Unocal Corpartion at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte NC Groundwater incident #3633

~ ~EN"'S::R:
-a ~ l items 1 ar,..• · • 2 for additional services. I also wish to rece,vd the
"iii •-'w ... , _,e items 3, L l 4b. following services (for an
GI ■ Print your name and ~. ~ress on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): ~ ~~~ ~
GI._~ ■Attac~ this form to the front of the mailpiece, or Oll-j~ A~~ jf ~l!.'f; ~Q~r i1'?~ 1. □ Addressee's Address ·s.
permit. . ''"-l,t ... 1.L/ 1"•·,1· ..,
GI ■Write'Return Receipt Requested' on the ma~RMlceft)ekJ,wlhe•;miqle 11uml>11~ ',-. r-2. 0 Restricted Delivery ~
,S ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the'ai'ticle was delivered aruhhe'Clat~ ;:: C. .. CL
c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee.
0 --------------,q.........,.,........-.._..---,m.....,,---=-==-'"-----------•i
-a 3. Article Addressed to: cti1e]'Jumber G1
SGI MR A WAYNE HOT'[' a: ~ P 281 578 884 E t UNOCAL REFINlNG & MARKEI'Il~G DIV 4b. Service Ty e. .a
o :r &! u UNOCAL CORP □ Register , ~~l Cf Ty,<-~ Certified ci
w 13 CORPORA'IE SQUARE NORI'HEAST □ Expte s ' if "f~ Insured ·i
~ P O BOX . 414 7 D Re m Receipt for Merchandise COD :
~ A.TIANTA GA 39392 . 7. D~e of DelivAl'y ] o 19gl J:!
(variance/CA. #36.33 ).tr 5/13/97 [ z a: ::::, 5. Received By: (Print Name)
lij
8. Add fllss ,e's Ad~nly if. equested
and f~ fs'.llaidJ ,..
.II:
C
al .c a: ...
::II
0 >
.!!
I-
.Jrn Receipt
, ..
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AVA
DEHNR
May 13, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL NUMBER: P 281 578 884
Mr. A. Wayne Holt
Unocal Refining and Marketing Division
·. ·" Unocal Corporation
13 Corporate Square Northeast
P.O. Box 4147
Atlanta, GA 30302
Subject: Request for Variance from Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and Corrective
Action in 15A NCAC 2L .010_60) for the Unocal
Corporation at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina {Groundwater Incident# 3633 }.
This is to inform you that the Environmental Management Commission, at their May 8, 1997
meeting, approved the variance request by the Unocal Corporation for property it formerly owned at
4436 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Commission granted this variance in accordance with
the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 on the following conditions:
(1) The Unocal Corporation shall be granted a variance pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113 from the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (g) and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) for entire 1.05 acres of
property identified as 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. In addition, the Unocal
Corporation shall obtain relief from twenty-four (24) specific Groundwater Quality Standards in
15A NCAC 2L .0202.
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd .. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N('JC
!ffiti'f P®'
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/lO"k post-consumer paper . 1
; . '
(2)
These substances are shown as follows:
Benzene, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, Carbon Tetrachloride,
Chlorobenzene, Chloroform, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene,
Dibromochloromethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1, 1-Dichloroethene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-Dichloropropane, Ethylbenzene,
Ethyl Dibromide (EDB), Isopropyl Ether, Methylene Chloride, Methyl-Tert
Butyl Ether (MTBE), Naphthalene, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, trans-1,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, Xylenes (o-
,m-, and p-).
The letter to the Unocal Corporation granting the variance will include language that will state
the following:
"Should problems develop at or near this site as a result oftbe loss of
petroleum by Unocal Corporation, the Division of Water Quality reserves
the right to require Unocal Corporation to undertake additional
investigations and corrective actions"
(3) The Unocal Corporation will be required to sample wells Monitoring Well# 5,
Monitoring Well# 7, Monitoring Well# 9, Recovery Well# 1, and Recovery
Well# 4 two times per year for the next two years. Groundwater samples are
to be analyzed using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 601,
Method 602 ( including MTBE), and Method 504.1 for EDB. Analytical results
shall be submitted to the Groundwater Section staff of the Division of Water
Quality, Mooresville Regional Office on or before March 1 and September 1 of
each year. Should the results of this sampling or other sources of information
reveal problems as a result of the loss of product by the Unocal Corporation at
or near this site, the Groundwater Section staff at the Mooresville Regional
Office may require additional groundwater sampling and analysis.
In approving this variance request the Environmental Management Commission amended the
hearing officer's recommendation to clarify that the conditions of the variance apply to off-site
contamination as well as substances found at 4336 Park Road. The Commission added language stating
that the Division can require the Unocal Corporation to take additional measures "at or near the site" in
Condition # 2 above. This additional language was also applied in the last sentence of Condition # 3
which prescribes the groundwater sampling and· analysis requirements for this variance. Please note that
2
approval of this variance by the Environmental Management Commission represents final action on this
request pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 21.0113. If you need to discuss this letter further,
please feel free to contact me at [phone].
cc: Preston Howard
Arthur Mouberry
Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
Tom Warburton
Mooresville Regional Groundwater
Stewart Hines (S&ME, Inc)
Sincerely,
~,,,;w~
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,.
Chief, Groundwater Section
Sherri Knight
Jennie Odette
Allen Schiff
Dr. Ken Rudo
David Hance
Ernie Seneca
3
02.27.1997 17:54
,.. 4 -
• :, :·. • ~ -i le d and opei1~ateC: ,i v ~;_cuu m axtractio~ syatem,
. ~ · :.-.J 0f-':?:.'>\t".,_,c! an air i=.pa.rging: system .. drilled monitoring
,_ • .,,c. l J, ano cono.ui...:Led &xtensi ve a oil an4i groundwater monitoring.
,,·.-:,pr(:'i>':ima+-.ely 3,050 pounds of petrole'-1r hydrocarbons have been
-·~t:O.,f fe!:>~ed at a total cost of $57Sl, 995 ;I All this at a site whi,ch is
.... -.-, t-.. •.•w ,,.,~ r,tod.1.:cing as far as Unocal is concerned since the property
w:=.:~ ,ticlci. j_n 198'7. .'r,.dditionally this ~lean-up was carried out without
"''2$!~ ~tf'.1~c<'.? frT•l'fl ,r,r:i ~tat::P. trust fund }tie.cause the loss was diedove:red · -"+P. ~1u:ie: 30, ::.983 . The compan}' es~imates that the thrae-yEtar cost
-:•t,t -r-at :'.t1 :.J r,1.1":":."' .,nfl trea. t, air spar~ing and soil vapor extraction
''.)'.~1 p ~-0;: $ i. eo , ~1 0 i:,. '(Tr,r")r1al has demons~rated that continued tri:;atment
•_ ... -,,_'.lf i'-.,., p-rr-hl: ',1 '.".ively expensive with dno return for the money,
1r :~·-,J:d.i•Jat:~r ;\,1.-:.:•n~t".."rhz h~s demonstratfd that active 1.·emediatic>n haa
:-•o~',.!~C~ the ~:!.ze c•-I th~ plume of cont~mination and will have iittle to
n::; a!:lditic:--::"l?.l in:Eluer1ce on :reducing c(.jintaminant levels. Unoc'-1 has
carrted out an excellent cleanup. Un~oal estimates that 9St of the
l•:)EJt; petrvleum product has been recovt:red. This level of recovery
·.•.:;.'l'.'i'!"f"9Pr~,c; -f~:r ~bove. what we normally le.xpect to accomplish in terms of
' ··. _, •. ~~ '·✓ I -·I
•.n ie-sp.:,n ~~ ln th~ concern expl'e:Ssed Ly thG attorney for the
-;:-·~,~"'fH"'t n•.:n::n~:i'1 I 1'1rafted language whi¢h could appear as a par~ Of a
-,;:,~i~,-,r.,'.'l wh:i ah wc-ulQ allow the Divisii:pn to reinvolve ·onocal should
.,,, ·r ,l'"e r'"'"'h1 8'1'\'1~ h"" rli-<te~1ted, That laljlguage is aa follows:
· "St--i~1 .ll".I p,.,.oblems develop at thisi site <18 a result of the lose of
,·,c-,, ,:,-:1,-m m b y !Jnocal Corporation, the ~ivision of Water Quality ,.,.,~:t"'P!~ ~h~ :eight to require Unocal forporation to undertake
"'--1,:,,:r-.~r ,nr.1. 1nvest.iaatione and correct-ive action." -;I
'I _ S ctl-: vnoc£"1 and DH&S find this J,.janguage acceptable. As heai·ing
.:::.. • '<""~!'" T f,~·,nti 1:h~t. the contaminanta remaining 1n the groundwater-at
41 ~~ '.0 -"'···\..· v.--..l'l~ 'In c'harlot.te do not en;~anger public health or safety,
.,,.,..,.,::;t~ i ..,,r1:.., wi.'"'.h -;n.·oundwater standards:! cannot be achieved by
,;,9p 'l,1cat1 t•~. of the: best l'.vailable teqp.nology and would be
'!.'·•.:-~i.~i~ c·•;.l~: -:-·x:;")Pr-•s1ve with no furt~~r bene:t:it being derived.
:·n-~.n!; !~OC-'...12C':ir.g this va:r:I ance Unocal. asked that the reaul ts of
""!"> '.DP r:~rr l--~:r: ~1. J. 995 groundwater eampj'iing session. be su~stitu~ed fo'i.'
.. -;; :~:!'.'0'-uJ.d".·~t~~· f-l !'"~f!di,,rds for the po~lutants under contndera~1on. I
I~tt: 1~~t 9 ,:,, recc,m:oi~ncti:r.cr. One exceeda..i1ce of the substitute maximum
l -•~ -~l l ,;;wable pollutant concentration woUjld throw the staff b~ck to
i:=!':'fing 3. not1r<~ of violation. I wo\Wld prefer to use identifiable
,---.1·"-t}e:mi:, t--:, ti:-11 iw when to draw Unodja1 back into the investigation
A,1 <l : el•~H1.;J at :..or: p::-oos as, ;
,I
p . s
.~ m ,· r·~c c,1 ;.!'•;ic,rJd&tion that: ;
TJno :~~1 Corporation be gran~ed a 15A NC.AG 2L • 0113 variance
ir~~ ~t ~ requirements of l~A NCAC 2L .0202{g) and ~s NCAC 2L
0inff{\ f or the 1.04 acre~ identified aa 4336 ParK Moad in
r i-iip·-11".1rte. Norc.h Carolina .·i The apec1fic groundwater
'Jt~-~(:1~.::-d9 f".'Otll which Unooa.~ is obtaining relief are:
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission.
The hearing concerns a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and the Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 G) for a site at 4336 Park Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina. The Division of Water Quality refers to this site identified in the variance
request as Groundwater Incident # 3633. This property, previously owned by the Unocal Corporation of
Atlanta, Georgia, is now owned by the DH&S Company (Petro Express). The Unocal Corporation is
entirely responsible for cleanup for Groundwater Incident # 3633. This variance application from the
Unocal Corporation was received for review by the Department on September 29, 1995.
The property where the release of petroleum product has occurred is located as follows: Inside the city
limits of Charlotte, North Carolina. Take Interstate 85 to Interstate 77 south and travel four and one-half
miles south on Interstate 77 and take the Woodlawn Road (City Highway 4) exit and travel east toward
downtown Charlotte. This site at 4336 Park Road is located two miles east at the corner of Woodlawn
Road and Park Road. This site is listed in Mecklenburg County tax records as Parcel Number 143-203-24.
The Unocal Corporation requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the following
variance to its rules under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the following:
(1) Allow concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (-o,-m, and p), Naphthalene,
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, 1, 1, 1,-Trichloroethane, 1, 1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane, 1, 1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Methylene Chloride,
trans-1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene to remain at levels above 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed in December 1995. These concentrations will be required
to remain within the property boundaries of 4336 Park Road.
The property at 4336 Park Road, for which the Unocal Corporation has cleanup responsibilities
under Groundwater Incident Number 3633, consists of approximately 1.05 acres of land. The
Unocal Corporation operated a retail gasoline station at this site from the 1950s to 1987. In 1987
the Unocal Corporation sold this property to DH&S Company. In 1988 this site was renovated and
old tanks removed so that a new gasoline station, known as the Petro Express Gasoline Station #
7, could be built at this site. This property is located in an area with a mixture of commercial,
industrial, and residential development. Almost all the land area at this site is covered by buildings
and paved parking lots.
1
Pursuant to the transfer of property to the DH&S Company and the removal of the underground
storage tanks at 4336 Park Road, the Unocal Corporation discovered a release of an unknown quantity
of gasoline. A site assessment and corrective action plan for this site was submitted on March 18,
1993 and is kept on file at the Mooresville Regional Office. The site assessment revealed a plume of
groundwater and soils contamination originating from free product gasoline near the south property
line. The plume of substances that came from the release of gasoline was estimated to have covered
an area of 61,250 square feet (1.406 acres), prior to the implementation of corrective actions.
On August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation implemented cleanup at this site. The plan called
for the implementation of a pump-and-treat groundwater cleanup system, an air sparging system for
soils and subsurface materials, and soil vapor extraction. Pump-and-treat technology uses a pump to
convey contaminated groundwaters from beneath the land, treats these groundwaters to remove
contaminants, and returns the treated water to a permitted discharge. Air sparing relies on the
introduction of air to separate volatile substances from subsurface materials. Soil vapor extraction uses
suction to remove contaminants from soils. Use of soil vapor extraction is intended to reduce
contaminant levels in soils without requiring the removal and treatment of soils offsite and the
introduction of new or treated fill materials. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department issued
a permit to discharge treated water from the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system into the
nearby sanitary sewer. These cleanup technologies were in operation from August 12, 1993 through
September 29, 1995.
The Division of Water Quality required the Unocal Corporation to perform groundwater
monitoring to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. Since January 13, 1988
monitoring has been conducted at six on-site wells located at 4336 Park Road. Benzene was found
in five of six on site monitoring wells on December 16, 1991. The highest concentration of Benzene
found in a monitoring well, prior to implementation of groundwater cleanup, was 8.10 milligrams per
liter found in Monitoring Well# 5 during the December 16, 1991 sampling event. The Groundwater
Quality Standard for Benzene in ISA NCAC 21 .0202 is 0.0001 milligrams per liter. Concentrations
of Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene and Chloroform were also found in Monitoring Well # 5
significantly above the Groundwater Quality Standards in Title 15A NCAC 21 .0202. Monitoring well
# 5 is located within 15 feet of the south property line and is located in the area in which the release
of gasoline was discovered. On January 27, 1993 two additional monitoring wells were constructed
off-site. A downgraidient monitoring well was located to the east at the Pop Shop (Parcel Number
175-181-06). Another off-site well was located to the south at Belle Investments (Parcel Number 171-
043-021). Analysis of groundwater samples from these two off-site wells have not shown
concentrations of substances above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 1 SA NCAC 2L .0202 from
the time these wells were installed in January 1993 through the December 1995 groundwater
sampling.
The Division also required Unocal Corporation to evaluate the effectiveness of groundwater
cleanup efforts by examining concentrations of substances in recovery wells beginning December 16,
1991. Recovery wells at the 4336 Park Road site are used as sumps to collect groundwater, free
product, and dissolved hydrocarbons from the site for treatment. Pumps convey this fluid to the
treatment system. Samples were obtained from four recovery wells located beneath the parking lot and
the area that formerly had the Unocal Corporation service station and pump islands.
Since cleanup was initiated on August 12, 1993 significant reductions in concentrations of
substances was observed in groundwater samples taken from the recovery wells . Results from 1994
demonstrated reductions in the concentrations of substances had occurred at this site since the
implementation of cleanup.
2
From August 12. 1993 through September 13, 1994 the concentration of substances at this site
were significantly reduced by groundwater cleanup technologies located at the site. Through 1995
analysis of samples from monitoring wells showed only marginal reductions in the concentration of
substances in groundwater. Analysis of groundwater samples taken on February 23, 1995 and on June
2, 1995 showed there was no significant increase or decrease in concentrations of Benzene and other
substances at on-site monitoring wells, while cleanup operations were being conducted. Except for
Chloroform in Monitoring Well# 7 and 1,2-Dichloroethane in Monitoring Well# 9 at concentrations
above the Groundwater Quality Standards, no other substances were reported in the other monitoring
wells during this time.
Based on groundwater analysis of samples from winter and summer monitoring events in 1995,
the Division of Water Quality recommended that pump-and-treat, air sparging and soil vapor
extraction technologies be turned off to determine if residual contaminants in the soils and subsurface
would recontaminate the groundwater, if no treatment system were operating. In December 1995
groundwater monitoring was conducted at recovery wells and monitoring wells after the pump-and-
treat system had been temporarily turned off. Only two of seven monitoring wells had concentrations
of substances in exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Monitoring
well# 5 had Benzene at 0.00863 milligrams per liter, Ethylene Dibromide at 6.52 x 10-4 milligrams
per liter, and 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.00615 milligrams per liter. The maximum concentration of
these substances allowed under the Groundwater Quality Standards pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202
is as follows: Benzene at 0.0001 milligrams per liter, Ethylene Dibromide at 4.00 x 10-4 milligrams
per liter, and 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.0003 milligrams per liter. A sample from Monitoring Well#
9 showed 0.00447 milligrams per liter of 1,2-Dichloroethane. No substances were detected at
Monitoring Well# 7 from the December 1, 1995 sampling event. Analysis of samples from the
remaining monitoring wells reported Benzene, Chloroform, Ethylene Dibroniide, and 1,2-
Dichloroethane at concentrations below quantitation limits. The downgradient monitoring well located
offsite to the east at the Pop Shop and the monitoring well located to the south at Belle Investments
have never shown concentrations of any substance above the groundwater Quality Standards in title
15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Groundwater Quality Standards).
Concentrations of Benzene in all four recovery wells did not show a significant decrease or
increase during December 1995. Samples from two of the four recovery wells continued to show
levels of 1,2-Dichloroethane above Groundwater Quality Standards. The highest concentration of
1,2-Dichloroethane from a December 19, 1995 sampling event was 0.0197 milligrams per liter in
Recovery Well# 4. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.0003 milligrams
per liter.
Monitoring wells at this site have shown insignificant reductions in Benzene as a result of
using pump-and treat, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction technologies. Although concentrations
of substances appear to be decreasing in recovery wells, significant reductions in the concentration
of 1,2-Dichloroethane have not been observed in recovery wells. No significant increase in
concentrations of substances was observed as a result of the temporary cessation of pump-and-treat
operations.
The Unocal Corporation has submitted supporting information showing that the variance will
not endanger public health, safety, or the environment. No known sources of drinking water from
water wells or surface water supplies are known to exist within a ½ mile radius of this property.
Based on groundwater flow information obtained during the Comprehensive Site Assessment, it is
believed that the contaminant plume is moving to the east. The Unocal Corporation has calculated the
time it will take Benzene, Ethylbenzene and 1,2-Dichloroethane to reach Little Sugar Creek at
3
2)
concJntration levels that would exceed Groundwater Quality Standards is between 93 and 280 years.
Little Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek which is a tributary of the Catawba River. All
residents in the area are supplied drinking water from the City of Charlotte. Information provided by
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department indicates that the public water supply lines in this
area are at an average depth ofless than five feet from the ground surface. Groundwater occurs at 4336
Park Road at a depth of seventeen feet beneath the property. Water supply lines are not located deep
enough in the ground to be impacted by this variance.
Allow for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions in accordance with
15A NCAC 2L .01060). The Unocal Corporation has submitted supporting information
demonstrating that the continued application of best available technology will not result in significant
long term remediation of the site to the Groundwater Quality Standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. This is due to the high probability that continued remediation activities at the site will not
significantly reduce contaminant levels below Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. Since corrective actions were implemented on August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation has
extracted a total of 3,050 pounds of petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated soils and
groundwater. The mass of petroleum extracted from soils and subsurface materials is approximately
3,000 pounds. The Unocal Corporation has treated an estimated 4.12 million gallons of groundwater
via pump-and-treat technology which accounts for 50 pounds of material removed. The company
reports that a total of $313,500 has been spent by the Unocal Corporation to cleanup the release
described in Groundwater Incident # 3633. No claims for reimbursement through the state's
Commercial Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund have ever been filed by the Unocal Corporation
for funds spent on this site. The Unocal Corporation estimates that continued operation of the current
groundwater and soil cleanup system over the next three years will be approximately $180,000.
The Unocal Corporation has shown that when the operation of groundwater remediation systems
at the site was temporarily interrupted, no increase in the concentration of any substance above
groundwater standards was observed in off-site monitoring wells from monitoring data. The company
asserts that marginal increases observed for some chemicals in two of the on-site monitoring wells,
when the cleanup systems were not in operation, demonstrates that continued implementation of pump
and treat, air sparging and soil vapor extraction will not result in a significant reduction in contaminant
concentrations at this site.
The Unocal Corporation has considered the use of air sparging as an alternate technology to the
current groundwater remediation system. The company does not believe this technology is
economically reasonable or practical to meet the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(5). The
estimated cost of implementing air sparging is approximately $45,000. The company asserts that
continued reliance on air sparging is not economically justified due to the low residual concentrations
of substances at this site with the lack of groundwater consumption by humans.
4
-2 -
CONT.AMIN.ANT {CONTINUED) STANDARD {mg/1) {CONTINUED)
ethylbenzene 0.029
ethyl dibromide (EDB; 1,2-4.0 X 10 -7
dibromoethane)
isopropyl ether
methylene chloride 0.005
(dichloromethane)
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.2
napthalene
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
trans-1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl 0.2
chloroform)
1,1,2 trichloroethane
xylenes (o-, m-, and p-) 0.53
Additionally Unocal is requesting a variance from 15A NCAC
2L.0106(j) which requires implementation of a Corrective Action Plan
utilizing "best available technology for restoration of
groundwater quality to the level of the standards."
Beginning in the 1950's Unocal Corporation operated a convenience
store at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. This piece of
property is located at the heavily developed intersection of Park and
Woodlawn Roads in south Charlotte. The property is 1.05 acres in size
and is identified on the Mecklenburg County tax maps as parcel number
149-203-24. In 1988 following sale of the property to DH&S associates
Unocal removed the gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) and
discovered the presence of free product and soil and groundwater
contamination. The free product was immediately removed. Following
issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV) Unocal developed a
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
for the site. At time of preparation of the CSA moving groundwater
had transported contaminants slightly off property. The CAP called
for the sequential activation of a pump and treat system, a soil vapor
extraction system and an air sparging system. Unocal installed and
operated these various systems which were effective in remediation.
Based upon groundwater sampling spanning the period of time
January, 1988 until June, 1995 significant reductions in pollutant
concentrations were achieved by utilization of these cleanup
technologies. Most pollutants previously detectedable, had been
-3 -
reduced to below detection limits or to below groundwater standards.
In June of 1995, responding to the recommendation of staff of the
Division of Water Quality, Unocal shutdown its treatment facilities to
determine the effect of such action on groundwater quality. No
increase in contaminants was observed indicating that the remediation
systems had achieved all that could reasonably be expected. Only four
out of eleven groundwater monitoring wells were then showing
contaminant levels in excess of the 2L standards.
Authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to the groundwater standards is found
in NCGS 143-215.3(e). In order to grant a variance, the commission
must find that the contaminants in questions do not endanger human
health or safety and compliance with the standards "cannot be achieved
by application of the best available technology found to be
economically reasonable" and "would produce serious hardship without
equal or greater benefits to the public."
Four people registered at the hearing. They were Bobby Cobb,
Mecklenburg County Health Department; Stewart Hines, S&ME, consultant
to Unocal; Holmes Eleazer, attorney to DHS Associates; and Douglas P.
Drew, vice president, DHS Associates. Unocal's consultant, spoke in
favor of granting the variance. Holmes Eleazer, attorney to DHS
Associates expressed qualified opposition to the variance out of
concern that DHS borrowed money using the Park Road property as
collateral on the basis that Unocal would clean up the soil and
groundwater to the state's satisfaction. He felt that issuance of a
variance might cause the involved lending institution to question that
the value of its collateral was impaired and call the loan. DHS is
also concerned whether issuance of a variance might relieve Unocal of
responsibility to the point that should future problems develop·
relating to the loss of product by Unocal, the Division of Water
Quality might not be able to reinvolve Unocal in investigations and
cleanups. Mr. Eleazer went on to say that DH&S would not oppose the
variance if it were worded in such a way that Unocal could be drawn
back in should unforeseen problems develop.
The former 1.05 acre Unocal property at 4336 Park Road in south
Charlotte is located in a densely developed area. This part of
Charlotte is served by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility District
therefore no one in the immediate area is making potable use of
groundwater. Investigation indicates that the nearest well drawing
water for drinking purposes is more than 1500 feet from 4336 Park
Road. There are no reports of petroleum vapors, either confined or
unconfined as a result of Unocal's loss of product. The nearest
surface water which would be a receptor for the contaminated
groundwater is Little Sugar Creek which is 1,400 feet to the east and
bears a Class "C" classification. Time required for the contaminants
to reach Little Sugar Creek are estimated to be from 93 to 280 years.
Unocal, following discovery of evidence of product loss at time
of tank removal in 1988; has recovered free product, removed
contaminated soil, prepared a CSA and a CAP, installed and operated a
groundwater pump
-4 -
and treat system, installed and operated a vacuum extraction system,
installed and operated an air sparging system, drilled monitoring
wells and conducted extensive soil and groundwater monitoring.
Approximately 3,050 pounds of petroleum hydrocarbons have been
recovered at a total cost of $579,995. All this at a site which is
non revenue producing as far as Unocal is concerned since the property
was sold in 1987. Additionally this clean-up was carried out without
assistance from the state trust fund because the loss was discovered
before June 30, 1988. The company estimates that the three-year cost
of operating pump and treat, air sparging and soil vapor extraction
would be $180,000. Unocal has demonstrated that continued treatment
would be prohibitively expensive with no return for the money.
Groundwater monitoring has demonstrated that active remediation has
reduced the size of the plume of contamination and will have little to
no additional influence on reducing contaminant levels. Unocal has
carried out an excellent cleanup. Unocal estimates that 95% of the
lost petroleum product has been recovered. This level of recovery
represents far above what we normally expect to accomplish in terms of
recovery.
In response to the concern expressed by the attorney for the
present owners I drafted language which could appear as a part of a
variance which would allow the Division to reinvolve Unocal should
future problems be detected. That language is as follows:
"Should problems develop at this site as a result of the loss of
petroleum by Unocal Corporation, the Division of Water Quality
reserves the right to require Unocal Corporation to undertake
additional investigations and corrective action."
Both Unocal and DH&S find this language acceptable. As hearing
officer, I found that the contaminants remaining in the groundwater at
4336 Park Road in Charlotte do not endanger public health or safety,
compliance with groundwater standards cannot be achieved by
application of the best available technology and would be
prohibitively expensive with no further benefit being derived.
When requesting this variance Unocal asked that the results of
the December 1, 1995 groundwater sampling session be substituted for
the groundwater standards for the pollutants under consideration. I
am not so recommending. One exceedance of the substitute maximum
allowable pollutant concentration would throw the staff back to
issuing a notice of violation. I would prefer to use identifiable
problems to tell us when to draw Unocal back into the investigation
and remediation process.
It is my recommendation that:
(1) Unocal Corporation be granted a 15A NCAC 2L .0113 variance
from the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0202(g) and 15 NCAC 2L
.0106(j) for the 1.04 acres identified as 4336 Park Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina. The specific groundwater
standards from which Unocal is obtaining relief are:
-5 -
CONTAMINANT STANDARD (mg/1)
benzene 0.001
bromodichlorornethane
bromoforrn (tribrornomethane) 0.00019
carbon tetrachloride 0.0003
chlorobenzene 0.05
Chloroform (trichloromethane) 0.00019
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
dibrornochlorornethane
1,1 dichloroethane 0.07
1,1 dichloroethene .
1,2-dichloroethane (ethylene 0.00038
dichloride)
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloropropane 0.00056
ethylbenzene 0.029
ethyl dibrotnide (EDB; 1,2-4.0 X 10 -7
dibromoethane}
isopropyl ether
methylene chloride 0.005
(dichloromethane)
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.2
napthalene
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
trans-1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl 0.2
chloroform)
1,1,2 trichloroethane
xylenes (o-,m-, and p-) 0.53
Mr. David Hance
) December 6, 1996
Page 2
The facilities located at these sites were old, some dating back to the 1960's. As a
condition to the purchase, DHS secured Unocal's agreement to remediate any contamination
existing at the sites as of the sale date. (See letter of August 24, 1987, attached to Exhibit
A.) DHS' business plan was to raze the old facilities as finances permitted and construct
new retail units to be leased to Petro Express, Inc., an operating company in which the
partner/members were shareholders. The construction of new facilities included removal of
existing underground storage tanks, supply lines and pumps and replacement with new
equipment that meet or exceeded the 1988 standards promulgated by DEHNR
("Department") for tanks and delivery systems.
Tests performed by Unocal at each of the six sites showed the presence of petroleum
and petroleum by-product contaminants in varying degrees in the soil and groundwater at all
six sites. As construction proceeded ,at each site, Unocal reported the contamination to the
Department, undertook site assessments, formulated and then implemented corrective action
plans.
In order to rebuild at the sites, DHS borrowed construction funds from banking
inst~tutions operating in the Charlotte market. As time passed, some of the sites were re-
financed to provide DHS funds to secure and build additional retail sites. In each loan
transaction, DHS disclosed to the lender the existence of contamination and Unocal' s
acknowledgement of responsibility therefore and Unocal's efforts to assess the extent of the
prog.Iems and to remediate them.
As you are aware, the Department's compliance procedures for assessing the extent of
soil and, particularly, groundwater contamination and then developing and implementing
appropriate remediation measures can take substantial time. The process was in varying
stages at each of the six sites at any given time when DHS was approaching lenders for
financing at the sites. DHS' lenders, on notice of the existence of contamination, obviously
were concerned with the contamination situations at the sites. On November 1, 1991, DHS
and Unocal entered into a remediation agreement applicable to five sites. (One of the
original six was transferred to the McDonald's Corporation.) A copy of the Agreement is
attached as Exhibit A.
With respect to the subject party, 4336 Park Road, DHS refinanced the property with
Branch Banking and Trust Company ("BB&T'') in December of 1993. The loan amount was
Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00). Copies of the Loan Agreement, Deed
G:\DOCS\LHE\OGL TR\65064.1
Mr. David Hance
December 6, 1996
Page 4
are protected not only by the U.S. Constitution but by the North Carolina Constitution.
Whole bodies of law both case law and statutory law have developed in this State since the
Revolution protecting the use and development of private property and the regulation and
financing of commerce.
DHS, in purchasing the subject property from Unocal, has incurred substantial
liability with its lender in reliance on Unocal's agreement "to implement and perform, at its
own expense and for such time as necessary, such remediation measures required by the
appropriate government authorities until such time as the appropriate government agencies
certify or otherwise agree that the contamination has been remedied as required by law. "
(Exhibit A, paragraph 2, page 2.)
This is an obligation freely m;idertaken by Unocal to induce DHS to purchase from it
the subject property. It is also an obligation that directly benefits the public health, welfare
and safety of the citizens of Mecklenburg County. The variance request seeks to absolve
Unocal from remedying the contamination as required by law. Unocal is asking you to
permit non-compliance.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that DHS, in reliance on Unocal's agreement
· .to achieve compliance as required by law, has obligated itself with BB&T to achieve
compliance or pay to BB&T by way of indemnity any loss or damage incurred by BB&T that
res~ts from non-compliance. (See the highlighted portion of the Deed of Trust, Exhibit C.)
Indeed, if BB&T deems its collateral (the value of the subject property) to be impaired, it
can call the loan and foreclose on the property. @.) Thus, DHS' financial viability could
be destroyed by the variance if BB&T determines that the value of the subject property is
adversely impacted by a ruling that permits non-compliance in perpetuity.
DHS' dilemma is this. DHS, who is not the responsible party, can be forced by its
lender to pick up where Unocal wants to leave off and continue to spend remediation costs
that it is far less able to bear financially than Unocal. If DHS cannot shoulder the cost, the
BB&t has permanently contaminated property as collateral instead of property which is
"being remediated." Then the bank must decide whether and how to enforce its rights to
maximize the value of the property.
With the horns of the dilemma thus defined, what is meaningfully realistic and
practical can be considered. One alternative is simply to deny the variance. Denial would n
to produce "serious financial hardship" on a company with the financial resources and not
G:IDOCSILHE\OGLTR\65064.1
Mr. David Hance
December 6, 1996
Page 5
worth of Unocal. However, such a decision does not seem to be an efficient allocation of
resources. There really appears to be no immediate threat to public safety given the fact that
drinking water supplies for nearby residents are not impacted. A cost-benefit analysis of
continued application of the technologies used at the site indicates non-economic return for
the costs that would be incurred.
A second alternative would be to grant the variance. This is centra-indicated because
of the adverse impact it would have on DHS. This adverse impact should not be discounted
by the Department. No one knows the financial market and the real estate market will react
to the granting of variances by the Department. It is our understanding that the present
request is one of the first to come before the Department.
Granting the variance will be ,a tacit acknowledgment by the Department that no
technology exists that will result in compliance with the groundwater standards. That will
open the flood gates of variance requests to the Department. Many of those will be by
applicants with less financial resources that Unocal, thus intensifying the pressure on the
Department to grant more and more variances until the groundwater standards are submerged
in tp.e exceptions. The Department and DHS could expect four more such requests in short
order from Unocal on the other former Unocal sites if this one is granted.
Moreover, and equally compelling for your deliberations, is the fact that
envtronmental indemnifications of purchasers and lenders on contaminated property are now
well ensconced in commercial transactions. Granting variances will spawn substantial
litigation as responsible parties seek to avoid the compliance they agreed to attain and
indemnities seek to keep them in the loop. The costs involved in that kind of litigation are as
inefficient and deleterious an allocation of financial resources as continued use of ineffective
remediation technology.
A third alternative is simply to permit a cessation of remediation technologies when
the Department finds some of the factors indicated in 15A NCAC 2L.0113. This could be
done in a variance application context but could be achieved with or without the granting of a
variance.
Without granting a variance, the Department could enter a ruling that the approved
remediation measures in place at a site could he temporarily suspended. The Department
clearly has this authority. It has done this on a general basis under the new categorization
procedure implemented this summer. The advantage of this approach is that responsible
G:IOOCS\LHEIOGL TR\65064.1
Mr. David Hance
December 6, 1996
Page 6
parties would stay in the loop without having to expend money on technology applications
that are no longer effective. The groundwater standards are not dilutedunder a tide of
variance requests. As new and better technologies arise they could be put in place to achieve
the purity standards required by law. Conversely, if the groundwater standards are revised
in the future, closure could occur then without the need for a variance.
A second approach would be to grant a conditional or temporary variance. For
example, a variance could be granted for a period of time on condition that it would be
reviewed at the end of the stated period. Monitoring could be included in such a conditional
variance. If the level of contaminants remains static or decreases, the conditional variance
could be renewed. If contamination increased, further remediation could be ordered.
This approach has the advantages of keeping the responsible party in the loop but
letting it avoid non-productive costs. It would also permit the later introduction of new
technologies as they arise and allow for the possible revision of groundwater standards
without diluting those presently in the books that guide the Department's efforts.
_ Whether a conditional variance is within the Department's authority is a question for
the Secretary and the Attorney General.
The factor that recommends either of the approaches under the third alternative is that
ackl}.owledged responsible parties avoid substantial, unproductive outlays but remain
responsible for clean-up of the contamination they caused. That is a substantial advantage
for them, while preserving the benefit to the public that underpins the environmental laws.
Responsible parties, obviously desire finality and closure, but everybody in the remediation
business knows that caring contamination is a lengthy endeavor. Responsible parties may be
entitled to some financial relief in the appropriate circumstances. But they should not be
permitted to shift their burden to others in the guise of cost-benefit analysis. Their closure
should come when they achieve compliance by new technologies or the adoption of revised
standards. A permanent variance, which is Department approval of non-compliance, should
be reserved only for the most compelling circumstances.
IV. Conclusion:
For the reasons set forth above, DHS objects to the variance request of Unocal.
Also, for the reasons stated above, DHS qualifies its objections. It would not object to a
ruling by the Department under which Unocal could avoid costs deemed excessive or
G:IDOCS\LHEIOGL TR\65064.1
..
Mr. David Hance
December 6, 1996
Page 7
unreasonable by the Department but which retains Unocal as the responsible party. It is
DHS' understanding that Unocal's variance request proposed that Unocal monitor the subject
property for a further period of two years. DHS urges the Department to view this proposal
with care, caution and some healthy skepticism. The variance requested permits permanent
non-compliance with applicable groundwater standards. Nothing in the variance request
requires or obligates Unocal to do anything but monitor. There is no requirement or
undertaking for Unocal to resume remediation if contaminant levels or circumstances change
in that two-year period. If Unocal's request is granted, it will be the final word on its
remediation responsibilities.
The monitoring wells are approximately 100 feet apart from one another. It is DHS'
recollection that at the hearing, the SM&E representative stated groundwater flow at the site
to be five to twelve feet per year. Thus, substantially higher contaminant concentrations
could potentially exist due to subsurface soil conditions that might not show up during the
two-year period. Unocal is the responsible party. But a variance with only a two-year
monitoring tail would shift any clean-up burden off Unocal's shoulders to DHS.
. This is an onerous burden and hardship not contemplated by the parties in their
dealings with one another, nor by the UST statutes and regulations once a party, such as
Unocal, acknowledges responsibility for the conditions.
Respectfully submitted this the (p 'ti day of December, 1996.
L. Holmes Elea.zer,i: r /
ODOM & GROVES, P.C.
1100 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
[phone]
Counsel for DHS Associates, LLC
G:IDOCS\LHEIOGL TR\65064.1
...
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
AGREEMENT CONCERNlNG REMEDIATION
OF CONTAMINATION AT CERTAIN FUEL
STATION SITES SOLD TOD. H. & S
ASSOCIATES
This Agreement is made effective as of November 1, 1991, by and between Union Oil
Company cf California, doing business as UNOCAL ("Unocal") and D.H.& S.
Associates ("DH&S) a North Carolina General Partnership.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS on or about December 5, 1986, DH&S purchased from Unocal five filling
station properties in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, more particularly described
in Exhibits A-1 through A-6 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS the said properties sold by Unocal toDH&S were to be leased by DH&S to
operators of service stations or service station/convenience stores which purpose was
known by Unocal at the time of the sale; and,
WHEREAS prior to the operating of said properties by the lessees of DH&S and in
preparation therefore, petroleum and petroleum by-product contamination of soil and
grounifwater at the properties was discovered and duly reported to the environmental
authorities as required by law; and
WHEREAS by letter dated August 24, 1987, Unocal acknowledge responsibility for said
contamination; s~id-letter attached as Exhibit"B;· and, . . . .
WHEREAS Unocal has undertaken, · at its own expense, to assess the _extent of
contamination and implement remedial action to abate said contamination at the properties
as may be required by the ·government agencies exercising jurisdiction over remediation
of such contamination; and,
WHEREAS pursuant to its undertaking, Unocal has and is presently causing the extent
of contamination to be assessed and is developing or causing to be developed remedial
action plans to abate said contamination at the properties for approval by the appropriate
government agencies and then implementation by Unocal. Since this process of
remediation takes place over an extended period of time, the parties desire to set out, by
further agreement, the responsibilities undertaken with aspect to said contamination.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Unocal hereby reaffirms its acknowledgement of responsibility for petroleum and
petroleum by-product contamination as of December 5, 1986, atthe properties sold
to DH&S and identified in Exhibits A-1 through A-6.
2. Unocal reaffirms its undertaking and agrees to continue, at is own expense, the
inve~tigation and assessment of contamination already underway at the properties;
to formulate or cause to be formulated after completion of investigation and
assessment, at its own expense, such remedial action plans as may be required by
the government agencies with jurisdiction over said contamination; to negotiate and
secure or cause to be negotiated and secured, at its own expense, approval of said
remediation measures and remediation action plans with the appropriate
governmental agencies; and to implement and perform, at its own expense and for
such time as necessary, such remediation measures required by the appropriate
government authorities until such time as the appropriate government agencies
certify or otherwise agree that the contamination has been remedied as required by
law. -
3. Unocal expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless DH&S, its heirs,
successors or assigns and DH&S' principals, Kenneth Daniel Shaver, Jr., Thomas
J. Hall, and Douglas P. Drew and their heirs, successors and assigns:
a. against and from all claims, loss, cost, damage, liens or expense arising out
of or from petroleum or petroleum by-product contamination existing at the
properties identified in Exhibits A-1 through A-6 as of December 5, 1986;
b. against and from any fine, penalty, sanction, damage, or charges imposed
for any violations of any law, ordinance or regulation arising out of said
petroleum or petroleum by-product contamination at the properties listed in
Exhibits A-1 thr(?ugh A-6; and~
c. against and from any and all claims, loss, cost, damage, liens or expense
arising out of any failure of Unocal to comply with and perform all the
provisions and undertakings of this Agreement.
Unocal further indemnifies DH&S for and agrees to pay any legal fees and legal
costs incurred by DH&S in defending against any claim covered by this indemnity
prov1s1on.
4. Because of the long period of time needed, including continuing monitoring and
assessment, to achieve remediation, the parties expressly agree that, in the event
of breach of this agreement, specific performance shall be an available remedy
_ together with and not exclusive of any other remedies provided in law or equity.
EXHIBIT A-1
Unocal ID Prooert y
#57-9342-115 4500 Randolph Road, Charlotte, NC (See Ex. A-2)
#57-9342-116 John & Trade Streets, M:_atthews, NC (See Ex. A-3)
#57-9342-121 5340 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC (See Ex. A-4)
#57-9342-209 4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC (See Ex. A-5)
#57-9342-212 6500 Fairview Road, Charlotte, NC (See Ex. A-6)
EXHIBIT A-2
Leoal Descriotion--Randoloh Road Prooerty:
Being a11 · that certain tract or parcel of land lying, being and
situate in the City of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg, and State
of North Carolina, and being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at an iron located in the westerly right-of-way margin
of Randolph Road, said iron being the northeasterly corner of the
property conveyed to Kiser Foundation by deed recorded in Book
5140 at Page 373 in the Mecklenburg County Public Registry; thence
with the Kiser Foundation (now or formerly) South 74-15 West
124.86 feet to an iron in the line of John T Belk, Jr. (now or
formerly); thence with the line·· of John T. Belk, Jr. (now or
formerly) North 15-44-15.West 165.00 feet to a point in the
southerly right-of-way margin of Sha.ran Amity Road; thence with
the southerly right-of-way margin of Sharon Amit"y Road North 74-15
East .. 96.42 feet to a point; thence continuing with the southerly
right-of-way margin of Sharon Amity Road and the westerly right
6t~way margin of Randolph Road, and following the arc of a
circular curve to the right having a radius of 26.00 feet an arc
distance of 40.84 feet to a point in the westerly right-of-way
margin of Randolph Road; thence with the westerly right-of-way
margin of Randolph Road (1) following the arc of a circular curve
to the right having a radius of 642.00 feet an arc distance of
60.16 feet to a point, and (2) South 15-32 East 78.92 feet to the
point and place of BEGINNING, as shown on that certain plat
entitled "Property of D.H.& s. Associates" dated November 3, 1986,
prepared by Robert A. Burns, Registered Land Surveyor.
TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING all of Grantor's right, title and
interest in and to any property lying within the rights-of-way of
Sharon Amity Road and Randolph Road.
Being a portion of the property conveyed to the Pure Oil Company
by deed of Mary I. Randolph, et .s.1-, dated June 7, 1956 and
recorded in Book 1860 at Page 398 in the Mecklenburg County Public
Registry. Union Oil Company of California is successor by merger
to the Pure Oil Company. Reference is made to that certain
Affidavit and the attached Certificate of the Secretary of State
of California filed July a, 1966 and recorded in Book 2766 at Page
263 in said Registry. Reference is further made to that certain
deed to the City of Charlotte recorded in Book 2723 at Page 1 and
that certain Consent Judgment recorded in Book 3891 at Page 568,
both in the Mecklenburg County Public Registry.
EXHIBIT A-3
Le g al Descrintion--Matthews Proner.t v :
Being all that certain tract or parcel of land lying, being and
situate in the Town of Matthews, County of Mecklenburg, and State
of North Carolina, and being more par~icularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at an iron located at the intersection of the
southeasterly right-of-way margin of South Trade Street and the
southwesterly right-of-way margin of John Street; thence from said
beginning point with the southwesterly right-of-way margin of John
Street South 52-26-30 East 200.00 feet to a point; thence South
38-00 West 140.00 feet to an iron; thence North 52-26-30 West
200.00 feet to a point in the southeasterly right-of-way margin of
South Trade Street; thence with the southeasterly right-of-way
margin of South Trade Street North 38-00 East 140.00 feet to the
point and place of BEGINNING, as shown on that certain plat
entitled "Property of D.H.& s~ Associates" dated November 10,
1986, prepared by Robert-A Burns, Registered Land Surveyor.
TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING all of Granter.' s right, title and
interest in and to any lands lying within the rights-of-way of
John Street and South Trade Street.
Being a portion of the property conveyed to Union Oil Company of
California by deed of Sixty-Eight Scarteen Corporation dated
February 28, 1979 and recorded in Book 4167 at Page 956 in the
Meckle~burg County Public Registry.
·-
EXHIBIT A-4
Legal Descriotion--Monroe Road Prooertv:
Being all that certain tract or parcel of land lying, being and
situate in the City of Charlotte, Coun_ty of Mecklenbur·g, and State
of North Carolina, and being more paific~larly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a nail in the northwesterly right-of-way margin of
Sharon Amity Road,'said nail being located in the easterly corner
of the property conveyed to William E. Borroughs by deed recorded
in Book 4167 at Page 902 in the Mecklenburg County Public
Registry; thence from said beginning point with the line of
William E. Borroughs (now or formerly) North 61-59-22 West 126.76
feet to a point in the dividing lines between Lots 5 and 6 in
Block 2 of Summey Heights as,shown on a map thereof recorded in
Map Book 3 at Page 134 in the Mecklenburg County Public Registry;
thence with said dividing line North 24-28-01 East 191.27 feet to
an iron in the southwesterly right-of-way margin of Monroe Road;
thence with the southwesterly right-of-way margin of Monroe Road
South 57-49-35 East 124.57 feet to a point; thence continuing with
the southwesterly right-of-way margin of Monroe Road and the
northwesterly right-of-way margin o-f Sharon Amity Road, and
following the arc of a circular curve to.the right having a radius
of 15.00 feet, an arc distance of 22.51 feet to a point in the
northwesterly right-of-way margin of Sharon Amity Road; thence
with t~e northwesterly right-of-way margin of Sharon Amity Road
(1) South 28-10-01 West 149.29 feet to a point, and (2) South
25-18-16 West 17.60 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, as
shown on that plat of survey entitled "Property of D.H.& $.
Associates" dated November 10, 1986, prepared by Robert A: Burns,
Registered Land Surveyor.
TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING all of Grantor"s right, title and
interest in and to any property lying within the rights-of-way of
Monroe Road and Sharon Amity Road.
The above~described property is a portion of Lots 6 and 7 in Block
2 of SUMMEY HEIGHTS as shown on a map thereof recorded in Map Book
3 at Page 134 in the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Public
Registry.
Being a portion of the property conveyed to Union Oil Company of
California by deed of Scarteen Corporation dated July 8, 1977 and
recorded in Book 3967 at Page 191 in said Registry.
EXHIBIT A-5
Leoal Descriotion--Park Road Prooertv:
Being all that certain tract or parcel of land lying, being and
situate in the City of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg, and State
of North Carolina, and being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING·at an iron in the westerly right-of-way margin of Park
Road, said iron being located in the dividing line between Lots 2
and 3 of t~e property of David Alexander as shown on a plat
thereof recorded in Map Book 1438 at Page 490 in the Mecklenburg
County Public Registry, said iron being located South 83-37-30
East, approximately 30.67 feet from the common front corner of
Lots 2 and 3, as shown on said map; thence with the westerly
right-of-way margin of Park:Road South 04-04-38 East 133.84 feet
to a point (see map recorded in Book 2757 at Page 534 in said
Registry); thence with the westerly right-of-way margin of Park
Road and the northerly right-of-way margin of Woodlawn Road and
following the arc of a circular curve to the right having a radius
of 30.00 feet an arc distance of 53.40 feet to a point in the
westerly right-of-way margin of Woodlawn Road; thence with the
weste~ly right-of-way margin of Woodlawn Road (1) North 84-44-23
West 124.89 feet to a point, and (2) North 87-36-13 West 105.42
feet to an iron; thence North 06-00 East 82.54 feet to a point;
thence North 04-37-50 West 97.41 feet to an iron; thence South
83-37~30 East 253.52 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING,
said fract being shown on that certain plat entitled nProperty of
D.H.& S. Associates" dated November 12, 1986 prepared by Robert A.
Burns, Registered Land Surveyor.
TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING all of the area within the
rights-of-way ~of Park Road and Woodlawn Road acquired by Union Oil
Company of California by deed recorded in Book 2828 at Page 311
and by the Pure Oil Company by deed recorded in Book 2038 at Page
329, both in the Mecklenburg County Public Registry. ·
Being in all respects the same property conveyed to the Pure Oil
Company by deed recorded in Book 2038 at Page 329 and to Union Oil
Company of California by deed recorded in Book 2828 at Page 311 in
the Mecklenburg County Public Registry, subject, however, to that
certain right-of-way deed to the City of Charlotte recorded in
Book 2757 at Page 531 in said Registry. Reference is made to that
certain Affidavit recorded in Book 2766 at Page 263 in said
Registry.
EXHIBIT A-6
Leaal Descriotion--Fairview-Road Prooerty
Being all that certain tract or parcel of land lying, being and
situate in the City of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg, and State
of North Carolina, and being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at an iron in the southwesterly right-of-way margin of
Fairview Road, said iron being a corner of the property conveyed
to Center Properties, by deed record~d in"Book.4260 at Page 872 in
said Registry, and also being in the northwesterly margin of that
certain right-of-way granted to Pure Oil Company by instrument
recorded in Book 2469 at Page 505 in said Registry; thence with
the line of Center Properties (now or formerly) four (4) courses
and distances as follows (1) South 24-15 West 67.65 feet to an
iron; (2) South 60-41-30 West 150.00 feet to an iron; (3) North
77-11-34 West 139.79 feet to a point; {4) North 12-30-20 East
237.54 feet to a point in the southwesterly right-of-way margin of
Fairview Road; thence continuing North 12-30-20 East 43.62 feet to
a point in the original centerline of Fairview Road; thence with
the original centerline of Fairview Road (1) South 61-50 East
266.68 feet to a point, and· l2) South 67-42 East 100.00 feet to a
point; thence South 60-41-30 West 38.28 feet to a point; thence in
a southwesterly direction following the arc of a circular curve to
the right having a radius of 1,138.98 feet an arc distance of
60.00 feet to a point; thence South 24-15 West 12.00 feet to the
point and place of BEGINNING, as shown on that certain plat
entitled "Property of D.H.& s. Associates" dated November 23,
1986, ~repared by Robert A. Burns, Registered Land Surveyor.
TOGETHER WITH a perpetual right-of-way and easement for ingress,
egress and regress to and from the property hereinabove described
into aod over the following strip of land 30 feet in width located
in the.City of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg and State of North
Carolina, and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron in the southwesterly right-of-way margin of
Fairview Road, said iron being the beginning point of the property
· hereinabove described; thence from said beginning point South
24-15 West 67.65 feet to an iron; thence South 60-41-30 West 65.00
feet to a point; thence South 29-18-30 East 30.00 feet to a point;
thence North 60-41-30 East 74.84 feet to a point; thence North
24-15 East 89.80 feet.to a point within the right-of-way margin of
Fairview Road; thence in a southwesterly direction following the
arc of a circular curve to the right have a radius of 1,138.98
feet an arc distance of 30.00 feet to a point; thence South 24-15
West 12.00 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, as shown on
that certain plat entitled "Property of D.H.& S. Associates" dated
November 23, 1986, prepared by Robert A. Burns, Registered Land
Surveyor.
Being in all respects the same property conveyed to Union Oil
,company of California by deed of Burtis Corporation dated August
5, 1977 and recorded in Book 4000 at Page 508 in the Mecklenburg
County Public Registry.
PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )
)
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG )
I, ---K ....... p...._._t_._h......,~-..J.../-{.,_,.---'--N--"---""'-o ,_,/ e""'-'-'rf'-----' a_-~ o t ~ ry Pub 1 i c , do hereby
certify that Kenneth D. Shaver, Jr., Douglas P. Drew and Thomas
J. Hall, being all of the partners in D.H.& S. ASSOCIATES,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of D.H.& S.
ASSOCIATES.
Witness my hand and official seal this _!j___ day
0 f DJ_ µ_/'Ot,Ly/l,) I 19 91 •
My commission expires:
,7. "h.n..luu tf ;qqs-1 J
I
KaJ:i-ud ff. f?,w(,A) (SEAL)
Notary Publ/4 c in and for
Mecklenburg County, NC
,;;·;.,..::.dliLil\ ••••••••••··•
TI1e Uormwer covenants am.I agre•s that from the date her<of umil payment in full of all indcbtcJnc» and lhe performance of all ohliga1ions under the Loan
Documents, the Borrower •hall al all times maintain lhe following financial position and ratios all in accordance with GAAP unless olherwi•e •pccilied:
O 4 .01. Current Raliu. A ratio of total cum:nt asset> to 101al current liabilities of not less than ______ to ______ .
O 4.02. Quick Ratio. A raliu of lhe tolal of cash plus readily marke1ablc United Stales securilies plus comm,rcial paper ra1c,d A-1 by S1andanl and Pours
Corporation plus 1ra,k accounts receivable not mor• than _________ ( ) day• p.t•t du• tu total cum,111 liabilities nf nut less than _________ 10 ________ _
D 4 .03. Working Capilld. The different< between 101al current assets and total current liabilities shall not be less than $ ________ _
1X1 4 .04. Tangible Net Wurth. A minimum tangible net wonh of not less than S SEE ATIACHED SCHEDULE
D 4 .05. Debt To Worth. A ratio of total liabilities to tangible net worth of not grea1er 1han _________ to ________ _
D 4 .06. Cash Flow Margin. A margin of Net Income after taxes plus depreciation plus amortization less all long-term debl payments (excluding interest)
due within the next twelse I 12) months nf al least S _________ . This ratio will be calculated based on the fiscal year-end financial statemems.
Oil 4 .07. Capital Expendilures Limitation. Expendilures for fixed assets in any fiscal year •hall not exceed in the aggregale the >Um of$ SEE A'!"!ACHED
without the prior wriucn consent of the Bank. SCHEDULE
□ 4 .08. Other. Such other financial covenants listed on Schedule" _________ " hereto.
Seclion 5 Ncgali,·e Co•enants
The Borrower covenants and agrees that from the date hereof and until payment in full of all indebtedness and perfom1ance of all obligations under the Luan
Documents, the Borrower shall not, without the prior wrinen consent of the Bank:
5.111 . l.iellli. Creale, im:ur, a.ssunte, or suffer to exist any lien upon or with respect tu uny uf its propcnies, now owned ur hcrc:ifler ac,,uircd, except:
(a) Liens in favor of lhe Bank;
(b) Liens fort.axes not yel due and payable or otherwise being contested in good faith and for which appropriate reserses ar.: maintained;
(c) Other liens imposed by law not yet due and payable, or otherwise being contested in good faith and for which appropriate reser.cs arc maintained;
(d) Liens on _____________________ securing an obliga1ion to ___________________ _
not lo exceed S ___________ , or described on Schedule" _______ .. hereto.
(e) Purchase: Muney Liens on any property hcreafler acquired, provided 1hat such lien shall auach only to the propeny acquired.
5.02. Debi. Create, incur, assume, or suffer 10 exist any debl, except:
(a) Debt to the Bank;
(b) Debt presently ou1s1anding and shown on the most recent financial statements submilled to the Bank;
(c) Accounts payable to trade creditors incurred in the ordinary course of business;
(d) Debt secured by purchase money liens as outlined above in Section 5.01. (c);
(e) Additional debt nol 10 exceed$ ________ _
5.03. Mergers_ Merge or consolidate with or sell, assign, lease, or 01herwise dispose of all ur substantially all of its assets to any person, or acquire all or
substantially all of the asscls or the business of any person.
5 .™. Leases. Crealc, incur, assume, or suffer to exist any leases, except:
(al Leases prescn1ly outstanding and showing on the most recent financial sta1en1ent submiued to the Bank;
(b) Operating u:ases for machinery and equipment which du not in the aggregate require payments in excess of$ ____________ _
in any fiscal year of the Borrower.
5.05. Di•idends. Declare or pay any dieidends; or purchase or redeem, retire or olherwise acquire any of its capilal stock now or hereafter oulslanding
in excess of$ ___________ in any fiscal year of the Borrower. SEE ATIACI\ED SCHEDULE
5.06. Salaries.. Salaries and any other cash compensation to owners/officers shall be limited as follows: ===---------------
SEE ATIACI\ED SCHEDULE
5.07. Guaranties. Assume. guarantee, endorse, or otherw,isc be or become dir<ctly or comingenlly liable for obligations of any person , excepl guaranties
by endorsemcm of negotiable instruments for deposit or collection or similar trJnsactions in the ordinary course of business.
5.08. Loans. Loans to owners/officers shall be limited as follows: SEE Al'TACHED SCHEDULE
5.0'J. Sale of Assets. Sell, lease, or 01herwisc dispose of uny of its assets or properties except in the ordinary and usual course of its husine,s.
5. I 0. Transfer uf Ownership. If Borrower is a cori1oration, transfer or sell more lhan 10% of the total number of share• of slock in Burrower priortu the
maturity of the Note(s).
5.1 I. Other. Such 01her negative co,enants listed on Schedule" __________ " herelo.
Section 6 Hazardous Materials and Environmental Compliance
6 .01. lnvestigation. Borrower her<by certifies that it has exercised due diligence, 10 asccnain whether its real property, inclmling wi1hou1 limi1a1ion 1hc
Mortgaged Propeny, is ur has been affected by the presence of asbestos, oil or oil products, urea fom1aldehyde, PCBs. hazardous or nuclear waste, luxic
chemicals and ,ubstances, or other hazardous materials, as tklincd in applicable Environmcn1al Laws. Borrower represents and warrams thal 1here are no
such materials contaminating its real property, nor have any such materials been improperly slored un or disposed of nn its real propeny. llorruwer hereby
agrees that it ,hall not pcnnit any such contamination as long as any indebtedness or obligalions to Bank under the Loan Documenls remains unpaid ur
unfulfilled . In addition. Borrower doc, not hase or use any underground storage tanks on ii• property which are not registereJ wilh the appropriate Federal
and/or State agencies and which are not properly equipped and maintained in accordance with all Environmental Laws. If requested by Bank, Borrower
shall provide Bank with all necessary and reasonable assistance r"'!uired for purposes of de1errnining the exislence of hazardous materials on the Mortgaged
; Propeny, including allowing Bank access to the Mortgaged Property, and access to Borrower's employees having knowledge of, and lo files and records
within Borrower's cun1rol relating to the exislcnce, siur,1ge or discharge of h•zardous materials on the Mon gaged Prop•ny.
6.02. Compliance. Borrower agrees tu comply wi1h all applicahle Environmental Laws, rules and regula1ions. including, wi1hout limit:uion, all those
relating 10 hazardous materials. Borrower fun her agrees to provide Bunk, and all appropriale Federal and Stale authorities, with immedia1c nut ice in wri1ing
of any hazardous or toxic materials released on the Mortgaged Property and to pursue diligently to completion all appropriate and/or required remedial
action in the event of such release.
6.03. Remedial Action. !lank shall have the right, but nut the obligation, 10 undertake all or any pan of such remedial action in lhe event of a release of
hazardous or toxic materials on the Mortgaged Property and lo add uny expendi1urcs so made to the principal indeb1edness s.ecurcd by the O.,ed(s) of Trust.
Borrower agrees to indemnify and hold Bank harmless from any and all loss or liability arising oui of any violation of the rc.,presentalions, covenants and
obligations contained in this Section 6, or resulting from the recording of the Dced(s) of Trust_
Section 7 Events or Default
The following shall be Events of [>.,fault by Borrower or Guarantor: *within five (5) business days of when due
7 .0 I. The failure to make prompt payment of any installment of principal or interest on the Note(s1when due or payable; or
7 .02. Any representation or warranty made in the Loan Documents which shall prove to be false or misleading in any material respect; or-
7.03. Any repon, certificate, financial statement or other document furnished priorto the execution of or pursuant to the terms of this Agreemem shall prove
to be false or misleading in any material respect; or
7 .04. The Borrower ur Guarantor shall default on the performance of any other obligation when due or in the performance of any obligation incurred for
money borrowed: or
7 .05. The breach of any covenant, condition, ur agreement made by the Borrower or Guanm1or under lhe Loan Documents; or
7 .06. If a custodian shall be appointed forortake possession of any or all of the assets of the Borrower or Guarantor, or should the Borroweror Guarani or
either voluntarily or involumarily become subject 10 any insolvency proceeding, any proceeding to dissolve the Borrower or Guarantor, any proceeding
to have a receiser appointed, or should the Borrower or Guarantor make an assignment for the benefil of creditors, or should there be an auachment,
execution or other judicial seizur< of all or any ponion of the Borrower's or Guan10tor's assets. and such seizure is not discharged within 20 days; or
7 .07. Final judgement for 1he payment of money •hall be rendered against ihe Borrower or Guanuuor which is not. covered by insurance and shall remain
undischarged for a period of 30 days unless such judgement or execution thereon be effectively s1ayed; or
7 .08. If corpor..iions, the dissolution or termination of the existence of either the Burrower or Guarantor; or
7 .09. The Borroweror Guarantor shall become a deb1ur (as lhe term "debtor" is defined in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code). whe1her voluntarily or involuntarily;
or
7.10. Should the Bank in good faith deem itself. its liens and security interes1, if any, or any debt hereunder unsafe or insecure, or should lhe Bank believe
in good faith 1ha1 the prospect of payment or other performance by the Borrower ur Guaranlor is impaired. 7.11. _______________________________________ _
Section 8 Remedies Upon Default
Upon the occurrence of any of the above listed esents of default. the Bank may at any 1imc thereafler, at its option, take any or all of the following actions,
at lhe same or al different times:
8.0 I . Declare the balance of the Note(s) to be immedialely due and payable, both as to principal and interest, without presenlment, demand, protest, ornulke
of any kind, all of which ar< hereby expressly waived by Borrower and Guarantor. and such balance shall accrue interest at the Default Rate;
8.02. Require the Borrower or Guarantor to pledge additional collateral to the Bank from the Borrower's or Guarantor's assels and propcnies, the
.icccplabHity anJ suffi ck m:y ;,f !i!:.:h c ~11li.ltc: .. i :11 he d..!h:imiHcd in the Bank'.!t :-:•!h; Ui~1.:n:d.1 :1~
SCBEDVLS OP ADDITIONJU. PROVZSIOHS 'J:O
LOAN AGR.BZXEH!r DAftD AS OJ' DECEMBER 30, l!il!ilJ
Bn"HBIV
D.K.&S. ASSOCIA~ES,
A NORD CAROLINA GINE.RAL P~RSBIP, AS BORROWER,
AND
BRAHCB BANKIHQ AHi> 1'RUS!I! COHPAJIY
:rBIS LOA!I AOREEMBJr.11 (the "&sreement") ia made thill 30t:.h day of Decamb~&'u
l9~J, by 11nd between BRANCB BAl'i'JUMG 1UiD llUS~ COMPANY, ~ bankinq aaaociation
organized and existin9 under the laws of Horth C4rolina (the •bnh"), and
D.a,,s. ASSOCDL:rES, a Horth Carolina general po~nerahLp (the wgorfgyer•>,
having it• principal office• at p.o. B~6S06, Charlotte, North Carolina
28221, ana :rHOMAS 3, BALL and apouae, SA p, BALL, DOUGLAS P. DIUSW, KJ!lNNff~
D. BBAVEK, JJt. and PORO BXPRBSS, IHC ••• more particularly defined herein,
the •Guarantor••>• tha Bcrrciwer ha ■ applied to sank for and the Bank ha ■
agreed to make, aubject ta tile ~erm• of this Agreement, th• following loanr
Loan Jl. A Tem Loan {"Loan 11~ or the ~'2!nff) in the principal arooun~
of EIGHT HUKl)RBD FinY ~BOVSAHD DOLIARS ($850,000) for the purpose O!
refinancing existing indebtedness secured by Borrower'• property locate~ at
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina {the "H9rtg,qed Property") tc ba
evidenced by the Borrower•• P:omisaory Note datad •• of December 30, 1993 (&~
amendesd, modified, extended, renewed or replaced from ti.me to time, the
•liQil."). The Loan ■hall b~ secured by (i) a Deed of Trust on tha Mortgaged
Property, (ii) a collateral Aaaign!Mlnt of Leaaea and Renta relating to the
Mortgaged Property (tha "Collateral Aeaign~ent ot Leage, and Rents"), (iii) a
Collateral Aesignment of the Agreement Concerning Remediation of contamination
at certain ruel Station Sitee Sold to D.H.&S. Aaaociatea dated as of November
1, 1991 between the Borrower and Union Oil company of California, doing
buainaaa aa UNOCAL, together with an aclcnowladgmant of auch Collateral
Assignment by Union Oil company of California thereof (the "Collateral Aaaignment gf Enyirorupentnl Indernnitxn>, (iv) a Security Agreement relating t@
furniture, ti.xtures, account• and contract• relating to tha MortQaqed Property
and the 0peration1 rel&ting the~ato (the •iecurity lMJreement"), (v) cua~nty ,,
Agraament• (th• "Guaranty Agree,nente~) f~om Thomas J. Hall and epouaa, ·i"raae7r-
P. Hall, DouglA8 P. Drew, Xenneth D. Shaver, Jr. (herein•fta~ aomatimaa
referred to aa the "Individual Qyaranto,a") and Pet:o Kxpraas, Inc.
(hereinafter aometimes referred to as the "corporate Cuarant2E", and
collectively together with the Individu~l Guarantors as •2~1ranto." o~ the
4 Guarantor9•), and (vi) subordination Agreqenta (the "§ubordina~ion Agreementf") from the Individual Guarantor• and othe~ partnera, •hareholderD
and affiliated entities of the Borrower and the Cocporat• Guarantor relating
to loan• ond indebtedness owing from time to tirae by them to the Borrc,wer o~
the Ccrpcrata Guarantor.
Princlpal and IntereGt Inat•l!ment&. The principal balance of the to•n
shall be payable in thirty-six (36) consecutive monthly installment• beginnln9
January 30, 1994 and continuing on the last day of each month the~eatter.
Installments ona (l) through thirty-five (35), inclusive, shall (subject to
adjustment as hereafter provided) each be in the amount of $8,625.00. The
thirty-sixth (36th) and final installment shall be in the amount of the
re~aining principal and accrued interest then outstanding. The payment amount
for the first 35 installments is based on a 15 year 41D0rt1zation cf the
original principal amount at 9.0\ per annum. Inasmuch•• tha Loan will bear
interest at a fl0atin9, rather than fixed, rate of interest based on the
Bank'• Prime Rate a ■ hereafter proyided, 1n the event the interest rate
applicable to the Loan ahall at any time exceed 9.o, per annum, then the
remaining installment payment amounts (other than the J6ch and final
in•tallment) will ba recalculated, £rom time to time as necessary, to an
atoount, rounded up to the next higheet $5 increment, which would represent
Initiala Bank LO'.).!
Borrower "fflj
CHAR_t\F:\OOCS\WDB\BAH[[UG\84593_1
:
Schedule to D.H.&S. Loan
Agnit. d4tacl Dec. lO, 1993
allowance ■ and any other form of caah or non-cash payments to or for thelr
benefit, but shall •~elude loana to atockholdere which •hall b• governed by
Section 5.07 hai:-eof, and ab&ll include all 9uch gompenaatlon by or fro~ th•
Borrower, the Corporate Guarantor and Cuolin~ Petroleum Distributor,, Inc.
s.01 W!l!,, Neither the Borrower, the corporate Guarantor nor Carolina
Petroleu11 Diatril>utora, Inc. ■hall, collectively in tha aggregate, maka loan•
or advances; directly or indirac:tly, to parlnera, aharaholders or their tNDily
cnecnbera in exce~e of $250,000 at any tiine outstanding.
ADDl~IORS m SEC~IOB 9 DBPIHiflOHS
9.01 petinition ■•
(d) •toan DgcumentaN •hall ~•an this Ag~eemant, the Note, the Deed o~
Trust, tha Collateral Assignment of Leaae• and Rants, the COllatar&l
Aae19nmant of Environmental Indemni~y, th• Security ~9ree1Mnc, tha
Subordination Agremnenta, all ccc-1 -Financing s~4tainanta, the Guaranty
Agreement•, co11Witment lettter, and all other doc:ument•, certificate ■, and
inetrumenta executed 1n connection herewith, and all renewal•, exten ■iona,
~odi!icatione, 1ubatitutiona, and replace~ents thereto and therefor.
9.11 Notieas. Any notice permitted or required by the provi1i0n1 of
thie Agreement ahall be daamad to hav• been given when delivared in writing to
the Preeident of ony Vice President of either party hereto at their respective
gfficea u follow ■ when sent by certitlad mail and return receipt ~equeated:
If to th ■ Borrower: D.H.&S. Associate ■
P.O. Box 26806
Chulotte, Hort.h Carolina 28221
Attn; tlougla• P. Draw
Phone; (704) 598-0lOO
Fax: [phone]
If to tha lank: Branch Banking & T~uat C0mpany
6869 Fairview Read
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210-3384
Att:n, Gordon R. White
Phone: [phone]
raxs (704)
It to the Guarantor ■, Thomaa J. Ball and Teresa P. Hall
6921 ShiMacock Hill Lane
Chulotte, North carolin• 28217
Phones [phone]
DouglQ• P. D:-ew
3723 Monique Lane
Chulotte, North Carolina 28210
Phone: (704) S98-0300
Pax: (704) S97-9139
~enneth c. Shaver, Jc.
:P.O, Box 26806
Charlotte, North Carolina 28221
Phone: [phone]
rax: [phone]
Inltialp sank ~ Borrower
CIIAll_1\F:\J)CC:S\W)B\SAWKJl;\~~93 .. 1 - 4 -
Sohedula to D.R.QS. Loan
J\9111:. dated Deo. 30, 1993
Patr0 Exprasa, Inc. ,.o. Box 26806
Charlotte, ~orth Carolina 28221
Attn: Douglas P. Drew
Phones [phone]
Pax: [phone]
[R am.a inder of Paga lntentionally Left Blank]
Initials Bank (;R__lJJ
Borrower 1:!ttf--
CIIAl_l\l:\DOCS\YIBWNICING\84593_1 -s -
i ...
I~). A rH)RNEY::,· HlS.111 Ill£' l'vcn11hat Gr..inlor sh,111 dcl.ault in ils ubh~.111ons untkr lh1~ IJl•t•d u( I ru~I, lhc note ur otllcr Um:umcnl, Jru.J Hcnclici,;uy
employs an atlorney lu assisl in lhe collection of lhe Debt ur IU enforce compliance of Granlor wilh any of the l"uvisions ul this Oeed ollrusl, the Nute
or other Documenls or in rhe event Beneliciary or Truslee shall become parlies lo any suil or legal proceeding !including any proceeding conducled
before any Uniled Stales Bankruptcy Courl) concerning 1he Properly, concerning rhe lien of lhis Deed of Trusl, concerning colleclion of lhe Debi or
concerning rnmpliance by Granlor wilh any of lhe provisions of lhis Deed of Trusl, 1he Nole or olher Documenl, Granlor shall pay Beneficiary's
reasonable allorneys' fees and all of the costs lhal may be incurred, and such fees and costs shall be secured by this Deed of Trust and its paymenl
enforced as if ii were a parl of 1he Debi. Grantor shall be liable fur such allorneys' fees and coSIS whelher or nol any suit or proceeding is commenced.
17. ANTI-MARSHALLING PROVISIONS. Truslee and Beneficiary may granl releases al any lime and from lime to lime of all or any porlion of the
Property (whether or not such releases are required by aw~emenl among the parliesl agr~eable lo Trustee and Beneficiary withoul nolice to or lhe
rnnscnl, appruval or agreemenl of other parlies and inll!rests, including junior lienors and purchasers subject to the lien of this Oeedollrusl, and such
releasesshall nol impair in any manner lhe validity of or priorily of lhis Deed ofTrust on lhal porlion of the Properly remaining subject 10 I his Deed of
Trust, nor release Gran1or from personal liabilily for lhe Debi . Nolwithslanding lhe existence of any olher securily interests in 1he Properly held by
Beneficiary or by any other party, Beneficiary shall have lhe right to determine 1he order in which any or all of the Property shall be subjecled lo the
remedies available lo Beneficiary, and Beneficiary shall furl her have rhe right 10 delermine lhe order in which any or all portions of lhe Debt are satisfied
from lhe proceeds realized upon 1he exercise of any remedy it has. Grantor, or any parly who consents to this, or any parly who has actual or
constructive nolice hereof, hereby waives any and all righls lo require lhe marshalling ol assels in connection wilh the exercise of any ol lhe remedies
pt!rmilled by applicable law or provided herein.
18. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. Grantor for itself, ils successors and assigns represents, warran1s and agrees that (a) nei1her Granlor nor any other
person has improperly used or ins1alled any Haza1dous Marerial (as hereinafter delined) on 1he Property or received any notice from any governmenral
agency, entily or other person with regard lo Hazardous Materials on, from or affecling the Property; (b) neither Grantor or any olher person has violaled
any applicable Environmental Laws (as hereinafter defined) rela1ing 10 or affecting the Properly; (c) the Property are,presenlly in compliance wilh all
Environmental Laws; there are no circumstances presenlly exisling upon or under the Property, or relating to the Property which may violale any
applicable Environmental Laws, and there is not now pending, or threatened, any aciion, suit, invesligarion or proceeding against Granto, relating 101he
Properly (or against any other party relaring lo the Property) seeking to enforce any right or remedy under any of the Environmental Laws; (d) lhe Property
shall be used lo genera1e, manufaclure, transport, treal, slore, handle, dispose, or process Hazardous Materials only in accordance wilh all applicable
Environmen1al Laws; (e) Grantor shall not cause nor permil lhe improper installation of Hazardous Malerials In the Property nor a release of Hazardous
Materials on 1he Property; (f) Granior shall at all limes comply with and ensure compliance by all other parlies wilh all applkable Environmenlal Laws
relating lo or affecling the Property and shall keep lhe Property free and clear of any liens imposed pursuanl 10 any applicable Environmental Laws; lg) 1he
Grantor has obtained and will at all times continue to oblain and/or maintain all lkenses. permils, and/or other governmenral or regulalory actions
necessary to comply with Environmenlal Laws {lhe "Permirs") and the Granlor is in full compliance wilh lhe lerms and provisions of the Permits and will
continue lo comply with the lerms and provisions of the Permits; (h) Granlor shall immedialely give the Beneficiary oral and wrillen notice in the event
that Granto, receives any nolice from any governmental agency, enlity, or any other party with regard to Hazardous Malerials on, from or affecting 1he
Properly and shall conducl and complete all invesligations, sampling, and 1es1ing, and all remedial, removal, and other aciions necessary to clean up and
remove all Hazardous Materials on, from or affecling 1he Properly in accordance with all applicable Environmen1al Laws. The Granlor hereby agrees to
indemnify 1he Beneficiary and hold 1he Beneficiary harmless from and against any and all losses, liabili1ies, damages, injuries (including, without limi1ation,
auorneys' fees) and claims of any and every kind whatsoever paid, incurred or suffered by, or asserted against Beneficiary fpr, with respect to, or as a direct
or indirect resull of (a) lhe presence on, or under, or the escape, spillage, emission or release from the Properly of any.Hazardous Maleria_l regardless of
wherher or not caused by or within lhe conlrol of Grantor, (b) the violation of any Environmen1al Laws relaling to or affecting the Property, whelher or not
caused by or wilhin the control of Grantor, jc) the failure by Granlor lo comply fully wilh the lerms and provisions of 1his paragraph, or (d) any warranty 01
repre,enlalion made by Granlor in 1his paraKraph being false or unlrue in any material rr.spr.cl. For purposes of this Deed of Tru'1, "Hazardous Malerial"
means and includes pelroleum products, any flammable explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos or any malerial conlaining asheslos, and/or any
hazardous, loxic or dangerous wane, subs1ance or malerial defined as such in (or for the purpose of) the Environmental Laws. For the purposes of rhis
Deed of Trust, "Environmental Laws" means the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensalion and Liability Acl, the Hazardous Malerials
Transpnrtaliun Acl, the Resource Conservation and Recu,yery Al1, any "Super Fund" or "Super Lien" law, or any other lr.,wral, slale, or local law,
regulalion or decree regulaling, relaring 10 or imposing liablily or slandards of conduct concerning any petroleum producls, any flammable explosives,
radioactive ma1erials, asbestos or any marerial containing asbestos, and/or hazardous, 1oxic or dangerous wasle, substance or malerial, u may now or al
any lime hereafter be in effec1. The obligalions and liabili1ies of Grantor under this paragraph shall survive 1he foreclosure of 1he Deed of Trust, the
delivery of a de~d in lieu of forr.closure, 1he cancellalion of the Nole; or ii olherwise expressly permilled in writing by 1he Bank, the sale or alienalion of
any parl of the Property.
19. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. Grantor shall be in default under this Deed of Trusl upon lhe occurrence of any of the following:
(al Default in the payment or performance of any of 1he obligations, or of any covenant or warranty, in lhis Deed of Trusl, in the Nnle or olher
Document, ur in any olher nole of Grantor lo Beneliciary or any conlract belween Grantor and Beneficiary; or in any contract between any 1hird parry
. and Beneficiary made for 1he benefit of Granlor; or
(h) Any w.1rrJnly,. rt>pr(ISl!nl.1linn nr SlilU~mPnl m~1dr or furnished lo lkrl<'fidary hy or 1111 lwh.1,U of Grantor in nmrwt lion with thi!li transoll tion
proving lo have hcl"n false in any material respecl whc..•11 made or furnished; or
fcl Loss, theft, substanlial damage, destruction loor of the Property, or I he assertion or making of any levy, seizure, mechanic'sormaterialman's lien
or attachment thereof or thereon; or
· Id) Death, dissolution, termination of existence, insolvency, business failure, appoinlment of a Receiver for any part of the property of, assignmenl
•tor lhe benefil of credilors by, or the inabilily to pay debls in the ordinary course of business of the Grantor or any co-maker, endorser, guaranlor or
surely for Granlor; or
(el Failure of a corporale Grantor or co-maker, endorser, guarantor or surety for Grantor to maintain its corporate exislence in good standing; or
(f) Upon the enlry of any monetary judgmenl or the assessment or filing of any lax lien against Grantor; or upon the issuance of any writ of
garnishmenl or allachment againsl any property of debts due or rights of Grantor; or
(gl The sale (including sale by land conlracl upon delivery of possession), lransfer or encumbrance of all or any part of the Properly or any interesl
therein, or any change in the ownership or control of any corporate or partnership Granlor, without Beneficiary's prior wrillen consenl; or
(hi II Beneficiary should otherwise deem Itself, ils securily interests, the Property or the Debt unsafe or insecure; or should Beneficiary otherwise
believe thal lhe prospect of payment or other performance is Impaired.
20. REMEDIES OF BENEFICIARY UPON DEFAULT. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, Beneficiary may, at its option, withou1 prior notice lo
Granlor, declare the Debt lo be immediately due and payable in full; and, on application of Beneficiary, Trustee shall foreclose this Deed of·Trust in any
manner permilled by North Carolina law, including selling the Property or any parl thereof at public sale to lhe last and highest bidder for cash, free of
any equity of redemplion, homestead, dower, curtesy or other state or federal exemplion, all of which are expressly waived by Granlor, a lier compliance
with applicable North Carolina laws relating to foreclosure sales under power of sale; and Trustee shall execute and deliver to lhe purchaser a Trustee's
deed conveying the Properly so sold without any covenanl or warranty, expressed or implied. The recitals in the Trusree's deed shall be prima fade
evidence of the truth of the statemenls made I herein. The proceeds of any such sale shall be applied in the manner and in the order prescribed by
applicable North Carolina law, it being agreed that the expenses of any such sale shall include a commission of live per cent of the gross sales price to
Trustee for holding such sale and for all services performed by him hereunder excluding expenses incurred In making sale. In the event a foreclosure
suit or special proceeding is commenced, and no sale is held, then the Granlorshall pay to lhe Trustee: l)all expenses incurred by Trustee and 21a partial
commission computed on live per cent of the balance of the unpaid Debt. Beneficiary may bid and become the purchaser at any sale under this Deed of
Trust. Al any such sale Trustee may at his election require the successful bidder immedia1elyto deposit with Trustee cash in an amount equal to all or any
parl of the successful bid, and notice of any such requirement need not·be included In the advertisement of the notice of such sale. If foreclosure
proceedings are inslituled under I his Deed of Trust, T ruslee is hereby aulhorized lo take possession of the Property and collect any renlal, accrued or to
accrue;orTruslee may lease lhe Properly or any part !hereof, receive lhe rents and profil• lherefrom, and hold the proceed, remaining after payment of
the rxpense, ol managing and operating the Property subject to the order of lhe rnurl for the benefil ol Bl!nefkiary, prnding final disposilion of the
fnrrclosure proceedings, and during any period allowl!d by applicable law lor lhe redemplion from any foreclosure sale ordered in such proceedings;
and Truslee may act irrespective ol lhe value ol lhe rroperly or its adequacy or inadequacy to secure or discharge the indebredness then owing.
21. RELEASE AND CANCELLATION . Upon fulfillment of all of obligations, the performance of which is secured by this Deed of Trust, and upon
paymenl of lhe Debt, this Deed of Trust and the Nole or other Document shall be marked "S;itisfiedft and returned to Grant or, and this conveyance shall
be null and void and may be cancelled of record al the request and cost of Granlor, and tille to the Properly shall revest as provided by law.
22. MISCELLANEOUS. The caplinns and heading, of 1hr paragraphs of this Deed of Trust are for convenience only and shall nnl he used to inlerprrl
or define any provision,. All remedies provided herein are dislinct and cumulalive lo any other right or remedy under this Deed of Trust or afforded by
law or equily, and may be exercised concurrently, independenlly or successively. All covenants contained herein shall bind, and lhe benefils and
advanlages shall inure lo, lhe respeclive heirs, execulors, administra1ors, successors or assigns ollhe parties to this Deed olTrusl, and the designalions
"Granlor", "Trustee" and "Beneficiary" include the parties, their heirs, e*"eculors, adminislralors, successors and assigns. Whenever used, lhe singular
number shall include the plural, and the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. This Deed of Trus1 shall be
governed by and construed under Norlh Carolina law. Any forebearance by Beneficiary in exercising any right or remedy hereunder, or otherwise
iilHord ,;-:i ;.~-r.p~;liral>ll• 1.?\V, ._ft.ill not bt•,) waiver n( nr prcc l,!d~ the e:,,Ncise of any ~uc h :iHhf or r~medy. The procurement or insu :-:!nce or the payment
c1f l,n:·., ,r .,Ji : .. 1 li ,·n-. ''! t·h,·· .. ;1·, 1,v ,=. •. , ;.•.l r,uv ,,: .. :n not it.·., .,in·r -1; ;,,~ru•iid~ry'·. d1,!.' I:, ,, ,·ll'!•!',· 1;,--. m,H11 ; i1r ~ 111~·1..-, i h•i:1. I unt· i, n( :'.w ,,~_..,,_,r,, •• in
fx.D . -
COLLATERAL ASSIGMENT
THIS COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT, dated as of December 30, 1993,
is given by D.H. & S. ASSOCIATES, a North Carolina general
partnership (the "Borrower"), to BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
(the "Bank").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Bank has agreed to make a term loan of $850,000
(the "Term Loan") to the Borrower to refinance existing
indebtedness secured by the Borrower's real property located at
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina (the IISubject
Facility") pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement between the
Borrower and the Bank (the "Loan Agreement"; terms used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the
Loan Agreement), as evidenced by a promissory note of the
Borrower in the original principal amount of $850,000 (the
"Note") and as secured by, among other things, a Deed of Trust on
the Subject Facility (the "Deed of Trust"); ,
WHEREAS, the Borrower has entered into an Agreement
Concerning Remediation of Contamination at Certain Fuel Station
sites Sold to O.H.&S. Associates dated as of November 1, 1991
(the "Remediation Agreement") with Union Oil Company of
California, doing business as UNOCAL ("UNOCAL") relating to
certain properties, including the Subject Facility;
WHEREAS, the Borrower has required that the Borrower give
this Collateral Assignment as a condition to the making of the
Term;Loan;
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. To secure payment of the Term Loan and other obligations
under the Loan Documents, the Borrower hereby assigns and
transfers to the Bank all right, title and interest it has or may
have under the Remediation Agreement and any rights arising
thereunder or relating thereto, to the extent they relate to the
Subject Facility (the "Remediation Rights Relating to the Subject
Facility").
2. The Borrower represents that (i) it has given to the
Bank copies of the Remediation Agreement and all amendments
thereto, (ii) the Remediation Agreement has not been otherwise
amended or terminated and remains in force and effect, and (iii)
it not made any prior assignment or otherwise transferred or
encumbered the Remediation Rights Relating to the Subject
Facility, or any part thereof. The Borrower agrees that it will
not, without the prior written consent of the Bank, further
CHAR_1\F:\DOCS\lo0B\BANKING\85546_1
Attached is an information packet that contains the memoranda and the public
notice for this proposed variance. The hearing will be held as follows:
CHARLOTTE
November 7, 1996
7:00 PM
Mecklenburg County Courthouse-Criminal Courts Building
2nd Floor -Courtroom 2201
700 East Fourth Street
Additional information about this variance will be provided at the public hearing.
After the public hearing and comments have been addressed in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(f), the Environmental Management Commission will be provided all the
necessary information to make a decision on this variance. If you have any questions,
please call Mr. Arthur Mouberry at [phone].
cc: Dr. David Moreau
Arthur Mouberry
David Hance
Jennie Odette
DWQ-Public Information Officer
2
... J. p
Rule .Ol 13 (c )(l): Resolution by the County or goveminQ Board:
The Unocal Corporation has always been a privately owned company. No
resolution is necessary.
Rule .Ol 13 (c)(2): A descri ption of past existin e or pro posed activities that would result in a
dischanre of contaminants into Qroundwater:
The former Unocal site (Petro Express) is located inside the city limits of
Charlotte, North Carolina at 4336 Park Road (Parcel Number 143-203-24). The
report titled "Variance Re q uest Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former
Unocal Facility # 9342-209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME
Pro iect No. 1354-92-397 (November 1995)" contains the relevant information
about this site. This facility is at the corner of Park Road and Woodlawn Road as
shown in Appendix V of the report. The Unocal site consists of approximately
1.05 acres of land. On February 18, 1988 a release of an unknown quantity of
gasoline was discovered at the center of the property near the southern property
line during tank removal and site renovation. A preliminary site assessment was
sent to the Mooresville Regional Office on February 18, 1988. This was followed
by the submittal of the an addenda to that original site assessment and a
corrective action plan on March 16, 1993 for soils and groundwater. The final site
assessment and the correction action plan was received by the Mooresville
Regional Office on March 18, 1996 where it is currently kept on file. The Unocal
Corporation began cleanup of this site on August 12, 1993. All potential sources
of groundwater contamination were identified at this property by the company.
This property at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina formerly owned
by the Unocal Corporation and all adjacent properties are in an area with a
mixture of commercial, industrial, and residential development.
The comprehensive site assessment revealed a groundwater plume from a
small area of free product contamination. This area of free product was located
near the south property line approximately sixty feet southwest of the area where
the Unocal Corporation retail outlet had it's gasoline pump islands. The area of
free product was in the shape of an ellipse and was approximately 12 to 15 feet in
diameter. The plume of dissolved gasoline that came from this area of free
product contamination was roughly the shape of a circle that extended to
adjacent properties to the south, southeast, and east. This plume was estimated to
have covered an area of approximately 61,250 square feet (1.406 acres) prior to
the implementation of corrective actions by the Unocal Company. Site assessment
information on file in the Mooresville Regional Office shows that the vertical
2
extent of this plume to be approximately 55 feet below the ground surface. It is
not believed that this plume contaminated the bedrock aquifer beneath this site.
From the information contained in the site assessment, the company estimated
that the total mass of petroleum hydrocarbons was approximately 2410 pounds
(lbs). It is estimated that 35 lbs of this material was dissolved hydrocarbons in
groundwater. The portion of this release that was adsorbed to the soils and in the
vapor phase was estimated at 1,600 lbs. The remaining portion of this plume is
believed to be phase-separated hydrocarbons and was estimated to account for
775 lbs (or 130 gallons) from this release. This release occurred in unconsolidated
materials above the bedrock.
The Unocal Corporation implemented cleanup of this site on August 12,
1993. From that date through March 17, 1995 approximately 3,050 lbs of
petroleum hydrocarbons were extracted from contaminated soils and
groundwater on and off-site. The company measured the mass of petroleum
hydrocarbons extracted from soils at 3,000 lbs. A total of 4.12 million gallons of
groundwater has been treated via pump-and-treat technology which accounts for
approximately 50 lbs of the total amount of material removed. The Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) issued a permit to discharge treated
water from the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system into the nearby
sanitary sewer. The cleanup system used by the Unocal Corporation consists of a
combination of pump-and-treat technology to . cleanup groundwater, air sparging
of soils and subsurface materials, soil vapor extraction to remove contaminants
from the site.
The Division of Environmental Management required the Unocal
Corporation to perform groundwater monitoring to determine the vertical and
lateral extent of contamination at the site. On December 15, 1991 and December
16, 1991 the company conducted comprehensive groundwater sampling at all six
on-site monitoring wells. The deepest of the monitoring well constructed at this
site was Monitoring Well # 8 and it is 55 feet deep below the land surface.
Groundwater samples were analyzed using US Environmental Protection Methods
602, 625, and 504.1. Benzene was found in five of the six monitoring wells. The
highest concentration found in a monitoring well in exceedence of the 15A NCAC
2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standard for Benzene during this sampling event
~as 8.10 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 8,100 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) in Monitoring
Well# 5. This sampling event also revealed the presence of Toluene at 3.2
milligrams per liter or 3,200 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) in Monitoring Well# 5.
Ethylbenzene also appeared at a concentration level of 15.0 milligrams/liter
(mg/L) or 15,000 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) in Monitoring Well# 5. No substances
above detection limits were found in Monitoring Well# 8 during the December
15, 1991 analysis. In September 1993 Monitoring Well# 8 was converted into an
air sparging well to assist in the cleanup effort at the site.
In January 1993 the company constructed two additional monitoring wells
located off-site of the .property at 4336 Park Road. These two wells are known as
Monitoring Well# 10 at Belk Investments to the South of the Unocal Site and
3
' ' ... < f
Monitoring Well # 11 located to the East at a retail gasoline station known as the
"The Pop Shop". Monitoring Well # 10 is located cross-gradient of the Unocal
Corporation site and Monitoring Well # 11 is the downgradient well. The highest
concentration of Benzene found at Monitoring Well # 10 was 0.002 milligrams per
liter during the initial groundwater sampling on January 27, 1993. Monitoring
Well# 11 has never shown concentrations of substances above the Groundwater
Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
The Division also required the Unocal Corporation to evaluate the
effectiveness of groundwater cleanup efforts by examining concentrations of
substances in monitoring wells. In addition, an examination of concentrations in
recovery wells used as sumps to collect free product and dissolved hydrocarbons
from the site is also necessary to understand the effect puD]p-and-treat cleanup
has had on concentrations of constituents at the site. From January 1988 through
December 1995 analysis of groundwater samples has been conducted by the
Unocal Corporation. The highest Benzene concentration ever found in a
monitoring well showed 8.400 milligrams/Liter {mg/L) or 8,400 micrograms/Liter
(ug/L) at Monitoring Well# 5 on March 5, 1990._ The highest concentration of
Chloroform in this well was 4.20 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 4,200
micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on December 16, 1991. The highest concentration of 1,2-
Dichloroethane in Monitoring Well# 5 was 0.00615 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or
6.15 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on December 1, 1995. The greatest concentration of
Ethylene Dibromide that appeared in a sample from this well was 0.000928
milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 0.928 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on March 16, 1994.
This well is located at the northwest side of the pump islands.
Samples were obtained from four recovery wells January 1993 through
December 1995. These wells are located around the area which formerly consisted
of the Unocal Corporation's pump islands. The highest concentration of Benzene
ever found in a recovery well showed 4.0 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 4,000
micrograms/Liter at Recovery Well# 4 on January 27, 1993. The highest
concentration of Chloroform in this well was 0.00458 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or
4.58 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on February 23, 1995. The highest concentration of
1,2-Dichloroethane in Recovery Well# 4 was 1.40 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or
1,400 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on January 27, 1993. The greatest concentration
of Ethylene Dibromide that appeared in a sample from this well was 0.0321
milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 32.1 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on September 13, 1994.
The Unocal Corporation has also conducted monitoring at the influent for
these four recovery wells. Table# 1 of the March 6, 1996 letter shows that the
highest concentration of Benzene found in a composite sample at the influent for
these wells to be 0.420 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 420 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on
June 3, 1993. The highest concentration for all substances monitored in the
recovery wells at the site was 0.570 milligrams/liter (mg/L) or 570
micrograms/Liter (ug/L) of Methyl-Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) on June 3, 1993.
Groundwater monitoring results of influent samples since August 12, 1993 have
shown considerable reduction of contaminants at this site. Analysis of these
4
j
influent samples at the recovery wells on February 21, 1995 showed substances at
either below detection limits or significantly below Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
Since cleanup was initiated by Unocal levels of contaminants in
groundwater have been significantly reduced in monitoring wells and recovery
wells as shown in Table #1 of December 29 , 1995 "Letter Of Transmittal. On
June 2, 1995 the Unocal Corporation conducted routine sampling of monitoring
wells at this site. Except for the presence of Chloroform in Monitoring Well # 7
at a concentration level above the respective Groundwater Quality Standard,
concentrations of substances in on-site and off-site monitoring wells was below
detectable limits.
Based on the results of the June 1995 monitoring, t,Jie Unocal Corporation
informed the Mooresville Regional Office on September 29, 1995 that it intended
to request a variance at this site. As shown in Appendix I of the report a letter
from Mr. A. Wayne Holt of the Unocal Corporation stated in this letter that the
company has utilized best available technology and has "aggressively pursued
clean-up". They have specifically requested a variance that would consist of a
" ...... site variance and monitor only plan leading to regulatory closure.". This
variance encompasses the entire property at 4336 Park Road.
Based on the results of June 2, 1996 monitoring event the Division of
Environmental Management recommended the pump-and-treat system be turned
off to determine if residual contaminants in the soils and subsurface would
recontaminate the groundwater, if no treatment system were operating.
On December 19, 1995 groundwater sampling was conducted at monitoring wells
and recovery wells after the groundwater and soil cleanup system had been
temporarily turned off. Seven monitoring wells, including offsite wells at Belk
Investments (MW-10) and the Pop Shop (MW-11,) were sampled during this
time. Except for Monitoring Well# 5, analysis of samples from these wells
showed the Benzene concentration below detection limits. The concentration of
Benzene in this well exceeded the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC
2L .0202.
Potential sources of groundwater contamination in the area are shown on
maps located in Appendix V of the report titled "Variance Req uest Incident No.
3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facility # 9342-209 4336 Park Road
Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-92-397 (N ovember 1995 )" and
include the following:
1) A retail gasoline station constructed in 1987 and presently owned by
DH&S Company (Petro Express) located on the property once
owned by the Unocal Corporation at 4336 Park Road;
5
.,
r
2) A retail gasoline station presently owned by Park Road Shopping
Center and locally known as the "Pop Shop". This gasoline station
is located at 4323 Park Road to the east of the site;
3) A retail gasoline station presently owned by Exxon Company, USA
located at 125 Woodlawn Road to the southeast of the site;
4) Property owned by Belk Investments at 4400 Park Road to the
south of the site. This property once had a leaking fuel oil tank
located near Monitoring Well# 10 and is mentioned in a Law
Engineering Report dated 1/3/92. The responsible party for the
release from this fuel oil tank is not the Unocal Corporation and it
is being addressed under a separate Notice of Violation;
5) On-site wells at 4336 Park Road consisting of five monitoring wells,
four recovery wells, and the air sparging well owned by the Unocal
Corporation. These wells are in the site maps contained in
Appendix V of the variance request.
6)
7)
One monitoring well at Belk Investments.
Six monitoring wells located at the Pop Shop gasoline station to the
east of the site. The company describes two of these monitoring
wells as having been "closed".
8) Two tank pit vapor point wells located at the Exxon Company
gasoline station to the southeast.
9) Woodlawn Drive (a public roadway);
10) Park Road (a public roadway);
11) Water supply lines that run along Woodlawn Drive and Park Road.
12) Numerous storm drain lines and sewer lines that run along ·
Woodlawn Drive and Park Road and others located in the general
area.
6
Attached to a letter dated March 6, 1996 titled "Responses to 2/19/96
NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" is an aerial photograph of the site
and adjacent properties in Figure 3. Also attached is Figure 1 a Topographic
Map of the City of Charlotte showing contour intervals of the site and adjacent
properties.
Rule .0113(c)(3): Description of the proposed area for which the variance is requested:
Maps of the area are shown in Appendix V of the report titled Variance
Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facilitv # 9342-
209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-92-397
{November 1995)". A map showing identifying county parcel numbers is
contained in the attachments to the March 6, 1996 letter titled "Responses to
2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements". The company has
estimated that the area of groundwater contamination is roughly shaped in the
form of a circle. It is believed that the plume of groundwater contamination once
extended across Woodlawn Road, before cleanup began, and covered
approximately two-thirds of the land to the south owned by Belk Investment
(Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 171-043-21). Within this area of
groundwater contamination is Monitoring Well # 10 at Belk Investments. In
addition, a separate plume of contamination from a fuel oil release is present at
the Belk Investment property near Monitoring Well# 10 and is being addressed
under a separate Notice of Violation. The Unocal Corporation is not the
responsible party for this fuel oil release on the Belk Investment land.
The plume at 4336 Park Road that Unocal is responsible for extends to the
southeast from the property and crosses Park Road going beneath a small portion
of adjacent property owned by the Exxon Company (Mecklenburg County Parcel
Number 175-141-01). The furthest extent of the contaminated area from 4336
Park Road to the east goes onto an adjacent property known as "The Pop Shop"
owned by the Park Road Shopping Center (Mecklenburg County Parcel Number
175-181-06) but is not believed to have traveled as far as Monitoring Well #11.
The furthest extent of this plume to the north, northeast, and west included two-
thirds of the property at 4336 Park Road formerly owned by the Unocal
Corporation (Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 149-203-24). No other adjacent
properties are known to have been impacted by the release for which Unocal has
cleanup responsibilities.
This variance is for all the land entirely within the property boundaries of
4336 Park Road that was formerly owned by the Unocal Corporation. The
groundwater that was impacted by the release is located in the original pump
area and service station when Unocal owned the site. These structures have since
been removed from the property by the present owner. Because groundwater
7
.. ,
monitoring results do not show that contaminants from Unocal's release at 4336
Park Road have migrated at concentration levels above standards, this variance
request does not include any land adjacent to the property as 4336 Park Road.
Table 1 in Appendix II of the variance request indicates that concentrations
substances that have migrated outside the property boundaries of 4336 Park
Road over the past three years have not exceeded the level of the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Groundwater monitoring results in
Monitoring Well# 11 (The Pop Shop) have shown the presence of Methyl Tert-
Butyl Ether (MTBE) above detection limits. However, from January 27, 1993
through December 1, 1995 this substance has never appeared above the
Groundwater Quality Standard for MTBE. No other substance has been observed
in Monitoring Well# 11. Sampling at Monitoring Well# \0 (Belk Investments)
during the same period has demonstrated that no substance at a concentration
level exceeding laboratory detection limits. If at any time monitoring reveals
that concentrations of substances exceed the Groundwater Quality Standards in
15A NCAC 2L .0202 on adjacent properties and it could be determined that the
Unocal Corporation is responsible for the contamination, the Division could still
require the Unocal Corporation bring these concentration levels in compliance
with the standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. A variance granted by the
Environmental Management Commission does not exempt the Unocal
Corporation from being held jointly or severally responsible for cleanup.
The concentration of contaminants in groundwater is primarily influenced
by the direction and rate of groundwater flow. The estimated groundwater flow
rate is contained in the site assessment and corrective action plan submitted by
the Unocal Corporation to the Mooresville Regional Office. Based on this
information the· Unocal Oil Company asserts that groundwater in the area flows
from the site travels toward Little Sugar Creek which is 1,400 feet to the east.
This small creek discharges into larger water body known as Sugar Creek. Based
on an average hydraulic gradient of 0.0075 to 0.01 foot per foot, a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.5 to 1.25 feet per day, and an effective soil porosity of 0.3 for
sandy silt, the estimated groundwater flow velocity in the subsurface at this site is
approximately 5 to 15 feet/year. The company used a range of groundwater flow
velocities in calculations as a means to predict the rate of movement of
contaminants from the site. The Unocal Corporation asserts that substances in
the plume of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons will enter Little Sugar Creek at
concentration levels exceeding 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards .for Benzene,
Ethylene Dibromide, and 1,2-Dichloroethane between 93 and 280 years. This
estimated range assumes no natural degradation or attenuation of the plume
occurs. The last observed concentration levels of Benzene, Ethylene Dibromide,
and 1,2 Dichloroethane from routine sampling in December 1995 were used to
determine these projected times of travel to Little Sugar Creek. (See page 3-4 of
the March 6, 1996 letter titled "Resp onses to 2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for
Variance Re q uirements").
8
' l
Rule .0113(c)(4): Supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger the
public health and safety ... :
This part of the variance concerns Groundwater Quality Standards shown
in 15A NCAC 2L. 0202 and has been requested for Benzene, Ethylbenzene,
Toluene, Xylene(-o,-m, and p), Naphthalene, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE),
Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,l,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2
Trichloroethane, 1,2, Dichloropropane, Bromodicltloromethane, Bromoform, cis-
1,3-Dichloropropene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane,
Methylene Chloride, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, Chloroethane, and 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene.
In order to assess health impacts, monitoring wells were sampled at or near this
site to assess the extent of contamination and concentration levels of substances.
Concentrations of substances in recovery wells were also examined to determine
the effectiveness of the pump and treat system at removing these chemicals.
Groundwater monitoring data from the Unocal Corporation indicates that
substances released by the Unocal Corporation at this site do not pose a hazard to
the public. Sampling and analysis of on-site wells at 4336 Park Road has been
conducted since January 13, 1988 at monitoring wells and is being continued at
the present time. A total of eleven different sampling events occurred from 1988
through 1995 at five monitoring wells located at the site. A total of seven
different sampling events occurred at Monitoring Well# 8 from January 13, 1988
through September 3, 1993 before this well was converted into an air sparging
well pursuant to the specifications of the corrective action plan received by the
Mooresville Regional Office on March 18, 1993. Analysis of off-site monitoring
wells at Belk Investments (Monitoring Well# 10) and the Pop Shop (Monitoring
Well # 11) began on January 27, 1993. Six different sampling events have
occurred at these off-site wells on properties adjacent to the site at 4336 Park
Road. The last sampling and analysis at all monitoring wells occurred on
December 1, 1995. From January 27, 1993 through December 19, 1995 analysis
of recovery wells was also conducted by the Unocal Corporation. Six sampling
and analysis events have occurred at each of the four recovery wells since
December 1991. In addition, when "effluent" sample are taken at the well head
of these recovery wells, the Unocal Corporation also obtains a composite sample
from the "influent" by taken samples from pump-and-treat system from the
recovery wells. Composite samples are taken from untreated water within the
groundwater recovery system or from the submersible pump. On six different
occasions samples have been taken at the influent for these four recovery wells
since June 3, 1993. USEP A Method 601 and Method 602, and 504.1 were the
analytical methods used for samples collected at the Unocal Corporation site.
USEP A Method 601 is used to assess the concentration levels of chlorinated
hydrocarbons such as 1,2-Dichloroethane and Chloroform. USEPA Method 602
9
. .
is used to assess the concentration levels of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene,
Xylenes, and MTBE. USEP A Method 504.1 is used to determine the concentration
level of Ethylene Dibromide. A comprehensive listing of all monitoring results
from wells is shown in the December 29, 1995 Letter Of Transmittal. The
December 29, 1995 Letter Of Transmittal includes all groundwater sampling
results from monitoring wells through December 1, 1995 and all from recovery
wells through December 19, 1995.
The highest concentration of any substance found at this site was 15
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 15,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of Ethylbenzene
in Monitoring Well# 5 on December 16, 1991. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for this substance is 0.029 milligrams per liter (29 micrograms per liter)
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202(g)(40). The December 16; 1991 sampling and
analysis of this well took place prior to the implementation of cleanup on August
12, 1993. Ethylbenzene was not detected in any other monitoring wells during
this sampling event. Analysis · for Ethylbenzene was also conducted for recovery
wells on December 16, 1991. Only Recovery Well# 4 showed Ethylbenzene in
exceedence of the Groundwater Quality Standard on December 16, 1991. The
concentration of this substance in this recovery well was 0.2 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) or 200 micrograms per liter (ug/L). Analysis of subsequent groundwater
samples from 1992 through 1995 has revealed that Ethylbenzene contamination in
all monitoring wells, including Monitoring Well# 5, and the recovery wells had
declined over time to the extent that Ethylbenzene concentrations no longer
appear above the standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202(g)(40) or can no longer be
detected. ,
On February 23, 1995 routine groundwater sampling and analysis was
conducted for the seven monitoring wells at this site. The highest concentration of
any substance in any well during this sampling event was at Monitoring Well# 9.
USEP A 601 analysis of a sample from this well showed 1,2-Dichloroethane at
0.02460 mg/L or 24.60 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-
Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38 ug/L. Analysis of a sample from
Monitoring Well # 7 showed Chloroform at 0.0085 mg/L or 8.5 ug/L. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for Chloroform is 0.00019 mg/L or 0.19 ug/L.
Monitoring Well # 7 and # 9 did not show any other substances above detection
limits when analyzed using the USEP A 601 Method. Concentrations of
Chloroform and 1,2 Dichloroethane in the remaining monitoring wells were below
detection limits. Analysis of samples from all seven monitoring wells by the
USEP A 602 Method showed the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below detection limits. Analysis of samples
using USEP A Method 504.1 did not reveal concentrations of Ethyl Dibromide in
any of the seven monitoring wells above the detection limits.
During the February 23, 1995 monitoring event the Unocal Corporation
also conducted sampling of the four recovery wells. Samples taken from three of
the four recovery wells had concentrations of substances in exceedence of
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Recovery Wells #1, # 3
' '
' i
and # 4 all showed concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane in exceedence of the
standards. Recovery Well# 1 and Recovery Well# 3 showed concentrations of 1,2
Dichloroethane above the groundwater standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane.
Recovery Well# 1 showed 0.00298 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 2.98
micrograms/Liter of 1,2-Dichloroethane. The highest level of 1,l-Dichloroethane
found during this sampling event was at Recovery Well # 3. USEP A 601 analysis
of a sample from this well showed 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.01550 mg/L or 15.50
ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038
mg/L or 0.38 ug/L. · Recovery Well # 1 and Recovery Well # 4 showed
concentrations of Chloroform above the standards. Recovery Well # 1 showed
0.00218 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 2.18 micrograms/Liter of Chloroform. The
highest concentration of Chloroform at the recovery wells.during this sampling
period was 0.00458 mg/Lor 4.58 ug/L at Recovery Well# 4. The Groundwater
Quality Standard for Chloroform is 0.00019 mg/L or 0.19 ug/L.
Analysis of these four samples by USEP A 602 Method showed the
concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below
their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. None of
the . recovery wells showed concentrations of these substances above practical
quantitation limits. Analysis of recovery well samples using USEP A Method 504.1
showed concentrations of Ethylene Dibromide above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202
standards in two of the four recovery wells. Recovery well # 1 showed the highest
concentration of Ethylene Dibromide at 2.48 x 104 mg/L or 0.248 ug/L.
Recovery Well # 4 also showed a concentration level of Ethylene Dibromide above
the Groundwater· Quality Standard at 5.26 x 10-5 mg/L or 0.0526 ug/L. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for Ethylene Dibromide is 4.0 x 10-1 mg/L or 4.0
x 10-4 ug/L. The Unocal Corporation also conducted composite sampling of the
influent for these recovery wells in February 1995. Analysis of this composite
sample did not show the concentration of any substance above the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
The second groundwater sampling in 1995 was conducted at the seven
monitoring wells on June 2, 1995. Only two monitoring wells showed
concentration levels above the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 using USEPA Method 601. Monitoring Well# 9 revealed 1,2-
Dichloroethane at 0.00955 mg/L or 9.55 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38 ug/L. Groundwater
analysis from Monitoring Well# 7 revealed Chloroform at 0.0116 mg/Lor 11.6
ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for Chloroform is 0.00019 mg/L or
0.19 ug/L. Analysis of the samples from these wells by the USEP A Method 602
showed the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and
MTBE below their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. None of the monitoring wells showed concentrations of these substances
above practical quantitation limits. Analysis of samples using USEP A Method
504.1 did not reveal concentrations of Ethyl Dibromide in any of these monitoring
wells above the detection limits. The company did not conduct any sampling of
11
' I
the recovery wells in June 1995.
On December 1, 1995 the company conducted a third round of sampling at
the request of the Mooresville Regional Office. The regional office wanted an
analysis of samples from both monitoring wells and recovery wells since the time
the pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, and air sparging devices were turned
off in September 1995. This special monitoring was to determine the on-site and
off-site concentration levels of substances when no groundwater cleanup
technologies are in operation. Table # 1 of the December 29, 1995 Letter of
Transmittal shows from USEP A Method 601, 602, and 504.1 analytical methods.
Two of the seven monitoring wells had concentrations of substances in exceedence
of the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Analysis of
samples using USEPA Method 601 revealed Monitoring Well# 5 with 1,2
Dichloroethane at 0.00615 mg/L or 6.15 ug/L. This analysis of a sample at
Monitoring Well# 9 using USEPA Method 601 revealed the concentration level of
1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.00447 mg/Lor 4.47 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/Lor 0.38 ug/L. No other
monitoring well showed the presence of any substances that can be detected by
USEP A Method 601. Analysis of the same samples from these seven monitoring
wells by the USEP A Method 602 showed the presence of Benzene in Monitoring
Well# 5 at 0.00863 mg/Lor 8.63 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for
Benzene 0.00100 mg/Lor 1.00 ug/L. Analysis of the groundwater samples from
the remaining six monitoring wells by the USEP A Method 602 showed the
concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below
their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. None of
the monitoring wells showed concentrations of these substances above practical
quantitation limits. Analysis of the samples using USEPA Method 504.1 revealed
that Monitoring Well # 5 had a concentration of Ethylene Dibromide above the
15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards. The concentration of Ethylene Dibromide in this
well was 6.52 x 104 mg/L or 0.652 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for
Ethylene Dibromide is 4.0 x 10-7 mg/Lor 4.0 x 104 ug/L. None of the remaining
six monitoring wells showed this substances above detection limits.
On December 19, 1995 Unocal Corporation also conducted sampling of the
four recovery wells. Table 1 shows that samples taken from two of the four
recovery wells had concentrations of substances in exceedence of Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Recovery Well #1 and Recovery Well
# 4 both showed concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane in exceedence of the
standards. The concentration of 1,2-Dichloroethane in Recovery Well# 1 was
0.00298 mg/Lor 2.98 ug/L. The highest level of 1,2-Dichloroethane found during
this sampling event was at Recovery Well# 4. USEPA 601 analysis of a sample
from this well showed 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.01970 mg/L or 19. 70 ug/L. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38
ug/L. Chloroform did not appear in these wells in concentrations above the
practical quantitation level. Analysis of the same samples from these four
recovery wells by the USEP A Method 602 showed the presence of Benzene in
12
Recovery Well# 4 at 0.00135 mg/Lor 1.35 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for Benzene 0.00100 mg/L or 1.00 ug/L. Analysis of the remaining three
samples by USEP A 602 Method showed the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below their respective Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. None of the recovery wells showed
concentrations of these substances above practical quantitation limits. Analysis of
recovery well samples using USEP A Method 504.1 did not reveal concentrations
of Ethyl Dibromide in any of these wells above the detection limits. The Unocal
Corporation also conducted composite sampling of the influent for these recovery
wells in December 1995. Analysis of this composite sample did not show the
concentration of any substance above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A
NCAC 2L .0202.
The Unocal Corporation has attempted to define the vertical extent of
groundwater contamination beneath the site. The deepest well Monitoring Well #
8 (MW # 8) and it is 55 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater sampling
and analysis was conducted using USEP A Method 601, Method 602, and Method
504.1 at six separate times from January 13, 1988 through January 27, 1993 as
shown in Table# 1. Analysis sample from this well over a six year period using
USEP A Method 601 showed the concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane, Chloroform
and other substances below their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in
15A NCAC 2L .0202. The analysis of the January 13, 1988 sampling event for
Monitoring Well # 8 using USEP A Method 602 showed a concentration of
Benzene at 0.003 mg/L or 3 ug/L. This level is in exceedence of the Groundwater
Quality Standard of 0.001 mg/L or 1 ug/L for this substance in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. The highest level Benzene that was ever found in this well in exceedence of
the standard was on December 16, 1991. Analysis using USEP A Method 602
revealed Benzene at 0.010 mg/l or 10 ug/L. The last sample taken at this well was
on January 27, 1993 and no Benzene was detected above the practical
quantitation limit. The analysis of all other samples taken from this well from
January 1988 through January 1993 did not reveal any other chemical
constituent from the petroleum release. After January 1993 this monitoring well
was converted into an air sparging well and no additional data can be obtained.
Based on the low concentrations of Benzene found in samples from Monitoring
Well # 8 over a five year period, the Mooresville Regional Office does not believe
that the bedrock beneath 4336 Park Road was significantly impacted by this
release prior to implementation of the corrective action plan in August 1993.
On page# 3 of a letter dated March 6, 1995 titled "Responses to 2/19/96
NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" downgradient monitoring at the
well located at Monitoring Well# 11 (The Pop Shop) is discussed. The letter
states that "No ..... dissolved hydrocarbons except MTBE (11 ug/L) !,ave ever been
detected in Groundwater .... .from this well''. It must be noted that this
concentration level in this monitoring well is well below the Groundwater Quality
Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Analytical results from samples taken at
Monitoring Well# 10 (Belk Investments) over the past 3 1/2 years have never
13
I)
shown any chemical constituent above the detection limits. With respect to the
site at 4336 Park Road, Monitoring Well # 10 is located cross-gradient from it.
All samples from Monitoring Well# 10 were analyzed using EPA Methods 601,
602 and 504.1.
Using site assessment information at the Mooresville Regional Office, the
company has calculated the time it would take for residual contaminants to
impact the down-gradient offsite monitoring well at the Pop Shop (Monitoring
Well# 11) such that Groundwater Quality Standards would be exceeded. Based
on a groundwater flow velocity between 5 feet to 15 feet per year, the Unocal
Corporation estimates that amount of time it wil~ take both Benzene and Ethylene
Dibromide to reach Monitoring Well# 11 are between 14 and 42 years. This
estimated range is based on the maximum concentration for Benzene and Ethyl
Dibromide found at the site that were obtained from the· analysis of a sample
from Monitoring Well# 5 on December 1, 1995. The range of time estimated for
1,2-Dichloroethane to reach Monitoring Well# 11 is 9 to 28 years. This estimate
is based on the maximum concentration of this substance that was obtained from
the analysis of a sample from Recovery Well# 4 on December 19, 1995.
Estimated time ranges are based on the conservative assumption that the plume
will not be impacted by natural remedial processes and attenuation effects within
the subsurface. It is not anticipated that rainfall events will significantly impact
the movement of contaminants offsite. The area where groundwater monitoring
results showed concentrations of Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, and Ethylene
Dibromide above the standards is beneath a concrete slab and the remaining
property at 4336 Park Road is covered by an asphalt parking lot. Based on the
calculations by the Unocal Corporation, it is not anticipated that groundwaters in
the area will be impacted by a variance at this site within the near future.
No sources of drinking water from water wells or surface water are known
to exist within a 1/2 mile radius of the property at 4336 Park Road that was
formerly owned by the Unocal Corporation. The requirements for variance
applications in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4) specify that locations of drinking water
wells and other water supply sources that are within one-half mile of the site
must be shown on a map. The attachments to the "March 6, 1996 letter titled
"Responses to 2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" labeled
Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 show that there are no drinking water wells in
the vicinity of the property at 4336 Park Road. Figures 5 and 6 are maps
showing utility and water use in the area. These maps show that properties
around the site are serviced by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department.
Page 2 of the March 6, 1996 letter it · states that the company conducted a survey
of a 1/2 mile area around the site and did not find any drinking water wells that
are presently in use or have been abandoned.
Figure 7 in March 6, 1996 letter shows that there are no drinking water
supply intakes at surface water bodies located within a 1/2 mile radius of the site.
Drinking water for the City of Charlotte is obtained from Mountain Island Lake
on the Catawba River twelve miles north-northwest of the site. All downgradient
14
V
properties and other area properties are supplied drinking water from the City of
Charlotte.
In addition to monitoring wells and recovery wells previously discussed,
there are a number of other wells on properties adjacent to 4336 Park Road.
There are approximately six groundwater monitoring wells downgraident from
the site. These wells are located at the "Pop Shop" and is across the road at 4323
Park Road. The Well Survey Map (Figure 4) attachment to the March 6, 1996
memorandum shows these six monitoring wells. Two of these wells are described
in the map legend as "closed". The Unocal Corporation has submitted
information on pages 3 and 4 of the March 6, 1996 letter showing that
concentrations of contaminants will not impact these downgradient wells to the
extent that an exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards will occur in the
near future. There are two "tank pit vapor point wells" located at the Exxon
Company service station at 125 Woodlawn Road. These wells are to the south and
the southeast respectively of the property at 4336 Park Road and are cross-
gradient from the site. Since these wells are located cross-gradient from the site,
is unlikely that migrating contaminants as a result of this release emanating from
4336 Park Road would degrade the construction materials used in these wells or
impact groundwaters.
It is highly improbable that public water supply lines will be impacted by
this variance. Numerous water supply lines and other utilities are located along
Park Road and Woodlawn Road. This piping ranges from 4 inches up to 16
inches in diameter. Page 8 of Appendix II in the report titled Variance Request
Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facilitv # 9342-209 4336
Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Pro ject No. 1354-92-397 (November
1995)" shows that the company contacted Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility
Department and found that utilities are not a potential path for migration of
petroleum hydrocarbons from the site. The depth to the groundwater in this area
is approximately 17 feet. The utility department reported that area water lines
and utilities are buried less than five (5) feet from the surface. Groundwater
contamination from Incident Number 3633 that is beneath 4336 Park Road is too
deep within the subsurface to impact these lines. In addition, page 8 also states
the Unocal Corporation did not locate any buildings with basements that could
serve as conduits for the buildup of explosive, flammable, or toxic vapors from
this site.
Rule .Ol 13 (c)(5): Supporting information to establish that requirements of the rule cannot be
achieved b y providin g best available technolo uv economically reasonable:
The part of the request that concerns variance to Corrective Action in 15A
NCAC 2L .01060) will allow the Unocal Corporation to discontinue Corrective
Action at this site. The company has submitted supporting information in the
report and other documents demonstrating that the continued application of BAT
15
The. March 31, 1995 letter shown on page 9 of Appendix II shows that the
Unocal Corporation has incurred the entire cost of cleanup of this site. Appendix
I shows an itemized listing of costs to remediate this site.
Groundwater analysis of samples from on-site monitoring wells showed
significant reductions in the concentrations of substances from December 1991
through September 1994. On August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation
implemented a corrective action plan to cleanup groundwaters at this site. From
August 12, 1993 through September 29, 1995 the Unocal Corporation operated a
groundwater remediation systems consisting of pump-and-treat cleanup, air
sparging, and soil vapor extraction technologies. Groundwater monitoring up
through the September 13, 1994 sampling event showed reductions in the
concentrations of substances in the groundwater. Since that time analysis of
samples from groundwater monitoring wells and recovery wells have not
demonstrated a significant reduction in contaminant concentrations as shown in
Table 1 of the "Letter of Transmittal" dated December 29, 1995. In September
1995 use of the pump-and-treat system was discontinued. On December 1, 1995
groundwater monitoring was conducted to determine the effect ~ temporary
interruption of the operation of the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation
system would have on contaminant concentrations. Except for Monitoring Well#
5, which showed Benzene, Ethylene Dibromide, and 1,2-Dichloroethane, no
increase in the concentrations of substances was observed in the remaining
groundwater monitoring wells. It is important to note that the concentration of
Benzene in Monitoring Well# 5 had remained below detectible limits in 1995
when the cleanup systems were in operation. Significant reductions in the
concentrations of Benzene and 1,2 Dichloroethane have not been observed in
recovery wells since September 1994. It was only during the December 1, 1995
sampling event that Chloroform concentrations showed a reduction below
detectable levels in Monitoring Well# 7.
In order to demonstrate that the requirements of the rule cannot be
achieved using best available technology, title 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5) requires
that specific technology considered be identified, the costs of implementing the
technology be shown, and the impacts of the costs on the applicant be provided.
On Page 8 of the report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal
Corporation Former Unocal Facility # 9342-209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North
Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397 (November 1995}" shows the cost of
continuing to operate the present cleanup system. The company has estimated
that it will cost approximately $180,000 over the next three years to continue
operating the air sparging, pump and treat, and soil vapor extraction systems.
This cost estimate assumes that the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
will issue a new permit to continue allowing treated effluent from the pump-and-
treat system to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. If a permit to
discharge treated wastewater into the city's sanitary sewer system cannot be
obtained, then the costs to continue using pump-and-treat cleanup as a means of
17
remediation will drastically increase. This cost increase would occur as a result of
the necessity for the Unocal Corporation to obtain the necessary NPDES permit
to construct a discharge to Little Sugar Creek. The only other option the
company may have is to have a discharge system constructed that meets the
requirements of a non-discharge permit in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0200
(Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters). The cost figures supplied by the
Unocal Corporation also assumes that Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection will issue a new air quality permit for air sparging and
soil vapor extraction systems.
The Unocal Corporation has considered the use of air sparging as an
alternate technology to the present groundwater and soil remediation system.
The comp_any does not believe that the use of this technolqgy by itself is practical
to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5). The company estimates
the costs of operating an air sparging system for three years would be
approximately $45,000. The Unocal Corporation believes that the low residual
concentrations of substances in groundwater at the site and the lack of any
human receptors does not warrant the additional expense of continuing reliance
on air sparging.
The company believes that the low residual levels of contaminants in soils
at this site does not warrant the continued use of soil vapor extraction technology
to cleanup this site. Table 1 in Appendix III of this same report titled "Variance
Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facilitv # 9342-
209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-92-397
(November 1995)t' shows measurements of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
in soil vapor and organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings. Based on this
information the company asserts that residual concentrations of petroleum in soils
at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina will be below the state action
level of 10 parts per million and not pose an impact to groundwaters such that a
violation of Groundwater Quality Standards is anticipated to occur.
The Unocal Corporation did not identify any technology, other than those
already in use at the site, that would meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(j) as "best available technology". Pursuant to the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5), the company does not believe that continuing remediation
with any of the technologies, or any combination of technologies, at the site are
"economically reasonable".
Rule .0113(c)(6): SupportinQ information to establish that compliance would produce serious
financial hardship on the applicant:
The Unocal Corporation has submitted information showing that
compliance with the rules will result in a serious financial hardship. Page 8 of the
report shows that the Unocal Corporation has demonstrated that the continued
18
application of best available technology to this location would be a prohibitively
expensive method of remediating groundwater contamination. The report states
on page 9. of Appendix II that "Unocal is no longer operating tltis gasoline retail
facility or making a profit at tltis site .... ". Groundwater Section staff have
examined the state trust fund status of this site and have found that a claim for
reimbursement through the Commercial Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
has never been filed by the Unocal Corporation. The Unocal Corporation bas
thus far spent $313,500 to cleanup this site. A March 6, 1996 letter titled
"Responses to 2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" further
discusses cleanup activities at this site. Page 6 of this letter shows that the
company is continuing to operate the air sparging system and will do so until
" ... site closure ltas been approved". In Appendix I of the '~Variance Request
Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facility# 9342-209 4336
Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-92-397 (November
1995)" Mr. Wayne Holt asserts that unless a variance leading to closure of this
site approved, ongoing remedial actions at 4336 Park Road will result in
continual expenditures by the Unocal Corporation.
The company believes that there is immense uncertainty that best available
technology will remediate the groundwaters at this site to standards within a
foreseeable period of time. Page 6 of the March 6, 1996 letter states that the that
" ..... soil and groundwater restoration ltas occurred as close to tlte level of tlte state
standards as economically and technically feasible". Allowing the persistence of low
levels of contaminants in groundwaters that, after approximately 1 3/4 years of
applying best available technologies, have asymptotically approached the
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0106 through a variance is a
prudent means of addressing Unocal's release at this site. It is no less effective a
means of addressing residual concentrations of substances at this site than
continuing the use of pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, and air sparging and
is less expensive.
Rule .0113(c)(7): Supporting information that compliance would produce serious financial
hardship without equal or greater public benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that
the environment, safety and public health would not be impacted by this
variance. The Groundwater Section believes that the public will not benefit from
compelling the Unocal Corporation to continue remediating this site using pump-
and-treat technology, other alternatives discussed, or a combination of these
technologies.
19
Rule .0113(c)(8): "A copy of anv Special Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site.
Rule .Ol 13(c)(9): "A list of names and addresses of property owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are shown
on pages 4 through 6 of the March 6, 1996 letter_ titled "Responses to 2/19/96
NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements". This listing includes the Hardees
Restaurant, The Pop Shop, The Exxon Gas Station, Belk Investments, a vacant
home owned by Mr. Duncan MaCrae, Jr., the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility
Department, the NC Department of Transportation, the Park Chase Apartments,
Nationwide Insurance, and the Petro Express Gasoline Station Number 7. Title
15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this
variance be given to the owner or owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30
days prior to the date of the hearing".
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject variance request
to Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106G) and Groundwater Quality
Standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 proceed to public notice in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). On November 28, 1995 the Division of Epidemiology completed their
review of the risk assessment methodology for this site and recommended that this variance
be granted for the Unocal Corporation at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. Upon
your concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the
preparation of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of
15A NCAC 2L .0113(d -f), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the
Environmental Management Commission Groundwater Committee, this request will proceed
to the Environmental Management Commission for final action in 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g).
If there are any questions regarding this matter or if any additional information is needed,
please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS:
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Dr. Ken Rudo
David Hance
20
--... '
installed at this site and sampling and analysis of wells be placed as conditions for approval of this
variance. On July 24, 1996 Mr. James Ponder of S&ME Incorporated requested that the Groundwater
Section review the necessity for recommending monitoring requirements as conditions for approval of this
variance in light of the enactment of Senate Bill 1317. Mr. Ponder expressed the view that this law extends
to monitoring requirements on variances under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as well as monitoring requirements in
corrective action plans established pursuant to lSANCAC 2L .0106.
It is important to note that Senate Bill 1317 specifically includes cleanups at sites where petroleum
has been discharged or released from underground storage tanks. This law does not specify any new
requirements for variances propo"sed to the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to 15ANCAC
2L .0113. The statutory basis for the Environmental Management Commission to grant a variance is found
in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143-215.3(e). Senate Bill 1317 does not mention this statute nor
does it effect any actions taken by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to NCGS 143-
215.3(e).
In addition to reviewing this issue for the Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont, the
Groundwater Section has also examined other variances to determine if they are "Class CDE pursuant to
Senate Bill 1317. The only site that we have identified as being impacted by the legislation is the Unocal
Corporation site at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident Number 3633).
Groundwater Section staff have identified three courses of action that the Unocal Corporation can take that
will result in a corrective action plan that will satisfy the requirements the ISA NCAC 2L rules. These options
are shown as follows:
1) The Unocal Corporation could withdraw the variance and discontinue cleanup for
Groundwater Incident # 3633 until a risk assessment rule has been established.
Senate Bill 1317 requires that by October 1, 1997 the Environmental Management
Corpmission adopt a rule to implement the requirements of NCGS 143-215.94V(b).
Please note that the deferment of cleanup requirements is a temporary,_ not a
permanent deferment. It is not known at this time what requirements will be
included in a new risk based rule. It must be further noted that if a risk assessment
were conducted at this site and it showed that conditions are such that the site
posses a higher risk than that of a site ranked Class CDE, this may result in a re-
ranking to Class AB status. A higher ranking at a · site may result in the
reinstatement of active groundwater and/ or soil remediation. A risk assessment
2
may also result in the necessity for expanded groundwater and soil monitoring
requirements. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance
may also be requested only if the new rule allows responsible parties to obtain
variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
2) The Unocal Corporation could withdraw the variance for Groundwater Incident #
3633 and cleanup the site pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L. It must
be noted that Senate Bill 1317 allows, but does not require, the temporary
cessation of remediation actlvities. Although the Unocal Corporation has never
received any payments for cleanup out of the state's underground storage tank
cleanup funds, under the new legislation any future access to those funds is
denied, unless the company can meet the criteria outlined in Section 1 (0 of the
Senate Bill 1317. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance
may be requested only if the new risk based rule allows responsible parties to
obtain variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
3) The Unocal Corporation could continue to pursue a variance at this property. If a
variance is granted by the Environmental Manage~ent Commission for this site,
any conditions upon the variance, including monitoring, would need to be adhered
to by the company in order for the variance to remain legally valid. After a variance
is granted the responsible party may be allowed to conduct a risk assessment
under the new rules to determine if the variance is still necessary. If a risk
assessment shows that the variance or monitoring requirements placed by the
Environmental Management Commission as conditions for the approval of a
variance are no longer needed, then the Unocal Corporation may request that the
variance be rescinded.
In order to complete activities shown in either Number 1 or 2 above to support a new variance
request pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the most up-to-date site information must be submitted with the
information submitted through June 28, 1996. li a risk assessment is conducted pursuant to Senate Bill 1317
for any of these three scenarios, it must be in accordance with a new rule approved by the Environmental
Management Commission. The most recent site information will need to be submitted in accordance to the
requirements of the rule. At this time no risk assessment rule has been orooosed bv the Division of Water
Oualitv.
3
The Groundwater Section staff has been in the process of completing the activities necessary to
bring this variance to public notice and hearing. The Groundwater Section would like to know in writing if
the Unocal Corporation desires to continue pursuing a variance for Groundwater Incident Number 3633 at
this time so that we can arrange a public hearing and send notices pursuant to 15A NCAC ZL .0113. If
possible, we would like to receive your response by September 20, 1996. Upon the completion of the
hearing officers report and recommendation, this variance will be sent to the Environmental Management
Commission for review and final action. Please send your response to Mr. David Hance, P.O. Box 29578,
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578 {phone: [phone]; fax [phone]}.
Information from the Mooresville Regional Office shows that all other sites for which variances have
been requested through S& ME Incorporated, are "Class AB" in accordance with the legislation and are
not impacted by legislative changes made during the 1996 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Staff are reviewing the information submitted for these variance requests. If you have any new information
that will change the priority ranking of any of these sites to Class C, D, or E, or have questions concerning
this letter, please feel free to contact myself at [phone] or Mr. Hance.
AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Allen Schiff
David Hance
A. Wayne Holt (Unocal Corporation)
Sincerely,
~~?
Chief, Groundwater Section
4
PAGE
2"9-OCT-96 10,01 FROM,S AND ME CHARLOTTE ID,7045253953
)
NCDEHNR-Grounc:Nvater Section S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Proposed Groundwater Monitoring After Vartance Approval, Unocal-Park Rd. October 2, 1996
if you have any questions, please call me at 704-523--4726.
S&ME, Inc.
:::te~1vart t "iinDs~ L.C:A.
Sen/1r HvdroQecloai:,:;t
"' .... ·-
-'~.l Ou::rlss, L. G.
Assist ant Environment al Services Manager
cc: ·.,t,J-:..J.y-:-,e Hrnt -Unocal Corporation
i-<.:\ J :.:;~:;;; .. .i ~/l.t-J1.."';E . •.Jl.
2
3/B
,, '
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 25, 1996
MEMQRANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Roy Davis
Preston Howard ,Mf
Designation as Hearing Officer
AVA
D E HNR
I am hereby designating you as Hearing Officer for a public hearing concerning a
variance request from the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106 0).
The hearing concerns a variance for an area of petroleum contamination on property
previously owned by the Unocal Corporation. In 1987 the Unocal Corporation sold this
property to the DH&S Company. The person requesting this variance is the Unocal
Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia.
The hearing schedule is as.follows:
CHARLOTTE . NORTH CAROLINA
November 7, 1996
7:00 PM
Mecklenburg County Courthouse -Criminal Courts Building
Second Floor -Courtroom 2201
700 East Fourth Street
Groundwater Section.
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
N~iC
tSNd'f@®'
1
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/10% post-consumer paper
...
Included with this memorandum is an information packet which contains the Hearing
Officer's speech and directions to the hearing location. Please be advised staff have not
made arran gements for y our overni ght sta y .
The written comment period for this variance will close at 12:00 PM (midnight) on
December 9, 1996. I am requiring you to complete the hearing officers report and the
recommendation to the Environmental Management Commission Groundwater
Committee by March 11, 1997. This period of time is ninety (90) days after the closing date
for written public comment and allows Division staff adequate time -to review your
recommendation. Unless significant new site information becomes available after the public
hearing or other extraordinary circumstances occur that dictate a longer review period by the
hearing officer, the earliest date that this variance may be considered by the Groundwater
Committee is April 9, 1997. If your review of the variance shows that there is a need for a
longer evaluation period, please contact Arthur Mouberry at [phone].
I appreciate your taking the time to conduct this hearing. The staff will be glad to
assist you through the proceedings. If you have any questions, feel free to call Carl Bailey at
[phone].
Attachments.
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
David Hance
2
,.
Public Hearing-Variance Request
November 7, 1996
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j)
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident Number 3633)
HEARING LOCATED AT:
Mecklenburg County Courthouse
Criminal Courts Building -2nd Floor, Courtroom 2201
700 East Fourth Street -(at 7:00 PM)
HEARING OFFICER'S SPEECH
HEARING OFFICER: Roy Davis, Division of Water Quality, Regional Supervisor
(Asheville Regional Office)
HRARTNG OFFICER: GOOD EVENING, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TIDS
PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER. MY NAI\1E IS ROY DA VIS, AND I AM THE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY (FORMERLY THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT) REGIONAL SUPERVISOR IN THE
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE. I HA VE BEEN DESIGNATED HEARING
OFFICER FOR TIDS EVENING'S HEARING.
TIDS HEARING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL STATUTE lS0B-21.2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
STATUTES, A PUBLIC NOTICE OF TIDS HEARING WAS PUBLISHED IN
1
..
"'
CONFORMITY WITH 15A NCAC 2L .0113 OF THE GROUNDWATER RULES
AND GENERAL NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN LOCAL PAPERS
ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES IN 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l). NOTICES
WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN AND
NEAR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC CO:Ml\.fENT
AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR THE UNOCAL CORPORATION OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
THE UNOCAL CORPORATION IS REQUESTING TIIIS VARIANCE FROM
RULES CONTAINED IN 15A NCAC 2L GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION
AND STANDARD S FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4336 PARK ROAD.
TIDS PROPERTY, PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY THE UNOCAL
CORPORATION, IS NOW OWNED BY DH&S COMPANY. UPON TANK
REMOVAL AND SITE RENOVATION BY THE UNOCAL CORPORATION, .
DH&S CONSTRUCTED A RETAIL GASOLINE STATION KNOWN AS THE
PETRO EXPRESS. THIS PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR THE UNOCAL
CORPORATION WILL APPLY ONLY TO AN AREA CONSISTING OF THIS
PROPERTY AT 4336 PARK ROAD (PARCEL NUMBER 143-203-24). THE
2
...
UNOCAL CORPORATION ESTIMATES THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND FOR
WHICH THIS VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS APPROXIMATELY 1.05
ACRES. IN THE SUPPORTING INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN TIIlS
VARIANCE REQUEST, THE UNOCAL CORPORATION INFORMED THE
DIVISION THAT THIS SITE IS LQ_CATED WITHIN AN AREA CONTAINING
A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALLOW THOSE CONCENTRATIONS
OF BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE, XYLENES, NAPHTHALENE,
METHYL-TERT BUTYL ETHER (MTBE), ISOPROPYL ETHER, E~ENE
DIBROMIDE, 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE, 1,2-
DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,_;TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2,-
TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,2-
DICHLOROPROPANE, BROMODICHLOROMETHANE, BROMOFORM, cis-
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE, CARBON TETRACHLORIDE, CHLOROFORM,
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE, METHYLENE CHLORIDE, trans-1,3-
DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE, AND CHLOROBENZENE
TO REMAIN AT LEVELS AS FOUND DURING THE DECEMBER 1995
GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS, THESE CONCENTRATIONS WILL BE
3
REQUIRED TO REMAIN WITIIlN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF 4336
PARK ROAD. THE UNOCAL CORPORATION ALSO PROPOSES THAT
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REQUIRING THE APPLICATION OF BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY IN 15A NCAC 2L .0106 0) NOT BE APPLIED TO
THE AREA WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
THE UNOCAL CORPORATION HAS REPORTED THAT A TOTAL OF $
313,500 HAS BEEN EXPENDED TO CLEANUP TlilS SITE. NO CLAIMS FOR
REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THE STATE'S COMl\.fERCIAL
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND HA VE EVER BEEN FILED
BY THE UNOCAL CORPORATION FOR TIDS SITE. THE UNOCAL
CORPORATION HAS SUBMITTED SUPPORTING INFORMATION
DEMONSTRATING THAT THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT LONG
TERM REMEDIATION OF THE SITE TO THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY
STANDARDS IN 15A NCAC 2L .0202. THE COMPANY BELIEVES THAT
APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY AT THIS LOCATION
IS A SERIOUS FINANCIAL IMPACT WITHOUT EQUAL OR GREATER
PUBLIC BENEFIT.
4
TIDS HEARING WILL CONFORM TO PROCEDURES IN ISA NCAC 2L
.0113_. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE
APPLICATION AND HEARING ARE LOCATED IN THIS B~DING AND
ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.
A WRITTEN RECORD OF TIDS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WIDCH
WILL INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND
DISCUSSIONS. FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE
RECORDED. WRITTEN COMl\lIENTS RECEIVED THROUGH DECE1\1BER 9,
1996 WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. BASED ON THESE
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY THE GROUNDWATER STAFF,
I WILL MAKE A RECOMl\lIENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. IN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE
WRITTEN RECORD, THE RECO:Ml\.fENDATION OF THE HEARING
OFFICER, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF, AND THE
CONCERNS OF ITS ~MBERS. THE COM1\.1ISSION MUST ALSO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH lSA NCAC
2L .0113(g).
5
IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES THAT THE CO:Ml\1ISSION'S DECISION
IS UNACCEPTABLE, A PETITION MAY BE FILED ACCORDING TO
PROCEDURES IN 15A NCAC 2L .0113(h). THE DECISION ON THE
VARIANCE BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION IS
FINAL AND BINDING ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS SHOWN IN 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(h).
AT TIDS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE (names or local and state
officials) AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TffiS HEARING. I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE FROM THE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY (DWQ central office and DWQ regional office personnel).
MR.(starr speaker) OF THE DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY-
GROUNDWATER SECTION MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE WILL
NOW SU1\1MARIZE THE PROPOSED VARIANCE wmcH IS THE SUBJECT
OF TmS HEARING.
STAFF SPEAKER: (sta~ speaker summarizes variance request).
JIEARING ·omc~R:; THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW ACCEPT
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO
6
REQUEST THAT EVERYONE FILL OUT A REGISTRATION FORM. AFTER
ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS HA VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT, I Wll,L ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AS TIME PERMITS.
WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE CO:ME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. ALL
COMMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO MATTERS THAT ARE RELATIVE
TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THIS VARIANCE. IF YOUR
COMMENTS ARE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES, I WOULD LIKE TO
REQUEST THAT THEY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. I RESERVE THE
RIGHT TO QUESTION SPEAKERS IF THE NEED SHOULD ARISE.
,
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO .. -
CALL [first speaker].
[speakers .•• ]
(the hearing officer, referring to THE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the
microphone in turn )
HE;(R]NG OFFICER: THANK YOU [last speaker]. ARE THERE ANY MORE
COMMENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN
7
UNTIL 12:00 PM (MIDNIGHT) ON DECEMBER 9, 1996. ANYONE WISHING
TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DATE.
AFTER WHICH TIME, THE COMMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE
PUBLIC RECORD AND I SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. WRITTEN COMMENTS
MUST BE ADDRESSED TO DAVID HANCE AT THE DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY GROUNDWATER SECTION. THE ADDRESS WRITTEN
COMMENTS NEED TO BE SENT TO IS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE
AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
David Hance
EHNR-DWQ-Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
A FACSl1\1ILE COPY OF WRITTEN CO:Ml\1ENTS MAY BE SENT TO MR.
HANCE BY DIALING [phone]. ms TELEPHONE NUMBER IN
RALEIGH IS [phone] .
.
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMl\.flSSION TO ALWAYS ACT IN THE
BEST POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULE-MAKING
PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE
HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR COMMENTS.
8
Directions to Variance Hearing for the Unocal Corporation
(Site located at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, NC)
HEARING LOCATED AT:
Mecklenburg County Courthouse Criminal Courts Building -2nd Floor, Courtroom 2201
700 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC (November 7, 1996 at 7:00 PM)
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF PRESENTER:
Allen Schiff(704) 663-1699; fax -[phone]
RALEIGH GROUNDWATER SECTION STAFF RECORDER:
David Hance [phone]; fax-[phone] _ .
HEARING OFFICER: ROY DA VIS [phone]
CONTACT PERSON AT TIIE COURT HOUSE -CAPT . DEATON [phone]
FROM ASHEVILLE, NC:
Take 1-26 to US -74 then get on 1-85 before you reach Gastonia, NC and proceed toward Charlotte,
NC. Take NC Z7 (Freedom Drive) Into Downtown Charlotte. Follow NC Z7 and get onto McDowell
Street. Proceed five city blocks on McDowell Street and turn onto East Trade Street The Criminal
Courts Building Is located adjacent to the Government Center. NOTE: East Fourth Street is a one
way street going east to west. East Third Street is a one way street going west to east.
FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take 1-85 Into Charlotte and exit onto NC 16 (Brookshire Freeway). NC 16wlll become 1-277. Take 1-
277 to S. Graham Street and then go onto East Trade Street The Criminal Courts Building ls located
adjacent to the Government Center. NOTE: East Fourth Street is a one way street going east to
west East Third Street is a one way street going west to east
(See Attached Map)
interoffice
MEMORANDUM ---------------------
to: Donna Pittman
from: David A. Hance ~
subject: Designation of Hearing Officer for Unocal -Park Road Variance
date: October 23, 1996
You will recall that on July 16, 1996 the Director gave approval for the Unocal
Corporation variance at 4336 Park Road (GW incident 3633) to proceed to public hearing. Due
to passage of the Senate Bill 1317 we delayed proceeding to public hearing at that time. Since
this site is Class CDE according to the law, the Groundwater Section sent a letter on September 6
informing the responsible party that he did not need to cleanup the site. lbis letter also stated
that he could still pursue this variance, ifhe wished to do so. On September 12, 1996 the Unocal
Corporation informed us that they still wanted to pursue a variance at this site. On Octo her 2,
1996 the Groundwater Section sent notices out to the public informing them of the public hearing
for this variance scheduled for November 7, 1996.
Mr. Roy Davis from the Asheville Regional Office has volunteered to be the hearing
officer for this meeting. Attached is a memo designating Mr. Davis as the hearing officer with
instructions as to how he is to proceed. Also attached is his speech and a map to the public
hearing in Charlotte.
Upon completion of the Director's review and signature, I would be glad to get this
mailed out to the hearing officer and other staff. If possible, we would like to get the signed
packet by Friday October 25, 1996. My apologies for getting this to the Division so late, I was
sick all last week. Ifwe need to talk call me at 715-6189 between 9 am and 6 pm.
cc: Carl Bailey
).
DIRECTIONS TO VARIANCE
HEARING FOR THE GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF THE soµTHERN
PIEDMONT
HEARING LOCATED AT:
Mecklenburg County Courthouse -Criminal Courts Building
2nd Floor, Courtroom 2201, 700 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC
March 19, 1999 at 7:00 PM
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF PRESENTER:
Allen Schiff [phone];/ax -[phone]
RALEIGH GROUNDWATER SECTION STAFF RECORDER:
David Hance [phone] or 733-3221;
fax -[phone]
HEARING OFFICER -SHERRI KNIGHT [phone]
Contact Person at the Courthouse -Capt. Deaton [phone]
FROM WINSTON-SALEM, NC:
Take US 52 in Winston-Salem to NC 8 and then go onto I-85 South and head
toward Charlotte, NC. Take NC 16 (Brookshire Freeway) into downtown
Charlotte. NC 16 will become I-277. Take I-277 to S. Graham Street and then go
ont9 East Trade Street. The Criminal Courthouse is the building adjacent to the
Government Center. NOTE: East Fourth Street is a one way street going east to
west. East Third Street is a one way street going west to east.
FROM RALEIGH, NC:
Take I-85 into Charlotte and exit onto NC 16 (Brookshire Freeway). NC 16 will
become I-277. Take I-277 to S. Graham Street and then go onto East Trade
Street. The Criminal Courthouse is the building adjacent to the Government
Center. NOTE: East Fourth Street is a one way street going east to west. East
Third Street is a one way street going west to east.
(MAPS ARE ATTACHED)
DRAFT
SUBJECT; TO REViSIONS
CONFORMITY WITH 15A NCAC 2L .0113 OF THE GROUNDWATER RULES
AND GENERAL NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN LOCAL PAPERS
ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES IN 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l). NOTICES
WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN AND
NEAR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO OBTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT
AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR THE UNOCAL CORPORATION OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
THE UNOCAL CORPORATION IS REQUESTING TIDS VARIANCE FROM
RULES CONTAINED IN 15A NCAC 2L GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION
AND STANDARD S FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4336 PARK ROAD.
THIS PROPERTY, PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY THE UNOCAL
CORPORATION, IS NOW OWNED BY DH&S COMPANY. UPON TANK
REMOVAL AND SITE RENOVATION BY THE UNOCAL CORPORATION,
DH&S CONSTRUCTED A RETAIL GASOLINE STATION KNOWN AS THE
PETRO EXPRESS. Tms PROPOSED VARIANCE FOR THE UNOCAL
CORPORATION WILL APPLY ONLY TO AN AREA CONSISTING OF THIS
PROPERTY AT 4336 PARK ROAD (PARCEL NUMBER 143-203-24). THE
DRAFT_
SUBJECt 1'0 REVISlONS
2
RAFT
SUBJECT;TO REVISIONS
UNOCAL CORPORATION ESTIMATES THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND FOR
WHICH TIDS VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS APPROXIMATELY 1.05
ACRES. IN THE SUPPORTING INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THIS
VARIANCE REQUEST, THE UNOCAL CORPORATION INFORMED THE
DIVISION THAT THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA CONTAINING
A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALLOW THOSE CONCENTRATIONS
OF BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE, XYLENES, NAPHTHALENE,
METHYL-TERT BUTYL ETHER (MTBE), ISOPROPYL ETHER, ETHYLENE
DIBROMIDE, 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE, 1,2-
DI CHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,-TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2,-
TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,2-
DICHLOROPROPANE, BROMODICHLOROMETHANE, BROMOFORM, cis-
1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE, CARBON TETRACHLORIDE, CHLOROFORM,
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE, METHYLENE CHLORIDE, trans-1,3-
DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE, AND CHLOROBENZENE
TO REMAIN AT LEVELS AS FOUND DURING THE DECEMBER 1995
GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS, THESE CONCENTRATIONS WILL BE
3
DRAFT
SUBJECT--TO REVJSiONS
DRAFT
SUBJECT: TO REVJSIONS
REQUIRED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF 4336
PARK ROAD. THE UNOCAL CORPORATION ALSO PROPOSES THAT
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REQUIRING THE APPLICATION OF BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY IN 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (j) NOT BE APPLIED TO
THE AREA WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
THE UNOCAL CORPORATION HAS REPORTED THAT A TOTAL OF $
313,500 HAS BEEN EXPENDED TO CLEANUP THIS SITE. NO CLAIMS FOR
REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THE STATE'S COMMERCIAL
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND HA VE EVER BEEN FILED
BY THE UNOCAL CORPORATION FOR THIS SITE. THE UNOCAL
CORPORATION HAS SUBMITTED SUPPORTING INFORMATION
DEMONSTRATING THAT THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT LONG
TERM REMEDIATION OF THE SITE TO THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY
STANDARDS IN 15A NCAC 2L .0202. THE COMPANY BELIEVES THAT
APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY AT TIDS LOCATION
IS A SERIOUS FINANCIAL IMPACT WITHOUT EQUAL OR GREATER
PUBLIC BENEFIT.
TIDS HEARING WILL CONFORM TO PROCEDURES IN 15A NCAC 2L
DRAFT 4
SUBJECT; TO REVISIONS
RAFT
SUBJEcr:ro REV!SiONS
.0113. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE
APPLICATION AND HEARING ARE LOCATED IN TIDS BUILDING AND
ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.
A WRITTEN RECORD OF TIDS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WHICH
WILL INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND
DISCUSSIONS. FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE
RECORDED. WRITTEN CO1\1MENTS RECEIVED THROUGH APRIL 19,
1996 WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. BASED ON THESE
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY THE GROUNDWATER STAFF,
I WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. IN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE
WRITTEN RECORD, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING
OFFICER, THE RECO1\1MENDATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF, AND THE
CONCERNS OF ITS MEMBERS. THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH 15A NCAC
2L .0113(g).
IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION
. RAFT 5
SUBJECT; TO REVISIONS
&ME
October 4, 1996
Mr. David Hance
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
RE: Proposed Groundwater Sampling and Analyses Schedule
After Variance Approval
Incident #3633, Priority Ranking SOE
Unocal Corporation (Former Station #9342-209)
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC-
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Dear Mr. Hance:
-..
-i
S&ME, Inc., on behalf of Unocal Corporation, hereby informs the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission that Unocal Corporation proposes . to monitor
groundwater quality on-site and on two adjacent off-site properties for two years following
Variance approval by the State. The State's October 1, 1996 Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing requires the hydrocarbon compounds above the 2L groundwater
standards to remain within the former Unocal property boundaries of 4336 Park Road.
Our proposed monitoring would further evaluate groundwater compliance within the
Variance boundary area (former Unocal facility) at selected on-site monitor and former
recovery wells (M-5, MW-7, MW-9, RW-1, and RW-4). S&ME, Inc. proposes to sample
groundwater ·from these 5 wells on a semi-annual basis for two years after Variance
approval. Groundwater from these wells will be analyzed for EPA Methods 601, 602
(including MTBE) and 504.1 for EDB, since these compounds were detected above the
2L groundwater standards. The results will be added to the· attached historical
groundwater and influent quality data Table 1 and presented to the State and Unocal
Corporation. After the two years of groundwater nonitoring, no further monitoring or
action may be requested.
S&ME , Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273, [phone], Fax [phone]
Mailing address: P.O. Box 7668, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241-7668
-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Hance
FROM: Allen Schiff
SUBJECT: Answers to Questions regarding Former Unocal
Station -# 9342-209, GW Incident~ 3633
1. Unocal operated the site from the 1950' s (probably 1952
according to Wayne Holt) until sometime in 1986.
2. On February 18, 1988 the MRO received a preliminary
groundwater assessment that was performed on Unocal's behalf
by Law Engineering. The report contained sampling results
(groundwater) confirming that a .release had occurred at the
site. There were several UST locations on-site (past and
present) but the releases constituted one groundwater plUlile.
3. Petro Express acquired the site in January 1987 and started
dispensing products in late 1988.
4. The site assessment addendum and remedial action plan was
received by the MRO on March 18, 1993. The MRO acknowledged
receipt and said continue on without further review (see
attached). No formal approval was issued.
5. Soils were treated as part of CAP system that included SVE.
6. The CAP system was started up on 8/12/93 without a formal
approval from MRO.
7. Bedrock was not contaminated.
8. Mr. Wayne Holt of Unocal stated that he calculated, from maps
he has, that the site is 1.05 acres in size.
If you should have any questions, I can be reached at (704)
663-1699, ext. 236.
Attachment
AJS/mc
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIFIED MAIL P 281 517 326
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AVA
DEHNR
February 19, 1996
Mr. Stewart M. Hines
S&ME Incorporated
9751 Southern Pines Blvd.,
Charlotte, NC 28273
Subject: Request for Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for the Unocal
Corporation at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident # 3633)
Dear Mr. Hines:
The Division of Environmental Management has reviewed the information submitted in
the variance request received on November 2, 1995. The information contained in your request
does not meet the requirements for a variance application filed under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for
the following reasons:
1) Pursuant to 15ANCAC 2L .01 l3(c)(3) the description of the proposed area
for which the variance was requested is incomplete. The rule requires that '~
detailed location map showing the orientation of the facility, ...... must' be
included". The maps submitted did not show the location or identity of adjacent
properties to the north, northwest, west, and southwest of the site. Revised maps
showing these properties with any present or potential sources of groundwater
contamination noted must be submitted.
1
Groundwater Section, ~TL~,., Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
P.O . Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-05781 11 -~ '1 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
I
2) The description of the proposed area for the variance on a map does not
adequately show 11
... the potential for groundwater migration". A map showing the
location of all water wells on adjacent properties that are NOT used to provide
drinking water must be included. Please note if these wells are abandoned or still
in use. The survey that was conducted to assess the presence of drinking water
wells and basements within the area may be used to construct this map. If this
information cannot be obtained from the survey it may be gathered from other
sources. Please note on the map any additional drinking water wells that were not
identified in the request sent on November 2, 1995. Also, in order to assist staff,
please submit a map that contains the portion of the street map of the City of
Charlotte with the site shown on it.
3) The supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger
the public health and safety, including "health and environmental effects ...... 11 was
incomplete. In order to adequately assess the environmental impacts from this
site, the request needs to demonstrate the potential for movement of substances
off-site if the variance were granted. This demonstration must include the
estimated groundwater flow velocity in feet per year beneath the site. The request
must also show the projected time it will take for the plume of contaminants to
reach the nearest downgradient off site monitoring well in concentrations that
exceed the groundwater quality standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. In
addition, the estimated time of trl:!,vel it will take for the contaminants to reach
Little Sugar Creek needs to be included in the request. Previous submittals, such
as the corrective action plan, should be used to obtain the estimated groundwater
flow velocity and must be referenced in the response to this item. If other sources
of site specific information are used these must be submitted to the Groundwater
Section.
4) ·Tne supponing information to establish that the variance will not endanger
the public health and safety, including health and environmental effects, from
exposure to groundwater contaminants was incomplete. 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4)
requires that the " ..... Location of wells and other water su pp l y sources .... within
1/2 mile of (the) site must be shown on a map.". In order to meet this
requirement it is necessary to provide the location of the nearest public water
supply intake from surface water. Please show this feature on the map if it is
within 1/2 mile of the site.
2
..
5) The list of names and addresses of property owners as required by 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9) was incomplete. The rule requires the listing of "any
property owners ad;acent to the site .... ". Please submit names and addresses of
all property owners adjacent to the site and the direction relative to the Unocal
Corporation site. Please also include parcel numbers for each of these properties.
The additional information in items # 1 through # 5 must be provided so that the
Groundwater Section can properly evaluate the variance request and verify to the Director
that it meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c). Once the Groundwater Section
deems a variance request has met these requirements, it can proceed to the Director for
review in accordance with lSA NCAC 2L .0113 (d). For these reasons the request is being
returned to you. If you wish to continue pursuing a variance to the Subchapter 2L rules you will
need to submit information that addresses items #1 through #5. If you have any questions
concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Allen Schiff, Mooresville Regional Office, Groundwater
Section, at [phone].
APH/AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Burtle Boshoff
Sincerely,
~~?
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
David Hance
3
,,
2) The description of the proposed area for the variance on a map does not
adequately show" ... the potential/or groundwater migration". A map showing the
location of all water wells on adjacent properties that are NOT used to provide
drinking water must be included. Please note if these wells are abandoned or still
in use. The survey that was conducted to assess the presence of drinking · water
wells and basements within the area may be used to construct this map. If this
information cannot be obtained from the survey it may be gathered from other
sources. Please note on the map any additional drinking water wells that were not
identified in the request sent on November 2, 1995. Also, in order to assist staff,
please submit a map that contains the portion of the street map of the City of
Charlotte with the site shown on it.
3) The supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger
the public health and safety, including "health and environmental effects ...... " was
incomplete. In order to adequately assess the environmental impacts from this
site, the request needs to demonstrate the potential for movement of substances
off-site if the variance were granted. This demonstration must include the
estimated groundwater flow velocity in feet per year beneath the site. The request
must also show the projected time it will take for the plume of contaminants to
reach the nearest downgradient offsite monitoring well in concentrations that
exceed the groundwater quality standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. In
addition, the estimated time of travel it will take for the contaminants to reach
Little Sugar Creek needs to be included in the request. Previous submittals, such
as the corrective action plan, should be used to obtain the estimated groundwater
flow velocity and must be referenced in the response to this item. If other sources
of site specific information are used these must be submitted to the Groundwater
Section.
4) The supporting information to establish that the variance will not endanger
the public health and safety, including health and environmental effects, from
exposure to groundwater contaminants was incomplete. 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)( 4)
requires that the " ..... Location of wells and other water supply sources .... within
1/2 mile of (the) site must be shown on a map.". In order to meet this
requirement it is necessary to provide the location of the nearest public water
supply intake from surface water. Please show this feature on the map if it is
within 1/2 mile of the site.
2
.I
5) The list of names and addresses of property owners as required by 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c)(9) was incomplete. The rule requires the listing of "any
property owners ad;acent to the site .... ". Please submit names and addresses of
all property owners adjacent to the site and the direction relative to the Unocal
Corporation site. Please also include parcel numbers for each of these properties.
The additional information in items # 1 through # 5 must be provided so that the
Groundwater Section can properly evaluate the variance request and verify to the Director
that it meets the requirements of lSA NCAC 2L .0113 (c). Once the Groundwater Section
deems a variance request has met these requirements, it can proceed to the Director for
review in accordance with lSA NCAC 2L .0113 (d). For these reasons the request is being
returned to you. If you wish to continue pursuing a variance to the Subchapter 2L rules you will
need to submit information that addresses items #1 through #5. If you have any questions
concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Allen Schiff, Mooresville Regional Office, Groundwater
Section, at [phone].
APH/AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Burtle Boshoff
Sincerely,
~~~
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
David Hance
3
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 24, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: David Hance
THROUGH: Barbara Christian h.
Allen Schiff {,{_,J FROM:
SUBJECT: Review of Variance Request for
Former Unocal Facility #9342-209
---4--336--Park---Road-----
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Groundwater Incident #3633
Upon review of the November, 1995 variance request and th~"
Groundwater Incident file for the subject site, the MRO recommends
approval of the variance with the following comments:
1. The groundwater contaminant plume does not appear to
extend past the boundaries of the former Unocal Station
No. 9342-209.
2. No potable wells exist within a ;,. mile radius of the
subject site.
3. The MRO agrees that continued operation of the air
sparging, soil vapor extraction and pump and treat
systems are neither cost effective nor practical since
the contaminant plume has almost been completely
remediated. The remediation systems were shut down on
March 17 ,. 1995. The monitor and recovery wells were
sampled on December 1, 1995. The results of the sampling
indicate that only low levels of Benzene (9 ppb), 1, 2_-
dichloroethane (19.7 ppb) and Ethylene Dibromide (0.65
ppb) currently exist at the site.
If a variance is granted for the subject site, we would
recommend that selected wells be sampled semi-annually for several
years.
If you should have any questions, I can be reached at (704}
663-1699, ext. 236.
AJS/pl
Attachment
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ir~--~A . --~ .. n an
D E HNR
November 9, 1995
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Dr. Ken Rudo, Ph.D, Toxicologist,
Environmental Epidemiology Section
Arthur Mouberry, P.E., Chief ~
Groundwater Section (._f;J/"'
The Unocal Corporation Request for Variance from
15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards
for Property at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Attached is a variance request on behalf of the Unocal Corporation from SM&E
Incorporated. The request for variance is to groundwater standards for Benzene,
Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene (-o,-m, and -p), Naphthalene, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether,
Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1, 1-Dichloroethane, 1, 1-Dichloroethene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1, 1, I-Trichloroethane, 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane,
1,2-Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, Carbon
Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Methylene Chloride, trans-1,3-
dichloropropene, Chloroethane, 1,2-Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene.
The request is for a site contaminated by a release of gasoline from an underground
storage tank pit. The area requested for variance is all the property formerly owned by the
Unocal Corporation. This property is presently owned by DH&S (Petro Express) of 4718 N.
Graham Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. This facility has been, and is presently in use
as, a retail gasoline station. According to information submitted by the company, this
facility is within the City of Charlotte in a heavily commercialized area. Monitoring well
data indicates contamination in excess of groundwater standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
Extensive efforts have been made by the company to recover over the last few years
to remove and recover free product, remediate soil, prevent the contamination of
groundwater, and cleanup groundwater. The Unocal Corporation does not believe that any
public benefit can be gained through continued groundwater remediation efforts.
Please review the attached report and provide the Groundwater Section with a
recommendation regarding this request. If possible, the Section would like to receive your
recommended response by November 30, 1995.
1
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Upon receiving your recommendation, the Section will forward a recommendation to the
Director of the Division of Environmental Management.
If you need additional assistance or information please call me at 733-3221.
cc: Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
David Hance
Mooresville Regional Office Groundwater Supervisor
2
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 24, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: David Hance
THROUGH: Barbara Christian!n-
Allen Schiff a,,.J FROM:
SUBJECT: Review of Variance Request for
Former Unocal Facility #9342-209
4336 Park Road
Mecklenburg County,, N.C.
Groundwater Incident #3633
W U) rq
Upon review of the November, 1995 variance request and th~~
Groundwater Incident file for the subject site, the MRO recommends
approval of the variance with the following comments:
1. The groundwater contaminant plume does not appear to
extend past the boundaries of the former Unocal station
No. 9342-209.
2. No potable wells exist within a \ mile radius of the
subject site.
3 . The MRO agrees that continued operation of the air
sparging, soil vapor extraction and pump and treat
systems are neither cost effective nor practical since
the contaminant plume has almost been completely
remediated. The remediation systems were shut down on
March 17, 1995. The monitor and recovery wells were
sampled on December 1, 1995. The results of the sampling
indicate that only low levels of Benzene (9 ppb), 1,2-
dichloroethane (19.7 ppb) and Ethylene Dibromide (0.65
ppb) currently exist at the site~
If a variance is granted for the subject site, we would
recommend that selected wells be sampled semi-annually for several
years.
If you should have any questions, I can be reached at (704)
663-1699, ext. 236.
AJS/pl
Attachment
ID,7045253853
r
PAGE 2/10
(' t· r " I t: A L LU:c·r::-~ TC,J.:·U:--S
I r\i C ;:. t. '°" :'• , A T ~ !:'
28-DEC-SS 11,47 FROM,S AND ME CHARLOTTE ID,7045253953
.. -: . ,_.. -.,. .....
PAGE 3/10
4'. r-f ~ I {: -~ L
I. -~ff S:: .st.-■.-:. if!la:~
• -\ ' (, k. ~ ~-.. F• A l i D
28-DEC-SS 11,47 FROM,S AND ME CHARLOTTE ID,7045253853 PAGE 4/10
--=-=:1:J"-£, f ['~IC ~L
I \H f.'_\-H:H~S
1 ~; c p, : ~ ,-, ~ .A T ~ 0
28-DEC-95 11 ,48 FROM,S AND ME CHARLOTTE ID,7045253953
• I
'J
PAGE 5/10
("ff~l{',~L
I .\Hf;UTf.lH
:!l'Ol!AT~D
28-DEC-95 11,48 FROM•S AND ME CHARLOTTE ID,7045253853 PAGE 7/10
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Michael Moser, M.D., M.P.H.
November 28, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Arthur Mouberry, P.E., Chief
Groundwater Section
Division of Environinental Management
Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D., Toxicologist /l..lkfl
AVA
DEHNR
Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment Branch
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
SUBJECT: Variance Request-Unocal Corporation
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC
'''-"
After reviewing the above variance request, the Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Section (OEES) would like to offer the following observations and
recommendations. The levels of petroleum contaminants detected in the various monitoring
wells have decreased significantly from 1988 to the present time. The levels of petroleum
contaminants are only slightly above the groundwater standards in several monitoring wells.
This, coupled with the fact that there appear to be no private wells within 1400 feet of the site
would indicate that the current levels of petroleum contaminants should not pose any public
health risks at this time or in the future. The OEES would recommend granting Unocal
Corporation this variance.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 715-6430.
KR:lp
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NA
DEHNA
November 9, 1995
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
Dr. Ken Rudo, Ph.D, Toxicologist,
Environmental Epidemiology Section
Arthur Mouberry, P.E., Chief ~
Groundwater Section (_J;J/'
SUBJECT: The Unocal Corporation Request for Variance from
15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards
for Property at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Attached is a variance request on behalf of the Unocal Corporation from SM&E
Incorporated. The request for variance is to groundwater standards for Benzene,
Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene (-o,-m, and -p), Naphthalene, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether,
Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane, 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane,
1,2-Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, cis-1, 3-Dichloropropene, Carbon
Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Methylene Chloride, trans-1,3-
dichloropropene, Chloroethane, 1,2-Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene.
The request is for a site contaminated by a release of gasoline from an underground
storage tank pit. The _area requested for variance is all the property formerly owned by the
Unocal Corporation. This property is presently owned by DH&S (Petro Express} of 4718 N.
Graham Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. This facility has been, and is presently in use
as, a retail gasoline station. According to information submitted by the company, this
facility is within the City of Charlotte in a heavily commercialized area. Monitoring well
data indicates contamination in excess of groundwater standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
Extensive efforts have been made by the company to recover over the last few years
to remove and recover free product, remediate soil, prevent the contamination of
groundwater, and cleanup groundwater. The Unocal Corporation does not believe that any
public benefit can be gained through continued groundwater remediation efforts.
Please review the attached report and provide the Groundwater Section with a
recommendation regarding this request. If possible, the Section would like to receive your
recommended response by November 30, 1995.
1
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
Upon receiving your recommendation, the Section will forward a recommendation to the
Director of the Division of Environmental Management.
If you need additional assistance or information please call me at 733-3221.
cc: Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
David Hance
Mooresville Regional Office Groundwater Supervisor
2
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
November 9, 1995
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Barbara Christian, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeological
Supervisor, Mooresville Regional Office
FROM: Arthur Mouberry, P. E. , /Ji;:>,
Chief, Groundwater Sectio~
SUBJECT: Review of Request for Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0106
Corrective Action Plans and 15A NCAC 2L . 0202 Groundwater
Quality Standards by the Unocal Corporation at 4336 Park
Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (DEM Groundwater
Incident Number 3633).
Please review the attached request for a variance from the
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) rules and the Groundwater Quality
Standards. Review the request in terms of the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0106 Corrective Action to determine if a no corrective
action would be as effective as continuing an active CAP to
remediate groundwaters at this site. If a determination is made
that a CAP involving active groundwater remediation is not
necessary, please review the request for a variance in terms of the
requirements itemized in 15A NCAC 2L .0113, (c) (1-9), and (d).
Verify technical data provided in support of the request. The
company is requesting that current remediation efforts at this site
cease.
Please prepare a letter for the Director's signature providing
your conclusions regarding the request for relief from corrective
action plans under 15A NCAC 2L . 0106, the variance request, and any
additional requirements that are deemed appropriate.
A copy of this request has been sent to Dr. Ken Rudo, Division
of Epidemiology, for review of the risk assessment methodology.
If possible please return your recommendation to me by
Thursday, November 30, 1995.
cc: Carl Bailey
Burrie Boshoff
David Hance
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management ir~-~A ---~ .. a a a James B. ·Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary D E HNA
A Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIFIED MAIL P 067 735 510
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Stewart M. Hines
S&ME Incorporated
9751 Southern Pines Blvd .,
Charlotte, NC 28273
September 14, 1995
Subject: Request for Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for the Unocal
Corporation at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident# 3633)
Dear Mr. Hines:
The Division of Environmental Management has· reviewed the information submitted in
the variance received on August 28, 1995. This information contained in your request does not
meet the requirements for a variance application filed under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for the
following reasons:
1) 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (b) requires that a variance application ",,_shall be
sent to the Chaimum. of the Environmental M1n~ment Commission in care of the
Director, .. ,,. 11 as shown in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b): Please properly address this
variance request so that it is consistent with the requirements of the rules.
2) Supporting information from the responsible party to establish that the
requirements of the rule cannot be achieved by providing the best available
technology economically reasonable was incomplete. The variance request
1
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-~5 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
identified_ specific technology used at the site but did not elaborate on the costs of
implementing that particular technology. This information must provide a
projection of remediation costs if efforts were to continue for a period of years
with the current technologies being used at the site. If other best available
technologies exist and are deemed appropriate for this site, an evaluation of the
cost of those technologies should also be examined.
The additional information in items # 1 through # 2 must be provided so that the
Groundwater Section can properly evaluate the variance request and verify to the Director
that it meets the require,nents of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c). Once the Groundwater Section
deems a variance request has met these requirements, it can proceed to the Director for
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (d). For these reasons the request is being
returned to you. If you wish to pursue a variance to the Subchapter 2L rules you will need to
submit information that addresses items #1 through #2. If you have any questions concerning this
letter, please contact Mr. Allen Schiff, Mooresville Regional Office, Groundwater Section, at
[phone] .
APH/AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Burrie Boshoff
Sincerely,
~~~
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
David Hance
2
•
)
&ME
June 14, 1995
Mr. Allen Schiff
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C. 28115
Reference: Addendum to the 3/31/95 Request for Site Variance
and Groundwater Sampling Results on 6/2/95
Incident #3633
Former Unocal Station #9342-209
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Dear Mr. Schiff:
Triangle Environmental Inc., on behalf of Unocal Corporation, purged and sampled
groundwater from all on-site and off-site monitor wells (7) on June 2, 1995 for EPA Test
Methods 601, 602 including MTBE and IPE and 504.1. The groundwater sampling event
was performed prior to deactivation of the air sparging system on June 2, 1995. The
purpose of the sampling event was to evaluate groundwater quality in comparison to the
previous February 23, 1995 sampling event with the air sparging system on.
The June 2, 1995 analytical results revealed that BTEX, MTBE, IPE and EDB in
groundwater from all on-site monitor wells have remained below 2L s~andards and
method detection limits (<0.5 ug/L) as were on February 23, 1995. BTEX and MTBE
were also not detected in off-site downgradient monitor well MW-11 at the Pop Shop. Off-
site monitor well MW-10 at the Belk Investments property exhibited 11.4 ug/L total
xylenes, which is due to a separate release from a former fuel oil UST on-site. Trace
levels of 1, 1-dichloroethene (1.27 ug/L) and chloroform (11.6 ug/L) were detected in
groundwater from monitor well MW-7. Trace levels of 1,2-dichloroethane (9.55 ug/L)
were detec .ed in groundwater from monitor well MW-9. The state 2L groundwater
standards for these purgeable halocarbons are as follows: 7 ug/L for 1, 1-dichloroethene,
0.19 ug/L for chloroform and 0.38 ug/L for 1,2-dichloroethane. All other 601 compounds
S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273, [phone], Fax [phone]
Mailing addres.s: P.O. Box 7668, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 -7668
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Addendum to 3/31 /95 Request for Variance
S&M E Project No. 1354-92-397
June 14, 1995
were below method detection limits, as indicated on the laboratory analyses. Table 1
indicates historical groundwater and influent quality for the site and off-site monitor wells
MW-1 O and MW-11. All seven monitor wells will be purged and sampled in August 1995
for the same -analyses to evaluate if any "rebounding" of dissolved hydrocarbon
concentrations occurred with the air sparging system off.
We believe that continued remediation, using best available technology (air sparging), will
not result in significant further reduction in the groundwater concentration of these
contaminants, and therefore, we petition for a variance to the 2L groundwater remediation
guidelines (per 15A NCAC 2L .0113). We request that the state establish site-specific
closure criteria, given that asymptotic contaminant concentrations for some purgeable
halocarbons exceed the 2L or Class GA groundwater quality standards. We believe that
soil and groundwater restoration has occurred as close to the level of the state standards
as is economically and technically feasible.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
Very truly yours,
S&ME, INC.
~~.:..~ C/t<tl'lf {~,/'
Stewart M. Hines, LG.
Senior Hydrogeologist
SMH\
Enclosures
cc: Mr. A. Wayne Holt, P.G. -Unocal Corporation
Mr. R. Holshouser, Jr. -S&ME, Charleston, S.C.
P:\WP51\SCHIF95.613
2
I
fABLE 1
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER AN:l INFLUENT QUALITY DATA
FORMER UNOCAL FACILITY #9342-209
4336 PAHK ROAD. CHARLOTTE, NC
TOLUEN ~-1ETHYL-
BENZENE
!========.!._,===~~~=~=---1-~=-
MONITOR WELL DATE BENZENE ~~. ~~; T ™ I .. I "'" t -0~-1~~:~r-OCEp:;:•1~9' '"~L ,c~_c7~
1=-:,i===------; 5 -c=N=A==1e==N=A==-4===N=A==:c==N~A~0-= -NA-NA NA NA N~= -NA NA NA MW-1
MW-5
MW-6
,__
15ANCAC 21..
1/13/88
7/15/91
12/15/91
3/11/92
6/26/92
1/27/93
3/16/94
9/13/94
2/23/95
6/2/95
1.3
3.6
s
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
2.2
<1
<1
<1
3
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
11
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
36
20
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<O 5
<0 5
<1 NA NA NA NA NA
<1
<1
<1
14
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1
26
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
1
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1 <1 NA <1 <1
<1 <1 NA <1 <1
<1 <1 NA <1 <1
<1 <1 <0.02 <1 <1
2.66 <1 <0.005 <1 <1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.005 <1 1.16
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 -•-----+-----+----+---
3/5/90
12/16/91
6/26/92
1/27/93
8400
8100
5600
17,000
3200
7300
2200
15,000
1300
11,000
21,000
38,600
47,300
NA NA NA NA NA
4200
<1
NA
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1 <1 NA <1
10,100 24.300 <1 <1 NA <1
NOT SAM> L13J SINCE FF~E PROOUC DETECTED IN WELL
3/16/94 87.8 443 191 1310 2040 11
9/13/94 2.63 1.28 0.541 27.7 32.1 3.77
2/23/95 <0.5 c0.5 <0.5 <05 co 5 <0.5
-~6/2~/9_5_-+-__ <_o_.s_-+ __ c_o_._s _-+-__ c _o_.5_-+ __ c_o_._5 _-+-__ <_o_s __ ~
1/13/88 1.5 <1 <1 2.6 4 1 NA
7/15/91 <1 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1
12/16/91 . 2 2 5 1 10 <1
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
6/26/92 3.3 <1 <1 <1 33 <1
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <O 5 2.93
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 5 <0.5
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <O 5 <0.5
1000 29 530 NA 200
<1
<0.5
<1
<1
NA
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<1
<1
NA
0.928 <10 <10 <10 <1 <10 <1 <1
<0.372 3.73 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -m ~ ~ m m m m ~
m m ~ m ~ m m ~
NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
NA < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
NA < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
<0.02 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 6 <1
c0.005 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<0.005 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
+--c .;;o;.;.o .. 1_cj...c==<'=1'=--"-'-"-=~'=<='1==4-"-"<"1-4 _-"<"'1===-l-=<~1 =4 ==<=1--=-4= --~-!._a
4E-4 0.38 0.19 7 700 0.56 2.8 0.7
STANDARD (IN UGi\.)
NA
<1
<1
<1
53
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
200
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
_N~---
1600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA ---
21
;,,.=.=-•
B~NZENE ]TOLUENE
-
MONITOR WELL DATE ETHYL-TOTAL
BENZENE XYLENES
---iA'!l-1 1/13/88 <1 <1 <1 <1
7/15/91 <1 <1 <1 <1
12/16/91 <1 <1 <1 <1
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1
6/26/92 <1 <1 <1 <1
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5
9/13/94 <0.S <0.5 <0.S <0.S
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 5
MW-8 1/13/66 3 7 .7 2.9 17
7/15/91 <1 <1 <1 <1
12/16/91 10 11 25 100
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1
6/26/92 3.3 <1 <1 <1
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1
_ 9/3/93 -----MW-9 1/13/88 170 <1 <1 <1
7/15/91 130 1.8 23 7.7
12/16/91 290 11 <1 <1
3/11/92 250 6 .4 24 7.3
6/26/92 270 20 12 4.1
1/27/93 180 <1 <1 <1
3/16/94 26.9 0 .944 1.3 1.32
9/13/94 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
6 /2195 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 <:0 .5
~ E 15ANCAC2L 1000 29 530
STAND.ARD (IN UG/l)
rABLE 1
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER AN> INFLUENT QUALITY DATA
TO TAL
EX BT
-------
<
<
<
<
<
< 1
0
0
0 .
0
0 .6
< 5
< 5
< 5
< ~
3
<
1
<
46
1
3
<1
3
DEEP
1
16
3
28
T~
5
1
70
2
D
7 .3
1
3
<
<
.1
5
5
306
eo
0 .5
0
0
.!: Q 5
N A
FORMER UNOCAL FACILITY #93-42 -209
4336PARKROAO, CHARLOTTE, NC
-·-··
MTBE l'E EDB 1,2-DCA
-NA NA NA NA
<1 NA NA NA
<1 <1 NA <1
<1 <1 NA <1
<1 <1 NA <1
<1 <1 <0.02 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.005 <1
<0.5 <0.5 <0.005 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1
NA NA NA NA
<1 NA NA NA
<1 <1 NA <1
<1 <1 NA <1
<1 <1 NA <1
<1 <1 <0.02 2
_!ill WELL CC NVERTEDIN Q ANAIRS I ARGEWELL
NA NA NA NA
80 NA NA NA
<1 <1 NA <1
11 <1 NA 1li0
240 49 NA 110
220 97 <0.02 51
99 .4 <1 <0.005 68.1
4.46 <0.5 <0.005 25 .8
<0.5 <1 <0.01 24 6
<0.5 <1 <0 .01 11.55 --
200 NA 4E-4 0 .36
-------
METHOO 601 COWOUN>S
CHLORO-l 1, 1-DCE 1,1-0CA 1,2-DCP
FORM
-
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1. <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
3 .38 <1 <1 <1
814 <1 <1 <1
853 1.96 <1 <1
11.11 _!A_ -~ <1
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
--------------NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 2.2
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<!_ <1 <1 ~1
0.19 7 700 0.56
---
·-...
T~~-1 -
P~~L~1-~cA
NAPTHAj LENE
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 5 <10
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA -
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <10
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <10
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 NA
<1 .. .::1 <1 NA
28 0.7 200 21
·-
--=-
MONITOR WELL DATE BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-
BENZENE
-MW-10 1/27/93 2 <1 1
(BB..K INVEST.) 3/16/94 1.58 <::0,5 <0,5
9/13/94 0.736 <0.5 1.14
2/23/95 1.12 <0.5 1.38
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-11 1/27/93 <1 <1 <1
(POP SHOP) 3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
-6/2/95 ~ ~ ~-.?.
RW-1 1/27/93 NA NA NA
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <::0.5
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 --RW-2 12/16/91 1300 <1 <1
1/27/93 1300 <1 <1
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
RW-3 12/16/91 3 7 3
1/27/93 480 <1 <1
3/16/94 35.8 0.929 <0.5
9/13/94 45.4 2.10 <0.5
2/23/95 <'.0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -
RW-4 1/27/93 4000 1200 200
3/16/94 36,5 56 10.5
9/13/94 49.1 41.7 1.32
Y,23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ---·----INA.UENT 6/3/93 420 20 <1
(RW -1-4) 10/8/93 76 22 <1
1/13/94 76 <1 11
6/15/94 11.1 <0.5 <0.5
8/11/94 <8.10 <0.5 <0.5
c-~5 <0.5 1.13 <0.5 ·--
15ANCACa 1 1000 29
STANDARD (IN UG,t.)
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL GROUNDWAlEA ANl INFLUENT QUAUlY DATA
FOAMER UNOCAL FACIUlY IJg342-209
4336PARKROAD, CHARLOTTE, NC
-·---·-·---....:=:...,.=-·--~.-:-:--:::--·---•..: ___
j PE TOTAL
XYlENES
~
16
12.3
16.2
11.1
__ _!lL
<1
<0.5
<::0.5
<0,5
<0.§_
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<Q2__
<::1
300
<0.5
<0.5
_<05 __
18
15
<0.5
<0 5
<0.5
3100
310
737
<0.5 -68
53
11
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
530
TO TAL
TEX e
MTBE
-~ --
-
--
1
1
1
2 1
3.9
8.1
36
11
<
<
<
<
N
<
<
<
13
16
<
<
<
4
3
4
<
85
4
8
<
--
-
-
--
<1
<0,5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
9
10.7
<5.24
6.54
<0.5
NA
4.94
0.86
7.98
880
860
4.46
6.16
11.3
<1
160
85.8
66.7
47.7
<1
11.1
41.1
2.76
~-<1
<1
<0.5
<1
-__ <_1
<1
<1
<0.5
<1
<1
NA
<1
<0.5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<1
<1
67
5.62
6.23
4.12
<1
<1
<0.5
<1
4
<1
o 5
0 5
05
o s
A
0.5
o s
0 5
00
00
05
05
05
31
95
6 7
7 5
05
00
13
29
05
08
51
8
-----5
1
9
11
8
1,
1
10
1~
NA
--
570 <1
170 16
120 NA
68.4 NA
31.2 3.71
5.99 NA
200 NA
EDB 1,2-DCA CHLORO-
FORM
---·--
0.022 <1 <1
<0.005 <1 <1
<0.005 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1
~ <1 <1 -----
<0.02 <1 <1
<0.005 <1 <1
o::0.005 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1 -
NA NA NA
<0,005 1.33 <1
<0.005 2 32 1 22
0.2411 2.57 2.18
NA 230 1100
<0.02 68 <1
<0.005 <1 <1
<0,005 <1 <1
<0.01 <1 <1 --NA <1 <1
<0.02 520 <1
<0.005 20 <1
<0.005 14.8 13
-<0.01 15.5 _ <1
<0.02 1400 <1
4.05 13.1 2.21
32.1 41 7 1 29
0.052CI 4.44 4.511
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA ..
4E-4 0,311 0.19
·-·---· ...
METHOD ll01 COMPOUNlS
1,1-DCE 1,1-DCA 1,2-DCl" TCE
-•--·-
<1 <1 <::1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 ~!_ <1 <1 ----------· ~ --
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
-~ <1 <1 <1 -------·-
NA NA NA NA
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<::1 <::1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 ----
<1 <1 <1 1
<1 <1 7 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <::1 <1
<::1 <1 <1 <1 -
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 1.24 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 ----
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
7 700 0.56 2.8
~~ ..;:.s..-=--....., ~~-~---~ ~ --- -.....:=:::-·--=--..==-
NOTES:
• ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER ARE IN UG/L
• ANALYSES PERFORMED=METHOOS 602 (BTEX, MTBE AND IPE)
METHOD 504 (EDB)
• NA= NOT AVAILABLE
METHOD 601 (PURGEABLE HALOCARBONS)
METHOD 625 (BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES)
• THE 15A NCAC 2L GROUNDWATER STANDARD FOR COMPOUNDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STANDARD IS THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT
0.2411 = CONCENTRATION IS ABOVE THE STATE 15A NCAC 2L STANDARD
PCE
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<'.1
NA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
1,1,1-TCA
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1 -----
NA
<1
<1
<1 ------
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<'.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
200
NAPTHA-
LENE
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
--'~
.•
2670 ' FLOWERS CHEMICAL LABORATORIES I
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FORM HRS Nu rrt>e r 83 119 a -~
MW-7 MW-6 MW-10 MW-11 MW -1 MW-5 -MW-9 tr p blk. QA Section
Paramet er Sv!Tbcl Unit 10061 10062 10063 10064 10065 10066 10067 10068 Method MDL %RSD %Rec Anal "' Date
Dllullon Faci01 # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EP A60 1 1 DD 06-05-95
1 1 1-trichloroelhane . Ulll\. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA60I I 2.89 92.2 DD 06-05-95
1 1.2 2-telrachloroethano • uaA. <1 <1 <I <1 <1 <I <1 EPA60 1 1 2.12 87.2 DD 06-05-95
1 1 2-trlch loroelhane . uQ/1. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 i::PA601 t 2.06 M.9 nn ""-"5-95
1 1-dlchlo/oethane . uni\. <1 <1 <1 <1 <I <1 <1 EPA60 1 1 4.35 85.2 00 06-05-95
1 1-dlchloroelhene . uaA. 1.27 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <I EP .t.60 1 1 0.0367 82.6 DD 06-05-95
1 2-dlchlor,:,elhane . unll. <1 <1 <1 <1 <I <1 9.55 EP"""l 1 2.75 85 .1 DD 06-05-95
1 2-dlchlcirm.,....,ne . ,...,,. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EP .t.80 1 1 3.16 87 DD 06-05-95
2-chloroeihvMn'llether . ltJllll <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPAa>1 1 00 06-05-95
Bromod k:hlommalhane . luan. <1 <1 <1 <1 1<1 <1 <1 FPilll1 I 2.37 86 on 06-05-95
Bromol01 m . IUQ/1._ <1 1<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 4.95 82.3 DD 06-05-95
ds-1 3-d ich1,vnn,"""'"" . luai\. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EP A60 1 1 1.74 M.8 IX) 06-05-95
Carbon lelrachlorlde . lun/1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 IEP.......,1 t 4.97 89,2 nn ""-05-95
Chlordorm . '""' 11.6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 3.48 88.1 00 06-05-95
Dl>romoc!>loromem ane . UM <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 1.79 86.3 DD 06-05-95
Met hvlen• chloride . ua/1. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 2.8 87.2 DD 06-05-95
trans-1 .3.-dlch lDmnr,....n, • unit <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 1.64 86.5 DD 06-05-95
Trk:hlorotluoromethane . ,.,,n <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 EPA601 2 0,384 80.1 00 OfH>5-95
1-1 . 2-dk:hlcroetha ne . '""' <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 IE PA601 1 4.73 86.4 rn 06-05-95
Trk:hloroelhene . ua/1. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 2.04 86.2 00 06-05-95
Telrachloroelhene . ,...,,. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 3.1 85.9 DD 06-05-95
1 ?-dbr-"-cll""""'"" • ,.,,. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 IEP""'"1 1 2.59 101 DD 06-05-95
Bromorne!hana . nru\ <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ,5 <5 EPA601 s DD 06-05-95
Chloroelhane . ,.,,. <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 EPA601 J 1.33 90.9 DD 06-05-95
Chlorornet ha ne . '""' d, <5 <5 <~ <5 <~ <5 FPAM1 Is DD 06-05-95
Olchlorodlfluoromethane . , ... <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 EPA601 2 IX) 06-05-95
Vln vl clllorlde . '""' <0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 5 <0 5 <0.5 EPA601 0,5 IX) 06-05-95
Hal Snlke . , ... 100 98.7 97.7 97.6 97.3 97 .6 98.7 94.6 EP -"""1 05 1.83 104 DD ""-""'-0~
o-dk:hlorooenzane . lurut <0.5 <0.5 <0,5 <0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 2.19 83.7 00 06-05-95
m-dlchlorobenzene . unl1. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0,5 1.55 83.3 DD OfH>5-95
Para-dlchlorobenzene . ,.,,. <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <05 <0 ,5 <0.5 <0 .5 EPARIY.> 0.5 1.18 84 DD 06-05-95
Benzene . luan. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 05 3.37 84.8 DO 06-05-95
Chlordle nzene . .... <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ,:0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 3.95 85.5 DO 06-05-95
Elhllhnzene . ua/L l,0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 .n s <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 i:pun~ 0,5 3.37 82.2 DO 06-05-95
Toluene . ua/1. <0.5 <0.5 <0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 3.13 83.8 DO 06-05-95
xvw.e . , .... <0.5 <0.5 11.4 <0.5 <0,5 <0 ,5 <0.5 <0.5 EPJ\602 0 .5 3.34 81.8 DO 06-05-95
Meth\l ~ten-bulvlAl her . uo11 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA""' 0.5 3.41 103 DO 06-05-95
Total BTEX ,,,,~ <0.5 <0.5 11.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 3.31 82.7 DD 06-05-95
I knnm,wlether . U<II\.. <1 <1 <1 <1 <I <1 <1 <1 EPA602 1 DO 06-05-95
PIO Solke . un~ 105 104 104 103 103 103 104 102 EP.t.602 0 ,5 1.82 105 DO 06-05-95 . --
Eth ylene dlbrorride . uoll. <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0 .01 <0.01 -EPA!i<l'.1 0.01 027'1Yv:N 93.22448, m 06-06-95
Date Received: 06-05-95 Tvoed: 06-06-95 Sent: 06-06-95
Projec1 Number UNOC 9342-209
PO Number AFE#35893143
Dale Sampled 1 06-02-95 '
Dale Analyzed 0
'Compacted 1
Format NormRR
Unit Cost Exted
~1/602/IPE 11000 7 •
:mFI . .,,,, 7 •
IEPA602
Discount
000
'iOO
-.,1950
1.
1.
·.
~ r=LOW~l2§ Ct-f~IC~L
~ LAl30l?AT0l21~§~1~C.
Section 3
Method
Blank
Report
Analyte
ii -~ . ,~ . -~-.,;.
"'1~ •
Eth y l benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Client: S&ME-Charlotte
Project Number: UNOC 9342-209
P.O. Number: AFE#35893143
Date Sampled: 2-Jun-95
Lab Numbers: 10061 -10068
Unit Method
. , --
Date
pt. -.. ' '
''
ugJ L EPA602 06-05-95
ug/L EPA602 06-05-95
ug/L EPA602 06-05-95
Meth y l-tert-buty lether ug/L EPA602 06-05-95
Total BTEX UQ/L EPA602 06-05-95
lso p ro py lether ug/L EPA602 06-05-95
Eth y lene dibromide ug/L EPA504.1 06-06-95
Conc~ntr~
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.01
MEMORANDUM:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
September 14, 1995
TO: Barbara Christian, Regional Hydrogeologist
FROM: Arthur Mouberry, P.E., Chief ~
SUBJECT: Request for a Variance from the 15A NCAC 2L Corrective Action
Requirements and Groundwater Standards for the Unocal Corporation
(Groundwater Incident# 3633).
On March 31, 1995 the S&ME Corporation submitted a request for a "variance" on
behalf of Unocal Corporation to the Mooresville Regional Office. You will recall this request
was for a variance from Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .01060) and
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. On August 25, 1995 the
environmental consultant sent the request addressed to the Mooresville Regional Office
to the Director of the Division of Environmental Management for review ..
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (b) and the March 18, 1993 memorandum 11 2L
Variance Request" this variance application does not meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113. This rule specifically states that a variance application " ... shall be sent to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission in care of the Director, ..... "
as shown in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b). In addition, the consultant did not provide the
necessary information to.meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5). In providing
supporting information to establish that the requirements of the rule cannot be achieved
using best available technology, the person requesting -the variance did not give an
estimate of the costs of implementing that technology as required in the rule. The variance
request must provide a projection of remediation costs if efforts were to continue for a
period of years with the current technologies being use~ at the site. If other best available
technologies exist and are deemed appropriate for this site, an evaluation of the cost of
those technologies should also be examined. For these reasons, this request will be
returned to the responsible party.
Attached is a response letter informing the environmental consultant for the Unocal
Corporation that this variance does not conform with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113. If you need additional information, please contact David Hance at [phone] .
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
David Hance
Allen Schiff
identified specific technology used at the site but did not elaborate on the costs of
implementing that particular technology. This information must provide a
projection of remediation costs if efforts were to continue for a period of years
with the current technologies being used at the site. If other best available
technologies exist and are deemed appropriate for this site, an evaluation of the
cost of those technologies should also be examined.
The additional information in items # 1 through # 2 must be provided so that the
Groundwater Section can properly evaluate the variance request and verify to the Director
that it meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c). Once the Groundwater Sectfon
deems a variance request has met these requirements, it can proceed to the Director for
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (d). For these reasons the request is being
returned to you. If you wish to pursue a variance to the Subchapter 2L rules you will need to
submit information that addresses items #1 through #2. If you have any questions concerning this
letter, please contact Mr. Allen Schiff, Mooresville Regional Office, Groundwater Section, at
[phone].
APH/AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mou berry
Carl Bailey
Burrie Boshoff
Sincerely,
Arthur Mouberry, P. E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
David Hance
2
T R A I·-~ 5 M l ::. '·, l 1 ~ ~ ~: E F' I) F.'. T
~1 1 • •?l 1 • 2 ~:1 (1 (1
.••
E
October 4, 1996
Mr. David Hance
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
RE: Proposed Groundwater Sampling and Analyses Schedule
After Variance Approval
Incident #3633, Priority Ranking BOE
Unocal Corporation (Former Station #9342-209)
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC ·
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Dear Mr. Hance:
..... ,.
'.,C')
( -~ -
S&ME, Inc., on behalf of Unocal Corporation; hereby informs the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission that Unocal Corporation proposes.to monitor
groundwater quality on-site and on two adjacent off-site properties for two years following
Variance approval by the State. The State's October 1, 1996 Notice of Variance
Application and Hearing requires the hydrocarbon compounds above the 2L groundwater
standards to remain within the former Unocal property boundaries of 4336 Park Road.
Our proposed monitoring would further evaluate groundwater compliance within the
Variance boundary area (former Unocal facility) at selected on-site monitor and former
recovery wells (M-5, MW-7, MW-9, RW-1, and RW-4). S&ME, Inc. proposes to sample
groundwater from these 5 wells on a semi-annual basis for two years after Variance
approval. Groundwater from these wells will be analyzed for EPA Methods 601, 602
(including MTBE) and 504. 1 for EDB, since these compounds were detected above the
2L groundwater standards. The results will be added to the attached historical
groundwater and influent quality data Table 1 and presented to the State and Unocal
Corporation. After the two years of groundwater nonitoring, no further monitoring or
action may be requested.
S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Chorlorte, North Carolina 28273, [phone], Fox [phone]
Moiling address: P.O. Box 7668, Chorlorte, North Carolina 28241-7668
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Proposed Groundwater Monitoring After Variance Approval, Un~cal-Park Rd. October 2, 1996
If you have any questions, please call me at 704-523-4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Stewart Hines, LG.
Senior Hydrogeologist
~~
Al Quarles, LG.
Assistant Environmental Services Manager
cc: Wayne Holt -Unocal Corporation
K:\. .. \1996\HANCE.02
2
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A~A
D E HNR
October 3, 1996
Dear Groundwater Rules Mailing List Recipient,
Attached is a public notice to inform you that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
is holding a public hearing on a proposed variance by the Unocal Corporation (DWQ
Groundwater Incident Number 3633). This proposed variance is for property located at
4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. This notice is being sent to persons, firms
and corporations on the Groundwater Rules Mailing List who work or reside within the
Charlotte metropolitan area and Mecklenburg County. The notice is being sent to persons
with an interest in environmental protection, groundwater cleanup, environmental
consulting, trade and industrial regulatory issues, and persons with an interest in proposed
variances that affect the petroleum industry. Additional information about the proposed
variance and the procedures necessary to contact the agency are found in the attached
notice. If you have any questions, please contact David Hance at [phone].
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
Sincerely,
*M~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning, Groundwater
Section
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
David Hance
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N!iC
!fMtf1r1iW
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
50°1o recycles/10"/o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Tucker Pearsall
Legal Advertising
The Charlotte Observer
P.O. Box 32188-28232
Charlotte, NC 28232
Dear Mr. Pearsall:
.A.VA
DEHNR
October 1, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be holding a Public Hearing
on behalf of the Division of Water Quality to receive public comment on a proposed variance to
groundwater rules for the Unocal Corporation site at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the meeting. It is requested that you publish the
Public Notice in the Sunday, October 6, 1996 issue.
Publication charges will be paid by this office upon receipt of your invoice, affidavit, and proof of
publication. Please send the invoice in triplicate and the affidavit in duplicate to the following
individual:
Enclosure
cc: David Hance
Ms. Francis Cotten, DWQ-Budget Office
512 N. Salisbury Street
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27606-0535
[phone] (ext# 231)
Sincerely,
/171~~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.,
Assistant Chief for Planning,
Groundwater Section
DWQ-Public Information Officer
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N!JC ,,emaee
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/10% post-consumer paper
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Depart.ment
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission.
The hearing concerns a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and the Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (j) for a site at 4336 Park Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina. The Division of Water Quality refers to this site identified in the variance
request as Groundwater Incident # 3633. This property, previously owned by the Unocal Corporation of
Atlanta, Georgia, is now owned by the DH&S Company (Petro Express). The Unocal Corporation is
entirely responsible for cleanup for Groundwater Incident # 3633. This variance application from the
Unocal Corporation was received for review by the Department on September 29, 1995.
The property where the release of petroleum product has occurred is located as follows: Inside the city
limits of Charlotte, North Carolina. Take Interstate 85 to Interstate 77 south and travel four and one-half
miles south on Interstate 77 and take the Woodlawn Road (City Highway 4) exit and travel east toward
downtown Charlotte. This site at 4336 Park Road is located two miles east at the comer of Woodlawn
Road and Park Road. This site is listed in Mecklenburg County tax records as Parcel Number 143-203-24.
The Unocal Corporation requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the following
variance to its rules under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the following:
(1) Allow concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (-o,-m, and p), Naphthalene,
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, l,l,1,-Trichloroethane, l ,l,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Methylene Chloride,
trans-1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene to remain at levels above 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed in December 1995. These concentrations will be required
to remain within the property boundaries of 4336 Park Road.
The property at 4336 Park Road, for which the Unocal Corporation has cleanup responsibilities
under Groundwater Incident Number 3633, consists of approximately 1.05 acres of land. The
Unocal Corporation operated a retail gasoline station at this site from the 1950s to 1987. In 1987
the Unocal Corporation sold this property to DH&S Company. In 1988 this site was renovated and
old tanks removed so that a new gasoline station, known as the Petro Express Gasoline Station #
7, could be built at this site. This property is located in an area with a mixture of commercial,
industrial, and residential development. Almost all the land area at this site is covered by buildings
and paved parking lots.
1
Pursuant to the transfer of property to the DH&S Company and the removal of the underground
storage tanks at 4336 Park Road, the Unocal Corporation discovered a release of an unknown quantity
of gasoline. A site assessment and corrective action plan for this site was submitted on March 18,
1993 and is kept on file at the Mooresville Regional Office. The site assessment revealed a plume of
groundwater and soils contamination originating from free product gasoline near the south property
line. The plume of substances that came from the release of gasoline was estimated to have covered
an area of 61,250 square feet (1.406 acres), prior to the implementation of corrective actions.
On August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation implemented cleanup at this site. The plan called
for the implementation of a pump-and-treat groundwater cleanup system, an air sparging system for
soils and subsurface materials, and soil vapor extraction. Pump-and-treat technology uses a pump to
convey contaminated groundwaters from beneath the land, treats these groundwaters to remove
contaminants, and returns the treated water to a permitted discharge. Air sparing relies on the
introduction of air to separate volatile substances from subsurface materials. Soil vapor extraction uses
suction to remove contaminants from soils. Use of soil vapor extraction is intended to reduce
contaminant levels in soils without requiring the removal and treatment of soils offsite and the
introduction of new or treated fill materials. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department issued
a permit to discharge treated water from the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system into the
nearby sanitary sewer. These cleanup technologies were in operation from August 12, 1993 through
September 29, 1995.
The Division of Water Quality required the Unocal Corporation to perform groundwater
monitoring to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. Since January 13, 1988
monitoring has been conducted at six on-site wells located at 4336 Park Road. Benzene was found
in five of six on site monitoring wells on December 16, 1991. The highest concentration of Benzene
found in a monitoring well, prior to implementation of groundwater cleanup, was 8 .10 milligrams per
liter found in Monitoring Well# 5 during the December 16, 1991 sampling event. The Groundwater
Quality Standard for Benzene in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is 0.0001 milligrams per liter. Concentrations
of Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene and Chloroform were also found in Monitoring Well # 5
significantly above the Groundwater Quality Standards in Title 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Monitoring well
# 5 is located within 15 feet of the south property line and is located in the area in which the release
of gasoline was discovered. On January 27, 1993 two additional monitoring wells were constructed
off-site. A downgraidient monitoring well was located to the east at the Pop Shop (Parcel Number
17 5-181-06). Another off-site well was located to the south at Belk Investments (Parcel Number 171-
043-021 ). Analysis of groundwater samples from these two off-site wells have not shown
concentrations of substances above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 from
the time these wells were installed in January 1993 through the December 1995 groundwater
sampling.
The Division also required Unocal Corporation to evaluate the effectiveness of groundwater
cleanup efforts by examining concentrations of substances in recovery wells beginning December 16,
1991. Recovery wells at the 4336 Park Road site are used as sumps to collect groundwater, free
product, and dissolved hydrocarbons from the site for treatment. Pumps convey this fluid to the
treatment system. Samples were obtained from four recovery wells located beneath the parking lot and
the area that formerly had the Unocal Corporation service station and pump islands.
Since cleanup was initiated on August 12, 1993 significant reductions in concentrations of
substances was observed in groundwater samples taken from the recovery wells . Results from 1994
demonstrated reductions in the concentrations of substances had occurred at this site since the
implementation of cleanup.
2
From August 12. 1993 through September 13, 1994 the concentration of substances at this site
were significantly reduced by groundwater cleanup technologies located at the site. Through 1995
analysis of samples from monitoring wells showed only marginal reductions in the concentration of
substances in groundwater. Analysis of groundwater samples taken on February 23, 1995 and on June
2, 1995 showed there was no significant increase or decrease in concentrations of Benzene and other
substances at on-site monitoring wells, while cleanup operations were being conducted. Except for
Chloroform in Monitoring Well# 7 and 1,2-Dichloroethane in Monitoring Well# 9 at concentrations
above the Groundwater Quality Standards, no other substances were reported in the other monitoring
wells during this time.
Based on groundwater analysis of samples from winter and summer monitoring events in 1995,
the Division of Water Quality recommended that pump-and-treat, air sparging and soil vapor
extraction technologies be turned off to determine if residual contaminants in the soils and subsurface
would recontaminate the groundwater, if no treatment system were operating. In December 1995
groundwater monitoring was conducted at recovery wells and monitoring wells after the pump-and-
treat system had been temporarily turned off. Only two of seven monitoring wells had concentrations
of substances in exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Monitoring
well# 5 had Benzene at 0.00863 milligrams per liter, Ethylene Dibromide at 6.52 x 10-4 milligrams
per liter, and 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.00615 milligrams per liter. The maximum concentration of
these substances allowed under the Groundwater Quality Standards pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202
is as follows: Benzene at 0.0001 milligrams per liter, Ethylene Dibromide at 4.00 x 10-4 milligrams
per liter, and 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.0003 milligrams per liter. A sample from Monitoring Well#
9 showed 0.00447 milligrams per liter of 1,2-Dichloroethane. No substances were detected at
Monitoring Well# 7 from the December 1, 1995 sampling event. Analysis of samples from the
remaining monitoring wells reported Benzene, Chloroform, Ethylene Dibromide, and 1,2-
Dichloroethane at concentrations below quantitation limits. The downgradient monitoring well located
offsite to the east at the Pop Shop and the monitoring well located to the south at Belk Investments
have ne¥er shown concentrations of any substance above the groundwater Quality Standards in title
15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Groundwater Quality Standards).
Concentrations of Benzene in all four recovery wells did not show a significant decrease or
increase during December 1995. Samples from two of the four recovery wells continued to show
levels of 1,2-Dichloroethane above Groundwater Quality Standards. The highest concentration of
1,2-Dichloroethane from a December 19, 1995 sampling event was 0.0197 milligrams per liter in
Recovery Well# 4. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.0003 milligrams
per liter.
Monitoring wells at this site have shown insignificant reductions in Benzene as a result of
using pump-and treat, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction technologies. Although concentrations
of substances appear to be decreasing in recovery wells, significant reductions in the concentration
of 1,2-Dichloroethane have not been observed in recovery wells. No significant increase in
concentrations of substances was observed as a result of the temporary cessation of pump-and-treat
operations.
The Unocal Corporation has submitted supporting information showing that the variance will
not endanger public health, safety, or the environment. No known sources of drinking water from
water wells or surface water supplies are known to exist within a ½ mile radius of this property.
Based on groundwater flow information obtained during the Comprehensive Site Assessment, it is
believed that the contaminant plume is moving to the e&1. The Unocal Corporation has calculated the
time it will take Benzene, Ethylbenzene and 1,2-Dichloroethane to reach Little Sugar Creek at
3
concentration levels that would exceed Groundwater Quality Standards is between 93 and 280 years.
Little Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek which is a tributary of the Catawba River. All
residents in the area are supplied drinking water from the City of Charlotte. Information provided by
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department indicates that the public water supply lines in this
area are at an average depth ofless than five feet from the ground surface. Groundwater occurs at 4336
Park Road at a depth of seventeen feet beneath the property. Water supply lines are not located deep
enough in the ground to be impacted by this variance.
2) Allow for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions in accordance with
ISA NCAC 2L .01060). The Unocal Corporation has submitted supporting information
demonstrating that the continued application of best available technology will not result in significant
long term remediation of the site to the Groundwater Quality Standards contained in ISA NCAC 2L
.0202. This is due to the high probability that continued remediation activities at the site will not
significantly reduce contaminant levels below Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. Since corrective actions were implemented on August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation has
extracted a total of 3,050 pounds of petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated soils and
groundwater. The mass of petroleum extracted from soils and subsurface materials is approximately
3,000 pounds. The Unocal Corporation has treated an estimated 4.12 million gallons of groundwater
via pump-and-treat technology which accounts for 50 pounds of material removed. The company
reports that a total of $313,500 has been spent by the Unocal Corporation to cleanup the release
described in Groundwater Incident # 3633. No claims for reimbursement through the state's
Commercial Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund have ever been filed by the Unocal Corporation
for funds spent on this site. The Unocal Corporation estimates that continued operation of the current
groundwater and soil cleanup system over the next three years will be approximately $180,000.
The Unocal Corporation has shown that when the operation of groundwater remediation systems
at the site was temporarily interrupted, no increase in the concentration of any substance above
groundwater standards was observed in off-site monitoring wells from monitoring data. The company
asserts that marginal increases observed for some chemicals in two of the on-site monitoring wells,
when the cleanup systems were not in operation, demonstrates that continued implementation of pump
and treat, air sparging and soil vapor extraction will not result in a significant reduction in contaminant
concentrations at this site.
The Unocal Corporation has considered the use of air sparging as an alternate technology to the
current groundwater remediation system. The company does not believe this technology is
economically reasonable or practical to meet the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5). The
estimated cost of implementing air sparging is approximately $45,000. The company asserts that
continued reliance on air sparging is not economically justified due to the low residual concentrations
of substances at this site with the lack of groundwater consumption by humans.
4
.... _.....
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Park Road Shopping Center, Inc.
4201-A Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
AVA
D E HNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING: Parcel Number 175-181-07 (Hardees
Restaurant) and Parcel Number 175-181-
06 (The Pop Shop)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). 15A NCAC 21
.0113(e)(l)(E) requires adequate notice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Nlf)C
!fftti'ft«e
Sincerely,
~(02_~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/lCl°k post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. John Petoskey
Tax Administrator
City of Charlotte -Tax Office
720 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Dear Mr. Petoskey:
NA
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106G) {Groundwater
Classifications and Standards). 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e){l){E) requires adequate notice
be given to area properties and adjacent property owners prior to hearing. A vacant
house is located adjacent to the property for which the variance has been requested.
This property is located at 1348 Woodlawn Road (Parcel Number 171-044-15) The
only information available to us is that this house has been vacant for many years.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please refer
to the enclosure for additional information. If the city tax listing reveals an owner or
owners for this property, please forward this public notice to them so that they may be
advised of the variance request and hearing in the attached notice.
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N{;C
frZT&'tli®'
Sincerely,
~::1~~
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirnative Action Employer
50"/o recycles/10"/o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
The Pop Shop
4323 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
.AVA
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING: 4323 Park Road j Parcel Number 175-
181-06 !
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0106(j). 15A NCAC 21
. 0113( e )( 1 )(E) requires adequate not ice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing . Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0S78
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N~C
·mm1t1?W1
Sincerely,
/j//l~~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr .
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50'/o recycles/ l O"/o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Nationwide Insurance
4320 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
AVA
D E HNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING: 4320 Park Road In Charlotte, NC l Parcel
Number 149-203-25 !
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 21 .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0106(j). 15A NCAC 21
.0113(e)(l)(E) requires adequate notice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N~JC
·1e1.aee,
Sincerely,
~M &:;;},
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assis t an t Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
AA Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/10"/4, post-consumer paper
. .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Marian Bass Properties
4000 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
.AWA
D E HNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING : Park Chase Apa r tmen t s at 1351 Wood lawn
Road in Charlotte, NC l Parcel Number
149-203-20!
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment , Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). 15A NCAC 2L
.0113( e )( 1 )(E) requires adequate no ti ce be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to heari_ng .
You will find enclosed a Public Not ice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additiona l information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone] .
Enclosur e
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N!;C
f&iWiifsmmee
Sincere ly,
?te..t!~
M. Carl Bailey , Jr .
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affinnative Action Employer
50% recycles/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Kilian Realty
12700 Statesville Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
AVA
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING : 4320 Park Road In Char lotte , NC j Parce l
Number 149-203-25 !
TO WHOM IT MAY CO NCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 21 .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0106(j). 15A NCAC 21
.0113( e )( 1 )(E) requ ires adequate not ice be given to area properti es and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing .
You will fi nd enclosed a Publi c Not ice regarding the va r iance hea ring . Pleas e
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosur e
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N(;C
uzmth@t!ilil
Sincerely,
-'},//{!,,,__(}~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/ 10"/4 post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Hardees Restaurant
4335 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
AVA
DEHNR
Octa ber 2, 1996
REGARDING: 4335 Park Road l Parcel Number 175-
181-07 !
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). 15A NCAC 2L
. 0113( e )( 1 )(E) requires adequate notice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh , North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N{'JC
f1Tfi'NttiW
Sincerely,
/JI-?~~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50"/4 recycles/ l 0% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Exxon Company, USA
P.O. Box 30451
Charlotte, NC 28230
AVA
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING: Exxon Gasoline Station at 125 Woodlawn
Drive jParcel Number 175-141-0l!
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 21 .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0106(j). 15A NCAC 21
.0113(e}(1)(E) requires adequate notice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N!)C ,,ma·ee,
Sincerely,
~c!....c ~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/ l O"k post-consumer paper
. .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
.A.VA
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 190
Newell, NC 28126
ATTENTION: Mr. Don Spence
Dear Mr. Spence,
REGARDING: The Corner of Woodlawn Road
and Park Road at 4336 Park Road in
Charlotte, N.C.
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(l)(E) requires adequate notice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
ref er to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N!)C
f1W1'f@1M
Sincerely,
~~~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50"k recycles/10"/o post-consumer paper
. ' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Belk Investments
4400 Park Road
Charlotte, NC 28209
-A.~A
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
REGARDING: Parcel Number 171-043 -21 j 4400 Park
Road!
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has received a
request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 21 .0202
and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0106(j). 15A NCAC 21
.0113( e )( 1 )(E) requires adequate notice be given to area properties and adjacent
property owners prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information. If you have any questions
concerning this variance request, please contact David Hance at [phone].
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N!)C
ffMtd'rifflJ
Sincerely ,
¢~~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affinnative Action Employer
50% recycles/10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A.VA
DEHNR
October 2, 1996
Mr. Peter Safir
Mecklenburg County Health Department
Office of the Health Director
Area Mental Health
429 Billingsly Road
Charlotte, NC 28211
Dear Mr. Safir:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has
received a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of
15A NCAC 2L .0202 and Corrective Action requirements of 1 SA NCAC 2L
.01060) (Groundwater Classifications and Standards). 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(1)(8) requires adequate notice be given to the local health agency units
having jurisdiction over the geographical area covered by the variance prior to
hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information.
Enclosure
Groundwater Section,
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
N{;C
!fM&'i'itWI
Sincerely,
::Ca:i/J;<J
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Voice 919-733-322 l FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportuni1y/Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/lO"k post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AVA
D E HNR
October 2, 1996
Mr. Wendell White
Office of the City Manager
City of Charlotte
600 E. Fourth Street -Government Center
Charlotte, NC 28202-2244
Dear Mr. White:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has
received a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of
15A NCAC 2L .0202 and Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.01060) (Groundwater Classifications and Standards). 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(1 )(D) requires adequate notice be given to governmental units having
jurisdiction over the geographical area covered by the variance prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the variance hearing. Please
refer to the enclosure for additional information.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
4J,tt:Jl_l!r{J
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Groundwater Section, N,-r.1"1 Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
P.O . Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578 'ill+;''-.; An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 !?itifiid'l'@ee 50% recycles/10% post-consumer paper
•
· NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission.
The hearing concerns a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 and the Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 G) for a site at 4336 Park Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina. The Division of Water Quality refers to this site identified in the variance
request as Groundwater Incident # 3633. This property, previously owned by the Unocal Corporation of
Atlanta, Georgia, is now owned by the DH&S Company (Petro Express). The Unocal Corporation is
entirely responsible for cleanup for Groundwater Incident # 3633. This variance application from the
Unocal Corporation was received for review by the Department on September 29, 1995.
The property where the release of petroleum product has occurred is located as follows: Inside the city
limits of Charlotte, North Carolina. Take Interstate 85 to Interstate 77 south and travel four and one-half
miles south on Interstate 77 and take the Woodlawn Road (City Highway 4) exit and travel east toward
downtown Charlotte. This site at 4336 Park Road is located two miles east at the corner of Woodlawn
Road and Park Road. This site is listed in Mecklenburg County tax records as Parcel Number 143-203-24.
The Unocal Corporation requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant the following
variance to its rules under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the following:
(1) Allow concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (-o,-m, and p), Naphthalene,
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, 1, 1, 1,-Trichloroethane, 1, 1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane, 1, 1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Methylene Chloride,
trans-1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene to remain at levels above 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed in December 1995. These concentrations will be required
to remain within the property boundaries of 4336 Park Road.
The property at 4336 Park Road, for which the Unocal Corporation has cleanup responsibilities
under Groundwater Incident Number 3633, consists of approximately 1.05 acres of land. The
Unocal Corporation operated a retail gasoline station at this site from the 1950s to 1987. In 1987
the Unocal Corporation sold this property to DH&S Company. In 1988 this site was renovated and
old tanks removed so that a new gasoline station, known as the Petro Express Gasoline Station #
7, could be built at this site. This property is located in an area with a mixture of commercial,
industrial, and residential development. Almost all the land area at this site is covered by buildings
and paved parking lots.
1
Pursuant to the transfer of property to the DH&S Company and the removal of the underground
storage tanks at 4336 Park Road, the Unocal Corporation discovered a release of an unknown quantity
of gasoline. A site assessment and corrective action plan for this site was submitted on March 18,
1993 and is kept on file at the Mooresville Regional Office. The site assessment revealed a plume of
groundwater and soils contamination originating from free product gasoline near the south property
line. The plume of substances that came from the release of gasoline was estimated to have covered
an area of 61,250 square feet (1.406 acres), prior to the implementation of corrective actions.
On August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation implemented cleanup at this site. The plan called
for the implementation of a pump-and-treat groundwater cleanup system, an air sparging system for
soils and subsurface materials, and soil vapor extraction. Pump-and-treat technology uses a pump to
convey contaminated groundwaters from beneath the land, treats these groundwaters to remove
contaminants, and returns the treated water to a permitted discharge. Air sparing relies on the
introduction of air to separate volatile substances from subsurface materials. Soil vapor extraction uses
suction to remove contaminants from soils. Use of soil vapor extraction is intended to reduce
contaminant levels in soils without requiring the removal and treatment of soils offsite and the
introduction of new or treated fill materials. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department issued
a permit to discharge treated water from the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system into the
nearby sanitary sewer. These cleanup technologies were in operation from August 12, 1993 through
September 29, 1995.
The Division of Water Quality required the Unocal Corporation to perform groundwater
monitoring to determine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. Since January 13, 1988
monitoring has been conducted at six on-site wells located at 4336 Park Road. Benzene was found
in five of six on site monitoring wells on December 16, 1991. The highest concentration of Benzene
found in a monitoring well, prior to implementation of groundwater cleanup, was 8 .10 milligrams per
liter found in Monitoring Well# 5 during the December 16, 1991 sampling event. The Groundwater
Quality Standard for Benzene in ISA NCAC 2L .0202 is 0.0001 milligrams per liter. Concentrations
of Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene and Chloroform were also found in Monitoring Well # 5
significantly above the Groundwater Quality Standards in Title 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Monitoring well
# 5 is located within 15 feet of the south property line and is located in the area in which the release
of gasoline was discovered. On January 27, 1993 two additional monitoring wells were constructed
off-site. A downgraidient monitoring well was located to the east at the Pop Shop (Parcel Number
175-181-06). Another off-site well was located to the south at Belk Investments (Parcel Number 171-
043-021). Analysis of groundwater samples from these two off-site wells have not shown
concentrations of substances above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 from
the time these wells were installed in January 1993 through the December 1995 groundwater
sampling.
The Division also required Unocal Corporation to evaluate the effectiveness of groundwater
cleanup efforts by examining concentrations of substances in recovery wells beginning December 16,
1991. Recovery wells at the 4336 Park Road site are used as sumps to collect groundwater, free
product, and dissolved hydrocarbons from the site for treatment. Pumps convey this fluid to the
treatment system. Samples were obtained from four recovery wells located beneath the parking lot and
the area that formerly had the Unocal Corporation service station and pump islands.
Since cleanup was initiated on August 12, 1993 significant reductions in concentrations of
substances was observed in groundwater samples taken from the recovery wells. Results from 1994
demonstrated reductions in the concentrations of substances had occurred at this site since the
implementation of cleanup.
2
From August 12. 1993 through September 13, 1994 the concentration of substances at this site
were significantly reduced by groundwater cleanup technologies located at the site. Through 1995
analysis of samples from monitoring wells showed only marginal reductions in the concentration of
substances in groundwater. Analysis of groundwater samples taken on February 23, 1995 and on June
2, 1995 showed there was no significant increase or decrease in concentrations of Benzene and other
substances at on-site monitoring wells, while cleanup operations were being conducted. Except for
Chloroform in Monitoring Well# 7 and 1,2-Dichloroethane in Monitoring Well# 9 at concentrations
above the Groundwater Quality Standards, no other substances were reported in the other monitoring
wells during this time.
Based on groundwater analysis of samples from winter and summer monitoring events in 1995,
the Division of Water Quality recommended that pump-and-treat, air sparging and soil vapor
extraction technologies be turned off to determine if residual contaminants in the soils and subsurface
would recontaminate the groundwater, if no treatment system were operating. In December 1995
groundwater monitoring was conducted at recovery wells and monitoring wells after the pump-and-
treat system had been temporarily turned off. Only two of seven monitoring wells had concentrations
of substances in exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards in I SA NCAC 2L .0202. Monitoring
well # 5 had Benzene at 0.00863 milligrams per liter, Ethylene Dibromide at 6.52 x 10-4 milligrams
per liter, and 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.00615 milligrams per liter. The maximum concentration of
these substances allowed under the Groundwater Quality Standards pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202
is as follows: Benzene at 0.0001 milligrams per liter, Ethylene Dibromide at 4.00 x 10-4 milligrams
per liter, and 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.0003 milligrams per liter. A sample from Monitoring Well#
9 showed 0.00447 milligrams per liter of 1,2-Dichloroethane. No substances were detected at
Monitoring Well# 7 from the December 1, 1995 sampling event. Analysis of samples from the
remaining monitoring wells reported Benzene, Chloroform, Ethylene Dibromide, and 1,2-
Dichloroethane at concentrations below quantitation limits. The downgradient monitoring well located
offsite to the east at the Pop Shop and the monitoring well located to the south at Belk Investments
have never shown concentrations of any substance above the groundwater Quality Standards in title
15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Groundwater Quality Standards).
Concentrations of Benzene in all four recovery wells did not show a significant decrease or
increase during December 1995. Samples from two of the four recovery wells continued to show
levels of 1,2-Dichloroethane above Groundwater Quality Standards. The highest concentration of
1,2-Dichloroethane from a December 19, 1995 sampling event was 0.0197 milligrams per liter in
Recovery Well# 4. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.0003 milligrams
per liter.
Monitoring wells at this site have shown insignificant reductions in Benzene as a result of
using pump-and treat, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction technologies. Although concentrations
of substances appear to be decreasing in recovery wells, significant reductions in the concentration
of 1,2-Dichloroethane have not been observed in recovery wells. No significant increase in
concentrations of substances was observed as a result of the temporary cessation of pump-and-treat
operations.
The Unocal Corporation has submitted supporting information showing that the variance will
not endanger public health, safety, or the environment. No known sources of drinking water from
water wells or surface water supplies are known to exist within a ½ mile radius of this property.
Based on groundwater flow information obtained during the Comprehensive Site Assessment, it is
believed that the contaminant plume is moving to the east. The Unocal Corporation has calculated the
time it will take Benzene, Ethylbenzene and 1,2-Dichloroethane to reach Little Sugar Creek at
3
•
2)
concentration levels that would exceed Groundwater Quality Standards is between 93 and 280 years .
Little Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek which is a tributary of the Catawba River. All
residents in the area are supplied drinking water from the City of Charlotte. Information provided by
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department indicates that the public water supply lines in this
area are at an average depth ofless than five feet from the ground surface. Groundwater occurs at 4336
Park Road at a depth of seventeen feet beneath the property. Water supply lines are not located deep
enough in the ground to be impacted by this variance.
Allow for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions in accordance with
15A NCAC 2L .01060). The Unocal Corporation has submitted supporting information
demonstrating that the continued application of best available technology will not result in significant
long term remediation of the site to the Groundwater Quality Standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. This is due to the high probability that continued remediation activities at the site will not
significantly reduce contaminant levels below Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. Since corrective actions were implemented on August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation has
extracted a total of 3,050 pounds of petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated soils and
groundwater. The mass of petroleum extracted from soils and subsurface materials is approximately
3,000 pounds. The Unocal Corporation has treated an estimated 4.12 million gallons of groundwater
via pump-and-treat technology which accounts for 50 pounds of material removed. The company
reports that a total of $313,500 has been spent by the Unocal Corporation to cleanup the release
described in Groundwater Incident # 3633. No claims for reimbursement through the state's
Commercial Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund have ever been filed by the Unocal Corporation
for funds spent on this site. The Unocal Corporation estimates that continued operation of the current
groundwater and soil cleanup system over the next three years will be approximately $180,000.
The Unocal Corporation has shown that when the operation of groundwater remediation systems
at the site was temporarily interrupted, no increase in the concentration of any substiµice above
groundwater standards was observed in off-site monitoring wells from monitoring data. The company
asserts that marginal increases observed for some chemicals in two of the on-site monitoring wells,
when the cleanup systems were not in operation, demonstrates that continued implementation of pump
and treat, air sparging and soil vapor extraction will not result in a significant reduction in contaminant
concentrations at this site.
The Unocal Corporation has considered the use of air sparging as an alternate technology to the
current groundwater remediation system. The company does not believe this technology is
economically reasonable or practical to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(5). The
estimated cost of implementing air sparging is approximately $45,000. The company asserts that
continued reliance on air sparging is not economically justified due to the low residual concentrations
of substances at this site with the lack of groundwater consumption by humans.
4
installed at this site and sampling and analysis of wells be placed as conditions for approval of this
variance. On July 24, 1996 Mr. James Ponder of S&ME Incorporated requested that the Groundwater
Section review the necessity for recommending monitoring requirements as conditions for approval of this
variance in light of the enactment of Senate Bill 1317. Mr. Ponder expressed the view that this law extends
to monitoring requirements on variances under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as well as monitoring requirements in
corrective action plans established pursuant to lSANCAC 2L .0106.
It is important to note that Senate Bill 1317 specifically includes cleanups at sites where petroleum
has been discharged or released from underground storage tanks. This law does not specify any new
requirements for variances propo"sed to the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to l SA NCAC
2L .0113. The statutory basis for the Environmental Management Ccmmission to grant a variance is found
in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143-215.3(e). Senate Bill 1317 does not mention this statute nor
does it effect any actions taken by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to NCGS 143-
215.3(e).
In addition to reviewing this issue for the Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont, the
Groundwater Section has also examined other variances to determine if they are "Class CDE pursuant to
Senate Bill 1317. The only site that we have identified as being impacted by the legislation is the Unocal
Corporation site at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident Number 3633).
Groundwater Section staff have identified three courses of action that the Unocal Corporation can take that
will result in a corrective action plan that will satisfy the requirements the 15A NCAC 2L rules. These options
are shown as follows:
l) The Unocal Ccrporation could withdraw the variance and discontinue cleanup for
Groundwater Incident # 3633 until a risk assessment rule has been established.
Senate Bill 1317 requires that by October 1, 1997 the Environmental Management
Commission adopt a rule to implement the requirements of NCGS 143-215.94V(b).
Please note that the deferment of cleanup requirements is a temporary,_ not a
permanent deferment. It is not known at this time what requirements will be
included in a new risk based rule. It must be further noted that if a risk assessment
were conducted at this site and it showed that conditions are such that the site
posses a higher risk than that of a site ranked Class CDE, this may result in a re-
ranking to Class AB s tatus. A higher ranking at a · site may result in the
reinstatement of active groundwater and/ or soil remediation. A risk assessment
2
may also result in the necessity for expanded groundwater and soil monitoring
requirements. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance
may also be requested only if the new rule allows responsible parties to obtain
variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
2) The Unocal Corporation could withdraw the variance for Groundwater Incident #
3633 and cleanup the site pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L. It must
be noted that Senate Bill 1317 allows, but does not require, the temporary
cessation of remediation activities. Although the Unocal Corporation has never
received any payments for cleanup out of the state's underground storage tank
cleanup funds, under the new legislation any future access to those funds is
denied, unless the company can meet the criteria outlined in Section l(f) of the
Senate Bill 1317. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance
may be requested only if the new risk based rule allows responsible parties to
obtain variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
3) The Unocal Corporation could continue to pursue a variance at this property. If a
variance is granted by the Environmental Management Commission for this site,
any conditions upon the variance, including monitoring, would need to be adhered
to by the company in order for the variance to remain legally valid. After a variance
is granted the responsible party may be allowed to conduct a risk assessment
under the new rules to determine if the variance is still necessary. If a risk
assessment shows that the variance or monitoring requirements placed by the
Environmental Management Commission as conditions for the approval of a
variance are no longer needed, then the Unocal Corporation may request that the
variance be rescinded.
In order to complete activities shown in either Number 1 or 2 above to support a new variance
request pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the most up-to-date site information must be submitted with the
information submitted through June 28, 1996. If a risk assessment is conducted pursuant to Senate Bill 1317
for any of these three scenarios, it must be in accordance with a new rule approved by the Environmental
Management Commission. The most recent site information will need to be submitted in accordance to the
requirements of the rule. At this time no risk assessment rule has been orooosed b v the Division of Water
Quality.
3
The Groundwater Section staff has been in the process of completing the activities necessary to
bring this variance to public notice and hearing. The Groundwater Section would like to know in writing if
the Unocal Corporation desires to continue pursuing a variance for Groundwater Incident Number 3633 at
this time so that we can arrange a public hearing and send notices pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113. If
possible, we would like to receive your response by September 20, 1996. Upon the completion of the
hearing officers report and recommendation, this variance will be sent to the Environmental Management
Commission for review and final action. Please send your response to Mr. David Hance, P.O. Box 29578,
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578 {phone: [phone]; fax [phone]}.
Information from the Mooresville Regional Office shows that all other sites for which variances have
been requested through S& ME Incorporated, are "Class AB" in accordance with the legislation and are
not impacted by legislative changes made during the 1996 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Staff are reviewing the information submitted for these variance requests. If you have any new information
that will change the priority ranking of any of these sites to Class C, D, or E, or have questions concerning
this letter, please feel free to contact myself at [phone] or Mr. Hance.
AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Allen Schiff
David Hance
A. Wayne Holt (Unocal Corporation)
Sincerely,
~~~
Chief, Groundwater Section
4
AecycledPaptr
E
September 11, 1996
Mr. David Hance
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
RE: Request to Continue Pursuing Variance
Incident #3633
Unocal Corporation (Former Station #9342-209)
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Dear Mr. Hance:
-..
-.J .. ,
S&ME, Inc., on behalf of Unocal Corporation, hereby informs the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission that Unocal Corporation desires to continue
pursuing a variance for the subject site, as requested in your September 6, 1996 letter to
S&ME, Inc. Please proceed with arranging a public hearing and sending notices, as
needed. If you have any questions, please call me at 704-523-4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
~~
Al Quarles, L.G.
Assistnat Environmental Services Manager
cc: Wayne Holt -Unocal Corporation
S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine l3oulevard, Charlotte , North Carolina 28273, [phone], Fax [phone]
Mailing address: P.0.13ox 7668, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 -7668
Dear Mr. Hance;
Unocal Refining & Marketing Division
Unocal Corporation
q Corporate Square Northeast, P.O. Box 4147
At ianta, GP,orgia 30302
Telephone [phone]
UNOCAL@
12 September 1996
Mr. David Hance
NC DEHNR -DEM
PO BOX 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626 -0578
Re: Request for Variance
Former Unocal SS 9342 -209
4336 Park Road
Charlotte, NC
-..
In response to your letter of September 6, 1996, UNOCAL respectfully request to
continue pursuing variance of 2L standards for the above referenced site. The site has
been actively rehabilitated to 2L standards for the constituents present from past
UNOCAL operations. Trace constituents of other contaminants exist which UNOCAL
was not responsible for. The trace contaminants pose no threat to human health or the
environment.
It is recognized that UNOCAL will be required to continue monitoring the site for
approximately two years after the variance request is granted. This is still more
economically feasible than having to complete an entire RBCA assessment and still be
required to monitor for two to three years.
With the above factors in mind we respectfully request to continue pursuing the
variance. If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this personally please
call me at (404) 320 -2207. Thank you for you cooperation and understanding.
cc: R E Oehlerts
Stewart Hines
{]."""'~r.,c,,-~_..112..jU
A. Wayne Holt
" . 'StO'te of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIF1ED MAIL P 281 5 78 936
RETURN RECEIPT RE QUESTED
AVA
DEHNR
September 6, 1996
Mr. Stewart M. Hines
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pines Blvd.
P.O. Box 7668
Charlotte, NC 28241-7668
Dear Mr . Hines:
Regarding: The Impact of Senate Bill 1317 and the Variance Request
at the Unocal Corporation Park Road Site (GW Incident
# 3633)
On June 21, 1996 the North Carolina General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1317 which allows for
the temporary cessation of groundwater cleanup at sites classified as Class CDE where releases of
petroleum have occurred from underground storage tanks. The new law also restricts owners and operators
of underground storage tanks from receiving payments from the Commercial and Non-Commercial
Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds, unless the responsible party can meet the criteria outlined in
Section l(f) of Senate Bill 1317. The General Assembly enacted this bill with the intent to provide for the
continued solvency of the state trust funds. Under this bill sites that have a priority ranking of "E", which
is defined in the legislation as "Class CDE", will no longer be required to conduct cleanup or continue
cleanup until risk assessment rules are enacted by the Environmental Management Commission.
Groundwater and soil monitoring may also be suspended at these sites.
In July 1995 S& ME Incorporated, on behalf of Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont,
submitted a variance request for a site priority ranked as "E". This site is identified as Groundwater Incident
Number 8094. Pursuant to the Mooresville Regional Office staff review and a public hearing held on March
19, 1996, is has been recommended to the hearing officer that a new groundwater monitoring well be
Groundwater Section, •r CJ1""'1
P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0578, 111 ,,..,., '1
2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 •Gfi@•f@®'
1
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
AA Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/10% post-consumer paper
installed at this site and sampling and analysis of wells be placed as conditions for approval of this
variance. On July 24, 1996 Mr. James Ponder of S&ME Incorporated requested that the Groundwater
Section review the necessity for recommending monitoring requirements as conditions for approval of this
variance in light of the enactment of Senate Bill 1317. Mr. Ponder expressed the view that this law extends
to monitoring requirements on variances under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as well as monitoring requirements in
corrective action plans established pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0106.
It is important to note that Senate Bill 1317 specifically includes cleanups at sites where petroleum
has been discharged or released from underground storage tanks. This law does not specify any new
requirements for variances propo'sed to the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to 15ANCAC
2L .0113. The statutory basis for the Environmental Management Commission to grant a variance is found
in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143-215.3(e). Senate Bill 1317 does not mention this statute nor
does it effect any actions taken by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to NCGS 143-
215.3(e).
In addition to reviewing this issue for the Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont, the
Groundwater Section has also examined other variances to determine if they are "Class CDE pursuant to
Senate Bill 1317. The only site that we have identified as being impacted by the legislation is the Unocal
Corporation site at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident Number 3633).
Groundwater Section staff have identified three courses of action that the Unocal Corporation can take that
will result in a corrective action plan that will satisfy the requirements the 15A NCAC 2L rules. These options
are shown as follows:
1) The Unocal Corporation could withdraw the variance and discontinue cleanup for
Groundwater Incident # 3633 until a risk assessment rule has been established.
Senate Bill 1317 requires that by October 1, 1997 the Environmental Management
Commission adopt a rule to implement the requirements of NCGS 143-215.94V(b).
Please note that the deferment of cleanup requirements is a temporary, not a
permanent deferment. It is not known at this time what requirements will be
included in a new risk based rule. It must be further noted that if a risk assessment
were conducted at this site and it showed that conditions are such that the site
posses a higher risk than that of a site ranked Class CDE, this may result in a re-
ranking to Class AB status. A higher ranking at a site may result in the
reinstatement of active groundwater and/ or soil remediation. A risk assessment
2
may also result in the necessity for expanded groundwater and soil monitoring
requirements. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance
may also be requested only if the new rule allows responsible parties to obtain
variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
2) The Unocal Corporation could withdraw the variance for Groundwater Incident #
3633 and cleanup the site pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L. It must
be noted that Senate Bill 1317 allows, but does not require, the temporary
cessation of remediation actlvities. Although the Unocal Corporation has never
received any payments for cleanup out of the state's underground storage tank
cleanup funds, under the new legislation any future access to those funds is
denied, unless the company can meet the criteria outlined in Section 1 (f) of the
Senate Bill 1317. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance
may be requested only if the new risk based rule allows responsible parties to
obtain variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
3) The Unocal Corporation could continue to pursue a variance at this property. If a
variance is granted by the Environmental Management Commission for this site,
any conditions upon the variance, including monitoring, would need to be adhered
to by the company in order for the variance to remain legally valid. After a variance
is granted the responsible party may be allowed to conduct a risk assessment
under the new rules to determine if the variance is still necessary. If a risk
assessment shows that the variance or monitoring requirements placed by the
Environmental Management Commission as conditions for the approval of a
variance are no longer needed, then the Unocal Corporation may request that the
variance be rescinded.
In order to complete activities shown in either Number 1 or 2 above to support a new variance
request pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113, the most up-to-date site information must be submitted with the
information submitted through June 28, 1996. If a risk assessment is conducted pursuant to Senate Bill 1317
for any of these three scenarios, it must be in accordance with a new rule approved by the Environmental
Management Commission. The most recent site information will need to be submitted in accordance to the
requirements of the rule. At this time no risk assessment rule has been nrop osed b y the Division of Water
Quality.
3
The Groundwater Section staff has been in the process of completing the activities necessary to
bring this variance to public notice and hearing. The Groundwater Section would like to know in writing if
the Unocal Corporation desires to continue pursuing a variance for Groundwater Incident Number 3633 at
this time so that we can arrange a public hearing and send notices pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113. If
possible, we would like to receive your response by September 20, 1996. Upon the completion of the
hearing officers report and recommendation, this variance will be sent to the Environmental Management
Commission for review and final action. Please send your response to Mr. David Hance, P.O. Box 29578,
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578 {phone: [phone]; fax [phone]}.
Information from the Mooresville Regional Office shows that all other sites for which variances have
been requested through S& ME Incorporated, are "Class AB" in accordance with the legislation and are
not impacted by legislative changes made during the 1996 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Staff are reviewing the information submitted for these variance requests. li you have any new information
that will change the priority ranking of any of these sites to Class C, D, or E, or have questions concerning
this letter, please feel free to contact myself at [phone] or Mr. Hance.
AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Allen Schiff
David Hance
A. Wayne Holt (Unocal Corporation)
Sincerely,
~~~
Chief, Groundwater Section
4
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Groundwater Section
July 8, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.
THROUGH: Arthur Mouberry, P.E. ~
Chief, Groundwater Sectio~
FROM: Carl Bailey ~
Assistant Chief for Planning, Groundwater Section
SUBJECT: Variance Request for the Former Unocal Facility at 4336 Park Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident Number 3633).
The Groundwater Section is in the process of reviewing a request for variance from
Title 15A North Carolina General Statutes, Subchapter 2L "Classi fi cations and Water Oualirv
Standards A pplicable to the Groundwaters o(North Carolina" for the subject site. The
petitioner, the Unocal Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, requests a variance from 15A NCAC
2L .0202 (Groundwater Quality Standards) and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) (Corrective Action
Plans).
Attached for your consideration is a memorandum in which staff have provided
comments concerning the information required to be submitted in support of the request in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2L. 0113(c) and which must be considered by the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) prior to granting a variance. Based on the information
received thus far, this facility seems to be a good candidate for a variance. Your concurrence
is needed so that the Division can proceed with public notice of hearing in accordance with
procedures set out in 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d) and (e) and for subsequent review by the
Environmental Management Commission.
1
The Groundwater Section would like present this request as an information item to the
Groundwater Committee at the September 11, 1996 meeting, if the Committee
Chairman chooses to hold a meeting. If you have any questions concerning this matter
. please contact me at 715-6169 .
Attachments
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
David Hance
2
; ......
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GROUNDWATER SECTION
July 16 , 1996
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Preston Howard
Arthur Mouberry ~
Request for Variance from ISA NCAC 2L .0202 and ISA
NCAC 2L .01060) for a Site Owned by the Unocal Corporation of Atlanta,
Georgia at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (Mecklenburg County)
{Groundwater Incident Number 3633}.
Unocal Corporation operated a retail gasoline station at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte
North Carolina from the 1950's to 1986. In January 1987 the Unocal Corporation sold this
property to DH & S Company of Charlotte, North Carolina. The Unocal Corporation gasoline
station was demolished in February 1988 and a new gasoline station was built on this site.
This new gasoline station is known as the Petro Express. It was discovered during tank
removal and site renovation that an unknown quantity of gasoline had been released from one
or more of the underground storage tanks at the site. The Unocal Corporation is entirely
responsible for cleanup of this release which is shown in Division of Environmental
Management files as Groundwater Incident Number 3633.
Pursuant to title ISA NCAC 2L .0113(c) variance applications are required to contain
specific information in order to adequately review a request. The Unocal Corporation
variance request is contained in a report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal
Corporation Former Unocal Facility # 9342-209 4336 Park Road Charlotte. North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397 (November 1995)". In addition, the Groundwater Section
requested the Unocal Corporation provide clarifying information, additional laboratory
analysis, and editorial corrections to some of the information submitted in the report. This
information is shown in memoranda submitted on December 29, 1995 and March 6, 1996. A
"Letter Of Transmittal" from the Unocal Corporation's environmental consultant dated for
December 29, 1995 shows the results from the most recent groundwater monitoring at the site
that the Groundwater Section has on record. The site assessment and corrective action plan for
this site was submitted on March 16, 1993 and is on file at the Mooresville Regional Office.
The information submitted by S&ME Incorporated on behalf of Unocal Corporation appears
to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c) and is summarized as follows:
1
Rule .0113 (c){l ): Resolution b v the County or govemine Board:
The Unocal Corporation has always been a privately owned company. No
resolution is necessary.
Rule .0113 (c)(2): A descri ption of past. existin g or pro posed activities that would result in a
dischar ge of contaminants into gr oundwater:
The former Unocal site (Petro Express) is located inside the city limits of
Charlotte, North Carolina at 4336 Park Road (Parcel Number 143-203-24). The
report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former
Unocal Facility# 9342-209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME
Project No. 1354-92-397 (November 1995)" contains the relevant information
about this site. This facility is at the corner of Park Road and Woodlawn Road as
shown in Appendix V of the report. The Unocal site consists of approximately
1.05 acres of land. On February 18, 1988 a release of an unknown quantity of
gasoline was discovered at the center of the property near the southern property
line during tank removal and site renovation. A preliminary site assessment was
sent to the Mooresville Regional Office on February 18, 1988. This was followed
by the submittal of the an addenda to that original site assessment and a
corrective action plan on March 16, 1993 for soils and groundwater. The final site
assessment and the correction action plan was received by the Mooresville
Regional Office on March 18, 1996 where it is currently kept on file. The Unocal
Corporation began cleanup of this site on August 12, 1993. All potential sources
of groundwater contamination were identified at this property by the company.
This property at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina formerly owned
by the Unocal Corporation and all adjacent properties are in an area with a
mixture of commercial, industrial, and residential development.
The comprehensive site assessment revealed a groundwater plume from a
small area of free product contamination. This area of free product was located
near the south property line approximately sixty feet southwest of the area where
the Unocal Corporation retail outlet had it's gasoline pump islands. The area of
free product was in the shape of an ellipse and was approximately 12 to 15 feet in
diameter. The plume of dissolved gasoline that came from this area of free
product contamination was roughly the shape of a circle that extended to
adjacent properties to the south, southeast, and east. This plume was estimated to
have covered an area of approximately 61,250 square feet (1.406 acres) prior to
the implementation of corrective actions by the Unocal Company. Site assessment
information on file in the Mooresville Regional Office shows that the vertical
2
extent of this plume to be approximately 55 feet below the ground surface. It is
not believed that this plume contaminated the bedrock aquifer beneath this site.
From the information contained in the site assessment, the company estimated
that the total mass of petroleum hydrocarbons was approximately 2410 pounds
(lbs). It is estimated that 35 lbs of this material was dissolved hydrocarbons in
groundwater. The portion of this release that was adsorbed to the soils and in the
vapor phase was estimated at 1,600 lbs. The remaining portion of this plume is
believed to be phase-separated hydrocarbons and was estimated to account for
775 lbs (or 130 gallons) from this release. This release occurred in unconsolidated
materials above the bedrock.
The Unocal Corporation implemented cleanup of this site on August 12,
1993. From that date through March 17, 1995 approximately 3,050 lbs of
petroleum hydrocarbons were extracted from contaminated soils and
groundwater on and off-site. The company measured the mass of petroleum
hydrocarbons extracted from soils at 3,000 lbs. A total of 4.12 million gallons of
groundwater has been treated via pump-and-treat technology which accounts for
approximately 50 lbs of the total amount of material removed. The Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) issued a permit to discharge treated
water from the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system into the nearby
sanitary sewer. The cleanup system used by the Unocal Corporation consists of a
combination of pump-and-treat technology to cleanup groundwater, air sparging
of soils and subsurface materials, soil vapor extraction to remove contaminants
from the site.
The Division of Environmental Management required the Unocal
Corporation to perform groundwater monitoring to determine the vertical and
lateral extent of contamination at the site. On December 15, 1991 and December
16, 1991 the company conducted comprehensive groundwater sampling at all six
on-site monitoring wells. The deepest of the monitoring well constructed at this
site was Monitoring Well # 8 and it is 55 feet deep below the land surface.
Groundwater samples were analyzed using US Environmental Protection Methods
602, 625, and 504.1. Benzene was found in five of the six monitoring wells. The
highest concentration found in a monitoring well in exceedence of the 15A NCAC
2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standard for Benzene during this sampling event
was 8.10 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 8,100 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) in Monitoring
Well# 5. This sampling event also revealed the presence of Toluene at 3.2
milligrams per liter or 3,200 micrograms/Liter {ug/L) in Monitoring Well# 5.
Ethylbenzene also appeared at a concentration level of 15.0 milligrams/liter
(mg/L) or 15,000 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) in Monitoring Well# 5. No substances
above detection limits were found in Monitoring Well# 8 during the December
15, 1991 analysis. In September 1993 Monitoring Well# 8 was converted into an
air sparging well to assist in the cleanup effort at the site.
In January 1993 the company constructed two additional monitoring wells
located off-site of the property at 4336 Park Road. These two wells are known as
Monitoring Well# 10 at Belk Investments to the South of the Unocal Site and
3
Monitoring Well # 11 located to the East at a retail gasoline station known as the
"The Pop Shop". Monitoring Well# 10 is located cross-gradient of the Unocal
Corporation site and Monitoring ·Well # 11 is the downgradient well. The highest
concentration of Benzene found at Monitoring Well # 10 was 0.002 milligrams per
liter during the initial groundwater sampling on January 27, 1993. Monitoring
Well # 11 has never shown concentrations of substances above the Groundwater
Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
The Division also required the Unocal Corporation to evaluate the
effectiveness of groundwater cleanup efforts by examining concentrations of
substances in monitoring wells. In addition, an examination of concentrations in
recovery wells used as sumps to collect free product and dissolved hydrocarbons
from the site is also necessary to understand the effect pump-and-treat cleanup
has had on concentrations of constituents at the site. From January 1988 through
December 1995 analysis of groundwater samples has been conducted by the
Unocal Corporation. The highest Benzene concentration ever found in a
monitoring well showed 8.400 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 8,400 micrograms/Liter
(ug/L) at Monitoring Well# 5 on March 5, 1990. The highest concentration of
Chloroform in this well was 4.20 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 4,200
micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on December 16, 1991. The highest concentration of 1,2-
Dichloroethane in Monitoring Well# 5 was 0.00615 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or
6.15 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on December 1, 1995. The greatest concentration of
Ethylene Dibromide that appeared in a sample from this well was 0.000928
milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 0.928 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on March 16, 1994.
This well is located at the northwest side of the pump islands.
Samples were obtained from four recovery wells January 1993 through
December 1995. These wells are located around the area which formerly consisted
of the Unocal Corporation's pump islands. The highest concentration of Benzene
ever found in a recovery well showed 4.0 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 4,000
micrograms/Liter at Recovery Well# 4 on January 27, 1993. The highest
concentration of Chloroform in this well was 0.00458 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or
4.58 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on February 23, 1995. The highest concentration of
1,2-Dichloroethane in Recovery Well# 4 was 1.40 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or
1,400 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on January 27, 1993. The greatest concentration
of Ethylene Dibromide that appeared in a sample from this well was 0.0321
milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 32.1 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on September 13, 1994.
The Unocal Corporation has also conducted monitoring at the influent for
these four recovery wells. Table # 1 of the March 6, 1996 letter shows that the
highest concentration of Benzene found in a composite sample at the influent for
these wells to be 0.420 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 420 micrograms/Liter (ug/L) on
June 3, 1993. The highest concentration for all substances monitored in the
recovery wells at the site was 0.570 milligrams/liter (mg/L) or 570
micrograms/Liter (ug/L) of Methyl-Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) on June 3, 1993.
Groundwater monitoring results of influent samples since August 12, 1993 have
shown considerable reduction of contaminants at this site. Analysis of these
4
influent samples at the recovery wells on February 21, 1995 showed substances at
either below detection limits or significantly below Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
Since cleanup was initiated by Unocal levels of contaminants in
groundwater have been significantly reduced in monitoring wells and recovery
wells as shown in Table #1 of December 29, 1995 "Letter Of Transmittal. On
June 2, 1995 the Unocal Corporation conducted routine sampling of monitoring
wells at this site. Except for the presence of Chloroform in Monitoring Well# 7
at a concentration level above the respective Groundwater Quality Standard,
concentrations of substances in on-site and off-site monitoring wells was below
detectable limits.
Based on the results of the June 1995 monitoring, the Unocal Corporation
informed the Mooresville Regional Office on September 29, 1995 that it intended
to request a variance at this site. As shown in Appendix I of the report a letter
from Mr. A. Wayne Holt of the Unocal Corporation stated in this letter that the
company has utilized best available technology and has "aggressively pursued
clean-up". They have specifically requested a variance that would consist of a
" ...... site variance and monitor only plan leading to regulatory closure.". This
variance encompasses the entire property at 4336 Park Road.
Based on the results of June 2, 1996 monitoring event the Division of
Environmental Management recommended the pump-and-treat system be turned
off to determine if residual contaminants in the soils and subsurface would
recontaminate the groundwater, if no treatment system were operating.
On December 19, 1995 groundwater sampling was conducted at monitoring wells
and recovery wells after the groundwater and soil cleanup system had been
temporarily turned off. Seven monitoring wells, including offsite wells at Belk
Investments (MW-10) and the Pop Shop (MW-11,) were sampled during this
time. Except for Monitoring Well # 5, analysis of samples from these wells
showed the Benzene concentration below detection limits. The concentration of
Benzene in this well exceeded the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC
2L .0202.
Potential sources of groundwater contamination in the area are shown on
maps located in Appendix V of the report titled "Variance Request Incident No.
3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facilitv # 9342-209 4336 Park Road
Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397 (November 1995)" and
include the following:
1) A retail gasoline station constructed in 1987 and presently owned by
DH&S Company (Petro Express) located on the property once
owned by the Unocal Corporation at 4336 Park Road;
5
2) A retail gasoline station presently owned by Park Road Shopping
Center and locally known as the "Pop Shop". This gasoline station
is located at 4323 Park Road to the east of the site;
3) A retail gasoline station presently owned by Exxon Company, USA
located at 125 Woodlawn Road to the southeast of the site;
4) Property owned by Belk Investments at 4400 Park Road to the
south of the site. This property once had a leaking fuel oil tank
located near Monitoring Well# 10 and is mentioned in a Law
Engineering Report dated 1/3/92. The responsible party for the
release from this fuel oil tank is not the Unocal Corporation and it
is being addressed under a separate Notice of Violation;
5) On-site wells at 4336 Park Road consisting of five monitoring wells,
four recovery wells, and the air sparging well owned by the Unocal
Corporation. These wells are in the site maps contained in
Appendix V of the variance request.
6) One monitoring well at Belk Investments.
7) Six monitoring wells located at the Pop Shop gasoline station to the
east of the site. The company describes two of these monitoring
wells as having been "closed".
8) Two tank pit vapor point wells located at the Exxon Company
gasoline station to the southeast.
9) Woodlawn Drive (a public roadway);
10) Park Road (a public roadway);
11) Water supply lines that run along Woodlawn Drive and Park Road.
12) Numerous storm drain lines and sewer lines that run along
Woodlawn Drive and Park Road and others located in the general
area.
6
Attached to a letter dated March 6, 1996 titled "Responses to 2/19/96
NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" is an aerial photograph of the site
and adjacent properties in Figure 3. Also attached is Figure 1 a Topographic
Map of the City of Charlotte showing contour intervals of the site and adjacent
properties.
Rule .0113 {c){3): Description of the pro posed area for which the variance is requested:
Maps of the area are shown in Appendix V of the report titled Variance
Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facility# 9342-
209 4336 Park Road Charlotte. North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-92-397
(November 1995)". A map showing identifying county parcel numbers is
contained in the attachments to the March 6, 1996 letter titled "Responses to
2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements". The company has
estimated that the area of groundwater contamination is roughly shaped in the
form of a circle. It is believed that the plume of groundwater contamination once
extended across Woodlawn Road, before cleanup began, and covered
approximately two-thirds of the land to the south owned by Belk Investment
(Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 171-043-21). Within this area of
groundwater contamination is Monitoring Well# 10 at Belk Investments. In
addition, a separate plume of contamination from a fuel oil release is present at
the Belk Investment property near Monitoring Well # 10 and is being addressed
under a separate Notice of Violation. The Unocal Corporation is not the
responsible party for this fuel oil release on the Belk Investment land.
The plume at 4336 Park Road that Unocal is responsible for extends to the
southeast from the property and crosses Park Road going beneath a small portion
of adjacent property owned by the Exxon Company (Mecklenburg County Parcel
Number 175-141-01). The furthest extent of the contaminated area from 4336
Park Road to the east goes onto an adjacent property known as "The Pop Shop"
owned by the Park Road Shopping Center (Mecklenburg County Parcel Number
175-181-06) but is not believed to have traveled as far as Monitoring Well #11.
The furthest extent of this plume to the north, northeast, and west included two-
thirds of the property at 4336 Park Road formerly owned by the Unocal
Corporation (Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 149-203-24). No other adjacent
properties are known to have been impacted by the release for which Unocal has
cleanup responsibilities.
This variance is for all the land entirely within the property boundaries of
4336 Park Road that was formerly owned by the Unocal Corporation. The
groundwater that was impacted by the release is located in the original pump
area and service station when Unocal owned the site. These structures have since
been removed from the property by the present owner. Because groundwater
7
monitoring results do not show that contaminants from Unocal's release at 4336
Park Road have migrated at concentration levels above standards, this variance
request does not include any land adjacent to the property as 4336 Park Road.
Table 1 in Appendix II of the variance request indicates that concentrations
substances that have migrated outside the property boundaries of 4336 Park
Road over the past three years have not exceeded the level of the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Groundwater monitoring results in
Monitoring Well# 11 (The Pop Shop) have shown the presence of Methyl Tert-
Butyl Ether (MTBE) above detection limits. However, from January 27, 1993
through December 1, 1995 this substance has never appeared above the
Groundwater Quality Standard for MTBE. No other substance has been observed
in Monitoring Well# 11. Sampling at Monitoring Well# 10 (Belk Investments)
during the saine period has demonstrated that no substance at a concentration .
level exceeding laboratory detection limits. If at any time monitoring reveals
that concentrations of substances exceed the Groundwater Quality Standards in
15A NCAC 2L .0202 on adjacent properties and it could be determined that the
Unocal Corporation is responsible for the contamination, the Division could still
require the Unocal Corporation bring these concentration levels in compliance
with the standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. A variance granted by the
Environmental Management Commission does not exempt the Unocal
Corporation from being held jointly or severally responsible for cleanup.
The concentration of contaminants in groundwater is primarily influenced
by the direction and rate of groundwater flow. The estimated groundwater flow
rate is contained in the site assessment and corrective action plan submitted by
the Unocal Corporation to the Mooresville Regional Office. Based on this
information the Unocal Oil Company asserts that groundwater in the area flows
from the site travels toward Little Sugar Creek which is 1,400 feet to the east.
This small creek discharges into larger water body known as Sugar Creek. Based
on an average hydraulic gradient of 0.0075 to 0.01 foot per foot, a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.5 to 1.25 feet per day, and an effective soil porosity of 0.3 for
sandy silt, the estimated groundwater flow velocity in the subsurface at this site is
approximately 5 to 15 feet/year. The company used a range of groundwater flow
velocities in calculations as a means to predict the rate of movement of
contaminants from the site. The Unocal Corporation asserts that substances in
the plume of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons will enter Little Sugar Creek at
concentration levels exceeding 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards for Benzene,
Ethylene Dibromide, and 1,2-Dichloroethane between 93 and 280 years. This
estimated range assumes no natural degradation or attenuation of the plume
occurs. The last observed concentration levels of Benzene, Ethylene Dibromide,
and 1,2 Dichloroethane from routine sampling in December 1995 were used to
determine these projected times of travel to Little Sugar Creek. (See page 3-4 of
the March 6, 1996 letter titled "Resp onses to 2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for
Variance Req uirements").
8
Rule . 0113 ( c )( 4 ): Supp ortimz information to establish that the variance will not endanger the
public health and safety ... :
This part of the variance concerns Groundwater Quality Standards shown
in 15A NCAC 2L. 0202 and has been requested for Benzene, Ethylbenzene,
Toluene, Xylene(-o,-m, and p), Naphthalene, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE),
Isopropyl Ether, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2
Trichloroethane, 1,2, Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, cis-
1,3-Dichloropropene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane,
Methylene Chloride, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, Chloroethane, and 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, and Chlorobenzene.
In order to assess health impacts, monitoring wells were sampled at or near this
site to assess the extent of contamination and concentration levels of substances~
Concentrations of substances in recovery wells were also examined to determine
the effectiveness of the pump and treat system at removing these chemicals.
Groundwater monitoring data from the Unocal Corporation indicates that
substances released by the Unocal Corporation at this site do not pose a hazard to
the public. Sampling and analysis of on-site wells at 4336 Park Road has been
conducted since January 13, 1988 at monitoring wells and is being continued at
the present time. A total of eleven different sampling events occurred from 1988
through 1995 at five monitoring wells located at the site. A total of seven
different sampling events occurred at Monitoring Well# 8 from January 13, 1988
through September 3, 1993 before this well was converted into an air sparging
well pursuant to the specifications of the corrective action plan received by the
Mooresville Regional Office on March 18, 1993. Analysis of off-site monitoring
wells at Belk Investments (Monitoring Well # 10) and the Pop Shop (Monitoring
Well# 11) began on January 27, 1993. Six different sampling events have
occurred at these off-site wells on properties adjacent to the site at 4336 Park
Road. The last sampling and analysis at all monitoring wells occurred on
December 1, 1995. From January 27, 1993 through December 19, 1995 analysis
of recovery wells was also conducted by the Unocal Corporation. Six sampling
and analysis events have occurred at each of the four recovery wells since
December 1991. In addition, when "effluent" sample are taken at the well head
of these recovery wells, the Unocal Corporation also obtains a composite sample
from the "influent" by taken samples from pump-and-treat system from the
recovery wells. Composite samples are taken from untreated water within the
groundwater recovery system or from the submersible pump. On six different
occasions samples have been taken at the influent for these four recovery wells
since June 3, 1993. USEP A Method 601 and Method 602, and 504.1 were the
analytical methods used for samples collected at the Unocal Corporation site.
USEP A Method 601 is used to assess the concentration levels of chlorinated
hydrocarbons such as 1,2-Dichloroethane and Chloroform. USEP A Method 602
9
is used to assess the concentration levels of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene,
Xylenes, and MTBE. USEP A Method 504.1 is used to determine the concentration
level of Ethylene Dibromide. A comprehensive listing of all monitoring results
from wells is shown in the December 29 , 19'95 Letter Of Transmittal. The
December 29 , 1995 Letter Of Transmittal includes all groundwater sampling
results from monitoring wells through December 1, 1995 and all from recovery
wells through December 19, 1995.
The highest concentration of any substance found at this site was 15
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 15,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of Ethylbenzene
in Monitoring Well# 5 on December 16, 1991. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for this substance is 0.029 milligrams per liter (29 micrograms per liter)
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202(g)(40). The December 16, 1991 sampling and
analysis of this well took place prior to the implementation of cleanup on August
12, 1993. Ethylbenzene was not detected in any other monitoring wells during
this sampling event. Analysis for Ethylbenzene was also conducted for recovery
wells on December 16, 1991. Only Recovery Well# 4 showed Ethylbenzene in
exceedence of the Groundwater Quality Standard on December 16, 1991. The
concentration of this substance in this recovery well was 0.2 milligrams p~r liter
(mg/L) or 200 micrograms per liter (ug/L). Analysis of subsequent groundwater
samples from 1992 through 1995 has revealed that Ethylbenzene contamination in
all monitoring wells, including Monitoring Well# 5, and the recovery wells had
declined over time to the extent that Ethylbenzene concentrations no longer
appear above the standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202(g)(40) or can no longer be
detected.
On February 23, 1995 routine groundwater sampling and analysis was
conducted for the seven monitoring wells at this site. The highest concentration of
any substance in any well during this sampling event was at Monitoring Well# 9.
USEPA 601 analysis of a sample from this well showed 1,2-Dichloroethane at
0.02460 mg/L or 24.60 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-
Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38 ug/L. Analysis of a sample .from
Monitoring Well# 7 showed Chloroform at 0.0085 mg/Lor 8.5 ug/L. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for Chloroform is 0.00019 mg/L or 0.19 ug/L.
Monitoring Well# 7 and # 9 did not show any other substances above detection
limits when analyzed using the USEP A 601 Method. Concentrations of
Chloroform and 1,2 Dichloroethane in the remaining monitoring wells were below
detection limits. Analysis of samples from all seven monitoring wells by the
USEP A 602 Method showed the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below detection limits. Analysis of samples
using USEP A Method 504.1 did not reveal concentrations of Ethyl Dibromide in
any of the seven monitoring wells above the detection limits.
During the February 23, 1995 monitoring event the Unocal Corporation
also conducted sampling of the four recovery wells. Samples taken from three of
the four recovery wells had concentrations of substances in exceedence of
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Recovery Wells #1, # 3
10
and # 4 all showed concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane in exceedence of the
standards. Recovery Well# 1 and Recovery Well# 3 showed concentrations of 1,2
Dichloroethane above the groundwater standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane.
Recovery Well# 1 showed 0.00298 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 2.98
micrograms/Liter of 1,2-Dichloroethane. The highest level of 1,2-Dichloroethane
found during this sampling event was at Recovery Well# 3. USEPA 601 analysis
of a sample from this well showed 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.01550 mg/L or 15.50
ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038
mg/Lor 0.38 ug/L. Recovery Well# 1 and Recovery Well# 4 showed
concentrations of Chloroform above the standards. Recovery Well # 1 showed
0.00218 milligrams/Liter (mg/L) or 2.18 micrograms/Liter of Chloroform. The
highest concentration of Chloroform at the recovery wells during this sampling
period was 0.00458 mg/Lor 4.58 ug/L at Recovery Well# 4. The Groundwater
Quality Standard for Chloroform is 0.00019 mg/L or 0.19 ug/L.
Analysis of these four samples by USEP A 602 Method showed the
concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below
their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. None of
the recovery wells showed concentrations of these substances above practical
quantitation limits. Analysis of recovery well samples using USEPA Method 504.1
showed concentrations of Ethylene Dibromide above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202
standards in two of the four recovery wells. Recovery well # 1 showed the highest
concentration of Ethylene Dibromide at 2.48 x 10-4 mg/L or 0.248 ug/L.
Recovery Well # 4 also showed a concentration level of Ethylene Dibromide above
the Groundwater Quality Standard at 5.26 x 10-5 mg/Lor 0.0526 ug/L. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for Ethylene Dibromide is 4.0 x 10-7 mg/L or 4.0
x 10-4 ug/L. The Unocal Corporation also conducted composite sampling of the
influent for these recovery wells in February 1995. Analysis of this composite
sample did not show the concentration of any substance above the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
The second groundwater sampling in 1995 was conducted at the seven
monitoring wells on June 2, 1995. Only two monitoring wells showed
concentration levels above the Groundwater Quality Standard in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202 using USEPA Method 601. Monitoring Well# 9 revealed 1,2-
Dichloroethane at 0.00955 mg/L or 9.55 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38 ug/L. Groundwater
analysis from Monitoring Well# 7 revealed Chloroform at 0.0116 mg/Lor 11.6
ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for Chloroform is 0.00019 mg/L or
0.19 ug/L. Analysis of the samples from these wells by the USEPA Method 602
showed the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and
MTBE below their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. None of the monitoring wells showed concentrations of these substances
above practical quantitation limits. Analysis of samples using USEP A Method
504.1 did not reveal concentrations of Ethyl Dibromide in any of these monitoring
wells above the detection limits. The company did not conduct any sampling of
11
the recovery wells in June 1995.
On December 1, 1995 the company conducted a third round of sampling at
the request of the Mooresville Regional Office. The reg~onal office wanted an
analysis of samples from both monitoring wells and recovery wells since the time
the pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, and air sparging devices were turned
off in September 1995. This special monitoring was to determine the on-site and
off-site concentration levels of substances when no groundwater cleanup
technologies are in operation. Table # 1 of the December 29, 1995 Letter of
Transmittal shows from USEP A Method 601, 602, and 504.1 analytical methods.
Two of the seven monitoring wells had concentrations of substances in exceedence
of the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Analysis of
samples using USEPA Method 601 revealed Monitoring Well# 5 with 1,2
Dichloroethane at 0.00615 mg/L or 6.15 ug/L. This analysis of a sample at
Monitoring Well# 9 using USEPA Method 601 revealed the concentration level of
1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.00447 mg/Lor 4.47 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38 ug/L. No other
monitoring well showed the presence of any substances that can be detected by
USEP A Method 601. Analysis of the same samples from these seven monitoring
wells by the USEP A Method 602 showed the presence of Benzene in Monitoring
Well# 5 at 0.00863 mg/Lor 8.63 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for
Benzene 0.00100 mg/Lor 1.00 ug/L. Analysis of the groundwater samples from
the remaining six monitoring wells by the USEP A Method 602 showed the
concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below
their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. None of
the monitoring wells showed concentrations of these substances above practical
quantitation limits. Analysis of the samples using USEP A Method 504.1 revealed
that Monitoring Well # 5 had a concentration of Ethylene Dibromide above the
15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards. The concentration of Ethylene Dibromide in this
well was 6.52 x 10-4 mg/L or 0.652 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality Standard for
Ethylene Dibromide is 4.0 x 10-1 mg/Lor 4.0 x 10-4 ug/L. None of the remaining
six monitoring wells showed this substances above detection limits.
On December 19, 1995 Unocal Corporation also conducted sampling of the
four recovery wells. Table 1 shows that samples taken from two of the four
recovery wells had concentrations of substances in exceedence of Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Recovery Well #1 and Recovery Well
# 4 both showed concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane in exceedence of the
standards. The concentration of 1,2-Dichloroethane in Recovery Well# 1 was
0.00298 mg/L or 2.98 ug/L. The highest level of 1,2-Dichloroethane found during
this sampling event was at Recovery Well # 4. USEPA 601 analysis of a sample
from this well showed 1,2-Dichloroethane at 0.01970 mg/L or 19.70 ug/L. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for 1,2-Dichloroethane is 0.00038 mg/L or 0.38
ug/L. Chloroform did not appear in these wells in concentrations above the
practical quantitation level. Analysis of the same samples from these four
recovery wells by the USEP A Method 602 showed the presence of Benzene in
12
Recovery Well# 4 at 0.00135 mg/Lor 1.35 ug/L. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for Benzene 0.00100 mg/L or 1.00 ug/L. Analysis of the remaining three
samples by USEP A 602 Method showed the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and MTBE below their respective Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. None of the recovery wells showed
concentrations of these substances above practical quantitation limits. Analysis of
recovery well samples using USEP A Method 504.1 did not reveal concentrations
of Ethyl Dibromide in any of these wells above the detection limits. The Unocal
Corporation also conducted composite sampling of the influent for these recovery
wells in December 1995. Analysis of this composite sample did not show the
concentration of any substance above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A
NCAC 2L .0202.
The Unocal Corporation has attempted to define the vertical extent of
groundwater contamination beneath the site. The deepest well Monitoring Well #
8 (MW # 8) and it is 55 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater sampling
and analysis was conducted using USEP A Method 601, Method 602, and Method
504.1 at six separate times from January 13, 1988 through January 27, 1993 as
shown in Table # 1. Analysis sample from this well over a six year period using
USEP A Method 601 showed the concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane, Chloroform
and other substances below their respective Groundwater Quality Standards in
15A NCAC 2L .0202. The analysis of the January 13, 1988 sampling event for
Monitoring Well # 8 using USEP A Method 602 showed a concentration of
Benzene at 0.003 mg/L or 3 ug/L. This level is in exceedence of the Groundwater
Quality Standard of 0.001 mg/L or 1 ug/L for this substance in 15A NCAC -2L
.0202. The highest level Benzene that was ever found in this well in exceedence of
the standard was on December 16, 1991. Analysis using USEP A Method 602
revealed Benzene at 0.010 mg/I or 10 ug/L. The last sample taken at this well was
on January 27, 1993 and no Benzene was detected above the practical
quantitation limit. The analysis of all other samples taken from this well from
January 1988 through January 1993 did not reveal any other chemical
constituent from the petroleum release. After January 1993 this monitoring well
was converted into an air sparging well and no additional data can be obtained.
Based on the low concentrations of Benzene found in samples from Monitoring
Well # 8 over a five year period, the Mooresville Regional Office does not believe
that the bedrock beneath 4336 Park Road was significantly impacted by this
release prior to implementation of the corrective action plan in August 1993.
On page # 3 of a letter dated March 6 , 1995 titled "Responses to 2/19/96
NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Req uirements" downgradient monitoring at the
well located at Monitoring Well# 11 (The Pop Shop) is discussed. The letter
states that "No ..... dissolved hydrocarbons except MTBE (11 ug/L) have ever been
detected in Groundwater .... .from this well''. It must be noted that this
concentration level in this monitoring well is well below the Groundwater Quality
Standard in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Analytical results from samples taken at
Monitoring Well# 10 (Belk Investments) over the past 3 1/2 years have never
13
shown any chemical constituent above the detection limits. With respect to the
site at 4336 Park Road, Monitoring Well # 10 is located cross-gradient from it.
All samples from Monitoring Well# 10 were analyzed using EPA Methods 601,
602 and 504.1.
Using site assessment information at the Mooresville Regional Office, the
company has calculated the time it would take for residual contaminants to
impact the down-gradient offsite monitoring well at the Pop Shop (Monitoring
Well# 11) such that Groundwater Quality Standards would be exceeded. Based
on a groundwater flow velocity between 5 feet to 15 feet per year, the Unocal
Corporation estimates that amount of time it will take both Benzene and Ethylene
Dibromide to reach Monitoring Well# 11 are between 14 and 42 years. This
estimated range is based on the maximum concentration for Benzene and Ethyl
Dibromide found at the site that were obtained from the analysis of a sample
from Monitoring Well# 5 on December 1, 1995. The range of time estimated for
1,2-Dichloroethane to reach Monitoring Well# 11 is 9 to 28 years. This estimate
is based on the maximum concentration of this substance that was obtained from
the analysis of a sample from Recovery Well# 4 on December 19, 1995.
Estimated time ranges are based on the conservative assumption that the plume
will not be impacted by natural remedial processes and attenuation effects within
the subsurface. It is not anticipated that rainfall events will significantly impact
the movement of contaminants offsite. The area where groundwater monitoring
results showed concentrations of Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, and Ethylene
Dibromide above the standards is beneath a concrete slab and the remaining
property at 4336 Park Road is covered by an asphalt parking lot. Based on the
calculations by the Unocal Corporation, it is not anticipated that groundwaters in
the area will be impacted by a variance at this site within the near future.
No sources of drinking water from water wells or surface water are known
to exist within a 1/2 mile radius of the property at 4336 Park Road that was
formerly owned by the Unocal Corporation. The requirements for variance
applications in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4) specify that locations of drinking water
wells and other water supply sources that are within one-half mile of the site
must be shown on a map. The attachments to the "March 6, 1996 letter titled
"Responses to 2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" labeled
Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 show that there are no drinking water wells in
the vicinity of the property at 4336 Park Road. Figures 5 and 6 are maps
showing utility and water use in the area. These maps show that properties
around the site are serviced by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department.
Page 2 of the March 6, 1996 letter it states that the company conducted a survey
of a 1/2 mile area around the site and did not find any drinking water wells that
are presently in use or have been abandoned.
Figure 7 in March 6, 1996 letter shows that there are no drinking water
supply intakes at surface water bodies located within a 1/2 mile radius of the site.
Drinking water for the City of Charlotte is obtained from Mountain Island Lake
on the Catawba River twelve miles north-northwest of the site. All downgradient
14
properties and other area properties are supplied drinking water from the City of
Charlotte.
In addition to monitoring wells and recovery wells previously discussed,
there are a number of other wells on properties adjacent to 4336 Park Road.
There are approximately six groundwater monitoring wells downgraident from
the site. These wells are located at the "Pop Shop" and is across the road at 4323
Park Road. The Well Survey Map (Figure 4) attachment to the March 6, 1996
memorandum shows these six monitoring wells. Two of these wells are described
in the map legend as "closed". The Unocal Corporation has submitted
information on pages 3 and 4 of the March 6, 1996 letter showing that
concentrations of contaminants will not impact these downgradient wells to the
extent that an exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards will occur in the
near future. There are two "tank pit vapor point wells" located at the Exxon
Company service station at 125 Woodlawn Road. These wells are to the south and
the southeast respectively of the property at 4336 Park Road and are cross-
gradient from the site. Since these wells are located cross-gradient from the site,
is unlikely that migrating contaminants as a result of this release emanating from
4336 Park Road would degrade the construction materials used in these wells or
impact groundwaters.
It is highly improbable that public water supply lines will be impacted by
this variance. Numerous water supply lines and other utilities are located along
Park Road and Woodlawn Road. This piping ranges from 4 inches up to 16
inches in diameter. Page 8 of Appendix II in the report titled Variance Request
Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facility # 9342-209 4336
Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397 {November
1995)" shows that the company contacted Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility
Department and found that utilities are not a potential path for migration of
petroleum hydrocarbons from the site. The depth to the groundwater in this area
is approximately 17 feet. The utility department reported that area water lines
and utilities are buried less than five (5) feet from the surface. Groundwater
contamination from Incident Number 3633 that is beneath 4336 Park Road is too
deep within the subsurface to impact these lines. In addition, page 8 also states
the Unocal Corporation did not locate any buildings with basements that could
serve as conduits for the buildup of explosive, flammable, or toxic vapors from
this site.
Rule .0113(c)(5): Supporting information to establish that requirements of the rule cannot be
achieved by providin!l best available technology economicall v reasonable:
The part of the request that concerns variance to Corrective Action in 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(j) will allow the Unocal Corporation to discontinue Corrective
Action at this site. The company has submitted supporting information in the
report and other documents demonstrating that the continued application of BAT
15
will not result in significant long term remediation of the site to the Groundwater
Quality Standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. The is due to the high
probability that continued cleanup activities at the site will not significantly
reduce contaminant levels below Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC
2L .0202. Since discovery of the release on February 18, 1988 the Unocal
Corporation has disposed of a total of 3,000 pounds of petroleum contaminated
soil. The company has treated approximately 4.12 million gallons of
groundwater to comply with the cleanup requirements of the Corrective Action
Plan that implemented on August 12, 1993. Pages 5 through 8 of the report titled
"Variance Req uest Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corp oration Former Unocal Facility
# 9342-209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-
92-397 (November 1995)" states that a total of $579,995 has been expended to
remove tanks, conduct site assessments, and cleanup this site. The amount of
money that has been spent by the Unocal Corporation at this site is summarized
as follows:
Activitv Total Cost ($)
Total Cost of Tank Removal, Property Renovation,
and Initial Abatement of the Release $135,000
Total Costs to Complete a Comprehensive Site
Assessment $ 95,000
Total Costs of Completing a Corrective Action
Plan and Local Permitting $ 36,495
TOTAL COST TO COMPLETE ACTIVITIES REQUIRED
BY 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (A-, AND F-1) $)Jij6.;4:,t
Total Cost to Install Cleanup Systems (pump-and-treat,
soil vapor extraction, and air sparging technologies) $198,500
Total Cost of Operating and Maintaining
Cleanup Technologies Over the Last Three Years $115,000
TOTAL COST TO IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
AS REQUIRED BY 15A NCAC 2L .0106(J) ~)~~~;$:9:~
16
..
The March 31, 1995 letter shown on page 9 of Appendix II shows that the
Unocal Corporation has incurred the entire cost of cleanup of this site. Appendix
I shows an itemized listing of costs to remediate this site.
Groundwater analysis of samples from on-site monitoring wells showed
significant reductions in the concentrations of substances from December 1991
through September 1994. On August 12, 1993 the Unocal Corporation
implemented a corrective action plan to cleanup groundwaters at this site. From
August 12, 1993 through September 29, 1995 the Unocal Corporation operated a
groundwater remediation systems consisting of pump-and-treat cleanup, air
sparging, and soil vapor extraction technologies. Groundwater monitoring up
through the September 13, 1994 sampling event showed reductions in the
concentrations of substances in the groundwater. Since that time analysis of
samples from groundwater monitoring wells and recovery wells have not
demonstrated a significant reduction in contaminant concentrations as shown in
Table 1 of the "Letter of Transmittal" dated December 29, 1995. In September
1995 use of the pump-and-treat system was discontinued. On December 1, 1995
groundwater monitoring was conducted to determine the effect a temporary
interruption of the operation of the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation
system would have on contaminant concentrations. Except for Monitoring Well #
5, which showed Benzene, Ethylene Dibromide, and 1,2-Dichloroethane, no
increase in the concentrations of substances was observed in the remaining
groundwater monitoring wells. It is important to note that the concentration of
Benzene in Monitoring Well# 5 had remained below detectible limits in 1995
wben the cleanup systems were in operation. Significant reductions in the
concentrations of Benzene and 1,2 Dichloroethane have not been observed in
recovery wells since September 1994. It was only during the December 1, 1995
sampling event that Chloroform concentrations showed a reduction below
detectable levels in Monitoring Well# 7.
In order to demonstrate that the requirements of the rule cannot be
achieved using best available technology, title 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5) requires
that specific technology considered be identified, the costs of implementing the
technology be shown, and the impacts of the costs on the applicant be provided.
On Page 8 of the report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 3633 Unocal
Corporation Former Unocal Facilitv # 9342-209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North
Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397 (November 1995)" shows the cost of
continuing to operate the present cleanup system. The company has estimated
that it will cost approximately $180,000 over the next three years to continue
operating the air sparging, pump and treat, and soil vapor extraction systems.
This cost estimate assumes that the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
will issue a new permit to continue allowing treated effluent from the pump-and-
treat system to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. If a permit to
discharge treated wastewater into the city's sanitary sewer system cannot be
obtained, then the costs to continue using pump-and-treat cleanup as a means of
17
..
remediation will drastically increase. This cost increase would occur as a result of
the necessity for the Unocal Corporation to obtain the necessary NPDES permit
to construct a discharge to Little Sugar Creek. The only other option the
company may have is to have a discharge system constructed that meets the
requirements of a non-discharge permit in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0200
(Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters). The cost figures supplied by the
Unocal Corporation also assumes that Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection will issue a new air quality permit for air sparging and
soil vapor extraction systems.
The Unocal Corporation has considered the use of air sparging as an
alternate technology to the present groundwater and soil remediation system.
The company does not believe that the use of this technology by itself is practical
to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5). The company estimates
the costs of operating an air sparging system for three years would be
approximately $45,000. The Unocal Corporation believes that the low residual
concentrations of substances in groundwater at the site and the lack of any
human receptors does not warrant the additional expense of continuing reliance
on air sparging.
The company believes that the low residual levels of contaminants in soils
at this site does not warrant the continued use of soil vapor extraction technology
to cleanup this sit~. Table 1 in Appendix III of this same report titled "Variance
Req uest Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corp oration Former Unocal Facility # 9342-
209 4336 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
(November 1995)" shows measurements of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
in soil vapor and organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings. Based on this
information the company asserts that residual concentrations of petroleum in soils
at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina will be below the state action
level of 10 parts per million and not pose an impact to groundwaters such that a
violation of Groundwater Quality Standards is anticipated to occur.
The Unocal Corporation did not identify any technology, other than those
already in use at the site, that would meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(j) as "best available technology". Pursuant to the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5), the company does not believe that continuing remediation
with any of the technologies, or any combination of technologies, at the site are
"economically reasonable".
Rule .0113 (c )(6): Supp orting information to establish that compliance would produce serious
financial hardship on the a pp licant:
The Unocal Corporation has submitted information showing that
compliance with the rules will result in a serious financial hardship. Page 8 of the
report shows that the Unocal Corporation has demonstrated that the continued
18
..
application of best available technology to this location would be a prohibitively
expensive method of remediating groundwater contamination. The report states
on page 9. of Appendix II that "Unocal is no longer operating this gasoline retail
facility or making a profit at this site ...• ". Groundwater Section staff have
examined the state trust fund status of this site and have found that a claim for
reimbursement through the Commercial Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
has never been filed by the Unocal Corporation. The Unocal Corporation has
thus far spent $313,500 to cleanup this site. A March 6, 1996 letter titled
"Responses to 2/19/96 NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Requirements" further
discusses cleanup activities at this site. Page 6 of this letter shows that the
company is continuing to operate the air sparging system and will do so until
" ... site closure has been approved". In Appendix I of the "Variance Request
Incident No. 3633 Unocal Corporation Former Unocal Facility # 9342-209 4336
Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397 {November
1995)" Mr. Wayne Holt asserts that unless a variance leading to closure of this
site approved, ongoing remedial actions at 4336 Park Road will result in
continual expenditures by the Unocal Corporation ..
The company believes that there is immense uncertainty that best available
technology will remediate the groundwaters at this site to standards within a
foreseeable period of time. Page 6 of the March 6, 1996 letter states that the that
" ..... soil and groundwater restoration has occurred as close to the level of the state
standards as economically and technically feasible". Allowing the persistence of low
levels of contaminants in groundwaters that, after approximately 1 3/4 years of
applying best available technologies, have asymptotically approached the
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0106 through a variance is a
prudent means of addressing Unocal's release at this site. It is no less effective a
means of addressing residual concentrations of substances at this site than
continuing the use of pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, and air sparging and
is less expensive.
Rule .0113(c)(7): Supporting information that compliance would produce serious financial
hardship without equal or greater public benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that
the environment, safety and public health would not be impacted by this
variance. The Groundwater Section believes that the public will not benefit from
compelling the Unocal Corporation to continue remediating this site using pump-
and-treat technology, other alternatives discussed, or a combination of these
technologies.
19
..
Rule .0l 13 (c)(8): "A co py of any Special Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site.
Rule .0l 13 (c)(9): "A list of names and addresses of pro perty owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are shown
on pages 4 through 6 of the March 6, 1996 letter titled "Res ponses to 2/19/96
NCDEHNR Letter for Variance Re quirements". This listing includes the Hardees
Restaurant, The Pop Shop, The Exxon Gas Station, Belk Investments, a vacant
home owned by Mr. Duncan MaCrae, Jr., the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility
Department, the NC Department of Transportation, the Park Chase Apartments,
Nationwide Insurance, and the Petro Express Gasoline Station Number 7. Title
15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this
variance be given to the owner or owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30
days prior to the date of the hearing".
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject variance request
to Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106G) and Groundwater Quality
Standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 proceed to public notice in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). On November 28, 1995 the Division of Epidemiology completed their
review of the risk assessment methodology for this site and recommended that this variance
be granted for the Unocal Corporation at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. Upon
your concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the
preparation of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of
15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(d -t), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the
Environmental Management Commission Groundwater Committee, this request will proceed
to the Environmental Management Commission for final action in 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(g).
If there are any questions regarding this matter or if any additional information is needed,
please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS:
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Dr. Ken Rudo
David Hance
20
NOTE: 07/08/96
TO: Donna,
SUBJECT: UNOCAL-PARK ROAD VARIANCE REQUEST WITH JUSTIFICATION
(GW Incident# 3633).
Here is a variance request for Unocal Oil Company at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte,
NC. Preston Howard returned this variance request to us because he wanted a justification
included that will explain why this site needs a variance over an alternate CAP. S&ME
Incorporated has provided a letter to this effect with · attached materials obtained from the
Groundwater Section. This information is included with this packet requesting that a
variance be granted for this site. If changes are needed to the memoranda please let me
know. Once the Director is satisfied that this site meets the criteria of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(d), please make sure he has signed the memorandum before this request is
returned to me. If possible, we would like the review of this package completed by July
16, 1996.
If you need additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me at 715-
6189. My normal office hours are from 9am to 6pm.
David Hance
cc: Carl Bailey
N OTE: 06/11/96
URGENT ..... ATTACHMENTS NEED REVIEW & SIGNATURE!!!
TO: Donna,
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FORMER UNOCAL FACILITY ON 4336
PARK ROAD IN CHARLOTTE, NC (gw INCIDENT# 3633).
Attached is a variance request from the Unocal Corporation for a site in downtown
Charlotte, NC. Unocal is the responsible party for cleanup of a site where a gasoline
station was once located. When the company sold the property to the owners of a new
retail gasoline chain, Petro Express, the old tanks were removed and release was
discovered. The Unocal Corporation has aggressively cleaned-up this site using SVE,
pump-and-treat, and air sparging technologies for over two years and believes a variance is
appropriate for this site.
Pursuant to 1 SA NCAC 2L .0113(d), the Director of DEM must review all
variance requests for "completeness". The memo with a yellow post-it note marked
summary provides a detailed review of the attached materials. ONCE the Director deems
this variance request meets the requirements of 1 SA NCAC 2L .0113(d), then the
Groundwater Section will proceed with scheduling a hearing, develop a public notice, and
get a hearing officer from Division staff. Upon receiving the Director's signarure on the
memo to Arthur Moubeny, please contact me so . I can pick it up.
If you need to discuss this with me or any changes are needed please feel free to
call 715-6189.
David Hance 11=
cc: Carl Bailey
1
) NOTE: 06/10/96
URGENT ..... ATTACHMENTS NEED REVIEW & SIGNATURE!!!
TO: Arthur Mouberry,
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FORMER UNOCAL FACILITY ON 4336
PARK ROAD IN CHARLOTTE, NC (gw INCIDENT# 3633).
Attached is a variance request from the Unocal Corporation for a site in downtown
Charlotte, NC. Unocal is the responsible party for cleanup of a site where a gasoline
station was once located. When the company sold the property to the owners of a new
retail gasoline chain, Petro Express, the old tanks were removed and release was
discovered. The Unocal Corporation has aggressively cleaned-up this site using SVE,
pump-and-treat, and air sparging technologies for over two years and believes a variance is
appropriate for this site.
Two of the attached memos are to Preston Howard. One of these memos gives a
detailed description of the activities that have been conducted to meet the requirements
of 1 SA NCAC 2L .0113. The other memo informs the Director that this variance should
go forward. In addition, a third memo is from the Director to you giving us permission to
proceed with scheduling a hearing and public notice. Carl Bailey has completed his review
and is satisfied with this information. UPON COMPLETING YOUR REVIEW OF THIS
INFORMATION, please sign the memos with yellow post-it notes attached. I will get this
entire packet to the Director for his approval in accordance with 1 SA NCAC 2L .0113
(d). Please note that the responsible party's consultant S&ME Inc., has made a number of
inquires on the status of this packet in the last two weeks.
Once we have the Director's approval, I will get together a public notice and
schedule a hearing. We will also need to discuss a hearing officer for this meeting.
If you need to discuss this with me please feel free to call 715-6189.
cc: Carl Bailey
1
"TH
½
~
--··/
David Hance
I
)
Recycled Paper
June 14, 1995
Mr. Allen Schiff
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C. 28115
N.C. DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEAL TH ,
& NATURAL RESOURCES
JUN 1 5 1995
,wi~ Cf £f1N1~.0!·.::;r:i1,\1 ;i:.~-\,4..U
mv~ml~ii~ ri~;H~~L ,1rim~
Reference: Addendum to the 3/31/95 Request for Site Variance
and Groundwater Sampling Results on 6/2/95
Incident #3633
Former Unocal Station #9342-209
4336 Park Road, Charlotte, NC
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
Dear Mr. Schiff:
Triangle Environmental Inc., on behalf of Unocal Corporation, purged and sampled
_groundwater from all on-site and off-site monitor wells (7) on June 2, 1995 for EPA Test
Methods 601, 602 including MTBE and IPE and 504.1. The groundwater sampling event
was performed prior to deactivation of the air ~parging system on June 2, 1995. The
purpose of the sampling event was to evaluate groundwater quality in comparison to the
previous February 23, 1995 sampling event with the air sparging system on.
The June 2, 1995 analytical results revealed that BTEX, MTBE, IPE and EDB in
groundwater from all on-site monitor wells have remained below 2L standards and
method detection limits ( < 0.5 ug/L) as were on February 23, 1995. BTEX and MTBE
were also not detected in off-site downgradient monitor well MW-11 at the Pop Shop. Off-
site monitor well MW-1 O at the Belk Investments property exhibited 11.4 ug/L total
xylenes, which is due to a separate release from a former fuel oil UST on-site. Trace
levels of 1, 1-dichloroethene (1.27 ug/L) and chloroform (11.6 ug/L) were detected in
groundwater from monitor well MW-7. Trace levels of 1,2-dichloroethane (9.55 ug/L)
were detected in groundwater from monitor well MW-9. The state 2L groundwater
standards for these purgeable halocarbons are as follows: 7 ug/L for 1, 1-dichloroethene,
0.19 ug/L for chloroform and 0.38 ug/L for 1,2-dichloroethane. All other 601 compounds
S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273, [phone], Fax [phone]
Mailing address: P.O. Box 7668, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241-7668
I
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Addendum to 3/31 /95 Request for Variance
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-397
June 14, 1995
were below method detection limits, as indicated on the laboratory analyses. Table 1
indicates historical groundwater and influent quality for the site and off-site monitor wells
MW-1 o and MW-11. All seven monitor wells will be purged and sampled in August 1995
for the same analyses to evaluate if any "rebounding" of dissolved hydrocarbon
concentrations occurred with the air sparging system off.
We believe that continued remediation, using best available technology (air sparging), will
not result in significant further reduction in the groundwater concentration of these
contaminants, and therefore, we petition for a variance to the 2L groundwater remediation
guidelines (per 15A NCAC 2L .0113). We request that the state establish site-specific
closure criteria, given that asymptotic contaminant concentrations for some purgeable
halocarbons exceed the 2L or Class GA groundwater quality standards. We believe that
soil and groundwater restoration has occurred as close to the level of the state standards
as is e,conomically and technically feasible.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
Very truly yours,
S&ME, INC~
~ &/1'{/'fS
Stewart M. Hines, LG.
Senior Hydrogeologist
SMH\
Enclosures
cc: Mr. A. Wayne Holt, P.G. -Unocal Corporation
Mr. R. Holshouser, Jr. -S&ME, Charleston, S.C.
P:\WP51\SCHIF95.613
2
T. _..-1
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER ANO INFLUENT QUALITY DATA
_)
FOAMER UNOCAL FACILITY #9342-209
4336 PARK ROAD, CHARLOTTE. NC
-·-, ,c, HOO 601 COWOUNOS
MONITOR WELL DATE BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-TOTAL TOTAL MIBE
I
l'E EDB 1,2-DCA CHLORO-1, 1--0CE 1,1-0CA 1,2-DCP TCE
L CE r ,1,1-TCA NAPTHA-
BENZENE XYLENES BTEX FORM LENE
MW-1 1/13/88 1.3 2.2 <1 <1 3.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7/15/91 3.6 <1 <1 <1 3,6 <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
12/15/91 5 1 3 11 20 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 . <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/26/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.02 <1 <1 14 4 <1 <1 26 53 <10
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.66 <1 <0.005 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.005 <1 1.16 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/2/95 <0,5 <0,5 <0,5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1,W{"~. 3/5/90 6400 17 ,000 2200 11 ,000 36,600 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1600
12/16/91 6100 3200 15,000 21,000 47 ,300 <1 <1 NA <1 4200 <1 <1 <r <1 <1 <1 NA
6/26/92 5600 7300 1300 10,100 24,300 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1/27/93 NOT SAIJP L i:I) SINCE FF EEPROOUC DETECTED IN WELL
3/16/94 67.6 443 191 1310 2040 11 <1 0.926 <10 <10 <10 <1 <10 <1 <1 <1 NA
9/13/94 2.63 1.28 0.541 27.7 32.1 3.77 <0.5 <0.372 3.73 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <J_ <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
MW--'6 1/13/88 1.5 <1 <1 2.6 4.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7/15/91 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
12/16/91 2 2 5 1 10 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/26/92 3.3 <1 <1 <1 3.3 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.02 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 6 <1 <1 <10
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.93 <1 <0.005 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.005 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
i;..;.;.. 6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
· 15ANCAC2L 1 1000 29 530 NA 200 NA 4E-4 0.38 0.19 7 71X1 0.56 28 0.7 200 21
STANl>Aft[) (IN UG/\.)
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER AI\D INFLUENT QUALllYDATA
FORMER UNOCAL FACILllY #9342-209
4336 PARK ROAD, CHARLOTTE, NC
METHOD 601 COWOUI\DS -
MONITOff WELL DATE BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-TOTAL TOTAL MTBE l'E EDB 1,2-DCA CHLORO-1,1-DCE 1,1-DCA 1,2-DCP TCE PCE 1,1,1-TCA NAPTHA-
BENZENE XYLENES BTEX FORM LENE
M.W-7 1/13/88 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7/15/91 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
12/16/91 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/26/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.02 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 5 <10
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.005 <1 3.38 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.005 <1 8.14 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 8.53 1.96 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 11.11 1.27 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
M.W~8 1/13/88 3 7.7 2.9 17 30.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7/15/91 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
12/16/91 10 11 25 100 146 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
3/11/92 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/26/92 3.3 <1 <1 <1 3.3 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 ·<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.02 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10
~ 9/3/93 DEEP ITWE ll ll WELLCC NVERTEDIN OANAIR Sf ARGEWELL
Mw:...9 1/13/88 170 <1 <1 <1 170 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7/15/91 130 1.8 23 7.7 162.5 60 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
12/16/91 290 11 <1 <1 301 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
3/11/92 250 6.4 24 7.3 267.3 11 <1 NA 190 <1 <1 <1 2.2 <1 <1 <1 NA
6/26/92 270 20 12 4.1 306.1 240 49 NA 110 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
1/27/93 160 <1 <1 <1 180 220 97 <0.02 51 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10
3/16/94 26.9 0.944 1.3 1.32 30.5 99,4 <1 <0.005 68.1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4.46 <0.5 <0.005 25.8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 24.6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
5 m o5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.01 ll.55 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
15~NCAC~ 1 1000 29 530 NA 200 NA 4E-4 0.36 0.19 7 700 0.56 2.6 0.7 200 21
$TANOAAO (ltfV~M
MONITOR WELL DATE BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-TOTAL
BENZENE XYLENES
MW'-10 1/27/93 2 <1 1 18
(BEl,.KINVEST.) 3/16/94 1.58 <0.5 <0.5 12.3
9/13/94 0.736 <0.5 1.14 16.2
2/23/95 1.12 <0.5 1.38 11 .1
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 11 .4
MW-11 1/27/93 <1 <1 <1 <1
(PQPSl10P) 3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
6/2/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
RW-1 1/27/93 NA NA NA NA
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.S <0.S <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.S
--RW-2 12/16/91 1300 <1 <1 <1
1/27/93 1300 <1 <1 300
3/16/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
9/13/94 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0,5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mv-3 12/16/91 3 7 3 18
1/27/93 480 <1 <1 15
3/16/94 35.8 0.929 <0.5 <0.5
9/13/94 45.4 2.10 <0.5 <0.5
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
RW-'-4 1/27/93 4000 1200 200 3100
3/16/94 36.5 56 10.5 310
9/13/94 49.1 41.7 1.32 737
2/23/95 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
INR.:UENT 6/3/93 420 20 <1 68
(RW.., 1-4) 10/8/93 76 22 <1 53
1/13/94 76 <1 11 11
6/15/94 11 .1 <0.5 <0,5 <0,5
8/11/94 <6.10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2/21195 <0.5 1.13 ~ <0.5
..
15ANCAC2l 1 1®0 29 530
STANl>Aab (11\1 UG/1..}
NOTES:
• ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER ARE IN UG/L
•ANALYSES PEAFORMED=METHOOS 602 (BTEX MTBE AND IPE)
METHOD 504 (EOB)
•NA= NOT AVAILABLE
METHOD 601 (PURGEABLE HALOCARBONS}
METHOD 625 (BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES)
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER AND INFLUENT QUALITY DATA
TOTAL
BTEX
21
13.9
18.1
13.6
11 .4
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1300
1600
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
31
495
36.7
47.5
<0.5
8500
413
829
<0.5
508
151
98
11.1
6.10
1.13
NA
FORMER UNOCAL FACILITY #9342-209
4336PARKROAD, CHARLOTTE, NC
MTBE PE EDB 1,2-DCA I CHLORO-
FORM
<1 <1 0.022 <1 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.005 <1 <1
<0.5 <0.5 <0.005 <1 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1 --9 <1 <0.02 <1 <1
10.7 <1 <0.005 <1 <1
<5.24 <0.5 <0.005 <1 <1
6.54 <1 <0.01 <1 <1
<0.5 <1 <0.01 <1 <1
NA NA NA NA NA
4.94 <1 <0.005 1.33 <1
0.86 <0.5 <0.005 2.32 1.22
7.98 <1 0.24'1 2.57 2.18
880 <1 NA 230 1100
860 <1 <0.02 68 <1
4.46 <1 <0.005 <1 <1
6.18 <0.5 <0.005 <1 <1
11.3 <1 <0.01 <1 <1
<1 <1 NA <1 <1
160 67 <0.02 520 <1
85.6 5.62 <0.005 20 <1
66.7 6.23 <0.005 14.8 1.3
47.7 4 .12 <0.01 15.5 <1
<1 <1 <0.02 1400 <1
11.1 <1 4.05 13.1 2.21
41.1 <0.5 32.1 41.7 1.29
2.76 <1 0.05211 4.44 •-511
570 <1 NA NA NA
170 16 NA NA NA
120 NA NA NA NA
68.4 NA NA NA NA
31.2 3.71 NA NA NA
5.99 NA NA NA NA
200 NA 4E-4 0.38 0.19
* THE 15A NCAC 2L GROUIIOWATER STANDARD FOR COMPOUNDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAIIDARD IS THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT.
Q.24e = CONCENTRATION IS ABOVE THE STATE 15A NCAC 2L STANDARD
METHOD 601 COW'OUNDS
1,1-DCE 1,1-0CA 1,2-DCP TCE PCE 1,1,1-TCA NAPlliA-
LENE
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 33
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA -
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA <10
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA t---
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 74
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ~
<1 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 7 <1 <1 <1 <10
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
'<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 1.24 <1 <1 <1 NA
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
7 700 0.56 2.8 0.7 200 21
~
2670 FLOWERS CHEM ICAL LABORATORIES
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FORM HAS Nun"ber 83139 -
MW-7 MW-6 MW-10 MW-11 MW-1 MW -5 MW-9 trio blk. QA Section
Paramet or Syrrbcl Unh 10061 10062 10063 10064 10065 10068 10067 10068 Method MOL o/oRSD %Rec Anal v, Dale
DIiution Factor . # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 li=PA60 1 1 DO 06-0S-95
1 1 1-trlchloroethane . un/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 2.89 92 .2 DO 06-0S-95
1 1.2 2-twachloroethane • unll. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 I 2.12 87 .2 DO 06-05-95
11 1 2-trkhtorn.othane . un/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 IFPAM! 1 2.1'11'. 114,Q DO 06-0S-9§
1 1-dlch!oroelhane . ua/l <1 1<1 <1 <1 <1 cl <1 EP A.601 1 4 .35 85.2 DO 06-0S-95
1 1-dlchloroethene . un11 1.27 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 0.0067 82.6 DO 06-0S-95
1 2-dlc hloroethana . unit <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 9 .55 i=PA601 1 ?,7!i. a.5 .1 DO ,,.,_n.._a~
1 2-dlchlot C()rnnane . un/1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 . EPA601 1 3.16 87 DO 06-05-95
2-chloroettwlvln """her . 1 ..... <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA&II 1 DO 06-05-95
Bromodlchloromelh ane . .. nA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 IEPA601 1 2.37 as DO 06-05-95
Bromclonn . l,u,A <1 <1 <1 <1 <I <1 <1 EPA601 1 4.95 82.3 DO 06-05-95
cls-1 3-dlchlamr,r~ . '"'" <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 1.74 84.8 DO 0&-05-95
Carbon 1811'111:hlol\cle . .... <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EP A60 1 1 4 ,!17 89,2 DO ""-05-95
Chlorcform . '"'" 11 .6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EP A601 1 3.48 88.1 DO 06-05-95
Dl:>romochloromelh ane . u nll <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 1.79 86.3 DO 0&-05-95
Methv lene chloride . l, .. n <1 , .. , <1 ,.,, <1 cl <1 EPA601 1 2.8 87.2 DO 0&-05-95
trans-1 3 -dlchloroofa>em • l,..n <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA60t I 1.64 86.5 DO 06-05-95
Trlchlorofluorometha oa . l, .. n <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 EPA601 2 0.384 80.1 DO 06-05-95
lt-1.2-<II~ . , ... <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 . EPASOI I 4.7 ~ 86.4 nn 0&-05-95
Trlchloroethene . ,Ill/I <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA601 1 2.04 86.2 DO 06-05-95
T•rachlomell,ene . 1, ... <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EP A60 1 1 3.1 85.9 DO 06-05-95
,--Ch.........,,.,,.• l,.,,a "'1 1,,1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 l=P A6C)I 1 2.59 10 1 nn 06-05-95
Bromcmethane . 1,..n <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 EPA601 5 DO 06-0S-95
Chloroelhane . 1, ... <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 EPA60 1 3 1.33 90.9 DO 06-0S-95
Chloromelhane . Inn/\ <5 <'-<5 <~ <5 <5 <5 . 1,p.u:111 5 DO 06-0S-95
DlchlorOIMfk""""""hane • 1 ..... <2 1<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 EPAE01 • DO 06-0S-95
Vln-4 ChJoride . 1,.,,a <0 .5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 EPA601 0.5 DO 06-05-95
Ha l !lDlka . 1 ..... 100 98.7 97 .7 97.6 97 .3 97.6 98 i 94 .6 FPA60 1 0.5 1.83 104 DO 06-05-95
o-dldlllxobenzene . , ... <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 2.19 83.7 DO 06-05-95
m-<llch lorobenz ene . 1,..n <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <(),5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 1.55 83.3 DO 06-05-95
ParA..rl lc,hN,...nzene . , ... <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0 .5 <0 ,5 <0 .5 <0 .5 <0.5 IEPAM? 0.5 1.18 84 DO 06-05-95
Benzen e . un/1 <0.5 c0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0 ,5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 3.37 84.8 DO 00-05-95
Chlorcbenz .. . uall <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 EPAS02 0.5 3.95 85.5 DO 06-0S-95
Fthvlbenl-. un11 <0.5 ~o.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 EP A""" o.s 3.37 82.2 00 00-05-95
Toluene . ua/l <0.5 <0.!5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0 .5 EP A602 0.5 3.13 83.8 00 06-05-95
XwlAne . ua/l <0.5 <0 .5 11.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0 .5 EPA602 0.5 3.34 81.8 00 06-05-95
Met hY ~lert-hl~~lether . uni! <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0 5 <0.5 <0.5 l"PA602 0,5 3.41 103 00 06-05-95
Total BTEX . unll. <0.5 <0 .5 11 .4 <0 .5 <0 .5 <0.5 <0 .5 <0.5 EPA602 0.5 3.31 82 .7 DO 06-0S-95
knnmnvlether . ua/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 EPA602 I DO 06-0S-95
PO Solks . ua/l 105 104 104 103 103 103 104 102 IEPA602 0.5 1.82 105 DO 06-05-95 . . .
Eth vlene dlbrornde . ullll <0.01 <0 .01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -EPAso-1 .1 0.01 0.27<llWl.1 93 .22 44Bli FG 06-06-95
Dale Received : 06-05-95 Tvneo: 06-06-95 Senl: 06-06-95
Project Number UNOC 9342-209
PO Number AFE#35893143
Date Sampled 1 06-02-95'
Date Analyzed 0
tcompacted 1
Formal NormRR
Unil Cost Exted
!,l()l/602/IPE 11000 7.
l i:r-.o """ 7 .