NCD981021157_20030605_New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit_FRBCERCLA RA_Remedial Design Remedial Action 1995 - 2003-OCR

' • •• ..,., ........... -_.. •1-" ,•.--,yr~•-" .• . .
., .. -~~.: ... • .. .:.-·,.,. ·~
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
June 5, 2003
RE: RA Construction Complete -Final, Pre-Final Inspection
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On June 4, 2003, a representative of the NC Superfund Section participated in
a Final, Pre-Final Inspection of the Remedial Action construction of the pulsed air
sparging system designed and constructed to treat the BTEX contaminant plume at
the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site, located in Wilmington,
North Carolina. Those participating in the Final, Pre-final inspection of the
constructed system included Beverly Hudson, EPA, Region IV, Ray Church and Paul
Marlow with New Hanover County, Tom Pollard, Wilmington City Manager and
Rick Garrett and Bill Walsh with Richard Catlin and Associates. We observed the
operation of the system and various components and reviewed checklist.
-~ <' cc: Dave Lown, N.C. Superfund Section
• •
New Hanover County Burn Pit Punchlist
May-June 2003
· • Clean up debris onsite (well materials)
• Convert temporary monitoring wells to permanent wells (may be flooded), bollards and pads
• Purchase condensate tank, trailer, tongue jack and assemble (5 ft. x 8 ft. trailer, 2,000 lb. rating)
• Lower 3-4 boxes to grade
• Backfill, compact and seed trenches· and well boxes (where necessary)
• Install door stop (door will rip hinges off if swings open) and handle
• Cleanup concrete forms/gravel for pavement cuts
• Sullair to wire and replace heaters/starters on air compressors
• Add check valves
• Install flexible condensate drain lines
• Install flow meter for chart recorder (Omega), hook up power to flow chart
• Prepare equipment user manual
• Need compressor intake ducts and exhaust ducts
• ' Need plastic sign
• Hook up sparge well
• !{emove piles of concrete/asphalt
• Test submerged wells
• Abandon and replace specified sparge wells (D-16, D-32, D-36, C-17, C-21, C-33, A-21, A-23)
• Develop specified wells (no flow)
• Perform misc. work on wells
• Install new sparge well box and connect to headers
• Repair asphalt cuts in road and collapse area with gravel
• Repair or replace malfunctioning check valve (D-28)
• Replace autodrain valve on regulator (F-32)
• Add shutoff, replace broken sight glass on regulator (C-35)
• Clear brush around wells to be c·onverted to permanent
,-:
194040 punchlis1.doc
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
February 7, 2003
RE: RA Overview of Air Sparge System Construction
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 14 November 2002, a representative of the NC Superfund Section
completed Remedial Action Overview of the construction of the plumbing and
headers at each zone for the Air Sparging system designed for groundwater
restoration of the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site, located in
Wilmington, North Carolina. Trenching for the air Sparge pluming was 12 to 18
inches deep and galvanized steel header boxes were being installed at each zone for
systematic switching of the Sparge systems. The east and west ends of the site were
flooded preventing installation of the piping in these areas until the water subsides or
dries up.
cc: Dave Lown, N.C. Superfund Section
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
October 16, 2002
RE: Overview of Air Sparge Well Installations
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
•
On 18 July 2002, a representative of the NC Superfund Section provided
overview of the installation of Air Sparge Wells A-29, C-15 & C-9. The I-inch I.D.
Schedule 80 sparge wells were installed to a depth of approximately 23.5 to 25 feet
below ground surface. The Sparge wells were installed with a I-foot screened
interval at the bottom and I to 2 feet of sand was slowly poured around the annulus of
the screen to approximately I to 2 feet above the screened interval followed by 12 to
15 feet of hole plug and then grouted to the surface with a cement grout mix. 2
drillers and a scientist or geologist with Richard Catlin and Associates were drilling
and constructing the sparge wells.
The drilling and well construction/installation work was being done in a
professional and consciences manner. This work is being completed as part of the
Remedial Action at the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site,
located in Wilmington, North Carolina. A 3 man drill crew with Richard Catlin and
Associates (Bobby, Tom & Chris) completed the work.
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
October 14, 2002
RE: Overview of Air Sparge Well Installations
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCO 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
•
On 17 July 2002, a representative of the NC Superfund Section provided
overview of the installation of Air Sparge Wells C-29 and C-31. The I-inch l.D.
Schedule 80 sparge wells were installed to a depth of approximately 25 to 26 feet
below ground surface. 2 drillers and a scientist or geologist with Richard Catlin and
Associates were present to install and log the depth and locations of the sparge wells.
The drilling was being done using wash-bore techniques with a bentonite slurry. All
borings were staying open during installation of the spurge wells. I felt that the
drilling and installation work was being done in a professional and consciences
manner.
This work is being completed as part of the Remedial Action at the New
Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site, located in Wilmington, North
Carolina. A 3 man drill crew with Richard Catlin and Associates (Bobby, Tom &
Chris) completed the work.
cc: Grover Nicholson, N .C. Superfund Section
Concurrence with Final I 00% Design Report New lover Co. Ail1)ort BP •
I of I
Subject: Concurrence with Final 100% Design Report New Hanover Co. Airport BP ~
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:02:00 -0400
From: Randy McElveen <[e-mail]>
To: Beverly Hudson <[e-mail]>
Beverly,
Attached is the States concurrence letter for the 100% Design Report for
the Air Sparge System at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site
located in Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC. I am sure that the PRPs
would like a representative at the public availability session when it
is scheduled. Let me know the dates as soon as possible so I can get it
on my schedule. I'll be on vacation on 30 May through June 7 2002.
Hope you have a great day,
Randy
Name: Final (100%) Design Concurrence.rtf
[i©Final (100%) Design Concurrence.rtf Type: Winword File (application/rtf)
Encoding: base64
" . 6/24/2002 11 :54 AM
• C.Ai:Lin
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
June 13, 2002
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
Groundwater Section
Attn: Dr. Charles Stehman, P.G.
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Re: New Hanover County Airport Burnpit Superfund Site
CA TUN Project No. 194-040
Dear Dr. Stehman:
• Post Office Box 10279
Wilmington, NC 28404-0279
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
i.
Enclosed are well construction records and well logs for newly constructed monitoring wells at
the New Hanover County Airport Burnpit Superfund Site. These wells were installed as part of
the performance verification/compliance monitoring well network installed to monitor the
effectiveness of the proposed Air Sparge system. Groundwater samples have been collected to
establish baseline conditions prior to system installation and start up. We will provide results of
these samples upon receipt.
If you have any questions or comments, please call.
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Beverly Hudson, EPA, w/ encl's
Bryan Myers, EPA ORC, w/ encl's
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/ encl1s
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/ encl's
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney, w/ encl's
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/ encl's
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management, w/ encl's
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney, w/ encl's
Randy McElveen, NCDENR DWM, w/ encl's
4040GRG_J8LTR
"l\"r/11al()' Al()'Where ··
wwui catli1111sa. com
• WELL CONSTRUCTION ./'ORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT#
(if applicable)
2869 ASSOC!ATFfD WO PERMIT# __ N'-'/"-'A'------(il app icahleJ
PVSMW-002
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public □ Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring lXl Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: Wilmington County: New Hanover
3002 Highway 421 North
(Koad Name and Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: -------"30"'0,.,2~H-"i"'g~hw~a"c'y'--4-"2C-:1c+N~oc'-rt~h'----------
(Street or Rou\C No.)
Wilmington NC 28401
City or Town
[phone]
State Zip Code
Area code -Phone number
4. DA TE DRILLED: _ _:0"-"5"-"/2"'8"'/2'-"-00"'2~_
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 10
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO lXl
7. ST A TIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING JS 2.83 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at/or helow land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I 5A NCAC 2C.0 118
9. YIELD (gpm): N/A METHOD OF TEST N/A
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type N/A Amount N/A
I 3. CASING: Wall Thickness Depth Diameter or Weight/Ft. Material
From-2.83 To_1_ft. 2" rn. Sch. 40 PVC
Fro11L___ To __ ft.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To~ft.
From __ To __ ft.
----'"·
Malerial
Concrete
Method
Surface Pour
15. SCREEN: Depth Diameter Slot Size Material
From_1_T0 _1_0_ft. -~2~'-' _in. Slot .010 in. PVC
From __ To __ ft. ____ m.
I 6. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Size
____ tn. ___ _
Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIF!at
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: □GPS □Topo. map
(check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 to 6 -Tan to light gray, SILTY, v.f. tot. SAND. Sat.,
No HCO.
9 to 11 -Light gray, well sorted, fine to med. SAND. Sat.,
No HCO.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: ___________________ ~-----------
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISA NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTION STAND S, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
DATE
Suhmit original to Dh·ision of \\later Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REY.07/2001
• \VELL CONSTRUCTION .,CORD
North Carolina -Depa11ment of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVWUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATED WO PERMIT# N/A
{if applicable) (if applicahleJ
CMW-007
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public 0 Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring IX! Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Other O If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: ___ W_il~m~in~g~t~o~n __ County: _ _,_N_,_.e,__._w,_..H"a'-'no"-v'-'e"-r-
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers. Community. Subdivision, Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: ______ 3"-0"-0c;2,,.H=ig~h_,_.w-'ca!-y~4=2c,1 -c-N'co"-rt~h~-----
(Strcct or Route No.)
Wilmington
City or Town
[phone]
Area code -Phone number
NC 28401
State Zip Code
4. DA TE DRILLED: --"-06"'-/-"-05"'-/"'-20"-'0==2~_
5. TOT AL DEPTH: 22
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES O NO IX!
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ Fr.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS 2.8 fl'. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at/or helow land surface requires
a variance in accordance with ISA NCAC 2C.0J \8
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OF TEST NIA
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
. 13. CASING: Depth
Fron~To_lg_f1.
From_ To __ ft.
From _____ To __ ft.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To __ 7_ft.
From __ To ___ ft.
15. SCREEN: Depth
From ___lg_ To __gg_ ft.
NIA Amount NIA
Wall Thickness Diameter or Weight/Ft. Material
PVC 2" in. Sch. 40
____ in.
·~-___ 111
Material
Concrete
Diameter
2" in.
Method
Surface Pour
Slot Size Material
Slot .010 in. PVC
From __ To ___ ft. ____ m. ____ ,n. ----
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Material
From __ To ___ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IX!Flat
(check nppropriaie hox)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: OGPS □Topo. map
(check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
o to 4 -Black to dark brown, organic rich, SIL TY SANO.
(Topsoil
5 to 7 -Light gray, butt, mod. well sorted, sub-angular
SAND. Wet.
10 to 12 -Light gray, mod. well sorted, sub-angular, fine
grained SAND. Wet.
151017 -S.A.A.
20 to 22 -Gray, mod. sorted, sub-angular, fine SAND.
22 to 24 -Gray, poorly sorted, SILTY, v.f to f. SAND.
24 to 26 -Dark gray, CLAY with high plasticity.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: ______________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTIONS DA D , AND THAT A COP OF THIS RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
(p-12.-oz..
NG THE WELL DATE
Submit original to Division of \.Vatcr Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from: 27699-1636 Phone No, [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.07/2001
• WELL CONSTRUCTIOl'.f1.:::0RD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR CO~IPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATED WO PERMIT# N/A (if applicahle) (if applicable)
CMW-008
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public D Industrial D Agricultural □
Monitoring IX] Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: __ W=il'-'m~in~g~to~n~_ County: -~N~e~w~H~a~n~ov~e~r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: --------'3"'0'-'0"'2c'H-"i"'g'-'hw~ay'----'-4~21~N'co~rt'-'h _____ _
(Street or Route No.)
Wilmington NC 28401
City or Town
[phone]
State Zip Code
Are:i code -Phone number
4. DA TE DRILLED: -~0~5~/3_1 /~2~00~2 __
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 23
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO IXl
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 l 18
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OF TEST NIA
IO. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
13. CASING: Depth
Fro~ To_3_ft.
From__ To __ ft.
Prom .. __ T1, __ fi.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To __ 1_n.
From __ To __ f1.
15. SCREEN: Depth
NIA Amount NIA
Diameter
2" _ _,c __ m.
____ In.
__ Ill,
Material
Concrete
Wall Thickness or Weight/Ft.
Sch.40
Material
PVC
Method
Surface Pour
Diameter Slot Size Material
2" m. Slot .010 in. PVC From_3_To~ft.
From __ To __ ft. ____ In. ____ In.
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Size Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIFlat
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: □GPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
s to 7 -Dark brown, organic, SILTY, v.f. to f., CLAYEY
SAND. Grading to a SIL TY. v.f. to f. SAND. Sat .•
No HCO.
10 to 12 -Tan well sorted v.f. to f. SAND. Sat. Mod.
HCO.
15 to 17 -Tan, well sorted, fine to med. SAND. Sat., Mod.
HCO.
20 to 22 -Green/gray, SILTY, v.f.to f. SAND. Sat., High
HCO.
23 to 25 -Green/gray, SILTY CLAY with high plasticity.
Sat.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: ________________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C. WELL
CONSTRUCTION ST RDS. AND THAT A COPY THIS RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
ft,-/Z-D 2._
DATE
Submit original to Division of \Vatcr Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days. GW-I REV.07/200I
• \VELL CONSTRUCTION.r:ORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INllIVIUUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATED WQ PERMIT# N/A
(if applicahle) (if applicahlcJ
CMW-009
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public □ Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring !XI Recovery □ Heat Pump Water lnjection D Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: __ W=il"m,,,in-"g'-'to"'n"-_ County: _ _cN.,,ee..,w"-"H"'a'-'no,e.v"'e"-r-
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name ancl Numbers. Community. Subdivision. Lot No., Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: -------'3"'0"0""2c.,H_ci,,g"hw=cay'---'-42=-1'c-"N"'o"'rt'-'h _____ _
(Street or Route No.)
Wilmington NC 28401
City or Town
[phone]
State Zip Code
Are:i code -Phone number
4. DA TE DRILLED: 05/30/2002
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 23
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTJNG WELL?YES □ NO !XI
7. ST A TIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASJNG JS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing lcrminuted at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 118
9. YIELD (gpm): N/A METHOD OF TEST N/A
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
I 3. CASING: Depth
Fro~ To_3_ft.
Wall Thickness Diameter or Weight/Fl.
2" in. Sch. 40
Material
PVC
Fro!TL___ To ___ ft. ____ 111.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To~ft.
From __ To __ ft.
15. SCREEN: Depth
Material
Concrete
Method
Surface Pour
Diameter Slot Size Material
2" 111 • Slot .010 in. --'P'-V.,_C=--From_3_To~ft.
From __ To __ ft. ____ Ill. ____ Ill. ----
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Material
From __ To ___ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIFlat
(check appropriate box}
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: DGPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 10 6 • Light gray, well sorted, v.f. to I. SAND. Wet to
sal. NO HCO.
9 to 11 -S.A.A. Sat. No HCO.
14 to 16 -Li9bl.9ray1 SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., No
HCO.
19 to 21 -Green/gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., Slight
HCO.
23 to 25 -Green/gray, SIL TY CLAY with high plasticity.
Sat.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
~ 17. REMARKS: ________________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH I SA NCAC 2C. WELL
CONSTRUCTION STAND S, AND THAT A COPY OF TH ECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
f;.,-/2-0 Z.
DATE
Submit original to Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center• Raleigh, NC Modified from;
27699-1636 Phone No, [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.07/200t
i:i " z ~ <.)
• WELL CONSTRUCTIONIJr:ORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATED WO PERMIT# N/A (if applicahle) (it applicahleJ
PVMW-010
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public D Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring IX] Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Oiher D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: ___ W_il~m~in~g=l~on~_ County: --'N-"e'-'w-'-'-H"'a"'n~ov'-'e~r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers, Community, Subdivision. Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: ______ 3~0'-'0~2~H-'i~g~hw=ay~4~21~N~o~rt~h _____ _
(Street or Route No.)
Wilmington NC 28401
City or Town
[phone]
State Zip Code
Area code -Phone number
4. DATE DRILLED: _ _,0"'5'-'/3'-"0'-=/2-"-00=-=2~_
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 24
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES □ NO IXl
7. STA TIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING JS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at.Jar below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 118
9. YIELD (gpm): N/A METHOD OF TEST N/A
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
13. CASING: Depth
Fro~ To_4_ft.
From___ To __ ft.
f=t0iit__ __ T•~ ~ __ ft.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To_1_r1.
From __ To ___ n.
15. SCREEN: Depth
N/A Amount N/A
Diameter
2" -~--'"· ____ m.
Wall Thickness or Wcighl/FL.
Sch.40
Material
PVC
m. ----·-·
Material
Concrete
Method
Surface Pour
Diameter Slot Size Material
From_4_To -1.±_ ft. -~2~" __ in. Slot .010 in. PVC
From __ To ___ ft.
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Size Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIFlat
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: DGPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 to 6 -Tan/gray, well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to
sat. No HCO.
9 to 11 -Green/gray well sorted v.f. to f. SAND with
trace tan silt. Sat. HCO.
14 to 16 -Gray, well sorted fine SAND. SaL HCO.
191021 -S.A.A.withsomesilt. Sat. HCO.
221024 -Dark green/gray, SILTY, v.f. tof. CLAYEY
SAND/SANDY CLAY.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: _______________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH I SA NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTION STAND S, D HAT A COPY OF THIS R -ORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
t~ 2--0
SI DATE
Submit original to Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No, [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.07/2001
• \VELL CONSTRUCTICN.~'::ORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOC!ATFfD WQ PERMIT# NIA
(if applicable) (it app icablcJ
PVMW-011
1. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public □ Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring 00 Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: ---"W""il"'m,,:ine,g,.,t"'on"--County: _.cN-.-e"w,_,_,H.,,a"-no"-v'-'e"-r-
3002 Highway 421 North
(Rand Name and Numhers, Community, Subdivision, Lot No., Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: _____ __;3,,,0e,0,_,2'-'H'-'1"'·g"'h-"w-"aLy-"4=-2-'-1 c..Ncsoecrte,h _____ _
(Street or Route No.)
Wilmington
Ci1y or Town
[phone]
Area code• Phone number
NC
Slate
4. DA TE DRILLED: 05/30/2002
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 24
28401
Zip Code
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO lXl
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated al/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 118
9. YIELD (gpm): NI A METHOD OF TEST NI A
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type N/A Amount NIA
Diameter 13. CASING: Depth
Fro~To_4_ft. __ 2~'-' _m.
FrollL___ To ___ ft. in.
Fro!lL.......:_ To __ ft. · in.
Wall Thickness or Weight/Ft.
Sch.40
Material
PVC
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To __ 1_ft.
Material
Concrete
Method
Surface Pour
From __ To ___ ft.
15. SCREEN: Depth
From _4_To -1L ft.
From __ To __ ft.
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
.From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Diameter Slot Size Material
2" in. Slot .010 in. _P'-'-V-=C-
____ in. ___ _
Size Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIF!at
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: □GPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 to 6 -Light gray,well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to
sat., High HCO.
9 to 11 -S.A.A. Sat., High HCO.
14 to 16 -Light gray, mod. sorted, v.f. to med. SAND. Sat
Hi h HCO.
19 to 21 -Dark green/gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat.,
hi h HCO.
22 lo 23.5 -S.A.A.
23.5 to 24 -Dark green/gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f.1 SANDY CLAY
with high plasticity.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: __ ~-----------------------------
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTION ST A RDS, ND HAT A COPY OF THIS REC HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
t-2--0c_
DATE
Submit original to Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days, GW-1 REV.07/2001
.WELL CONSTRUCTION .~CORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIIJUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATFD WO PERMIT# N/A (if applicable) (if appficable)
CMW-012
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public □
Monitoring IX] Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Oiher D If Other, List Use _______ _
Industrial D Agricultural D
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: __ W=il"m"'in"g"'to"'n'--_ County: -~N"e~w'--'-'H=a"-no~v~e"r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers, Community. Subdivision, Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: _____ _,3"0'-"0"'2c-'H.!!i,,gh"'w"'a~yL4:e2=-1"-'-'N"'o"rt"h _____ _
(Street or Route No.)
Wilmington NC 28401
City or Town
[phone]
State Zip Code
Area code. Phone number
4. DA TE DRILLED: 05/30/2002
5. TOT AL DEPTH: 23
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO IXl
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING JS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing tenninated at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 118
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OF TEST NIA
I 0. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12: DISINFECTION: Type NIA Amount NIA
13. CASING: Depth
Fro~ To_3_ft.
From__ To __ ft.
Diamclcr
2" _ __:c __ tn.
____ in.
Fro;p _____ To __ ft. ______ in-.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To_1_rt.
From __ To __ ft.
Malerial
Concrete
Wall Thickness or Weight/Ft.
Sch.40
Material
PVC
Method
Surface Pour
15. SCREEN: Depth Diameter Slot Size Material
From_3_To---1Lft. ---'2=-'-' _in. Slot .010 in. -'-P-'-V-=C-
From __ To __ ft. ____ tn.
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Size
____ In. ___ _
Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIFlat
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: DGPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 to 6 -Brown, tan, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet, Slight
HCO.
9 to 11 • Gray, well sorted, fine SAND. Sat., slight HCO.
14 to 16 • S.A.A.
19 to 21 • Green/gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat.
23 to 25 -Green/gray, SILTY CLAY with high plasticity.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: _______________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISA NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTION STAN~S, ~D JHAT A COPY OF THIS RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
/ >-vf' ~ -K C,-/Z-0"2.._
SIGNATURE OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL DATE
Submit original to Division of \\'ater Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.07/2001
• WELL CONSTRUCTION .~CORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOClATFfD WO PERMIT# N/A
(if applicabk) (il app icnhleJ
CMW-013
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public □ Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring IXI Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection D Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: ---'-W""il"'m"in'-"g"'t"o"n __ County: --'-N'-'e'--'w'-'-'H~a"no~v~e"r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers. Community. Subdivision. Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: 3002 Highway 421 North
Wilmington
City or Town
[phone]
Area code -Phone number
(Strce\ or Roule No.)
NC
State
4. DATE DRILLED: 05/31/2002
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 27
28401
Zip Code
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO IXI
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use "+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS_2=._7_ FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 I I 8
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OF TEST NIA
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type NIA Amount NIA
13. CASING: Depth Diameter
Fro~ To_2_ft. --=-2'_' _m.
From_ To ___ ft. m.
Wall Thickness or Weight/Ft.
Sch.40
From ___ . To_. _ft. i_n. _ .... __ .
Material
PVC
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To~ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Material
Concrete
Method
Surface Pour
15. SCREEN: Depth
From_2_To __gz_ ft.
Diameter Slot Size Material
2" in. Slot .010 in. PVC
From __ To ___ ft. ____ m. ____ In. ___ _
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Size Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIFlat
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: □GPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
·s to 7 -Dark brown, gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to
sat. No HCO.
10 to 12 • Light gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat. high
HCO.
15 to 17 -Light gray, well sorted, fine SAND. Sat., high
HCO.
20 to 22 -S.A.A.
23 to 25 -Green/gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat.
25 to 27 -S.A.A.
27 to 29 -Green/gray, SILTY, v.f. to f., SANDY CLAY. Sat.
No HCO.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: _______________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTION ' DA DS ND THAT A COPY OF RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
&,-/2-0c__
SIGNATURE OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL DATE
Submit original to Division of \\later Qualit_y, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.0712001
0 oc
8 w oc
§ g
oc in z 0 u ::: ~
.\VELL CONSTRUCTION.~ORD
North Carolina -Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME . CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# [phone]t
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATED WQ PERMIT# N/A
(if applicable) (if applicableJ
PVMW-014
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public D Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring IX) Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection □ Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: __ W=il'-'m"'in~g~to"'n~_ County: -~N~e~w~H~a~n~ov~e~r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers. Community, Subdivision, Lot No . ., Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. ol Evironmental Management
Address: _____ _c3e:0,,0"'2c"H"'i"'g'-'hw"-ccay'---',42=-1'c-c'Nc'o'-'rt'-'h _____ _
(Street or Rouie No.)
Wilmington
City or Town
[phone]
Arca code -Phone number
NC
State
4. DA TE DRILLED: -~0~5=/2=8/=2~00=2~_
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 24
28401
Zip Code
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO IXl
7. STA TIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with I SA NCAC 2C.0 118
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OFTEST NIA
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
13. CASING: Depth
Fro~ To_4_ft.
FronL___ To __ ft.
From_ To _____ fl:
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To __ 2_n.
From __ To ___ ft.
15. SCREEN: Depth
NIA Amount NIA
Diameter
2" ____ Ill.
____ in.
Material
Concrete
Wall Thickness or Weight/Ft.
Sch.40
Material
PVC
Method
Surface Pour
Diameter Slot Size Material
2" m. Slot .010 in. PVC From_4_To~ft.
From __ To __ ft. ____ Ill. ____ in. ___ _
I 6. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Size Material
Topographic/Land Setting
□ Ridge □ Slope □ Valley IXl Flat (check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: D GPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 to 5 -Dark brown SIL TY v.f. to f. SANO.
5 to 6 -Tan well sorted fine SAND. Sat. NO HCO.
9 to 11 -Tan mod. sorted v.f. to med. SAND with trace
cse. grains. Sat., NO HCO.
14 to 16 -Ugh! gray/white, SILTY, v.l. to med. SAND.
Sal. hi h HCO.
19 to 21 -S.A.A. with slightly clayey characteristic.
22 to 23.S -Dark gray, SILTY, v.f. to med., CLAYEY SAND.
23.5 to 24 -Dark gray, SILTY, v.f. to f.1 SANDY CLAY. Sat.,
No HCO.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: ___________ ~-------------------
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISA NCAC 2C. WELL
CONSTRUCTION STAND ND TH A COPY OF THIS RECO HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
Submit original to Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.07/2001
• WELL CONSTRUCTION.CORD
Nonh Carolina -Depai1ment of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOR (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) Bobbie Fowler CERTIFICATION# 2869
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# (9JO) 452-5861
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATED WO PERMIT# N/A
(if applicable) (if applicable}
PVMW-015
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public D Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring IX) Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection □ Other D If Other, List Use _______ _
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: --~W"-il"'m"in""g"'t"o"-n __ County: -~N~e~w~H~a~no~v~e"-r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers. Community, Subdivision. Lot No .. Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: ______ 3,c0e:Oc,2c,.H:.=i9ech.:cw.,c;aLy_,4-=2c,1 c'-N"o"-rt"'h'--------
(Strect or Route No.)
Wilmington
City or Town
[phone]
Area code -Phone number
NC 28401
State Zip Code
4. DA TE DRILLED: 05/28/2002
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 23
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL?YES □ NO IXI
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use"+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS 2.8 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing termim1ted at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C.0I l 8
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OF TEST NIA
10. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
13. CASING: Depth
FrondJL_ To_4_ft.
FrollL___ To __ ft.
f!"OTlL_ T11 _ .
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To __ 2_rt.
From __ To ___ ft.
I5. SCREEN: Depth
. NIA Amount NIA
Wall Thickness Diameter or Weight/Ft.
2" in. Sch. 40
----'"·
Material
PVC
Material
Concrete
Method
Surface Pour
Diameter Slot Size Material
2" rn. Slot .010 in. _P'--V~C_ From_4_To ~ft.
From __ To __ ft. ____ in. ____ ,n. ----
I 6. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Material
From __ To ___ ft.
From __ To __ ft.
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IXIFlat
(check appropriate box)
Northing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: □GPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 10 6 -Tan SIL TY v.f. to f. SAND. Sat. NO HCO.
9 lo 11 -Tan well sorted f. to med. SAND. Sat. No
HCO,
14 to 16 -Light gray, SILTY, v.f. to med. SAND with clayey
sand layers. Sat., No HCO.
19 to 20 -Light gray/white, S.A.A.
201021 -Darkgray,SlLTY, v.f.tof.CLAYEYSAND.
21 to 23 -Dark gray, SILTY, v.f. to f., CLAYEY
SAND/SANDY CLAY. Sat., slight HCO.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
I7. REMARKS: _________________ ~--------------
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRUCTION ST AND , AN THAT A COPY OF THIS R D HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
2-0
Submit original to Dh·ision of \Vater Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center~ Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days, GW-1 REV.07/2001
• WELL CONSTRUCTION.r:ORD
Nonh Carolina -Depanrnent of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality -Groundwater Section
WELL CONTRACTOI< (INDIVIDUAL) NAME (print) William Miller CEl<TIFICATION # 2927
WELL CONTRACTOI< COMPANY NAME CATLIN Engineers & Scientists PHONE# (9IO) 452-5861
STATE WELL CONSTl<UCTION PERMIT# 2869 ASSOCIATFD WO PERMIT# NIA (if applicable) (if appficableJ
CMW-016
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential □ Municipal/Public D Industrial D Agricultural D
Monitoring IX! Recovery □ Heat Pump Water Injection □ Other D If Other. List Use --------
2. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)
Nearest Town: __ W=il'-'m'"in_,,g,_,to"'n.,__county: -~N~e~w~H"'a"n~ov"e~r_
3002 Highway 421 North
(Road Name and Numbers, Community. Suhdivision, Lot No., Zip Code)
3. OWNER:New Hanover County Dept. of Evironmental Management
Address: _____ ___:3e:Oe.,Occ2c'H-"i"'g"hw"-"'ay,_,_42.,_1'c-"N'-"o-"rt"h _____ _
(Street or Route No.)
Wilmington
City or Town
[phone]
An:a code -Phone nurnber
NC 28401
State Zip Code
4. DA TE DRILLED: _ __.0""6"-'/0'-"3'-"/2"'-0"'02~_
5. TOTAL DEPTH: 23
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES □ NO IX!
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing___ FT.
(Use "+" if Above Top of Casing)
8. TOP OF CASING IS 2.5 FT. Above Land Surface*
* Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface requires
a variance in accord:rnce with I 5A NCAC 2C.0 I l 8
9. YIELD (gpm): NIA METHOD OF TEST N/A
I 0. WATER ZONES (depth): Surficial Aquifer
12. DISINFECTION: Type
13. CASING: Depth
From_:g,_~ To _3_ft.
From._ To __ ft.
Frorn ____ To __ ft.
14. GROUT: Depth
From_O_To __ 1_ft.
From __ To __ ft.
15. SCREEN: Depth
From_3_To~ft.
Frorn __ To __ ft.
NIA Amount N/A
Diameter
2" --=----'"· ____ m.
____ m.
Material
Concrete
Wall Thickness
or Weight/Ft.
Sch.40
Material
PVC
Method
Surface Pour
Diameter Slot Size Material
--'2=--" __ m. Slot .010 in. PVC
____ m. ____ ,n. ----
16. SAND/GRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Material
From __ To __ ft.
From __ To ___ ft.
Topographic/Land Setting
□Ridge □Slope □Valley IX!Flat
(check appropriate hox)
Nonhing/Easting of well location
Latitude/longitude source: □GPS □Topo. map (check box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From To Formation Description
4 to 6 -Light gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to sat.,
Mod. HCO.
9 to 11 -Light gray, mod. sorted, v.f. to med. SAND. Sat.,
hi h HCO.
14 10 16 -Gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND with some clayey
sand layers. Sat., high HCO.
19 to 21 -Green/gra S.A.A.
23 to 25 -Green. SILTY CLAY with high plasticity. Sat.
No HCO.
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include road
numbers and common road names.
SEE
FIGURE
1.2
17. REMARKS: _______________________________ _
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C. WELL
CONSTRUCTION STANDARD AND THAT A COPY OF THIS RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
-C, -0z.
SI ATURE OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING THE WELL DATE
Submit original to Division of \\later Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center• Raleigh, NC Modified from:
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone], within 30 days. GW-1 REV.07/2001
WE .. L LOG CAi:Lin I
ENGINEERS end SCIENTISTS
Wilmington, Nonh Carol= SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC I COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav WELL ID:
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler PVSMW-oo:;:
NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION: T.O.C. ELEV.:
DRILL MACHINE: Diedrich D-50 METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW: BORING DEPTH: 11.0
START DATE: 05/28/02 FINISH DATE: 05/28/02 24 HOUR DTW: WELL DEPTH: 10.0
BLOW COUNT OVA u L SOIL AND ROCK WELL s DEPTH (ppm) LAB. C 0 DESCRIPTION 6in Bin Gin Sin s G DEPTH DETAIL
' ~
2.8~
0.0 LAND SURFACE ~ 0.0
N 0.5 .
:c .~ . 1.0 1.0 _
-----C i -" -i-
4.0 4.0 -
-Tan to light gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., No 0 ~ /
-
- 4 11 13 13 SM HCO. > -·.·.
., . 6.0 ~-,:
6.0 ~= :--:---
-~ .. --
--
--
~\
-
--
9.0 9.0 -
-<>: Ught gray, well sorted, fine to med. SAND. Sat., No
-
-3 4 6 5 SP _ 10.0 10.0_
-
••••••• HCO.
--
11.0 11.0
-Boring Terminated at Depth 11.0 fl --------------'
' 1 ~-
-
' 7 . -
I ' I ' ----
--
-r -----
-----
---
1 -----i --
i -
--
' ---
f ----
' ---
-
1 -------
i
r
r
.
t;j Portland Cement m Bentonite Pellets C] #2 Medium Sand
I !
t
l
5
~
C
I
~ 1
1
I
WE_L LOG CA'LLin
ENGINEERS end SCIENTISTS
W~rnmgton. Nonh Carohna
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC COUNTY: New Hanover ] LOCATION:
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: GRG
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler
NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: KY
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION:
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45B A TV METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW:
START DATE: 01/04/01
DEPTH
u.u .
. . -
4.0
5.0
-
7.0
-
-
-
-
10.0 -
BLOW COUNT
6in Bin 6in 6in
6 5 5 6
OVA
(ppm) LAB.
FINISH DATE: 06/05/02 24 HOUR DTW:
u s
C s
SM
L
0
G DEPTH
SOIL AND ROCK
DESCRIPTION
0.0
4.0
5.0
10.0
LAND SURFACE
Black to dark brown, organic rich, SILTY SAND.
(Topsoil)
Light gray, buff, mod. well sorted, sub-angular SAND.
Wet.
I
V SHEET 1 OF 1
Wilminaton
WELL ID:
CMW-007
T.O.C. ELEV.:
BORING DEPTH: 26.0
WELL DEPTH: 22.0
2.8
" " " ~
C
C
C u ~
" 0 •
" ~
" I-
"
" ~
" " "
WELL
DETAIL
0.0
-
"
-
.
-
-
7.0 .
-
-
--10.0_
-
12.0
-HP HP HP HP k/ Light gray, mod. well sorted, sub-angular, fine I/} grained SAND. Wet.
-I--J--l---jl--+---l----+---l--""+-''"2."-0-----------------+-12.0
SP " C
..
. -
-
-
I
' 1 r, ('! _J._ . • • I --1-' ~-l---~---'
' -HP HP HP HP
"
17.0 --
20.0
HP HP HP HP
22.0 -
-HP HP HP HP
24.0
HP HP HP HP -
26.0
-
---
-
-
C -
C -
-
-
SP S.A.A.
" 17.0 -
" --
-
-
-20.0 -SW)) -
Gray, mod. sorted, sub-angular, fine SAND. -
-22.0 22.0
-
-
22.0_
-SM Gray, poorly sorted, SIL TY, v.f to f. SAND. -
--.· 24.0 --
CH Dark gray, CLAY with high plasticity. -
26.0
Boring Terminated at Depth 26.0 ft
---
~ Portland Cement m Bentonite Pellets C] #2 Medium Sand
WE .. L LOG CACLin I
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
W~rnangton, North Carolina SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC I COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav WELL ID:
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler CMW-008 NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION: T.O.C. ELEV.:
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45B ATV METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW: BORING DEPTH: 25.0
START DATE: 05/31/02 FINISH DATE: 05/31/02 24 HOUR DTW: WELL DEPTH: 23.0
BLOW COUNT OVA u L SOIL AND ROCK WELL s DEPTH (ppm) LAB. C 0
6in 6in 6in 6in s G DEPTH DESCRIPTION DETAIL
2.8 u ->
0.0 LAND SURFACE ~ 0.0 0
~ --0 -w I 1.0 _ "' --2.0 _ -
3.0 -.· .. = ': ---~ -
5.0 -5.0 -
SCI~-Dark brown, organic, SILTY, v.f. to f., CLAYEY = -
-2 2 7 14 SAND. Grading to a SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., No -= -SM = -HCO. -= -
7,0 7.0 = -
. e ~ -
-'-1::1 -t: . . t: -
. t: . -. t: ::: -
10,0 10.0 t: -t: -
2 3 3 3 SP Tan, well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., Mod. HCO. t: t: ~
12.0 12.0 ~ t: :: -
OU t: -> t: ' 0~ t: Q~ ~ w t: :: --" -
e t: ·.·. -
I i .i:;,O --·--~--l-,_ '
. ·. ------~1-.-_.-_. -
I::>
Tan, well sorted, fine to med. SAND. Sat., Mod. e ~ --3 3 4 4 SP ,-~~::: -
-HCO. -
17.0 17.0 t: ' -
-e t: -t: ---= -= ii -=
20.0 20.0 = -0: -
!
-~\ -
-2 3 2 2 SM Green/gray, SIL TY, v.f.to f. SAND. Sat., High HCO. --
--
22,0 22.0 = ,, ~ -
23,0 23.0 23,0 ~ 23.0
1 --
-wor NOt wot NOt CH Green/gray, SILTY CLAY with high plasticity. Sat. -----~ 25,0 25.0
\
'. Boring Terminated at Depth 25.0 ft -
\ ---
--1 -
---
i e
t;3 Portland Cement m Bentonite Pellets C] #2 Medium Sand
l
'
1
'
I i
.
l
!
WELL LOG CA'i:Lin
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
Wdm,r,g1on. Nonh Carohna
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC I COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION:
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler
NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION:
DRILL MACHINE: Diedrich D-50 METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW:
START DATE: 05/30/02
DEPTH BLOW COUNT
Bin 6in Bin 6in
-
.
4.0 .
. 4 7 10 12 .
6.0
-
9.0
-2 4 4 4
11.0
-. .
.
14.0 ·. .., 2 '2 3 3
16.0
-
19.0 .
-2 2 1 1
21.0
-
23.0 .
-woti,vol l,vol wot
.
25.0 --
--
--
.
.
.
OVA
(ppm) LAB.
FINISH DATE: 05/30/02 24 HOUR DTW:
u L SOIL AND ROCK s 0 C G DEPTH DESCRIPTION s
0.0
9.0
SP I<
I .-:· 11.0
14.0
I S~:i
16.0
19.0
SM
21.0
23.0
CH
25.0
LAND SURFACE
Light gray, well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to sat.,
NO HCO .
S.A.A. Sat., No HCO.
Green/gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., Slight
HCO.
Green/gray, SILTY CLAY with high plasticity. Sat.
Boring Terminated at Depth 25.0 ft
!
V SHEET 1 OF 1
Wilminnton
WELL ID:
CMW-009
T.O.C. ELEV.:
BORING DEPTH: 25.0
WELL DEPTH: 23.0
' '-
C
'-
I.
I
C
.
C-
--
-
-
-
WELL
DETAIL
2.8 _
~
0
23.0
C
C -
...
.
t:. .... -.. -::.
i-
0.0
0.5
.
1.5 _
23.0
-
.
. .
-
---
.
-
-
-
.
-. ., ' -
-
-
-
.
-.
-
.
-
.
.
~ Portland Cement m Bentonite Pellets □ #2 Medium Sand
WE .. L LOG CA'i:Lin J
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS i/ SHEET 1 W~m,ngton, Nonh Carol1rla OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC I COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav WELL ID:
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler PVMW-010 NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION: T.O.C. ELEV.:
DRILL MACHINE: Diedrich 0-50 METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW: BORING DEPTH: 24.0
START DATE: 05/30/02 FINISH DATE: 05/30/02 24 HOUR DTW: WELL DEPTH: 24.0
BLOW COUNT OVA u L SOIL AND ROCK WELL s DEPTH (ppm) LAB. C 0
6in 6in 6in 6in s G DEPTH DESCRIPTION DETAIL
2.8 -
0.0 LAND SURFACE <J 0.0 >
0 ----• ---~ -1.0
--"' -----3.0
-
4.0 4.0 4.0 -· .. -
-/ Tan/gray, well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to sat., No :::
-7 13 12 15 SP ~ .••• -HCO.
6.0 6.0 -
-= : --=-:._.,
f-t: -.... t: -
t: .
9.0 9.0 t: .
. II Green/gray, well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND with trace tan Et-.
-3 6 6 7 SP .... t: -
-silt. Sat., HCO. t:
11.0 11.0 E :-_ .
---t: -t: .•
t: -~ ~ !I, ~ out: ·:.
14.0 14.0 05'.:t:: : -
.. •· :~t: -1 ...
I ••• ~ = ., 4 d 4 I 2,~ Grn;;_ ·::911-~---:~teo, ri;:o SAN[)'. ~::!., Hi_;Q, : 'I-:i_: V ' ' ~J ~-i·. I::_::: a t:: i) 16.0 1ti.O § )/ -
.
.
-t:: -:·----. t: •• ---= -
19.0 19.0 :::>
-2 1 1 2 SP ( S.A.A. with some silt. Sat., HCO. = \'· --.. -
I --=·
21.0 21.0 = = .••
--=·
22.0 22.0 =i t~ -
-SCI Dark green/gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. CLAYEY = ·.-/. -woh 1 1 0 CL SAND/SANDY CLAY. --· --•.',
24.0 24.0 24.0 -·-.-·. - • n
1 -Boring Terminated at Depth 24.0 fl -
--I ----
-1 ------
[ -f-. -f-
I -f-
~ Portland Cement ~ Bentonite Pellets C] #2 Medium Sand
CALLin I
ENGINEERS end SCIENTISTS WE .. L LOG W~mtngtoo, North Carolina V SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav WELL ID:
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler PVMW-011 CREW: Tom Stetler NORTHING: EASTING:
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION: T.O.C. ELEV.:
DRILL MACHINE: Diedrich D-50 METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW: BORING DEPTH: 24.0
START DATE: 05/30/02 FINISH DATE: 05/30/02 24 HOUR DTW: WELL DEPTH:
DEPTH BLOW COUNT
6in 6in 6in 6in
--
-
OVA
(ppm) LAB.
u s
C s
L SOIL AND ROCK 0
G DEPTH DESCRIPTION
2.8
0.0 LAND SURFACE
-
-
-
4 _0 --+--l----1--1----l---+---+--+----+-"•""·o __________________ '---4.0
••••••••
6101113 SP Light gray, well sorted, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to sat.,
High HCO .
. _._:: 6.0 6.0 -+--+-l--+--+----11-----l---+'--'-'l-""'------------------+----
---
9.0 9.0
-
- 3 5 6 6 SP S.A.A. Sat., High HCO.
-
11.0 11.0
---
-
-
14.0 --l_-l-+-+--+---+---11----+-:cc-.,+-"':'4"'-·0 --------------+-
I ! I ~:c'.:, {:•> UgnJ gr3y, 1'!'0i:!: sonen, v.f. ;.,:, 11·,[:r.. SAN[•. Sat., -2~251 · _ Higt1 HCU. --16.0 +-l--+----'l--+--+---+--+--4--'-1"'6·0"--------------------l'---
-
-
--
-
19.0 -
- 1 2 1 1 -
' 21.0 -I 22.0 _
, -1 1 1 0
19.0
SM
21.0
22.0
SM .
Dark green/gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., high
HCO.
S.A.A.
• -~5
, 24.0 +-l---l--l-+--+----ls,!,'4''-';b.f'm""'//"+£24,;,,c0 Dark green/gray, SILTY, v.f. to f., SANDY CLAY with
· illl"!l'8f'i/Yg Terrrrirraled al D-r·' _ .. v"
' '
-
-
--
---
C
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
24.0
WELL
DETAIL
-
24.0
0.0
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
' --
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
□ Portland Cement m Bentonite Pellets Li #2 Medium Sand
i
I
f
' i
~
/
W:_L LOG CA'i:Lin
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
W~mington, North Carolina
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION:
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler
NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION:
DRILL MACHINE: Diedrich D-50 METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW:
START DATE: 05/30/02
DEPTH
.
.
-
-
4.0
6.0
-
9.0 .
-
.
11.0 .
-
14.0
16.0
-
19.0
-
21.0
-
BLOW COUNT
6in 6in 6in 6in
5 10 16 16
3 4 5 5
_Q . • 1 ~ ' :,
1 2 1 2
OVA
(ppm)
' ' '
LAB.
FINISH DATE:
L
0
05/30/02 24 HOUR DTW:
u s
C s G DEPTH
SOIL AND ROCK
DESCRIPTION
0.0 LAND SURFACE
4.0
SM Brown, tan, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet, Slight HCO.
6.0
9.0
SP < Gray, well sorted, fine SANO. Sat .. slight HCO.
11.0
14.0
SP < 2 .. " .. /\ . \> 16.0
19.0
SM Green/gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat.
21.0
..
I
SHEET 1 OF 1
Wilminnton
WELL ID:
CMW-012
T.O.C. ELEV.:
BORING DEPTH: 25.0
WELL DEPTH: 23.0
2.8
-
_ 3.0
-
f-
f-
I-
I-
f-
I-
--
-
--
" > ~
0
~ ,-,
WELL
DETAIL
-
---
j
0.0
1.0 _
2.0 _
-
-
-
.
.I
--
-
--
--
23.0 _,2""3.,,_0 _________________ -l-23.0 23.0 _
-NOt NO( wot NO( CH Green/gray, SILTY CLAY with high plasticity. --
25.0 25.0
Boring Terminated at Depth 25.0 ft --
-
-----
-
-
t;j Portland Cement Im Bentonite Pellets C] #2 Medium Sand
C.Ai:Lin I WE .. L LOG ENGINEERS end SCIEtmSTS
Wilm,ngton. Nonh Carohna i/ SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit LOGGED BY: Charles Rav WELL ID:
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler
EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler CMW-013 NORTHING:
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION: T.O.C. ELEV.:
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45B ATV METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW: BORING DEPTH: 29.0
START DATE: 05/31/02 FINISH DATE: 05/31/02 24 HOUR DTW: WELL DEPTH: 27 .0
DEPTH BLOW COUNT
Gin 6in 6in 6in
-
-
5.0 -
-2 3 5 7 -
7.0
-
OVA
(ppm) LAB.
u s
C s
SM
L
0
G DEPTH
SOIL AND ROCK
DESCRIPTION
0.0
5.0
7.0
LAND SURFACE
Dark brown, gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to
sat., No HCO.
a _ 2.0
-
-
-
-
-
---
10.0 -+-+--+-t-+--+--+----lTrrrt-''"'0."-0------------------1-
4 5 5 5 SM Light gray, SILTY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat., high HCO.
12.0 -+--+--l--l---1----l----l-----J.LLLI4-''-"'2."-0--------------------I--
--
- I i
-~; ~ (
1
~i-7-l-7-+-9--+-9-i----_,_---1---S-P-+i-/·,,,._ __ ,~~.g_L_ig-ht-g-,a-y-, w-e-11-so-,rt,_ed,-f-in_e_S-AN_D __ S~~--.~;g~ -HCO.
17.0
------.. r
-
17.0
--
20.0 -t--t-+-f-+--+---+---+=: •+":2"'0.,,_o _________________ -1-_
- 5 6 6 -8 SP _: ·.
'::• S.A.A.
:J,
WELL
DETAIL
0.0
0.5 _
1.5 _
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-I [ 22.0
·.·-:, 22.0
23.0
-
~ 23.0
' ~
'· '
25.0
~ 27.0
-4 -
-3
4 4 4
4 3 4
SM .· Green/gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Sat. --
-25.0
SM S.A.A. --
-"2"-7 De__ ________________ --+ 27.0 27.0
----wohNOf 1 1 CH~ Green/gray,SILTY,v.f tof,SANDYCLAY. Sat No
i . HCO I 29.o _+--+-1--+-+---+--+----11 l-'2"0""0-----------------+-------1
: Boring Terminated at Depth 29 0 ft -
~ Portland Cement ~ Bentonite Pellets C] #2 Medium Sand
' '
WELL LOG ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
Wilming1on. North Carolina SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC I COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit
1------------------+-'D°"'R=ILL=E"-"R:.__----=B=o=b=bi=e...,_F.::.ow=le~r PVMW-014 NORTHING: EASTING: CREW: Tom Stetler
LOGGED BY: Charles Rav WELL ID:
SYSTEM:
DRILL MACHINE; Diedrich D-50
START DATE: 05/28/02
DEPTH BLOW COUNT
Bin 6in Bin Sin
.
-
4.0
. 6 8 9 8 .
6.0 .
.
.
-
9.0
-wor 5 7 7
11.0
-
14.0 . ,
I I : . J 9 2 :; ,' ? ' -"
16.0 . . .
-
19.0
-1 1 1 1
21.0
.
OVA
(ppm)
' '
LAB.
BORING LOCATION:
METHOD:
FINISH DATE:
L
0
HSA 0 HOUR DTW:
05/28/02 24 HOUR DTW:
u s
C s G DEPTH
SOIL AND ROCK
DESCRIPTION
0.0
4,0
SM ll1 5.0
SP ::::-:: ·.·,·.· 6.0
9,0
11.0
14.0
16.0
19.0
SM
21.0
LAND SURFACE
Dark brown, SIL TY, v.f. to I. SAND.
Tan, well sorted, fine SAND. Sat., NO HCO.
Tan, mod. sorted, v.t. to med. SAND with trace cse.
grains. Sat., NO HCO.
i...igi,; oiay"/whi!~~. SILTY, v.t. to med. SAf\/0 .. -Sat.,
t",igh HCO.
S.A.A. with slightly clayey characteristic.
T.O.C. ELEV.:
BORING DEPTH: 24.0
WELL DEPTH: 24.0
-
-
-
-
-
1--
1--
I-
-
-
2.8
4.0
WELL
DETAIL
'
':
·,
.
.
{
£ .. w OU qfi'. t:
.. ~§ ; .
= = = -= :': =· = = -~ .·
~
0,0
.
.
2.0 _
3.0 -'
--
--
.
-
-
.
-, .,
:' --
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i 22.0 22.0
SC ~ Dark gray, SILTY, v.f. to med., CLAYEY SAND.
= = = = =
-
r
i
'· d
0 23.5
24.0 -+-J--t-.......,f--+---+---+.'r.-J,'-fL' /LLf /_,,204:~: S;','~ gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f., SANDY CLAY. Sat., No
'-.l::IJ,;J.),._-R,mn' ,rr'sl .... , ...,,._,I'·"' ,i;...-,-.u n .
-
.
.
24.0
--
-
--
-
[B Portland Cement ~ Bentonite Pellets LJ #2 Medium Sand
'
! 1
I
I
'· '
t
i
WELL LOG CALLin
ENGINEERS alld SCIEtmSTS
Wrlmlllg10n, North Carolma
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC I COUNTY:
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit
NORTHING: EASTING:
SYSTEM: BORING LOCATION:
DRILL MACHINE: Diedrich D-50 METHOD:
START DATE: 05/28/02
DEPTH
-
-
-
-
BLOW COUNT
Gin 6in Bin 6in
OVA
(ppm) LAB.
FINISH DATE:
u s
C s
L
0
G DEPTH
0.0
New Hanover I LOCATION:
LOGGED BY: Charles Rav
DRILLER: Bobbie Fowler
CREW: Tom Stetler
HSA 0 HOUR DTW:
05/28/02 24 HOUR DTW:
SOIL AND ROCK
DESCRIPTION
LAND SURFACE
I
V SHEET 1 OF 1
Wilminaton
WELL ID:
PVMW-015
T.O.C. ELEV.:
BORING DEPTH: 23.0
WELL DEPTH: 23.0
2.8
-
WELL
DETAIL
-
0.0
.
2.0 _
3.0 _
4.0 -+-t-+-t-+--+--+--h-rrrt-''-"'·o __________________ l--,.o -
-
6 9 9 7
6.0
-
9.0
-2 6 5 4
11.0 ---
-
-
14.0 -I
' 2 ,. 2 !· 2 I i ' ' 16.0
--
19.0
-1 1 1 1
21.0
-1 0 1 0
23.0 ---
-
--
SM -Tan, SIL TY, v.f. to I. SAND. Sat., NO HCO.
6.0
9.0
•••••• SP !::::::: Tan, well sorted, f. to med. SAND. Sat., No HCO.
••••••• 11.0
14.0
: SM 1\:1:.tJ", t_igh! ~ray, s1~:rv, v.l. to-med. SAND .-.ta-, cir1yev ' HJI 1 · band 1ayers. ::;at., No HCU.
16.0
19.0
SM l\JJ' 20_0 Light gray/white, SAA.
SC ~ 21 _0 Dark gray, SILTY, v.f. to I. CLAYEY SAND.
SC/~~ Dark gray, SILTY, v.f. to I., CLAYEY SAND/SANDY
CL (,21/, CLAY. Sat .. slight HCO.
v; '/ 23.0
Boring Terminated at Depth 23.0 ft
I-
I-
I-
-
-
-
f
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
= ,,
23.0
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
---
-
--
' -'.
---
--
-
-
--
-
--
-
--
-
--
t;j Portland Cement ~ Bentonite Pellets [}~2 Medium Sand
l
:
1
WELL LOG CACLin I
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
W1lminglon. North Caroliria i/ SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 194-040 STATE: NC COUNTY: New Hanover I LOCATION: Wilminaton
PROJECT NAME: Burn Pit i-:L:.::O..=G.=.G=.,EDc..:B,c_Yc:_: ___ C"'-'-!ha=-:_rl e"-'s"-'--R"'a~ V WE LL ID:
DRILLER: William Miller
NORTHING: EASTING: SYSTEM: CMW-016
BORING LOCATION: T.O.C. ELEV.:
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45B ATV METHOD: HSA 0 HOUR DTW: BORING DEPTH: 25.0
START DATE: 06/03/02 FINISH DATE: 06/03/02 24 HOUR DTW: WELL DEPTH: 23.0
BLOW COUNT OVA u L SOIL AND ROCK WELL
DEPTH LAB. s 0 (ppm) C DESCRIPTION 6in 6in Bin 6in s G DEPTH DETAIL
2.5 -
0.0 LAND SURFACE 0.0
---:-1.0 ---_ 2.0 _ --
-
-4.0 +-1-+--t-+--+---+---+rrn+, .:,_4,"'-0-------------------t-
-
-3 6 6 6 -SM Light gray, SIL TY, v.f. to f. SAND. Wet to sat., Mod.
HCO.
6.0 +-1-+--t-+--+---+--+·u·~-.2c6-ccO _________________ --j_
-
-
---
9.0 -
-4 3 4 4 -
11.0 ---
-
-
9.0
SP
11.0
Light gray, mod. sorted, v.f. to med. SAND. Sat.,
high HCO.
-
-
-
14.0 +-l-+--l-+--+---+---tr.mt--'-14ec•O'-------------------t-
SSCM·,i ~ C-irA~1, SILTY, ',1.t •,: !. SP..MD with scme clayey sand -1 J21-.1 1 1 _, i
C v;.l layers. Sat., higil i-1(.;U. ·
16.0 -+-J-+-1-+--+--+-+'lllJ-''-"6.;,_0 _________________ +
19.0
21.0
.
-
-1 1 1 1
-
-
SCI~
SM%'.
-
19.0
Green/gray, S.A.A.
21.0
3.0
-
-
-
.
-.
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
--
--
--
, 23.0 __,2"'3.ccO _________________ ---+-23.0 23.0
t,
1
\ ;
~
25.0
-wor NOr NOi NOr CH
25.0
-
-
.
Green. SILTY CLAY with high plasticity. Sat., No
HCO.
Boring Terminated at Depth 25.0 ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
t;j Portland Cement m Bentonite Pellets □ #2 Medium Sand
\
\
\
ESTIMATED AREAL EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
,soeoseoNewcoMeuASee _/$ (CMW-01
MONllOAlNG WELL
\ ~-00&
EXISTING WELL TO B /
COMPLIANCE MONIT6~!~~SU. _/
C
®--
@-
PROPOSED PERFORMANCE
\
VERIFICATION WELLS r------_11 0 ® ® © ® ® cl) 10 11
NOTES:
1. llilS DRAWING WAS EPA DRAWINGS AND~~ FROM EXISTING
2. WELL LOCA11Cf;S MAJ>PING.
STOCKS LAND SU~Y1~;11coo;s LOCAT[l) BY ' • · DATED 24 APRIL 2001.
(i RR SPIKE AT
PAVEMENT INTERSECTI
ELEV = 31.08'
\
\
leJ.20'
\
"""""' .....
0£0(EI)
'
ANTICIPATED
$~1-ooa ',,
ROPOSEDNEW ~
OMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL '~
AIR SP ARGE PULSE RADIUS ' ~~-004
'-a --~ --" ' "
... ... ...
EXJSTINGWELL TOBE USED
COMPLIANCE MONITORING~ fi"xis~\;;~ -"'-:;;;-1;;;;;-;--;::--:;;;::-:::-"'.'"-:--C~O:;MPL;,,~~~6~~~NGWELL~ CMW-009)
.,..
~-----IE~l:~~GWELLSTOBEUSEDFOR /-;_---
0
EVERIFICATION ,___ (i)--; •
POSED SHAUOW
PERFORMANCE
AIFICATION WELL
-':/
, --'-...:-.-~.c·7->-
16 ® @) @) 21 ® @ @ 2
/,-~ i ( ' \f ®/ 1 ® ® ! @
• NE 5 " ;' --,.. ~&1,-,/'~-?'\ ( I! /
/
I ___ J
3~®®®®@
PERFORMANCE
ERIFICATION WELLS
1Tilf
-0
-0
--®
-©
--@
--0
(CMW-OO7)
$
'-TEMPO
'
PERMAN RARY WELL CONVERTED TO ENT COMPUANCE MONITORING WELL
LEGEND
' "
DQS1lNG PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
UNKNO\tfN Wl':ll TrPf
OBSERVATION WELL
TYPE l WEU
0
TYPE II WEU
TYPE Ill WEU
DPT PROBE /----,,
, @ i SPARGE Vi£LL 'MlH \ ; RADIUS OF' INFLUENCE
'----/
PERFORMANCE VERIF1 MONITORING WELL CATION AND COMPLIANCE
80 40 0 80
SCALE IN FEET
HIT -~~ PULSE ZONE PLAN VIEW v., AND NE'M..Y IN TH PROPOSED SPARGE WELLS ...
"""°"" ... BG<: Um:IWl■i8
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT
BURN PIT SUPERFUND SITE
V.,U,IINGTON, N.C.
Wf.LLS, AND COIAitk:fc~ ~~';l;~~~IANNGC~ VERIFICATION ' = n~LL LOCATIONS 1
HO. OE5CRll'l10H DATE DA1"
-2002 WJ..Mt!GTON, NMni CARCUNA ,·-so· ..ai NO. 9-40-40-10
TRIP NOTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION FORM
Program:
□ CERCLA Site Assessment □ Brownficlds
□ State □ MGP
0 NPUDOD □ Dry Cleaners
Site Name: New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site
ID Number: NCD 981 021 157
Street Address: Hall Drive and Gardner Drive,
City: Wilmington, NC
County: New Hanover
Date(s) of Trip Trip Canceled: Trip Rescheduled (Date):
Se(!t 2"' -Dec 20102
Reason For Trip: Overview of System installation and Testing
0 Surface Soil
0 Subsurface Soil
0 Using Augers/Shovels lo collect soil
0 Using Little Beaver to collect soil
0 Groundwaler (from tap)
Pro'ect Team Leader
Randy McElveen
Authorized By:
(if sampling, check appropriate boxes below)
0 Groundwater (bailcrs)
0 Groundwater (pumps)
0 Surface Water
0 Sediment
Assistant Assistant
Offlce Use Only
County Health Department Official Contact:
Assistant
Title: Env. //,,,,,1/fi D.rrk
Phone Number: ( ~) ~ '( 5 -(£(,? _____________ _
Health Department Official Contacted: Back Up Letter Required?: Yes No ' -n1
Notes:
DU.~lb(TRI P _NOT_A U11 /. FRM) Rt·vi.H•d: Ol/22tfJI
TRIP NOTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION FORM
Program:
□ CERCLA Site Assessment D Brownfields
□ State
~UDOD
□ MGP D Dry Cleaners
Site Name:
ID Number:
Street Address:
City:
County: (\)--e...,u..J M-w~ ( 0.
Datc(s) of Trip Trip Canceled: Trip Rescheduled (Date):
'71..-iz 7lmd 8,!..2-0
Reason For Trip:
□ Surface Soil D Groundwater (hailers)
□ Subsurface Soil □ Groundwater (pumps)
□ Using Augers/Shovels to collect soil □ Surface Water
□ Using Little Beaver to collect soil □ Sediment
□ Groundwater (from tap)
Authorized By:
DUslb([RIP _NOT_ A UTH.FRM) Revised: 0J/}2/01
~Ctt~ ~ ... ~/
SUPERFUND FACT SHEET UPDATE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BURN PIT SITE
• •
Wilmington, North Carolina
June 2002
'Th.is fact sheet has been prepared to provide the general public with information about activities that have occurred and will occur at this
Site. This fact sheet is not to be considered as a technical document.
Brief History
This deserted Site is located on Gardner Drive west
o{ the New Hanover County Airport north of
Wilmington. The pit (30' x 50') and area that
surrounded the pit were used for firefighting training
by the Air Force, the Cape Fear Institute, the
Wilmington Fire Department and local industries
between 1968 and 1979. Various substances were
used to create the fires for this training. Some of
those substances were jet fuel, gasoline, petroleum
storage tank bottoms, fuel oil, kerosene, and sorbent
materials from oil spill cleanups.
The. New Hanover County Engineering Department
sampled the Site in 1985 and found heavy metals and
volatile organic compounds in the sludge in the
bottom of the pit. In 1986 the NC Division of Health
Services also sampled the pit and detected the same
substances in the sludge. In 1990 EPA sampled the
soil surrounding the pit and sludge in the pit and also
detected heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds. The chemicals of concern in
groundwater are benzene, chloroform, 1-2 dichloro-
ethane, and ethylbenzene.
A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study were
begun in 1990. The remedy of extracting and
treating groundwater was selected and recorded in the
1992 Record of Decision. Based on extensive
sampling and studies of the Site since that time, in
November 1999 EPA held a meeting to notify the
public of the findings of the additional sampling and
investigations, and to propose a change of the
treatment remedy to pulsed air sparging. The Record
of Decision (ROD) was amended and issued in
March of 2000. The amended Record of Decision
changed the preferred remedy to pulsed air sparging ..
During the November 1999 meeting residents from
the Heritage Park community expressed great concern
over run-off from the Site which was thought to be
contaminating the properties and groundwater in their
community. Citizens in this small area have not been
annexed into the city limits, therefore, residents get
their water from wells. Because there was so much
concern, in January 2000 EPA sampled 31 private
· wells in the community to determine if they were
being contaminated from the Site. All laboratory
analytical results confirmed that there were no
organic or inorganic contaminants above drinking
water standards in any of the wells. The source area
well with the highest contaminant concentrations was
sampled for Agent Orange products. The results of
the groundwater analysis from the source area well
was "non-detect" for all products of Agency Orange.
With the assistance of concerned residents from the
area, a number of surface water locations were also
identified for sampling and analysis to determine if
their community had been impacted by surface run-
off from the Site. Two rounds of sampling were
performed. All analytical results indicated that
contaminants from the Site were not present in
surface waters in the area of the Site. Copies of the
surface water analytical data and a summary of the
results were provided to many of the concerned
residents.
Current Site Status
· The Work Plan to imple~ent Pulsed Air Sparging
•
has been completed. The following statements are
provided to give the public a better understanding of
this technology and what to expect at the Site.
1. Pulsed Air Sparging consists of air being injected
(as a pulse) -into the aquifer through a
strategically located netw_ork of vertical wells at
depths dowri to 23 feet below land surface. The
injected air travels through the ground water
volatilizing and enhancing biological degradation
of the contaminants dissolved in the groundwater.
During this process the rate of air injected
continuously iricreases and is eventually
terminated when a steady condition is reached.
Vapors will naturally vent into the atmosphere.
2. Each pulse of air will flow at a rate of 20 cubic
feet per minute and continue for 100 minutes.
The recharge time between each pulse of forced
air will last 25 hours.
3. The treatment system will consist of 16 pulse
zones each consisting of 5 wells for a total of 80
sparge wells.
4. Two Sullaircompressors will alternately produce
the air pulses in succession throughout the 80
well system.
5. Once the pulse air sparging system has been
installed, a comprehensive monitoring program
will be implemented to verify that the treatment
system is reducing the contaminants.
[A diagram illustrating how the system might operate
appears on the last page of this fact sheet.]
Portions of the Site will be excavated and prepared
. for the installation of the groundwater treatment
system. Since contaminated soils were removed from
the Site in November 1990, all excavated soil will be
assumed clean and used on site as fill material.
However, all excavated soil will be placed in a
"containment" area and the earth in that area will be
covered with a 10 mil reinforced polyethylene
•
sheeting as a precaution. This containment area will
be continually monitored to detect any volatile
organic vapors, should they be present. If volatile
organic vapors are detected above a specified limit in
soil, that soil will be disposed of in a permitted
disposal facility; clean soil will be place in excavated
areas and/or spread on site.
The estimated costs for construction and operation of
the Pulsed Air Sparging system is $340,212.11. This
figure does not include yearly monitoring costs which
are estimated at $13,462 per year.
[Site map on next page.]
Information Repository
For specific details of how the Site will be prepared
and treatment system installed, please review a copy
of the Remedial Design Work Plan which has been
placed in the Site's Information Repository located in
the New Hanover County Public Library at 201
. Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC, Phone (910) 341-
4390.
Who to contact
Beverly Hudson, EPA Site Project Manager·
North Site Management Branch, or
Diane Barrett, EPA Community Involvement
Coordinator, Waste Management Division
USEPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
at 1-800-435-9233
------or------
Randy McElveen, State of N.C. Project Manager
Superfund Section
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC
(919) 733°2801, ext.341
• •
EPA will conduct an Availability Session on July 9, 2002, between the hours of 3:00 PM until 7:00 PM
at the New Hanover County Sheriff's Dept. Training Center, 1901 Hall Drive, to address questions
about the remedy being implemented at the Site. We will place a notice in the local newspaper as a
reminder.
Site Map
~
<( z
f-:::; a: 0 a::: z <( a:::u :::,
Cl DJ :r: <( f-
:::; Cl'. a::: w~~ f-0 viz -
<( z
:r: I:::
3: (.!) w~ z :::; _J
3=
w _J
<( • u,
(/) .
~eglon 4
• •
This diagram is presented to give you an idea of how the Pulsed Air Sparging system works. Clean air is
injected by an air compressor into the aquifer below the deepest known portion of contamination through a
network of installed air sparging wells. The injected air spreads through the groundwater volatilizing the
contaminants that have dissolved in the groundwater. The contaminants are then in vapor form.11-nd move into
the cracks or breaks in the subsurface and are eventually vented into the atmosphere. It is anticipated that it
will take between three to five years to complete this action. The system designed for this Site will not ·
necessarily be constructedjusi as the one shown below, but this one has been provided as an illustration.
Land Surface i,.
I
Air Sparging
Well
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Compressor
t
Air Sparging
. Well
Unsaturated
Zone
-· . -·-----------··----······--·----··---·
North Site Management Branch
Diane Barrett, Community Involvement Coord.
Beverly Hudson, Remedial Project Manager I I ::t/ .. ~,,v, ·~
1 , .•.•. ,_ • ..,.
fE: New Hanover Airport Burn Pit
'ficial Business
nalty for Private Use $300
S/F
MR.DEXTER MATTHEWS, DIRECTOR
DIV. OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT &
NATURAL RESOURCES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1601
HANO 14
I,, I, 11,,, I, 11,, I, I,, I, I,,,,, I I, 11,, 11,,,,,, I /I, I,, I, I,,,,, 111
• C.d.'i:Lin
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
May 3, 2002
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
JOO Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
RE: Final Remedial Design Report
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94,20-C
CATLIN Proje~t No. 194-040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
• Post Office Box I 0279
Wilmington, NC 28404-0279
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Enclosed for your review is one copy of the above referenced Final Remedial Design Report. If
during your review you have any questions, comments, or require additional information, please
don't hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Bryan Myers, EPA ORC, w/encls.
-:LJC,di,, P.G., P.E
Project Engineer
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney, w/encls.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/encls.
Ray Church. New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management. w/encls.
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney, w/encls.
Randy McElveen, NCDENR DWM, w/encls.
Dr. Charles Stehman, PG, NCDENR DWQ, w/encls.
4040GRG_final LTR
"Virtual/)' Anywhere"
11·wu:catli11usa. cum
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
January 25, 2002
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
• 220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
l00 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3 l 04
RE: Reply to 90% Prefinal Remedial Design Report Comments
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CA TUN Project No. 194-040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
We received the comments you faxed to us on January 16, 2002 regarding the Prefinal Remedial
Design Report (90% Submittal). We have reviewed these and forwarded them to our clients for
review and concurrence. The following letter is submitted to address these comments, which as
we understand it will include any concerns raised by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
Ge11eral Comme11ts:
The subject 90% Design document appears to be very thorough and accurate in all details
and appears to br sufficient to complete the Pulsed Air Sparging work required by the
Record of Decision (ROD). The system equipment and hardware should be effective at
delivering the required pulsed air to the groundwater through the 80 proposed sparge
wells. Plan and specification Details not provided in this report could easily be provided
by manufacturer specifications during system set up. The Performance Verification Plans
outlined in Section 5.0 along with a reasonable number of GeoProbe samples as
described in Section 7.0, comment 3, should be sufficient to confirm when groundwater
is in compliance and de-listing.
No response required. 1
'
North America • Europe
January 25, 2002
Page 2 of3
Specific Comments:
• •
I. The fifth paragraph on Page 5 gives a ROD date of 1992 and the sixth paragraph gives a
ROD date of 1993. Please correct the inconsistency.
We have corrected the inconsistency. The date of the ROD should read 1992.
2. Shouldn't the calculations for post sparge recharge time in Section 6.0 of Appendix I,
page 3 of 4, be based on a cylindrical volume rather than a conical volume? (See Section
2 of Appendix I and associated Figure 2) If the pulse radius is hemispherical around the
sparge point near thce clay layer with associated bubble rise the zone of treatment should
be cylindrical not conical as designed.
The cone depicted in Section 6.0 of Appendix I, page 3 of 4, merely represents the
cone of depression caused by the absence of water. The purpose of the calculations
in this section is to estimate the amount of time required for groundwater to
recharge in the sparge zone. The conical volume calculations imply that recharge
will occur first at depth and more slowly in the upper water column. We believe our
calculated value of 24 hours is conservative, but actual recharge times will be
verified in the field and adjustments made.
Is the de-watered zone of the aquifer different from the effective groundwater treatment
(bubble) zone? Please clarify.
What is being referred to as the effective groundwater treatment (bubble) zone is
slightly different than the de-watered zone. De-watered implies water has been
removed, where the term "treatment zone" is being used to describe the zone
(volume) through which sparge air is passing.
3. Please provide specific dates in the final project schedule.
We will provide specific dates in the final project schedule.
This concludes the reply to comments. In accordance with the Remedial Design schedule the
Final Design Report (100% Submittal) shall be due 90 days from notice to proceed.
January 25, 2002
Page 3 of 3
• •
If there are no further comments on the Prefinal Design Report (90% Submittal), please provide
written notice to proceed to initiate work on the Final Submittal.
As always, if you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (910)
452-586 I.
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Bryan Myers, EPA ORC. w/cncls.
·z. Ca<lio, ~ E., P.G.
Project Engineer
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney. w/encls.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/encls.
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management, w/encls.
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney, w/encls.
Randy McElvecn, NCDENR DWM, w/cncls.
Charles Stellman PhD, PG, NCDENR. DWQ, w/cncls.
4040GRG_J7LTR
Rb • •
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
January I 0, 2002
Mr. Randy McElveen
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Subject: New Hanover County Bum Pit
Prefinal Remedial Design Report (90%) Submittal
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. McElveen:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, has received and reviewed the 90% Submittal of
the Prefinal Remedial Design Report for the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit site. This report describes a
proposed remedial strategy which uses a sequenced air sparging of the surficial aquifer that in theory should
bring about a circulation and mixing of groundwater and air. As you have stated in previous correspondence,
the theory behind this method seems reasonable, however, there is little documentation of practical experience
with the method. It will be interesting to see the results of this remedial method, especially the time-frame
required to bring about compliance.
In section I. I of the design document (Pulsed Air Sparge) reference is made to a mechanism whereby
injected air physically strips volatiles from the groundwater. Although this mechanism may cause some
reduction of groundwater contamination, it is important to recognize that the injected air is responsible for
enhancing the more important process of biodegradation by increasing the amount of available oxygen available
to aerobic bacteria. Perhaps this process should be mentioned within this section of the text.
We have some concern that the air flow rate may bring about a break out of groundwater to the land's
surface at the site because the water table is so shallow. It is assumed that this will be dealt with at the start-up
adjustment period. Also, the air flow may not be exactly as depicted in the case study, for unlike the study, the
geology of the surficial aquifer at the Bum Pit Site is stratified and not homogeneous, as depicted on Sheet 4 of
the construction plans. However, this stratification may serve to benefit dispersion of injected air along lateral
paths, improving the remediation process in the lower part of the surficial aquifer.
The Division has reviewed the monitoring plan which appears to be adequate. The monitoring array
seems sufficient as does the schedule for effectiveness monitoring events.
Division of Water Quality / Groundwater Section
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet: http://www.gw.ehnr.state.nc.us Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Mr. Randy McElveen
January 10, 2002
Page 2
• •
Hopefully, this Prefinal Remedial Design Report can be turned into a final in the near future and the long
arduous process that has surrounded the Burn Pit can be brought to the beginning of closure. Please feel free to
contact me should you have questions about these comments and please keep us posted as the process unfolds.
cc: Richard Catlin
Ray Church
WiRO File
s:\gws\cfs\mcelveen.ltr.jan
Charles F. Stehman, Ph.D., P.G.
Environmental Regional Supervisor I
• •
January IS, 2002
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh (11) Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: DENR Groundwater Section, Wilmington Regional Office (WRO) Comments on the 90%
Pre-Final Remedial Design Document for the Air Sparging Groundwater Remedy
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD981021157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The State has received comments on the Prefinal Remedial (90%) Design, from the WRO.
Their comments are attached for your review and consideration. As you can see the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and their contractor Richard Catlin and Associates has been copied on
these comments.
The comment about groundwater breaking out to the "land surface" is a very real concern and·
should be dealt with if it occurs. I expect that the pulsing process will minimize this potential since
each well will only be on for a period 1.5 hours and off for a period of 25 hours and only one S-
well-zone will be sparged at any given time interval. Another aspect of this Design, in regard to
groundwater welling, is that no adjacent zones will be sparged sequentially. Therefore, I am not
greatly concerned about this issue.but if it occurs it must be addressed.
If you would like to discuss these issues further please give me a call at, [phone], extension
341.
Attachment
Sincerely, 0
1
~A){--~\) JO
Randy McElveen ~
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
OCT 04'01 13:40 No .003 P.01 cJORT,H SUPERFUND
4WD-NSMB
ID:
UNIT.STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PAOTECTl!AGENCY
REGION 4
A iLANT A FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
October 4, 2001
Mr. Thomas C. Pollard, City Attorney City of Wilmington North Carolina P.O. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Mr. Pollard:
Rb
SUBJ: Remedial Design (60% Submittal) for the New Hanover County ➔ Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site.
Dear Mr. Pollard:
The Environmental Protection Agency and the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources has approved the above mentioned document. Please proceed with the 90% remedial design report.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~~
Beverly T, Hudson
Waste Management Division
CC: Randy McElveen, NC
Jntomot Addr,,,, (URI.) • h1tp:llwww.opo.110v ~•crcJed/R1oycl1PI• • Pr1rilM wnh Vegelltl.ile 0)1 Based Inks on ReLy~d Paper (Minimum 30¾ roslconaum•n . .-.
• Cd.i:Lin A ~~'\r ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
October I, 200 I
Ms. Beverly Hudson ,J
Remedial Project Manager '
• 220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
~~:''~
SUPERFUNO SECTION
United States Environmental ,Protection Agency, Region IV
I 00 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
RE: Reply to 60% Intermediate Remedial Design Report Comments
Second Set of Superfund Section Comments -9/14/0 I Letter
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CATLIN Project No. 194-040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
We received the second letter with NCDENR Superfund Section comments you forwarded
to us on September 18, 2001 regarding the Intermediate Remedial Design Report (60%
Submittal). We have reviewed these and forwarded them to our clients for review and
concurrence. The following letter is submitted to address these comments, which as we
understand it will include any concerns raised by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). NCDENR comments will be included and addressed on a
per item basis as follows:
I. The Theory and Case Study appears to be based on good science and provides
· some of the details of the Case Study with good results. Neither the faxed
document or the internet web document provided the many Figures that were
referenced in the document. If the Figures are easily obtained please provide a
copy or reference or Web page that they can be downloaded from.
Our copy of the referenced report does not contain the figures requested. As
you noted, the internet web document did not provide these figures.
North America • Europe
October 1, 2001
Page 2 of3
• •
2. One of the States primary concerns about this document is the failure to provide
field data that shows the toroidal circulation of groundwater around a sparge well
or its effects (dissolved oxygen) or its results (reduced contaminant concentrations
at the lower depths of the sparge system). They did discuss dissolved oxygen (DO)
but they did not note the depths of the groundwater samples where DO was
collected. It seems logical as stated in the design theory that: "The radius of the
spherical air accumulation reaches a maximum when the hydrostatic pressure at the
bottom of the sphere equals the air pressure at the air sparge point." However,
every aquifer is different and could react differently.
Therefore, the State will require DO and concentration data at the maximum depth
of the air sparge confirmation wells. This monitoring depth should be below
maximum sparge depth of20 feet or at the top of the confining clay unit.
It is agreed that dissolved oxygen will be monitored at a depth below 20 feet
and above the clay confining unit. As discussed with Mr. Randy McElveen,
NCDENR Superfund Section (9/26/01), dissolved oxygen will be measured in
existing monitoring well MWD-002 for the first year of sparge operation. This
well will also provide concentration data for the deeper portion of the surficial
aquifer.
MWD-002 will be located in an interstitial area between sparge points;
therefore, it will provide conservative results with regard to contaminant
reduction and dissolved oxygen levels.
3. As I have commented previously a shallow 5 to IO feet deep monitoring well must
also be provided at a confirmation location to verify that the BTEX compounds are
not rising to the surface or remaining at the surface of groundwater in the center of
the plume. One shallow monitoring well intercepting the water table in the former
source area will be sufficient to confirm its effectiveness at the groundwater surface
unless it proves to be ineffective.
A shallow Type Il ten foot deep monitoring well will be installed in the area of
MWD-002. The well will be screened across the water table.
October I, 200 I
Page 3 of3
• •
If there are no further comments, please provide written notice to proceed to initiate work
on the Pre-Final submittal. The Remedial Desii,,>n Schedule allows 90 days from notice to
proceed for submittal of the Pre-Final Design Report.
If you have any comments or questions, I may be reached at [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.O.
Project Manager
cc: Bryan Myers, EPA ORC
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney
Randy McElveen, NCDENR DWM
Charles Stchman PhD, PG, NCDENR, DWQ
4040GRG_35LTR
• CA'i:Lin A ~~'\ r===== ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS ~
September 18, 2001
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
• 220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SUPERFUNn c:rr-r,""
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
RE: Reply to 60% lntennediate Remedial Design Report Comments
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CATLIN Project No. I 94-040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
We received the NCDENR Superfund Section comments you forwarded to us on September I 0,
2001 regarding the Intermediate Remedial Design Report (60% Submittal). We have reviewed
these and forwarded them to our clients for review and concurrence. Based on our telephon.e
conversation yesterday, the following letter is submitted to address these comments, which as we
understand it will include any concerns raised by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). NCDENR comments will be included and addressed on a per itell) basis as
follows:
I. Except where specifically noted below the Desil,'11 calculations and details provided in
this 60% Desi[,'11 Document appear to be accurate and suflicient for this phase of the Air
Sparging Desi[,'11.
No response required.
North America • Europe
RD
September 18, 200 I
Page 2 of 4 • •
2. The Third paragraph on page 6 discusses the original lntennediate Remedial Design
Report (60% Submittal) from May 22, 1995. The Natural Attenuation Remedy discussed
in this paragraph was rejected as a potential alternative by the EPA prior to this submittal.
The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) discussed in the following paragraphs and described
in the 1995 60% Design submittal was inconsistent with the proposed plan presented to
the public and inconsistent with the Record of Decision (ROD) that legally establishes
the remedy to be used at the site. After sub.mittal of the 1995 Design document, correct
procedures, including a ROD Amendment, (March 2000) were completed by the parties
to change the remedy to Air Sparging.
No response required.
3. Additional new compliance monitoring wells are required for proper monitoring of the
compliance boundary shown by the Sparge well configuration on Figure 7. One
additional compliance well is required at the west boundary of Zone 8. Two additional
compliance wells are required in the areas of temporary wells T-6 and T-8. This spacing
of compliance wells in the downgradient and side gradient areas are required in order to
confirm that dissolved contaminant plume does not migrate at significant levels outside
the treatment Zones. If during Air Sparging operations contaminants are detected at
significant levels in any of the compliance wells additional compliance wells may be
required.
The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) agree with the number and location of
additional compliance monitoring wells. The proposed well details and locations
will be included in the Pre-Final Remedial Design Report (90% Submittal).
Shallow monitoring wells or GeoProbe samples in the shallow aquifer will also be
required within the Air Sparging zone and at the compliance boundary prior to closure of
the Site and de-listing. This will be required prior to the final Five-Year Review. This is
required in order to confinn that the contaminant plume has not been relocated by
migrating to the shallow aquifer within or adjacent to the existing compliance boundary.
It is agreed that Direct Push Technology (DPT) samples will be collected within the
air sparging zone and at the compliance boundary prior to closure of the site and
de-listing.
4. The assumption that the temperature of water is equal to the temperature of air is not
accurate but is sufficient for the purpose of this design. There is only a minor variation
with a 30°F difference between air and water.
We agree, no response required.
September 18, 2001
Page 3 of 4 • •
5. Please provide a copy of the Reference 2 document by Dowler and Hook listed on page 4
of Appendix I, Section 1 for review by the NC Superfund Section. The lateral movement
of air from the Sparge wells is uncommon.
The requested document is attached. Also, per verbal request, a copy of this
document was faxed to Mr. McElveen on/or about August 31, 2001.
6. How will pulse duration, breakthrough and other effectiveness tests be confirmed in the
field?
Breakthrough will be confirmed in the field by monitoring air flow rates into each
pulse zone. At the time when breakthrough occurs, flow rates should stop
increasing, effectively entering steady state conditions. The time required for each
zone to reach breakthrough shall be the pulse duration for that specific zone.
The effectiveness of the treatment system at reducing levels of dissolved VOC
contamination to, at, or below North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards
(NCAC Tl SA:02L.0202) will be verified via the comprehensive monitoring program
outlined in Section 5 "Performance Verification" of the Intermediate Remedial
Design Report (60% Submittal).
7. Section 110 of Appendix II discusses sediment and erosion control in disturbed areas. If
an area greater than 1 acre is to be disturbed then sediment and erosion control plans must
be submitted to the Sediment and Erosion Control Branch of DENR in the Wilmington
Regional Office.
Calculations indicate that the proposed disturbed soil area is approximately 0.1
acre. Based on this area of potentially distrubed soils and discussion with the
Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO) personnel, a sediment and erosion control plan
should not be necessary.
8. One copy of this 60% Design document and all future Remedial Design and Remedial
Action Documents should be copied to Charlie Steahman, in the Groundwater Section of
the Division of Water Quality in the Wilmington Regional Office for review and
comment.
Per verbal request by Randy McElveen, a copy of the 60% Design document was
previously forwarded to Dr. Charles Stehman, P.G. for review. The NCDENR
WiRO Groundwater Section has been included on the distribution list for future
documents.
September 18, 2001
Page 4 of 4 • •
This concludes the reply to comments. As we discussed by telephone, the Remedial Design
schedule allowed 90 days from notice to proceed for submittal of the Pre-Final Design Report
(90% Submittal).
If there are no further comments on the Intermediate Design Report (60% Submittal), please
provide written notice to proceed to initiate work on the Pre-Final Submittal.
As always, if you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (910)
452-5861.
Sincerely,
~RAc~/A/
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
Enclosures
Bryon Mv,r,;.
cc: J2s10 Reael~, EPA ORC, w/cncls.
Project Engineer
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney, w/enels.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/encls.
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management, w/cncls.
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney, w/encls.
Randy McElvcen, NCDENR DWM, w/cncls.
Charles Stchman PhD: PG, NCDENR, DWQ, w/cncls.
40MJGRG_J4LTR
•
September 18, 200 I
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh (11) Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Document Distribution Requirements
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The State received one copy of the 60% Remedial Design for the New Hanover County
Airport Bum Pit Site, Air Sparge remedy. This is fine, however, the Superfund Section is also
responsible for assuring that the Groundwater Section of the Division of Water Quality, receive a
copy of all groundwater-related documentation for Superfund Sites in NC. Therefore, it is
requested that a copy of the 60% Design be provided to Charlie Steahman with the Division of
Water Quality, Groundwater Section and that Mr. Steahman be copied with a cover letter on all
future documentation for this site related to groundwater or groundwater remediation.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me, at [phone], extension 341.
Sincerely,
<i1J. ~ .. 4v\c[a~~
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
•
September 14, 200 I
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh ( 11) Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
•
RE: Comments on the Daniel A. Dowler & Todd A. Hook Theory and Pilot Test Case Study
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCO 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The 60% Remedial Design for the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Site, Air
Sparge remedy, referenced the Dowler and Hook Theory and Pilot Test Case Study. As you
know, in the States comments to the 60% Remedial Design, we requested a copy of this
document. The North Carolina Superfund Section has received a copy of the referenced
document and our comments are listed below for your consideration.
General Comments:
I. The Theory and Case Study appears to be based on good science and provides some of the
details of the Case Study with good results. Neither the faxed document or the internet web
document provided the many Figures that were referenced in the document. If the Figures
are easily obtained please provide a copy or reference or Web page that they can be
downloaded from.
2. One of the States primary concerns about this document is the failure to provide field data
that shows the toroidal circulation of groundwater around a sparge well or its effects
(dissolved oxygen) or its results (reduced contaminant concentrations at the lower depths of
the sparge system). They did discuss dissolved oxygen (DO) but they did not note the depths
of the groundwater samples where DO was collected. It seems logical as stated in the design
theory that: "The radius of the spherical air accumulation reaches a maximum when the
hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the sphere equals the air pressure at the air sparge
point." However, every aquifer is different and could react differently.
Therefore, the State will require DO and concentration data at the maximum depth of the air
sparge confirmation wells. This monitoring depth should be below maximum sparge depth
of 20 feet or at the top of the confining clay unit.
RD
Ms. Hudson
9-14-2001
Page 2 of 2
• •
3. As I have commented previously a shallow 5 to 10 feet deep monitoring well must also be
provided at a confirmation location to verify that the BETX compounds are not rising to the
surface or remaining at the surface of groundwater in the center of the plume. One shallow
monitoring well intercepting the water table in the former source area will be sufficient to
confirm its effectiveness at the groundwater surface unless it proves to be ineffective.·
If we need to discuss this in greater detail or if you have any questions or comments, please
contact me, at [phone], extension 341. If necessary we could have another conference
call with the PRPs to resolve our comments on the 60% Design. In general the Design looks
good and should be effective. The States comments are straight forward and are focused on
confirmation and compliance.
Sincerely, \
~.,R.\~~1\
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover Nicholson, N .C. Superfund Section
North Carolina • Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dexter R. Matthews, Interim Director
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
August 30, 200 I
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh (11) Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
4':~ --__ .,. n ,,;. ,, ___ _
NCDENR
RE: Comments on the Intermediate Remedial Design Report (60% Submittal)
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCO 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Intermediate Remedial Design Report (60% Submittal) dated July 30, 2001 for the
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site, Groundwater Remediation, located in
Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed by the North Carolina Superfund
Section. The following comments are offered by the North C~rolina Superfund Section.
General Comments:
I. Except where specifically noted below the Design calculations and details provided in this
60% Design Document appear to be accurate and sufficient for this phase of the Air Sparging
Design.
Specific Comments:
2. The Third paragraph on page 6 discusses the original Intermediate Remedial Design Report
(60% Submittal) from May 22, 1995. The Natural Attenuation Remedy discussed in this
paragraph was rejected as a potential alternative by the EPA prior to this submittal. The
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) discussed in the following paragraphs and described in the
1995 60% Design submittal was inconsistent with the proposed plan presented to the public
and inconsistent with the Record of Decision (ROD) that legally establishes the remedy to be
used at the site. After submittal of the 1995 Design document, correct pr_ocedures, including a
ROD Amendment, (March 2000) were completed by the parties to change the remedy to Air
Sparging.
RD
Ms. Beverly Hudson
8-30-200t
Page 2 of3 • •
3. Additional new compliance monitoring wells are required for proper monitoring of the
compliance boundary shown by the Sparge well configuration on Figure 7. One additional
compliance well is required at the west boundary of Zone 8. Two additional compliance
wells are required in the areas of temporary wells T-6 and T-8. This spacing of compliance
wells in the downgradient and side gradient areas are required in order to confirm that
dissolved contaminant plume does not migrate at significant levels outside the treatment
Zones. If during Air Sparging operations contaminants are detected at significant levels in
any of the compliance wells additional compliance wells may be required.
Shallow monitoring wells or GeoProbe samples in the shallow aquifer will also be required
within the Air Sparging zone and at the compliance boundary ptior to closure of the Site
and de-listing. This will be required prior to the final Five-Year Review. This is required
in order to confirm that the contaminant plume has not been relocated by migrating to the
shallow aquifer within or adjacent to the existing compliance boundary.
4. The assumption that the temperature of water is equal to the temperature of air is not
accurate but is sufficient for the purpose of this design. There is only a minor variation
with a 30°F difference between air and water.
5. Please provide a copy of the Reference 2 document by Dowler and Hook listed on page 4 of
Appendix I, Section I for review by the NC Superfund Section. The lateral movement of
air from the Sparge wells is uncommon.
6. How will pulse duration, breakthrough and other effectiveness tests be confirmed in the
field?
7. Section I IO of Appendix II discusses sediment and erosion control in disturbed areas. If an
area greater than I acre is to be disturbed then sediment and erosion control plans must be
submitted to the Sediment and Erosion Control Branch of DENR in the Wilmington
Regional Office.
8. One copy of this 60% Design document and all future Remedial Design and Remedial
Action Documents should be copied to Charlie Steahman, in the Groundwater Section of
the Division of Water Quality in the Wilmington Regional Office for review and comment.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me, at (919) 733-280 I, extension 341.
Sincerely,
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
Ms. Beverly Hudson
8-30-2001
Page 3 ofJ
•
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
•
• 220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
July 27, 2001
· Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
RE: 60% Intermediate Remedial Design Report
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CATLIN Project No. 194-040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
SUPERFUND SECTION
Enclosed please find one copy of the above referenced Intermediate Remedial Design submittal.
If during your review you have any questions, comments, or require additional information,
please don't hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Pete Raack, EPA ORC, w/encls.
/J~J-WdL Fol<,
Richard Catlin, P.G., P.E.
Project Engineer
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/encls.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney, w/encls.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/encls.
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management, w/encls.
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney, w/encls.
Randy McElveen, NCDENR DWM, w/encls.
North America • Europe
Rb
' ' H' .,,,.
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
• 220 Old Dairy Road • P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ca.:Lin A ~~'\r
April 24, 200 I
I~ ~:61 1:,
1'@
. . ~
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
SUPERFUNp SECTION
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
I 00 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
RE: New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
Superfund Site
Wilmington, North Carolina
CATLIN Project No. 194-040-01
Dear Ms. Hudson:
As follow up to our conversation today, the following are the proposed submittals and
completion times for each as we had previously discussed. I have also provided dates for each
submittal.
As you know we have delayed starting the remedial design for the air sparging until the
monitoring well installation/plume delineation issues were resolved. To date, the final
monitoring well has been installed and sampled. Laboratory results (received April 20, 2001)
indicate all analytes are below detectable limits. These results will be included in the May 2001
Progress Report. Project Submittals and submittal dates are as follows:
60% Design 3 months July 27
USEPAIDENR Review -I month August 31
90% Design 3 months November 30
USEPAIDENR Review -1 month December 28
100% Design 3 months March 23
USEP AIDENR Review -I month April 26
North America • Europe
·!•:·
•
Page2
April 24, 2001
If you need anything further, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
cc: GRG/hab
Enclosures
cc: Pete Raack, EPA ORC
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney.
•
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management
Thomas C. Pollard, Esq., Wilmington City Attorney
Randy McElveen, NCDENR
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
• 220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
RD
March 27, 2001
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
fo)lEtlED'WIEfru
\f\l MAR 2 9 2001 l1JJ
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
I 00 Alabama Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Re: New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CATLIN Project No. 194-040-05
Dear Ms. Hudson:
SUPERFUND SECTION
This Jetter is provided as written proposal to install a Type I monitoring well which was previously requested
by the North Carolina Superfund Section. As requested in the 01/11/01 telephone conference, this well will be
installed on the southwest side of the Burnpit plume in the area of the recently installed boring B-1. The well
will be installed to a depth of approximately 25 feet below grade (to the top of the confining clay) and will be
screened the lowermost five feet. Included with this letter is a site figure showing the proposed location and a
proposed well detail.
It is anticipated that this will be installed during the week of April 2, 200 I. The exact installation date may vary
due to weather conditions; however, I will call you as soon as the schedule date is confirmed.
If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to give us a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
/J~A~
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
CATLIN Project Manager
GRG/hab
Enclosures
cc: Pete Raack, EPA ORC, w/enc.
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney, w/enc.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/enc.
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of Environmental Management, w/enc.
Thomas C. Pollard, Esq., Wilmington City Attorney, w/enc.
Randy McElveen, NCDENR, w/enc.
4040mar.03
North America • Europe
2.0'
"
STEEL PROTECTIVE COVER
~-LOCKING WELl CAP
3000 P.S.I. CONCRETE PAD
1.0' BENTONITE SEAL
22.0'
(RISER)
,, ..... _ ___,._
.2.il'.. SAND PACK
ABOVE SCREEN
TOTAL DEPTH = 27.0'
5.0'
(WELl SCREEN)
•
I
L
NOlES:
--
~T-13
(30.34)
/ PROPOSED
c{~-1 .
~T-14
(30.54)
1. THIS DRAl'<lNG WAS ADAP1£D FROM EXISTING EPA
ORAl'<lNGS AND AERIAL MAPPING.
2. LOCATIONS OF MWD-005, T-16, T-17, AND B-1
ARE APPROXIMA 1£.
•
WELL MWD-006
♦T-11
(33.45)
----------
MWD-005
$
p~\/ED Dl'IIIE
EBMWS-004 (32.31) elocKQ ecDG-
T-2B
(31.77)
T-1
(31.54}
TMW-1
(33.02}
MWS-003
{33.32)
~T-9
(31.14)
(]!)MWD-002
(33.27)
MWS-002 ~
(3J.J5) TMW-2
~T-16
(33.21)
AT-3
v(31.49)
BIJI\..Dlt-lGON fQ\Jt,101'1'
GARDNER DRIVE
-
~T-6
{31. 79)
~T-10
(31.91)
T-8 ~
(32.24) V
MWD-001
{33.51)
MWS-001
{33.99) <@> T _ 17
~T-5
(31.91) LE G E N D
""""' NEW HANO'im COUNTY AIRP<JlT
BURN PIT SUPERF\JNO SITE
'MLMINGTON, N.C.
"" 110. 940Ml--19 °'"' JAN 2001
EXISTING NEW DESCRIPTION
□ BUILDING
(]!) TYPE I WELL
EB TYPE II WELL
e TYPE 111 WELL
~ TEMPORARY DPT PROBE
♦ TEMPORARY PIEZOMETER
~ TEMPORARY TYPE I WELL
~ TEMPORARY TYPE 11 WELL
-$-SOIL BORING
( ) TOP OF CASING
ELEVATION IN FEET
100 9 100
SCALE IN FEET
1l1II
SITE MAP WITH TEMPORARY AND
PERMANENT WELL LOCATIONS
1CAiE: 1·=100' """' "" WHW
FIGURE
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
January 29, 2001
RE: Overview of Groundwater Monitoring Well Drilling & Construction
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 3 & 4 January 2000, a representative of the NC Superfund Section provided overview of groundwater monitoring well drilling and construction at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site located in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. These additional wells were installed to properly delineate the groundwater contaminant plume at the Site. The PRPs have agreed to install one additional well at a later date from the clay layer at 25 feet below ground surface with 10 feet of screen in the area of T-14 which only extends to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface.
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
• Cd.i:Lin
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
January 19, 200 I
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Attention: Dr. Charles Stehman, P.G.
Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Well Construction Record for MWD-005
• 220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
JAN 2 3 200/ ~
SUPERF:
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
.• CA TUN Project No. 194-040
Dear Dr. Stehman:
Enclosed are the well construction record, boring log, and well location figure for permanent monitoring well
MWD-005 at the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit site.
Also attached is a figure showing sample results of temporary monitoring wells as of December 1998.
Recently, selected temporary and permanent wells (as agreed upon by the Responsible Parties, EPA, and
NCDENR Superfund Section) were sampled. We are not sure if you are receiving copies ofresults directly
from the Superfund Section. If you would like to receive copies of results from us please let us know.
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
CA TUN Project Manager
GRG/sac
Enclosures
cc: Pete Raack, EPA ORC, w/enc.
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Don Hooker, US Anny Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney, w/cnc.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq.,
Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/enc.
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of
Environmental Management, wlenc.
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Attorney, w/enc.
Randy McElveen, NCDENR, w/enc.
Beverly Hudson, EPA Region IV, w/enc.
Vincenzo Crifasi, US Anny Corps of Engineers, w/cnc.
4040SACl_ltr
North America • Europe
NORTH CAROLINA -DEPARTMEN--ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURC.
-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -9}UNDWATER SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER -
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1636 -PHONE [phone]
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD WELL CONTRACTOR: Bobbie Fowler
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION#: 2869
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT#: NIA
I. WELL USE (Check Applicable Box): Residential
Recovery Heat Pump Water Injection Other
Municil)al
If Other, lisi use:
lnduSrrial Agricultural ·con~ring )
2. WELL LOCATION:_ (Show sketch of the location below) .
Nearest Town: / ,J ii th 1'ogtoo Coumy: ~!Vi~e~•~l_.,_fb-=n'-'v~V~eLr __
G:vtloe:f l'JP,ve..
{Road Name and Numbers. Community_;, or Subdivision and Lot No.)
3. OWNER Ne.w 1-{,.,,oylf <....ov.'\t4 · I
0\ICI!) p ,T
J.. ';?
Address Nl!-W H Cll'\O</U Cou.nt>c
. · (Street or Route No.)
1.u i I = t-½i c....
City or Town State Zip Code
4. DATE DRILLED 1-S-0 I
5. TOTAL DEPTH ,;) .;2,
6. CUTTINGS COLLECTED ...E._ YES NO
7. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? __ YES ..1,__NO
8. STATICWATERLEVELBelowTopofCasing ___ Ft.
(Use "+" if Above Top of Casing)
9. TOP OF CASING IS 3 Ft. Above Land Surface•
•Top of casing terminated at/or below land surface requires a variance in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2C.0118
I 0. YIELD (gpm): ____ METHOD OF TEST _____ _
II. WATERZONES (depth) ____________ _
12. CHLORINATION: Type Amount
13. CASING: Wall Thickness
From+ 3 Depth Diameter or Weight/Ft. Material
To z 2.. Ft. .;J. ,, PiL.C..
From To Ft.
From To Ft.
14. GROUT:
Depth Material Method
From 2 To 0 Ft. /::,.ro':ft T ,.:. r!JJ t:-
From To Ft.
15. SCREEN:
Depth
From .:2.;J. To I L Diameter Slot Size Material
Ft. ::J.. '' in. • 01 Q in. PVC.. From. ___ To ___ _ Ft. in. in.
From.=-=,...-,, To
16. SAND/GRAVEL-,P~A~C~K~,-
Ft. in. in.
Depth
From J1 To 10
From ___ To~---
Size Material
Ft. #2_ 'frq.e&f
Ft.
17. REMARKS:
DRILLING LOG DEPTH
From To Formation Description
SEE BORING LOG
If additional space is needed use back offonn
LOCATION SKETCH , ·
(Show direction and distance from at Jeas1 1wo Stale
Roads, or 01her map reference points)
SEE FIGURE
-------------------------------------
1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC 2C. WELL
CONSTRUCTIONN STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY OF THIS RECORD HAS EN PROVID TO EWELL OWNER.
DATE
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Quad No: ____ _
Serial No:
Submit original to Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section within 30 days
GW-1 REV.12/99
• BORING LOG
BORING NUMBER /Y)\,1/Q-ODS'
TOTAL DEPTH J6.0'
SITE LOCATION N~w 'Harove r
Co,,nfy Acpoct l3.,rn Pii-
' SAMPLE
DEPTH SAMPLE DESCRIPTION uses
(FT.)
I . Isl<>~\<: +o Dar\1 B fOc,)() ' OR GANT c.. 0 ~ ,
S'°ILT"Y SAN[) (+on M;/)
I 1' liq\-it Groy to Bu.fl', SANO. f.'ne. s-
am,'r,ed (Y\0 A,ro!rl,, ' .. q --rl-J ·s.,b-.... lar
V I / ~
/0, 121 1 L<!n1 r;ra,J in Of( Wh,k SANO rn,dium
/ -,
. -1 . moJ.r.-le I., , •• II ,;,,rl~,l c,.l'.)ro,,,,,,\--1
' ,
I I
IS" 17-Liqht Grav SAND.,/ SomE c,L ;-
I ,
~Nv tine aro;neA ,.,/ +mt~ Ccor.;{ aro:n,J
V , al Liqht Gro" SAND f,' ne C1f'o.iM~ ., I ctO ., ,
tforP (00,1'('0 Cl'',',ne,l ~-,\.. r~•JnArr\ . I
CVeN Ldt!P Rerc,1Prv)
c\d I . a~' Li•h+ Grav. 5AN0 .fu, qro,,,ed w / tro,e
;
Coarst amiAeA
cl~ I J6 I D('\r\:: Gra" +,, G ra" Mreen CLAY ,; /fl
I /
6 ,( . I ·~ \A =r cleM Safi-ciav JS ·J6
" ,
REMARKS --------------------
New Hanover County Burn Pit; BORING LOG.doc
CATLIN Project No. 94040
•
DRILLED BY Bobby fvi,Jler
LOGGED BY R,·c.~ 6arre#
DRILLING DATE 1/ 'I/ 0/
PID/ WATER· HC BLOW FID CONTENT ODOR PPM COUNT
fl)o,st
Wet
IJJ.,t
Wet
None Gra~
Nnf\t 0 HP
None 0 HP
N, n e 0 HP
None 0 HP
/Vor.e 0 HP
Al one /6 Hp
Page of
CATLIN Engineers and Scientists
January JO, 2001
L
NOTES:
B-1 ~-
""T-14
(JO 54)
I. THIS DRAWING WAS ADAPTED FROM EXISTING EPA
DRAWINGS ANO AERIAL MAPPING.
2. LOCATIONS OF MWD-005, T-16, T-17, AND B-1
ARE APPROXIMATE.
• ----
MWD-005 (D
--
pp.YEO ORI\/£
~T-11
(33.45) T-2B
(31.77)
T-1
(31.54)
EBMWS-OD4
(32.31)
TMW-1
(33.02)
BL<e'o BL~·
MWS-003
(33.32)
-OT-9
(31.14)
(IDMWD-002
(33.27)
MWS-002 ~
(33.35) TMW-2
P-2
(31.56)
BLOCK u
<©>T-16
(33.21)
A',,.T-3
'1/(31.'9)
GARDNER DRIVE
-0 T-10
(31.91)
~~csltbmlFEl
ENGINEERllndSCIENTISTB
MJ,IN(jT~. N~TH CARCl.HA
-OT-6
(31. 79)
T-4
(32.29)
T-8 ~
02.241 V
MWD-001
(33.51)
MWS-001
(33.99) <©> T -l?
-OT-5
(31.91) LEGEND
"'°'" NEW HANOI/ER COUNTY AIRPORT
BURN PIT SUPERFUND SITE
WILMINGTON, N.C.
"'"'" 94040-19 '"'' JAN 2001
EXISTING
□ CID
EB e
NEW
(D
DESCRIPTION
BUILDING
TYPE I WELL
TYPE II WELL
TYPE Ill WELL -0 TEMPORARY DPT PROBE * TEMPORARY PIEZOMETER
<©> TEMPORARY TYPE I WELL
~ TEMPORARY TYPE II WELL
,$-SOIL BORING
TOP OF CASING
ELEVATION IN FEET
100 0 100
TIIU:
SCALE IN FEET
SITE MAP V.,TH TEMPORARY AND
PERMANENT WELL LOCATIONS
i,u,• BT: WHW CH(OC(D BY! GRG
FIGURE
' -
L
•
L
~
NOTES:
(7.6)-TOLUENE
T-13
~T-14
(BDL)
1. THIS DRAWING WAS ADAPTED FROM EXISTING
EPA DRAWINGS ANO AERIAL MAPPING.
2. GROUND WATER SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED
ON THE FOLLOWING OATES:
T-1 THROUGH T-10 ------APRIL 20 & 21 1998
T-11 & T-12 ----------DECEMBER 4, 1998
T-13 THROUGH T-15 -----DECEMBER 23, 1998
• -----
P-1
( 3. 9)-XYLENES
( J.5 )-ETHYLBENZENE
~T-12
(BOL)
p A VEO ORl'Jt -·
T-1
(BDL)
P-2
-------------------......
......
MWS-003
(1.5)-TOLUENE
(3.4)-XYLENES
(0.6 )-ETHYLBENZENE
(BDL)
BLOCK u
GARDNER DRIVE
C ~ &: FL l!i n
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
•U11NGTOi, NOOTH CARCl..liA
~
......
......
......
......
(1.6)-TOLUENE
(1.5)-TOLUENE
(1.7)-XYLENES
AIO,lrT
NEW HANO\ffi COUNTY AIRPORT
BURN PIT SUPERFUNO SITE
\l,U.MINGTON, N.C.
......
......
......
......
......
......
L E G E N D
EXISTING
□ EB
(ffi)
100
111,.[
NEW
~
~
~
BDL
DESCRIPTION
BUILDING
TYPE II WELL
TYPE Ill WELL
OPT PROBE/TEMPORARY WELL
TEMPORARY PIEZOMETER
TEMPORARY TYPE II WELL
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
IN ug/L
BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
EXCEEDS NCAC T15A 2L
STANDARDS
0
SCALE IN FEET
CONTAMINANTS DETECTED BY
EPA MElHODS 601/602
RGURE
SAMPLED APRIL 20 THROUGH DECEMBER 23, 1998
"" "" 94040RJ ""'' JAN 1999 '°"" 1" = 100' ommn GOii
,., •
CITY of WILMINGTON
North Carolina
P.O. BOX 1810 LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TDD [phone]
28402 -------:::::--:::--:~-;;;;:--;;::::7 (91 0) 34 1-7820
Januacy ID), ll!''!l il: n 'I'/ Ii: ~ '~'""'~'~"
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental
Agency, Region IV
Protection
llm JAN 1 8 2001 iliJJ
100 Alabama Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
SUPERFUND SECJ_!ON
Re: New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit SHperfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
Dear Ms. Hudson:
This will follow-up the conference call held on
January 11, 2001 relating to the New Hanover County Airport
B\.irn··. Pit Superfund Site. Attached is a summary of the
agree~ent-~eac~~di~2ring:ifie~conference call. With a copy
of th~i-1e2~~1, I am p~~viding this summary to the
particip~rit~-in the-conlerenc~-c~li:~~~·:: , .... ' ..
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
~, Ci, Q ' . . -. \,\_,./ '--· r , •.
TCP/jf
Thomas C. Pollard
City Attorney
Cc: Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq., Attorney for
Cape Fear Community College
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of
Environmental Management
JG. Richard Garrett, P.G., Catlin Project Manager
Randy McElveen, NCDENR -
Catherine Sanders, Corps of Engineers
_-:·virici'ihzo: Crifasi ;'"Gorps 'cif -'Engineers ,--·-.. ' .. . -. \ ; '. . . . ' ..,... , ~-. -.:. . . ·i -,-Phil Borsatz, -·usEPA" ~--.... ,-. · -·:r.•··.::-•t:i~. . .... ---....... --•--. ·· ·-Grover Nicholson; ·NCDENR-". -'·
01:i6·0-iF/Hudsor{:'seve·riy/r.i: .. ,~ ::.·
1,
• •
Summary of Conference Call relating to New Hanover County, NC Bum Pit Superfund
Site, January 11, 2001
Participants: Beverly Hudson, USEP A; Phil Borsatz, US EPA; Randy McElveen,
NCDENR; Grover Nicholson, NCDENR; Rick Garrett, Catlin Engineers and Scientists;
Ray Church and Paul Marlow, New Hanover County Environmental Management; Tom
Pollard, City of Wilmington
After discussion of the need for additional wells to characterize the contamination at the
site, it was agreed as follows: ·
I. No additional telescoping wells extending below the clay layer will be installed.
2. The PRP's agree to install an addirionai weil in rhe vicirnty of weil T-14. The
well screen interval will extend down to the clay layer. The PRP's will discuss
the timing of this installation. The well may be installed before or during the
design for the air sparging system.
3. The PRP's will submit information to EPA and DENR about the plan for any
proposed wells for review prior to installation.
1 00 'd
TO· Bt:vfrly HudJiil, RPM ·-
No1th Site ~gemc111 Branch
Wu~te Management Division
During the week of fonuary 17, 2000 personnel cnllected 3 J samples from potable wells
in the Heritage Park-Subdivision located nclll' the New-Hanover nurn Pit. Site in Wilmington, NC.:.
Snmplc identification numbers, r~sidcnts' name~ and addrc:sscs and are llsted in Table!. Tablefi 2-
A 11.nd 2-B report a sum111arizcd version of the laboratory 1'csults provided in Appendix A. Only
rcsulls for detected compounds were includtid in these tables
The 31 potabl~ wells Sl\ltlpled contained no orgw1h; or inorganic contaminanls above the
mn:-1imum contaminant levels (MCL's) All.!1l'eservative and uip blanks were free of
contamination,
lfyou huvc 1111y qucstions or comments, plcnse cull me at 70G/J5S•8623.
i\ttijch111011t
r W:J3 N '---·}10 ~J_O, .Ot> ,60 oO t'OO?OS£0{6 1£-0 I 11 "NVr
3 □0hl J.'10S3H ·sod NOIJ.VclO □ NOI.LVNI.LS3 □ 31\1 I J./3J.V □ XJ.
.. --
LtC:
'ON
P<ll<lJdWOO (s) UO\ l0"8SU8Jl,
UOjSSjWSUILJ,L
J.c!Od3cl NOIJ.:JYSNVHJ.
J.NWOW 3J.SVM HN3 □0N 11,:01 (OHJ.I IO ,11-'NVP
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
October 27, 2000
RE: Conference Call with EPA Region IV and the PRP Representatives to Discuss
Plume Boundary Issues Groundwater Re-sampling and the Design Schedule
Groundwater Remediation ·
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 26 October 2000, a representative of the NC Superfund Section completed
a conference call with Beverly Hudson, EPA Region IV, Rick Garrett of Richard
Catlin & Associates, Ray Church and Paul Marlow with the New Hanover County
Health Department; Tom Pollard with the City of Wilmington, Rifasi Vincenzo with
NC DOT and myself This meeting was held in order to discuss the State's and
EPA' s concerns relevant to plume delineation and remedy design at the New Hanover
County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site, located in Wilmington, North Carolina.
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
·•
September 27, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
RE: Private Well Analytical Data, Re-sampling (Thallium and Other
Metals)
~ New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCO 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
The EPA Region IV Environmental Services Division (ESD) completed a private
well sampling event in January 2000 in response to public concerns of Site
contaminants affecting their drinking water. One private well located at the May
property at 2528 Castle Hayne Road had high levels of Thallium. EPAs Remedial
Project Manager, Beverly Hudson requested that the State re-sample this well to
verify the thallium concentrations since thallium was not detected in any other private
wells in the area or at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site. The original
analytical results are also available in the Superfund Files for this Site. The re-
sampling event was on June 6, 2000. The attached re-sampling results indicated that
thallium was not present in the groundwater from this private well at detectable
levels.
Attachment
cc: Grover Nicholson, NC Superfund Section
unnv
.,· ; ' ~--
NC-DEHNR
DMsfon,.ilt Solid Waste MaDIIB"meat ;,·:
0 Snpcrfuad Senion
~Huardo~s Wasw Section
0 Solid Waste Section
I 0,\ • ::>J.::> f J.,_.l-OVJ.J.
•
. ..,Ct-' .l.'.., .:.\.JVV .l. .l. • .:...v Io V•..,
Oraantcs Lab:_....,..._
lnorganlcs Lab: X..
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Sampled by: I , 1/,o f<. ks .zt: ·
Sampler ID-.....,..'------------Telephone: <111>-:s..,Ll~l.:...,-.,,,..2.=....!..l ...ioi.ll.g ____ _
Date Sampled:---lf~,/,+.!L":'/t,i,.OQ:i..:.... _____ _
Time Sampled: /: JO
Sample Types: Soil ____ _ Watcr _ __.X;..;__, _ Waste ___ _ Other ______ _
Remarks: __ ...1.k~!:£:.J~,,,,,:i~-~-:.e:::r./...J.,.1,,1::!i,..J~P~Gclu:aML;;{;;,,,::J,/,:,___ ___________ _
Field Sample (j {1,950
Numbers
Relinquished by:. _____________ _
(Si&I1ature)
Date: __ _ Time: ____ _
-----·---------·----·-····-.. --... • ... ···-··-···------•■-------------
Received by: Dat:: __ _ Time: ___ _
(Signature)
Relinquished by: _____________ .._ Date: __ _ Time: , ___ _
· (Siiflature)
-----·-·-·----··-··--·····-······-··-······----··-··-···-·--·-··--·-·---· Date: __ _ Time: ____ _
Results Reported:
(A:\COCILFIW)
• ~.C. Dep!rtnent of Environment,
l 1ca1th, & },{a\ural Rci0ufto1
.... -:.0Hd'wutr Man11~mcnt Oiviaion
WPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST • State Laborotor,' of P•blic Health
P.O. Box 28047, 306 N, Wilmington Stre<t
RAloish, North C..,ollna 27611
Site Number ______________ _ Field Sample Number __ _._Q.LL-/ '9..L..J':J<-9.s..C,,.._ _____ _
Name of Sit~ I, j ,Ji,,. ~ e,,~ UJ,/1 A~) Site Location ,-SJ.. 9 c .. j1, 1{"7 ":"I' M (,J, ·1?'9--t;...,,
--c--1-1·· dB /_.j._._ll J)' I---...J-ID# Date Coll•cted 6/4£, fu Time I I, 3 e}---o ecte y ~ 1\.11 ~ • /" M > •
Agency: _ls:_ Hazardous Waste Solid Waste __ Supcrfund TCLP Compounds ·
Sample Type In rganlc Compound., .N ,rsults(mg/1) ✓A , Envlrnnmen!!I ~once!!llll'I !::amm~nli _L_ ,._ rsemc
1t.t . .'J ~ .-t ~ f..~ __ Barium
...c.. Ground water (1) _Solid (5) __ CadmiWll
__ Chromium
_ Surface water (2) )L Liquid (6) __ Lead
•·-·---~ -... -. --· ··----• ---··· • Mercury -....... .
_Soil (3) _Sludge (7) -Selcruum I ....... _:; k::: Silver ...... "
Other (4) Other (8) '
---Organic Chemistry Inorganic Chemistry --
· Parameter Resulta(mll/1) Parameter Resul!A: ~11fr"-m11t~ Organic Compounds Results(mg/1) x Arsenic -v_ I _P&T:GC/MS < J_ I l I benzene·
_ Acid:B/N Ext. ~ Barium () ("1'1' I --carbon tetrachloride -MTBE _Cadmium <O.n')5 chlordane -Chloride -chlorobcnzene -TChromium <Q.QI --chloroform ---_Copper --o-cresol -F1uoride m-cresol ---Iron --p-cresol -.. 4-Lead · <6, 00'5 cresol ----__ Manganese -1,4-dichlorobcnzene
-.JS._Mcrcury :S:: l2.0Qn5 __ 1,2-dichloroetbane
· Nitrate . 1,1-dichloroethylene -~i:Bl ±: Selenium _ 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Silver __ heptachlor
Radiochemistry --Sulfates hexachlorobenzene -Zinc hcxachlorobutadicnc --Parameter Results (PCl/1) _pH hexachloroethane
_ Gross Alpha _ Conductivity _·_ methyl ethyl kctooc
Gross Beta TDS nitrobenzene -----pentachlorophenol TOC
X.. Ib..tli'11 !."'I so.ooa. __ pyridine
Microbiology -__ tetrachlorocthylcnc
--__ trichloroethylene
Parameter Results (Col/lOOml) 2,4,5-trichlorophcnol ----__ 2,4,6-trichlorophcnol
-_ vinyl chloride --j . endrin -
Reported b5;' ) ' JJ\ lindane '
Oate Received --__ methoxychlor
Date Extraclcd 0 R u },:(6 JUI( 8 Q __ . toxaphene
ale eporte · 2,4-D = 2,4,.S-TP (Silvex)
Dale Analyzed ... Lab Number --
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
September 5, 2000
RE: Conference Call with Rick Garrett to Discuss Plume Boundary Issues
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 5 September 2000, a representative of the NC Superfund Section
completed a site conference call with Rick Garrett of Richard Catlin & Associates
and Ray Church and Paul Marlow with the New Hanover County Health Department.
This meeting was held in order to discuss the State's and EPA's concerns relevant to
plume delineation and remedy design at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Superfund Site, located in Wilmington, North Carolina.
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
1 of 1
~/Untitled "'Mr-e
Good morning Beverly. Hope you are doing well! R-b/R·A
Attached you will find the preliminary results of the surface water samples taken on and around the area
of the Bum Pit Site. As you can see all the results for all VOC1{including chlorinated VOCs that were a
potential from adjacent property, Deutch Relays Site, being handled by NC DENR DWQ)~-tl'Y'<'.. iw11-
Detection limits for the BTEX compounds were set at 1 ppb which is the States Standard for benzene but &'.~
is an extremely low standard for toluene and ethylbenzene. These results are very encouraging. The
Public in this area is, as we deduced, safe and unaffected chemically from our Site. I will be sending you
a hard copy of the data when it is QNQC !)(completed and it is finalized.
***************************************************
W. Randy McElveen,
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
[phone] ext. 341
[e-mail]
( not case sensitive)
+Please note that my email address has changed+
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot
lose."
Jim Elliot, THE SHADOW OF THE ALMIGHTY
****************************************************
2/16/2000 9:54 AM
•
Memorandum
TO: FILE
From: Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
January 28, 2000
RE: Site Meeting and Reconnaissance of Surface Water Runoff Pathways
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 13 January 2000, a representative of the NC Superfund Section completed
a site meeting and reconnaissance of the surface water pathways from the New
Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site, located in Wilmington, North
Carolina. Those in attendance at the meeting include Rick Shiver, and Russ Colby
with DWQ Wilmington Regional Office, and Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
representatives Ray Church and Paul Marlow with the New Hanover County Health
Department and the consultant for the PRPs Rick Garrett with Richard Catlin and
Associates and myself.
We evaluated the surface water runoff pathways and established potential
surface water and sediment sample locations at the culvert near Heritage Park Drive
that carries surface water from the southeast to the northwest of the railroad and a
background sampling location just downgradient of the Site. The surface water and
sediment sampling was scheduled to take place on Wednesday 26 January 2000.
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
I of2
• Good afternoon Beverly,
Attached you will find a copy of our letter to you addressing additional concerns which the State has
concerning groundwater delineation at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site, a Superfund
Site. As we discussed today in our conference call with you and Phil, since this letter was written and
mailed 3 additional wells and one auger probe has been completed at the Site to further characterize the
BETX contaminant plume extent. At these locations the blue clay layer was
Rb
file:///Untitled
noted at depths ranging from 22 to 25 feet below ground surface and was at least 1. 5 feet thick. This
additional information about the presence of the clay layer at all deep well locations across the Site is very
reassuring and gives us a good argument that Site contaminants are likely not present below the clay layer
anywhere on-site.
However, there could be local sand lenses or relict structures within the blue clay layer that allow or
intercept the contaminant flow and cross contaminate the deep aquifer below the blue clay layer. The
only way to be sure about groundwater below the blue clay at this boundary location of the contaminant
plume is to install a groundwater well through the blue clay in this area (T-14 area). This morning I also
found the only well installation records available for the temporary wells installed in the downgradient
area including T-14. The 1998 temporary wells were installed to a depth 14 to 17 feet below ground
surface. Based on clay data from last weeks well installations and auger probe near T-14, it appears that
there is a 10 foot section of the lower shallow aquifer that we have no data on except for the immediate
source area (MWD-002 and east of the source area MWD00l). All other temporary wells prior to 1998
extended to depths ranging from 14 to 19 feet below ground surface. No deep aquifer wells were
installed to the west of the source area above the clay layer.
Therefore, in light of this information the aquifer to the west of the source area has not been properly
delineated. In order to properly delineate the plume additional wells in the deep portion of the shallow
aquifer (at the top of the blue clay) and a telescoping well through the blue clay in the primary down
gradient area near T -14 should be completed to verify that contaminants have not moved beyond
temporary well T -14. This work is especially important since the contaminants are at higher
concentrations in the deep part of the plume than in the shallow (see analytical data for MWS-002 and
MWD-002). Monitoring wells in these areas will also be required for performance verification during
remedial action and to confirm that the remedial action has been successful and is complete.
If you wish to discuss any of the details further please give me a call, at [phone], extension 341.
***************************************************
W. Randy McElveen,
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
[phone] ext. 341
[e-mail]
( not case sensitive)
+Please note that my email address has changed+
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot
lose."
Jim Elliot, THE SHADOW OF THE ALMIGHTY
****************************************************
1/8/2001 2:06 PM
..
0 Q) .. "
·~Q~
(j~ Q • ., I) Q
. • .I}, 'I)<::>• e
r:::::::::'
• • ~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
January 2, 2001
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh (I 1) Floor
· · Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Comments on the PRPs Letter Referencing the Additional
Delineation
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
Wells for Plume
The State has received the PRPs letter responding to the October 26, 2000
conference call addressing additional sampling and well installation proposed for
proper delineation of the groundwater plume at the New Hanover County Airport
Burn Pit Superfund Site, located in Wilmington, North Carolina. The following
comments are offered by the North Carolina Superfund Section.
General comments:
The PRPs response letter dated December 20, 2000 does not include two of the
additional wells proposed by the NC Superfund Section in the source area and the
deep second aquifer well at the area of monitoring well T-14. Re-sampling of the
wells in representative areas of the site to obtain a proper concentration gradient
across the site is also not addressed in this letter. One well in the source area should
also be tested for agent-orange products.
The NC Superfund Section completed sampling of wells T-2B, T-11 and T-14 on
• November 2, 2000. The results were lower than the original sample results but the
same increasing trend from monitoring wells T-2B to T-11 still existed. This is a
clear indication of potential downgradient flow movement into the lower aquifer or
potential leaking through the Blue Clay layer at 25 to 30 feet below ground surface.
If the Blue Clay layer has holes in it or is thinning out in this area, the lower aquifer
could be impacted. The aquifer below the Blue Clay is where thousands of people
receive their drinking water by private and municipal wells in the area .
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
• •
If after consulting with your technical team you agree with the States conclusions, you might
contact the PRPs and reinforce the issues noted above.
If you would like to discuss these issues further please give me a call at, [phone],
extension 341.
1~~;:~
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
Rb/RA
220 of Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone:· (910) 452°586"1
Fax:-[phone]
April I 9, 1999
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
I 00 Alabama Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia. 30303-3104
Re: New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CATLIN Project No. 94040
Dear Ms. Hudsori:
The attached Feasibility Study Amendment Proposed Scope dated April 15, 1999 defines our plan
for amending the existing Feasibility Study to incorporate air sparging per your request. We
believe that this will give you adequate documentation to prepare the Record of Decision
Amendment.
Please review the proposed workscope and let us know if this meets your needs prior to us
initiating the work. If you have any questions or comments, please call us so that we may
expedite the process.
Sincerely,
,,& "7' j) /f /4, /!,
Gary D. McSmith. EIT
Site Manager
GDM/GRG/kns
Enclosure
cc: Mark M. Davis, EPA ORC, w/enc.
G. Richard Garrett. P.G.
Project Manager
Catherine Sanders. US Army Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Don Hooker. US Army Corps of Engineers, w/cnc.
Wanda M. Copley, New. Hanover County Attorney, w/cnc.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr .. Esq ...
Attorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/enc.
Ray Church. New Hanover County .Director of
Environmental Management. w/enc.
Thomas C. Pollard. Wilmington City Attorney, w/enc.
Randy McElvccn, NCDENR. w/cnc.
North America • Europe
• •
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
CATLIN PROJECT NO. 94040
FEASIBILITY STUDY AMENDMENT PROPOSED SCOPE
APRIL 19, 1999
Recommend preparing a Feasibility Study Amendment that presents new data supporting_ air
sparging as the selected remedy. U.S. EPA Region IV is then willing to prepare a ROD
Amendment using the amended Feasibility Study as the foundational reference justifying the
change in remedy. The Feasibility Study Amendment will not reiterate any information regarding
other potential alternatives, nor will it introduce any additional alternatives except air sparging.
The existing Feasibility Study is organized into five sec:ion~ as follows:
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
_ 2.0 Identification, Screening, and Evaluation of Technologies and Process Options
3.0 Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives
4.0 Analysis and Summary of Alternatives
Recommended changes to each of the five sections are as follows:
Executive Summary
Write approximately two written pages of text that updates and summarizes site activities to
date and remedy selection changes resulting from the Feasibility Study Amendment.
Add a description of air sparging in a stand-alone table formatted like existing Table ES-I
for air sparging. The existing Table ES-I will not be reproduced in the Amendment. Only
air sparging information will be presented in the table amendment.
1.0 Introduction
Add excerpts from the existing Air Sparging Pilot Test Treatability Study Report that
summarizes the history and results of the study and report.
Discuss how metals are no longer a concern at the site. Add recent drawings and tables
showing extent of contamination.
2.0 Identification. Screening, and Evaluation of Technologies and Process Options
The purpose of this section is to perform initial technology screening. Air sparging dropped
· out in Tabie·2.1 of the original Feasibility Study because of "potential-for volatilizing organic
contaminants and recontaminating clean soils and ineffectiveness in removing inorganic
New Hanover Councy Burn Pit; 4()40amnd.scp
CATLIN Project No. 94040
CATLIN Engineers and Scientists
April I 9, I 999
• •
contaminants." Refute these arguments by reviewing data from history of air sparging to
address vadose zone soils concerns and stating that chemicals of concern are 'voes. ·Metals
are no longer a-concern due to low flow sampling techniques. We are not going to reevaluate
other alternatives.
3.0 Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives
Add information for Alternative 6, Air Sparging. Write text Section 3.7 Alternative 6, Air
Sparging. Use existing reports to cut and paste as much as possible.
4.0 Analvsis and Summary of Alternatives
Prepare an addendum to Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 that includes information on
air sparging only.
New Hanover County Burn Pit; 4U40amnd.scp
CATLIN Project No. 94040
CATLIN Engineers and Scientists
April 19, 1999
'" .~
~ w t'
35
30
25 -
20
z; i5
z 0 ~ ~ ~
10
T-11 fOC=J.3..45 T-12 TQC>:=).3.59
T-13 roe=:.io_j-4
'-10S=27.6
WT=2::i.25 Y.
Wlll[R TABL.£V
"'S Of 23 OEC 9!! _·
1 . ...i...L "'llUS WlRE SCRfEloltb ~OS$ RlE W,>;OCR TABU:: ·,n-it~ SAMPUll.
1. WELLS T-11 ,IND T-1"2. IQ[RE SA'i!Pl.Etl ON 4 tia: Vil~
3. 'fr'ELLS T-13, T-1'-, A.'1O T-15 WEJ'!E S,,MPl.(O ~ 2J UE.C 1g,g0
T-14-TOC=J0.54 T-15 TOC=J0.61)
W/=2':>.JJ )1•1!F l;.81.£ ~
A.Ser '2.3 urc ,,e
LEGE#.1D
rns = mr" CF SCREIN ruv ... 11~
WT ~ WATER TA!IL'E filVA.TION ~1 SCRIJI-I l/<IT-1\/J.l
I W,,,JfN TA'BL.£
l,,
l·
J 25
I
J,o
j
1.,
l
10
5
of----------------------------------------------------------1 0
C
l-umlifteru&:wrrm
'd~r'Cll, rrn,/H ~
lil:.'r'j kANO'IER OOv'l'f< .IURf'illl ,---.. ru,ia~\.,~':~~ ~nr
'xi!..,. 94(.-!0Ef•-,:,.n. ~ /ffl
lEMPOR'<RY Yilil
CROSS SECTIONS
•
~ ~ 2;
~
~
z ?
Q ,_:
< ;
w ~t
1 r
~~
'1~
Q
> _,
-< it
nUlfiE
<l m ttl
"'
"' "' (SJ
"' b
CD
-< CJ
"' "' " Ll '" b ~
.,,
;n
0 3
n D -< r
z
-,
I b
10 Ul
·o
(SJ
"'
"JJ
C7
FEB 19 •gg 09:48 TD:19197334811
FAX Trruumwwn frotn... •
FROM: CATL I ,'J • CATLIN Engineers and 5GlantiS1S
220 Old Palry Aoao
PO Box 10279
-l'IEERS ond 8C1ENTISTil Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TO: \.SL:x':'.c:r: 13 lb d .s,,..,.., COMFI\NY: _Ll_.S~f~f'~IJ _____ _
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
. ,-;,_ I ~·&-<
CATLIN PROJECT No· <i H ~YD
D Per Your Request O For Your Review ' D P)ea.se Comment
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER:
COMMENTS:
)'V\
DESTINATION FAX NO. 40'{, {5 4,,?_ 8 7 8i,$
North A 1111;n.'cn • Europa
<'.Jc. • 'K,,~JJ f>kf,/.,.u..-.. (ll1cy 73;, 481/
0 Urgent
T,-495 P. 01
'~tC..rAMEs s:· Hu~//
. ,.. NOR
·~t .,;. f:/ ·, .
• '1 • .· ..
• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF'
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
February 9, 1999
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh (11) Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Comments on the Air Sparging Pilot Test Treatability Study Report
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Air Sparging Pilot Test Treatability Study Report dated 16 December 1_998
for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site, Groundwater
Remediation, located in Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed by
the North Carolina Superfund Section. The following comments are offered by the North
Carolina Superfund Section.
General comments:
1. In general the Pilot Test appeared to be very successful. The State
however, has concerns about its accuracy since all the monitoring wells
were screened below the water table. As you well know the problem with
this scenario is that BTEX compounds want to float and the monitoring
well screens are two (2) to three (3) feet below the water table surface.
Therefore, high concentrations of BETX compounds may be at the
groundwater surface or moving to the surface as a result of the Air
Sparging that are not being sampled. I made this same type of comment
on the Temporary Well installations for delineation of the plume.
Specific Comments:
2. Section 4.1.2 on page 5 of the subject report states that monitoring wells
OW-001 and OW-002 " ... are screened below the water table from
approximately 10 feet BLS to 15 feet BLS." Figure 5 indicates that these
wells are screened from 5 to 15 feet BLS. Please reconcile the text with
Figure 5.
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE ISO, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· 50% RECYCLE0/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
RP
Ms. Hudson
2-9-99
Page2
• •
3. Groundwater elevations fluctuated up to 3 feet during the 3 5-day test
period starting in June as shown in Table SA. We know from previous
monitoring that groundwater naturally fluctuates in this area upto 3.6 feet
from October 1994 to April 1998. This water table change should be
considered during design and construction of the permanent Air Sparging
system. All permanent well screens, for example, should be placed above
the seasonally high water table.
4. Figure 5 indicates that the water table was located at 2._D feet below land
surface-(bls) during construction ofOW-001 and OW-002. The solid riser
pipe, however, extends to a depth of 5 feet below land surface. The water
table does not intersect the well screen interval. Additional monitoring
wells should be installed with the screen intersecting the water table (1
foot to 18 inch risers).
The States conclusions about the Air Sparging Test results is that it appears, based on the
data provided, that Air Sparging will be effective in treating the BTEX contaminants at
this Site. However, due to the improper construction of monitoring wells the analytical
data results may be over optimistic. The data indicates that treatment to. the NCAC 2L
Groundwater Standards is achieved in 35 days or less. If higher concentrations ofBTEX
compounds were missed at the water table surface the cleanup period could be much
longer. Therefore, it is recommended that additional monitoring wells be constructed as .
noted above with the well screen intersecting the water table (1 foot to 18 inch risers).
After the new wells are constructed additional Air Sparging test should be completed and
provided as an addendum to this report.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me, at [phone], extension
341.
Sincerely,
-=A, _g ~~
ka~dy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
• CA'i:Lin
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
220 Old !,y Ro,d • P.O~~
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
October 9, 1998
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
100 Alabama Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Re: Response to Comments
Temporary Well Installation Summary of Findings
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Docket No. 94-20-C
CATLIN Project No. 94040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
RECEIVED
OCT 13 1998
SUPERFUND SECTIQ~1
Enclosed are responses to comments from NCDENR Superfund Section letter to the USEPA
Region IV dated August 28, I 998.
If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to give us a call.
Sincerely,
GDM/GRG/kns
Enclosures
cc: Mark M. Davis. EPA ORC, w/enc.
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
CATLIN Project Manager
Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Ed Kost, US Army Corps of Engineers, w/enc.
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Auorney, w/enc.
Lonnie B. Williams, Jr., Esq.,
Auorney for Cape Fear Community College, w/enc.
Ray Church, New Hanover County Director of
Environmental Management, w/enc.
Thomas C. Pollard, Wilmington City Allorney, w/enc.
Randy McElveen, NCDENR
4040..:omm.lcr
North America • Europe
• •
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION REPORT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT
CATLIN PROJECT NUMBER 94040-S
Response to NCDENR Superfund Section Comments in letter to US EPA Region IV dated
August 28, 1998:
General Comments:
1. No response is necessary.
Specific Comments:
2. Future groundwater elevations, including the depth to water in all temporary wells will
be measured using an electronic sensor as requested by the State. A Model 11413
Solinst electronic sensor will be used.
The State observed that groundwater at the site may be subject to tides because it is
close to the ocean. The site is in excess of 7 miles from the ocean. No tidal
influence was observed during the initial baseline data collected from the site on June
. 22 and 23, 1998 prior to the sparging test. Water table elevations were taken at IO
a.m., 4 p.m. IO p.m. and 4 a.m. in five wells at the site. The data presented on the
attached Table l and Figure I shows no cyclic diurnal variation in water table
elevations that can be attributed to tidal influence. However, the water table
elevation decreased with time. The elevations in each of the wells dropped
approximately 3 inches from 10 a.m. on June 22"' to 4 a.m. on June 23'". This is
likely to be normalization of water table elevations following nearly 4 inches of
rainfall during the 2 weeks prior to the initial baseline measurement period. Over an
inch of rainfall was measured at the airport on June 19th• Rather than evidence of
tidal influence, this appears to be evidence of normalization of the water table
elevations following infiltration from heavy rains.
We concur with the State's observation that historical measurements of water table
elevations at the site support the conclusion that the water table experiences seasonal
fluctuation in ground water elevation. The data presented on the attached Table 2 and
graphed on Figure 2 illustrates that the overall elevation of the water table varies from
sampling event to sampling event. However, the contour of the water table in the
four wells shown on Figure 2 appears to be relatively consistent from sampling event
to sampling event. The only exception is the April 17, 1991 data. During all of the
other events, the water table was highest in elevation at MWS-002, then MWS-001,
then MWS-003, and then lowest in MWS-004. In other words, the height of the
water table appears to vary seasonally, but the shape of the water table as measured
in these shallow wells appears to be relatively consistent.
The original intent of this sampling event was to collect grab samples using direct
• •
push technology (DPT). In order to increase the quality of the samples, and collect
samples across the estimated depth of the dissolved phase plume in the shallow
aquifer, temporary wells were installed. As observed by the State and shown on
Table 3, these temporary wells were installed such that the top of the screen of nine
of the ten wells was above the water table elevation at the time of the April 30, 1998
sampling event. However, prior to sampling these wells, each well was purged a
minimum of three well volumes before measurement of temperature, pH, and
conductivity commenced. Once three consecutive readings for each parameter
stabilized at ± 10%, the temporary wells were sampled for laboratory analysis per EPA
Methods 601/602.
Given that:
• The original intent was to take grab samples using DPT
• Free product is not present at the site
• The temporary wells were purged in excess of 3 well volumes
• The maximum height of the water column above the top of the screen was 1.51
feet in any well ·
It is our opinion the groundwater samples collected during the sampling event represent the
conditions in the shallow aquifer sufficiently to support the findings and recommendations
of this report. Rather than modify the existing temporary wells, they should be removed and
permanently abandoned, pending a final measurement of depth to water in the new
piezometers and at all wells at the site.
We concur with the State that proper screening of the water table is critical for effectively
treating ground water using air sparging. These wells are temporary DPT sampling points
and were never intended to be part of a remediation system.
Table 1: Burn Pit Initial Baseline Sampling Water Table Elevations
SW-001 OW-001 OW-002 MWD-002
10:00 a.m. 28.79 28.82 28.81 28.8
4:00 p.m. 28.66 28.68 28.68 28.66
10:00 p.m. 28.54 28.57 28.57 28.55
4:00 a.m. 28.54 28.56 28.54 28.54
max variation 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.26
Elevations are given in Feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL)
Sampling occurred June 22 and 23, 1998.
MWS-002
28.79
28.67
28.55
28.51
0.28
i'
•
•
Figure 1: BURN PIT INITIAL BASELINE SAMPLING
28.85 -~---------------------------------------,
28.8
28.75
::::,
f:\l 28.7 ·---------
~ 0 .c '" 28.65 ------------------1-!!:.
C 0 .a ~ a,
iii
a, 28.55 ------·-··-·---·---
:E ~
~
m 28.5 i
28.45
28.4 · ---·-·-·-·
28.35 f-. ---------~--------~---------~--------~
10:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. 4:00 a.m.
Time
-+-SW-001
......... ow-001
--+-OW-002
---¾-MWD-002
--MWS-002
I'
•
•
Table 2: Burn Pit Historical Water Table Elevations
April 17 1991 May 7 1991 October 5 1994 April 30 1998
MWS-002 no data 27.62 25.39 27.64
MWS-001 27.34 no data 24.88 27.55
MWS-003 27.47 27.37 24.79 27.54
MWS-004 27.39 27.29 24.61 27.44 •
•
Figure 2: Burn Pit Historical Water Table Elevations
30 -.--------------------------------------------~
::J
Cl)
~
27.3427.4727.39
~ 201----I
0 ..c l'CI
1-u. -C: ,g 15 -------
~
w
.J!! ..c ~ 10 .. ..
.2l ~
0 '
0
April 17 1991
27.62 27.3727.29
25·39 24.88 24. 79 24.61
0
May 7 1991 October 5 1994
Shallow Monitoring Well
A "O" value indicates that no data was collected on the date shown.
27.64 27 .55 27.54 27.44
April 30 1998
---•-
□MWS-002
CDMWS-001
~MWS-003
BMWS-004
•
Table 3: Relationship Between Temporary Well Screen Elevations and April 30, 1998 Water Table Elevations
Well Ground Water Top of Screen Height of 4/30/98
Elevation Elevation Elevation Water Table Elevations
FT above MSL FT above MSL FT above MSL Above Screen
T-1 27.57 26.50 1.07
T-2B 27.56 26.90 0.66
T-3 27.49 29.00 -1.51
T-4 27.51 27.30 0.21 • T-5 27.41 26.90 0.51
T-6 27.38 26.80 0.58
T-7 27.57 26.10 1.47
T-8 27.54 27.20 0.34
T-9 27.61 26.10 1.51
T-10 27.80 26.90 0.90
•
•:·J'f '.\W:~~11;;~1-•;;:·f·:•· .. :.;~.1~.:f:
. ··.,: -·.,.: -· • NORTH !ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
August 28, 1998
Ms. Beverly Hudson
North Superfund Remedial Branch
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, Eleventh (I 1) Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Comments on the Temporary Well Installation Summary Report
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Temporary Well Installation Summary Report dated 14 August 1998 for the
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site, Groundwater Remediation,
located in Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed by the North
Carolina Superfund Section. The following comments are offered by the North Carolina
Superfund Section.
General comments:
I. The State agrees with the recommendations in Section 4.0 with the
following additional comments and recommendation.
Specific Comments:
2. In response to Section 2.3 on page 2 it is recommended that site
groundwater elevations be re-measured in the temporary wells using an
electronic sensor and in the future all groundwater elevation data be
measured using electronic sensors or equivalent rather than a measuring
tape and paste. This is requested due to the flatness of the groundwater
table at the Site which makes groundwater measurement critical for
determining flow direction.
Since this Site is located close to the ocean, groundwater elevations may
be affected by tides and is probably very sensitive to seasonal weather
patterns. Therefore, groundwater elevations should be taken at various
times during the day and during dry periods and extended rainfall periods.
401 OEIERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX 919•715•3605
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· 50% RECYCLE0/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Ms. Hudson
8-28-98
Page2
• •
This work can be_ completed during design and construction of the air
sparging remedy. Tidal influence if present would imply that groundwater
would eventually flow south-southeast or into Cape Fear River to the
southwest. Triangulation of piezometers should be completed in these
areas as well as to the north at T-8.
3. Section 3 .2 at the bottom of page 2 states that " ... the potentiometric
surface plotted on Figure 1 correspond with ... " April 9, 1991 water level
elevations. Actually the elevations of these two data sets differ by almost
1 foot and by more than 1 foot from the May 7, 1991 data. These two
elevation data sets were completed at approximately the same time of the
year (April and May). However, ifwe compare the 9 April 98 and 30
April 98 data to the October 1994 data sets the elevation difference
ranges from 2. 7 to 3.6 feet. This strongly implies a seasonal fluctuation
in groundwater elevations at the site or some type of tidal influence.
4. Section 3.2 at the bottom of page 2 references Table 3 and Figure 1 for
water level elevation data. When the potentiometric surface (water table)
elevations from Table 3 is compared to the top of the screened interval at
the temporary wells (Table 1) it can be observed that groundwater
elevations are above the top of the screened interval. As you know the
BETX compounds at this Site have lower densities than water and will
tend to float on the groundwater surface. Therefore, it is critical that the
Screened interval of all monitoring wells at this site be designed to
intersect the high groundwater elevations.
It is recommended that 2. 5 feet of screen be added to all the temporary
monitor wells installed during April of 1998 or replace the temporary
wells with new wells having appropriate screened intervals intersecting the
high groundwater elevations at the Site. As you know proper screening
of the water table is very critical for effectively treating the groundwater
using Air Sparging.
Ms. Hudson
8-28-98
Page 3
• •
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me, at (9 I 9) 733-280 I, extension
34 I. '
Sincerely,
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover.Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
August 14, 1998
Ms. Beverly Hudson
Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Temporary Well Installation
Summary Report of Findings
• 220 Old Dairy Road • P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
RFCftVEo
AUG 17 1998
SUPERFUND SECTtoN
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, North Carolina
CATLIN Project No. 94040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
Enclosed is the Temporary Well Installation Summary Report of Findings for the above-
referenced site dated August 14, 1998. This information is submitted per your request.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
AJ1 })./t¾i/7
Gary D. McSmith
Site Manager
GDM/GRG/kns
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Thomas Pollard. City Attorney (w/enc.)
Mr. Ray Church, County DEM (w/2 copies of enc.)
Mr. Ed Kost. US Army Corps of Engineers (w/enc.)
_,,/d R -'1~J ,l/V0#-
G. Richard Garrett. P.G.
Project Manager
Ms. Catherine Sanders, US Army Corps of Engineers (w/enc.)
Mr. Mark Davis, USEPA (w/enc.)
Ms. Wanda Copley, County Attorney (w/enc.)
Mr. Lonnie Williams. Jr. (w/ene.)
Mr. Randy MeElvecn. NCDENR (w/enc.)
~04<1d'l't,hr
No1·tl1 America • Ettrope
•
ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS
220 Old Dairy Road• P.O. Box 10279
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Telephone: [phone] A[: Fax: [phone]
-cE:11.1€0 June 18, 1998
JUN
Ms. Beverly Hudson 2 2 1998
Remedial Project Manager SUpf:RF! 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency -Region iv-ND Si:CrtON
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
Re:
~
Air Sparging Pilot Test
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, North Carolina
CATLIN Project No. 94040
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Air Sparging Pilot Test at the above-referenced site is scheduled as follows:
June 22
June 23
June 24
June 25
July 2
Initial Baseline Sampling at Site
Eight-Hour Sparge Pilot Test at Site
Data Evaluation at CA TLIN's Office
Pilot Test Start-Up and Data Collection at Site
Data Collection at Site
Data Collection at Site
Data Collection at Site
Data Collection at Site
· July 9
July 16
July 23
July 30
July 30
Final Data Collection at Site
End of Pilot Test
We will contact you if there are any modifications to this schedule. Please contact us if you have any
questions about this schedu_le or details of the planned site activities.
Sincerely,
.Qlj/l ¼~
Gary D. McSmith
Site Manager
GDM/GRG/kns
cc: Mr. Ray Church, Director, New Hanover County
Dept. of Environmental Management
Mr. Thomas Pollard. Wilmington City Attorney
Mr. Ed Kost, USACOE
Ms. Catherine Sanders, USACOE
Mr. Mark Davis. EPA ORC
Mr. Lonnie Williams, Jr., Esq.
Atty. for Cape Fear Community College
Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney
Randy McElveen. NCDENR /
G. Richard Garrett, P.O.
Project Manager
North America • Europe
RD
•
July 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
File
Randy McE!veen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund
Conference Call
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCO 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
•
On 10 July 1996, a representative of the NC Superfund Section participated in a conference
call with Rick Garrett, and Mike Mason Design Engineers/Hydrogeologist with Richard Catlin &
Associates the PRPs Remedial Design Consultant. The issues of metals contamination in
groundwater and acceptable low flow groundwater sampling techniques and additional plume
delineation at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site were discussed. A similar dialogue
took place with Ray Church of New Hanover County and Dennis Burke his technical consultant on
May 8, 1996. The State and the EPA made comments on the 60% Remedial Design document for
groundwater in September of 1995 which addressed these concerns if an Air Sparging remedy were
to be considered.
cc: Grover Nicholson, _NC Superfund Section
Bruce Nicholson, NC Superfund Section
RD
State of North Carina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
FILE co~~.Sih
DEHNR
May 15, 1996
•
Mr. Jon Bomholm/Beverly Hudson
US EPA Region IV
North Superfund Re!Pedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Response to'Comments on Intermediate (60%) Remedial Design Report
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Mr. Bornholm:
The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) response to State comments on the 60%
Intermediate Remedial Design Report for the New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Site,
Groundwater Remediation, located in Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed
by the North Carolina Superfund Section. The State has reviewed the response and as you may recall
we have discussed the metals and background well issues briefly by telephone. The State has also ·
discussed the issue with the PRP representatives Ray Church with New Hanover County and Dennis
Burke his technical consultant. It appears that the PRPs are planning to perform additional micro
purge sampling of the wells at the site to verify that metals are not contaminants of concern (COCs).
If, as expected, the metals concentrations are below our groundwater standards this will no longer
be an issue and the air sparging remedy may be further evaluated as the groundwater remedy.
However, as we have discussed previously and as documented in our comment letter dated
IO August 1995, the air sparging remedy is not consistent with the groundwater Remedy established
in the Record of Decision (ROD) dated 29 September 1992. The PRPs response letter dated 4 March
1996 quotes a sentence on page 64 of the ROD under the preferred alternative GW3 which does in
fact state that metals are below background and will not require treatment. However, contrary to
what has been stated in previous conversations, statements to the effect that metals are below·
background or are not a contaminant of concern do not exist anywhere else in this ROD. The
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX 919-71&-3605
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. Bornholm
5-15-96
Page 2
• •
' sentence on page 64 of the ROD is entirely out of context with the language of the ROD (see pages
25, 42, all other remedies in Section 9.3 especially alternatives GW4 and GW5 on page 64 and 65
which clearly include treatment for metals, and the Proposed Plan Fact sheet included in Appendix
B of the ROD also includes metals as contaminants of concern. Tables 1, 10, 17, 19, and 22 also
include metals as COCs).
>
Therefore, based on the context of the ROD, significant changes to the ROD are warranted
and regardless of this issue a ROD Amendment will be required if air sparging is to be used as a
preferred remedy. Action should be taken on this issue immediately. If we need to discuss this issue
further it should be d:ine through individual telephone calls and conference calls. The PRPs appear
to be willing to work with us on these issues, therefore, EPA and the State should work out the
details of what must be done to complete an acceptable Design document regardless of the remedy
chosen.
In previous comments it was noted that a true-background well has not been established in
the Remedial Investigation (RI) or in the ROD. Concentrations of Benzene and Ethylbenzene exceed ·
the NC Groundwater Standards and the preliminary remedial goals established in the ROD in
groundwater at control/background well MWD-001 and MWS-001. A clean background well can
be installed during the remedial design process. After reviewing the ROD it appears the RI work at
the site has not fully characterized the plume extent. Groundwater at MWS-002 and MWD-002
contained significant levels of benzene, however, no wells were installed downgradient of this
location. It is not uncommon for volatile organic compounds to separate from the source area plume
resulting in higher concentrations some distance downgradient of the source. Therefore, It is also
recommended that additional site characterization be completed during the Remedial Design process.
If you would like to discuss these issues further please contact me, at [phone], extension 341.
Sincerely,
0,~ · ~-{~Lc[CL~11
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Grover Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
Bruce Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
•
May 10, 1996
File
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund
Conference Call
•
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 8 May 1996, a representative of the NC Superfund Section
participated in a conference call with Ray Church with New Hanover
County and Dennis Burke his technical consultant. The issue of
metals contamination in groundwater and an acceptable background
well were discussed. The State and the EPA made comments on the
60% Remedial Design document for groundwater in September of 1995
which addressed these concerns if an Air Sparging remedy were to be
considered.
Mr. Church indicated that they are planning to perform low
flow micro purge sampling and analysis of the groundwater wells at
the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit site and they expect that
the metals concentrations will decrease significantly below the
state Groundwater Standards. I stated that this would be an
appropriate step to eliminate the metals concern and if the levels
drop below State Groundwater Standards and remain below State
Standards this would no longer be an issue with the State.
cc: Grover Nicholson, NC Superfund Section
Bruce Nicholson, NC Superfund Section
RD
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A~\lED
REGION IV REC
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E. MAY 10 1996 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
MAY O 9 1996
4WD-NSRB
Randy McElveen
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health & Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
SUPERFUND SECTiui'i
RE: New Hanover County Airport Burn Pits Site, Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear Mr.McElveen:
This letter notifies you that Jon Bornholm has been assigned as the Remedial Project
Manager for the New Hanover Burn Pits Site during my absence on maternity leave. All
correspondence and further communications should be directed to him. No address or telephone
changes will be required. Please contact me or Jon if you have any questions concerning this
notification. Pete Raack will continue as the Regional attorney for this Site.
cc: Curt Fehn, NCS
Pete Raack, ORC
Sincerely, ·
~~£!'~
Regional Project Manager
North Superfund Remedial Branch
R.D
Printed on Recycled Paper
I •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
February 8, 1996
4WD-NSRB
Mr. Raymond L. Church, Director
New Hanover County
Department of Environmental
Management
3002 Hwy. 421 North
Wilmington, North Carolina. 28401
RECEIVED
FEB 2 O 1996
SUPERFUND SECTION
RE: Comments on Intermediate (60%) Remedial Design Report
Groundwater Remediation
.New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Church:
The Intermediate Remedial Design Report for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site, Groundwate.r Remediation, located in Wilmington, North Carolina has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The enclosed responses to the design information provided in the report are offered by the North Carolina Superfund Section.
The remedy proposed in the Remedial Design document is not consistent with the groundwater remedy established in the Record of Decision (ROD) dated September 29, 1992. The intermediate design for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit recommends in-situ biodegradation and volatili~ation of the.organic groundwater contami.nants using air sparging technology. The ROD selected Alternative GW3 -Groundwater Extraction and Physical Treatment (Air Stripping) with discharge to a POTW. '
If air sparging technology is to be fully considered, additional information will be required to support a change in the remedy selection decision. Furthermore, the Agency will need to formally .announce the change in remedy selection in a document such as a ROD amendment. We will fully analyze a change in the remedy decision, but we do have certain concerns about the metal contamination. As you may know, air sparging can not treat metals in groundwater. This is important because chromium, lead and other metals may be present above Federal MCLs and North Carolina Groundwater Standards, This has not been established because of the lack of appropriate background sampling (there is no true background well) and lack of valid metal sampling data in general (recall that sample turbidity may have beep a problem).
Rb
• •
Establishing a good background l~vel for metals may alleviate the
concerns regarding metal contamination. If these concerns are
addressed, we see the potential that would be a fully protective
and effective alternative to the ROD remedy.
Thank you for allowing the Agency the opportunity to review your
submittal. If you have any questions regarding the responses to
the design report or the ROD Amendment, please contact me at
[phone] ext. 2080 or Pete Raack at [phone] ext.
2243.
Enclosure:
Sincerely,
Beverly T. Hudson,
Remedial Project Manager
• •
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT
SUPERFUND SITE-NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
INTERMEDIATE REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
TECHNICAL REVIEW
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The Report indicates that the submittal "constitutes
approximately 60% of the design effort." In light of the
material presented, particularly with respect to the
technical specifications, discussion of permits, and the
performance standards verification, the submittal is
significantly lacking. This is perhaps because an
alternative to the'original design is proposed, that being
air sparging. If air sparging is selected as an alternative
remedial action, then the submittal is significantly
deficient for a 60% design +eport in that pilot testing and
conceptual design must initially be completed for this
technology.
2. The proposal to change the design to an air sparging system
comes at an odd time in the design process. It would have
been more appropriate to propose the air sparging design
prior to this submittal, reach resolution, and then present
a design report on the final selected remedy. If air
sparging is ultimately selected, the strategy of proposing
this technology at the 60% design stage will result in a
significant schedule variance, was delayed in the site
cleanup.
3. In general, use of the air sparging technique does have many,
of the technical advantages presented in the report.
However, the cost and time impacts of using this technology,
as presented in the report appear to be optimistic. There
is not enough detail to evaluate either the cost data or the
schedule as discussed in the specific comments below. The
most significant concern is that the application to this
site does not also include soil vapor extraction (SVE) or
other means to remove contaminants from the vadose zone.
In order to totally remove the contaminants, SVE would need
to be utilized with the sparging. If SVE is not included,
the contaminants will be relea·sed in the vadose zone where
they will most likely partition back to the soils and will
likely spread horizontally in light of the higher horizontal
permeability experienced with depositional sediments. If
air sparging is to be further considered, a detailed
technical justification 'of why SVE is not warranted should
be presented.
-1-
\
• •
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. SECTION 2.2.2. PAGE 2. The draft specifications presented in Appendix III are significantly deficient. Only two specification sections are presented: Summary of Work and Site Work. There are many other specifica·tion sections required and the two sections that are presented are incomplete. The sections presented appear to be generic guides and refer to the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Navy. It appears that these guide specifications have been put into this submittal without any specific revisions for this project.
2. SECTION 2.4. PAGE 2. The performance standards should be based on the remedial action goals specified in the ROD. These goals may be the same as the ste.te standards. · However, the design is to be referenced to the requirements of the ROD.
3. SECTION 3.2.2, PAGE 4. As stated in the general comments, air sparging technology alone is considered an incomplete
alternative and is not equivalent to pump and treat with respect to removing contaminants from the site. Air sparging has been proven to remove contaminants from groundwater, but these contaminants will then be subsequently· transferred to the overlying vadose zone. Without SVE, or similar technology, air sparging cannot be considered an adeq~ate approach. ·
4. SECTION 3.3, COST ANALYSIS, ,PAGE 7. Insufficient information is presented to evaluate the relative costs. On what is ... the 10 year versus 5 year duration of the two technologies based? What is responsible for the difference in operating costs? Why is the installation so much more costly for the pump and treat? In addition, the costs of SVE or other means of removing the contaminants from the unsaturated zone after air sparging need to be included in the air sparging estimate.
5. SECTION 3.4, ADDITIONAL IMPACTS ..• , PAGE 7. In general, this section presents a purely qualitative analysis of other potential impacts from the pump and treat system. ·Although these issues may appear to be relative to the pump and treat system, a detailed quantitative analysis is required to present a credible evaluation. Some examples are:
-2-
6.
7.
8.
\ • •
·(l) What is the percentage of the pump and treat flow rate (15 gpm) to the overall publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW) plan flow?
(2) A mass balance calculation should be presented to demonstrate the actual impact of metals on the .POTW sludge in order to support the concern for metals to the POTW.
(3) Why will pump and treat require higher operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and higher oversight costs?
SECTION 3.5, CONCLUSION AND PROPOSAL. EPA will consider the air sparging technology, because the application is appropriate for removal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). However, it is recommended that the technology be used in conjunction with SVE, or other means, to remove the contaminants from the vadose zone. The schedule delay of "roughly two months" is not accurate. If the schedule provided in the report is used, at least a 4-month delay should be anticipated. It is recommended that at least a 6-month delay be acknowledged if a change to air sparging is accepted.
APPENDIX I, DESIGN CALCULATIONS. There are no calculations or modeling presented to confirm the 15 gpm flow rate. Although the ROD presented this flow rate, the ROD is not a design document. The design should confirm this flow rate to demonstrate effective plume capture.
APPENDIX II, DRAFT PLANS.
The following are missing:
DRAWING NO. 2, SITE PLAN:
Piping plans
Contractor work limits
Drawings 7 through 9
Site topography/final grade
Mounting details for equipment
skids to pad .
Detail references on drawings
The capture zones shown on this drawing do not appear to be sufficient to achieve plume'• capture. Please clarify and show design calculations which demonstrate that the proposed well configuration and pumping rates will achieve plume capture.
-3-
\ •
DRAWING NO. 3, SYSTEM SCHEMATIC:
The schematics show a gate valve in the well casing. Is
this correct?
DRAWING NO. 5, DETAILS.
The recovery well and well head detail is incomplete. : Some
of the items missi~g are:
Pump and pump disqharge pipe
Stabilizers
Pump cable sch~matic
Safety cable ·
Well seal
Level meter probe
9. APPENDIX II."·:, SPECIFICATION. The specifications are not
acceptable for a 60% design submittal. More details should
be provided regarding the numbers, locations and types of
sampling and analysis proposed for the sampling, including
quality assurance/quality control procedures.
11. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. This document should not be
presented as part of the 60% design report. This document
represents a re-evaluation of options similar to the
feasibility study which has already been completed for this
site. The concept of developing the plan and the conclusions
of the plan should have been submitted and discussed prior
to completion and submittal of the 60% design report.
The recommendation of the plan is an incomplete remedy i.n
that the contaminants will remain in the vadose zone. As
stated previously, SVE, or some alternative method for
· .removing the contaminants from the vadose zone should be
included. Assumptions used in the plan regarding costs and
schedules, and overall performance of the system are not
supported with sufficient detail.
'\
-4-
State of North C-lina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
September a, 1995
Ms. Julie Keller
North Superfund Remedial Branch us EPA Region IV
345 Courtland street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30365
COPY
RE: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management comments on the Intermediate (60%) Remedial Design Report Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The NC Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has completed comments on the Draft Intermediate Design Report dated May 22, 1995 for groundwater remediation at the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site located in Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC. The North Carolina DEM comments are included as an attachment to this letter.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me, at [phone], extension 341.
Sincerely,
cw. t.4\~£Q~V)
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Jack Butler, N.C. Superfund Section
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post•consumer paper
State.of North c&11na Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James 8. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Jonathan 8. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E .. Director
August 22, 1995
M E M O R A N D U M
Ja1110s carter, Chief ~ /VlcS,/\J~-f'A;J-f. J HazardoHs Waate Scet.ioa N ... C · ~"f-"-Y-v
i/JJPreston Howar~o---~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Intermediate Remedial Design (60%) New Hanover County
Project No. 95-24
_The Division of Environmental Management has completed the review of the subject document and offers the following comments and recommendations.
Air Quality section
Mr. Mark Hedrick of the Air Quality Section in the Wilmington Regional Office reviewed the subject report; The pump and treat remedial scenario involves the use of an air stripper and should be registered with the NCDEM-Wilmington Regional Office. If the air sparging remedial approach is i~plemented, then this system should also be registered.
If there are questions regarding registration they should be directed to either Mr. Mark Hedrick or Mr. Tony Sabetti at ( 910} 395-3900.
Water Quality Section
No comments at this time.
Groundwater Section
Air. sparging is being recommended for use at the subject site, although an intermediate design for pump and treat is enclosed. The Groundwater Section has no objection to the use of air sparging at the subject site, as it will likely require less time to clean up the site, and the remedial costs are a fraction_ of those associated with pump and treat. We recommend that a pilot study be performed, and a comprehensive monitoring program be implemented.
· P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Caroline 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunrty Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
• •
If there are any questions, please advise.
APHjr/sbp/SWM2.
cc: Alan Klimek
Steve Tedder
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
Groundwater Section Files
State of North Carina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resour~eiP'\p-:\1
Division of Solid Waste Manage'lii;ioof I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
August 10, 1995
Ms. Beverly Hudson
US EPA Region IV
North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Comments on Intermediate (60%) Remedial Design Report
Groundwater Remediation
,New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCO 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Intermediate Remedial Design Report for the New Hanover
County Airport Burn Pit site, Groundwater Remediation, located in
Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed by the
North Carolina Superfund Section. This document has also been
forwarded to the NC DEM for concurrent review. The following
response to the design information provided in this report is
offered by the North Carolina Superfund Section.
The Remedy proposed in this Remedial Design document is not
consistent with the groundwater Remedy established in the Record of
Decision (ROD) dated September 29, 1992. This Intermediate Design
for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit recommends in-situ
biodegradation and volatilization of the organic groundwater
contaminants using Air Sparging technology. The ROD selected
Alternative GW3 -Groundwater Extraction and Physical Treatment
(Air Stripping) with discharge to a POTW.
If the air sparging option is more cost effective, why was
this not presented in the Feasibility Study so it could be included
in the ROD? That being said, we see no reason why the ROD cannot
be modified to include air sparging, provided certain concerns
about metals are addressed. As you know, air sparging does nothing
for metals in the groundwater. This may be of concern because
chromium, lead and possibly other metals may be present above
_Federal MCLs and NC Groundwater standards. It may also be true
that the levels at the site are potentially consistent with a local
natural background condition. However, this has not been
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 . Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
,I ,_...,
!J
Ms. Hudson
8-10-95
Page 2
• •
established because of the lack of appropriate background sampling
(there is no true background well) and lack of valid metals
.sampling data in general (recall that sample turbidity may .have
been a problem). Establishing a good background level for metals
may allow deleting the metals as contaminants of concern.
If this concern is addressed, we see air sparging as a cost
effective alternative to the ROD remedy. We bring to your
attention, however, that if air sparging is allowed it might be
best to modify or amend the ROD as provided for under the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). Deviations from the NCP may jeopardize
cost recovery of oversight costs or even third party cost recovery·
by the PRPs for that matter.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact me, at [phone], extension 341.
~",~~~V
Randy McElveen \
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Jack Butler·, N. C. Superfund Section
Bruce Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
Curt Fehn, NC Remedial Section Chief
Michael Kelly, Deputy Division Director
• •
August 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
File
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund
Intermediate (60%) Remedial Design Report
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
NCD 981 021 157
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
On 10 August 1995 in a telephone conversation with Beverly
Hudson about the failure of the PRPs to provide a 60% Design
document in accordance with the Record of Decision (ROD) she asked
whether the State would agree to proceed with an ESD or a ROD
Amendment recommending Air Sparging to treat the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) in groundwater at the subject Site rather than the
Pump and treat technology required by the ROD. My response was
that it depends on how the inorganics are treated which are present
in groundwater above State and Federal Standards.
As we all know, Air Sparging is a treatment process for voes.
Since Lead and Chromium were detected in the groundwater at
concentrations which exceed State and Federal Groundwater Standards
Air Sparging would not be an effective remedy for treating
groundwater at this Site. Ms. Hudson stated that the ROD may
indicate that metals concentrations were consistent with background
concentrations and therefore may no longer be a contaminant of
concern.
I performed a document search and found that background wells
were not established in the Remedial Investigation (RI) or in the
ROD and very minimal groundwater analysis for metals were performed
prior to the ROD. Neither did the RI or ROD make any comparison of
on-site groundwater concentrations of metals to background
groundwater concentrations. Therefore, it appears that if Air
Sparging is to be seriously considered for treatment of the
groundwater at the subject Site, additional investigation may be
advisable in order to establish that on-site groundwater
concentrations of metals are naturally occurring.
It is also worth noting that the ROD does establish cleanup
Rr.
Memo to File
8-10-95
Page 2
• •
standards for Lead and Chromium and the ROD Remedy (pump and treat
with discharge to POTW) was chosen because of the presence of
unacceptable levels of these metals in groundwater.
The responsiveness summary of the ROD includes all the written
comments for the PRPs and the public and no comment was documented
for metals concentrations in groundwater being similar to
background. The only comment about metals by the PRPs was on page
A-10 which states that "A realistic review of the inorganic
contaminant levels clearly indicate that inorganics are not a
problem." I may tend to agree with this comment as the EPA RPM ·
John Bornholm did during the public meeting (ROD Attachment A,
bottom of page 8) but environmental risk does not give me the
freedom to make arbitrary decisions in this manner.
I will verbally encourage the EPA to consider all the
technical details noted above and make any recommendations which
they believe are appropriate.
cc: Jack Butler, NC Superfund Section
Bruce Nicholson, NC Superfund Section
V
State of North Car&a
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L Meyer, Director
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 14, 1995
Arthur Mouberry, Chief
Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
V
Intermediate Remedial Design Report
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
NCD 981 021 157
EPA is in the process of completing a Intermediate Remedial
Design Report (60% Submittal) for the New Hanover County Airport
Burn Pit Superfund Site, a National Priority List site.
Attached is one copy of the Intermediate Design Report for the
subject site. This report was prepared by Richard Catlin and
Associates, Inc. for New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington,
and Cape Fear Community College. It is requested that these
documents be forwarded to the appropriate sections of DEM and
comments be submitted to the NC Superfund Section. .The NC
Superfund Section will be reviewing this document and submitting
comments to EPA Region IV on or before June 30, 1995. If reviewers
are unable to provide comments by this date, please inform us as to
when comments will be provided. It is our desire to include the
views and permitting requirements of the Air Quality, Groundwater,
and Water Quality Sections of DEM.
If you or your staff have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call us at [phone].
Attachment
cc/ Jack Butler, NC Superfund Section
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North ccana
Department of EnWonment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director June 14, 1995
Ms. Beverly Hudson
US EPA Region IV
North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
NA
DEHNR.
RE: DEM Comments on Preliminary (30%) Remedial Design Report
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC
NCO 981 021 157
Dear Ms. Hudson:
Enclosed please find the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) comments to the Preliminary Remedial Design Report for the
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit site, Groundwater Remediation,
located in Wilmington, North Carolina. Any correspondence with the
DEM in reference to this site, such as registration of an "air
stripper", should be directed through.the NC Superfund Section. If
you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
contact us, at [phone].
SincerelyG,
CN-~ -~f\J\ . ~-
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Jack Butler, N.C. Superfund Section
Bruce Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
• ... ,
, State of North Catina
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
June 1, 1995
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
FROM:
James carter, Chief
Hazardous Waste Section
Preston Howard feJ--
SUBJECT: New Hanover Airport Burn Pit
30% Remedial Design Report
New Hanover County
Project No. 95-06
T~e Division of Environmental Management has completed the
review of the subject document and offers the following comments
and recommendations.
Air Quality Section
The subject report stated that the remediation alternative
will involve an "air stripper". This wili need to be
registered with the NC DEM-Wilmington Regional Office.
If there are questions regarding registration they should be
directed to either Mr. Mark Hedrick or Mr. Tony Sabetti at
[phone].
Water Quality Section
No comments at this time.
Groundwater Section
The Groundwater Section noted that current groundwater sample
laboratory data (October, 1994) from both existing and newly
installed monitoring wells indicated that some
concentrations of volatile organic compounds in groundwater
exceed 15A NCAC 2L standards.
In consideration of the reported low levels of volatile
organic compounds in groundwater which exceed 15A NCAC 2L
standards at the subject site, it appears that a monitoring
program to track natural degradation of the compounds
tilrough time might be more cost efficient than a "pump &
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
.... ' ,. • •
treat" system. However, the remediation system which was
proposed in the subject report seems quite adequate to
clean-up the remaining volatile organic contamination in
groundwater at the site.
If there are any questions, please advise.
APHjr/sbp/SWM2.
cc: Alan Klimek
Steve Tedder
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
Groundwater Section Files
... ,,
. ,:::·.~ .. ::.r;t)~;f F, .
'
,,
State of North cJlnna
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
COPY
William L. Meyer, Director F b 15 1995 e ruary ,
Ms. Beverly Hudson
US EPA Region IV
North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Comments on Preliminary (30%) Remedial Design Report Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Wilmington, New Hanover county, NC
NCD 981 021 157
Dear Ms. Hudson:
R.D
The Preliminary Remedial Design Report for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site, Groundwater Remediation, located in Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed by the North Carolina Superfund. Section. This document has also been forwarded to the NC DEM for concurrent review. Their comments will be forwarded when available. The following comments are offered by the North Carolina Superfund section.
1. The piping and fitting materials for the transmission of the contaminated groundwater to the air stripping unit are specified as PVC on page 15. PVC pipe will dissolve or melt when exposed to certain solvents. Benzene, 1,2 • dichloroethene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present in the groundwater at the site at concentrations below one part per million (PPM).
In a telephone conversation with a sales agent for the Silver Lined Plastics company in Asheville, N.C., I learned that a chemical resistance chart which is used with their PVC equipment shows that the use of PVC pipe for transmission of groundwater containing Benzene and other voes is not recommended. Concentrations of Benzene and other voes could buildup in the joints and damage the PVC pipe or gasket material causing leakage. Please provide assurance (i.e., manufacturers specifications and warranty) that potential worst case total voe concentrations will not damage the PVC materials.
2. Section 2.2.8 on page 16 shows that naturally occurring
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Ac_tlon Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Ms. Hudson
2-15-95
Page 2
• •
concentrations of lead and chromium do not have to be addressed in the groundwater treatment system for this site. We understand that treatment does not need to address lead or chromium. However, continued monitoring of the groundwater for lead and chromium should be included in the Performance standards Verification Plan to assure that these non-compliant concentrations of lead and chromium do not increase to levels above background during pump and treat operations.
3. Section 2.3.1 on page 17 includes a list of drawings for the design. Please provide a drawing of the potentiometric surface of the groundwater across the site and include a brief discussion of the groundwater flow direction in the remedial investigation section of the report or in a brief summary of the site hydrogeology and topography.
4. Groundwater modeling should be developed to include drawings of simulated verses observed water level contours across the site and the modeled effects created by the operation of the three extraction wells. Hydrogeologic cross sections with the vertical and horizontal locations of the various monitoring and extraction wells should also be provided.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us, at [phone].
,;~~r:~
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Jack Butler, N.C. Superfund'Section
Bruce Nicholson, N.C. Superfund Section