2 of 5

DUNCKLEE & DUNHAM, P.C. DD
Field Activities

Duncklee & Dunham conducted a soil and groundwater assessment to test for the presence of petroleum
constituents and solvents from the filling stations and gas tanks shown on the Sanborn maps in the parcels
along Hay Street and Maiden Lane. The following paragraphs summarize the tasks we conducted.

Duncklee & Dunham completed an application for permits to construct six monitoring wells on two of the
three parcels not owned by the City of Fayetteville (the City). We submitted the application for
signatures to the Kecia Parker, Real Estate Manager for the City, who signed the application and
forwarded it to Jordan Jones, a representative of the PCH Development Co. LLC, the owner of these two
parcels. Mr. Jones signed the application and returned it to Duncklee & Dunham, and we submitted it to
the Division of Water Resources in the Fayetteville Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), which issued a permit for each parcel, both dated August 19, 2016.
Copies of these permits are attached.

Duncklee & Dunham called North Carolina 811 to clear utilities at the probe locations 72 hours prior to
mobilization. Duncklee & Dunham mobilized to the site on August 22 and 23, 2016, with our drilling
contractor, Troxler Geologic Services (Troxler). We marked the locations proposed for probes and
Troxler used geophysical techniques to check these locations for underground utilities. Troxler did not
identify underground utilities at the locations proposed for the probes.

Troxler used a Geoprobe™ to advance nine probe holes on the subject site, the locations of which are
shown on Figure 2. We selected the locations based on the former locations of service stations and gas
tanks that are shown on the Sanborn maps, and used the corners of the train station and Prince Charles
Hotel as benchmarks to determine the approximate locations of these service stations and gas tanks.
Troxler collected soil samples in acetate sleeves from each probe hole, generally at 2-foot intervals.
Duncklee & Dunham collected soil samples in these sleeves from each interval, placed the soil samples
and associated duplicates in twin plastic bags, and screened the headspace of one bag from each interval
with a photoionization detector (PID). The test results are summarized in Table 1 (attached). We
selected for laboratory testing the soil sample from each boring that exhibited the highest PID reading or
the deepest soil sample above the water table if samples did not evoke a PID response. We placed the
selected samples from the untested bags into laboratory-provided jars, which were then labeled, and
placed into an iced cooler.
Letter Report of Environmental Services
Prince Charles Area Parcels
Fayetteville, North Carolina
September 19, 2016
Page 3 of 5

DUNCKLEE & DUNHAM, P.C. DD

Troxler constructed temporary monitoring wells TW-1 through -6 in six probe holes. Troxler constructed
these wells using polyvinyl chloride well screen and casing with a diameter of one inch. The following
table summarizes the well construction details:

Well No. Location Depth of Probe (feet bls)
Length of Well Screen/Riser (feet)
TW-1 Former filling station along Hay Street 12 5/7
TW-2 Former filling along Hay Street 12 5/7
TW-3 Former location of two gas tanks next to
Prince Charles Hotel
15 5/10
TW-4 Former location of two gas tanks in front
of garage and north of TW-3
15 5/10
TW-5 North of TW-1 17 5/12
TW-6 Parking lot adjacent to Maiden Lane 16 5/11
bls = below land surface

Troxler advanced probe holes 7, 8, and 9 to the water table, and we collected soil sample nos. SS-7, -8,
and -9, respectively, above the saturated zone. Troxler did not construct temporary wells in these probe
holes. The following table summarizes the locations of these soil probes:

Probe No. Location
Depth of Probe (feet bls)
Depth of Tested Soil Sample (feet bls)
SS-7 Former filling station along Hay Street 8 6-7
SS-8 8 6-7
SS-9 Former location of gas tank next to
beer warehouse 8 6-7
bls = below land surface

Duncklee & Dunham collected groundwater samples from the six temporary wells with a submersible
pump and tubing, discharged the groundwater sample from the tubing into laboratory-provided
containers, labeled the containers, and placed the containers in iced coolers. After completion of the
sampling, Troxler abandoned the wells and borings. A well abandonment record is attached.

Duncklee & Dunham collected a groundwater sample from GMW-10, a permanent well constructed
during the assessment of the manufactured-gas plant formerly at the Festival Park site. We used the
procedures described above to sample this well, and placed the containers in one of the coolers with the
other samples. Duncklee & Dunham delivered the coolers with the soil and groundwater samples under
chain of custody to ENCO Laboratories (ENCO) in Cary.

Letter Report of Environmental Services
Prince Charles Area Parcels
Fayetteville, North Carolina
September 19, 2016
Page 4 of 5

DUNCKLEE & DUNHAM, P.C. DD
Laboratory Test Results

ENCO tested the soil samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) gasoline range organics (GRO)
and TPH diesel range organics (DRO) according to EPA Method 8015C. ENCO tested the groundwater
samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) according to SM 6200B-1997 and for semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs) according to EPA Method 625. The test results for the soil samples are
summarized on Table 2 and Figure 3, and the test results for the groundwater samples are summarized on
Table 3 and Figure 4. ENCO’s report is attached.

ENCO detected TPH-GRO in the soil samples TW-1, TW-2, SS-7, and SS-8 at concentrations that
exceeded the action level of 50 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) established by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in their memorandum dated July 23, 2016. ENCO
detected TPH-DRO in the soil sample from SS-7 at a concentration that exceeded the action level of 100
mg/kg.

ENCO detected five VOCs and one SVOC in the groundwater samples from TW-1 and -2 at
concentrations that exceeded the North Carolina groundwater quality standards promulgated in Title 15A,
Subchapter 2L, Section .0202 of the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 2L .0202; the 2L
standards).

Discussion

Groundwater samples from monitoring wells constructed at former locations of two filling stations along
Hay Street and soil samples from probes advanced at the former location of a third filling station along
Hay Street exhibited constituents of gasoline and diesel fuels. These results document releases have
occurred at those three locations. Based on review of the topographic map, we expect groundwater from
the former locations of these service stations flows to the north, towards Cross Creek. Groundwater
samples from at TW-4 and -5, constructed at the approximate locations of two sets of gasoline tanks north
of Hay Street and in an assumed downgradient direction of these service stations, did not exhibit evidence
of contamination. This result suggests contaminated groundwater had not migrated very far from the
source areas along Hay Street.

The soil sample from the probe for TW-5, which exhibited TPH-DRO at a concentration of 6.4 mg/kg,
was collected at a depth of 14 to 16 feet bls. Although the soil sample at this depth did not appear in the
field to be saturated, we expect this sample was collected below the water table for this area, which was
encountered at depths of 7 to 8 feet bls in TW-1 and -2. NCDEQ does not regulate contaminated soil
below the water table. ENCO detected an estimated concentration of TPH-DRO in the soil sample from
TW-3, which we collected at a depth of 11-12 feet bls. We expect this sample was also collected at a
depth beneath the water table. However, test results from the soil samples collected in the area near Hay
Street show contaminated soil is present along Hay Street and that contaminant concentrations decrease
with distance away from Hay Street, as shown by the results from soil sample nos. TW-4 and -5.

Letter Report of Environmental Services
Prince Charles Area Parcels
Fayetteville, North Carolina
September 19, 2016
Page 5 of 5

DUNCKLEE & DUNHAM, P.C. DD

Conclusions and Recommendations

Soil and groundwater at the site exhibit petroleum constituents at concentrations that exceed those
permitted by NCDEQ. The three filling stations formerly along Hay Street appear to be the source of the
contaminants in groundwater, but test results from two wells downgradient suggest these contaminants
have not migrated very far.

The highest contaminant concentrations in soil are in samples collected at the former locations of the
service stations along Hay Street. The soil samples collected at the approximate locations of gas tanks
formerly adjacent to the Prince Charles Hotel, to a beer warehouse, and to a garage exhibited low
concentrations of TPH. However, we note that the locations of these soil probes were determined from
locations of gas tanks shown on Sanborn maps, and the locations of these probes may not have been
precisely at the former locations of the gas tanks. Thus, higher contaminant concentrations may be
present in other locations near these probe holes.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to the City of Fayetteville. Please contact Rick
Kolb at [phone] or by email at [e-mail] if you have any questions or require
further assistance.

Sincerely,
Duncklee & Dunham, P.C.
Richard A. Kolb, L.G.
Senior Geologist
Senior Peer Review:
Donald R. Malone, P.E.
Senior Engineer

Attachments: Figures 1-4
Tables 1-3
Well Construction Permits
Well Abandonment Record
Laboratory Analytical Report

P:\Fayetteville\Prince Charles Area\Phase II-2016109\Environmental Services Report-16362.docx

Divider
Page
Table 1
Summary of PID Readings, Page 1
Prince Charles Area Parcels
Fayetteville, North Carolina

Sample Interval
(feet bls)
PID Reading
(parts per million)
TW-1
0-2 0.0
2-4 0.3
4-6 65.7
6-8* 196
8-10 396 (wet)
10-12 3.9
TW-2
0-2 0.0
2-4 0.0
4-6 0.0
6-8* 475
8-10 333
10-12 0.0
TW-3
0-1
0.0
1-4
4-5
5-7
7-8
8-10
10-12*
12-14
14-16
TW-4
0-1
0.0
1-4
4-5
5-7
7-8*
8-10
10-12
12-16
TW-5
0-2
0.0
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16*
Table 1
Summary of PID Readings, Page 2
Prince Charles Area Parcels
Fayetteville, North Carolina

Sample Interval
(feet bls)
PID Reading
(parts per
million)
TW-6
0-2
0.0
2-4
4-6
6-8*
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
SS-7
0-2 1.5
2-4 0.0
4-6 1.7
6-8* 330.1
SS-8
0-2 0.0
2-4 0.0
4-6 0.0
6-8* 159.6
SS-9
0-2
0.0 2-4
4-6
6-8*
bls – below land surface
* Sample selected for laboratory testing
TPH-Gasoline Range Organics 50300 260<1.6 <1.5 <1.5 <1.62900D96<1.3TPH-Diesel Range Organics 10078 39 3.8 J 2.6 J6.4 12 330 222.1 JSample Depth (ft bls)14-16 6-7 6-7 6-7 6-77-811-126-76-7SS-7 SS-8QParameter Value Q ValueValueTW-6NCDEQ Action LevelTable 2Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Soil SamplesPrince Charles Area ParcelsFayetteville, North CarolinaTW-3 TW-4 TW-5Sample IdentificationSS-9ValueTW-2TW-1QQValue ValueQQ J = The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory method reporting limit, and therefore is an estimate D = The sample was analyzed at dilution Qualifiers (Q): Notes:All results in mg/kgBold number - concentration exceeds the method detection limitBold number and shaded cell - concentration exceeds the Action Levelft bls = feet below land surfaceSamples collected on August 22 and 23, 2016TPH = Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsQValueQValue Q Value P:\Fayetteville\Prince Charles Area\Phase II - 2016109\Tables\Table 2 Soil Results
Benzene 1260D 4.4 D, J <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Ethylbenzene 600160D31D <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Isopropyl Ether70430D <2.1 D <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21Isopropylbenzene 7055D200D <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13Naphthalene 6280D48D <0.086 <0.086 <0.086 <0.086 <0.086n-Butyl Benzene 7067D <0.74 D <0.074 <0.074 <0.074 <0.074 <0.074n-Propyl Benzene 70120D500D <0.073 <0.073 <0.073 <0.073 <0.073sec-Butyl Benzene 70 <0.53 D20D <0.053 <0.053 <0.053 <0.053 <0.053Toluene 60010D 6.5 D, J <0.053 <0.053 <0.053 <0.053 <0.053Xylenes, Total 50033D15D <0.22 <0.22 <0.22 0.84 J <0.22Diethyl phthalate 6,000 2.6 J <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 2.9 J <2.1Naphthalene 6150D40<1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3Phenol 30 2.6 J <1.4 <1.4 <1.4<1.4<1.4 <1.4Samples collected on August 22 and 23, 2016 J = The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory method reporting limit, and therefore is an estimateQValueQQQParameter Value Q ValueValueGroundwater Quality StandardTable 3Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Groundwater SamplesPrince Charles Area ParcelsFayetteville, North CarolinaTW-3 TW-4 TW-5Sample IdentificationValueTW-6 GMW-10ValueTW-2TW-1QQValueVolatile Organic Compounds - SM 6200BSemivolatile Organic Compounds - EPA 625 D = The sample was analyzed at dilution Qualifiers (Q): Notes:All results in µg/LNorth Carolina groundwater quality standards as defined in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (the 2L standard)Bold number - concentration exceeds the method detection limitBold number and shaded cell - concentration exceeds the 2L standard P:\Fayetteville\Prince Charles Area\Phase II - 2016109\Tables\Table 3 Groundwater Results

Divider
Page

Divider
Page
WELL ABANDONMENT RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
Form GW-30 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Water Resources Revised August 2013

1. Well Contractor Information:

Well Contractor Name (or well owner personally abandoning well on his/her property)

NC Well Contractor Certification Number

Company Name

2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well permits (i.e. County, State, Variance, Injection, etc.) if known
3. Well use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
□Agricultural □Municipal/Public
□Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) □Residential Water Supply (single)
□Industrial/Commercial □Residential Water Supply (shared)
□Irrigation
Non-Water Supply Well:
□Monitoring □Recovery
Injection Well:
□Aquifer Recharge □Groundwater Remediation
□Aquifer Storage and Recovery □Salinity Barrier
□Aquifer Test □Stormwater Drainage
□Experimental Technology □Subsidence Control
□Geothermal (Closed Loop) □Tracer
□Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return) □Other (explain under 7g)

4. Date well(s) abandoned:

5a. Well location:

Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (if applicable)

Physical Address, City, and Zip

County Parcel Identification No. (PIN)

5b. Latitude and longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)

N W

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF WELL(S) BEING ABANDONED
Attach well construction record(s) if available. For multiple injection or non-water supply
wells ONLY with the same construction/abandonment, you can submit one form.

6a. Well ID#:

6b. Total well depth: (ft.)

6c. Borehole diameter: (in.)

6d. Water level below ground surface: (ft.)

6e. Outer casing length (if known): (ft.)

6f. Inner casing/tubing length (if known): (ft.)

6g. Screen length (if known): (ft.)

WELL ABANDONMENT DETAILS

7a. Number of wells being abandoned:
For multiple injection or non-water supply wells ONLY with the same
construction/abandonment, you can submit one form.

7b. Approximate volume of water remaining in well(s): (gal.)

FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY:

7c. Type of disinfectant used:

7d. Amount of disinfectant used:

7e. Sealing materials used (check all that apply):
□ Neat Cement Grout □ Bentonite Chips or Pellets
□ Sand Cement Grout □ Dry Clay
□ Concrete Grout □ Drill Cuttings
□ Specialty Grout □ Gravel
□ Bentonite Slurry □ Other (explain under 7g)

7f. For each material selected above, provide amount of materials used:

7g. Provide a brief description of the abandonment procedure:

8. Certification:

Signature of Certified Well Contractor or Well Owner Date

By signing this form, I hereby certify that the well(s) was (were) abandoned in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 2C .0200 Well Construction Standards
and that a copy of this record has been provided to the well owner.

9. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
abandonment details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.

SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

10a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
abandonment to the following:

Division of Water Resources, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

10b. For Injection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 10a
above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
abandonment to the following:

Division of Water Resources, Underground Injection Control Program,
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636

10c. For Water Supply & Injection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
completion of well abandonment to the county health department of the county
where abandoned.
For Internal Use ONLY:

Divider
Page