WI0600002_Incident Report_20130730

Barber, Jim
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Close it.
Thanks
ArtB.
Barnhardt, Art
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:48 AM
Smith, Eric; Barber, Jim
Slusser, Thomas
RE: McGirt Store Pollution Incident (WI0600002)
From: Smith, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:34 AM
To: Barnhardt, Art; Barber, Jim
Cc: Slusser, Thomas
Subject: FW: McGirt Store Pollution Incident (WI0600002)
Art & Jim:
Working on a compliance review of old UIC permit W10600002 that was expired. Only one report in our file from August
30, 1996. 1 tried contacting AM EC (they bought Law Engineering) and they did not have any other files. I then
contacted Scott Ryals with DWM. He sent me the email below.. I highlighted a few key points. I believe that this permit
should be closed. Any objections from FRO??
-Eric G. Smith
Eric G. Smith, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
Groundwater Protection Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Phone: [phone] -
Fax: [phone]
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/aps
DISCLAIMER: Per Executive'Order No. 150, all a -mails sent to and from this account are subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. .
From: Ryals, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:20 AM
To: Smith, Eric
Subject: RE: McGirt Store Pollution Incident
How is this? O
June 5, 2006. AGRA Environmental performed a groundwater sampling event in April and May 2006. Sampled
10 monitoring wells and 1 county water supply well. Samples were analyzed fro Method 621 OD and MADEP-
1 .

VPH analyte. County water supply well (CSW-4) showed no detectable levels of the analyte analyzed. CSW-4
is also 300 feet up gradient of the site property. Of the 9 monitor wells sampled, only 2 wells (MW-4 and MW-
8) reported any levels of the petroleum related analyte. Benzene, xylenes, and naphthalene were reported as
exceeding the 21, standard. The residual groundwater contaminant plume is very localized. Recommended
action is to continue to sample periodically due to the low risk ranking. AGRA will evaluate ISOC technology
to potential remediate the localized impacted area.MAP 9-18-06 10-23-2007. Project file re -reviewed. Based
on review, a site ranking was done based on June 2006 report information. Site was re -ranked to an H125D.
Previous ranking was H70D primarily because the county water supply well located north of site is
hydraulically up gradient and risk is actually low. But because the well is only 300 feet from site the reranking
classified the site as High. Depth to confining layer in area is approx 75 feet below land surface. Depth of 1 st
intake is 125 feet or below confining unit. Potential to impact the well is very low to unlikely under present
pumping conditions. Site will continue to be under a monitor only including the CSW-4 well. 4-14-2009-
assigned to EPA stimulus project.MAP 2/18/2010 The following report was submitted by Progress
Environmental related to field work conducted as part of the ARRA program. In December 2009, Progress
conducted groundwater sampling at the site including the sampling of six monitoring wells (MW-1D, MW-3,
MW-5, MW-7, MW-8 and IW-1) and one public water -supply well located approximately 300 feet north of the
site. The groundwater samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using Standard Method
6200B and for volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) using the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MADEP) method. Laboratory analysis of the groundwater samples detected petroleum -related
compounds in monitoring well MW-8; however, the concentrations were below NC2LGWS. No targeted
compounds were detected from the water supply well. Based on the findings of the December 2009
groundwater sampling event and a review of previous UST excavation soil sampling results, Progress
recommended further soil assessment at the site using North Carolina risk -based analytical parameters in an
effort to close the site. Subsequently, the NCDENR contracted with Progress to conduct the additional risk -
based soil assessment activities at the site. The soil assessment consisted of collecting soil samples using a
Geoprobe®. The Geoprobe® consists of a hydraulic jack mounted on an ATV (All Terrain Vehicle). The
Geoprobe® is capable of driving various forms of groundwater and soil sampling probes into the ground to
depths equivalent of auger refusal. The Geoprobe® subcontractor used for this project was Subsurface
Environmental Investigations, Inc. (SEI). The field activities were performed on January 14, 2010 and observed
by a Progress professional. Soil Assessment Progress observed the drilling of six (6) soil borings at the site
using a Geoprobe® (Figure 3). Soil borings GP-1 and GP-3 were advanced in the vicinity of the two former
USTs and soil borings GP-2, GP- 4, GP-5 and GP-6 were advanced in the vicinity of the former northern,
eastern and southern UST excavation sidewalls that previously detected elevated concentrations. of total
petroleum hydrocarbons - gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO). Soil samples were collected continuously from
the ground surface to the termination depth of each boring. The soil samples were classified in the field and
screened for relative levels of volatile. organic vapors using a PID. Three soil samples were collected from each
boring for chemical analysis spaced at five foot intervals. The soil sampling intervals included 3 to 5 feet bgs, 8
to 10 feet bgs and 13 to 15 feet bgs. Evidence of the subsurface capillary fringe (moist soil) was noted i&each
soil boring at an approximate depth of 14.5 feet bgs. Upon completion, the borings were abandoned with
bentonite hole plug. The soil samples were submitted to Xenco to be analyzed'for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) using EPA Method 8260/5035, semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) using EPA Method 8270D
and volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) using the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) methods. Laboratory analysis of soil
samples GP-213, GP-5C, GP-6A, GP-613 and GP-6C detected concentrations of C9-C22 Aromatics that exceed
North Carolina risk -based Soil -to -Groundwater Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentrations (MSCCs);
however, the concentrations do not exceed North Carolina risk -based Residential or Commercial/Industrial
MSCCs. Laboratory analysis of soil sample GP-213 detected 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene at a concentration that
exceeds North Carolina risk -based Soil -to -Groundwater MSCC; however, the concentration does not exceed
North Carolina risk -based Residential or Commercial/Industrial MSCCs. 4. CONCLUSIONS Based on the
results of the assessment, Progress concludes the following: Six 15-foot deep soil borings (GP-1 through GP-6)
were advanced at the site. Two borings (GP-1 and GP-3) were advanced in the vicinity of the two former

petroleum USTs and four soil borings (GP-2, GP-4, GP-5 and GP-6) were advanced along former UST
excavation sidewalls that previously exhibited elevated concentrations of TPH. Three soil samples were
collected from each boring at five foot intervals (3 to 5 feet, 8 to 10 feet and 13 to 15 feet below the ground
surface). Laboratory analysis of soil samples GP-2B, GP-5C, GP-6A, GP-6B and GP-6C detected
concentrations of C9-C22 Aromatics that exceed North Carolina risk -based Soil -to -Groundwater Maximum
Soil Contaminant Concentrations (MSCCs); however, the concentrations do not exceed North Carolina risk -
based residential or Commercial/Industrial MSCCs. Laboratory analysis of soil sample GP-2B detected 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene at a concentration that exceeds North Carolina risk based Soil -to -Groundwater MSCC;
however, the concentration does not exceed North Carolina risk based residential or Commercial/Industrial
MSCCs. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS The site is currently ranked as high risk due to a public water -supply well
located approximately 300 feet north of the site. The previous Groundwater Monitoring Report prepared by
Progress (report dated December 29, 2009) did not identify petroleum -related constituents above North Carolina
2L Groundwater Quality Standards. Due to the high risk ranking of the site, Progress recommends that the soil,
impacted with petroleum constituents at concentrations that exceed North Carolina risk -based Soil to -
Groundwater MSCC, be excavated and disposed at an off -site permitted facility and that post excavation soil
samples be collected from the sidewalls and base of the excavation and analyzed using North Carolina risk -
based parameters. If laboratory analysis of the post -excavation soil samples are below the North Carolina risk -
based Soil -to -Groundwater MSCCs, the site should be re -ranked to low risk and closed. (CEE
2/18/2010) 3/16/2010 Monitoring and remedial wells were abandoned:' Progress observed. 5/4/2010 Received
the following report for soil excavation activities performed by Progress Environmental: FIELD ACTIVITIES
On March 24 and 25, 2010 Progress was on -site with Stewart's Grading and Hauling to excavate identified
contaminated soil in the vicinity of the former UST system. Progress excavated approximately317.25 tons of
contaminated soil. The contaminated soil was excavated using a track hoe and was loaded into awaiting dump
trucks. The soil was transported by Stewarts Grading and Hauling to GTA Farms, LLC in Red Springs, North
Carolina. The location of the proposed excavation limits was determined by the previous sampling activities.
The approximate limits of the excavation mere 15 feet by 40 feet by 16feet deep. The limits of the excavation
were defined by the fiber optic and phone lines running parallel with North Carolina Highway 71 to the south
and the residence to the north. Soil samples from each sidewall and the base (N-1, N-2, E-1, S-1, S-2, B-1 and
B-2, Figure 3) of the excavation were selected for analysis for the presence of volatile organic compounds using
EPA Method 8260/5035, for semi -volatile organic compounds using EPA Method 8270BNA, and for volatile
and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH & EPH) using the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection Methods (MADEP). Three disposal samples (Disp-1 through Disp-3) were collected and analyzed
for gasoline and diesel range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) using EPA Methods 8015/5035 and 3550,"
respectively. Laboratory analysis of each of the disposal samples detected gasoline and diesel range TPH above
the North Carolina Action Levels. The laboratory detected concentrations of targeted compounds above the
Residential Soil Cleanup Levels in soil sample S-1. Soil sample S-1 is located in close proximity to the existing
fiber optic line; therefore, additional excavation of contaminated soil in this area is not practical. The
concentrations detected in the remaining soil samples do not exceed the Soil -to -Groundwater MSCCs.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Progress observed and documented the excavation of 317.25
tons of accessible impacted soil from the site. The laboratory detected concentrations of targeted compounds
above the Residential Soil Cleanup Levels in soil sample S-1. Additional impacted soil could not be excavated
due to the proximity of the subsurface utilities. Based on the remaining concentrations in the soil, a Notice of
Residual Petroleum will likely be required for the site to be issued a Letter of No Further Action. Additionally,
the remaining impacted soil maybe in the North Carolina Department of Transportation right-of-way. 9/9/10 A
`site closure_ report,was received by Progress Environmental.. A notice "of residual petroleum was filed on July
12, 20l, and a letter of no further action was sent. The site is closed. CEE
From: Smith, Eric
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 2:41 PM

r
To: Ryals, Scott
Subject: McGirt Store Pollution Incident
Scott:
Do you have any information on a pollution incident from way back (early to mid 1990's) at the McGirt Store in Maxton,
NC. The old incident number is 12061. Let me know.
-Eric G. Smith
Eric G. Smith, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
Groundwater Protection Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 276994636
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/aps
DISCLAIMER: Per Executive Order No. 150, all a -mails sent to and from this account are subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4