Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD003162542_Badin Business Park_Corrective Action_20210426 Badin Business Park LLC c/o Alcoa Corporation 201 Isabella Street Suite 500 Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858 USA Tel: 1 412 315 2900 April 26, 2021 Mr. Robert C. McDaniel Facility Management Branch Hazardous Waste Section North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 VIA Electronic Mail Distribution Re: Former Ball Field Area Screening‐Level Ecological Risk Assessment Badin, North Carolina EPA ID: NCD 003 162 542 Dear Mr. McDaniel: Please find enclosed the above-referenced report prepared by Integral Consulting Inc., for your review. Should you have any questions, please contact Jason Mibroda of Alcoa at (412) 315-2783 at your convenience. Sincerely, Ronald M. Morosky Director, Corp. Remediation and Technology Enc. cc: Jason Mibroda, Alcoa Corporation Damian Preziosi, Integral Consulting Inc. Michael Worden, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Normal Normal Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment Prepared for Alcoa Corporation Badin Business Park Badin, NC Prepared by 4D Bay Street Berlin, MD 21811 April 26, 2021 Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. ii CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ v 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 SLERA APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SITE AND FACILITY BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 1-2 1.3 SITE INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................... 1-3 2 STEP 1: PROBLEM FORMULATION ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 ECOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Ecological Summary .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Site-Specific Ecological Setting ............................................................................. 2-2 2.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS ..................................................................... 2-5 2.3 POTENTIAL COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS .................................................... 2-6 2.4 SUMMARY OF THE CSM ................................................................................................. 2-7 3 STEP 2: EXPOSURE ESTIMATES AND RISK CALCULATIONS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION .................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Detection Limits ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Summed Concentrations ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 ABIOTIC SCREENING ....................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 COPC Selection Approach .................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Risk Calculation Approach and Results .............................................................. 3-3 3.3 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS AND DATA GAPS .......................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Data Adequacy ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.2 Evaluation of Incomplete or Insignificant Exposure Pathways ....................... 3-5 3.3.3 Conservative Screening Concentrations ............................................................. 3-6 3.3.4 Conservative Screening Values ............................................................................ 3-7 3.4 SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT DECISION POINT (SMDP) ......................................... 3-9 4 LINES OF EVIDENCE PREVIEW ................................................................................................ 4-1 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 5-1 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Appendix A. Checklist for Ecological Assessment Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Site Location Figure 2-1. Site Features, Habitat, and Offsite Areas Figure 2-2. Conceptual Site Model Figure 3-1. 2015 Investigation Surface Soil and Surface Water Sample Locations Figure 3-2. 2015 Investigation Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Sample Locations Figure 3-3. 2018 Investigation Surface Soil Sample Locations Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Protected Species—Stanly County, NC Table 3-1. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Screening and Hazard Calculation Table 3-2. Former Ball Field Subsurface Soil Screening Table 3-3. Former Ball Field Surface Water Screening Table 3-4. Former Ball Field Groundwater Screening Table 3-5. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Refined Screening and Hazard Calculation Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Alcoa Alcoa Corporation BERA baseline ecological risk assessment BBP Badin Business Park LLC bgs below ground surface COI constituent of interest COPC chemical of potential concern CSM conceptual site model Eco-PRG ecological preliminary remediation goal EcoSSL ecological soil screening level EM electromagnetic EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPC exposure point concentration ESL ecological screening level ESV ecological screening value Facility BBP Facility FOD frequency of detection GPR ground-penetrating radar HMW PAH high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon HQ hazard quotient Integral Integral Consulting Inc. LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LMW PAH low molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level MDL method detection limit NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program NC Standards North Carolina freshwater standards for aquatic life Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. vi NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Site Former Ball Field Area SLERA screening-level ecological risk assessment SMDP scientific management decision point SVOC semivolatile organic compound TRV toxicity reference value UCL upper confidence limit USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VOC volatile organic compound Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION This screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) for the Former Ball Field Area (the Site) in Badin, North Carolina, was prepared by Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral) for Badin Business Park LLC (BBP), a subsidiary of Alcoa Corporation (Alcoa). The objective of this SLERA is to evaluate for potential risk to ecological receptor populations that are or may be exposed to onsite media (e.g., surface soil). The findings of the SLERA will inform risk managers if the Site has potential to pose unacceptable risk to ecological receptor populations, identify potential data gaps, and guide a Site-specific ecological risk assessment, if warranted. The objectives and procedures used to complete this SLERA are consistent with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 SLERA guidance documents and EPA’s defined functions of a risk assessment. 1.1 SLERA APPROACH The SLERA for the Site was prepared in accordance with applicable state and federal ecological risk assessment guidance including the following: • Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2003; here forth referred to as NCDEQ’s 2003 SLERA guidance) • EPA Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance (USEPA 2018) • Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (USEPA 1997). This SLERA presents the initial two steps of EPA’s eight-step process for conducting ecological risk assessments (USEPA 1997) in accordance with the agreed upon approach following a meeting with NCDEQ on January 25, 2021. This SLERA includes all the standard components of an ecological risk assessment: 1) problem formulation, 2) exposure characterization, 3) effects characterization, and 4) risk characterization. These components are organized in this SLERA under two distinct steps, as outlined in NCDEQ’s 2003 SLERA guidance: • Step 1 includes a screening-level problem formulation and ecological effects characterization. • Step 2 includes a screening-level exposure estimates and risk calculations. Step 2 concludes at a Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP) to guide the next course of action for the Site. The SMDP can be one of the following: Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 1-2 • There is adequate information to conclude that ecological risks are negligible and therefore no need for remediation on the basis of ecological risk. • The information is not adequate to decide at this point, and the ERA process will continue to Step 3. • The information indicates a potential for adverse ecological effects, and a more thorough assessment is warranted. In addition to the initial two steps, this assessment previews multiple lines of evidence that are proposed for use in development of Step 3a of EPA’s eight-step ecological risk assessment process (i.e., the refinement of Chemicals of Potential Concern & Scientific Management Decision Point). Preparation of Step 3a will follow NCDEQ’s review of Steps 1 & 2, as requested and in accordance with the agreed upon approach. 1.2 Site and Facility Background The study area or the “Site” is an approximately 10-acre area east of the BBP Facility (Facility) across State Highway 740 (Figure 1-1). The majority of this area (i.e., approximately 9.75 acres) is comprised of a former baseball field currently covered across its extent by grass. The remaining smaller portion (i.e., approximately 0.25 acre) consists of the northwest corner of an approximately 2-acre cinder and gravel parking lot associated with the Badin Lake boat ramp. The current understanding is that the Site was either undeveloped or historically used for recreational purposes throughout most of the twentieth century. Based on available historical photographs, this area was undeveloped prior to 1938. The baseball field was constructed sometime between 1938 and 1950, and it became underutilized in the late 1990s before use as a baseball field ceased (Environeering 2015). Currently, the Site is an actively maintained grass area that is periodically used for social gatherings and overflow parking from the nearby Badin Lake boat ramp. For context, the Facility occupies approximately 123 acres of land and is located west of the Site, adjacent to State Highway 740. Production at the Facility began in 1916 and continued through 2002. Principal products previously manufactured at the Facility included carbon cathodes and anodes, continuous cast sheets, and specialty metals. The Facility was permanently closed in 2010 and several buildings were razed in 2012. In 2016, the legal ownership and operation of the Facility transferred from Alcoa Inc. to BBP in conjunction with the split of Alcoa Inc. into Arconic Inc. and Alcoa Corporation, with Alcoa Corporation being the parent company of BBP. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 1-3 1.3 Site Investigations A series of investigations were conducted in 2015 and 2018 at the Site to assess for alleged waste disposal activities as part of a commitment to the Town of Badin community and the NCDEQ and to assess whether impacts occurred associated with historical industrial activities. In 2015, samples were collected from 50 surface soil locations, 8 subsurface soil locations, 1 sediment1 location, 1 surface water location, and 3 groundwater locations (Environeering 2015). Various constituents were analyzed in samples collected, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phenols, metals, cyanide, and other inorganics. A majority of the constituents were not detected above the laboratory method detection limits (MDLs). Soil samples were analyzed and compared with concentrations in background soils reported in the March 2001 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation Report (MFG 2001). The comparison showed concentrations at the Site to be similar to the background samples. Results from this assessment are summarized in the September 15, 2015, Alcoa Badin Landfill and Former Ball Field Sampling Activities report (Environeering 2015). The Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study, Alcoa/Badin Landfill, and Former Ball Field (Work Plan; Environeering 2017) and subsequent revision (Revised Work Plan; Environeering 2018a) were submitted to the NCDEQ to guide sampling and investigative activities following the NCDEQ request for further assessment of subsurface conditions at the Site. The Revised Work Plan proposed a multi-frequency electromagnetic (EM) geophysical survey, surface soil sampling, and sediment sampling. Implementation of the Revised Work Plan began in April 2018. Geo Solutions Ltd. performed EM and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) geophysical surveys. As described by Geo Solutions, the EM technology is used for characterizing buried material (either metal bearing or conductive). Buried carbonaceous material typically exhibits very high quadrature (apparent conductivity) values when compared with a non-carbon-bearing host material (Geo Solutions 2018). EM results obtained during the study indicated three distinct areas containing atypical conductivity values. These areas included: 1) a buried utility line; 2) a historical railroad bed with gravel, wood, and metal remnants; and 3) the parking lot used for the Badin Lake boat ramp. The geophysical surveys did not identify any buried material in the 10-acre area or adjacent parking lot, indicating no evidence of historical waste management practices at the Site (Geo Solutions 2018). In May 2018, additional surface soil samples were collected from six locations at the Site. Samples were collected within the shallow drainage ditch along the northern part of the Site, connected to Badin Lake via a stormwater collection basin (Environeering 2018b). Samples were analyzed for PAHs and PCBs. PCBs were not detected in any of the samples above the MDLs 1 See Section 2.1.2 on categorization of this Site medium; a field duplicate sample was also collected at this location. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 1-4 and low concentrations of PAHs were detected in all the samples. Both the geophysical survey and sampling results were summarized in the August 9, 2018, Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area (Environeering 2018b). In summary, the information assembled during the 2015 and 2018 investigations affirms there is no evidence of historical industrial waste management practices occurring at the Site. Collectively, the data populated from these investigations provide analytical data2 from 52 surface soil samples collected in 2015 and an additional 7 surface soil samples collected in 2018 (i.e., top 2 feet of soil), 8 subsurface soil samples (i.e., >2 feet below ground surface [bgs]), 2 surface water samples, and 3 groundwater samples. These data serve as the basis for performing the SLERA presented in this report. 2 Field duplicates were treated as individual samples in this SLERA. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-1 2 STEP 1: PROBLEM FORMULATION The problem formulation step of the SLERA describes the ecological setting of the Site, the major fate and transport mechanisms, identification of complete exposure pathways, and a conceptual site model (CSM) (NCDEQ 2003). 2.1 ECOLOGICAL SETTING The regional ecological setting, including information related to potential threatened and endangered species that occur or can occur in the region, is summarized below. Information presented in this section was obtained from previous reports for the Site, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). The Site-specific ecological setting is described below based on a recent Site visit conducted by a certified ecologist from Integral on February 17, 2021. 2.1.1 Regional Ecological Summary The Site occurs within the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Ecoregion 45c; USEPA 2001; Griffith et al. 2002). The Piedmont comprises a transitional area between the mostly mountainous ecological regions of the Appalachians to the northwest and the relatively flat coastal plain to the southeast (Griffith et al. 2002). According to regional descriptions from Griffith et al. (2002), the Piedmont is an erosional terrain of moderately dissected irregular plains with some hills, with a complex mosaic of Precambrian and Paleozoic metamorphic and igneous rocks. The slate belt occurs as a relatively narrow band extending from central Georgia to central Virginia. This belt is characteristically composed of volcanic- sedimentary rock formations (intruded in some areas by granites), including volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and flows that are interbedded (Griffith et al. 2002). The Carolina Slate Belt has been an important region for mineral production and according to Griffith et al. (2002), believed to have undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, molybdenum, tin, and zinc. The Site is located along the shore of Badin Lake (Narrows Reservoir) in Stanly County on the Yadkin River. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) reports that the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin is the second-largest river basin in North Carolina, covering 7,213 square miles and 5,946 linear river miles (NCDWQ 2010). Many of the reservoirs and lakes, including Badin Lake, were formed by dams erected on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River during the twentieth century (NCDWQ 2010). The Badin Lake watershed is 66 square miles and land use is 67 percent forested, 14 percent open water, 7 percent agricultural, 6 percent grassland, 5 percent open space, 0.16 percent wetlands, and 0.6 percent developed (NCDWQ 2010). The Badin Lake watershed is a valuable resource to the local community and the entire Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-2 An overview of weather patterns at Albemarle, about 5 miles southwest of Badin, is provided in Stephens (1989). The climate is generally warm and humid. Although the recorded air temperature extremes are 0 and 107°F, respectively, the average daily minimum temperature in the winter is 31°F and the average daily maximum in the summer is 88°F. The last freezing temperature in spring usually occurs before mid-April, and the first freezing temperature in autumn usually occurs near the end of October. The sun shines about 70 percent of the daylight hours in summer and about 60 percent in winter. Total annual precipitation averages 47 inches, of which more than half usually falls in April through September. Thunderstorms occur about 40 days each year, mainly during the spring and summer. The average seasonal snowfall is 4 inches; the greatest snow accumulation at any one time during the period of record is 8 inches. However, snowfall is highly variable from year to year. The average relative humidity in midafternoon is about 55 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and the average at dawn is about 85 percent. Prevailing wind is from the southwest; average windspeed is highest, about 9 miles per hour, in the spring. Table 2-1 summarizes protected species that occur based on observations and/or are likely to occur based on presence of preferred habitat in Stanly County and neighboring counties. The list of protected species for the region includes amphibians, birds, mammals, plants, freshwater bivalves, freshwater fish, and reptiles. Information provided in the table was obtained from the NCNHP and the USFWS, and includes North Carolina and federally listed species (endangered, threatened, special concern, special concern-vulnerable, and rare but relatively secure) 3. The nearest mapped wetlands and identified threatened and endangered species habitats are located on Falls Reservoir, about 2 miles from the Site (cited in NCDEQ 2015). 2.1.2 Site-Specific Ecological Setting The Site is a predominantly grass-covered, upland terrestrial environment covering approximately 10 acres. A Site visit was conducted by a certified ecologist from Integral on February 17, 2021. The Site visit was used to complete the Checklist for Ecological Assessment included as Appendix A of this report. The discussion provided here combines the Site-specific information required for completion of the Checklist with publicly available information on the ecological setting of the Site and surrounding region. The majority of the Site consists of maintained grasses covering an area of approximately 9.75 acres. At the time of the Integral Site visit, the grass was approximately 4 inches in height and appeared to consist primarily of tall fescue. The grass is regularly mowed. No visible signs of vegetative stress were observed. A small portion (approximately 0.25 acre) of the northwest 3 Protected species lists were verified for Stanly County, North Carolina, through USFWS and NCNHP online database searches on February 25, 2021. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-3 corner of the Site consists of the cinder and gravel parking lot used for the Badin Lake boat ramp. The total area of the parking lot (including the 1.75 acres that are not part of the Site) is approximately 2 acres. The southern boundary of the Site borders a wooded area of secondary growth pine (e.g., Loblolly pine [Pinus taeda]) with a sparsely vegetated understory of shrub/scrub habitat. This border area coincident with the Site’s southern boundary encompasses approximately 0.6 acre. The Site was reviewed using the NCNHP interactive maps of natural heritage resources for North Carolina on February 25, 2021; no managed or natural areas were identified specifically at the Site. A desktop search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was conducted on February 25, 2021; no freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, or freshwater ponds are located at the Site. Native soils in the region are generally comprised of silt loam at the surface (0.5 foot), graduating to silty clay for the next 2 feet and followed by weathered bedrock down to the next 3 feet (Stephens 1989). In developing the Site for recreational use, it is believed that native soil from the southern portions was excavated and used to grade the whole Site. Given the shallow presence of bedrock, shallow groundwater is encountered at an approximate depth of 4 to 5 feet (Environeering 2015). Two shallow drainage ditches are present on the eastern and western border of the Site. The ditches originate offsite and convey runoff from the ball field and immediate surrounding areas as shown on Figure 2-1. The ditches are grass-covered, shallow depressions. No steep or deeply incised areas occur along their lengths bordering the Site. The southern (upgradient) end of the western drainage ditch collects runoff from an offsite area that includes paved surfaces (Highway 740) and the Citgo/Badin Mart gas station. The gas station contains pavement, as well as a large gravel parking and tank area. The northern extent of the parking area is low-lying and diverts runoff northward towards the upgradient portion of the western drainage ditch (see inset photo on Figure 2-1). The southern (upgradient) end of the eastern drainage ditch also receives runoff from paved surfaces associated with a commercial area located along Falls Road and residential areas along Walnut Street. Where the eastern drainage ditch meets Walnut Street it receives runoff from a Town-maintained ditch running parallel to the road surface and proceeding upgradient to the northeast (see inset photo on Figure 2-1). The commercial area along Falls Road includes a gravel parking area supporting light industrial use, including a radiator shop (see inset photo on Figure 2-1). Both the western and eastern drainage ditches proceed along the borders of the Site. In the weeks leading up to the February Site visit, several heavy rain events with daily precipitation of Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-4 0.5 to 1 inch occurred in Badin.4 At the time of the visit, however, the ditches along the large majority of their extent were entirely dry. At their northern, downgradient ends, the ditches terminate at a 3- by 4-foot stormwater collection basin (see inset photo on Figure 2-1). The stormwater collection basin is constructed of reinforced concrete and is covered by a metal grill. During the Site visit, some standing water was present in the drainage ditches immediately adjacent to the stormwater collection basin. The standing water occurred at an approximate depth of 2–6 inches with a portion of the water being covered by ice. The stormwater collection basin itself is an engineered system designed to collect stormwater. As the stormwater collection basin is hydraulically connected to Badin Lake, the water level in the stormwater collection basin will fluctuate based on lake level where lake level is controlled by the discharge at the Narrows Dam. At the time of the site visit, recent rains contributing to an elevated lake level partially inundated the area immediately around the basin. The National Wetlands Inventory identifies Badin Lake as containing wetlands (USFWS 2020). Badin Lake was subject to previous environmental investigation during the 1990s and early 2000s. Sediment was capped in 2012–2013 and a 5-year final inspection was completed in June 2018 with bathymetric survey results indicating cap design requirements were met; visual observations of the cap materials were intact and stable (Power Engineers 2018). It is presently understood that during heavy precipitation events, some water from Badin Lake may backflow to the stormwater collection basin. The area near the boat ramp and downgradient of the stormwater collection basin was assessed during the previous investigations of Badin Lake in the 1990s and 2000s and was found not to pose unacceptable risk to human health or environment (Anchor QEA 2012). The aquatic species listed in Table 2-1 (freshwater fish and bivalves) are regionally present and may occur in Badin Lake. The Site itself is an upland environment and does not contain aquatic habitat. In addition to the 2008 statewide fish consumption advisory for mercury, as of February 2009, a fish consumption advisory is in place for Badin Lake (both Stanly and Montgomery counties) for PCBs. According to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services website5, pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, and children under 15 should avoid eating catfish and largemouth bass from Badin Lake due to high levels of mercury as well as PCBs. Other people should eat no more than one meal per week of catfish and largemouth bass. Overall, the Site is a predominantly grass-covered upland terrestrial environment. Two exceptions are the wooded area along the southern boundary of the Site and the parking lot in the northwest corner of the Site (combined representing <10 percent of the total Site area). The two drainage ditches located along the border of the Site are grass-covered, shallow depressions 4 Based on climate data for the period January 15 through February 16, 2021, obtained for National Weather Service meteorological station located at Stanly County Airport, Station ID - 310090 – Albemarle, obtained at https://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=310090&temporal=D 5 See https://epi.dph.ncdhhs.gov/oee/fish/advisories.html Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-5 that receive runoff following precipitation from the Site and surrounding offsite areas. Terrestrial species that may utilize the Site include avian species such as American robin (Turdus migratorius), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). As habitat for cover and perching is not directly present, other than along the pine wooded area to the south, the grassy open area of the Site itself does not provide adequate habitat for regular use by most songbird species. Songbirds may occur in the wooded area. Given the open, grass habitat covering the large majority of the Site, it is possible small mammals, such as deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) may be present. Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) and Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) may also utilize the grass habitat and shallow soils. No signs of burrowing activity by mammals, such as groundhog (Marmota monax), were observed during the Site visit. Given the potential presence of small mammals, some foraging by raptors (e.g., Red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) may occur. Predatory mammals, such as Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), as well as opportunistic predators and scavengers such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and North American opossum (Didelphis virginiana) may also occur. Common reptiles that may utilize grass areas, such as Black rat snake (Pantherophis obsoletus) and Common box turtle (Terrapene carolina), may also occur. During the Site visit, none of the listed species represented above, other than American crow and Mourning dove, were directly observed at the Site. 2.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS A key outcome of the problem formulation step is the evaluation of potential contaminant migration pathways and the development of a CSM (Figure 2-2) that shows the relationships between a contaminant source, potential exposure pathway, and potential receptor. Consistent with EPA guidance (USEPA 1989, 1997), each of these elements must be present for an exposure pathway to be complete or potentially complete. In the absence of a complete exposure pathway, it can be assumed that there would be no exposure, and consequently no environmental risk associated with Site-related constituents. The fate and transport components of a CSM include primary and secondary sources of Site- related contaminants, release mechanisms, and the retention and transport of impacted environmental media. Potential site-related contaminants, or constituents of interest (COIs), are identified based upon historical activities, visible cues, and investigation findings. The potential sources of COIs at the Site include those likely from activities in the surrounding areas, urbanization, and local past operations and include: VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, phenols, metals, cyanide, and other inorganics. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-6 Past investigations, as previously discussed, did not identify historical waste management activities nor evidence of a direct releases of contamination. However, low concentrations of constituents observed at the Site may have historically occurred from emissions associated surrounding commercial/industrial operations and other anthropogenic sources as a result of urbanization of the area in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Although subsequent particulate deposition to the Site may have occurred, no documentation is available to support that assumption. As shown on Figure 2-1, the drainage ditches receive surface runoff from the offsite areas to the west (parking area), south (light industrial use, including Citgo/Badin Mart gas station and a radiator shop), and east (undeveloped grassy area and residences). During periods of extensive precipitation, the stormwater collection basin and lower portions of the drainage ditches may become inundated by Badin Lake. It is also possible that under both historic and current conditions the small portion of the Site that consists of the parking lot may be subject to releases (e.g., PAHs, VOCs, and lead) associated with automobiles, semi-trucks, and boats. As illustrated in Figure 2-2 and described above, the primary potential release mechanisms for COIs include volatilization, wind erosion, and overland surface runoff from surrounding areas. Transport of constituents adsorbed to soil particulate matter that move with surface runoff/overland flow is a potential migration pathway for constituents in surface soil. COIs in surface and subsurface soils can leach to groundwater; COIs in groundwater can migrate/discharge to surface water. Volatile chemicals can migrate from soil to ambient air; semivolatile and nonvolatile COIs can be resuspended with soil particulates and be present in ambient air (i.e., fugitive dust). These release mechanisms can result in COIs potentially being present in the following retention or transport media: surface soil, subsurface soil, ambient air, groundwater, and surface water. 2.3 POTENTIAL COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS A potential complete exposure pathway consists of these elements: sources and release mechanisms, retention and transport media, exposure points, and exposure routes (USEPA 1989, 1997). The potential ecological exposure pathways are illustrated by the CSM in Figure 2-2. The sources and release mechanisms and the retention and transport media are described in Section 2.2. The exposure points identified for this Site include surface soil (defined as the top 2 feet of soil), subsurface soil (i.e., >2 feet bgs), ambient air/dust, biota, groundwater, and surface water. Potential exposure routes include direct/dermal contact with soil, groundwater, and surface water; incidental ingestion of soil; ingestion of groundwater and surface water; inhalation of ambient air/dust; and ingestion of potentially contaminated biota tissue (e.g., plants and invertebrates) that can bioaccumulate constituents from Site media. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-7 Exposure pathways can be characterized as potentially complete or incomplete. If any of the elements listed above is missing, the pathway is considered incomplete. According to EPA guidance (USEPA 1997), only potentially complete exposure pathways need to be evaluated quantitatively. Exposure for each potentially complete pathway is considered significant or insignificant. An exposure pathway may be considered insignificant if: 1) the level of exposure to constituents through this pathway is sufficiently low; 2) the frequency of exposure to constituents through this pathway is low; or 3) the contribution of this pathway to the overall risk is insignificant as compared to other risk-driving pathways. Potential exposures to most ecological receptors generally occur in surface soil. Terrestrial wildlife receptor exposure to Site-related COIs is primarily via ingestion of biota tissue (plants and prey items) and incidental soil ingestion during foraging activities. Ingestion of biota tissue generally occurs at the surface, and prey items (e.g., invertebrates/insects/small mammals) reside and take up constituents from surface soil. Exposure to subsurface soil is considered an incomplete exposure pathway. However, for purposes of the completing the Site investigation, subsurface soil data were evaluated in the uncertainty analysis. Inhalation of COIs in ambient air/dust are considered potentially complete but the exposure pathway is considered insignificant as volatiles were infrequently detected in Site media and at low concentrations. Inhalation of dust (generated by wind erosion) by ecological receptors is also a potentially complete but insignificant pathway, contributing less than 1 percent of the ingestion pathway dose (USEPA 2007a). The Site is considered terrestrial habitat and was evaluated for potential exposure and risk to terrestrial ecological receptors. Although there may be standing water in the drainage ditch and stormwater collection basin along the northern edge of the Site, an engineered system used to collect stormwater is not an ecological resource with respect to aquatic habitat. For purposes of completing the Site investigation, surface water data were evaluated in the uncertainty analysis. Depth to groundwater at the Site is 4 to 5 feet bgs, and therefore no direct exposure to groundwater is expected at the Site. When groundwater discharges to surface water, aquatic life (e.g., aquatic invertebrates) could be exposed to COIs, however those exposures are captured through the evaluation of surface water (the representative exposure medium for aquatic life). Although exposure pathway to groundwater is considered incomplete, for purposes of completing the Site investigation, groundwater data were evaluated in the uncertainty analysis. 2.4 SUMMARY OF THE CSM Based on the fate and transport mechanism of COIs, the exposure pathway analysis, and observations made during the recent Site visit (Appendix A), the following potential exposure pathways were identified as complete and significant and thus were quantitatively evaluated in the SLERA for the following terrestrial ecological receptors: Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 2-8 • Direct contact/uptake with surface soil by plants and soil invertebrates • Incidental ingestion of surface soil by wildlife (mammals and birds) • Ingestion of terrestrial biota tissue by wildlife. These potentially complete exposure pathways are presented on Figure 2-2. The following potential exposure pathways were identified as complete but insignificant or incomplete and were evaluated in the uncertainty analysis: • Surface water direct contact by aquatic life • Groundwater direct contact by aquatic life • Exposures to subsurface soil by all terrestrial ecological receptors. The following potential exposure pathways were identified as complete but insignificant or incomplete and were not evaluated in the SLERA: • Inhalation of ambient air/dust by wildlife • Ingestion of groundwater by wildlife • Ingestion of surface water by wildlife. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-1 3 STEP 2: EXPOSURE ESTIMATES AND RISK CALCULATIONS Step 2 of the SLERA process includes estimating exposure and calculating risks to ecological receptors based on the identification of complete and significant exposure pathways in the CSM. This section provides an overview of the data collected from the Site and database created for evaluation in the SLERA (Section 3.1). Abiotic media (e.g., surface soil) data sets created for the Site were screened using COI and receptor specific risk-based screening levels to identify preliminary chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) and estimate screening-level risk (Section 3.2). This section also evaluates uncertainties associated with parameters and assumptions used in the SLERA and identifies any potential data gaps (Section 3.3). 3.1 DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION Data for the SLERA were based on the samples collected during two field investigations conducted in 2015 and 2018, as summarized in Section 1.3. Laboratory electronic data deliverable files were used in creating a database for the SLERA. Sample locations are shown on Figures 3-1 through 3-3. Data from those investigations evaluated in this report are summarized below: • 2015 Investigation—Samples were collected from 51 surface soil locations, 8 subsurface soil locations, 1 surface water location, and 3 groundwater locations. • 2018 Investigation—Surface soil samples were collected from 6 locations. Collectively, including field duplicates, data populated from these investigations provide analytical data from 52 to 59 surface soil (i.e., top 2 feet of soil) samples, depending on the constituent examined, 8 subsurface soil samples (i.e., >2 feet bgs), 2 surface water samples, and 3 groundwater samples. Samples collected during both investigations were analyzed for COIs including VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, phenols, metals, cyanide, and other inorganics. Sample ABF-SD002-F001 and ABF- SD002-F001 were collected in 2015 (Figure 3-1) from the stormwater collection basin located at the northern end of the Site and were evaluated as soil (see Sections 2.1.2 and 2.3). Badin Lake sediment and surface water samples from the 2015 and 2018 reports are not considered part of this Site SLERA and were not included in the screening. Based on the exposure pathway analysis (Section 2.3), exposure to surface soil is the only complete and significant exposure pathway identified for ecological receptors at the Site. A statistical summary of surface soil data evaluated in the SLERA is presented in Table 3-1. Several of the COIs, especially VOCs, SVOCs, phenols, low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs, and PCBs, were not detected or detected infrequently in surface soil above the MDLs. Metals, Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-2 inorganics, and high molecular weight (HMW) PAHs were frequently detected but at low concentrations. For context, Site-specific background concentrations (MFG 2001) are also presented in Table 3-1. Additional processing of data and screening values is discussed below. 3.1.1 Detection Limits To ensure that the SLERA does not underestimate potential risk to ecological receptors based on elevated standard quantitation limits, the constituents that were never detected in any samples were also evaluated per NCDEQ guidance (NCDEQ 2003). If a constituent was not detected in any sample, the maximum MDL was used as a proxy concentration for screening. Further, six VOCs and SVOCs (1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, and naphthalene) were analyzed for in surface soil using two methods, resulting in two reported concentrations per sample (EPA 8260B and EPA 8270D). Results for EPA 8260B, which yielded lower MDLs, were used for screening. 3.1.2 Summed Concentrations For PCBs, LMW PAHs, and HMW PAHs, individual constituent concentrations were summed within a group using the summing rule provided by NCDEQ (2003). If concentrations of individual constituents in a sample were all detected, then the total concentration was the sum of all detected values. If one or more individual constituents in a sample were not detected, then half the MDL reported for that constituent was used as a proxy for the total summed concentration. 3.2 ABIOTIC SCREENING This section describes the process for selecting preliminary COPCs in abiotic media (i.e., surface soil), following the 2003 NCDEQ guidance and EPA Region 4 guidance (USEPA 2018). Preliminary COPCs are defined as constituents that occur at concentrations greater than selected ecological screening values (ESVs). Because the ESVs are based on conservative endpoints and generic exposures, exceedances of these ESVs is considered preliminary and the information is used to guide the need for a more refined screening or further evaluation. The abiotic screening for surface soil at this Site is presented in Table 3-1. Per the 2003 NCDEQ guidance, for abiotic screening (discussed below in Section 3.2.1), the “screening concentration” for a COI is represented by the maximum detected concentration or if the COI is not detected in any of the samples, it is represented by the maximum MDL. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-3 3.2.1 COPC Selection Approach Following the approach outlined in NCDEQ and EPA Region 4 guidance, this section identifies the preliminary COPCs selected in surface soil. The Site COI screening concentrations (i.e., maximum detected concentration or maximum MDL) selected for the abiotic screening were compared to the EPA Region 4 soil ESVs. This process yielded preliminary COPCs, which were flagged as Category 1 through 4 contaminants. 1. Category 1—COIs whose maximum detected concentrations exceed the media-specific ESVs; these were identified as preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants. 2. Category 2—COIs that generated MDLs that exceed the EPA media-specific ESVs; these were identified as preliminary COPCs, Category 2 contaminants. 3. Category 3—COIs that have no available ESVs, but were detected above the MDLs; these were identified as Category 3 contaminants and were qualitatively evaluated for consideration as preliminary COPCs. 4. Category 4—COIs that were not detected above the MDLs and have no available ESVs; these were identified as Category 4 contaminants and were qualitatively evaluated for consideration as preliminary COPCs. 3.2.2 Risk Calculation Approach and Results Screening-level exposure estimates and risk calculations can inform risk managers if the Site poses unacceptable risk and if further evaluation may be required. In ecological risk assessments, the primary method to estimate potential risks to ecological receptors is by calculating hazard quotients (HQs). In this SLERA, HQs were calculated for each COI using the equation below: 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻=𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒 Screening concentration was based on the maximum detected concentration of a COI, or the maximum MDL, if a COI was not detected in any of the samples. An HQ of less than 1 is associated with no unacceptable risk to ecological receptors and can be excluded as a COPC. Conservative assumptions are used in the screening to avoid Type II errors or false negatives (i.e., to conclude no unacceptable risks when in fact there is) and consequently there is a high level of confidence that constituents with an HQ of less than 1 do not pose unacceptable risk. Due to the conservative assumptions used, probability of a Type I error or false positive (i.e., to conclude unacceptable risk when in fact there is none) based on an HQ greater than 1 is more likely, and typically requires further evaluation to address uncertainties (Allard et al. 2009). Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-4 Because there are inherent uncertainties in the exposure and effects assumptions, the resulting HQs are also uncertain and could over- or underestimate unacceptable risk. Uncertainties that could impact the magnitude of the risk estimates and additional lines of evidence to refine the SLERA are discussed in Section 3.3. The surface soil screening steps, identification of preliminary COPCs, and HQs are presented in Table 3-1. Surface soil screening concentrations were compared to the EPA Region 4 soil ESVs (USEPA 2018). EPA Region 4 ESVs are a compilation of risk-based soil screening values from various sources, including EPA’s ecological soil screening levels (EcoSSLs), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and modeled values. EPA Region 4 presents soil ESVs for terrestrial plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals. For this SLERA, the lowest soil ESV for a COI was selected for the abiotic screening. Surface soil screening results identified the following: • Preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants: A total of nine COIs were detected in surface soil exceeding their respective soil ESVs: total PCBs, HMW PAHs, mercury, lead, fluoride, chromium, cyanide, benzoic acid, and 3,3-dichlorobenzidine; calculated HQs > 1 for these constituents. • Preliminary COPCs, Category 2 contaminants: A number of COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, and selenium) were not detected in surface soil, but the maximum MDLs exceeded the soil ESVs; calculated HQs > 1 for these constituents. • Category 3 contaminants: None identified in surface soil. • Category 4 contaminants: A number of COIs (VOCs and SVOCs) were not detected above the MDLs and have no available soil ESVs that were identified in surface soil. 3.3 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS AND DATA GAPS The understanding of the underlying uncertainties inherent in the data and models used in a risk assessment is a critical aspect of a risk-based decision-making process. Generally, SLERAs involve the use of assumptions to varying degrees that may contribute to the uncertainty associated with the risk estimates. The approach used in the SLERA was designed to mitigate sources of uncertainties that could result in underestimation of risks. Key uncertainties that can influence the results of a risk assessment are discussed below. 3.3.1 Data Adequacy A fairly large number of soil samples (52 surface soil samples) were collected from the Site, mainly from the former ball field portion of the Site using a grid sampling approach, and additional soil samples were targeted from the drainage ditches and at one location in the stormwater collection basin. Surface water and groundwater samples were also collected and Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-5 analyzed as part of the Site investigations. Based on the potential sources of contamination (i.e., activities from surrounding areas, urbanization, and local past operations), the Site conditions, and the overall CSM, sufficient data were available to conduct a robust SLERA. No data gaps, with respect to Site data and the ability to conduct a SLERA, were identified. 3.3.2 Evaluation of Incomplete or Insignificant Exposure Pathways Several exposure pathways were identified as incomplete or potentially complete but insignificant. However, for purposes of completing the Site investigation, subsurface soil, surface water, and groundwater data collected during the 2015 investigation were compared with media-specific screening values. The screening results are discussed below. 3.3.2.1 Subsurface Soil A statistical summary of subsurface soil and screening is presented in Table 3-2. Subsurface soil screening concentrations were compared to the lowest EPA Region 4 soil ESV for a COI. This process identified Category 1 through 4 contaminants. Subsurface soil screening results are summarized as follows: • Category 1 contaminants: A total of four metals (chromium, cyanide, lead, and mercury) were detected in subsurface soil exceeding their respective soil ESVs; calculated HQs > 1. • Category 2 contaminants: A number of COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, and selenium) were not detected in subsurface soil, but their maximum MDLs exceeded the soil ESVs; calculated HQs > 1. • Category 3 contaminants: None. • Category 4 contaminants: A number of COIs (VOCs and SVOCs) were not detected above the MDL and have no available ESVs that were identified in subsurface soil. 3.3.2.2 Surface Water A statistical summary of surface water data and screening is presented in Table 3-3. Surface water screening concentrations were compared to the EPA Region 4 surface water ESVs and the North Carolina freshwater standards for aquatic life (NC Standards; NCDEQ 2019). EPA Region 4 ESVs are a compilation of risk-based surface water screening values from various sources, including EPA’s National Ambient Water Quality Criteria, various Tier 2 values, Canadian standards, and other sources. NC Surface Water Standards were based on the state’s promulgated 15A NCAC 02 Rule for protection of freshwater aquatic life (NCDEQ 2019). For this uncertainty analysis, both sets of screening values were used for the abiotic screening. This process identified Category 1 through 5 contaminants. Surface water screening results are summarized as follows: Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-6 • Category 1 contaminants: None of the detected COIs exceeded surface water ESVs. • Category 2 contaminants: A total of 10 COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, and total PCBs) were not detected in surface water, but their maximum MDLs exceeded the surface water ESVs. • Category 3 contaminants: None. • Category 4 contaminants: A number of COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, PAHs, and chromium) were not detected above the MDLs and have no available surface water ESVs that were identified in surface water. • Category 5 contaminants: A total of four COIs (cadmium, lead, mercury, and silver) were not detected above the MDLs, but the maximum MDLs exceed available NC Surface Water Standards. 3.3.2.3 Groundwater A statistical summary of groundwater data and screening is presented in Table 3-4. As mentioned earlier (Section 2.3), when groundwater discharges to surface water, aquatic life could be exposed to COIs. Groundwater screening concentrations were compared to the EPA Region 4 surface water ESVs and the NC Surface Water Standards (NCDEQ 2019). This process identified Category 1 through 5 contaminants. Groundwater screening results are summarized as follows: • Category 1 contaminants: None of the COIs detected above the MDLs exceeded the ESVs. • Category 2 contaminants: A total of 13 COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, and total PCBs) were not detected in groundwater, but their maximum MDLs exceeded the ESVs. • Category 3 contaminants: None. • Category 4 contaminants: A number of COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, PAHs, and chromium) were not detected above the MDLs and have no available surface water ESVs. • Category 5 contaminants: A total of four COIs (cadmium, lead, mercury, and silver) were not detected above the MDLs, but the maximum MDLs exceed available NC Surface Water Standards. 3.3.3 Conservative Screening Concentrations The use of maximum detected concentrations or maximum MDLs as screening concentrations are designed to be conservative to avoid concluding no unacceptable risks when there could be potential risks. However, using such concentrations assumes the worst-case exposure scenario and is likely to overestimate risk. Screening concentrations of COIs based on MDLs is indicative of low-level concentrations similar to naturally occurring or anthropogenic sources. It is for this Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-7 reason that EPA guidance recommends a refinement of the SLERA (i.e., Step 3a of the eight-step ecological risk assessment process) using the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean (95UCL) as an estimate for the exposure point concentration (EPC; USEPA 2018), so that the estimate of the average (or mean) concentration of a COI is reasonable (i.e., risk is unlikely to be underestimated). In calculating the 95UCL for a constituent, the underlying statistical theory assumes that each observation in the data set used to calculate the EPC is a random realization of all possible observations from the underlying distribution of constituents in the subject area of interest. With a sufficient number of random observations, the data set and its statistics can more accurately represent the exposure to populations of ecological receptors. To quantify the magnitude of overestimation of HQs, EPCs based on 95UCLs were calculated for preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants in surface soil, with minimum number of detects in a data set (Table 3-5). On average, the EPCs are about 3.5 times less than the maximum detected concentrations for these preliminary COPCs. 3.3.4 Conservative Screening Values The use of ESVs is generally considered very conservative, and therefore likely tends to overestimate risk. EPA Region 4 ESVs were selected from published sources, as described in Section 3.2. As noted by the authors of these studies, these screening values are conservative estimates of toxicity for ecological receptors and do not necessarily indicate that adverse effects are occurring. In many cases, the screening values are based on a limited data set and there is low confidence in the ability of these screening values to predict risk to ecological receptors. An ORNL document (Efroymson et al. 1997) states: If chemical concentrations reported in field soils that support vigorous and diverse plant communities exceed one or more of the benchmarks presented in this report or if a benchmark is exceeded by background soil concentrations, it is generally safe to assume that the benchmark is a poor measure of risk to the plant community at that site. Site-specific observations that support the health of ecological communities are considered a stronger line of evidence than the exceedances of low-confidence generic screening values, which are widely acknowledged to have low ability to predict toxicity to ecological receptors at a particular site. Based on the recent Site visit, the plant community appeared healthy with no visible signs of stress/adverse effects. The ESVs for wildlife are based on risk-based models using generic (i.e., not Site-specific) exposure parameters and toxicity reference values (TRVs). A general lack of wildlife toxicity data with the low probability of new data forthcoming leads to uncertainties in the development of wildlife TRVs (Allard et al. 2009). By design, these published TRVs provide lower-bound toxicity threshold estimates for use in ecological risk assessments. Published Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-8 values, for example EPA’s EcoSSLs, have been extensively vetted and widely used to evaluate potential risk to wildlife. As such, the TRVs are not expected to underestimate risk; however, there is potential for overestimation of risk. Uncertainties associated with the TRVs used to develop soil ESVs for two preliminary COPCs are discussed below. 3.3.4.1 PCBs The EPA Region 4 soil ESV for total PCBs of 0.041 mg/kg is based on LANL’s ecological screening level (ESL) for PCBs/Aroclors (LANL 2018). This ESL is a no-effect concentration derived for the American robin (insectivorous bird) for Aroclors 1242, 1248, and 1254 using a risk-based model; the low-effect ESL using the same model is 0.41 mg/kg for these Aroclors. The Region 4 ESVs for plants (40 mg/kg), soil invertebrates (0.33 mg/kg), and mammals (0.371 mg/kg) are orders of magnitude higher (i.e., less conservative) than the selected bird ESV used in this SLERA. At the Site, only Aroclors 1248 (0.023 mg/kg) and 1260 (0.46 mg/kg) were detected in surface soil (Table 3-1). Only the Aroclor 1260 concentration exceeded the ESL for the insectivorous American robin. LANL has developed ESLs for Aroclor 1260; the lowest value reported is 0.88 mg/kg for the insectivorous American robin. No-effect ESLs for Aroclor 1260 range from 0.88 mg/kg for the insectivorous American robin to 1,800 mg/kg for cottontail rabbit (herbivorous mammals); low-effect ESLs for Aroclor 1260 range from 1.2 mg/kg for the robin to 4,500 mg/kg for cottontail rabbit. In addition, LANL has developed ecological preliminary remediation goals (Eco-PRGs) using the similar risk-based models as the ESLs, but modified for representative assessment endpoint receptors (e.g., bioaccumulation and other exposure parameters). The Eco-PRGs for the insectivorous American robin range from 8.7 mg/kg (Aroclor 1242) to 54 mg/kg (Aroclor 1260); the lowest Eco-PRG for PCBs is 1.1 mg/kg for the montane shrew (invertivorous mammal). The calculated total PCB concentration at this Site is 0.48 mg/kg, which is lower than the Eco-PRGs. In summary, concentrations of PCBs at the Site are less than the ESVs for all receptor groups (plants, soil invertebrates, and mammals) except for insectivorous birds and less than the lowest Eco-PRG. The bird ESV used to screen Site PCB data is considered very conservative for predicting risk to ecological receptor populations at the Site. For a refined SLERA, or Step 3a of the eight-step ecological risk assessment process, EPA guidance (USEPA 2018) recommends using refined screening values based on less conservative values or low-effects-based values to evaluate baseline risk. 3.3.4.2 HMW PAHs The EPA Region 4 ESV for HMW PAHs of 1.1 mg/kg is based on EPA’s EcoSSL (no-effect level) for small mammals (USEPA 2007b). The EcoSSL data set includes data from multiple studies Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-9 representing at least three small mammal species and five individual HMW PAHs. The selected no-effect TRV, based on reduced survival in mice exposed to benzo(a)pyrene for 65 weeks (Culp et al. 1998), is based on highest bounded no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) below the lowest bounded lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) for reproduction, growth, or survival endpoints. The selected NOAEL-based TRV is five times lower than the next available NOAEL (for growth, from the Culp et al. [1998] study). The authors note poor control survival (56 percent) in this 2-year carcinogenesis investigation, which indicates uncertainty in the resulting toxicity data. The data are derived from studies with individual PAHs, not mixtures observed at the sites, which may have lower overall toxicity than assumed based on benzo(a)pyrene alone. The geometric mean NOAEL-based TRV (18 mg/kg) from the EcoSSL data set is nearly 20 times greater than the selected NOAEL-based TRV value. For HMW PAHs, alternate toxicity values are available (Neal and Rigdon 1967; Sample et al. 1996) and can be explored for developing refined screening values. Overall, the available data indicate that the selected mammalian TRVs for HMW PAHs may overestimate toxicity in the ecological risk assessments. Site soil concentrations are less than the EPA Region 4 ESV for soil invertebrates (29 mg/kg). EPA Region 4 ESVs are not available for plants and birds. However, toxicity studies are available for these receptor groups and will be explored for developing refined screening values to reduce uncertainty and evaluate potential risk. 3.4 SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT DECISION POINT (SMDP) Step 2 of the ecological risk assessment process concludes with the first SMDP to guide the next course of action for the Site (NCDEQ 2003). In accordance with EPA’s Region 4 SLERA guidance. The SMDP can be one of the following: • There is adequate information to conclude that ecological risks are negligible and therefore no need for remediation on the basis of ecological risk. • The information is not adequate to decide at this point, and the ERA process will continue to Step 3. • The information indicates a potential for adverse ecological effects, and a more thorough assessment is warranted. Upon completion of Steps 1 and 2 of the SLERA in accordance with the referenced guidance documents, the following were determined: • No data gaps were identified; sufficient surface soil data were available to complete Steps 1 and 2 of the SLERA for terrestrial ecological receptors. • No evidence of waste management practices at the Site. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 3-10 • Limited preliminary COPCs were identified. • A large number of constituents were not detected or infrequently detected or detected at low concentrations. • Concentrations of constituents at the Site are believed to be either naturally occurring or from anthropogenic sources as a result of urbanization of the area in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Based on the above information, the most appropriate of the three outcomes is: “the information indicates a potential for adverse ecological effects and a more thorough assessment is warranted.” Key uncertainties that can influence the results of a risk assessment and this outcome were introduced throughout Section 3. In addition, several potential refinements and lines of evidence were introduced, discussed in Section 4, that support a decision to further assess the list of COPCs and SMDP in accordance with EPA’s 2018 Region 4 SLERA guidance. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 4-1 4 LINES OF EVIDENCE PREVIEW Generally, SLERAs involve the use of assumptions, judgments, and generic parameters to varying degrees that may contribute to the uncertainty associated with the baseline risk estimates. Many of these uncertainties were reviewed in Section 3 and identified the potential for overestimation or underestimation of risks. This SLERA utilizes HQs, influenced by these uncertainties, as a single line of evidence to characterize risk. Following EPA guidance (USEPA 1998), risk estimates for each potential receptor and COPC within a potential exposure area can be more robustly interpreted when based on multiple lines of evidence. Further, the guidance specifically recommends adjusting or refining elements of the SLERA as necessary (using other lines of evidence) to support project-specific decision-making and planning before conducting an extensive baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA). Lines of evidence could include but are not limited to the following: comparison to background concentrations, supporting statistical and Site use information (e.g., frequency of detection [FOD]), basis of the exposure concentrations (maximum versus 95UCL), confidence in the toxicity values, the direction of uncertainty in the risk estimates, and spatial extent of elevated concentrations. Multiple lines of evidence, including the HQs based on the most refined exposure assumptions, should be used to evaluate the assessment endpoints, reduce uncertainty, and ultimately draw baseline risk conclusions. EPA Region 4 recommends considering preliminary COPCs as candidates for exclusion based on low FOD (less than 5 percent), detection in only a single medium, detection at a low concentration, or not believed to be Site-related. In preparation of Step 3a of the ecological risk assessment, lines of evidence were explored in this SLERA, as summarized below, including calculation of FOD, comparison to background, frequency of exceedances of ESVs, Site as a source of COPCs, refinement of exposure estimates, and refinement of screening values. • FOD—Of the nine preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants identified in surface soil (Table 3-1), four of them (3,3-dichlorobenidine, benzoic acid, fluoride, and total PCBs) were detected in less than 5 percent of the surface soil samples. • Comparison to Background—Of the nine preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants identified in surface soil (Table 3-1), maximum detected concentrations of chromium (82 mg/kg), cyanide (0.59 mg/kg), and lead (124 mg/kg) are less than the Site-specific maximum background concentrations (96 mg/kg, 5.3 mg/kg, and 239 mg/kg, respectively [MFG 2015]), as shown in Table 3-5. Although a Site-specific background is not available for mercury, EPA Region 4 reports a background of 0.1 mg/kg, which is similar to the maximum detected concentration in Site surface soil. • Frequency of Exceedances of ESVs—Of the nine preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants identified in surface soil (Table 3-1), detected concentrations of chromium (4/52), fluoride (1/52), and total PCBs (7/59) exceeding the ESVs is low. Similarly for Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 4-2 Category 2 contaminants, several of the MDLs for SVOCs and phenol exceeding the ESVs is low (2 or 4 out of 52 samples). • Source of COIs—Several COIs were analyzed in Site media as part of the Site investigation, and the majority of them were not detected above the MDLs in surface soil (Table 3-1) or in other Site media (Tables 3-2 through 3-4). Based on the Site history, potential sources of contamination, and the CSM, the Site is not believed to be a source for most if not all the constituents. The MDLs of COIs that were not detected in Site media are relatively low. Concentrations of constituents at the Site are believed to be either naturally occurring or anthropogenic as a result of urbanization of the area in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. • Refinement of Exposure Estimates—A 95UCL of the mean is a better representative of EPC for estimating exposure to populations of ecological receptors instead of the maximum or worst-case exposure scenario. As discussed in Section 3.3.3, 95UCLs were calculated for preliminary COPCs, Category 1 contaminants in surface soil (Table 3-5). On average, the EPCs are about 3.5 times less than the maximum detected concentrations for these preliminary COPCs. • Bioaccumulation Potential—Several of the COIs are generally not risk driving for terrestrial receptors. For wildlife receptors, the most significant exposure is via ingestion of contaminated food items. VOCs and some SVOCs have low octantol-partitioning coefficients (log Kow). Constituents with low log Kow values generally are not of significant concern to wildlife because they do not bioaccumulate into biota tissue (USEPA 2000) and can be eliminated as COPCs. • Refinement of Screening Values—The ESVs for wildlife are based on risk-based models using generic (i.e., not Site-specific) exposure parameters and TRVs. Toxicity studies are available for preliminary COPCs, as discussed in Section 3.3.4. These toxicity studies will be used to develop refined screening values to reduce uncertainty and evaluate potential risk to ecological receptor populations in the next step of the SLERA. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 5-1 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A SLERA was completed for the Site in accordance with 2003 NCDEQ and 2018 EPA Region 4 SLERA guidance documents. This SLERA includes the first two steps of EPA’s eight-step process for conducting ecological risk assessments (USEPA 1997) in accordance with the agreed upon approach following a meeting with NCDEQ on January 25, 2021. The objective of this SLERA was to evaluate for potential risk to ecological receptor populations that are or may be exposed to onsite media (e.g., surface soil). The findings of the SLERA are intended to inform risk managers if the Site poses unacceptable risk to ecological receptor populations, identify potential data gaps, and focus on Site-specific ecological risk assessment, if warranted. The SLERA evaluated Site investigative data from environmental samples (soil, surface water, and groundwater) that were collected and analyzed for COIs including VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, phenols, metals, cyanide, and other inorganics. Sufficient Site data were available to complete a comprehensive SLERA with a high level of confidence in the findings of the results. The majority of the COIs were not detected above the MDLs, or infrequently detected, detected at low concentrations, or frequency of exceedances were minimal. Concentrations of COIs at the Site are believed to be either naturally occurring or from anthropogenic sources as a result of urbanization of the area in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. A large majority of the COIs were not detected or have MDLs that slightly exceed the ESVs, and are not expected to pose adverse effects to ecological receptors. For example, COIs such as VOCs tend to not be risk-driving constituents as the primary exposure pathway for VOCs is through inhalation of ambient air and for wildlife receptors, and the inhalation pathway is considered an insignificant exposure pathway compared to exposure through diet. A conservative screening of Site surface soil data identified a total of nine preliminary COPCs of Contaminant Category 1. Of those, four preliminary COPCs (3,3-dichlorobenidine, benzoic acid, fluoride, and total PCBs) were detected in less than 5 percent of the samples. Four of the preliminary COPCs (chromium, cyanide, lead, and mercury) were detected at concentrations less than background levels. The ESVs for those COPCs could be refined to be more Site-specific to reduce uncertainties in the risk estimates. A Site visit was conducted on February 17, 2021, by a certified ecologist and the Checklist for Ecological Assessment was completed (Appendix A). The CSM was based on information from the Site visit and checklist. The Site visit confirmed that the Site is a terrestrial habitat. Much of the baseball field area appeared healthy with no visible signs of stress/adverse effects to the vegetation community, and the Site is actively managed for human use. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 5-2 Completion of this SLERA concludes with the first SMDP of: “the information indicates a potential for adverse ecological effects and a more thorough assessment is warranted” as being the most appropriate. Further, this SLERA has previewed several lines of evidence that would support refining the list of COPCs and SMDP during in a subsequent Step 3a of EPA’s eight-step ecological risk assessment process. The pursuit of this Step 3a will follow NCDEQ’s review of this SLERA Steps 1 & 2, as requested and in accordance with the agreed upon approach. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 6-1 6 REFERENCES Allard, P., A. Fairbrother, B.K. Hope, R.N. Hull, M.S. Johnson, L. Kapustka, G. Mann, B. McDonald, and B.E. Sample. 2009. Recommendations for the Development and Application of Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 6(1):28– 37. Anchor QEA. 2012. Focused Feasibility Study to Address Potential Resuspension of Impacted Sediment, Badin Lake, North Carolina. Prepared for Alcoa. Anchor QEA, LLC, Montvale, NJ. January. Culp, S.J., D.W. Gaylor, W.G. Sheldon, L.S. Goldstein, and F.A. Beland. 1998. A comparison of the tumors induced by coal tar and benzo(a)pyrene in a 2-year bioassay. Carcinogenesis 19(1):117–124. Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Prepared for the Oak Ridge Laboratory (ORNL). November. Environeering. 2015. Alcoa Badin Landfill and Former Ball Field Sampling Activities, Former Badin Works Facility, Badin, North Carolina. Prepared for Alcoa, Inc., Badin, NC. Environeering, Inc., Morrisville, NC. September 15. Environeering. 2017. Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study, Alcoa/Badin Landfill, and Former Ball Field. Prepared for Badin Business Park LLC, Pittsburgh, PA. Environeering, Inc., Houston, TX. April 28. Environeering. 2018a. Investigative Work Plan for the Phase 4 and 5 Corrective Measures Study, Alcoa/Badin Landfill, and Former Ball Field. Prepared for Badin Business Park LLC, Pittsburgh, PA. Environeering, Inc., Houston, TX. April 2. Environeering. 2018b. Investigative Report for the Former Ball Field Area, Badin Business Park Facility, Badin, North Carolina. Prepared for Badin Business Park LLC, Pittsburgh, PA. Environeering, Inc., Houston, TX. August 9. Geo Solutions. 2018. Geophysical Evaluation at the Alcoa Ball Field, Badin, North Carolina. Prepared for Environeering Inc. July. Griffith, G., J. Omernik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina, Regional Descriptions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Corvallis, OR; U.S. Geological Survey, c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR; and Indus Corporation, Corvallis, OR. August 31. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 6-2 LANL. 2018. Development of Ecological Preliminary Remediation Goals for Los Alamos National Laboratory, Revision 1.1. February. MFG. 2001. RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume I of II, Alcoa Badin Works, Badin, North Carolina. Prepared for Alcoa, Inc., Badin, NC. MFG, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. March. NCDENR. 2003. Guidance for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management. October. NCDEQ. 2015. Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment, Alcoa Badin Ball Field, Badin, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. September 30. NCDEQ. 2019. North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. June. NCDWQ. 2010. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Priority Watershed Atlas. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. October. NCNHP. 2021. Protected Species Search for Stanly County, NC. https://www.ncnhp.org/. Accessed on February 25, 2021. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Neal, J., and R.H. Rigdon. 1967. Gastic tumors in mice fed benzo(a)pyrene: a quantitative study. Texas Reports on Biology and Medicine 13(4):553–557. Power Engineers. 2018. Badin Lake Sediment Capping Project: Five-Year Cap Inspection Report, Badin, North Carolina. Prepared for Badin Business Park, LLC. Power Engineers, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. June. Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86-R3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Stephens, R.B. 1989. Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I:1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A: Baseline Risk Assessment). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. December. USEPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-0C5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 26, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc. 6-3 USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. May. USEPA. 2000. Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment. EPA/-823-R-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February. USEPA. 2001. Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Ecological Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Map M-1. USEPA. 2007a. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC. USEPA. 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Interim Final OSWER Directive 9285.7-78. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC. June. USEPA. 2018. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance. March 2018 Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Scientific Support Section, Superfund Division. USFWS. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory for North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS. 2021. Endangered Species Search. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Accessed on February 25, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Figures Figure 1-1.Site Location Badin Lake Figure 2-1.Site Features, Habitat, and Offsite Areas Badin Lake Parking Lot for Badin Lake Boat Ramp Badin Business Park Facility Parking Area Commercial Buildings Radiator Shop Citgo/Badin Mart Gas Station Residential Furthest Upgradient Portion of Eastern Drainage Ditch Receiving Runoff from Residential Area and Walnut Street Western Drainage Ditch Citgo/Badin Mart Parking and Tank Area Providing Runoff towards Upgradient Portion of Western Drainage Ditch 3x4 Stormwater Collection Basin Maintained grass Pine and shrub/scrub Site Eastern Drainage Ditch Figure 2-2. Conceptual Site Model Figure 3-1.2015 Investigation Surface Soil and Surface Water Sample Locations Figure 3-2.2015 Investigation Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Sample Locations Figure 3-3.2018 Investigation Surface Soil Sample Locations Tables Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 1 of 2 Table 2-1. Protected Species—Stanly County, NC Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Federal Status Habitat Comment Source Notes Mammals Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T T Roosts in hollow trees and buildings (warmer months), in caves and mines (winter); mainly in the mountains USFWS 2020 Likely to occur in Stanly County based on the proximity of known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both. Birds Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T BGPA Mature forests near large bodies of water (nesting); rivers, lakes, and sounds (foraging) [breeding evidence only]NCNHP 2020 and USFWS 2020 Bird Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SC, W2 None Fields and pastures [breeding season only]NCNHP 2020Reptiles Reptile Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC None Wetland forests in the Coastal Plain; rocky, upland forests elsewhere NCNHP 2020 Fish Freshwater Fish Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter SC None Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin-Pee Dee, and Catawba drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Fish Moxostoma robustum Robust Redhorse E None Pee Dee River; formerly in tributaries of this river NCNHP 2020Freshwater Fish Moxostoma sp. 3 (syn. Moxostoma sp. cf. erythrurum) Carolina Redhorse T None Cape Fear and Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 PlantsVascular Plant Anemone berlandieri Southern Anemone E None Thin soils around rock outcrops, usually on basic soil NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil SC-V None Woodlands and openings, generally on clayey soils, roadsides NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Anemone berlandieri Southern Anemone E None Thin soils around rock outcrops, usually on basic soil NCNHP 2020Vascular Plant Anemone caroliniana Prairie Anemone E None Clayey woodlands over mafic rocks NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Baptisia alba Thick-pod White Wild Indigo T None Open woodlands, clearings NCNHP 2020Vascular Plant Borodinia missouriensis (syn. Boechera missouriensis) Missouri Rockcress SC-V None Thin soils around basic rock outcrops NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Helenium brevifolium Littleleaf Sneezeweed E None Bogs, seeps, riverbanks, other wet sites NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Helianthus laevigatus Smooth Sunflower SC-V None Shaly open woods and roadsides NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower E E Open woods, roadsides, and other rights-of-way NCNHP 2020 and USFWS 2020Vascular Plant Liatris aspera Rough Blazing-star T None Glades, open woods, fens NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Pellaea wrightiana Wright's Cliff-brake E None Rock outcrops, mafic or with nutrient-rich seepage NCNHP 2020Vascular Plant Primula meadia Shooting-star T None Mafic cliffs, dry coniferous woodlands, and associated nutrient-rich alluvial forests NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak E None Dry, rocky slopes NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia SC-V None Glades and woodlands, mostly over mafic or calcareous rocks NCNHP 2020Vascular Plant Solidago plumosa Yadkin River Goldenrod T None Crevices of outcrops in rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Solidago radula Western Rough Goldenrod E None Dry woodlands over mafic rocks NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Symphyotrichum concinnum (syn. Symphyotrichum laeve var. concinnum) Narrow-leaved Smooth Aster T None Forests, woodland borders especially over mafic rocks NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Symphyotrichum georgianum Georgia Aster T C Open woods, roadsides, and other rights-of-way NCNHP 2020 Vascular Plant Tradescantia virginiana Virginia Spiderwort T None Rich woods on circumneutral soils NCNHP 2020 Amphibians Amphibian Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander SC None Breeds in fish-free semi permanent woodland ponds; forages in adjacent woodlands NCNHP 2020 Amphibian Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander SC None Pocosins, Carolina bays, pine flatwoods, savannas, and other wetland habitats NCNHP 2020 Amphibian Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander SC None Pools, bogs, and other wetlands in hardwood forests NCNHP 2020 Aquatic InvertebratesFreshwater Bivalve Anodonta implicata (syn. Utterbackiana implicata) Alewife Floater T None Chowan, Roanoke, Cape Fear, and Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Elliptio folliculata Pod Lance SC None Cape Fear, Lumber, and Yadkin-Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Elliptio roanokensis (syn. Elliptio judithae) Roanoke Slabshell SC None Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, White Oak, Cape Fear, Lumber, and Yadkin-Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 2 of 2 Table 2-1. Protected Species—Stanly County, NC Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Federal Status Habitat Comment Source Notes Freshwater Bivalve Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel E None Chowan, Roanoke, Neuse, Tar, Cape Fear, Lumber, Yadkin-Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Lampsilis radiata (syn. Lampsilis radiata radiata, Lampsilis fullerkati, Lampsilis radiata conspicua) Eastern Lampmussel T None Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin-Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Ligumia nasuta Eastern Pondmussel T None Chowan, Roanoke, Neuse, Tar, Cape Fear, and Yadkin-Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Strophitus undulatus Creeper T None Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Catawba, Broad, and French Broad drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Toxolasma pullus Savannah Lilliput E None Cape Fear, Lumber, and Yadkin-Pee Dee drainages NCNHP 2020Freshwater Bivalve Villosa constricta Notched Rainbow T None Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Yadkin-Pee Dee, and Catawba drainages NCNHP 2020 Freshwater Bivalve Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell E None Cape Fear, Yadkin-Pee Dee, and Catawba drainages (endemic to North Carolina and adjacent South Carolina) NCNHP 2020 Notes: BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act C = Candidate E = Endangered SC = Special Concern SC-V = Special Concern-Vulnerable T = Threatened W2 = Rare but Relatively Secure (Animals) Sources: NCNHP. 2020. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Species/Community Search (downloaded 2/25/2021) USFWS. 2020. Fish and Wildlife Services Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Candidate Species Stanly County, North Carolina Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 1 of 4 Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface soil (≤2 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MDL (mg/kg) Maximum MDL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg)Background (mg/kg)Screening Concentration Exceeds Background EPA Region 4 Soil Screening Value (mg/kg)Hazard Quotient Frequency of Exceedance Screening Concentration Exceeds Soil Screening Value Contaminant Category Cyanide Cyanide 0.15 0.59 ABF-SB033-F001 (0.5-2)25/52 48%0.14 0.23 0.59 5.3 N 0.10 6 52/52 Y (1) Inorganics Arsenic 0.91 J 18 ABF-SD002-D001 52/52 100%18 73 N 18 1.00 --N Barium 2.2 68 ABF-SB029-F001 (0.5-2')52/52 100%68 ----330 0.20 --NCadmium0.045 0.36 ABF-SB029-F001 (0.5-2')46/52 88%0.047 0.23 0.36 1.0 N 0.36 1.0 --NChromium0.97 82 ABF-SD002-F001 52/52 100%82 96 N 23 4 4/52 Y (1)Lead 1.2 124 ABF-SD002-D001 52/52 100%124 239 N 11 11 40/52 Y (1)Selenium ND ND --0/52 0%0.31 2.3 2.3 1.9 Y 0.52 4.4 12/52 Y (2)Silver 0.18 0.72 ABF-SB029-F001 (0.5-2')36/52 69%0.19 1.2 0.72 ----4.2 0.17 --N Mercury 0.0044 0.12 ABF-SB029-F001 (0.5-2')52/52 100%0.12 ----0.013 9.2 45/52 Y (1) Fluoride 42 42 ABF-SB007-F001 (0.5-2)1/52 2%13.7 18 42 7.3 Y 32 1.3 1/52 Y (1) PAHs 1-Methylnaphthalene ND ND --0/59 0%0.095 1.3 1.3 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------ 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.12 J 0.12 J ABF-SB038-F001 (0.5-2)1/59 2%0.078 1.0 0.12 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------ Acenaphthene 0.13 J 0.13 J ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)1/59 2%0.084 1.1 0.13 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------ Acenaphthylene ND ND --0/59 0%0.086 1.1 1.1 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------ Anthracene 0.19 J 0.19 J ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)1/59 2%0.082 1.1 0.19 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------Fluorene ND ND --0/59 0%0.075 0.99 0.99 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------Naphthalene 0.0013 J 0.0013 J ABF-SD002-D001 1/59 2%0.0011 0.53 0.0013 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------Phenanthrene 0.074 0.96 ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)15/59 25%0.061 0.80 0.96 ----See Total LMW PAHs ------Total LMW PAHs (ND=1/2 MDL)0.32 4.3 J ABF-SD002-F001 16/59 0%0.0011 1.3 4.3 ----29 0.150 --NBenzo(a)anthracene 0.076 J 1.2 J ABF-SB057-F002 17/59 29%0.067 0.89 1.2 5.4 N See Total HMW PAHs ------ Benzo(a)pyrene 0.079 1.2 ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)21/59 36%0.070 0.92 1.2 4.8 N See Total HMW PAHs ------ Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.074 J 1.7 J ABF-SB057-F002 28/59 47%0.063 0.83 1.7 4.8 N See Total HMW PAHs ------ Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.12 1.0 ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)13/59 22%0.093 1.2 1.0 ----See Total HMW PAHs ------ Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.11 0.75 ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)12/59 20%0.072 0.95 0.75 ----See Total HMW PAHs ------ Chrysene 0.056 J 1.1 J ABF-SB057-F002 25/59 42%0.049 0.64 1.1 ----See Total HMW PAHs ------ Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.12 J 0.23 J ABF-SB013-F001 (0.5-2)5/59 8%0.077 1.0 0.23 1.1 N See Total HMW PAHs ------ Fluoranthene 0.060 J 1.9 J ABF-SB057-F002 26/59 44%0.053 0.7 1.9 ----See Total HMW PAHs ------Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.090 J 0.85 J ABF-SB057-F002 14/59 24%0.075 0.99 0.85 2.6 N See Total HMW PAHs ------Pyrene 0.075 J 1.9 J ABF-SB057-F002 22/59 37%0.062 0.82 1.9 ----See Total HMW PAHs ------Total HMW PAHs (ND=1/2 MDL)0.34 12 J ABF-SB057-F002 29/59 49%0.049 1.23 12 ----1.1 10 16/59 Y (1)PCBsPCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)ND ND --0/59 0%0.017 0.42 0.42 ----See total PCBs ----N PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)ND ND --0/59 0%0.017 0.42 0.42 ----See total PCBs ----N PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)ND ND --0/59 0%0.017 0.42 0.42 ----See total PCBs ----N PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)ND ND --0/59 0%0.017 0.42 0.42 ----See total PCBs ----N PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)0.023 J 0.023 J ABF-SB006-F001 (0.5-2)1/59 2%0.017 0.42 0.023 ----See total PCBs ----N PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)ND ND --0/59 0%0.017 0.42 0.42 ----See total PCBs ----N PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)0.46 0.46 ABF-SB053-F002 1/59 2%0.017 0.42 0.46 ----See total PCBs ----N Total PCBs 0.032 0.48 ABF-SB053-F002 2/59 3%0.017 0.42 0.48 ----0.041 12 7/59 Y (1) Phenols2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.11 1.5 1.5 ----4.0 0.37 --N2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.081 1.1 1.1 ----9.94 0.110 --N2,4-Dichlorophenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.079 1.1 1.1 ----0.050 21 52/52 Y (2)2,4-Dimethylphenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.14 1.9 1.9 ----0.040 48 52/52 Y (2)2,4-Dinitrophenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.060 0.79 0.79 ----0.061 13 49/52 Y (2) 2-Chlorophenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.099 1.3 1.3 ----0.060 22 52/52 Y (2) 2-Methylphenol(o-Cresol)ND ND --0/52 0%0.11 1.5 1.5 ----0.1 15 52/52 Y (2) Table 3-1. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Screening and Hazard Calculation Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 2 of 4 Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface soil (≤2 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MDL (mg/kg) Maximum MDL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg)Background (mg/kg)Screening Concentration Exceeds Background EPA Region 4 Soil Screening Value (mg/kg)Hazard Quotient Frequency of Exceedance Screening Concentration Exceeds Soil Screening Value Contaminant Category Table 3-1. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Screening and Hazard Calculation Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) 2-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.088 1.2 1.2 ----NV ----N (4)3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol)ND ND --0/52 0%0.14 1.9 1.9 ----0.080 24 52/52 Y (2)4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.073 0.96 0.96 ----NV ----N (4)4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.075 0.99 0.99 ----NV ----N (4)4-Nitrophenol 0.083 J 0.083 J ABF-SB004-F001 (0.5-2)1/52 2%0.065 0.86 0.083 ----5.12 0.016 --NPentachlorophenolNDND--0/52 0%0.066 0.88 0.88 ----2.1 0.42 --N Phenol ND ND --0/52 0%0.11 1.4 1.4 ----0.79 1.8 4/52 Y (2) SVOCs 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----0.090 0.030 --N 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/52 0%0.068 0.91 0.91 ----6.0 0.15 --N 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/52 0%0.076 1.0 1.0 ----4.0 0.25 --N 2-Chloronaphthalene ND ND --0/52 0%0.072 0.95 0.95 ----NV ----N (4) 2-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/52 0%0.11 1.5 1.5 ----0.020 75 52/52 Y (2)3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.12 J 0.12 J ABF-SB004-F001 (0.5-2)1/52 2%0.079 1.1 0.12 ----0.030 4.0 52/52 Y (1)3-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/52 0%0.099 1.3 1.3 ----NV ----N (4)4-Bromophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/52 0%0.066 0.88 0.88 ----NV ----N (4)4-Chloroaniline ND ND --0/52 0%0.10 1.3 1.3 ----1.0 1.3 4/52 Y (2)4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/52 0%0.075 0.99 0.99 ----NV ----N (4) 4-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/52 0%0.10 1.4 1.4 ----NV ----N (4) Aniline ND ND --0/52 0%0.098 1.3 1.3 ----NV ----N (4) Benzoic Acid 0.074 J 0.074 J ABF-SB011-F001 (0.5-2')1/52 2%0.066 0.88 0.074 ----0.010 7.4 52/52 Y (1) Benzyl alcohol ND ND --0/52 0%0.073 0.96 0.96 ----0.0020 480 52/52 Y (2) bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND ND --0/52 0%0.085 1.1 1.1 ----NV ----N (4) bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether ND ND --0/52 0%0.093 1.2 1.2 ----NV ----N (4) bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether ND ND --0/52 0%0.097 1.3 1.3 ----NV ----N (4) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND ND --0/52 0%0.099 1.3 1.3 ----0.020 66 52/52 Y (2)Butylbenzylphthalate ND ND --0/52 0%0.077 1.0 1.0 ----0.59 1.7 4/52 Y (2)Dibenzofuran ND ND --0/52 0%0.060 0.79 0.79 ----0.15 5.3 4/52 Y (2)Diethylphthalate ND ND --0/52 0%0.056 0.74 0.74 ----0.25 3.0 4/52 Y (2)Dimethylphthalate ND ND --0/52 0%0.074 0.98 0.98 ----0.350 2.8 4/52 Y (2)Di-n-butylphthalate ND ND --0/52 0%0.060 0.79 0.79 ----0.011 72 52/52 Y (2) Di-n-octylphthalate ND ND --0/52 0%0.076 1.0 1.0 ----0.91 1.1 2/52 Y (2) Hexachlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.046 0.61 0.61 ----0.079 7.8 4/52 Y (2) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND ND --0/52 0%0.067 0.89 0.89 ----0.0010 890 52/52 Y (2) Hexachloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.096 1.3 1.3 ----0.024 53 52/52 Y (2) Isophorone ND ND --0/52 0%0.082 1.1 1.1 ----NV ----N (4) Nitrobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.099 1.3 1.3 ----2.2 0.60 --N N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND ND --0/52 0%0.12 1.6 1.6 ----NV ----N (4)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND ND --0/52 0%0.070 0.92 0.92 ----NV ----N (4)N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND ND --0/52 0%0.11 1.4 1.4 ----0.545 2.6 4/52 Y (2)VOCs1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0019 0.0029 0.0029 ----0.070 0.041 --N1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----0.040 0.063 --N 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----0.127 0.021 --N 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0019 0.0029 0.0029 ----0.32 0.0091 --N 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0013 0.0021 0.0021 ----0.14 0.015 --N 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----0.040 0.063 --N 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0013 0.0021 0.0021 ----NV ----N (4) 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.002 0.0031 0.0031 ----20 0.00016 --N 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0014 0.0022 0.0022 ----NV ----N (4) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 3 of 4 Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface soil (≤2 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MDL (mg/kg) Maximum MDL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg)Background (mg/kg)Screening Concentration Exceeds Background EPA Region 4 Soil Screening Value (mg/kg)Hazard Quotient Frequency of Exceedance Screening Concentration Exceeds Soil Screening Value Contaminant Category Table 3-1. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Screening and Hazard Calculation Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0014 0.0022 0.0022 ----0.270 0.0081 --N1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0018 0.0028 0.0028 ----0.090 0.031 --N1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0032 0.005 0.005 ----NV ----N (4)1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----NV ----N (4)1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.002 0.0031 0.0031 ----0.40 0.0078 --N1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----0.28 0.0086 --N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----0.16 0.016 --N 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0018 0.0028 0.0028 ----0.080 0.035 --N 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----NV ----N (4) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----0.880 0.0027 --N 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----NV ----N (4) 2-Butanone (MEK)0.0062 J 0.021 J ABF-SB034-F001 (0.5-2)5/52 10%0.0026 0.0041 0.021 ----1.0 0.021 --N 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----NV ----N (4)2-Hexanone ND ND --0/52 0%0.0035 0.0055 0.0055 ----0.36 0.015 --N4-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----NV ----N (4)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ND --0/52 0%0.0033 0.0052 0.0052 ----NV ----N (4)Acetone 0.011 0.31 ABF-SB034-F001 (0.5-2)20/52 38%0.009 0.014 0.31 ----1.2 0.26 --NBenzeneNDND--0/52 0%0.0014 0.0022 0.0022 ----0.12 0.018 --N Bromobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0018 0.0028 0.0028 ----NV ----N (4) Bromochloromethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----NV ----N (4) Bromodichloromethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----NV ----N (4) Bromoform ND ND --0/52 0%0.0021 0.0032 0.0032 ----0.070 0.046 --N Bromomethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0022 0.0035 0.0035 ----0.0020 1.8 52/52 Y (2) Carbon tetrachloride ND ND --0/52 0%0.0023 0.0036 0.0036 ----0.050 0.072 --N Chlorobenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----2.4 0.0011 --NChloroethaneNDND--0/52 0%0.0022 0.0034 0.0034 ----NV ----N (4)Chloroform ND ND --0/52 0%0.0014 0.0022 0.0022 ----0.050 0.044 --NChloromethaneNDND--0/52 0%0.0022 0.0034 0.0034 ----NV ----N (4)cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0013 0.002 0.002 ----0.040 0.050 --Ncis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----NV ----N (4)Dibromochloromethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----NV ----N (4) Dibromomethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0022 0.0035 0.0035 ----NV ----N (4) Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND --0/52 0%0.0032 0.005 0.005 ----NV ----N (4) Diisopropyl ether ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----NV ----N (4) Ethylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----0.27 0.0093 --N Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0018 0.0028 0.0028 ----0.009 0.3 --N Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----0.040 0.068 --N m&p-Xylene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0032 0.005 0.005 ----0.10 0.050 --NMethylene Chloride 0.0031 0.027 ABF-SB003-F001 (0.5-2')33/52 63%0.0027 0.0042 0.027 ----0.210 0.13 --NMethyl-tert-butyl ether ND ND --0/52 0%0.0013 0.0021 0.0021 ----NV ----N (4)n-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----NV ----N (4)n-Propylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----NV ----N (4)o-Xylene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----NV ----N (4) p-Isopropyltoluene 0.0058 0.0058 ABF-SB006-F001 (0.5-2)1/52 2%0.0015 0.0024 0.0058 ----0.18 0.032 --N sec-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0014 0.0022 0.0022 ----NV ----N (4) Styrene 0.0027 0.092 ABF-SB046-F001 (0.5-2)4/52 8%0.0016 0.0025 0.092 ----1.2 0.076 --N tert-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0018 0.0028 0.0028 ----NV ----N (4) Tetrachloroethene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0015 0.0024 0.0024 ----0.060 0.040 --N Toluene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----0.150 0.017 --N trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 ----0.040 0.068 --N Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 4 of 4 Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface soil (≤2 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MDL (mg/kg) Maximum MDL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg)Background (mg/kg)Screening Concentration Exceeds Background EPA Region 4 Soil Screening Value (mg/kg)Hazard Quotient Frequency of Exceedance Screening Concentration Exceeds Soil Screening Value Contaminant Category Table 3-1. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Screening and Hazard Calculation Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0013 0.0021 0.0021 ----NV ----N (4)Trichloroethene ND ND --0/52 0%0.0019 0.0029 0.0029 ----0.060 0.048 --NTrichlorofluoromethaneNDND--0/52 0%0.002 0.0031 0.0031 ----16.4 0.00019 --NVinyl acetate ND ND --0/52 0%0.0079 0.012 0.012 ----NV ----N (4)Vinyl chloride ND ND --0/52 0%0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 ----0.030 0.083 --NXylene (Total)ND ND --0/52 0%0.0032 0.005 0.005 ----0.10 0.050 --N Notes: -- = not applicable HMW PAHs = high molecular weight PAHs J = concentration is an estimated value LMW PAHs = low molecular weight PAHs MDL = method detection limit N = no, does not exceed Region 4 SL ND = parameter is not detected NV = no value PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls SLERA = screening level ecological risk assessment SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds Y = yes, does exceed Region 4 SL VOCs = volatile organic compounds (1) Contaminants whose maximum detection exceeds the media specific ecological screening value. (2) Contaminants that generated a laboratory MDL that exceeds the EPA Region IV media-specific ecological screening value for that contaminant. (3) Contaminants that have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value, but were detected above the laboratory MDLs. (4) Contaminants that were not detected above the laboratory MDLs and have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value. a3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol) uses 4-Methylphenol screening value as a surrogate bm&p-Xylene uses total Xylene as a surrogate cbackground taken from MFG 2001 report are provided for informational purposes; background screening is not included in step 2 of the SLERA. Concentration data includes soil and stormwater catch basin data from the 2015 and 2018 field sampling. Sources: Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance (USEPA 2018) RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Volume I of II (MFG 2001) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 1 of 5 Table 3-2. Former Ball Field Subsurface Soil Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball Field Medium: Subsurface soil (2-5 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/kg) Maximum MRL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg) EPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Value (mg/kg) Concentration exceeds screening value (Y/N) Contaminant Category CyanideCyanide 0.24 J 1.2 ABF-SB011-F001 (2-4')5/8 0.17 0.18 1.2 0.10 Y (1) Inorganics Arsenic 1.1 18 ABF-SB049-F001 (2-4)8/8 18 18 N Barium 30.9 330 ABF-SB034-F001 (2-4)8/8 330 330.00 N Cadmium 0.082 J 0.16 ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)5/8 0.048 0.39 0.16 0.36 NChromium12.5 24 ABF-SB022-F001 (2-5)8/8 24 23 Y (1) Fluoride ND ND --0/8 14.3 17.1 17.1 32.00 N Lead 9.6 123 ABF-SB034-F001 (2-4)8/8 123 11.00 Y (1)Mercury 0.0031 J 0.42 ABF-SB036-F001 (2-4)8/8 0.42 0.01 Y (1) Selenium ND ND --0/8 0.4 3.9 3.9 0.52 Y (2) Silver 0.41 J 0.51 ABF-SB036-F001 (2-4)5/8 0.2 2 0.51 4.20 NPAHs 1-Methylnaphthalene ND ND --0/8 0.101 0.121 0.121 See Total LMW PAHs N 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.11 J 0.11 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)1/8 0.083 0.0999 0.11 See Total LMW PAHs N Acenaphthene ND ND --0/8 0.0891 0.107 0.107 See Total LMW PAHs N Acenaphthylene ND ND --0/8 0.0915 0.11 0.11 See Total LMW PAHs N Anthracene ND ND --0/8 0.0868 0.104 0.104 See Total LMW PAHs N Fluorene ND ND --0/8 0.0798 0.0957 0.0957 See Total LMW PAHs N Naphthalene 0.10 J 0.10 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)1/8 0.0012 0.0014 0.0014 See Total LMW PAHs NPhenanthrene0.21 J 0.34 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.065 0.0774 0.34 See Total LMW PAHs N Total LMW PAHs (ND=1/2 MDL)0.35 0.78 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.0012 0.121 0.78 29 N Benzo(a)anthracene 0.14 J 0.24 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.072 0.0858 0.24 See Total HMW PAHs NBenzo(a)pyrene 0.17 J 0.29 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.074 0.0886 0.29 See Total HMW PAHs N Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.20 J 0.39 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.067 0.0802 0.39 See Total HMW PAHs N Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.14 J 0.23 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.099 0.118 0.23 See Total HMW PAHs N Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.084 J 0.13 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.076 0.0914 0.13 See Total HMW PAHs N Chrysene 0.16 J 0.27 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.052 0.0619 0.27 See Total HMW PAHs N Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND ND --0/8 0.0821 0.0985 0.0985 See Total HMW PAHs N Fluoranthene 0.297 J 0.48 ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.0563 0.0675 0.475 See Total HMW PAHs N Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.111 J 0.18 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.0798 0.0957 0.176 See Total HMW PAHs NPyrene0.22 J 0.45 ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.0657 0.0788 0.449 See Total HMW PAHs N Total HMW PAHs (ND=1/2 MDL)0.361 2.7 J ABF-SB007-F001 (2-4)2/8 0.052 0.118 2.69 1.1 Y PCBsPCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 N PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 N PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 NPCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 N PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 N PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 N PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)ND ND --0/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 Total PCBs = 0.041 N Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 2 of 5 Table 3-2. Former Ball Field Subsurface Soil Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball Field Medium: Subsurface soil (2-5 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/kg) Maximum MRL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg) EPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Value (mg/kg) Concentration exceeds screening value (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Total PCBs ND ND --1/8 0.0176 0.0211 0.0211 0.041 NPhenols 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/8 0.12 0.143 0.143 4.00 N 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/8 0.0856 0.103 0.103 9.94 N2,4-Dichlorophenol ND ND --0/8 0.0845 0.101 0.101 0.05 Y (2) 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND ND --0/8 0.152 0.183 0.183 0.04 Y (2) 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND ND --0/8 0.0633 0.076 0.076 0.06 Y (2) 2-Chlorophenol ND ND --0/8 0.106 0.127 0.127 0.06 Y (2) 2-Methylphenol(o-Cresol)ND ND --0/8 0.117 0.141 0.141 0.10 Y (2) 2-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/8 0.0938 0.113 0.113 NV N (4) 3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol)ND ND --0/8 0.152 0.183 0.183 0.08 Y (2) 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND ND --0/8 0.0774 0.0928 0.0928 NV N (4)4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND ND --0/8 0.0798 0.0957 0.0957 NV N (4) 4-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/8 0.0692 0.083 0.083 5.12 N Pentachlorophenol ND ND --0/8 0.0704 0.0844 0.0844 2.10 NPhenolNDND--0/8 0.116 0.139 0.139 0.79 N SVOCs 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 0.09 N 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/8 0.0727 0.0872 0.0872 6.00 N 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/8 0.0809 0.0971 0.0971 4.00 N 2-Chloronaphthalene ND ND --0/8 0.0762 0.0914 0.0914 NV N (4) 2-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/8 0.12 0.143 0.143 0.02 Y (2) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ND ND --0/8 0.0845 0.101 0.101 0.03 Y (2)3-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/8 0.106 0.127 0.127 NV N (4) 4-Bromophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/8 0.0704 0.0844 0.0844 NV N (4) 4-Chloroaniline ND ND --0/8 0.108 0.129 0.129 1.00 N4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/8 0.0798 0.0957 0.0957 NV N (4) 4-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/8 0.109 0.131 0.131 NV N (4) Aniline ND ND --0/8 0.104 0.125 0.125 NV N (4)Benzoic Acid ND ND --0/8 0.0704 0.0844 0.0844 0.01 Y (2) Benzyl alcohol ND ND --0/8 0.0774 0.0928 0.0928 0.00 Y (2) bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND ND --0/8 0.0903 0.108 0.108 NV N (4) bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether ND ND --0/8 0.0985 0.118 0.118 NV N (4) bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether ND ND --0/8 0.103 0.124 0.124 NV N (4) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND ND --0/8 0.106 0.127 0.127 0.02 Y (2) Butylbenzylphthalate ND ND --0/8 0.0821 0.0985 0.0985 0.59 N Dibenzofuran ND ND --0/8 0.0633 0.076 0.076 0.15 NDiethylphthalateNDND--0/8 0.0598 0.0717 0.0717 0.25 N Dimethylphthalate ND ND --0/8 0.0786 0.0943 0.0943 0.35 N Di-n-butylphthalate ND ND --0/8 0.0633 0.076 0.076 0.01 Y (2)Di-n-octylphthalate ND ND --0/8 0.0809 0.0971 0.0971 0.91 N Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 3 of 5 Table 3-2. Former Ball Field Subsurface Soil Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball Field Medium: Subsurface soil (2-5 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/kg) Maximum MRL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg) EPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Value (mg/kg) Concentration exceeds screening value (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Hexachlorobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0493 0.0591 0.0591 0.08 NHexachlorocyclopentadieneNDND--0/8 0.0715 0.0858 0.0858 0.00 Y (2) Hexachloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.102 0.122 0.122 0.02 Y (2) Isophorone ND ND --0/8 0.0868 0.104 0.104 NV N (4)Nitrobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.106 0.127 0.127 2.20 N N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND ND --0/8 0.126 0.151 0.151 NV N (4) N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND ND --0/8 0.0739 0.0886 0.0886 NV N (4) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND ND --0/8 0.115 0.138 0.138 0.55 N VOCs 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.002 0.0024 0.0024 0.07 N 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 0.04 N 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 0.13 N1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.002 0.0024 0.0024 0.32 N 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0017 0.0017 0.14 N 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 0.04 N1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0017 0.0017 NV N (4) 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0021 0.0025 0.0025 20 N 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 NV N (4) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0018 0.090 0.27 N 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0019 0.0023 0.0023 0.09 N 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND --0/8 0.0035 0.0041 0.0041 NV N (4) 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 NV N (4) 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.0021 0.0025 0.0025 0.40 N1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 0.28 N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 0.16 N 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0019 0.0023 0.0023 0.08 N1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 NV N (4) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 0.88 N 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 NV N (4)2-Butanone (MEK)0.0081 J 0.023 J ABF-SB038-F001 (2-4)3/8 0.0028 0.0032 0.0228 1.00 N 2-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 NV N (4) 2-Hexanone ND ND --0/8 0.0038 0.0045 0.0045 0.36 N 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 NV N (4) 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ND --0/8 0.0036 0.0042 0.0042 NV N (4) Acetone 0.016 J 0.29 ABF-SB034-F001 (2-4)7/8 0.0097 0.0097 0.29 1.2 N Benzene ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 0.12 N Bromobenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0019 0.0023 0.0023 NV N (4)Bromochloromethane ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 NV N (4) Bromodichloromethane ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 NV N (4) Bromoform ND ND --0/8 0.0022 0.0026 0.0026 0.07 NBromomethaneNDND--0/8 0.0024 0.0029 0.0029 0.00 Y (2) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 4 of 5 Table 3-2. Former Ball Field Subsurface Soil Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball Field Medium: Subsurface soil (2-5 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/kg) Maximum MRL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg) EPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Value (mg/kg) Concentration exceeds screening value (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Carbon tetrachloride ND ND --0/8 0.0025 0.003 0.003 0.05 NChlorobenzeneNDND--0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 2.40 N Chloroethane ND ND --0/8 0.0023 0.0027 0.0027 NV N (4) Chloroform ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 0.05 NChloromethaneNDND--0/8 0.0023 0.0027 0.0027 NV N (4) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/8 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016 0.04 N cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 NV N (4) Dibromochloromethane ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 NV N (4) Dibromomethane ND ND --0/8 0.0024 0.0029 0.0029 NV N (4) Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND --0/8 0.0035 0.0041 0.0041 NV N (4) Diisopropyl ether ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 NV N (4) Ethylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 0.27 NHexachloro-1,3-butadiene ND ND --0/8 0.0019 0.0023 0.0023 0.01 N Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 0.04 N m&p-Xylene ND ND --0/8 0.0035 0.0041 0.0041 0.10 NMethylene Chloride 0.0033 U 0.010 J ABF-SB022-F001 (2-5)2/8 0.0029 0.0034 0.0095 0.21 N Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0017 0.0017 NV N (4) n-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 NV N (4) n-Propylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 NV N (4) o-Xylene ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 NV N (4) p-Isopropyltoluene ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 0.18 N sec-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 NV N (4) Styrene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 1.20 Ntert-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/8 0.0019 0.0023 0.0023 NV N (4) Tetrachloroethene ND ND --0/8 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019 0.06 N Toluene ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 0.15 Ntrans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/8 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 0.04 N trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/8 0.0015 0.0017 0.0017 NV N (4) Trichloroethene ND ND --0/8 0.002 0.0024 0.0024 0.06 NTrichlorofluoromethaneNDND--0/8 0.0021 0.0025 0.0025 16.40 N Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 5 of 5 Table 3-2. Former Ball Field Subsurface Soil Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball Field Medium: Subsurface soil (2-5 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/kg) Maximum MRL (mg/kg) Screening Concentration (mg/kg) EPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Value (mg/kg) Concentration exceeds screening value (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Vinyl acetate ND ND --0/8 0.0085 0.0101 0.0101 NV N (4)Vinyl chloride ND ND --0/8 0.0017 0.0021 0.0021 0.03 N Xylene (Total)ND ND --0/8 0.0035 0.0041 0.0041 0.10 N Notes: -- = not applicable HMW PAHs = high molecular weight PAHs J = concentration is an estimated value LMW PAHs = low molecular weight PAHs MDL = method detection limit N = no, does not exceed Region 4 SL ND = parameter is not detected NV = no value PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds VOCs = volatile organic compounds (1) Contaminants whose maximum detection exceeds the media specific ecological screening value. (2) Contaminants that generated a laboratory MDL that exceeds the EPA Region IV media-specific ecological screening value for that contaminant. (3) Contaminants that have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value, but were detected above the laboratory MDLs. (4) Contaminants that were not detected above the laboratory MDLs and have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value. a3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol) uses 4-Methylphenol screening value as a surrogate bm&p-Xylene and o-Xylene uses total Xylene as a surrogate Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 1 of 4 Table 3-3. Former Ball Field Surface Water Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface water in Stormwater Collection Basin Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Freshwater Aquatic Life Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant Category Cyanide Cyanide ND ND --0/2 0.004 0.004 0.0040 0.0052 0.0050 N NInorganicsArsenicNDND--0/2 0.005 0.005 0.0050 0.15 0.15 N NBarium0.016 0.016 ABF-SW002-F001 2/2 0 0 0.016 0.22 NV N NCadmiumNDND--0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.00045 0.00025 Y Y (2)(5)Chromium ND ND --0/2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 NV 42.011 N N (4) Fluoride 0.3 J 0.3 J ABF-SW002-F001 2/2 0 0 0.3 2.7 1.8 N N Lead ND ND --0/2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0013 0.0012 Y Y (2)(5) Mercury 0.00010 J 0.00010 J ABF-SW002-D001 1/2 0.0001 0.0001 0.00010 0.00077 0.000012 N Y (5) Selenium ND ND --0/2 0.005 0.005 0.0050 0.0050 0.005 N N Silver ND ND --0/2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.000060 0.000060 Y Y (2)(5) PAHs 1-Methylnaphthalene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0061 NV N N 2-Methylnaphthalene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0047 NV N N Acenaphthene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.015 NV N NAcenaphthyleneNDND--0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.013 NV N NAnthraceneNDND--0/2 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 NV NV N N (4)Benzo(a)anthracene ND ND --0/2 0.00072 0.00072 0.0007 0.0047 NV N NBenzo(a)pyrene ND ND --0/2 0.00071 0.00071 0.0007 0.000060 NV Y N (2) Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND ND --0/2 0.00081 0.00081 0.0008 0.0026 NV N N Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND ND --0/2 0.00097 0.00097 0.0010 NV NV N N (4) Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND ND --0/2 0.00087 0.00087 0.0009 0.000060 NV Y N (2) Chrysene ND ND --0/2 0.00065 0.00065 0.0007 0.0047 NV N N Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND ND --0/2 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 NV NV N N (4) Fluoranthene ND ND --0/2 0.00087 0.00087 0.0009 0.00080 NV Y N (2) Fluorene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.019 NV N N Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 NV NV N N (4)Naphthalene ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.002 0.0020 0.021 NV N NPhenanthreneNDND--0/2 0.001 0.001 0.0010 0.0023 NV N NPyreneNDND--0/2 0.00053 0.00053 0.0005 0.0046 NV N NPCBs PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) Total PCBs ND ND --0/2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.000014 0.001 Y N (2)Phenols2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0019 NV Y N (2)2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0049 NV N N2,4-Dichlorophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.011 NV N N2,4-Dimethylphenol ND ND --0/2 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.015 NV N N Screening Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 2 of 4 Table 3-3. Former Ball Field Surface Water Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface water in Stormwater Collection Basin Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Freshwater Aquatic Life Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant Category Screening Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.071 NV N N 2-Chlorophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.018 NV N N 2-Methylphenol(o-Cresol)ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.067 NV N N 2-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.073 NV N N 3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol)ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.053 NV N N 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4)4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND ND --0/2 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0010 NV Y N (2)4-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/2 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058 0.058 NV N NPentachlorophenolNDND--0/2 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.015 NV N NPhenolNDND--0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.160 NV N N SVOCs 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.023 NV N N 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/2 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.044 NV N N 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.081 NV N N 2-Chloronaphthalene ND ND --0/2 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 NV NV N N (4) 2-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/2 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.017 NV N N 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ND ND --0/2 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0045 NV N N 3-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/2 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 NV N N 4-Bromophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/2 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0015 NV N N4-Chloroaniline ND ND --0/2 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.00080 NV Y N (2)4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/2 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 NV N N4-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 NV NV N N (4)Aniline ND ND --0/2 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0041 NV N N Benzoic Acid ND ND --0/2 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.042 NV N N Benzyl alcohol ND ND --0/2 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0086 NV N N bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND ND --0/2 0.00085 0.00085 0.0009 0.0080 NV N N Butylbenzylphthalate ND ND --0/2 0.00075 0.00075 0.0008 0.023 NV N N Dibenzofuran ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0040 NV N NDiethylphthalateNDND--0/2 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.220 NV N NDimethylphthalateNDND--0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 1.1 NV N NDi-n-butylphthalate ND ND --0/2 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.019 NV N NDi-n-octylphthalate ND ND --0/2 0.00086 0.00086 0.0009 0.215 NV N N Hexachlorobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00015 NV Y N (2) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.00045 NV Y N (2) Hexachloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.012 NV N N Isophorone ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.920 NV N N Nitrobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.230 NV N N N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND ND --0/2 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 NV NV N N (4) N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND ND --0/2 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 NV NV N N (4) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND ND --0/2 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.025 NV N NVOCs1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.085 NV N N Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 3 of 4 Table 3-3. Former Ball Field Surface Water Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface water in Stormwater Collection Basin Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Freshwater Aquatic Life Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant Category Screening Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.076 NV N N 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.20 NV N N 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.73 NV N N 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.41 NV N N 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.130 NV N N 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV N N1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.002 0.002 0.0020 0.0080 NV N N1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0019 0.13 NV N N1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.015 NV N N 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 2.0 NV N N 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total)ND ND --0/2 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.97 NV N N 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.52 NV N N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.026 NV N N 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 0.022 NV N N 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.0094 NV N N2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV N N2-Butanone (MEK)ND ND --0/2 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 22 NV N N2-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4)2-Hexanone ND ND --0/2 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.099 NV N N 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ND --0/2 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.17 NV N N Acetone ND ND --0/2 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.7 NV N N Benzene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.16 NV N N Bromobenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) Bromochloromethane ND ND --0/2 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 NV NV N N (4) Bromodichloromethane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.340 NV N N Bromoform ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.230 NV N NBromomethaneNDND--0/2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.016 NV N NCarbon tetrachloride ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.077 NV N NChlorobenzeneNDND--0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.025 NV N NChloroethaneNDND--0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) Chloroform ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.14 NV N N Chloromethane ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.62 NV N N cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV N N Dibromochloromethane ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.32 NV N N Dibromomethane ND ND --0/2 0.002 0.002 0.0020 NV NV N N (4) Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) Diisopropyl ether ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) Ethylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.061 NV N NHexachloro-1,3-butadiene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0010 NV Y N (2) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 4 of 4 Table 3-3. Former Ball Field Surface Water Screening Exposure Area: Former Ball FieldMedium: Surface water in Stormwater Collection Basin Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Freshwater Aquatic Life Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant Category Screening Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0048 NV N N m&p-Xylene ND ND --0/2 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.26 NV N N Methylene Chloride ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 1.5 NV N N Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.73 NV N N n-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 NV NV N N (4) n-Propylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4)o-Xylene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.26 NV N Np-Isopropyltoluene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.016 NV N Nsec-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4)Styrene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.032 NV N N tert-Butyl Alcohol ND ND --0/2 0.058 0.058 0.058 NV N N tert-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) Tetrachloroethene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.053 NV N N Toluene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.062 11.000 N N trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.558 NV N N trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/2 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV N N Trichloroethene ND ND --0/2 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.220 NV N N Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND --0/2 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) Vinyl acetate ND ND --0/2 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.016 NV N NVinyl chloride ND ND --0/2 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.930 NV N N Notes: -- = not applicable J = concentration is an estimated value MDL = method detection limit NC = North Carolina ND = parameter is not detected NV = no value N = no, does not exceed Region 4 SL or NC Aquatic Life Value PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds VOCs = volatile organic compounds Y = yes, does exceed Region 4 SL or NC Aquatic Life Value (1) Contaminants whose maximum detection exceeds the media specific ecological screening value. (2) Contaminants that generated a laboratory MDL that exceeds the EPA Region IV media-specific ecological screening value for that contaminant. (3) Contaminants that have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value, but were detected above the laboratory MDLs. (4) Contaminants that were not detected above the laboratory MDLs and have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value. (5) Contaminants whose SQL or maximum detection exceeds the NC Surface Water Quality Standards. a3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol) uses 4-Methylphenol EPA screening value as a surrogate bm&p-Xylene uses total Xylene as a surrogate for EPA screening value. csilver, lead, and cadmium are hardness dependent. Assumed 50 mg/L as CaCO3 for hardness. Sources: Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance (USEPA 2018) NCDENR, "North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standard for Aquatic Life." NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100 & .0200. April 2003. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 1 of 4 Table 3-4. Former Ball Field Groundwater Screening Exposure Area: Former Ballfield Medium: Groundwater Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Surface Water Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant Category InorganicsArsenic ND ND --0/3 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.150 0.15 N N Barium 0.0126 0.0254 ABF-SB007-F001 3/3 0.0254 0.220 NV N N Cadmium ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.000 0.00025 Y Y (2)(5) Chromium ND ND --0/3 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 NV 42.011 N N (4) Fluoride 0.40 J 0.64 ABF-SB003-F001 3/3 0.64 2.7 1.8 N NLeadNDND--0/3 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.001 0.001 Y Y (2)(5) Mercury 0.0001 J 0.0001 J ABF-SB003-F001 1/3 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.000012 N Y (5) Selenium ND ND --0/3 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 N N Silver ND ND --0/3 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.000060 0.000060 Y Y (2)(5)PAHs1-Methylnaphthalene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.006 NV N N 2-Methylnaphthalene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.005 NV N N Acenaphthene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.015 NV N N Acenaphthylene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.013 NV N N Anthracene ND ND --0/3 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 NV NV N N (4)Benzo(a)anthracene ND ND --0/3 0.00072 0.00072 0.00072 0.005 NV N N Benzo(a)pyrene ND ND --0/3 0.00071 0.00071 0.00071 0.000 NV Y N (2) Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND ND --0/3 0.00081 0.00081 0.00081 0.003 NV N N Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND ND --0/3 0.00097 0.00097 0.00097 NV NV N N (4) Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND ND --0/3 0.00087 0.00087 0.00087 0.000 NV Y N (2)Chrysene ND ND --0/3 0.00065 0.00065 0.00065 0.005 NV N N Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND ND --0/3 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 NV NV N N (4) Fluoranthene ND ND --0/3 0.00087 0.00087 0.00087 0.001 NV Y N (2) Fluorene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.019 NV N N Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 NV NV N N (4)Naphthalene ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.002 0.002 0.021 NV N N Phenanthrene ND ND --0/3 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 NV N N Pyrene ND ND --0/3 0.00053 0.00053 0.00053 0.005 NV N N PCBs PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4)PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4)PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 NV NV N N (4) Total PCBs ND ND --0/3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.000014 0.0010 Y N (2) Phenols 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.002 NV Y N (2) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.005 NV N N2,4-Dichlorophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.011 NV N N 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND ND --0/3 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.015 NV N N 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.071 NV N N 2-Chlorophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.018 NV N N 2-Methylphenol(o-Cresol)ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.067 NV N N Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 2 of 4 Table 3-4. Former Ball Field Groundwater Screening Exposure Area: Former Ballfield Medium: Groundwater Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Surface Water Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) 2-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.073 NV N N 3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol)ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.053 NV N N4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND ND --0/3 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.001 NV Y N (2) 4-Nitrophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058 0.058 NV N N Pentachlorophenol ND ND --0/3 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.015 NV N N Phenol ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.160 NV N NSVOCs 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.023 NV N N 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/3 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.044 NV N N 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.081 NV N N 2-Chloronaphthalene ND ND --0/3 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 NV NV N N (4)2-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/3 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.017 NV N N 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ND ND --0/3 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.005 NV N N 3-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/3 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.000 NV N N 4-Bromophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/3 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.002 NV N N 4-Chloroaniline ND ND --0/3 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.001 NV Y N (2)4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether ND ND --0/3 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.000 NV N N 4-Nitroaniline ND ND --0/3 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 NV NV N N (4) Aniline ND ND --0/3 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.004 NV N N Benzoic Acid ND ND --0/3 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.042 NV N N Benzyl alcohol ND ND --0/3 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.009 NV N Nbis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND ND --0/3 0.00085 0.00085 0.00085 0.008 NV N N Butylbenzylphthalate ND ND --0/3 0.00075 0.00075 0.00075 0.023 NV N NDibenzofuranNDND--0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.004 NV N N Diethylphthalate ND ND --0/3 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.220 NV N N Dimethylphthalate ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 1.100 NV N N Di-n-butylphthalate ND ND --0/3 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.019 NV N N Di-n-octylphthalate ND ND --0/3 0.00086 0.00086 0.00086 0.215 NV N NHexachlorobenzeneNDND--0/3 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.000 NV Y N (2) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.000 NV Y N (2) Hexachloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.012 NV N N Isophorone ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.920 NV N N Nitrobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.230 NV N NN-Nitrosodimethylamine ND ND --0/3 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 NV NV N N (4) N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND ND --0/3 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 NV NV N N (4) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND ND --0/3 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.025 NV N N VOCs 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.085 NV N N1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.076 NV N N 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.200 NV N N 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.730 NV N N 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.410 NV N N Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 3 of 4 Table 3-4. Former Ball Field Groundwater Screening Exposure Area: Former Ballfield Medium: Groundwater Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Surface Water Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.130 NV N N 1,1-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.000 NV N N1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.008 NV N N 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0019 0.0019 0.130 NV N N 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.015 NV N N 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4)1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 2.000 NV N N 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total)ND ND --0/3 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.970 NV N N 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.520 NV N N 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.026 NV N N1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 0.022 NV N N 1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0012 0.0015 0.0015 0.009 NV N N 2,2-Dichloropropane ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.000 NV N N 2-Butanone (MEK)ND ND --0/3 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 22.000 NV N N2-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) 2-Hexanone ND ND --0/3 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.099 NV N N 4-Chlorotoluene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ND --0/3 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.170 NV N N Acetone ND ND --0/3 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.700 NV N NBenzeneNDND--0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.160 NV N N Bromobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) Bromochloromethane ND ND --0/3 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 NV NV N N (4) Bromodichloromethane ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.340 NV N N Bromoform ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.230 NV N NBromomethaneNDND--0/3 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.016 NV N N Carbon tetrachloride ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.077 NV N N Chlorobenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.025 NV N N Chloroethane ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) Chloroform ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.140 NV N NChloromethaneNDND--0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.620 NV N N cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.000 NV N N Dibromochloromethane ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.320 NV N N Dibromomethane ND ND --0/3 0.002 0.002 0.002 NV NV N N (4)Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4) Diisopropyl ether ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) Ethylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.061 NV N N Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.001 NV Y N (2) Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.005 NV N Nm&p-Xylene ND ND --0/3 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.260 NV N N Methylene Chloride ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 1.500 NV N N Methyl-tert-butyl ether ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.730 NV N N n-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 NV NV N N (4) Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 4 of 4 Table 3-4. Former Ball Field Groundwater Screening Exposure Area: Former Ballfield Medium: Groundwater Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MRL (mg/L) Maximum MRL (mg/L) Screening Concentration (mg/L) EPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (mg/L) NC Surface Water Value (mg/L) Exceeds Region 4 Freshwater Chronic (Y/N) Exceeds NC Aquatic Life (Y/N) Contaminant CategoryConstituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Concentration (mg/L) n-Propylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 NV NV N N (4) o-Xylene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.260 NV N Np-Isopropyltoluene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.016 NV N N sec-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) Styrene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.032 NV N N tert-Butyl Alcohol ND ND --0/3 0.0577 0.0577 0.0577 0.000 NV N N tert-Butylbenzene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 NV NV N N (4)Tetrachloroethene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.053 NV N N Toluene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.062 11 N N trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.558 NV N N trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND --0/3 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.000 NV N N Trichloroethene ND ND --0/3 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.220 NV N NTrichlorofluoromethaneNDND--0/3 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 NV NV N N (4) Vinyl acetate ND ND --0/3 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.016 NV N N Vinyl chloride ND ND --0/3 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.930 NV N N Notes: -- = not applicable J = concentration is an estimated value MDL = method detection limit N = no, does not exceed Region 4 SL or NC Aquatic Life Value NC = North Carolina ND = parameter is not detected NV = no value PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds VOCs = volatile organic compounds Y = yes, does exceed Region 4 SL or NC Aquatic Life Value (1) Contaminants whose maximum detection exceeds the media specific ecological screening value. (2) Contaminants that generated a laboratory MDL that exceeds the EPA Region IV media-specific ecological screening value for that contaminant. (3) Contaminants that have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value, but were detected above the laboratory MDLs. (4) Contaminants that were not detected above the laboratory MDLs and have no EPA Region IV ecological screening value. (5) Contaminants whose SQL or maximum detection exceeds the NC Surface Water Quality Standards. a3&4-Methylphenol(m&p Cresol) uses 4-Methylphenol EPA screening value as a surrogate bm&p-Xylene uses total Xylene as a surrogate for EPA screening value. csilver, lead, and cadmium are hardness dependent. Assumed 50 mg/L as CaCO3 for hardness. Sources: Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance (USEPA 2018) NCDENR, "North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standard for Aquatic Life." NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100 & .0200. April 2003. Former Ball Field Area Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment April 20, 2021 Integral Consulting Inc.Page 1 of 1 Exposure Area: Former Ball Field Medium: Surface soil (≤2 ft bgs) Maximum Concentration Sample ID Minimum MDL (mg/kg) Maximum MDL (mg/kg)95 UCL UCL Statistic Screening Concentration (mg/kg) Background (mg/kg) EPA Region 4Soil Screening Value (mg/kg) Hazard Quotient using 95 UCL COPC (Y/N)COPC Note CyanideCyanide 0.15 0.59 ABF-SB033-F001 (0.5-2)25/52 0.14 0.23 0.26 95% Student's-t UCL 0.26 5.3 0.10 2.6 N below backgroundInorganics Chromium 0.97 82 ABF-SD002-F001 52/52 24 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 24 96 23 1.1 N below backgroundLead1.2 124 ABF-SD002-D001 52/52 43 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 43 239 11 3.9 N below background Mercury 0.0044 0.12 ABF-SB029-F001 (0.5-2')52/52 0.041 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 0.041 --0.013 3.1 Y 95 UCL exceedsPAHs Total HMW PAHs (ND=1/2 MDL)0.34 12 J ABF-SB057-F002 29/59 0.0487 2.9 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.9 --1.1 3.0 Y 95 UCL exceedsPCBs Total PCBs 0.032 0.48 ABF-SB053-F002 2/59 0.0165 0.416 0.086 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.09 --0.041 2.1 Y 95 UCL exceeds Notes: -- = not applicable COPC = chemical of potential concern HMW PAHs = high molecular weight PAHs J = concentration is an estimated value MDL = method detection limit PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls UCL = upper confidence limit Y = yes, does exceed Region 4 SL Sources: Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance (USEPA 2018) Recommended 95 UCLs calculated using USEPA ProUCL Software 5.1.002 Table 3-5. Former Ball Field Surface Soil Refined Screening and Hazard Calculation Constituent Detected Concentrations Frequency of Detection Detection Limits 95 UCL Screening Minimum Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Appendix A Checklist for Ecological Assessment A-5 CHECKLIST FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS/SAMPLING I. SITE LOCATION 1. Site Name: Badin Former Ball Field Area ___________________________________________________ US EPA ID Number: _____________________________________________________________________________ Location: Badin, NC ____________________________________________________________________________ County: Stanly___________________ City: Badin_________________ State: NC 2. Latitude: _35.406943____________________ Longitude: _-80.114708__________________________ 3. Attach site maps, including a topographical map, a diagram which illustrates the layout of the facility (e.g., site boundaries, structures, etc.), and maps showing all habitat areas identified in Section III of the checklist. Also, include maps which illustrate known and suspected release areas, sampling locations and any other important features, if available. See Figure 2-1 of the SLERA main report. II. SITE CHARACTERIZATION 1. Indicate the approximate area of the site (i.e., acres or sq. ft.) 10 acres 2. Is this the first site visit? ☒ Yes ☐ No If no, attach trip report of previous site visit(s), if available. Dates(s) of previous site visit(s) NA ___________________________________________________________ 3. Are aerial or other site photographs available? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, please attach any available photo(s) to the site map to the report. 4. Provide an approximate breakdown of the land uses on the site: ☐ % Heavy Industrial ☐ % Light Industrial ☐ % Urban ☐ % Residential ☐ % Rural ☐ % Agriculturalb 94 % Recreationala 6 % Undisturbed ☐ % Otherc aFor recreational areas, please describe the use of the area (e.g., park, playing field, etc). Predominantly a maintained grass field and a small portion of the northwest corner of a parking area for Lake Badin access. ______________________________________________________________________ bFor agricultural areas, please list the crops and/or livestock which are present. NA ________________________________________________________________________________________________ cFor areas designated as “other,” please describe the use of the area. NA ________________________________________________________________________________________________ A-6 5. Provide an approximate breakdown of the land uses in the area surrounding the site. Indicate the radius (in miles) of the area described: ~ 0.5 mile radius (Town of Badin zoning map attached). ___________________________________________________________________________________ 40 % Heavy Industrial 15 % Light Industrial 20 % Urban 10 % Residential ☐ % Rural ☐ % Agriculturalb 10 % Recreationala ☐ % Undisturbed 5 % Otherc aFor recreational areas, please describe the use of the area (e.g., park, playing field, golf course, etc). Adjacent Badin Lake used for boating and fishing. ___________________________________________ bFor agricultural areas, please list the crops and/or livestock which are present. NA ________________________________________________________________________________________________ cFor areas designated as “other,” please describe the use of the area. Commercial shopping, Badin Police Station, Baptist church and cemetery. ________________ 6. Has any movement of soil taken place at the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the likely source of the disturbance, (e.g., erosion, agricultural, mining, industrial activities, removals, etc.) degree of disturbance, and estimate when these events occurred. Soil from the southern portion of the Site was believed to be graded to the north to level out for recreational use. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Do any sensitive environmental areas exist adjacent to or in proximity to the site, (e.g. Federal and State parks, National and State monuments, wetlands)? Remember, flood plains and wetlands are not always obvious; do not answer "no" without confirming information. See Table 1 for a list of contacts. US FWS and NCNHP resources were searched for sensitive environmental areas near the site. Yes, the site is adjacent to Badin Lake, which is listed as wetland under the National Wetlands Inventory. Approximately 1.5 miles north of the Site, Badin Lake abuts the western side of the Uwharrie National Forest. Please provide the source(s) of information used to identify these sensitive areas, and indicate their general location on the site map. 8. What type of facility is located at the site? ☐ Chemical ☐ Manufacturing ☐ Mixing ☐ Waste Disposal ☒ Other (specify) None. Site was formerly used recreationally as a ball field. __________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Identify the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) at the site. If known, include the maximum contaminant levels. Please indicate the source of data cited (e.g., RFI, confirmatory sampling, etc). A-7 Potential COPCs in surface soil and the maximum concentrations and maximum method detection limits for constituents of interest (COIs) in soil, surface water, and groundwater are described and tabulated in the main screening level risk assessment (SLERA) report. ___ 10. Check any potential routes of off-site migration of contaminants observed at the site: ☐ Swales ☐ Depressions ☒ Drainage Ditches ☒ Runoff ☒ Windblown Particulates ☒ Vehicular Traffic ☒ Other (specify): The ditches originate offsite and convey runoff from the Former Ball Field and immediate surrounding areas as shown on Figure 2-1 of the SLERA; see Section 2.1.2 for additional description. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Indicate the approximate depth to groundwater (in feet below ground surface [(bgs)]. 4-5 ft bgs __________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Indicate the direction of groundwater flow (e.g., north, southeast, etc.) Flow measured west of the Site at the adjacent business park travels east towards Badin Lake, while the southern portion of the business park flows south towards Little Mountain Creek. 13. Is the direction of surface runoff apparent from site observations? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, to which of the following does the surface runoff discharge? Indicate all that apply. ☐ Surface water ☐ Groundwater ☐ Sewer ☒ Collection Impoundment 14. Is there a navigable water body or tributary to a navigable water body? ☐ Yes ☒ No 15. Is there a water body anywhere on or in the vicinity of the site? If yes, also complete Section III.B.1: Aquatic Habitat Checklist -- Non-Flowing Systems and/or Section III.B.2: Aquatic Habitat Checklist -- Flowing Systems. No water bodies are located on-site. Badin Lake is adjacent to the Site to the north. ☒ Yes (approx. distance _20 ft offsite_____) ☐ No 16. Is there evidence of flooding? ☐ Yes ☒ No Wetlands and flood plains are not always obvious. Do not answer "no" without confirming information. If yes, complete Section III.C: Wetland Habitat Checklist. Overflow from Badin Lake may occur to the stormwater collection basin during extensive precipitation. 17. If a field guide was used to aid any of the identifications, please provide a reference. Also, estimate the time spent identifying fauna. (Use a blank sheet if additional space is needed for text.) Peterson's Field Guides: Birds of North America (2008), Ecology of Eastern Forests (1988), Trees and Shrubs (1972) ___________________________________________________________________________ 18. Are any threatened and/or endangered species (plant or animal) known to inhabit the area of the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No A-8 If yes, you are required to verify this information with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other appropriate agencies (see Table 1 for a list of contacts). If species' identities are known, please list them next. A current list of threatened and endangered species that may occur at the Site was obtained from the US FWS Asheville, NC field office. According to the desktop search and letter provided by the US FWS, the threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) may occur in the region. These species are not known to inhabit the Site. No critical habitat is located within the Site. Additional protected species that may occur regionally in Stanly County NC (based on habitat and observation) are provided in the Table 2-1 of the SLERA. _____________________________________ 19. Record weather conditions at the site at the time of the site visit when information for completion of this checklist was prepared: DATE __2/17/2021______________ _28°F _Temperature (°C/°F) Wind (direction/speed): 9 mph NE ____________________________________________________________ Cloud Cover: Mostly sunny - scattered cirrus clouds _________________________________________ Normal daily high temperature (°C/°F): 45°F _________________________________________________ Precipitation (rain, snow): NA __________________________________________________________________ 20. Describe reasonable and likely future land and/or water use(s) at the site. There currently exists and opportunity for the sale of the Site by the Badin Business Park to the Town of Badin for community recreational use. _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 21. Describe the historical uses of the site. Include information on chemical releases that may have occurred as a result of previous land uses. For each chemical release, provide information on the form of the chemical released (i.e., solid, liquid, vapor) and the known or suspected causes or mechanism of the release (i.e., spills, leaks, material disposal, dumping, explosion, etc.). An extensive historical review of the Site was completed by the Badin Business Park showing that the Site was historically undeveloped and then used for recreational purposes beginning in the 1930s (Environeering 2015). No direct releases of chemicals have occurred at the Site. Past releases may have historically occurred from emissions associated surrounding commercial/industrial operations and other anthropogenic sources as a result of urbanization of the area in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries . Although subsequent particulate deposition to the Site may have occurred, no documentation is available to support that assumption. The onsite drainage ditches receive surface runoff from the off-Site areas to the west (parking area), south (light industrial use, including Citgo/Badin Mart gas station and a radiator shop), and east (undeveloped grassy area and residences) - see Figure 2-1 of the SLERA. During periods of extensive precipitation, the stormwater collection basin onsite may become inundated by Badin Lake. It is also possible that under both historic and current conditions the small portion of the Site that consists of the parking lot may be subject to releases (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons) associated with automobiles. As illustrated in Figure 2- A-9 2 of the SLERA and described above, the primary potential release mechanisms for COIs include volatilization, wind erosion, and overland surface runoff from surrounding areas. _______ 22. Identify the media (e.g., soil [surface or subsurface], surface water, air, groundwater) which are known or suspected to contain COCs. Several COIs (VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, PAHs, phenols, metals, and inorganics) were investigated in soil, surface water, and groundwater during two field sampling efforts in 2015 and 2018. Majority of the COIs were not detected or detected infrequently at low concentrations. A limited number of potential COPCs are identified for surface soil (top 2 ft). Exposure to surface water was considered insignificant. No complete ecological exposure pathways exists for groundwater or subsurface soil (>2 feet). See Section 2.3 of the SLERA. ___________________________________ IIA. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND SITE SETTING Include information on significant source areas and migration pathways that are likely to constitute complete exposure pathways. As described above, source areas are not known to exist at the Site. The primary potential release mechanisms for COIs include volatilization, wind erosion, and overland surface runoff from surrounding areas (see Figure 2-2 of the SLERA). The secondary sources and releases of chemicals may result in potentially complete exposure pathways associated with direct contact/uptake by plants and invertebrates, incidental ingestion of soil during foraging activities by wildlife, and consumption of plants and prey items for COPCs considered bioaccumulative. For this terrestrial habitat, exposure pathways associated surface water is considered insignificant. Exposure pathways associated with groundwater and subsurface soil are considered incomplete. __________________________________________________________________________ A-10 Checklist Completed by__Matthew Behum________________ Affiliation__Integral Consulting ________________________ Author Assisted by_Damian Preziosi (Integral), Mike Worden (CEC) __ Date_February 17, 2021________________________________ A-11 III. HABITAT EVALUATION III.A Terrestrial Habitat Checklist III.A.1 Wooded Are any wooded areas on or adjacent to the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the wooded area on the attached site map and answer the following questions. If more than one wooded area is present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and fill out for each individual wooded area. Distinguish between wooded areas by using names or other designations, and clearly identify each area on the site map. See Figure 2-1 of main SLERA report. If no, proceed to Section III.A.2: Shrub/Scrub A-12 Wooded Area Questions ☒ On-site ☐ Off-site Name or Designation: Pine and shrub/scrub (Figure 2-1 of main SLERA report). _____________ 1. Estimate the approximate size of the wooded area (__5_% __0.5_acres) Please identify what information was used to determine the wooded area of the site (e.g., direct observation, photos, etc). Areal extent measured using Google Earth. 2. Indicate the dominant type of vegetation in the wooded area. Provide photographs, if available. ☒ Evergreen ☐ Deciduous ☐ Mixed Dominant plant species, if known: Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) _____________________________ 3. Estimate the vegetation density of the wooded area. ☐ Dense (i.e., greater than 75% vegetation) ☐ Moderate (i.e., 25% to 75% vegetation) ☒ Sparse (i.e., less than 25% vegetation) 4. Indicate the predominant size of the trees at the site. Use diameter at breast height. ☐ 0-6 inches ☒ 6-12 inches ☐ >12 inches ☐ No single size range is predominant 5. Specify type of understory present, if known. Provide a photograph, if available. Scrub small vegetation. See Photograph-1. Note: Small groupings of mixed deciduous trees are present in northeast corner of the Site (approximately 8 trees) and in the off-site adjacent parking lot to the west of the Site (approximately 15 trees). Trees range from 6-12 inches in diameter and appear to be comprised of secondary or tertiary growth stands. A-13 III.A.2 Shrub/Scrub Are any shrub/scrub areas on or adjacent to the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the shrub/scrub area on the attached site map and answer the following questions. If more than one shrub/scrub area is present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and fill out for each individual shrub/scrub area. Distinguish between shrub/scrub areas, using names or other designations, and clearly identify each area on the site map. If no, proceed to Section III.A.3: Open Field A-14 Shrub/Scrub Area Questions ☒ On-site ☐ Off-site Name or Designation: Northern boundary of Pine and shrub scrub area _______________________ 1. Estimate the approximate size of the shrub/scrub area (_1_% __0.1_acres). Please identify what information was used to determine the shrub/scrub area of the site (e.g., direct observation, photos, etc). Direct observation 2. Indicate the dominant type of shrub/scrub vegetation present, if known. Various unidentifiable shrub and scrub species including thistle bushes and evergreen saplings Predominantly mixed weeds with occasionally mixed shrub species (e.g., Gray dogwood [Cornus racemosa] chokeberry [Genus Aronia] and Horsebrier [Similax rotundifolia]). __ 3. Estimate the vegetation density of the shrub/scrub area. ☐ Dense (i.e., greater than 75% vegetation) ☐ Moderate (i.e., 25% to 75% vegetation) ☒ Sparse (i.e., less than 25% vegetation) 4. Indicate the approximate average height of the scrub/shrub vegetation. ☒ 0-2 feet ☒ 2-5 feet ☐ >5 feet 5. Specify type of understory present, if known. Provide a photograph, if available. See response to Item 2 above. See Photograph-1. A-15 III.A.3 Open Field Are any open field areas on or adjacent to the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the open field area on the attached site map and answer the following questions. If more than one open field area is present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and fill out for each individual open field area. Distinguish between open field areas, using names or other designations, and clearly identify each area on the site map. If no, proceed to Section III.A.4: Miscellaneous A-16 Open Field Area Questions ☒ On-site ☐ Off-site Name or Designation: Maintained grass (see Figure 2-1 of main SLERA report) _______________ 1. Estimate the approximate size of the open field area (_90_% 9_acres). Please identify what information was used to determine the open field area of the site. 2. Indicate the dominant type of vegetation present, if known. Grass (tall fescue) with mixed common lawn weeds of white clover, dandelion, crabgrass, Common chickweed, Carolina geranium, wild onion 3. Estimate the vegetation density of the shrub/scrub area. ☒ Dense (i.e., greater than 75% vegetation) ☐ Moderate (i.e., 25% to 75% vegetation) ☐ Sparse (i.e., less than 25% vegetation) 4. Indicate the approximate average height of the dominant plant: Maintained grass, mowed ~4"; grass was dormant during Site visit in winter. See Photograph-2. A-17 III.A.4 Miscellaneous Are other types of terrestrial habitats present at the site, other than woods, scrub/shrub and open field? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the area on the attached site map and answer the following questions. If more than one of these areas are present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and fill out for each individual area. Distinguish between areas by using names or other designations. Clearly identify each area on the site map. If no, proceed to Section III.B: Aquatic Habitats. A-18 Miscellaneous Area Questions ☒ On-site ☒ Off-site Name or Designation: Parking lot northwest corner of the Site __________________________________ 1. Provide a description of the terrestrial miscellaneous habitat and identify the area on the site map. A small portion of the Site (i.e., approximately 0.25 acres) consists of the northwest corner of an approximately 2 acre cinder and gravel parking lot associated with the Badin Lake boat ramp. Offsite surrounding terrestrial areas is largely commercial, industrial, and further out is residential. 2. Estimate the approximate size of the area (_2.5_% _0.25_acres) 3. What observations, if any, were made at the site regarding the presence and/or absence of insects, birds, mammals, etc.? Birds were observed in the distance off-site and flying above the Site. No insects or other fauna were observed. 4. Review the questions in Section I to determine if any additional habitat checklists should be completed for this site. None ______________________________________________________________________________________________ A-19 III.B Aquatic Habitats Note: Aquatic systems are often associated with wetland habitats. Please refer to Section III.C, Wetland Habitat Checklist. III.B.1 Non-Flowing Systems Are any non-flowing aquatic features (such as ponds or lakes) located at or adjacent to the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the aquatic feature on the attached site map and answer the following questions regarding the non-flowing aquatic features. If more than one non-flowing aquatic feature is present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and fill out for each individual aquatic feature. Distinguish between aquatic features by using names or other designations. Clearly identify each area on the site map. Badin Lake (offsite) If no, proceed to Section III.B.2: Flowing Systems A-20 Non-Flowing Aquatic Feature Questions ☐ On-site ☒ Off-site Name or Designation: Temporal ponds: Badin Lake ______________________________________________ 1. Indicate the type of aquatic feature present: ☐ Natural (e.g., pond or lake) ☒ Man-made (e.g., impoundment, lagoon, canal, etc.) 2. Estimate the approximate size of the water body (in acres or sq. ft.)_5,400 acres_ 3. If known, indicate the depth of the water body (in ft. or in.). Average depth of 45 ft, max depth is 175 ft 4. If a water body is present, what are its known uses (e.g.: recreation, navigation, etc.)? Recreation 5. Is aquatic vegetation present? ☒ Yes (unknown) ☐ No If yes, please identify the type of vegetation present if known. ☐ Emergent ☐ Submergent ☐ Floating 6. Indicate the general composition of the bottom substrate. Mark all sources that apply from the following list. ☐ Bedrock ☐ Sand ☐ Concrete ☐ Boulder (>10 in.) ☐ Silt ☐ Debris ☐ Cobble (2.5 - 10 in.) ☐ Clay ☐ Detritus ☐ Gravel (0.1 - 2.5 in.) ☐ Muck (fine/black) ☒ Other (please specify): Unknown; did not observe. 7. Indicate the source(s) of the water in the aquatic feature. Mark all sources that apply from the following list. ☒ River/Stream/Creek ☒ Groundwater ☐ Industrial Discharge ☒ Surface Runoff ☒ Other (please specify): _Water sources and general characteristics for Badin Lake obtained from EPA. 1975. Report on Badin Lake, Montgomery and Stanly Counties, NC. EPA Region IV, Working Paper No. 377. A-21 Non-Flowing Aquatic Feature Questions (Continued) 8. Is there a discharge from the facility to the aquatic feature? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, describe the origin of each discharge and its migration path. 9. Does the aquatic feature discharge to the surrounding environment? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate the features from the following list into which the aquatic feature discharges, and indicate whether the discharge occurs onsite or offsite: ☐ River/Stream/Creek ☐ on-site ☐ off-site ☐ Groundwater ☐ on-site ☐ off-site ☐ Wetland ☐ on-site ☐ off-site ☐ Impoundment ☐ on-site ☐ off-site ☒ Other (please specify): _During periods of extensive precipitation, the stormwater collection basin onsite may become inundated by Badin Lake. _________________________________________ 10. Identify any field measurements and observations of water quality that were made. Provide the measurement and the units of measure in the appropriate space below: _____ Area _____ Depth (average) _____ Temperature (depth of water where the reading was taken) _____ _____ pH _____ Dissolved oxygen _____ Salinity _____ Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque) (Secchi disk depth_____) _____ Other (specify) 11. Describe observed color and area of coloration. None observed __________________________________________________________________________________ A-22 Non-Flowing Aquatic Feature Questions (Continued) 12. Mark the open-water, non-flowing system on the site map attached to this checklist. See Figure 2-1 of the SLERA. ____________________________________________________________________ 13. What observations, if any, were made at the water body regarding the presence and/or absence of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, etc? No direct observations of the off-Site Badin Lake was made during the Site visit. _________ As described in detail of the main SLERA report, the western drainage ditch and eastern drainage ditch located along the Site boundaries are grass covered depressions that receive runoff from the field and surrounding off-site areas. Both the ditches were dry along their lengths during the site visit (following a period of extensive precipitation the previous weeks) (see Photograph-3), with a small area of standing water present immediately adjacent to the stormwater collection basin (see Photograph-4). As water was not present in the ditches along the vast majority of their lengths along the Site, it was presumed the standing water at the stormwater collection basin may have been associated with Badin Lake. While both the western and eastern drainage ditches are described here, because they are grass covered and standing water was not present along the large majority of their lengths (even following extensive periods of precipitation), they are not considered aquatic features. They are accordingly characterized as upland habitat coinciding with the maintained grass area covering the remainder of former ball field area. ________________________________________________________ A-23 III.B.2 Flowing Systems Note: Aquatic systems are often associated with wetland habitats. Please refer to Section III.C, Wetland Habitat Checklist. Are any flowing aquatic features (such as streams or rivers) located at or adjacent to the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, indicate the system on the attached site map and answer the following questions regarding the flowing system. If more than one flowing system is present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and complete one set for each individual aquatic feature. Distinguish between flowing systems by using names or other designation. Clearly identify each area on the site map If no, proceed to Section III.C: Wetlands Habitats. A-24 Flowing Aquatic Systems Questions ☐ On-site ☐ Off-site Name or Designation: NA ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. Indicate the type of flowing aquatic feature present. ☐ River ☐ Stream/Creek/Brook ☐ Intermittent stream ☐ Artificially created (ditch, etc.) ☐ Channeling ☐ Other (specify) 2. For natural systems, are there any indicators of physical alteration (e.g., channeling, debris, etc.)? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please describe the indicators observed. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Indicate the general composition of the bottom substrate. ☐ Bedrock ☐ Sand (course) ☐ Concrete ☐ Boulder (>10 in.) ☐ Silt (fine) ☐ Debris ☐ Cobble (2.5 - 10 in.) ☐ Clay (slick) ☐ Detritus ☐ Gravel (0.1 - 2.5 in.) ☐ Muck (fine/black) ☐ Marl (Shells) ☐ Other (please specify): __________________________________________ 4. Describe the condition of the bank (e.g., height, slope, extent of vegetative cover). ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Is the system influenced by tides? ☐ Yes ☐ No What information was used to make this determination? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Is the flow intermittent? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please note the information used to make this determination. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ A-25 Flowing System Questions (Continued) 7. Is there a discharge from the site to the water body? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, describe the origin of each discharge and its migration path. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Indicate the discharge point of the water body. Specify name of the discharge, if known. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Identify any field measurements and observations of water quality that were made. Provide the measurement and the units of measure in the appropriate space below: _____ Width (ft.) _____ Depth (average) _____ Velocity (specify units):______________ _____ Temperature (depth of water where the reading was taken) _____ _____ pH _____ Dissolved oxygen _____ Salinity _____ Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque) (Secchi disk depth_____) _____ Other (specify) 10. Describe observed color and area of coloration. _____ ____________________ 11. Is any aquatic vegetation present? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please identify the type of vegetation present, if known. ☐ Emergent ☐ Submergent ☐ Floating A-26 Flowing System Questions (Continued) 12. Mark the flowing water system on the attached site map. _NA__________________ 13. What observations were made at the water body regarding the presence and/or absence of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, etc? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ A-27 III.C Wetland Habitats Are any wetland2 areas such as marshes or swamps on or adjacent to the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, indicate the wetland area on the attached site map and answer the following questions regarding the wetland area. If more than one wetland area is present on or adjacent to the site, make additional copies of the following questions and fill out one for each individual wetland area. Distinguish between wetland areas by using names or other designations (such as location). Clearly identify each area on the site map. Also, obtain and attach a National Wetlands Inventory Map (or maps) to illustrate each wetland area. Identify the sources of the observations and information (e.g., National Wetland Inventory, Federal or State Agency, USGS topographic maps) used to make the determination whether or not wetland areas are present. The National Wetlands Inventory identifies the off-Site Badin Lake as containing wetlands (USFWS 2020). A desktop search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was conducted on February 25, 2021; no freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, or freshwater ponds are located at the Site. ________________________________________________________________ If no wetland areas are present, proceed to Section III.D: Sensitive Environments and Receptors. 2Wetlands are defined in 40 CFR §232.2 as “ Areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Examples of typical wetlands plants include: cattails, cordgrass, willows and cypress trees. National wetland inventory maps may be available at http:\\nwi.fws.gov. Additional information on wetland delineation criteria is also available from the Army Corps of Engineers A-28 Wetland Area Questions ☐ On-site ☐ Off-site Name or Designation: _NA _ __________________________________ 1. Indicate the approximate area of the wetland (acres or ft.2) _________________ 2. Identify the type(s) of vegetation present in the wetland. ☐ Submergent (i.e., underwater) vegetation ☐ Emergent (i.e., rooted in the water, but rising above it) vegetation ☐ Floating vegetation ☐ Scrub/shrub ☐ Wooded ☐ Other (Please describe): _______________________________ 3. Provide a general description of the vegetation present in and around the wetland (height, color, etc). Provide a photograph of the known or suspected wetlands, if available. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Estimate the vegetation density of the wetland area. ☐ Dense (i.e., greater than 75% vegetation) ☐ Moderate (i.e., 25% to 75% vegetation) ☐ Sparse (i.e., less than 25% vegetation) 5. Is standing water present? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, is the water primarily: ☐ Fresh ☐ Brackish Indicate the approximate area of the standing water (ft.2) __________________ Indicate the approximate depth of the standing water, if known (ft. orin.) ______ A-29 Wetland Area Questions (Continued) 6. Identify any field measurements and observations of water quality that were made. Provide the measurement and the units of measure in the appropriate space below: _____ Area _____ Depth (average) _____ Temperature (depth of water where the reading was taken) _____ _____ pH _____ Dissolved oxygen _____ Salinity _____ Turbidity (clear, slightly turbid, turbid, opaque) (Secchi disk depth_____) _____ Other (specify) 7. Describe observed color and area of coloration. __________________________________________________________________ 8. If known, indicate the source of the water in the wetland. ☐ Stream/River/Creek/Lake/Pond ☐ Flooding ☐ Groundwater ☐ Surface runoff 9. Is there a discharge from the site to the wetland? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please describe: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A-30 Wetland Area Questions (Continued) 10. Is there a discharge from the wetland? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, to what water body is discharge released? ☐ Marine (Name: ___________________________) ☐ Surface stream/River (Name: ___________________________) ☐ Lake/Pond (Name: ___________________________) ☐ Groundwater ☐ Not sure 11. Does the area show evidence of flooding? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, indicate which of the following are present (mark all that apply). ☐ Standing water ☐ Water-saturated soils ☐ Water marks ☐ Buttressing ☐ Debris lines ☐ Mud cracks ☐ Other (Please describe):________________________________________ 12. If a soil sample was collected, describe the appearance of the soil in the wetland area. Circle or write in the best response. Color (blue/gray, brown, black, mottled) _____________________________ Water content (dry, wet, saturated/unsaturated) ______________________ 13. Mark the observed wetland area(s) on the attached site map. A-31 III.D Sensitive Environments and Receptors 1. Do any other potentially sensitive environmental areas33 exist adjacent to or within one-half mile of the site? If yes, list these areas and provide the source(s) of information used to identify sensitive areas. Do not answer “no” without confirmation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate agencies. See Table 1 for a list of contacts. No. Desktop search of sensitive environmental areas was completed through the US FWS and NCNHP. As described, beyond one-half mile of the Site (approximately 1.5 miles north), Badin Lake abuts the western side of the Uwharrie National Forest._______________________________________ 2. Are any areas on or near (i.e., within one-half mile) the site owned or used by local tribes? If yes, describe. _No_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Does the site serve or potentially serve as a habitat, foraging area or refuge by rare, threatened, endangered, candidate and/or proposed species (plants or animals), or any otherwise protected species? If yes, identify species. This information should be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate agencies. See Table 1 for a list of contacts. No. Desktop search of potential habitat areas was completed through the US FWS and NCNHP. 4. Is the site potentially used as a breeding, roosting or feeding area by migratory bird species? If yes, identify which species. _No_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Areas that provide unique and often protected habitat for wildlife species. These areas are typically used during critical life stages such as breeding, hatching, rearing of young and overwintering. Refer to Table 2 at the end of this document for examples of sensitive environments. A-32 Sensitive Environments and Receptors Questions (continued) 5. Is the site used by any ecologically44, recreationally or commercially important species? If yes, explain. _No_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Ecologically important species include populations of species which provide a critical (i.e., not replaceable) food resource for higher organisms. These species' functions would not be replaced by more tolerant species or perform a critical ecological function (such as organic matter decomposition) and will not be replaced by other species. Ecologically important species include pest and opportunistic species that populate an area if they serve as a food source for other species, but do not include domesticated animals (e.g., pets and livestock) or plants/animals whose existence is maintained by continuous human interventions (e.g., fish hatcheries, agricultural crops, etc). A-33 IV. EXPOSURE PATHWAY EVALUATION 1. Do existing data provide sufficient information on the nature, rate and extent of contamination at the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Uncertain Please provide an explanation for your answer. Yes, field sampling of surface soil, surface water, subsurface soil, and groundwater was completed during investigations in 2015 and 2018. Sufficient data are available to characterize the Site and complete a SLERA. No data gaps were identified. _______________________________________________________________ 2. Do existing data provide sufficient information on the nature, rate and extent of contamination in offsite affected areas? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Uncertain ☒ No offsite contamination Please provide an explanation for your answer. _Site is not source of contamination and no off-site migration is expected to occur. ___ ________________________________________________ 3. Do existing data address potential migration pathways of contaminants at the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Uncertain Please provide an explanation for your answer. _Site investigations were completed in 2015 and 2018. A large number of environmental media (soil, surface water, and groundwater) samples were collected to conduct the site investigation and complete a migration pathway analysis. See Section 2 of the SLERA for an exposure pathway analysis for the Site._______________________________ A-34 4. Do existing data address potential migration pathways of contaminants in offsite affected areas? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Uncertain ☒ No offsite contamination Please provide an explanation for your answer. __Site is not source of contamination and no off-site migration is expected to occur. 5. Are there visible indications of stressed habitats or receptors on or near (i.e., within one-half mile) the site that may be the result of a chemical release? If yes, explain. Attach photographs if available. Based on the recent Site visit, the plant community appeared healthy with no visible signs of stress/adverse effects. See Photograph-2. 6. Is the location of the contamination such that receptors might be reasonably expected to come into contact with it? For soil, this means contamination in the soil 0 to 1 foot below ground surface (bgs). If yes, explain. Yes, as described in the CSM (Section 2 of the SLERA), receptors may potential be exposed to surface soil (top 2 ft) and this is considered a potentially complete and significant exposure pathway for terrestrial receptors at the Site. Surface soil samples were collected from 52 locations in 2015 and from 7 locations in 2018.____ ____________ 7. Are receptors located in or using habitats where chemicals exist in air, soil, sediment or surface water? If yes, explain. Receptors potentially present are anticipated to include soil invertebrates, foraging birds (e.g., American robin), and small mammals (e.g., deer mouse). Occasional and opportunistic use of the Site by small mammalian predators (e.g., fox, raccoon) and raptors (e.g., red-tailed hawk) is possible.___ A-35 8. Could chemicals reach receptors via groundwater? Can chemicals leach or dissolve to groundwater? Are chemicals mobile in groundwater? Does groundwater discharge into receptor habitats? If yes, explain. Although COIs in surface/subsurface soil can leach to groundwater and groundwater can discharge to the surface; the exposure pathways to groundwater (4-5 ft bgs) are considered incomplete for this Site. _________________________________________________________________ _ 9. Could chemicals reach receptors through runoff or erosion? Answer the following questions. What is the approximate distance from the contaminated area to the nearest watercourse? Yes; surface runoff from offsite surrounding areas could be present in surface soil, to which Site receptors could be potentially exposed. ☐ 0 feet (i.e., contamination has reached a watercourse) ☐ 1-10 feet ☐ 11-20 feet ☒ 21-50 feet ☐ 51-100 feet ☐ 101-200 feet ☐ > 200 feet ☐ > 500 feet ☐ > 1000 feet What is the slope of the ground in the contaminated area? ☒ 0-10% ☐ 10-30% ☐ > 30% What is the approximate amount of ground and canopy vegetative cover in the contaminated area? ☒ < 25% ☐ 25-75% ☐ > 75% Is there visible evidence of erosion (e.g., a rill or gully) in or near the contaminated area? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Do not know A-36 Do any structures, pavement or natural drainage features direct run-on flow (i.e., surface flows originating upstream or uphill from the area of concern) into the contaminated area? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Do not know 10. Could chemicals reach receptors through the dispersion of contaminants in air (e.g., volatilization, vapors, fugitive dust)? If yes, explain. Primary potential release mechanisms for COIs include volatilization, wind erosion, and overland surface runoff from surrounding areas. Transport of constituents adsorbed to soil particulate matter that move with surface runoff/overland flow is a potential migration pathway for constituents in surface soil. Volatile chemicals can migrate from to ambient air (e.g., emissions from surrounding operations); semivolatile and nonvolatile COIs can be resuspended with soil particulates and be present in ambient air (e.g., fugitive dust from the parking lot). __________________________________________________________________ 11. Could chemicals reach receptors through migration of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs)? Is a NAPL present at the site that might be migrating towards receptors or habitats? Could NAPL discharge contact receptors or their habitat? __No __________________________________________________________ Attachment Site Visit Photos and Town of Badin Zoning Map Badin Former Ball Field Area Badin, North Carolina SLERA Checklist Photographs Photograph-1. Scrub Vegetation outside Southern Border of the Former Ball Field Photograph-2. Dominant Former Ball Field Habitat: Mowed Grasses Badin Former Ball Field Area Badin, North Carolina SLERA Checklist Photographs Photograph-3. Dry Grass-Covered Drainage Ditch along Western Boundary of Site Photograph-4. Stormwater Collection Basin NC 740 F AL LSP IN E VALLEYWOODSPRUCEWALNUTSTANLYLEEGRANTELMPALMERVILLEDEWEY BOYDENAIRPORTL A K E SHERMANMAY OSTUARTLINCOLNMAPLECEDARJACKSONR O OS E V E L T WILLOWSUMPTERNANTAHALA DOGWOODMARIONGADSON WR I GHT H I CK ORY HENDERSONTHOMPSON FARM KIRK C H E R R Y CH E O A HWAYNETICK TACK HILLTHO M AS SHORT TALLASSEEMOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH CHE S T N UT TAXIDERMISTSEWER PLANTBROADWAY HOLLYASHCOOKSSIMS DOGWOOD LNYADKINWILSONMERCEDES SPRUCENORFOLK SOUTHERNTOWN OF BADIN -- ZONING :0 1,000 2,000Feet