Stanley Assemblage _ PH II ESA _ Final 10_22_.pdf

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Stanley Assemblage Site, Perry, Georgia

October 2019 Cardno i

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

855 NW State Road 45, Newberry

Insert job reference

Stanley Assemblage Site Perry, Houston County, Georgia

October 22, 2019

Prepared for:

City of Perry, Georgia US EPA Cooperative Agreement: #BF-00D71518-0

October 2019 Cardno ii

Prepared for: Ms. Robert Smith

Assistant City Manager - City of Perry

City of Perry, Georgia

1211 Washington Street

Perry, GA 31069

Project Name: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Stanley Assemblage Site

Perry, Houston County, Georgia

Cardno Project #: 0002420000

ACRES ID#: 238676

Date: October 22, 2019

October 2019 Cardno iii

Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 3

1.1 Purpose 3

1.2 Site History 3

1.3 Current Adjacent Land Uses 3

1.4 Previous Environmental Assessments 4

1.5 Limitations / Exceptions of Assessment 5

1.6 Special Terms and Conditions (User Reliance) 5

2 Phase II ESA Activities 7

2.1 Sampling Objectives 7

2.1.1 Conceptual Site Model and Sampling Plan 7

2.1.2 Chemical Testing Plan/QAQC 7

2.2 Field Investigation and Methods 7

2.2.1 Soil Boring Installations 7

2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling Activities 9

2.2.3 Groundwater Elevation Data Collection 10

2.2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Methods 10

2.2.5 Investigative-Derived Waste 10

3 Environmental Assessment Results 12

3.1 Analytical Data Results 12

3.1.1 Soil 12

3.1.2 Shallow Groundwater 12

3.1.3 Vapor Intrusion 13

3.1.4 Laboratory Analyses Quality Control (QC) Observations and

Interpretations 13

3.1.5 Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction 13

4 Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 14

4.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions 14

4.2 Affected Media 14

4.2.1 Soil 14

4.2.2 Groundwater 14

4.3 Vapor Intrusion Screening Calculator Results 14

4.4 Evaluation of Data Quality 14

5 Recommendations 15 6 Qualifications/Signatures of Environmental Professional(s) 16

October 2019 Cardno iv

Figures 1 USGS/Site Vicinity Map 2 Site Boundary Map 3 REC Location Map 4a-b Soil Boring Location Map 5 Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map 6 Potentiometric Surface Map

Tables 1 OVA Screening Summary 2 Soil Analytical Summary (Detections Only) 3 Groundwater Analytical Summary (Detections Only) 4 Groundwater Elevation Summary

Appendices A Previous Environmental Reports:

Phase I ESA, March 2019, Cardno, Inc.

B Soil Boring Logs C Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams D Equipment Calibration E Groundwater Sampling Logs F Laboratory Analytical Reports G AquaTerra Non-Hazardous Waste Manifest

October 2019 Cardno 1

Executive Summary

Cardno completed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the assemblage of properties, noted as the Stanley Assemblage in Perry, Houston County, Georgia. The study property is herein referred to as "the Subject Site/Property" or "the Site" (as generally depicted in Figures 1 and 2). According to the Houston County Tax Assessor’s website, the Subject Site includes eight contiguous parcels, encompassing approximately two acres and includes the following addresses:

• 1101 Macon St.

• 1107 - 1109 Macon St.

• 1102 - 1104 Meeting St.

• 1107 Meeting St.

• 1021 Commerce St.

• 1023 Commerce St.

This assessment was performed to satisfy the requirements of the Client (City of Perry) and their assign(s) with respect to potential environmental impairment and liabilities associated with the property due to contamination by hazardous substances, controlled substances or petroleum products on or near the site. This assessment was completed under guidelines set forth by Cardno’s Phase II Proposal, dated March 26, 2019. Based on email verification, Ms. Olga Perry approved the EPA Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on April 26, 2019.

Additionally, this assessment was performed under and was funded by the City of Perry Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2018 Community-wide Brownfield Assessment Grant.

Furthermore, this report was prepared in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practices for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II ESA Process (ASTM Designation: E1903-11). The purpose of this Phase II ESA was to further asses possible contamination originating from RECs outlined in Cardno’s Phase I ESA and for the purpose of providing sufficient information regarding the complete nature and extent of contamination in the shallow subsurface and to assist in making informed business decisions about the property.

The property located at 1109 Macon Street is listed on the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI) for a historic release of dry cleaning solvents to the shallow soil (HSI #10940). In order to further delineate the historic contamination and to address the additional issues identified during Cardno’s prior Phase I investigation, the Phase II investigation included the following Scope items:

• Advancement of four borings for soil screening and sample collection for a variety of laboratory analysis.

• Advancement of 10 hand augered borings to horizontally delineate tetrachloroethene (PCE, a common dry cleaning solvent) contamination for soil screening and sample collection for laboratory analysis.

• Installation of three groundwater monitor wells for collection of shallow groundwater samples for a variety of laboratory analysis.

• Collection of on-site water table elevation data from the groundwater monitoring wells to determine relative potentiometric surface elevations and shallow groundwater flow direction.

October 2019 Cardno 2

In summary,

• Soil: Comparison of the laboratory analytical results to the Georgia EPD Notification Concentrations (NCs) for soil revealed:

o VOCs: Multiple volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified in soil samples collected for analysis including acetone, 2-butanone, and 2-hexanone in B-1 at 35 feet below ground surface (fbgs) and ethylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, o-xylene, and m,p-xylene in B-3 at 14 to 16 fbgs.

PCE was identified in the following borings between zero and two fbgs:

B-1

DB-1/DB-1b

DB-2/DB-2b

DB-3

DB-4

DB-5/DB-5b

PCE in delineation borings DB-2, DB-2b, DB-5, and DB-5b were collected between zero and one fbgs and were all identified with concentrations above its NC.

o SVOCs: Multiple semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were identified within the following soil borings:

B-1 at zero to two fbgs, B-1 at 35 fbgs, B-3 at 14 to 16 fbgs, B-4 10-12 fbgs, and

B-4 at 50 fbgs.

However, the SVOCs identified were well below their respective NCs.

o RCRA Metals: The following resource conservation and recovery act (RCRA) metals, arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead, were identified in the following soil borings:

B-1 at zero to two fbgs B-4 at 10-12 fbgs

Chromium and lead were identified in the following soil borings:

B-1 at 35 fbgs, B-2 at 30 fbgs, B-3 at 14 to 16 fbgs

B-4 at 50 fbgs.

Soil samples selected for analysis containing these RCRA metals were identified below their respective NCs.

• Shallow Groundwater: Comparison of the laboratory analytical results to Georgia EPD Media Target Concentrations (MTCs) for shallow groundwater samples collected from the installed monitoring wells revealed:

o VOCs: PCE was identified at levels above its respective MTC in groundwater samples collected in MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3.

o SVOCs: No SVOCs were detected above laboratory reporting limits in groundwater samples collected for laboratory analysis.

o RCRA Metals: Barium was detected in samples collected from MW-1, MW-2, and MW-

3. However, the reported concentrations was not detected above its respective MTC.

October 2019 Cardno 2

• Vapor: Groundwater analytical results were run through the EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator. Results of the EPA VISL Calculator indicated PCE concentrations in MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 exceed their associated target risk suggesting that the potential for vapor intrusion exists.

Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, Cardno makes the following recommendations:

• The data generated by this investigation provide sufficient grounds for application to the Georgia EPD Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) by a prospective purchaser.

• The PCE concentrations reported in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were all above the Georgia EPD’s MTC for PCE. Based on these results the current owner is required to submit a release notification to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) Hazardous Sites Response and Remediation Program, within 30 days of discovery.

• This report should be provided to the Georgia EPD HSI case manager for the Subject Site.

• Based on the results of the VISL calculator, there is potential for vapor intrusion issues in the existing buildings and for any potential future building development around the locations of monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. Additional Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) should be completed in accordance with ASMT-E2600 to further assess the presence of Vapor Encroachment Conditions (VEC) is recommended.

“The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.”

October 2019 Cardno 3

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

Cardno was retained by the Client to conduct this Phase II ESA of the Stanley Assemblage Site, located in Perry, Houston County, Georgia (Figure 1 and 2). This investigation was conducted in general conformance with the scope and limitations outlined by ASTM Standard E 1903-11; however, the specific scope of work was negotiated between the Client and Cardno to meet the objectives of the Client. The primary objectives were to further evaluate the identified RECs (as defined in ASTM Standard E1527-13, further discussed in Section 1.4) and to provide sufficient information regarding the nature and extent of contamination to assist in making informed business decisions about the property;

and, where applicable, providing the level of knowledge necessary to satisfy the Landowner Liability Protection provisions under CERCLA. RECs are defined by ASTM Standard E1527-13 as: “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.”

This assessment was completed under recommendations set forth by the EPA approved Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (SSQAPP), dated April 26, 2019.

1.2 Site History

The Subject Site is located in a generally commercial and residential area at the center of downtown Perry, Georgia. Historically the Subject Site supported residences and offices, with commercial property consisting of a furniture store and the Star Cleaners dry cleaning facility at 1107-1109 Macon Street.

Historically, the surrounding area has been predominantly commercial/retail space with intermittent residential developments throughout the area. According to Sanborn maps produced in 1930, as well as well as an interview with the current building manager/owner of the Subject Property, Mr. Perry Stanley, the surrounding properties include residential structures, pharmacies, retail shops, local churches, and banks.

1.3 Current Adjacent Land Uses

A city park is located at the south adjacent parcel, a residence and commercial retail building is located to the west, a municipal water tower and community center is located at the north adjoining parcels, a gas station is located at the northeast adjacent property, and commercial retail (gym) is located at the east adjacent property. Nearby commercial properties include commercial and municipal establishments/facilities. The following table summarizes the current adjacent land uses.

Direction from Property Occupant(s) Name Current Use

South City of Perry Park West Ronald E Stanley Residence West Perry Washington Street LLC Residence North City of Perry Municipal Water Tower North City of Perry Community Center

October 2019 Cardno 4

Direction from Property Occupant(s) Name Current Use

East Macon Road Road East Peach Crossing 2014 LLC Exxon Gasoline Station East Ronald E Stanley Retail Shopping - Gym

1.4 Previous Environmental Assessments

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, January 28, 2019, Cardno, Inc.

Cardno submitted a Phase I ESA on the Subject Site on January 28, 2019. Through the review of historical records, interviews and site reconnaissance, this assessment identified several RECs in connection with the Subject Property, including the following:

On-Site RECs

1. The site supported Star Cleaners dry cleaners on the northeast boundary of the Subject Property which was in operation from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. A Phase II environmental site assessment was conducted on the Star Cleaners facility in November 2011 by Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT). This assessment identified tetrachloroethylene (PCE, a common dry cleaning solvent) contamination in the shallow soil near the vicinity of the historical drycleaners above its respective Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) notification concentration (NC) beneath the facility flooring, as well as the adjacent driveway. Although multiple attempts to adequately sample and remove the contaminated soils have been conducted between 2014 and 2015 by representatives of Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC), these attempts to horizontally delineate the extent of the contaminant plume and subsequent remedial efforts were unsuccessful. This contamination was reported to the Georgia EPD Hazardous Site Response Act (HSRA), and based on the elevated concentrations and lack of access limitations, the site was listed on the Georgia EPD Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI). The presence of PCE above its NC in soils within the boundaries of the Subject Site poses an environmental risk to the Subject Property and was considered a REC.

2. ECTs 2011 Phase II ESA also evaluated impact from a historic gasoline filling station (Solomons Union 76), formerly located at 1101 Macon Street, near the southeastern corner of the Subject Property. During this assessment, ECT advanced one boring at the vicinity of the former dispenser island (GP-1) and an additional boring near the vicinity of the former underground storage tank (UST) area (GP-2). Soil samples collected for analysis were gathered between 18 and 20 feet bgs and analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) at each boring, as well as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in GP-1.

The absence of lead (a common gasoline additive at that time) sampling data, absence of PAH sampling data at GP-2, and the lack of soil samples at shallower depths, represent a data gap with respect to the characterization of the Subject Property and was considered a REC.

3. The prior sampling conducted by ECT and GEC did not evaluate groundwater or vapor contamination for the historic gas station or Star Cleaners. The absence of groundwater and soil vapor sampling data were considered RECs as potential impacts associated with these parameters were not evaluated.

Additionally, based on this Phase I ESA, one (1) off-site REC was identified:

October 2019 Cardno 5

4. The Flash Foods #167 facility, located east of the Subject Property, across Macon Street at 1114 Macon Street is a gasoline filling station. This facility has been in operation since approximately 1989, with no reported hazardous spills. However, based on the length of operation, inferred upgradient position, and distance from the Subject Property, this facility was considered an off-site REC.

Based upon the above identified RECs, Cardno recommended soil and groundwater analysis be conducted throughout the Subject Site to determine the presence and/or extent of contamination. An excerpt of this Phase I ESA is include in Appendix A. The identified RECs are illustrated in Figure 3.

1.5 Limitations / Exceptions of Assessment

The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are based on the data developed during this Phase II ESA investigation. This report was prepared for the Client and their assignee(s), and is intended solely for their use. This report is not intended for third-party use without the expressed written consent of the Client and Cardno. This assessment has been prepared in general accordance with accepted environmental methodologies referred to in ASTM Standard 1903-11, including limitations inherent in these methodologies.

No other warranty is expressed or implied.

1.6 Special Terms and Conditions (User Reliance)

No ESA can eliminate all uncertainty. Furthermore, any sample, either surface or subsurface, taken for chemical analysis may or may not be representative of a larger population. Professional judgment and interpretation are inherent in the process and uncertainty is inevitable. Additional assessment may be able to reduce the uncertainty. Even when Phase II ESA work is executed with an appropriate site-specific standard of care, certain conditions present especially difficult detection problems. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, complex geological settings, the fate and transport characteristics of certain hazardous substances and petroleum products, the distribution of existing contamination, physical limitations imposed by the location of utilities and other man-made objects, and the limitations of assessment technologies.

Phase II ESAs do not generally require an exhaustive assessment of environmental conditions on a property. There is a point at which the cost of information obtained and the time required to obtain it outweigh the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be a material detriment to the orderly completion of transactions. If hazardous substance or petroleum releases are confirmed on a parcel of property, the extent of further assessment is related to the degree of uncertainty that is acceptable to the user with respect to the real estate transaction. Measurements and sampling data only represent the site conditions at the time of data collection. Therefore, the usability of data collected as part of this Phase II ESA may have a finite lifetime depending on the application and use being made of the data. An environmental professional should evaluate whether the generated data are appropriate for any subsequent use beyond the original purpose for which it was collected.

This report is for the use and benefit of, and may be relied upon by the entity(s) identified in the Executive Summary of this report as the Client, as well as any of its affiliates and their respective successors and assigns, in connection with a commercial real estate transaction involving the property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions in place between Cardno and the Client for this project. Any third party agrees by accepting this report that any use or reliance on this report shall be limited by the exceptions and limitations in this report, and with the acknowledgment that actual site conditions may change with time, and that hidden conditions may exist at the property that were not

October 2019 Cardno 6 discovered within the authorized scope of the assessment. Any use by or distribution of this report to third parties, without the express written consent of Cardno is at the sole risk and expense of such third party.

Cardno makes no other representation to any third party except that it has used the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by environmental consultants in the preparation of the report and in the assembling of data and information related thereto. No other warranties are made to any third party, either expressed or implied.

October 2019 Cardno 7

2 Phase II ESA Activities

2.1 Sampling Objectives

2.1.1 Conceptual Site Model and Sampling Plan

The conceptual site model (CSM) takes into consideration the potential distribution(s) of contaminants with respect to the property and anticipated fate and transport characteristics of contaminants in the setting being assessed. The sampling plan was designed to provide for both the collection of environmental media samples at locations and depths where impacts are most likely to occur.

The sampling plan developed for this project was based upon information provided in Cardno’s Phase I ESA and prior investigations. The borings and monitoring wells installed to address each identified REC are noted in parenthesis, and their locations are noted in Figures 4a-b and Figure 5.

• Possible soil and groundwater contamination from the former on-site Star Cleaners, lack of groundwater sampling near the vicinity of the Star Cleaners, and off-site gas station was addressed by collecting soil and groundwater samples B-1/MW-1(RECs #1, #3, and #4).

• Possible soil and groundwater contamination associated with the former on-site gas station at former dispenser island and lack of groundwater sampling near the vicinity of the historic on-site gas station by collecting soil sample B-2/MW-2 and B-3(RECs #2 and #3).

• Possible soil and groundwater contamination associated with the former on-site dry cleaners collecting soil and groundwater samples B-4/MW-3 (RECs #1 and #3) and verification of groundwater flow direction.

• Delineation of known PCE contamination originating from the Star Cleaners was addressed by collected soil samples DB-1 through DB-5 (REC #1). Soil samples to delineate the historic PCE contamination were collected between zero to one fbgs based on prior investigations which adequately delineated the plume vertically.

2.1.2 Chemical Testing Plan/QAQC

The chemical testing plan was designed to detect the contaminants suspected to be present in the samples collected. This testing plan included tests which provide quality assurance (QA) and techniques that provide quality control (QC) over the chemical analysis. A completed chain of custody record accompanied each sample shipment to the analytical laboratory. Chain of custody records provide written documentation regarding sample collection and handling, identify the persons involved in the chain of sample possession, and a written record of requested analytical parameters. In addition, trip blanks were included in all coolers containing samples for volatile organic compounds.

2.2 Field Investigation and Methods

2.2.1 Soil Boring Installations

Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, 14 soil borings (B-1 through B-4) and delineation borings (DB-1 through DB-5 and DB-1b through DB-5b) were installed as depicted on Figure 4a-b. In accordance to Cardno’s CSM, a total of three of the 14 soil borings were to be converted into groundwater monitoring wells. All boring and monitoring wells were advanced in strategic locations based on the various on-site and off-site RECs and previously identified contamination in connection with the Subject Property.

October 2019 Cardno 8

During advancement of the soil borings, DPT soil cores were logged for lithology and screened in-field with an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) equipped with a Photoionization Detector (PID). A soil screening summary with OVA readings is included as Table 1.

On April 24-25, 2019, Cardno and a sub-contracted drilling company, Betts Environmental (Betts), mobilized to the Subject Site to perform soil and groundwater sampling. The borings which were advanced into groundwater, did so by using a track-mounted Terra-Sonic TSi 150cc drill rig. The samples were collected by utilizing a Moyno pump. Delineation borings were advanced in asphalt on May 9, 2019 utilizing a Hilti DD 150-U Diamond Coring System followed by a hand auger to approximately 3’ fbgs. Each delineation boring was backfilled with boring cuttings and sealed with asphalt patch. Completed soil boring logs are included in Appendix B. A summary of each soil boring is outlined below:

Boring B-1 was located near the northeast corner of the Subject Site. The purpose of this boring was to identify possible contamination originating from the former on-site Star Cleaners and the off-site gas station. Boring B-1 was advanced on April 24, 2019 to a total depth of fifty (50) feet below ground surface (fbgs). Elevated OVA readings were noted in the soil column with the highest at 43.4 parts per million (ppm). Odors were noted in the soil column from recovered materials at 30 to 37 fbgs. A soil sample was collected at zero to two fbgs and at 35 fbgs and analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via EPA Method 8270D, and 8 RCRA metals via EPA Method 6010B/6010C.

Boring B-2 was located near the southeast portion of the Subject Site. The purpose of this boring was to identify possible contamination originating from the former on-site gas station. Boring B-2 was advanced on April 25, 2019 to a total depth of 50 fbgs. Elevated OVA readings were noted in the soil column with the highest at 28.8 ppm. Odors were noted in the soil column from recovered materials at 28 to 30 fbgs. A soil sample was collected at 30 fbgs and analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via EPA Method 8270D, and 8 RCRA metals via EPA Method 6010B/6010C.

Boring B-3 was located near the southeast corner of the Subject Site and adjacent to soil boring B-2.

The purpose of this boring was to identify possible contamination originating from the former on-site gas station. Boring B-3 was advanced on April 25, 2019 to a total depth of 20 fbgs. Elevated OVA readings were noted in the soil column with the highest at 1,891 ppm. Odors were noted in the soil column from recovered materials at 10 to 20 fbgs. A soil sample was collected at 14 to 16 fbgs and analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via EPA Method 8270D, and 8 RCRA metals via EPA Method 6010B/6010C.

Boring B-4 was located on the western portion of the Subject Site. The purpose of this boring was to identify possible contamination originating from the former on-site Star Cleaners and verification of groundwater flow direction. Boring B-4 was advanced on April 24, 2019 to a total depth of 70 fbgs.

Elevated OVA readings were noted in the soil column with the highest at 23.2 ppm. No odors or visual evidence of contamination were noted in any of the recovered materials. A soil sample was collected at 10 to 12 fbgs and 50 fbgs and analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via EPA Method 8270D, and 8 RCRA metals via EPA Method 6010B/6010C.

Boring DB-1 through DB-5 were located near the northeast corner of the Subject Site adjacent to the former Star Cleaners. The purpose of these borings was to horizontally delineate known PCE contamination originating from the former on-site Star Cleaners facility. Borings DB-1 – DB-5 were advanced on May 9, 2019 using a hand auger hand tool to a total depth of three fbgs. No elevated OVA readings were noted to be associated with analyzed soils from the soil column. No odors or visual evidence of contamination were noted in any of the recovered materials. A soil sample was collected at zero to one fbgs and analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B.

October 2019 Cardno 9

Boring DB-1b through DB-5b was located near the northeast corner of the Subject Site and approximately five feet outwards from its parent boring. The purpose of these borings was to horizontally delineate known PCE contamination originating from the former on-site Star Cleaners facility. Boring DB-1b – DB-5b was advanced on May 9, 2019 using a hand auger hand tool to a total depth of three fbgs. No elevated OVA readings were noted to be associated with analyzed soils from the soil column. No odors or visual evidence of contamination were noted in any of the recovered materials. A soil sample was collected at zero to one fbgs and analyzed for VOCs via EPA Method 8260B. Soil analysis was placed on hold pending the analysis of DB-1 – DB-5. Based on analytical reports, DB-1b, DB-2b, and DB-5b were analyzed to determine the extent of PCE contamination.

A total of 14 soil samples were collected and submitted to Analytical Environmental Services Laboratories (AES) in Norcross, Georgia under Chain-of-Custody protocol. A soil analytical summary (detections only) is provided in Table 2.

2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling Activities

Three of the 14 soil borings were extended into the water table and converted into permanent groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) on April 25, 2019, as depicted on Figure 5.

Drill cuttings were containerized within 55-gallon metal drums. A total of seven drums were stored on-site and AquaTerra Recycling & Treatment (AquaTerra) transported these drums to be disposed of at a subtitle D landfill. AquaTerra’s non-hazardous waste manifest is included as Appendix G.

Permanent, 2-inch diameter, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) monitoring wells were installed in 10-foot sections after the boring was clear in-situ soil. The well screens were 0.010-inch manufactured slot PVC, and screen lengths for each well were 15 feet. Silica sand packs were installed to a depth of two feet above each well screen, followed by approximately two feet of bentonite. Above the bentonite, the wells were grouted with standard type I/II cement to the ground surface. Each monitoring well was finished using a traffic-rated, flush-mount vault within a two-foot by two-foot concrete pad. The wells were completed with padlocked expanding caps. Monitoring well construction details are provided in well construction diagrams in Appendix C.

After their installation, the monitoring wells were developed using a high flow submersible pump until at least five well volumes were removed, or until dry. Suspended fines and foreign materials from the initial soil borings were purged during development with the goal of encouraging formation groundwater to enter the well screen. Development water was disposed of on-site. It should be noted that no NAPL or free product was identified in the monitoring wells installed by Cardno personnel during the course of this investigation.

Prior to sampling, the wells were purged with either a Mega Monsoon low flow pump or submersible typhoon pump. Both methods were utilized until either a minimum of three well volumes were purged or until groundwater quality parameters were stabilized. Groundwater quality parameters measured include pH, temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen, which were measured using an In-Situ smarTROLL. Turbidity was measured utilizing a LaMotte turbidity meter to verify that groundwater turbidity was less than 20 Neptholometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Equipment calibration documentation is included in Appendix D.

A summary of each installed groundwater well is as follows:

Monitoring Well MW-1 was installed at the location of B-1 and was purged over three well volumes and after groundwater parameters were stabilized, a groundwater sample was collected on May 9, October 2019 Cardno 10

2019 and analyzed for VOCs via USEPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via USEPA Method 8270D, and RCRA Metals via USEPA Method 6010B/6010C.

Monitoring Well MW-2 was installed at the location of B-2 and was purged over three well volumes and after groundwater parameters were stabilized, a groundwater sample was collected on May 9, 2019 and analyzed for VOCs via USEPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via USEPA Method 8270D, and RCRA Metals via USEPA Method 6010B/6010C.

Monitoring Well MW-3 was installed at the location of B-3 and was purged over three well volumes and after groundwater parameters were stabilized, a groundwater sample was collected on May 9, 2019 and analyzed for VOCs via USEPA Method 8260B, SVOCs via USEPA Method 8270D, and RCRA Metals via USEPA Method 6010B/6010C.

A total of three groundwater samples were submitted to Analytical Environmental Services (AES) laboratories in Norcross, Georgia under chain-of-custody protocol. A groundwater analytical summary (detections only) is provided in Table 3. A summary of groundwater sampling logs can be found in Appendix E.

2.2.3 Groundwater Elevation Data Collection

To assist in determining the direction of groundwater flow within the boundaries of the Subject Site, elevation data was collected from the monitoring wells. Elevations were recorded relative to an arbitrary datum to assist in the evaluation of shallow groundwater flow direction. Depth-to-groundwater measurements were taken from top of casing. Upon completion of sampling activities, the monitoring wells were surveyed by Cardno environmental field technicians utilizing a CST/Berger tripod, Spectra Precision Optical AL 220 auto level and an AdirPro Philadelphia-style staff gauge. An inferred groundwater elevation summary is present in Table 4.

2.2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Methods

Samples were labeled with a distinct sample identification number, the sampler’s initials, and the date of the collection. Each sample container was properly sealed, labeled, and placed on ice in a cooler for deliver to AES within the sample hold times. A properly completed chain-of-custody form was initiated in the field and accompanied the samples when submitted to the laboratory for analyses. The QA/QC samples were collected and analyzed for the following:

• MW-3 matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD): RCRA Metals;

• MW-1 Duplicate (DUP): SVOCs;

• B-2 MS/MSD: RCRA Metals; and

• DB-1 DUP: VOCs

Copies of the chain-of-custody forms are shown in the laboratory analytical reports included as Appendix F.

2.2.5 Investigative-Derived Waste

Investigative-derived waste (IDW) generated during this investigation included all recovered materials during boring and monitoring well installation and sampling activities. All soil clippings generated during the soil boring and monitoring well installation were contained in 55-gallon drums and were staged on the Subject Property. A total of seven 55-gallon drums were labeled as non-hazardous waste with waste generator information provided. The soil and purge water in these 55-gallon drums were characterized and properly disposed at a Subtitle D landfill in accordance with all appropriate

October 2019 Cardno 11 regulations. All purge water generated during development was containerized in 55-gallon drums.

AquaTerra’s non-hazardous waste manifest are attached as Appendix G.

October 2019 Cardno 12

3 Environmental Assessment Results

3.1 Analytical Data Results

3.1.1 Soil

A comparison of the laboratory analytical results of the collected soil samples to the Georgia EPD NCs for samples that exhibited detections above the laboratory method detection limits is presented in Table 2 with locations depicted in Figure 4a-b. In summary:

• VOCs: Multiple volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified in soil samples collected for analysis including acetone, 2-butanone, and 2-hexanone in B-1 at 35 feet below ground surface (fbgs) and ethylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, o-xylene, and m,p-xylene in B-3 at 14 to 16 fbgs.

PCE was identified in the following borings between zero and two fbgs:

B-1

DB-1/DB-1b

DB-2/DB-2b

DB-3

DB-4

DB-5/DB-5b

PCE in delineation borings DB-2, DB-2b, DB-5, and DB-5b were collected between zero and one fbgs and were all identified with concentrations above its NC.

• SVOCs: Multiple semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were identified within the following soil borings:

B-1 at zero to two fbgs, B-1 at 35 fbgs, B-3 at 14 to 16 fbgs, B-4 10-12 fbgs, and

B-4 at 50 fbgs.

However, the SVOCs identified were well below their respective NCs.

• RCRA Metals: The following resource conservation and recovery act (RCRA) metals, arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead, were identified in the following soil borings:

B-1 at zero to two fbgs B-4 at 10-12 fbgs

Chromium and lead were identified in the following soil borings:

B-1 at 35 fbgs, B-2 at 30 fbgs, B-3 at 14 to 16 fbgs

B-4 at 50 fbgs.

Soil samples selected for analysis containing these RCRA metals were identified below their respective NCs.

3.1.2 Shallow Groundwater

A comparison of the laboratory analytical results of the collected groundwater samples to the Georgia EPD MTC or samples that exhibited detections above the laboratory method detection limits is presented in Table 3 with locations depicted on Figure 5. In summary:

October 2019 Cardno 13

• VOCs: PCE was identified at levels above its respective MTC in groundwater samples collected in MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3.

• SVOCs: No SVOCs were detected above laboratory reporting limits in groundwater samples collected for laboratory analysis.

• RCRA Metals: Barium was detected in samples collected from MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3.

However, the reported concentrations was not detected above its respective MTC.

3.1.3 Vapor Intrusion

Groundwater analytical results were run through the EPA Vapor Intrusion Screen Level (VISL) Calculator. This site-specific calculator helps determine whether constituents found in groundwater samples pose a significant risk for vapor intrusion into the Subject Site and any future building development. The detected results were entered into the calculator under a commercial exposure scenario assuming an average groundwater temperature of 25 ºC. The vapor intrusion risk for the detected VOCs generated by the calculator were compared against their Georgia EPD approved target risk levels (1.00E-5 for carcinogens, 1 for non-carcinogens) and indicate PCE exceeded its associated target risks. As a result, the potential for vapor intrusion for buildings on-site exists.

3.1.4 Laboratory Analyses Quality Control (QC) Observations and Interpretations No significant QA/QC issues were encountered by the laboratory. All samples were received in good condition, with all spikes and surrogates were recovered within established limits; and all method-specified holding times were met. A duplicate soil sample was collected from DB-1 and analyzed for VOCs. Analytical results derived from this sample were similar to analytical results from DB-1, with no abnormalities detected. A soil MS/MSD was collected from soil boring B-2 and analyzed for 8 RCRA Metals. Analytical results derived from this sample were similar to analytical results from DB-1, with no abnormalities detected.

Additionally, a duplicate groundwater sample was collected from MW-1 and analyzed for SVOCs.

Analytical results derived from this sample were similar to analytical results from MW-1, with no abnormalities detected. A groundwater MS/MSD was collected from monitoring well MW-3 and analyzed for 8 RCRA Metals. Analytical results derived from this sample were similar to analytical results from MW-3, with no abnormalities detected. Laboratory Analytical Reports are included as Appendix F.

3.1.5 Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

A comparison of shallow water table elevation data collected on April 9, 2019 (see Table 4) to an arbitrary benchmark indicated a shallow groundwater gradient flowing predominantly towards the southwest (as shown on Figure 6).

October 2019 Cardno 14

4 Discussion of Findings and Conclusions

4.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions

Based on the results of this assessment, the recognized environmental conditions and non-scope considerations discussed in the Phase I ESA appear to have been evaluated. No additional RECs were encountered during this investigation.

4.2 Affected Media

4.2.1 Soil

PCE identified in soil samples from borings DB-2, DB-2b, DB-5, and DB-5b was detected at concentrations that exceed its respective NC.

4.2.2 Groundwater

PCE identified in MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 was detected at concentrations that exceed its respective

MTC.

4.3 Vapor Intrusion Screening Calculator Results

Groundwater analytical results were run through the EPA VISL Calculator and indicated PCE exceeded its associated target risks suggesting that the potential for vapor intrusion exists. Results of the EPA VISL Calculator are summarized in Table 5.

4.4 Evaluation of Data Quality

The data gathered during this assessment has been deemed acceptable from a quality assurance perspective and is sufficient to determine whether hazardous substances or petroleum products related to the RECs identified in the Phase I ESA have impacted the Subject Site.

October 2019 Cardno 15

5 Recommendations

Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, Cardno makes the following recommendation:

• The data generated by this investigation provide sufficient grounds for application to the

Georgia EPD Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) by a prospective purchaser.

• The PCE concentrations reported in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were all above the Georgia EPD’s MTC for PCE. Based on these results the current owner is required to submit a release notification to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) Hazardous Sites Response and Remediation Program, within 30 days of discovery.

• This report should be provided to the Georgia EPD HSI case manager for the Subject Site.

• Based on the results of the VISL calculator, there is potential for vapor intrusion issues in the existing buildings and for any potential future building development around the locations of monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. Additional Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) should be completed in accordance with ASMT-E2600 to further assess the presence of Vapor Encroachment Conditions (VEC) is recommended.

October 2019 Cardno 16

6 Qualifications/Signatures of Environmental Professional(s)

Prepared by:

I declare that I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR Part 312.10 and that I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject Property. I further certify that in my professional judgment, this report meets the general requirements of ASTM Method E 1903-11, Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process.

for Cardno

Trey Young Project Manager Date: 10/22/2019

QA/QC by:

I declare that I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR Part 312.10 and that I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject Property. I further certify that in my professional judgment, this report meets the general requirements of ASTM Method E 1903-11, Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process.

for Cardno

Keith Ziobron, PE Branch Manager

Date: 10/22/2019

Figures

Figure 1 USGS/Site Vicinity Map

Source: USGS 2014420 0 420

LEGEND

Approximate Site Boundary (For reference purposes only, not a surveyed boundary)

Not to Scale

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage

Cardno Project: 0002420000

Figure 2 Site Boundary Map

“This is not a map of survey.”

120 0 120

Not to Scale

LEGEND

Approximate Site Boundary (For reference purposes only, not a surveyed boundary)

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage

Figure 3 REC Location Map

Source: GoogleEarth

REC #4: Flash Foods #167 facility located at 1114 Macon Street is a gasoline filling station, adjacent the Subject Property

120 0 120

Not to Scale Not a map of survey

Base Image Google 2017

REC #1: identified PCE concentrations at the Star Cleaners Site located at 1109 Macon Street.

REC #3: Lack of groundwater sampling near the vicinity of the Star Cleaners and historic gasoline filling stations

REC #2: Inadequate sampling conducted in response to a historical gasoline servicing station located at 1101 Macon Street.

LEGEND

Approximate Site Boundary (For reference purposes only, not a surveyed boundary)

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage

Figure 4a Soil Boring

Location Map “This is not a map of survey.”

120 0 120

Not to Scale

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage Perry, Houston County, Georgia Cardno Project: 0002420000

B-1

B-3

B-4

B-2

LEGEND

Approximate Site Boundary (For reference purposes only, not a surveyed boundary)

Boring/Temporary Well Location

B-3: Total Xylenes @ 23.70 mg/kg

Figure 4b PCE Delineation

Location Map “This is not a map of survey.”

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage Perry, Houston County, Georgia Cardno Project: 0002420000

FORMER STAR

CLEANERS

GP-11A

GP-11

GP-5C

GP-12A

GP-12

GP-5B

GP-5A

GP-5

GP-3B

GP-3

GP-3A

GP-7

GP-3C GP-4

GP-6

GP-6A

GP-6B

GP-6C

GP-4A

GP-4B

GP-4C

GP-9

GP-10

GP-8

GP-8B

DB-2b

DB-2

B-1

DB-3b

DB-3

DB-4

DB-4b

DB-1

DB-1b

DB-5

DB-5b

Soil Boring (SB) Location (GEC, 2015) with PCE contamination above HSRA Notification Concentrations (NCs)

SB Location (GEC, 2015 / Cardno, 2019) with PCE contamination below HSRA

NC

SB Location (Cardno, 2019) with PCE contamination above HSRA NC

SB Location (Cardno, 2019) not analyzed for PCE.

Assumed PCE soil contamination plume

LEGEND

Note: All samples were collected at depths between 0.5 and 1.5 feet bgs.

Figure 5 Groundwater Monitoring Well

Location Map “This is not a map of survey.”

50 0 50

Not to Scale

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage Perry, Houston County, Georgia Cardno Project: 0002420000

MW-3

MW-2

MW-1

LEGEND

Approximate Site Boundary (For reference purposes only, not a surveyed boundary)

Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations

MW‐1: PCE

@ 0.22 mg/L

MW‐3: PCE

@ 0.26 mg/L

MW‐2: PCE @

0.046 mg/L

Figure 6 Potentiometric

Surface Map “This is not a map of survey.”

50 0 50

Not to Scale

Phase II ESA Stanley Assemblage Perry, Houston County, Georgia Cardno Project: 0002420000

LEGEND

Temporary Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Inferred groundwater contour lines

Inferred groundwater flow direction

MW-3

(45.91)

MW-2

(46.34)

MW-1

(47.38)

47.20

46.80

46.4046.00

Tables

See Notes at end of Table

OVA/PID

Boring/ Well No. Date Collected Depth to

Water (feet)

Sample Interval (fbls)

OVA/PID

Reading

(ppm) 0 - 2 0.7 Collected soil sample at 0'-2' 2 - 4 0.0 4 - 6 0.0 6 - 8 0.0 8 - 10 0.0 10 - 12 0.0 12 - 14 0.0 14 - 16 0.0 16 - 18 0.0 18 - 20 0.0

25 0.0 30 0.1 35 43.4 Collected soil sample at 35' 40 0.7 45 0.5 50 0.0

0 - 2 0.3 2 - 4 0.1 4 - 6 0.2 6 - 8 0.1 8 - 10 0.1 10 - 12 0.0 12 - 14 0.8 14 - 16 1.1 16 - 18 0.4 18 - 20 0.0

25 3.7 30 28.8 Collected soil sample at 30' 35 6.6 40 3.2 45 6.1 50 0.0

0 - 2 0.2 2 - 4 0.0 4 - 6 0.0 6 - 8 0.0 8 - 10 0.6 10 - 12 2.2 12 - 14 925.4 14 - 16 1,891 Collected soil sample at 14'-16' 16 - 18 1,336 18 - 20 749.1

B-1/MW-01 04/25/2019 GW at 53.33'

B-2/MW-02 04/25/2019 GW at 54.56'

B-3 04/25/2019 GW not encountered

TABLE 1: OVA HEADSPACE SCREENING SUMMARY

PERRY, GA

Comments

SITE NAME: STANLEY ASSEMBLAGE

Sample

See Notes at end of Table

OVA/PID

Boring/ Well No. Date Collected Depth to

Water (feet)

Sample Interval (fbls)

OVA/PID

Reading

(ppm)

B-1/MW-01 04/25/2019 GW at 53.33'

TABLE 1: OVA HEADSPACE SCREENING SUMMARY

PERRY, GA

Comments

SITE NAME: STANLEY ASSEMBLAGE

Sample

0 - 2 0.2 2 - 4 0.3 4 - 6 0.1 6 - 8 0.0 8 - 10 0.0 10 - 12 11.1 Collected soil sample at 10'-12' 12 - 14 4.1 14 - 16 3.3 16 - 18 2.2 18 - 20 0.8

25 0.5 30 1.4 35 0.8 40 0.7 45 9.5 50 23.2 Collected soil sample at 50' 55 0.0

0 - 1 0.0 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 0.0 0 - 1 0.0 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 0.0 0 - 1 4.6 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 1.8 0 - 1 0.6 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 2.5 0 - 1 0.0 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 0.0 0 - 1 0.3 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 0.0 0 - 1 0.0 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 1.0 0 - 1 0.0 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 6.0 0 - 1 5.4 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 0.5 0 - 1 3.7 Collected soil sample at 0'-1' 1 - 3 0.4

Notes:

NR = not recorded OVA/PID = Organic Vapor Analyzer/Photoionization Detector ppm = parts per million GW = groundwater

DB-5b 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-5 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

B-04/MW-03 04/25/2019 GW at 53.64'

DB-1b 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-1 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-2 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-2b 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-3 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-3b 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-4 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

DB-4b 05/09/2019 GW not encountered

SVOCs

B-1 4/24/2019 0 to 2 3.85 33.70 7.58 7.74 / / / / / / / / 0.11 / / / / / / / / 0.0019 0.0058 / / 0.0029 0.0041 / /

B-1 4/24/2019 35 / / 2.32 0.55 0.40 0.13 0.0120 / / / / / / / / 0.0049 / / / / / / / / / 0.0170 0.0073 0.022 /

B-2 4/24/2019 30 / / 1.84 1.47 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

B-3 4/24/2019 14-16 / / 4.75 2.23 / / / 3.3 2.60 5.70 18.00 23.70 / 5.30 2.60 / / / / / / / / / 11.00 0.0052 0.0034 0.0081 4.1

B-4 4/24/2019 10-12 3.41 27.80 23.00 9.57 / / / / / / / / / / / / 0.0029 0.0036 0.0078 0.0042 0.0034 0.0045 0.0067 0.0032 / / 0.0060 / /

B-4 4/24/2019 50 / / 1.15 0.51 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 0.0030 0.0030 / / / / / / /

DB-1 5/9/19 0-1 NA NA NA NA / / / / / / / / 0.023 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-1b 5/9/19 0-1 NA NA NA NA 0.081 / / / / / / / 0.034 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-2 5/9/19 0-1 NA NA NA NA / / / / / / / / 1.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-2b 5/9/19 0-1 NA NA NA NA / / / / / / / / 0.93 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-3 5/9/19 0-1 NA NA NA NA / / / / / / / / 0.042 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-4 5/9/19 0-1 NA NA NA NA / / / / / / / / 0.043 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-5 5/9/19 0+-1 NA NA NA NA / / / / / / / / 0.88 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

DB-5b 5/9/19 0+-1 NA NA NA NA 0.072 / / / / / / / 0.67 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

41 500 1,200 400 2.74 0.79 NL 20 21.88 20 20 20 0.18 NL NL 500 5 1.64 5.0 500.0 5.0 5.0 NL 5.0 100.0 110.0 500.00 0.29 NL

Notes:

GA HSRA NC = Georgia Hazardous Site Response Act Notification Concentrations

Concentrations in bold and highlighted (yellow) exceed GA HSRA NC

OVA = organic vapor analyzer

VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds

RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act

SVOCs = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

PAHs = Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

/ = BRL (Below Reportable Limits) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram bgs = below ground surface

PAHs

GA HSRA NC

Sample

Boring/ Well No. Date Collected Sample depth (bgs) Acetone (mg/kg)

1-Methylna phthalene

(mg/kg)

8 RCRA Metals m, p-Xylenes (mg/kg) o-Xylene (mg/kg)

2-Butanone (mg/kg)

VOCs

Lead (mg/Kg)

Arsenic (mg/kg)

2-Hexanone (mg/kg)

TABLE 2: SOIL ANALYTICAL SUMMARY (DETECTIONS ONLY)

SITE NAME: STANLEY ASSEMBLAGE

PERRY, GA

Barium (mg/Kg)

Chromium (mg/Kg)

Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene

(mg/kg)

Pyrene (mg/kg)

Chrysene (mg/kg)

Flouranth ene

(mg/kg)

2-Methylna phthalene

(mg/kg)

Phenanthrene (mg/kg)

Anthracene (mg/kg)

Benzo(a) anthracene

(mg/kg)

Benzo(k) fluoranthene

(mg/kg)

Fluorene (mg/kg)

Tetrachloroe thene…