15A NCAC 2L .0100 AND .0200 1993 AMENDMENT VOL. 2

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
September 7, 1993
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey t/:?
David Hance jfl?}--
Rule Review Commission (RRC) Objections to 15A NCAC 2L
.0100 and .0200.
On September 7, 1993, Mr. Joseph DeLuca of the Rules Review
Commission was contacted by David Hance concerning RRC objections
to the August 5, 1993 version of 1 SA NCAC 2L approved by the
Environmental Management Commission. Attached is a list of RRC
objections with the technical changes that have been forwarded to
the Groundwater Section. All proposed technical changes and
objections need to be incorporat~d into the rule or addressed by
September 14, 1993.
cc: Preston Howard
Carl Bailey
David Hance
Phil Telfer
15A NCAC 2L .0100 AND 0200
CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RULES REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF
SEPTEMBER 7, 1993
RULE CITATION: 15A NCAC 2L .0103 (b)(1)
O:J:3JECTION: The use of the term "economically and socially
justifiable" is ambiguous. The standard by which the Commission
will allow significant degradation needs to be more clearly
defined.
RULE CITATION: 15A NCAC 2L .0103 (b)(3)
OBJECTION: The use of the term "adverse
health, safety or welfare" is unclear. There is
as to what actions constitute an adverse impact
and welfare.
RULE CITATION: 15A NCAC 2L .0104 (d)
impact on public
no clear standard
to health, safety
OBJECTION: The phrase "as determined by the Director." is
highly objectionable. This paragraph does not specify the
circumstances, criteria, or standards that will be used to require
additional remedial actions or monitoring in the event contaminant
concentrations increase.
RULE CITATION: 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c)(6) and (7)
OBJECTION:
is unclear.
The phrase "serious hardship" in both subparagraphs
RULE CITATION: 15A NCAC 2L .0201 (3)(c)
OBJECTION: The phrase "case by case basis" does not include
clear standards for making case-by-case determinations.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NA
DEHNR
September 13, 1993
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
Portia Rochelle/{),
Arthur Mouberryw
Carl Bailey C-/3
SUBJECT: Groundwater Section Responses to Rules Review Commission
(RRC) Proposed Technical Changes and Objections to 15A
NCAC 2L .0100 and .0200.
Attached are the rules with changes as a result of review by
the Rules Review Commission Staff. All technical changes were
incorporated by the Division of Environmental Management. Other
changes in the rules were the result of objections raised by the
RRC. The Groundwater Staff has developed appropriate responses to
these concerns. If you need additional assistance, please contact
David Hance in the Groundwater Section Planning Branch at 733-3221
(ext. 428) .
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
David Hance
Phil Telfer
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh , North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
AGENDA
RULES REVIEW COMMISSION
September 17, 1993
10:00 a.m.
Methodist Building
1307 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina
(Assembly Room)
I . Orientation to Commission procedures by Commission
staff
II. Swearing in of Commission members
III. Election of Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman
IV. Remarks by Commission Chairman
V. Approval of minutes of last meeting
VI. Follow-up on rules from previous meetings
A. 1/39_ . 0101 and . 0301 -Administration -o -
(6/17/93)
B. 1 0/41R .0002 -DHR/Social Services Commission
- o -(7/15/93)
C. 15A/2H .1110 -DEHNR/Environmental Management - o -
(2/18/93)
D. 21/63 .0210 -NC Certification Board for Social
Workers - o -(8/20/93)
VII. Review of rules {Log Report #84)
VIII. Discussion of Existing Rules Review
IX. Commission staff report
X. Next meeting: October 21 or 22, 1993
GROUNDWATER
15A NCAC 2L
CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
AMENDMENTS: RULE .0102; .0103; .0104; .0106; .0107
.0108; .0109; .0110; .0111; .0112; .0113; .0201 AND .0202
ADOPTI:ON: RULE .0114
{APPROVAL DATE:
VOLUME ONE:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OCTOBER 1, 1993 (RULE .0103 EFFECTIVE
NOVEMBER 1, 1993)}
I. FINAL APPROVAL MATERIALS
A. Final Rule
B. Submission for Filing Forms
C. Rule approved by Rules Review Commission (RRC)
D. RRC Memoranda and Final Changes to Rules
E. RRC Objection to Rule .0103 and Response
II. HEARING OFFICERS MATERIALS
A. Summary· of Hearing Officers Recommendations to the
Environmental Management Commission
B. Rule presented to the Environmental Management
Commission
C. Douglas Boykin's letter
D. Staff Memorandum and other documents
III. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS
A. Submission for Notice Form
B. Rule presented at the hearings
C. Newspaper notices
VOLUME TWO:
IV. RULEMAKING SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
A. APA Form 101
-~. Summaries of Comment from Hearing Notice
C. Hearing list
D. Proceedings of Hearing Summary
V. CORRESPONDENCE
VI. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
VOLUME THREE:
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Written Comments
VOLUME FOUR:
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Written Comments (CONTINUED)
B. Timely Legislative Comment
C. Timely Letters to the EMC Chairman
VOLUME FIVE:
IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS
'A. Timely Letters to the EMC Chairman (CONTINUED)
B. Groundwater Section Staff Comments
c. Timely Response/Comment from Professional Practice
Boards (Geology and Engineering)
D. Responses of the Division of Epid~miology
E. Late Comments
T I T L E
S U B C H A P T E R
S E C T I O N S
1 5 A
2 L R E V I S I O N S
0 1 0 0 A N D O 2 0 0
DRAFT HEARING VERSION: February 10, 1993
RULE .0102 DEFINITIONS
RULE .0103 POLICY
RULE .0104 RESTRICTED DESIGNATION (RS)
RULE .0106 CORRECTIVE ACTION
RULE .0107 COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
RULE .0109 DELEGATION
RULE .0110 MONITORING
RULE .0111 REPORTS
RULE .0112 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
RULE .0113 VARIANCE
RULE . 0114 NOTIFICATION RE QUIREMENTS
RULE .0201 GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATIONS
RULE .0202 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(BOLD TYPE RULES ARE THOSE PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT; UNDERLINED RULE
IS A PROPOSED ADOPTION)
SUBCHAPTER 2L -GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
SECTION .0100 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
15A NCAC 2L .0102 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0102 DEFINITIONS
The definition of any word or phrase used in these rules shall
be the same as given in G.S. 143-212 and G.S. 143-213 except that
the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Bedrock" means any consolidated rock encountered in the
place in which it was formed or deposited and which cannot
be readily excavated without the use of explosives or
power equipment.
(2) "Commission" means the Environmental Management Commission
as organized under Chapter 143B of the General Statutes.
(3) "Compliance boundary" means a boundary around a disposal
system at and beyond which water g roundwater quality
standards may not be exceeded and only applies to
facilities which have received a permit issued under the
authorit y of G.S. 143-215.1 or Cha p ter 130A of the General
Statutes. 7 -er -€er -ais~esa± -systems -~ermittea -ey -the
Be~artmeRt-ef-HtlmaR-ResetlFees~
ill "Corrective action p lan" means a p lan for eliminating
sources of g roundwater contamination and achieving
g roundwater q uality restoration or both. A corrective
action p lan ma y p ro p ose remediation b y the de g radation and
natural attenuation of contaminants as well as b y
conventional or innovative technolog ies.
ill f4t "Director" means Director of the Division of
Environmental Management.
i.§.1 "Division" means the Division of Environmental Mana g ement.
ill "Ex p osure p athway " means a course taken b y a contaminant
b y wa y of a trans p ort medium after its release to the
environment.
ifil "Free p roduct" means a non-aq ueous p hase liq uid which ma y
collect on the water table , within the saturated zone or
in surface water.
ill f!:;-} "Fresh groundwaters" means those groundwaters having a
chloride concentration equal to or less than 250
milligrams per liter.
J.JJU. f6t "Groundwaters" means those waters in the saturated
zone of the earth .
..l1JJ.. -f+t "Hazardous substance" means any substance as defined
by Section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
l1.l.l "Licensed geologist" means a person who has been duly
licensed as a geologist in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 89E of the General Statutes .
..l1..Jl "Natural remedial processes" means those natural
processes acting to restore groundwater quality, including
dilution, filtration, sorption, ion-exchange, chemical
transformation and biodegradation.
J..ljJ_ "Practical Ouantitation Level" means the lowest
guantitation level of a given material that can be
reliably achieved among laboratories within the specified
limits of precision and accuracy of a given analytical
method during routine laboratory operating conditions.
f8-} ~bimie-ef-Beeeeeaailiey~-meaas-ehe-meeaea-aeteetiea-limit
eseaalishea -feF -the -u.s. -BPA -a~~Fevea -test -~Feeea8Fe
pFeviaiR~--ehe--lewese--methea--aeeeeeiea--limie--EeF--ehe
s8aseaaee-eeiag-meaieeFea •
.1.1..S.l f9-} --"Natural conditions" means the physical, biological,
chemical and radiological conditions which occur
naturally.
1...1fil f+Qt "Potable waters" means those waters suitable for
drinking, by humans.
iJ..1.l "Professional Engineer" means a person who has been duly
registered and licensed as a professional engineer in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 89C of the
General Statutes.
J..1.§1 "Receptor" means any groundwater, surface water, human,
or structure, other than a monitoring well, which is or
may be affected by a contaminant from a contaminated site.
1.1ll "Responsible party" means:
(a) a person who is wholly or part~ally responsible for
actions causing or contributing to the violation of
groundwater quality standards,
(b) a subsequent purchaser of property which is the source
of groundwater quality standard violations and who
purchased the property with knowledge of the
contamination, or
(c) an adjoining property owner who obstructs the
implementation of corrective action that would prevent
further contamination.
ilQl ft+-} "Review boundary" means a boundary around a permitted
disposal facility, midway between a waste boundary and a
compliance boundary at which groundwater monitoring is
required.
il1l f+iH "Saline groundwaters" means those groundwaters having
a chloride concentration of more than 250 mg/1.
J__g}_ f+3-} "Saturated zone" means that part of the subsurface
below the water table in which all the interconnected
voids are filled with water under pressure at or greater
than atmospheric. It does not include the capillary
fringe.
l1]__l f-l4-)-"Suitable for drinking" means a quality of water
which does not contain substances in concentrations which,
either singularly or in combination if ingested into the
human body, may cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, congenital defects, genetic mutations, or
resu!5 in an incremental lifetime cancer risk in excess of
1x10 , or render the water unacceptable due to aesthetic
qualities, including taste, odor or appearance.
ilil "Time of travel '1 means the time req uired for
contaminants in g roundwater to move a unit distance.
~ f-l5-)-"Waste boundary 1
' means the perimeter of the permitted
waste disposal area .
.il.§1 f-l6-)-"Water table" means the surface of the saturated zone··
below which all interconnected voids are filled with water
and at which the pressure is atmospheric.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-214.1;
143-215; 143B-282;
Eff. June 10, 1979.
Amended Eff. · August 1, 1989;
July 1, 1988; March 1, 1985; September 1, 1984.
15A NCAC 2L .0103 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0103 POLICY
(a) The rules established in this Subchapter are intended to
maintain and preserve the quality of the groundwaters, prevent and
abate pollution and contamination of the waters of the state,
protect public health, and permit management of the groundwaters
for their best usage by the citizens of North Carolina. It is the
policy of the Commission that the best usage of the groundwaters
of the state is as a source of drinking water. These groundwaters
generally are a potable source of drinking water without the
necessity of significant treatment. It is the intent of these
Rules to protect the overall high quality of North Carolina's
groundwaters aaEl-te -eab.aaee -aaEl -:reste:re -the -ql:la±:i:ty -e:1¥ -Ele~:raEleEl
fJFel:lRElwate:rs to the level established by the standards-.-and to
enhance and restore the quality of degraded groundwaters where
feasible and necessary to protect human heal th and the
environment, or to ensure their suitability as a future source of
drinking water.
(b) It is the intention of the Commission to protect all
groundwaters to a level of quality at least as high as that
required under the standards established in Rule . 0202 of this
Subchapter. In keeping with the policy of the Commission to
protect, maintain, and enhance groundwater quality within the
State of North Carolina, the Commission will not approve any
disposal system subject to the provisions of G.S. 143~215.1 which
would result in:
(1) the significant degradation of groundwaters of
the existing quality is better than the
standard, unless found to be economically and
justifiable, or
which
assigned
socially
(2) a violation of a water groundwater quality standard
beyond ERe -ael:lRS.aFies -e€ -ttle -fffe~eFty -eR -wl=lieh -the
seH:ree--e€--~elll:leieR--is--leeateEl7 --eF a designated
compliance boundary, or
(3) the impairment of existing groundwater uses or an
adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare.
(c) Violations of groundwater quality standards resulting from
groundwater withdrawals which are in compliance with water use
permits issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.15, shall not be subject
to the corrective action requirements of Rule .0106 of this
Subchapter.
( d) No person shall conduct or cause to be conducted, any
activity which causes the concentration of any substance to exceed
that specified in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter, except as
authorized by the rules of this Subchapter.
( e) Work performed pursuant to the rules of this Subchapter
which involves site assessment, the interpretation of subsurface
geologic conditions, preparation of conceptual corrective action
plans or any work requiring detailed technical knowledge of site
conditions which is submitted to the Director, shall be performed
b y p ersons , firms or p rofessional cor p orations who are dul y
licensed to offer g eolog ical or eng ineering services b y the
a ppro p riate occup ational licensing board. Work which involves
desi g n of remedial s y stems or s p ecialized construction techni q ues
shall be p erformed b y p ersons , firms or p rofessional corp orations
who are dul y licensed to offer eng ineering services. Corp orations
that are authorized b y law to p erform eng ineering or g eolog ical
services and are exemp t from the Professional Cor p oration Act ,
Chap ter SSB of the General Statues , ma y p erform these services.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.2;
143-215.3(e); 143-215.3(a)(1); 143B-282;
Eff. June 10, 1979;
Amended Eff. · August 1, 1989; July 1,
1988; September 1, 1984; December 30, 1983.
15A NCAC 2L .0104 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0104 RS RESTRICTED DESIGNATION .i.R.Sl
(a) The Director is authorized to designate GA or GSA
groundwaters as RS under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where, as a result of man's activities, groundwaters
contain concentrations of substances in excess of the
groundwater quality standards established under this
Subchapter, and Femeaia± termination of corrective
action to restore groundwater quality has been
FeEJH:i:Feeh -er a pproved b y the Director , or where the
Director has a pproved a corrective action p lan , or
alternate cleanup levels , rel y ing solel y or in p art
u p on natural remedial p rocesses and , in either case ,
the g roundwaters can be made p otable b y using readil y
available and economically reasonable technology .
(2) Where a statutory variance has been granted as provided
in Rule .0113 of this Subchapter.
(3 ) Where the area im p acted is served b y a p ublic water
s y stem.
(b ) Groundwaters occurring within an area defined b y a
com p liance boundary in a waste dis p osal p ermit are deemed to be
desi g nated RS.
l£.lfe+ The RS designation serves as a warning that groundwater
so designated may not be suitable for use as a drinking water
supply without si g nificant treatment. The boundaries of areas
designated RS may be approximated in the absence of analytical
data sufficient to define the eKteRt-ef-~FeHRawateF-ee~Faaat:i:eaT
dimension of the area , at ri g ht ang les to the direction of
g roundwater ·-flow , into which the contaminants have the p otential
to mi g rate. The designation is temporary and will be removed by
the Director upon a determination that the quality of the
groundwater so designated has been restored to the level of the
applicable standards or when reclassified~GGT
(d ) The p erson res p onsible for g roundwater contamination
leading to the RS desi g nation shall establish and im p lement a
g roundwater moni taring s y stem sufficient to detect chang es in
g roundwater q uality within the desi g nated area. Monitoring shall
be continued p eriodicall y until the a pp licable g roundwater q ualit y
standards have been achieved. If during the moni taring period ,
contaminant concentrations increase , additional remedial action
ma y be req uired , as determined b y the Director.
(e ) The Division shall g ive p ublic notice in accordance with
the followin g req uirements of the intent to desi g nate any
g roundwater RS exce p t those defined in Parag rap h (b l of this Rule:
(1 ) Notice shall be p ublished one time in a news p a p er
having g eneral circulation in the g eog ra p hic area of
the RS desi g nation at least 30 day s p rior to an y
p ro p osed final action. In addition , notice shall be
p rovided to the local Count y Heal th Director and the
chief administrative officer of the political
jurisdiction in which the contamination occurs.
(2) The notice shall set forth at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of the agency
issuing the public notice;
(B) the location and extent of the designated area
(C) a brief description of the action or actions
which resulted in the degradation of groundwater
in the area;
{D) actions or intended actions taken to restore
groundwater quality;
(E) the significance of the RS designation;
(F) conditions applicable to removal of the RS
designation;
(G) address and phone number of the state agency
premises at which interested parties may obtain
further information.
(3) The Director shall consider all requests for a public
hearing, and if he determines that there is significant
public interest he shall issue public notice and hold a
public hearing in accordance with G.S 143-215.4(b) and
.0113(e) of this Rule.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-214.1;
143-215.3(a) (1); 143B-282(2);
Eff. June 10, 1979;
Amended Eff. ------~ December 1, 1989;
August 1, 1989; December 30, 1983.
15A NCAC 2L .0106 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0106 CORRECTIVE ACTION
(a) ~he-~eal-ef-aetieRs-takeR-te-FesteFe-~Fe1::1RawateF-~1::1ality
shall-ee-FesteFatieR-te-the-level-ef-the-staReaFas,-eF-as-elese
theFete -as -is -eeeReJRieally -aae -teehaele~ieally -feasible. Where
g roundwater q uality has been de g raded , the g oal of any req uired
corrective action shall be restoration to the level of the
g roundwater g uali t y standards s p ecified in Rule . 0202 of this
Subchap ter , or as closel y thereto as is economicall y and
technolog ically feasible.
( b) Any person conducting or controlling an activity which
results in the discharge of a waste or hazardous substance or oil
to the groundwaters of the State, or in proximity thereto, shall
take immediate action to terminate and control the discharge,
mitigate any hazards resulting from exposure to the pollutants and
notify the BepaFtJReRt Division of the discharge.
( c) Any person conducting or controlling an activity which
results in an increase in the concentration of a substance in
excess of the groundwater standard:
(1) as the result of activities, other than agricultural
operations, not permitted by the $§.tate, shall
immediatel y notif y the Division of the increases ; take
p rom p t action to eliminate · the source or sources of
contamination ; submit a re p ort to the Director
assessing the cause, significance and extent of the
violation; and s1::1aJRit --a im p lement an a pproved
corrective action plan aRa-sehea1::1le-feF-elimiaatia~-the
se1::1Fee --ef --eeatamiaatieR --aae. for restoration of
groundwater qualityt aaa-im~lemeat-aa-a~pFevea-~laR in
accordance with a schedule established by the Director,
or his desi g nee. In establishing a schedule the
Director, or his desi q nee shall consider any reasonable
schedule proposed by the person submitting the plan. ~
rep ort shall be made to . the Heal th Director of the
count y or counties in which the contamination occurs in
accordance with the req uirements of Rule .0114 (a ) in
this Subcha p ter.
(2) as a result of activities conducted under the authority
of a perrni t issued by the $§.tate, shall, where such
concentrations are detected:
(A) at or beyond a review boundary, demonstrate,
through predictive calculations or modeling, that
natural site conditions, facility design and
operational controls will prevent a violation of
standards at the compliance boundary; or submit a
plan for alteration of existing site conditions,
facility design or operational controls that will
prevent a violation at the compliance boundary,
and implement that plan upon its approval by the
Director, or his desi g nee.
(B) at or beyond a compliance boundary, shall assess
the cause, significance and extent of the
violation of groundwater quality standards and
submit the results of the investigation, a plan,
and proposed schedule for ~FeaRawateF--~aa±¼ty
FesteFat¼eR corrective action to the Director~
his desi g nee. The permi ttee shall implement the
plan as approved by and in accordance with a
schedule established by the Director , or his
desi a nee. In establishing a schedule the DirectorL
or his desi g nee shall _consider any reasonable
schedule proposed by the permittee.
(d ) Corrective action req uired followin g discovery of the
unauthorized release of a contaminant to the surface or subsurface
of the land , and p rior to or concurrent with the assessment
req uired in Parag rap h (c ) of this Rule , shall include , but is not
limited to:
of
( 1 ) Prevention of fire , exp losion or the s p read of noxious
fumes ;
(2 ) Abatement , containment or control of the mi g ration of
contaminants ;
(3 ) Removal , or treatment and control of an y p rimar y
p ollution source such as buried waste , waste stockp iles
or surficial accumulations of free p roducts ;
(4 ) Removal , treatment or control of secondar y p ollution
sources which would be a p otential conti nuing source of
p ollutants to the g roundwaters such as contaminated
soils and non-aq ueous p hase liq uids. Contaminated
soils which threaten the q ualit y of g roundwaters must
be treated , contained or dis p osed of in accordance with
a pplicable rules and p rocedures established b y the
Di vision. The treatment or dis p osal of contaminated
soils shall be conducted in a manner that will not
result in a violation of g roundwater q ualit y standards
and North Carolina Hazardous Waste Manag ement rules.
(e ) The site assessment conducted p ursuant to the req uirements
Subp arag ra p h (c )(1 ) of this Rule , shall consider or address:
(1 ) The source and cause of contamination ;
(2 ) An y imminent hazards to p ublic health and safet y and
actions taken to miti g ate them in accordance with
Parag rap h (d ) of this Rule.
(3 ) All g roundwater rece p tors and si g nificant ex p osure
pathways;
(4 ) The horizontal and vertical extent of soil and
g roundwater contamination and all si g nificant factors
affecting contaminant trans p ort ;
(5 ) Geolog ical and h y drog eolog ical features influencing the
movement , chemical , and p h y sical character of the
contaminants.
Re p orts of site assessments shall be submitted to the Division
as soon as p racticable or in accordance with a schedule
established b y the Director , or his desi g nee. In establishing a
schedule the Director , or his desi g nee shall consider an y
reasonable p rop osal b y the p erson submitting the re p ort.
1.tl Corrective action p lans for restoration of g roundwater
q uality, submitted p ursuant to Parag ra ph (c ) of this rule shall
include:
( 1 ) A descri p tion of the p rop osed corrective action and
reasons for its selection.
(2 ) S p ecific p lans, including eng ineering details where
a pp licable , for restoring g roundwater q uality .
(3 ) A schedule for the imp lementation and o p eration of the
p roposed p lan.
(4 ) A monitoring p lan for determining the effectiveness
of the p ro p osed corrective action and the movement of
the contaminant p lume .
..(_glfat In the evaluation of correctiveFemea:i:a± action plans,
the Director , or his desi g nee shall consider the extent of any
violations, the extent of any threat to human health or safety,
the extent of damage or p otential adverse imp act to the
environment, technology available to accomplish restoration.i_ aRa
the p otential for de g radation of the contaminants in the
environment , the time and costs estimated to achieve g roundwater
g uali t y restoration , aRa the public and economic benefits to be
derived from groundwater quality restoration. and the p robable
conseq uences of alternate actions.
(h ) A corrective action p lan must be imp lemented using the best
available technology for restoration of g roundwater q uality to the
level of the g roundwater q ualit y standards s p ecified in Rule .0202
of this Subchap ter unless:
(1 ) an alternate cleanup level has been established b y
the Director p ursuant to Parag rap h ( i l of this Rule ,
or,
(2 ) natural remediation has been a pproved b y the Director
in accordance with the p rovisions of Parag rap h (k ) of
this Rule.
( i ) An alternate cleanup level to a standard established in
Rule .0202 of this Subchap ter ma y be a pproved b y the Director if
sufficient information is p resented to su pport a determination b y
the Director that:
(1 ) an alternate cleanup level will be p rotective of
human health and the environment based on evidence that
the contaminant will not adversel y im p act an y existing
or foreseeable rece p tor , either due to site s p ecific
conditions or an a pp roved remedial action involving
eng ineering control of the contaminant ; such evidence
could include , but is not limited to:
(A ) travel time and natural attenuation ca p acit y of
subsurface materials are such that the standards
s p ecified in Rule . 0202 of this Subcha p ter at a
( 2 )
( j) A
submitted
( 1 )
( 2 )
( 3 )
( 4 )
location no closer than one y ear time of travel
u pg radient of an existing or foreseeable rece p tor
are p rotected.
(B ) a p h y sical barrier to g roundwater mi g ration exists
or will be installed b y the res p onsible p art y
sufficient to result in p reservation of the
g roundwater standard s p ecified in Rule . 0202 of
this Subcha p ter at a location no closer than one
y ear time of travel u pg radient of an existing or
foreseeable rece p tor or ,
new toxicolog ical information has become available
which the Division of Ep idemiology determines would
j ustif y cleanu p to a standard different from those
s p ecified in Rule .0202 of this Subchap ter.
req uest for an alternate cleanup level shall be
to the Director and shall include:
a descri p tion of site s p ecific conditions ;
the technical basis for the req uest;
a discussion of and rationale for the req uest ;
sufficient evidence to support a determination b y the
Director that an alternate cleanup level would be
consistent with all other environmental laws ;
(5 ) an y other information re q uested b y the Director to
thoroug hl y evaluate the req uest ; and
(6 ) evidence that p ublic notice of the req uest has been
p rovided in accordance with Rule .0114 (b ) of this
Subcha p ter.
( k ) The Director ma y be req uested to a pprove a corrective
action p lan de p endent u p on natural p rocesses of deg radation and
attenuation of contaminants. Evidence and other information
submitted in su pport of the req uest shall include:
(1 ) sufficient evidence to su pport a determination b y the
Director that:
(A ) all sources of contamination and free p roduct have
been removed or controlled p ursuant to Parag ra p h
(d ) of this Rule ; and
(B ) The contaminants p resent exist in concentrations
that do not currentl y and are not calculated to
mi g rate to an y existing or foreseeable rece p tor
above a pplicable standards ;
(2 ) evidence of the contaminant's de g radation and
attenuation ca p acit y;
(3 ) identification and discussion of site-s p ecific
characteristics indicating that conditions are adeq uate
to su pport contaminant de g radation or attenuation ;
(4 ) a g roundwater monitoring p rog ram sufficient to track
the de g radation and attenuation of contaminants within
and down g radient of the p lume and to detect
contaminants p rior to their reaching an y existing or
foreseeable rece p tor at least one y ear's time of travel
u pg radient of the rece p tor and no g reater than the
distance the g roundwater at the contaminated site could
travel in five years.
(5) written documentation of p ro j ected g roundwater use in
the contaminated area based on current state or local
government planning efforts;
(6) copies of written notice, to all property owners and
all occupants within or contiguous to the area
underlain by the pollution plume, and under which it is
expected to migrate, stating that fact;
(7) evidence that all necessary access agreements needed to
monitor groundwater quality pursuant to (4) above have
been or can be obtained; and
(8) evidence that public notice of the request has been
provided in accordance with Rule .0114(b) of this
Subchapter.
If at any time the Director determines that a contaminant,
being monitored under a natural remediation program, has the
potential to migrate to any existing or foreseeable receptor above
applicable groundwater standards, or if contaminant concentrations
are not decreasing, the responsible party shall implement an
active groundwater corrective action plan in accordance with a
schedule established by the Director.
(1) The Director may consider a request to allow the termination
of corrective action. The request must include:
(1) A demonstration by the party making the request that
continuance of corrective action would not · result in a
significant reduction in the concentration of
contaminants. At a minimum this demonstration must
include a showing that the asymptotic slope of the
contaminants curve of decontamination is less-than a
ratio of 1 :40 over a term of one year based on
quarterly sampling.
(2) A discussion of the duration of the corrective action,
the total project's cost, projected annual cost for
continuance and evaluation of the success of the
corrective action.
(3) An evaluation of alternate treatment technologies
which could result in further reduction of contaminant
levels with projected capital and annual cost.
(4) Effects, including health and safety impacts, on
groundwater users if contaminant levels remain at
levels existing at the time corrective action is
terminated.
(5) Evidence that public notice of the request has been
provided in accordance with Rule .0114(b) of this
Subchapter.
fet The Director may authorize the-aiseeRtiRuaRee-ef-Femeaia±
aetiea-te-FesteFe-gFeuRawateF-~uality-te-the-level-ef-the-staaaaFa
u~eR-a-eemeastFatieR-By-the-Fes~eRsiale-~aFty-te-the-9iFeeteF-that
eeREinuaRee -weule -Rat -Fesu±t -iH -sigHiEieaRt -Feeuetien -iR -the
eeReentFatieR-eE-eeRtamiHaRts.--IH-the-eeRsieeFatieH-ef-a-Fe~uest
te-aiseeRtiRue-Femeaia±-aetieRs,-tRe-BiFeeteF-sha±±-eeRsiaeF-tne
aHFat:ieR --aRa --aeEJFee --ef --s1:::1.eeess --ef --Femeaia± --efferts, --the
feas:iaility -a€ -ether -tFeatmeRt -teehRiEI1:::1.es -wnien -eet1±a -Fesu±t -iR
fHFtheF--FeauetieR--ef--eeRtamiRaRt --leve±s 7 --aRa--the--effeet--eR
greHRawateF-HSers-if-eeRtamiRaRts-Femaia-at-levels-existiRg-at-tne
time -ef -teFmiRatieR -ef -Femee.ial -aetieR. the · termination of the
corrective action , or amend the corrective action p lan after
considering all the information in the req uest. Up on termination
of corrective action , a g roundwater monitoring p rog ram shall be
req uired sufficient to track the de g radation and attenuation of
contaminants at a location of at least one y ear's time of travel
u pgradient of an y existing or foreseeable rece p tor. The monitoring
p rog ram shall remain in effect until there is sufficient evidence
that the contaminant concentrations have been reduced to the level
of the standards.
iml_fft Upon a determination by the Director that continued
remedial corrective aetieRs action would result in no significant
reduction in contaminant concentrations, tne -Fes~eRsiale -~aFty
shall -~etitieR -feF -a -variaRee -eF -a -Feelassi:eieatiea -ef -the
im~aetea-gFeHRawateFs. and the im p acted g roundwaters can be made
p otable b y treatment using readil y available and economicall y
reasonable technology, the Director ma y desi g nate the remaining
area of deg raded g roundwater RS. Where the remaining deg raded
g roundwaters cannot be made p otable b y such treatment , the
Director ma y consider a re q uest for reclassification.
(n ) If at an y time the Director determines that new technology
is available that would rernediate the contaminated g roundwater to
the standards s p ecified in Rule . 0202 , the Director ma y req uire
the res p onsible p art y to im p lement an active g roundwater
corrective action p lan in accordance with a schedule established
b y the Director.
12.l fgt Where groundwater quality standards are exceeded as a
result of the application of pesticides or other agricultural
chemicals, the Director shall request the Pesticide Board or the
Department of Agriculture to assist the Division of Environmental
Management in determining the cause of the violation. If the
violation is determined to have resulted from the use of
pesticides, the Director shall request the Pesticide Board to take
appropriate regulatory action to control the use of the chemical
or chemicals responsible for, or contributing to, such violations,
or to discontinue their use.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143 -215.2 ;
143-215.3(a) (1); 143B-282;
Eff. August 1, 1989 .
Amended Eff . · September 1, 1992
15A NCAC 2L .0107 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0107 COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
(a) For disposal systems individuall y permitted prior to
December 30, 1983, the compliance boundary is established at a
horizontal distance of 500 feet from the waste boundary or at the
property boundary, whichever is closer to the source.
(b) For disposal systems individuall y permitted on or after
December 30, 1983, a compliance boundary shall be established 250
feet from the waste boundary, or 50 feet ·within the property
boundary, whichever point is closer to the source.
(c) The boundary shall be established by the Director , or his
desi g nee at the time of permit issuance. Any sale or transfer of
property which affects a compliance boundary shall be reported
immediately to the Director , or his desi g nee. For disposal
systems which are not governed by Paragraphs (e) or (f) of this
Rule, the compliance boundary affected by the sale or transfer of
property will be re-established consistent with Paragraphs (a) or
(b) of this Rule, whichever is applicable.
( d) Exce p t as p rovided in Parag rap h ( g) of this Rule , FeF
aispesa±-systems-peFmittea-eF-FepeFmittee-after-JaRHaFy-+7 -+993 7
no water supply wells shall be constructed or operated within the
compliance boundary. of a dis p osal s y stem individuall y p ermitted
or rep ermitted after January 1 , 1993.
( e) Exce p t as p rovided in Parag ra p h ( g l of this Rule , FeF
aispesa±-systems-peFmittea-eF-FepeFmittea-afteF-JaaHaFy-+7 -+993 7 a
permittee shall not transfer land within ~n established compliance
boundary of a dis p osal s y stem p ermitted or re p ermitted after
January 1 , 1993 unless:
(1) the land transferred is serviced by a community· water
system as defined in 15A NCAC 18C, the source of which
is located outside the compliance boundary; and
(2) the deed transferring the property:
(A) contains notice of the permit, including the
permit number, a description of the type of
permit, and the name, address and telephone number
of the permitting agency; and
(B) contains a restrictive covenant running with the
land and in favor of the permittee and the State,
as a third party beneficiary, which prohibits the
construction and operation of water supply wells
within the compliance boundary; and
(C) contains a restrictive covenant running with the
land and in favor of the permittee and the State,
as a third party beneficiary, which grants the
right to the permittee and the State to enter on
such property within the compliance boundary for
groundwater monitoring and remediation purposes.
(f) If at the time a permit is issued or reissued after
January 1, 1993, the permittee is not owner of the land within the
compliance boundary, it shall be a condition of the permit issued
or renewed that the landowner of the land within the compliance
boundary, if other than the permittee, and exce p t as p rovided in
Parag rap h (g) of this Rule , execute and file in the Register of
Deeds in the county in which the land is located, an easement
running with the land which:
(1) contains:
(A) either a notice of the permit, including the
permit number, a description of the type of
permit, and the name, address and telephone number
of the permitting agency; or
(B) a reference to a notice of the permit with
book and page number of its recordation if such
notice is required to be filed by statute;
(2) prohibits the construction and operation of water
supply wells within the compliance boundary; and
(3) reserves the right to the permittee and the State to
enter on such property within the compliance boundary
for groundwater monitoring and remediation purposes.
The easement ma y be terminated b y the Director when
its p urp ose has been fulfilled or the need for the
easement no long er exists. Under those conditions the
Director , at the req uest of the landowner , ma y file
with the a ppro p riate Re g ister of Deeds , a document
terminating the easement.
(g) The req uirements of Parag rap hs (d ), (e ) and (f l of this
Rule are not a pp licable to g round adsor p tion treatment s y stems
serving four or fewer sing le famil y dwelling s or multiunit
dwelling s of four or fewer units.
Jhlf~+ The boundary shall form a vertical plane extending from
the water table to the maximum depth of saturation.
_{jj_fh+ For ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal
systems which are permitted under 15A NCAC 18A .1900, the
compliance boundary shall be established at the property boundary.
illfi+ Penalties authorized pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A(a)(1)
will not be assessed for violations of water g roundwater quality
standards within a compliance boundary unless the violations are
the result of violations of permit conditions or negligence in the
management of the facility.
lklf1+ The Director shall require:
(1) that permits for all activities governed by G.S.
143-215.1 be written to protect the quality of
groundwater established by applicable standards, at the
compliance boundary;
(2) that necessary groundwater quality monitoring shall be
conducted within the compliance boundary; and
(3) that a violation of standards within the compliance
boundary resulting from activities conducted by the
permitted facility be remedied through clean-up,
recovery, containment, or other response whefl any of
the following conditions occur:
or can be
considering
or other
(A) a violation of any standard in adjoining
classified wateFs g roundwaters occurs
reasonably predicted to occur
hydrogeologic conditions, modeling,
available evidence;
(B) an imminent hazard or threat to the public health
or safety exists; or
(C) a violation of any standard in groundwater
occurring in the bedrock other than limestones
found in the Coastal Plain sediments., unless it
can be demonstrated that the violation will not
adversel y im p act, or have the p otential to
adversel y im p act a water su ppl y well.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.1 (b);
143-215.3(a)(1); 143B-282;
Eff. August 1, 1989.;
Amended Eff. · November 2, 1992
15A NCAC 2L .0109 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0109 DELEGATION
(a) The Director is delegated the authority to enter into
consent special orders under G.S. 143-215.2 for violations of the
waeeF roundwater quality standards except when a public meeting
is required as provided in 15A NCAC 2H .1203.
(b) The Director is delegated the authority to prepare a
proposed special order to be issued by the Commission without the
consent of the person affected and to notify the affected person
of that proposed order and of the procedure set out in G. S.
150B-23 to contest the proposed special order.
(c) The Director , or his desi g nee shall give public notice of
proposed consent special orders as specified in 15A NCAC 2H .1203 .
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.2;
143-215.3(a)(1 ); 143-215.3(a)(4);
Eff. August 1, 1989;
Amended Eff. · October 1, 1990.
15A NCAC 2L .0110 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0110 MONITORING
(a) ARY -~eFsea -s\:la3eet -te -Ui.e -~FevisieRs -eE -G.S. -+43-~+5.+
Exce p t where exemp ted b y statute or this Subchap ter , an y p erson
who causes, permits or has control over any discharge of waste, or
g roundwater cleanu p p rog ram , shall install and im p lement a
monitoring system, at such locations, and in such detail, as the
Director, or his desi g nee may require to evaluate the effects of
the discharge upon the waters of the state, including the effect
of any actions taken to restore groundwater quality, as well as
the efficiency of any treatment facility. The monitoring p lan
shall .be p re p ared under the res p onsible charg e of a Professional
Eng ineer or Licensed Geolog ist and bear the seal of the same.
( b) Mani taring systems shall be e~eFae.ee. constructed in a
manner that will not result in the contamination of adjacent
groundwaters of a higher quality.
( c) Mani taring shall be conducted and results reported in a
manner and at a frequency specified by the Director , or his
desi g nee.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.l(b);
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.65; 143-215.66;
143B-282;
Eff. August 1, 1989.
Amended Eff.
15A NCAC 2L .0111 is proposed for amendment as follows :
.0111 REPORTS
1fil Any person subject te-the-~revisieRs-e€-G.S.-+43-2+5.+-aRa
to the requirements for corrective action specified in Rule .0106
of this Subchapter shall submit to the Director, in such detail as
the Director may require, a written report that describes:
(1) the results of the investigation specified in
Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(B) of Rule .0106,
including but not limited to:
~fa+ a description of the sampling procedures
followed and methods of chemical analyses
used; and
J..!ilfa+ all technical data utilized in support of any
conclusions drawn or determinations made.
(2) the results of the predictive calculations or modeling,
including a copy of the calculations or model runs and
all supporting technical data, used in the
demonstration required in Paragraph (c)(2)(A) of Rule
.0106; and
(3) the proposed methodology and timetable associated with
the resteratieR-eE-~FeHRawater-~Ha±itycorrective action
for those situations identified in Paragraphs ( c) ( 1)
and (c)(2)(B) of Rule .0106.
(b ) The re p ort shall be p re p ared under the res p onsible charg e
of a Professional Eng ineer or Licensed Geolog ist and bear the seal
of the same as s p ecified in Rule .0106 (c )(2 )(B ).
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.1 (b);
143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.65; 143B-282;
Eff. August 1, 1989.
Amended Eff.
15A NCAC 2L .0112 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0112 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Tests or analytical procedures to determine compliance or
noncompliance with the waEeF g roundwater quality standards
established in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter will be in accordance
with:
( 1 )
( 2)
The following methods or procedures for substances where
the selected method or procedure provides a method
detection limit value at or less than the standard:
(a) Standard methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, l6th 17th Edition, l985 1989,
including any subseq uent amendments and editions
published jointly by American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association
and Water Pollution Control Federation;
(b) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste, 1979,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication number
EPA-600/4-79-020, as revised March 1983;
(c) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes:
Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd Edition, 1986, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency publication number
SW-846;
(d) Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under
the Clean water Act, Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 209,
40 CFR Part 136, October 26, 1984;
(e) Methods or procedures approved by letter from the
Director upon application by the regulated source.
A method or procedure approved by the Director for
substances where the standard is less than the ±:i:m:i:t -ef
deteetaail:i:ty p ractical q uantitation level.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143B-282;
Eff. August 1, 1989
Amended Eff.
15A NCAC 2L .0113 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0113 VARIANCE
-·
(a) The Commission, on its own initiative or pursuant to a
request under G.S. 143-215.3(e), may grant variances to wateF
qtlality-seaaaaFas-aae-the-eemf_:lliaaee-setlaeaFy-,-the rules of this
Subcha p ter. PeFseas -sHs3eet -te -the -f_:!Fevisieas -ef -G-,-S-,--+:3GA-294
may-a~~ly-feF-a-vaFiaaee-HReeF-this-SeetieR-;-
(b) Requests for variances are filed by letter from the
applicant to the Environmental Management Commission. The
application should be mailed to the chairman of the Commission in
care of the Director, Division of Environmental Management, Post
Office Box 2+68+7 29535 Raleigh, N.C. ~+6++ 27626-0535.
(c) The application should contain the following information:
(1) Applications filed by counties or municipalities must
include a resolution of the County Board of
Commissioners or the governing board of the
municipality requesting the variance from water
g roundwater quality standards which apply to the area
for which the variance is requested.
(2) A description of the past, existing or proposed
activities or operations that have or would result in a
discharge of contaminants to the groundwaters.
(3) Description of the proposed area for which a variance
is requested. A detailed location map, showing the
orientation of the facility, potential for groundwater
contaminant migration, as well as the area covered by
the variance request, with reference to at least two
geographic references (numbered roads, named
streams/rivers, etc.) must be included.
(4) Supporting information to establish that the variance
will not endanger the public health and safety,
including health and environmental effects from
exposure to the groundwater contaminants. (Location of
wells and other water supply sources including details
of well construction within 1 /2 mile of site must be
shown on a map) .
(5) Supporting information to establish that standards
cannot be achieved by providing the best available
technology economically reasonable. This information
must identify specific technology considered, changes
in quality of the contaminant plume as demonstrated
through predictive calculations a~f:!Fevee --sy --the
BiFeeteF, and technological constraints which limit
g roundwater g uali t y restoration to the level of the
standard.
(6) Supporting information to establish that compliance
... .
would produce serious hardship on the applicant.
(7) Supporting information that compliance would produce
serious hardship without equal or greater public
benefit.
(8) A copy of any Special Order that was issued in
connection with the contaminants in the proposed area
and supporting information that applicant has complied
with the Special Order.
(9) A list of the names and addresses of any property
owners within the proposed area of the variance as well
as any property owners adjacent to the site covered by
the variance.
(d) Upon receipt of the application, the Director will review
it for completeness and request additional information if
necessary. When the application is complete, the Director shall
give public notice of the application and schedule the matter for
a public hearing in accordance with G.S. 143-215.4(b) and the
procedures set out ae±ew in Parag ra p h (e ) of this Rule.
(e) Notice of Public Hearing.
(1) Notice of public hearing on any variance application
shall be circulated in the geographical areas of the
proposed variance by the Director at least 30 days
prior to the date of the hearing:
(A) by publishing the notice one time in a newspaper
having general circulation in said county;
(B) by mailing to the North Carolina Department of HHmaR
Environment , Health , and Natural Resources,
Division of Hea±eh-Serviees 7 Environmental Health
and appropriate local health agency;
(C) by mailing to any other federal, state or local
agency upon request;
(D) by mailing to the local governmental unit or units
having jurisdiction over the geographic area
covered by the variance;
(E) by mailing to any property owner
proposed area of the variance,
property owners adjacent to the
the variance; and
within the
as well as any
site covered by
(F) by mailing to any person or group upon request.
(2) The contents of public notice of any hearing shall
include at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of agency holding
the public hearing;
(B) name and address of each applicant whose
application will be considered at the meeting;
(C) brief summary of the proposed standard
variance or modification of the perimeter of
compliance being requested;
(D) geographic description of a proposed area for
which a variance is requested;
(E) brief description of the activities or operations
. ., .-
which have or will result in the discharge of
contaminants to the groundwaters described in the
variance application;
(F) a brief reference to the public notice issued for
each variance application;
(G) information regarding the time and location for
the hearing;
(H) the purpose of the hearing;
(I) address and phone number of premises at which
interested persons may obtain further information,
request a copy of each application, and inspect
and copy forms and related documents; and
(J) a brief description of the nature of the hearing
including the rules and procedures to be followed.
The notice shall also state that additional
information is on file with the Director and may
be inspected at any time during normal working
hours. Copies of the information on file will be
made available upon request and payment of cost or
reproduction.
(f) All comments received within 30 days following the date of
the public hearing shall be made part of the application file and
shall be considered by the Commission prior to taking final action
on the application.
(g) In determining whether to grant a variance, the Commission
shall consider whether the applicant has complied with any Special
Order, or Special Order by Consent issued under G.S. 143-215.2.
(h) If the Commission I s final decision is unacceptable, the
applicant may file a petition for a contested case in accordance
with Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. If the petition is not
filed within 60 days, the decision on the variance shall be final
and binding.
(i) A variance shall not operate on a defense to an action at
law based upon a public or private nuisance theory or any other
cause of action.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1);
143-215.3(a)(3); 143-215.3(a)(4); 143-215.3(e);
143-215.4;
Eff. August 1, 1989.
Amended Eff.
15A NCAC 2L .0114 is proposed for adoption as follows:
.0114 NOTIFICATION RE QUIREMENTS
(a ) An y p erson sub j ect to the req uirements of Rule .0106 (c )(1 )
of this Subcha p ter shall submit to the Heal th Director of the
count y or counties , and the chief administrative officer of the
p olitical j urisdiction in which the g roundwater contamination has
occurred , a re p ort that describes:
(1 ) The area extent of the contaminant p lume ;
(2 ) The chemical constituents in the g roundwater which
exceed the standards described in Rule . 0202 of this
Subchap ter ;
(3 ) Actions taken and intended to miti g ate threats to human
health ;
(4 ) The location of an y wells installed for the p ur p ose of
monitoring the contaminant p lume and the fre q uenc y of
sampling.
The rep ort described in this Rule shall be submitted no later
than five day s after submittal of the com p leted re p ort assessing
the cause , sig nificance and extent of the violation as req uired b y
Rule .0106 (c ).
(b ) An y p erson req uesting from the Director an alternate
cleanup level , a pproval of a natural remediation p rog ram or
p ermission to terminate active g roundwater remediation shall
notif y the Heal th Director of the count y or counties , and the
£hief administrative officer of the p olitical j urisdiction in
. .which the contaminant p lume occurs . and all p ro p ert y owners and
·all occup ants within or contig uous to the area underlain b y the
p ollution p lume , and under which it is exp ected to mi g rate , of the
nature of the req uest and reasons supporting it. Notification
shall be made b y certified mail concurrent with the submittal of
the req uest to the Director. A final decision b y the Director ma y
not be made within 30 day s of recei p t of the req uest.
( c ) An y p erson authorized b y the Director to cleanup to an
alternate cleanu p level , rel y on a natural remediation p rog ram or
to terminate active g roundwater remediation shall notif y p arties
s p ecified in Parag ra p h . (b l of this Rule of the Director's
decision. Notification shall be made b y certified mail within 30
da y s of recei p t of the Director's decision.
Histor y Note Statutor y Authorit y G.S. 143-214.1 ;
143-215.3 (a )(1 ); 143B-282 (2 )b ;
Eff.
.0200 -CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
15A NCAC 2L .0201 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0201 GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATIONS
The classifications which may be assigned to the groundwaters
will be those specified in the following series of
classifications:
( 1 )
( 2)
Class GA waters groundwaters; usage and occurrence:
(a) Best Usage. Existing or potential source of drinking
water supply for humans.
(b) Conditions Related to Best Usage. This class is
intended for those groundwaters in which chloride
concentrations are equal to or less than 250 mg/1, and
which are considered suitable for drinking in their
natural state, but which may require treatment to
improve quality related to natural conditions.
(c) Occurrence. In the saturated zone.
Class GSA waters groundwaters; usage and occurrence:
(a) Best Usage. Existing or potential source of water
supply for potable mineral water and conversion to
fresh waters.
(b) Conditions Related to Best Usage. This class is
intended for those groundwaters in which the chloride
concentrations due to natural conditions is in excess
of 250 mg/1, but which otherwise may be considered
suitable for use as potable water after treatment to
reduce concentrations of naturally occurring
substances.
(c) Occurrence. In the saturated zone.
(3) Class GC waters groundwaters: usage and occurrence:
(a) Best Usage. The best usage of GC groundwaters is as a
SeHFee source of water supply for purposes other than
drinking, including other domestic uses by humans.
(b) Conditions Related to Best Usage. This class includes
those groundwaters that do not meet the quality
criteria ef-waters-RaviR~-a-Ri~Rer-e±assifieatieR for
GA or GSA groundwaters ef -waters -Ravia~ -a -hi~heF
elassifieatieR and for which efforts to FesteFe-ia-sitH
te-a-Ri~her-e±assifieatieR improve groundwater quality
would not be technologically feasible, or not in the
best interest of the public. Continued consumption of
waters of this class by humans could result in adverse
health affects.
(c) Occurrence. Groundwaters of this class ma y be defined
!a-the-satHFatea-~eae7 -as-aeteFmiaee by the Commission
on a case by case basis.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-214.1;
143B-282(2);
Eff. June 10, 1979;
Amended Eff. ____ ~ August 1, 1989; September
1, 1984; December 30, 1983.
15A NCAC 2L .0202 is proposed for amendment as follows:
.0202 WATER GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(a) The water g roundwater quality standards for the p rotection
of the groundwaters of the state are those specified in this Rule.
They are the maximum allowable concentrations resulting from any
discharge of contaminants to the land or waters of the state,
which may be tolerated without creating a threat to human health
or which would otherwise render the groundwater unsuitable for its
intended best usage. Where -Ejr0\:lRawater -~tial:ity -staRaaras -have
aeeR-eHeeeaea-a\:le-te-maR~s -aet:iv:it:iesy-resteratieR-efferts-shall
be -aesilJRea -te -reseeFe -'JF0\:lRawateF -~Hal:ity -ee -the -level -ef -the
seaRaaFa-eF-as-elesely-theFeee-as -is-~Faetieaele.
(b) The maHimHm-allewaele-eeReeRtFatieRs g roundwater q uality
standards for contaminants specified in Paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this Rule shall be as listed, except that:
(1) Where the maHimHm-allewaele-eeReeRtratieR-ef standard
for a substance is less than the limit -ef-aeteeeaeility
p ractical q uanti tat ion limit, the S\:lBSEaRee -sl=iall -Ree
ae-~ermittea-:iR-aeteetaale-eeReeREratieRs. detection of
that substance at or above the p ractical g uantitation
limit shall constitute a violation of the standard.
(2) Where two or more substances exist in combination, the
Director shall consider the effects of chemical
interactions as determined b y the Di vision of
Epidemiology and may establish maximum concentrations
at values less than those established in accordance
with Paragraphs (c) and (g) of this Rule. In the
absence of information to the contrary, the
carcinogenic risks associated with carcinogens present
shall be considered additive and the toxic effects
associated with non-carcinogens present shall also be
considered additive.
(3) Where naturally occurring substances exceed the
established standard, the standard will be the
naturally occurring concentration as determined by the
Director.
(c) Exce p t for tracers used in concentrations which have been
determined b y the Division of E p idemiology to be p rotective of
human health , and the use of which has been p ermitted b y the
Division , SHestaRees substances which are not naturally occurring
and for which no standard is specified shall not be permitted in
detectable concentrations in Class GA or Class GSA groundwaters.
Any person may petition the Director to establish an interim
maximum allowable concentration for an unspecified substance,
however, the burden of demonstrating those concentrations of the
substance which correspond to the levels described in Paragraph
(d) of this Rule rests with the petitioner. The petitioner shall
submit all toxicological and epidemiological data, study results,
and calculations necessary to establish a standard in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in Paragraph ( d) of this Rule.
Within three months after the establishment of an interim maximum
allowable concentration for a substance by the Director, the
Director shall initiate action to consider adoption of a standard
for that substance.
(d) · MaKimHm--a±±ewaa±e--eeaeeatratieas Groundwater q uality
standards for substances in Class GA and Class GSA wateFs
g roundwaters are established as the lesser of:
(1) Systemic threshold concentration calculated as follows:
[Reference Dose (mg/kg/day) x 70 kg (adult body weight)
x Relative Source Contribution (.10 for inorganics; .20
for organics)] / [2 liters/day (avg. water
consumption)];
(2) Concentration which correspo~gs to an incremental
lifetime cancer risk of 1x10 ;
(3) Taste threshold limit value;
(4) Odor threshold limit value;
(5) Maximum contaminant level; or
(6) National secondary drinking water standard.
(e) The following references, in order of preference, shall be
used in establishing concentrations of substances which correspond
to levels described in Paragraph (d) of this Rule.
(1) Integrated Risk Information System (U.S. EPA).
(2) Health Advisories (U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water).
(3) Other health risk assessment data published by U.S.
EPA.
(4) Other appropriate, published health risk assessment
data.
(f) WateFGroundwater quality standards specified in Paragraphs
(g) and (h) of this Rule and interim maximum allowable
concentrations established pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this Rule
shall be reviewed on a biennial basis. Appropriate modifications
to established standards will be made in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in Paragraph (d) of this Rule where
modifications are considered appropriate based on data published
subsequent to the previous review.
(g) Class GA Standards. Where not otherwise indicated, the
standard refers to the total concentration in milligrams per liter
of any constituent in a dissolved , colloidal or p articulate form
which is mobile in g roundwater. This does not a ppl y to sediment
or other p articulate matter which is p reserved in a g roundwater
samp le as a result of well construction or sam p ling p rocedures.
(1 ) acetone: 0.7
J..1.lfl+ acrylamide (propenamide): 0.00001
..Ll..lf~+ arsenic: 0.05
.1..ilf3+ barium: l.Q 2.0
J..fil_f4+ benzene: 0.001
.ifil_f§f bromoform (tribromomethane): 0.00019
i.llf6+ cadmium: 0.005
.ifil..f1t carbofuran: 0.036
illf8t carbon tetrachlorid~S 0.0003
J.1.Qlf9t chlordane: 2.7 x 10
illlf+Gt chloride: 250.0
ill.lf++t chlorobenzene: 9.3 0.05
.ill..lf+2t chloroform (trichloromethane): 0 .00019
ililf+3t 2-chlorophenol: 0.0001
.i.lhlf+4t chromium: 0.05
.1..1fil.{+5t cis-1,2-dichloroethene: 0.07
il1.lf+6t coliform organisms (total}: 1 per 100 milliliters
i.1filf+1t color: 15 color units
.i.lllf+St copper: 1 .0
ilQlf+9t cyanide: 0.154
lillf29t 2, 4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic ac!g}: 0.07
.Ll.,ll{2+t 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane: 2.5 x 10 )
~{22t dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon-12; Halon}: Q.QQQ+9 1...:....!
(24 ) 1 ,1 dichloroethane: 0.7
illlf23t 1,2-dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride): 0.00038
J..1.§lf24t 1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride}: 0.007
Ul.lf25t 1,2-dichloropropane: 0.00056
(28 ) di-n-but y l (or dibut y l ) p hthalate (DBP ): 0.7
(29 ) diethy l p hthalate (DEP ): 5.0
(30 ) di (2-ethy lhex y l ) p hthalate (DEHP ): 0.003
1illf26t p-dioxane (1,4-d!rohylene dioxide): 0.007
.1..J,llf2+t dioxin: 2.2 x 10
illlf28t dissolved solids (total): 500
ililf29t endrin: Q.9992 0.002
.Ll,llf39t epichlorohydrin (1-chloro-2,3-epoxypropane): 0.00354
.Llfilf3+t ethylbenzene: 0.029 _5 J..l.1.lf32t ethylene_9ibrornide (EDB; 1,2-dibrornoethane): Q.95-K-+G--
4.0 X 10
J..l.filfaa+ ethylene glycol: 7.0
..Ll.2J.f34t fluoride f±eHriae: 2.0
tiQlf35t foaming agents: 0.5
l..illf36t gross alpha (adjusted)particle activity (iRe±HaiR~
FaaiHm-226-s~~ excluding FaaeR radium-226 and uranium):
15 pCi/1 _5 _6 1!ll_f3+t heptachlor: 1.6-K-+9--8.0 x 5o 6 1.iJ.lf38t heptachlor epoxide: 3.8-K-+9--4.0 x 10-
(44) heptane: 2.1
.1...1..5..lf39t hexachlorobenzene (perchlorobenzene): 0.00002
..l!§J_f49t n-hexane: +4.3 0.42
illlf4+t iron: 0.3
.1...i§j_f42t l~ad: 9.95 0.015 _5 _4 ..l12.lf43t lindane: 2.65-K-+G--2.0 x 10
liQJ_f44t manganese: 0.05
.Ll.1.lf45t mercury: 0.0011
ill.lf46t metadichlorobenzene (1,3-dichlorobenzene): 0.62
J.j]_lf4+t methoxychlor: 9.+ 0.035
..<....5...tl_f48t methylene chloride (dichloromethane): 0.005
~f49t methyl ethyl ketone (MEK; 2-butanone): 0.17
12.fil.f58t methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE ): 0.2
il.Ilf5+t nickel: 9.+5 _Q_J
J..filUf52t nitrate: (as N) 10.0
illlf53t nitrite: (as N) 1.0
.1...§Qlf54t orthodichlorobenzene (1,2-dichlorobenzene): 0.62
.1.fill.f55t oxamyl: 0.175
i§llf56t paradichlorobenzene (1,4-dichlorobenzene): 8.99+8 0.075
.i.2.J.lf5~t pentachlorophenol: 9.22 0.0003
J....§.ilf58t pH: 6.5 -8.5
.i.§.ilf59t radium-226 and radium-228 (combined): 5 pCi/1
l&filf68t selenium: 9.9+ 0.05
.1.&.1.lf6+t silver: 8.95 0.018
..Lfilllf62t styrene (ethenylbenzene): +.4-H-+9~ _Q_J
.i.2.21.f63t sulfate: 250.0
.1.1.Qlf64t tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene; PCE): 0 .0007
111.lf65t toluene (methylbenz~ge): 1 .0
ill.lf66t toxaphene: 3.1 x 10
.1.11..lf6+t 2, 4, 5,-TP (Silvex): Q.9+ 0.05
J.1ilf68+ trans-1,2-dichloroethene: 0.07
ill.lf69t 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform): 0.2
J..lfil.f~Gt trichloroethylene (TCE): 0.0028
{77 ) trichlorofluoromethane: 2.1
ill..lf++t vinyl chloride (chloroethylene): 1 .5 x 10-5
.il.2.lf~2t xylenes (o-, m-, and p-): 9.4 0.53
.1J!.Qlf+3t zinc: 5.9 l...,_J_
(h) Class GSA Standards. The standards for this class shall
~e the same as those for Class GA except as follows:
(1) chloride: allowable increase not to exceed 100 percent
of the natural quality concentration.
(2) total dissolved solids: 1000 mg/1.
(i) Class GC Waters.
(1) The concentrations of substances which, at the time of
classification exceed water-qtla±ity-staRaaFas 7 the
standards a pp licable to Class GA or GSA g roundwaters
shall not be ~eFmittea caused to increase , nor shall
the concentrations of other substances be caused to
exceed the GA or GSA standards as a result of further
dis p osal of contaminants to or beneath the surface of
the land within the boundar y of the area classified GC.
FeF-al±-etheF-sHastaRees 7 -eeReeRtFatieRs-shal±-Ret-ae
eatlsea-eF-~eFmittea-te-eHeeea-the-estaalishea-staRaaFa.
(2) The concentrations of substances which, at the time of
classification, exceed wateF-qHality-staRaaFas-shall
Ret-eatlse-eF-eeRtFiatlte-te-tRe-eeRtFaventien-ef the
standards a pp licable to GA or GSA g roundwaters shall
not be caused to mi g rate as a result of activities
within the boundar y of the GC classification , so as to
violate the groundwater or surface water quality
standards in adjoining waters of a different class.
(3) Concentrations of specific substances, which exceed the
established standard at the time of classification,
shall be listed in Section .0300 of this Subchapter .
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143B-282(2);
Eff. June 10, 1979;
Amended Eff. · September 1, 1992; August
1, 1989; September 1, 1984; December 30, 1983.
LACY H. THORNBURG
A ITORNEY GENERAL
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.0.B0X629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
--MEMORANDUM--
TO: John C. Hunter
General Counsel
FROM: J. Peter Rascoe III
Associate Attorney
DATE: October 19, 1992
SUBJECT: Proposed 15A NCAC 2L; APA Review
has
The
21 of
I am very familiar with the attached 2L draft as this office
participated in numerous drafting sessions with the Groundwater Section.
rules are sufficient as to form and come within the authority of Article
Chapter 143 of the General Statutes. I do have two comments however:
1. The term "risk assessment" as defined at Proposed 15A NCAC 2L
.0102(20) is not used in a regulatory requirement anywhere in the
rules. The term is only used is 15A NCAC 2L .0202(e) when
defining what the agency considers when establishing a standard. I
question the need for a definition of "risk assessment."
2. Proposed 15A NCAC 2L .0106(a) establishes drinking water MCLs as
cleanup targets. Where there is no MCL, the proposed rule states
that the Division of Epidemiology shall determine the quality level
for a cleanup goal. This may present problems and each
determination by the Division of Epidemiology will be subject to a
contested case. I am informed that staff is working on a change
to this paragraph.
cc: Harlan Britt
Perry F. Nelson
Carl Bailey
Portia Rochelle
ep:15ANCAC2Lr.pr
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENT MADE REGARDING
PROPOSED 2L AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 7/28/1993
1-) -R~:"'-1r !E lSA NCAC 2L .0102: DEFINITIONS
COMMENT la: Rule .0102- Proposed new definition for "Other Qualified
Professional";
Add a definition for those individuals who are not Professional Eng ineers or Licensed
Geologists as follows:
"Other Qualified Professionals means individuals in the en gineerin g. environmental or
planning profession who demonstrate fiscal and professional accountability and are
certified, licensed or reg istered b y an organization that recogn izes competence in s pecific
area of practice. The organization and associated individuals must subscribe to a code of
ethics that assures competence in the a pplicable practice and implementation of
groundwater rules."
Accountability and professionalism can be best assured through requirin g fiscal
resp onsibility (bonding and insurance) and through reco gn ition of certification prog rams.
RESPONSE:
The State Legislature has established an occupational licensing board for
Professional Engineers (PE) and Licensed Geologists (LG). By statute, individuals
certified as PEs or LGs have the authority to perform certain types of work within the
State of North Carolina. The Division by regulation cannot allow other
persons/groups to perform work that is covered by this General Statute.
Staff does not disagree that there exists other qualified groups whose education
and experience make them capable of performing the same tasks well. However, it is
the opinion of Staff that these groups must appeal to the legislature and form a
licensing board of their own or become licensed under one of the existing boards. The
result being that accountability and professionalism are maintained while still
allowing those individuals most qualified to do the work.
(Written Comment)
Jerry McCrain, Vice President, Environmental Services Inc., 1318
Dale Street, Raleigh, NC 27605
COMMENT lb: Rule .0102-Proposed new defmition for "Disposal System";
Amend this rule to add a new definition for "Dis posal Sy stem". A corrective action site
should not be regarded as a dis posal s ystem. A commentator pro posed definition reads as
"any man-induced p ractice or structure which causes non-indigenous contaminants to enter
into groundwater."
RESPONSE:
A definition currently exists in the North Carolina General Statutes for Disposal
System at 143-213.10. Staff does not agree that a new and different definition is
needed.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT le: Rule .0102 -Proposed definition for "Qualified Professional";
Include this new definition for "qualified professional" as follows: "individuals in a
technical or scientific profession who can demonstrate fiscal and professional
accountability and who are certified , licensed or registered b v an organization or
occup ational licensing board that recogn izes competence in a s pecific area of
practice relating to the requirements of these Rules. The certifyi n g or licensing
organization must have ado pted and re quire adherence to a code of ethics that assumes that
no licensee or certified professional will practice in an area in which that professional is not
competent."
RESPONSE:
See response to comment la.
(Written Comment)
Craig A. Bromby, Hunton & Williams, One Hanover Square, Suite 1400,
Fayetteville Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 2760 I (representing the
North Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals)
COMMENT ld: Rule .0102-Clarify the definition of "Person" in this
rule;
A clear definition of "Person" is not stated in this rule but needs to be included.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. A definition currently exists in the North Carolina General Statutes at
NCGS 143-212.4.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina
Power & Light Company, Technical Services Department, 411
Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602
2
COMMENT le: Rule .0102-Proposed definition for "Contamination";
There is no definition for "Contamination" in this rule. Add the followin g to Rule .0102:
"Contamination the detection of compounds in soil or groundwater samples which
exceeds the target levels either as defined in Section .0202 of these rules or, as determined
for a site , based on site specific conditions."
RESPONSE:
The rule will be amended with a defmition of Contaminant. Staff suggest the
following:
Contaminant means any substance occurring in groundwater in concentrations
which exceed the groundwater quality standards specified in .0202 of this Rule.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT lf: Rule .0102-Clarify the defmition of "economically feasible"
in this rule;
There needs to be a clearer definition of "economically feasible". Is this feasibility a
function of the economics of remediation sv stems or the economics and finances of the
responsible party.
RESPONSE:
Feasibility should be based on the "average" or "common" cost of remediation
and remedial systems at the current point in time. Feasibility will not be based on the
perceived fmancial competence, or lack thereof, of the party responsible.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT lg: Rule .0102-Provide a definition of "foreseeable receptor"
There needs to be a clear definition for the phrase "foreseeable rece ptor". It is used
fre quently in Rule .0106.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. A proposed defmition for the term "Receptor" is already defined in the
Rule. The term "Foreseeable" is not a scientific or technical term and conforms to
the defmitions and conventions prescribed by modern English.
Comment made at the Raleigh hearing:
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and
Asheville hearings**)
3
COM1\1ENT lh: Rule .0102(4)-Defmition of "Corrective action plan";
The word "eliminating " needs to be removed from the definition. It is not sound
environmental policy to eliminate all contamination. The followin g changes should be
made to first sentence of this definition:
"(4 ) Corrective action plan means a plan for miti gatin g causes of groundwater
contamination or achieving groundwater quality restoration or both. A corrective action
plan may propose ...... ".
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The definition states: "Corrective Action Plan means a plan for
eliminating sources of groundwater contamination or for achieving groundwater
quality restoration or both". The Defmition does not state that the contamination
must be eliminated. Instead, it states that the source of the contamination must be
removed (i.e. a leaking tank, contaminated soils, or free product).
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N .C . Environmental Affairs , E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P .O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
CO:Ml\1ENT li: Rule .0102(4)-Defmition of "Corrective action plan";
Require both elimination and groundwater quality restoration b y deletin g the words "or
both" at the end of the first sentence.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. There may be no groundwater contamination and therefore no need to
perform both elimination and the restoration of groundwater quality. Staff would
like to recommend a new defmition for Corrective Action Plan as follows:
(5) "Corrective action plan" means a plan for eliminatin g sources of groundwater
contamination or for achieving groundwater quality restoration or both.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT lj: Rule .0102(4)-Defmition of "Corrective action plan";
Amend this rule to delete the second sentence since it is not part of the definition.
RESPONSE:
Staff recommend the deletion of the second sentence.
(Written Comment)
4
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
COMMENT lk: Rule .0102(4)-Definition of "Corrective action plan";
Corrective action plans need to be more flexible. The phrase "eliminating sources" is too
restrictive. Amend this rule to read as follows:
"(4) Corrective action plan means a plan to address a known or potential source of
g roundwater contamination to achieve or contribute to groundwater quality
restoration ......... ".
RESPONSE:
Disagree. An active source of contamination must be eliminated in all cases.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 11: Rule .0102(4)-Definition of "Corrective action plan";
We support the definition of "Corrective action plan" with res pect to the inclusion of
remediation b y natural attenuation as well as conventional and innovative technolo gies.
RESPONSE:
Comment Noted
(Written Comment)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company,
Tennessee Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC
27603
COMMENT lm: Rule .0102(4)-Definition of "Corrective Action Plan" as it relates
to degradation and natural attenuation of contaminants;
More guidance and performance standards are needed to enable res ponsible p arties to
ascertain which typ es corrective actions are passive bioremediation according to the State.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. A work group to evaluate innovative technologies has already been
established by the Division.
5
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Feny Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500 , Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT ln: Rule .0102(7)-Definition for "exposure pathway";
This definition needs to be chang ed to include exposure to a rece ptor. It also should
s pecify where a rece ptor does not exist there is no exposure pathway or a receptor.
RESPONSE:
The presence of contamination constitutes exposure of the environment to the
chemical(s) of concern. Therefore, the existence of a receptor is not necessary to
define the preferred pathway of a contaminant as it proceeds through the
environment.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT lo: Rule .0102(7)-Deflnition for "exposure pathway";
The definition for "exposure pathway " needs to be more s pecific. The followin g
changes need to be made to this definition:
"(7) Exposure p athway means a course taken b v a contaminant b y way of a trans port
medium after its release to the environment en-route to an exposed rece ptor."
RESPONSE:
Disagree. See response to comment ln.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT lp: Rule .0102(8)-Defmition for "Free Product";
6
Chang e this definition to include dense chemicals that sink to the bottom of wells.
RESPONSE:
Agree. Staff suggest the definition be changed to the following:
"Free Product" means a non-aqueous phase liquid which may be present within
the saturated zone or in surface water.
(Written Comment)
Edward L. Berry, Consulting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
Raleigh, NC 27614
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
Inc., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT lq: Rule .0102(8)-Definition for "Free Product";
The definition should s pecify a measurable amount. Instrumentation is only capable of
measuring in 1/100 of a foot and does not have the resolution to quantify sheen. The
recommended definition should be as follows:
"(8 ) Free product a non-aqueous phase regulated substance which collects on the water
table in excess of one tenth of an inch . within the saturated zone or in surface water."
Also the definition of a "regu lated substance" in 15A NCAC 2N .0203 (40 CFR 280.12)
needs to be inco rp orated in this definition of "free product".
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 1 p.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
COMMENT tr: Rule .0102 (10) and (22)-Definitions for "Groundwaters"
and "Saturated Zone";
Neither of these definitions address intermittent, tempora1y or perched water tables. The
rules should specificall y state whether they are included or excluded.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. All water occurring in the subsurface and occupying an area of
saturation, qualifies as groundwater. Staff recommend that the defmition be modified
in order to provide greater clarity. The following defmition is recommended:
"Groundwaters" means those waters occurring in the subsurface under
saturated conditions.
(Written Comment)
Edward L. Berry, Consulting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
7
Raleigh, NC 27614
COMMENT ls: Rule .0102 (13)-Defmition of "Natural remedial processes";
The word "dilution" should be deleted from this definition. This policy of allowing
contaminants to dilute themselves in groundwater is in effect using groundwaters as a
mixing zone for contamination.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. Chemical substances, permitted to remediate naturally that are soluble
in water, must dilute to some degree upon contact with groundwater. If dilution is
forbidden, the natural remediation of water soluble substances would likewise be
forbidden. This principle of dilution and natural remediation is already recognized by
the allowance of compliance boundaries around waste disposal sites. As the option to
naturally remediate water soluble substances is in the best interests of the public, the
term "dilution" should remain part of the rule.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comments made the Raleigh hearing)
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box
286, Wadesboro, NC 28170
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box
848, Marshall, NC 28802 (**Mr. Zeller repeated his comments at the
Asheville hearings**)
(Comments made the Asheville hearing)
John Medenwald, 10 Alexander Drive-Number# 122, Asheville, NC
28801
COMMENT lt: Rule .0102 (13)-Deflne several words included in the definition of
"Natural remedial processes";
The words "dilution", "filtration". "sorp tion". "ion-exchan ge". "chemical
transformation", and "biode gradation" need to have definitions provided for them.
RESPONSE:
8
Disagree. These terms have standard scientific definitions that are readily
known. Therefore it is unnecessary to include them in the regulations.
(Comment made the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwaterrepeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT lu: Rule .0102 (13)-"Natural remedial processes" and federal
requirements;
Biodegradation has its own requirements including the use of EPA test 625 and 8250.
The rules need to recognize this fact.
RESPONSE:
Staff consulted with EPA (Region 4) with regard to this comment. EPA stated
that test 625 comes from 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A. 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix
A is entitled "Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater". 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, Method 625 is entitled "Base/Neutrals
and Acids" and describes accepted laboratory test procedures for testing these
compounds.
' EPA test 8250 is entitled "Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for
Semivolatile Organics: Packed Column Technique". The method is applied to the
quantification of most neutral, acidic, and basic organic compounds.
EPA has reported that they are unaware of any general Federal regulations
regarding biodegradation.
All test samples collected at sites in which biodegradation is taking place will
undergo analysis at a certified State laboratory versed in appropriate test procedures.
(Comment made the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
COM1\1ENT lv: Rule .0102 (13)-Definition of "Natural remedial processes";
Amend this definition to include the word "attenuation" as a remedial process.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The process of attenuation is achieved by dilution, filtration, sorption,
ion-exchange, chemical transformation, and biodegradation. The end result of a
process cannot be cited or listed as part of the process.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
9
C01\1MENT 1 w: Rule .0102 (13)-Definition of "Natural remedial processes";
Add to the end of this definition "and groundwater discharge to surface water." to
further expand the natural processes the Director can consider for these types of corrective
actions. Onsite treatment lagoons should also be specified for natural remediation health
protective concentrations.
RESPONSE:
Under certain circumstances this might be an acceptable means of natural
remediation. However, groundwater discharge to surface water must meet surface
water quality standards and any other environmental laws relating to surface water
discharges.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and
Asheville hearings**)
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental Affairs, North Carolina
Citizens for Business and Industry/Federal Paperboard Company, P.O.
Box 8, Rieglewood, NC 28456
C01\1MENT lx: Rule .0102 (13)-Definition of "Natural remedial processes" and
concerns about "chemical transformations";
The chemical transformations referred to in these rules may make some chemicals more
toxic in their intermediate forms. Biodegradation does not necessarily imply detoxification
of chemicals.
RESPONSE:
Supporting information that must be submitted to support a request for natural
remediation must include evidence of the contaminants degradation and attenuation
capacity.
(Written Comment)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
C01\1MENT ly: Rule .0102(14)-Defmition of "Practical Quantitation Level";
We support the amendment as a more appropriate measurement than the
"limit of detectability" found in the current rules.
10
RESPONSE:
Comment noted
(Written Comment)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company,
Tennessee Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC
27603
COMMENT lz: Rule .0102(14)-Definition of "Practical Quantitation Level";
The "Limit of Detectability " definition has been removed. There does not app ear to be a
re placement definition. This definition re quires EPA test methods be used and should be
reinstated.
RESPONSE:
The Limit of Detectability has been replaced by the Practical Quantitation Level.
All cerified laboratories must use recognized, established testing procedures in order
to retain certification. The quality or accuracy of the t_est methods used is not affected
by the definition proposed.
The Environmental Epidemiology Section feels that the "Practical Quantitation
Level" should be changed to the more correct term "Practical Quantitation Limit."
The defmition should be changed as follows, "Practical Quantitation Limit" means
the lowest concentration of a given material that can be reliably achieved among
laboratories within specified limits of precision and accuracy by a given analytical
method during routine laboratory analysis.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT laa: Rule .0102(17)-Definition of "Professional Engineer";
Add to the end of the definition " and qualified to judge the ph y sics and chemistry of
water, with ex perience in g eologi c and h ydrogeolo gic analy sis as well as en gineering ".
This will further delineate the necessary expertise.
RESPONSE:
The qualifications of a Professional Engineer have been established by Chapter
89C of the North Carolina General Statutes. The legislature must approve any
modifications made to these requirements.
(Written Comment)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
I I
COMMENT lbb: Rule .0102(18)-Definition of "Receptor";
This definition is inconsistent with the natural remediation provisions of Rule. 2L
.106 (k)(l )(B ). This definition states that all groundwaters . including those that are in
process of bein g contaminated by a release. are regarded as rece ptors. It is lo gi cal to
assume that groundwater present in the contaminated area will temporarily exceed the
15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards until these natural remedial processes bring about
reductions. These contaminated groundwaters will be desi gn ated RS or "Restricted" under
the proposed rule changes. We request this definition be chan ged to read as follows:
"(1 8 ) Receptor means any unrestricted groundwater, surface water, human or structure,
other than a monitoring well which is or may be effected b y a contaminant from a
contaminated site."
RESPONSE:
Staff understands the comment but does not think that .0106(k)(l)(B) is at odds
with the definition presented in .0102(18). Staff would suggest rewording the
definition of Receptor as follows:
"Receptor" means any human, plant, animal, or structure which is, or has the
potential to be, adversely effected by the release or migration of contaminants. Any
well constructed for the purpose of monitoring groundwater and contaminant
concentrations shall not be considered a receptor. ·
(Written Comment)
John J. Butler, Attorney at Law; Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein,
P.O. Box 389, One Exchange Plaza, Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
(representing Carolina Coach/Carolina Trailways)
COMMENT lee: Rule .0102 (18)-Definition of "Receptor";
Include "all ad joining pro perty " in this definition since ad joinin g prop e rty can be
effected b y contaminants.
RESPONSE:
Adding "all adjoining property" to the definition would not permit the natural
remediation of contaminants on adjoining property when public water supplies exist
and no receptors are present.
(Written Comments)
Donnell Van Noppen III, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
12
COMMENT ldd: Rule .0102(18)-Definition for "Receptor";
The pro posed definition is too broad and encompassin g. Rece ptors should not include
structures but biological organisms which are sub ject to deleterious effects of
contaminants. The definition needs clarifyi n g and a suggested change is shown as follows:
"(1 8) Receptor means any human , plant or animal species that may suffer adverse effects
due to exposure to contaminants in the environment".
RESPONSE:
Agree. The defmition should include humans, plants, and animals. See the
response to Comment lbb.
(Written Comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Joseph P. Nestor, P.G., Project Manager, Cooper Environmental, 2300
Sardis Road North, Suite Q, Charlotte, NC 28227
COMMENT lee: Rule .0102(18)-Definition for "Receptor";
Delineate the typ es of wells that are to be re garded as "rece ptors". Change the definition
to specify "active drinking water supply wells" as rece ptors. Replace "affected b y a
contaminant from a contaminant site" with "affected b y contaminant concentrations which
pose an unacce ptable risk , based on an ex posure/risk assessment."
RESPONSE:
The defmition specifies that all wells are to be considered a receptor with the
exception of monitoring wells. The groundwater standards established in .0202 of this
rule are based on exposure/risk assessment.
(Written Comments)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT lff: Rule .0102(18)-Definition for "Receptor";
Amend the definition of receptors to include non-human sp ecies such as birds ,
livestock, fish and other terrestrial org anisms. Wetlands should also be included in this
definition.
RESPONSE:
See the response to comment lbb. The rules only apply to groundwater and
therefore lack the authority to address issues associated with wetlands.
(Written Comments)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
13
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT lgg: Rule .0102(19)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
We su pp ort this new definition with additional langu a ge to delineate res ponsibilities
further.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. After reviewing all of the comments and concerns generated by the
proposed definition, Staff recommends the deletion of .0102(19) from the defmitions.
Staff feel that .0101 and .0106(b) are adequate to define responsibility.
(Written Comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company,
Tennessee Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
CO:Ml\1ENT lhh: Rule .0102(19)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Chan ge this definition as follows:
"(19 ) Res ponsible P arty means a person havin g control over actions causintz or
contributin g to the violation of groundwater quali ty standards."
RESPONSE:
See response for 1 gg.
(Written Comments)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622(**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT lii: Rule .0102(19)(a) and (b)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Amend this rule to be inclusive of all p ersons liable for cleanup under existin g statutes
and judicial precedents.
14
RESPONSE:
See response for lgg.
(Written Comments)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT ljj: Rule .0102(19)(a)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Amend this rule to more precisely define "wholly or partially responsible". One
alternative would be to make this rule consistent with G.S. 143-215.84(a) of the Oil
Pollution and Hazardous Substance Control Act.
RESPONSE:
See response for lgg.
(Written Comments)
Harvey C. Danner, Jr., President, Salem Environmental,
Inc./Certifoam Services, Inc., P.O. Box 5524, Winston-Salem, NC
27113-5524
(Comments made at the Asheville hearings)
Ben Pace, Route 1, P.O. Box 726, Chandler, NC 28715
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, Inc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619 ·
COMMENT lkk: Rule .0102 (19)(b)-Defmition for "Responsible Party";
We recommend deletion of Rule .0102 (1 9)(b). The current pro posed languag e makes
innocent buyers of pro pe rty res ponsible for groundwater cleanup alon g with the p a rtv that
contaminated the pro pe rty . This rule is unconstitutional and lacks sufficient statutmy
authori ty under North Carolina law and will discourage purchase of these pro perties. It will
discourage the use of "sale with remediation agreements" that are design ed to allow the
buy er to voluntaril y rehabilitate the pro pe rty in event res ponsible parties refuse to. The
effect of this rule chang e will increase ca pital costs on industry due to the need for new
construction and land purchases. In addition . this amendment may inhibit remediation b y
inhibiting these typ es of prope rty transfers in the marketp lace.
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comments)
Robert Alan Cohen, Chairman-Groundwater Subcommittee, North
Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, 225 Hillsborough
15
Street, P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC 27602
Amos C. Dawson, II, Robert A. Cohen and Frank Sheffield, Attorneys
at Law; Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A., 3200 Beechleaf Court,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1064 (Representing various clients)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Lynn Phillips, P.E., Regional Vice-President, Heritage
Environmental Services, Inc., 4132 Pompano Road, Charlotte, NC
28216
Tim Sullivan, Poyner & Spruill-Attorneys at Law, 3600 Glenwood
Avenue, P.O. Box 10096, Raleigh, NC 27605-0096
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, Inc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
(Comments made at the Salisbury hearing;)
Mike Harman, Project Manager, Spatco Environmental Company, 5100
North I-85, Suite 6, Charlotte, NC 28206
Bob Pingry, President, Atlantic Environmental Services Inc., P.O.
Box 15130, Charlotte, NC 28211
James Ponder, Geologist, Geo-Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1016
McClelland Court, Charlotte, NC 28206
(Comments made at the Asheville hearing;)
Ben Pace, Route 1, P.O. Box 726, Chandler, NC 28715
Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental Affairs, North Carolina
Citizens for Business and Industry/Federal Paperboard Company, P.O.
Box 8, Rieglewood, NC 28456
COMMENT 111: Rule .0102 (19)(b)-Defmition for "Responsible Party";
Loopholes exist in this definition. The rule does not speci fy that those persons with
knowledg e of the risk of contamination as resp onsible parties. Also those persons who
arrang ed Phase I and Phase II Site Assessments p rior to ownershi p.
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
16
(Written Comments)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 1mm: Rule .0102 (19)(b)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
This pro posed chang e is inconsistent with the definition of an "owner" in 15A NCAC
2N .0203. Some prop e rty owners never owned underground storag e tanks on their pro p e rty
but allowed others to use tanks. The 15A NCAC 2N .0203 definition recognizes this and
places the responsibility for groundwater contamination on the tank owner. This
amendment in 15A NCAC 2L .0102 (1 9)(b ) makes anv subsequent prop e rty owner with
knowledge of the contamination resp onsible for cleanup . Those individuals who are not
responsible for remediation under the definition of "owner" in 15A NCAC 2N .0203 would
now be considered resp onsible thus creating an explosion of new remediation p ro jects the
Division would need to regulate. This would also lead to additional contested cases the
Department would need to deal with. Innocent buy ers would be liable if the source of
contamination existed at the time of pro pe rty transfer. Either delete Rule .0102 (1 9 )(b) or
develop a definition of the word "source" that delineate what situations will be reg ulated.
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Comments made the Jacksonville and Raleigh hearings)
Robert Heath, Environmental Director, Sampson-Bladen Oil Company
Inc., P.O. Box 617 Clinton, NC 28328
COMMENT lnn: Rule .0102(19)(b)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Define the word "knowledg e" as "facts existing at the time of purchase".
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina
Power & Light Company, Technical Services Department, 411
Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT too: Rule .0102(19)(b)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Rep lace the word "or" at the end of (b) with the phrase "jointly and severally with".
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
17
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT lpp: Rule .0102(19){b) and (c)-Defmition for "Responsible Party";
The North Carolina Department of Trans portation (N CDOT) is ve,y concerned about
this definition. In order to widen existing roads NCDOT must ac quire land that often
contains leaking underground storage tanks. The effect of this rule is to make the state a
res ponsible party when it must ac quire land for p ublic use and transfer the cleanup costs
from the tank owners/operators to the tax pa yers.
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
William G. Marley, Jr., P.E., State Highway Administrator, State of
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
COMMENT lqq: Rule .0102 (19)(c)-Defmition for "Responsible Party";
This amendment goes beyond existing state statues b y establishing liabili ty for
p urchasers and adjoining landowners that did not cause or contribute to violations of the
groundwater standards. Under current G.S. 143-215.84 , G.S. 143-215.94E(a) and G.S.
130A-310.7 a p arty can be held liable if they controlled the contaminant prior to release.
owned or o perated an underground storage tank at time of the release occurred
from that tank. or were otherwise activel y involved in the discharge or de posit of the
contaminant. I believe this definition will create an untouchable catego ,y of pro perties that
cannot be financed because lending institutions will avoid them. The definition for Rule
.0102 needs to be narrowed to include only those individual(s ) who are wholly
or p artially res ponsible for actions causing or contributing to a violation of the g roundwater
standards. Is this definition of res ponsible p a rty consistent with the EP As?
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Robert Alan Cohen, Chairman-Groundwater Subcommittee, North
Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, 225 Hillsborough
Street, P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC 27602
Christopher W. Loeb, Attorney at Law; Robinson, Bradshaw, & Hinson,
P.A., 1900 Independence Center, 101 North Tyron St., Charlotte, NC
28246
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental Affairs, North Carolina
Citizens for Business and Industry/Federal Paperboard Company, P.O.
Box 8, Rieglewood, NC 28456
18
Ben Pace, Route 1, P.O. Box 726, Chandler, NC 28715
Gary Roberts, Landowner, P.O Box 8, Alexander, NC 28701
COMMENT lrr: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Definition for "Responsible Party" with respect
to the rights of adjoining property owners;
This rule is an unconstitutional infring ement on the pro pe1ty rights oflandowners and
lacks sufficient statutory authority . It does not give a leg al definition of the word
"obstructs". The adverse economic impacts on prop e1tv values from allowin g contaminates
to move onto or remain on another person's pro perty, through the RS design ation,
has not been addressed b y the Division. Rule .0102 (c) will adversely effect ad jacent
landowners due to loss of prope rty value and inability to finance the sale of pro pe rty . We
recommend deletion of Rule .0102 (1 9 )(c ). This rule removes the incentive for the
res ponsible p a rty to reimburse landowners through the sale of prop e ttv or leasing
agreements. Protect prop e rty owners b v stating in the rules that pro pe rty owners have the
ri ght to refuse contamination on their land and that contamination will not be allowed onto
their land. The state should not allow contamination to reach another persons land and the
rules should s p ecify this restriction. The res ponsible patty should be all those who created
the environmental problem.
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
Katherine Hodge, President, League of Women Voters of Moore County,
P.O. Box 1995, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Janet Hoyle, Director, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League,
P.O. Box 88, Glendale Springs, NC 28629 (**Ms.Hoyle repeated her
comments at the Asheville hearing**)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Phyllis Kalk, Natural Resources Unit Chair, League of Women Voters
of Moore County, P.O. Box 1995, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Christopher W. Loeb, Attorney at Law; Robinson, Bradshaw, & Hinson,
P.A., 1900 Independence Center, 101 North Tyron St., Charlotte, NC
28246
Patricia Nunn, P.O. Box 172, Millers Creek, NC 28651
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
Tim Sullivan, Poyner & Spruill-Attorneys at Law, 3600 Glenwood
Avenue, P.O. Box 10096, Raleigh, NC 27605-0096
19
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, fuc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
(Comments made the Williamston hearing)
Gary R. Grant, General Director, Concerned Citizens of Tillery,
P.O. Box 61, Tillery, NC 27887
Brenda B. Remmes, Chairperson, Northampton Citizens Against
Pollution, P.O Box 486, Woodland, NC 27897
Therese Vick, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O Box 512,
Rich Square, NC 27869
(Comments made the Raleigh hearing)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Rick Johnson, 140 West Vermont Avenue, Southern Pines, NC 28387
Sam McClintock, Environmental Chemist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies,
7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602
Marsh Smith, Lawyer, MooreFORCE, P.O. Box 541, Southern Pines, NC
28388
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Donnell Van Noppen III, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
(Comments made the Salisbury hearing:)
Joann Almond, Farmer/Homeowner, Stanley Citizens Opposed to Toxic
Chemical Hazards, 28836 Canton Road, Albemarle, NC 28001
Terry Burnham, Rowan county resident, 1070 Driftwood Trail,
Salisbury, NC
Ann Coan, Natural Resources Division Director, North Carolina Farm
Bureau Federation, P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Bob Pingry, President, Atlantic Environmental Services fuc., P.O.
Box 15130, Charlotte, NC 28211
Al Westerberg, Reverend, Church of the Divine fuspiration, P. 0. Box
361, Woodleaf, NC 27054
20
(Comments made the Asheville hearing:)
Monroe Gilmore, P .O. Box 1341, Blackmountain, NC 28711
Mary Sauls Kelly, Ph.D., Coordinator and Ecologist, Western North
Carolina Alliance, 70 Woodfin Place, Suite 03, Asheville, NC 28801
Evelyn Nichols, Concerned Neighbors of General Electric, 107
Maplewood Drive, E. Flat Rock, NC 28726
Virginia Sexton, Cherokee Indian Wake Up, P.O. Box 149, Cherokee,
NC 28779
Cory Zeller, High School Senior, P.O. Box 848, Marshall, NC 28753
CO1\1MENT lss: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Revise this definition to read as follows: "a subsequent purchaser of pro pe rty . Which
property is the source of groundwater quality standards violations. Who purchased the
prope rty with the knowledge of the contamination , or"
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil
Company, 539 South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
CO1\1MENT ltt: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
The existing Federal CERCLA law is sufficient to address obstructionist pro pe1tv
owners. This amendment is unnecessary and will serve to confuse the public.
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Lynn Phillips, P.E., Regional Vice-President, Heritage
Environmental Services, Inc., 4132 Pompano Road, Charlotte, NC
28216
COMMENT luu: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Defmition for "Responsible Party";
This rule only requires access to adjacent properties for implementation of a corrective
action plan. It does not address access for site assessments. Address this oversight in the
rule.
RESPONSE:
21
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 1 vv: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Definition for "Responsible Party" conflicts with
North Carolina General Statues;
The rule is inconsistent with the Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substance Control Act.
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.93 states that polluters are strictl y liable for
prop erty damag es to ad joining landowners (N.C.G.S. 143-215.93 ) and must cleanup the
site as nearly as may be to the condition existing prior to the discharg e (N .C.G.S. 143-
215.84).
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Donnell Van Noppen III, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT lww: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Definition for "Responsible Party" conflicts
with North Carolina General Statues;
The rule in its present form does not go far enough at givin g res ponsible parties access
to ad jacent lands. Change this definition in Rule .0102(1 9 )(c) as follows:
"( c) an ad joinin g pro pe rty owner who obstructs the imp lementation of assessments as
re quired by the Division or corrective action that would prevent further contamination."
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
COMMENT lxx: Rule .0102(19)(c)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Delete the word "obstructs" from the rule. Change Rule .0102 (1 9 )(c) to the following:
"(c ) an ad joining pro pe 1ty owner who unreasonably withholds permission to enter the
pro perty to implement corrective action that would prevent further contamination."
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina
22
Power & Light Company, Technical Services Department, 411
Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT lyy: Rule .0102(19)-Proposed additional definition for
"Responsible Party";
Add a fourth p aragra ph to this rule that makes those individuals or companies eng a ged
in pip eline excavation res ponsible party(s) if damages occurs to the pi peline and individual
fails to utilize a "one call" sy stem. The third p arty is res ponsible for the acts that caused the
incident and should be accountable as the res ponsible party in Rule .0102 ( 19 ).
RESPONSE:
See response to lgg.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT lzz: Rule .0102-Proposed definition for "target levels";
There needs to be a clear definition for "target levels". Add this change as follows:
"Target levels as defined in Rule .0202 of these rules or, alternate levels as approved by
the Division, determined for a site, based on site specific conditions".
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The term "Target Levels" does not occur anywhere within the text of
the proposed rules. Alternate levels have been removed from the proposed rule.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
2 ) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0103: Policy
COMMENT 2a: Rule .0103-Proposed amendment to groundwater policy;
We SUPPORT the change in policy that restores groundwaters " .. where it is feasible
and necessary to protect health and the environment" and to ensure that drinkin g water is
protected. The current p olicy ofremediating all degraded groundwaters does not factor in
the enormous costs ofremediation, loss of business profits , and hardshi ps imposed on
less financiall y capable members of the regu lated community . It is abundantly clear that
current available technology cannot cleanu p groundwaters to the level of the 15A NCAC
2L .0202 standards under all the varied g eologic conditions in North Carolina. This
pro posed policy chang e reflects regulato1y common sense because it recogn izes that some
groundwaters require active remediation and others should be remediated through other
processes.
23
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comments)
Julianne M. Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Chris Campbell, Sales Manager; Campbell Oil Company, P.O. Box 637,
Elizabethtown, NC 2833 7
Robert Alan Cohen, Chairman-Groundwater Subcommittee, North
Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, 225 Hillsborough
Street, P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC 27602
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC
27603
John W. Keefer, Crossroads Fuel Service, Inc., 335-G.S. Centerville
Turnpike, Chesapeake, VA 23322
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Stephen A. McSween, Attorney at Law, Edgerton, McAfee, Armistead &
Davis, P.C., 500 First American Center, P.O. Box 2047, Knoxville,
TN 37901 (representing H.T. Hackney Co./ Hackney Petroleum, Inc.)
Lynn Phillips, P.E., Regional Vice-President, Heritage
Environmental Services, Inc., 4132 Pompano Road, Charlotte, NC
28216
Edward T. Perkins, Vice-President; Huffman Oil Co., P.O. Box 730,
Burlington, NC 27216-0730
Gene F. Renzaglia, Plant Manager, Occidental Chemical Corporation,
Basic Chemicals Group, 5408 Holly Shelter Road, P.O. Box 368,
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Hal Waddell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil Company, 751 Ash Street,
P.O. Box 629, Hendersonville, NC 28793
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, Inc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearing)
24
John D. Grady, President, Contractors and Engineers Services, Inc.,
1304 North William Street, P.O. Box 762, Goldsboro, NC 27533-0762
Robert Heath, Sampson-Bladen Oil Company, Environmental Director,
Hyway 421 North, Clinton, NC 28328
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at Raleigh, Salisbury and Asheville**)
Mary Kanyha, Mayor of Pine Knoll Shores, N.C.; Town of Pine Knoll
Shores, 100 Municipal Circle, Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28152
L.P. McCullen, President, Marine Oil Company, P.O. Box 685, Warsaw,
NC 28398
Bobby Tripp, General Manager, Davenridge Oil Company, P.O. Box 567,
Greenville, NC 27858
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Graham Bennett, President of NCPMA, Quality Oil Company/North
Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association, P.O. Box 2736,
Winston-Salem, NC 27102 (**Mr. Bennett repeated his comments at
the Salisbury hearing**)
L.W. Locke, President, Eastern Petroleum Corporation, P.O. Box 398,
Enfield, NC 27823
Sam M. Watkins, President, Rose Oil Company, Inc., P.O. Box 706,
Henderson, NC 25736
Dillon Wooton, President, Wooten Oil Company, P.O. Box 1277,
Goldsboro, NC 27533-1277
(Comments made at the Salisbury hearing:)
Paul Siceloff, Consulting Manager, Siceloff Oil/friple Land
Companies of High Point, NC, 606-A Hillsborough Road, Carrboro, NC
27510
(Comments made at the Asheville hearing:)
Arthur S. Gillespie, Jr., Environmental Manager, FMC Corporation/
Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina, P.O. Box 795, Bessemer
City, NC 28016
COMMENT 2b: Rule .0103 -Proposed amendment to groundwater policy;
We OPPOSE amending the groundwater policy of the state as shown in the pro posed
amendment. The lan gu ag e re quirin g cleanu p of all deg raded g roundwaters is absolutely
vital to the protection of our citizens. The current rule reco gn izes that "the best usag e of the
groundwaters of the state is as a source of drinkin g water". This policy assures protection
of our groundwater resources. We do not feel that enough technical information is known
25
about groundwaters to change this policy . We recommend no chang es be made to
Rule .0103.
RESPONSE:
Staff agree that the ultimate ideal of environmental protection is the cleanup of all
degraded groundwater and the restoration of said groundwater to a pristine state.
The proposed amendments are a recognition of the fact that the resources and the
technology needed to accomplish this ideal does not exist. Even if the rule is not
amended, the fact is that a great many contaminated sites will have to remain
unremediated due to a lack of funding and manpower. Because the current rule does
not differentiate between a slightly contaminated site and a badly contaminated one,
State resources are often wasted in a vain effort to restore sites whose contaminant
levels are only slightly elevated above the groundwater quality standards.
Commonly, such sites cannot be remediated and pose no threat, while badly
contaminated sites receive little or no treatment and pose a real threat to human life
and the environment. The proposed amendments attempt to provide some controls
over the type of site that is left to remediate naturally. It is hoped that the proposed
amendments will be able to divert funding and manpower to those contaminated sites
which pose a real threat to human health and the environment. Sites which pose no
threat and are impossible to remediate with current technology are therefore left to
remediate naturally while the State's resources are focused where the most good can
be accomplished.
It is hoped that advances in effective, economical remediation technology will
make possible a complete restoration of every contaminated site in the future.
(Written Comments)
Katherine Hodge, President, League of Women Voters of Moore County,
P.O. Box 1995, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Margaret R. Jones, President, Save Our Rivers, Inc., P.O. Box 122,
Franklin, NC 28734
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Phyllis Kalk, Natural Resources Unit Chair, League of Women Voters
of Moore County, P.O. Box 1995, Southern Pines, NC 28388
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comments made at the Williamston hearing)
Gary R. Grant, General Director, Concerned Citizens of Tillery,
P.O. Box 61, Tillery, NC 27887
Brenda B. Remmes, Chairperson, Northampton Citizens Against
Pollution, P.O Box 486, Woodland, NC 27897
Therese Vick, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O Box 512,
Rich Square, NC 27869
26
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North Carolina/ Sierra Club,
1024 Washington Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1258
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air Natural Resources, League of
Women Voters, 411 Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Harry Huberth, President, MooreFORCE Inc., P.O. Box 514, Southern
Pines, NC 28388
Rick Johnson, MooreFORCE Inc., 140 West Vermont Avenue, Southern
Pines, NC 28387
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box
286, Wadesboro, NC 28170 (**Ms.Lee repeated her comments at the
Salisbury hearing)
Mary MacDowell, Research Coordinator, Chatham County Low Level
Radioactive Site Designation Review Committee, P.O. Box 87,
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Samuel C. Mcclintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
(**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the Salisbury hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602
Carl Rupert, Number 2, Quintin Place, Durham, NC 27705
Marsh Smith, Lawyer, MooreFORCE, P.O. Box 541, Southern Pines, NC
28388
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Maureen Sutton, MooreFORCE, 345 North Page Street, Southern Pines,
NC 28387
Donnell Van Noppen ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
Rochelle Whiteside, Homemaker, P.O. Box 247, Burgaw, NC 28425
Judith B. Wood, Natural Resources Chairperson, League ofWomen
Voters of Chapel Hill/ Carrboro, 9 Mt. Bolus Road, Chapel Hill, NC
27514
Laura B. Wooten, 8033 Malpass Corner Road, Currie, NC 28435
27
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing:)
Joann Almond, Farmer, Stanley Citizens Opposed to Toxic Chemical
Hazards, 28836 Canton Road, Albemarle, NC 28001
Bob Pingry, President, Atlantic Environmental Services Inc., P.O.
Box 15130, Charlotte, NC 28211
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC
27406
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing:)
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801
Mary Sauls Kelly, Ph.D., Coordinator and Ecologist, Western North
Carolina Alliance, 70 Woodfin Place, Suite 03, Asheville, NC 28801
Evelyn Nichols, Concerned Neighbors of General Electric, 107
Maplewood Drive, E. Flat Rock, NC 28726
Gary Roberts, Landowner, P.O Box 8, Alexander, NC 28701
Virginia Sexton, Cherokee Indian Wake Up, P.O. Box 149, Cherokee,
NC 28779
Leni Sitnick, 90 Gertrude Place, Asheville, NC 28801
Cory Zeller, High School Senior, P.O. Box 848, Marshall, NC 28753
COMMENT 2c: Rule .0103(a)-New language in this paragraph;
The underlined wording needs to be removed. The wording used weakens the states
regulatory effort.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 2b
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 2d: Rule .0103(a)-Clarification of the meaning of "feasible and
necessary";
We request more information re gardin g the discussions involvin g the meaning of
"feasible and necessary " as it relates to enhancing and restorin g groundwaters. This phrase
is without a clear definition.
28
RESPONSE:
The feasibility and necessity of any cleanup will have to be decided on a case-by-
case basis by staff. Hydrogeologic conditions and contaminant properties vary so
greatly from site to site that it is not possible to precisely defme "feasible and
necessary" in such a way that it is applicable to all sites or situations.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing:)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 2e: Rule .0103(a)-Clarification of the meaning of "significant
treatment";
There needs to be a definition for "si gn ificant treatment" in these rules. The term also
a pp ears in Rule .0104 (c).
RESPONSE:
The use of "significant treatment" in .0103(a) is a statement of fact about the
existing quality of groundwater in the State of North Carolina today. As the phrase
contains no regulatory connotations, and its use conforms to the accepted usage of
modern English, it requires no defmition.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
G. Gary Nixon, P.E., Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited, One
Centerview Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
29
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 2f: Rule .0103(a)-Support for the wording "significant treatment";
The addition of the word "sign ificant" is necessary and needs no further definition in
Rule .0102.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. See response to comment 2e.
(Written Comment)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 2g: Rule .0103(a)-Delete the word "significant" from significant
treatment;
Delete the pro posed language in this rule. The present languag e is sufficient.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 2e.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing:)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
(**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the Salisbury hearing)
COMMENT 2h: Rule .0103(b)-Conllict between Rule .0103(a) and (b);
It a pp ears that p aragra ph (b) conflicts with the overall intent of paragra ph (a). Parag ra ph
(b) states that all groundwaters are to be protected "at least as high as re quired under
standards established in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter. The groundwater quality standards
are targets for corrective action only not as requirements to cleanu p all g roundwaters.
RESPONSE:
Staff do not consider .0103(a) and .0103(b) to be in conllict. .0103(b) states that
"it is the intention of the Commission to protect all groundwaters to a level at least as
high as that required under the standards established in Rule .0202 ... " .. 0103(a)
states" ... It is the intent of these rules to protect the overall high quality of North
Carolina's groundwaters to the level established by the standards and to enhance and
restore the quality of degraded groundwaters where feasible ... ". The rules are
designed to protect the State's groundwater resource to the level of quality established
in .0202. Corrective Action is an entirely different matter and the rules recognize that
30
it may not be in the public's best interest that all contaminated groundwaters be
remediated to the levels prescribed for protection.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 2i: Rule .0103(b)-Intent of the Commission to protect groundwaters;
State the intention of the Commission is to protect groundwaters to the Rule .0202
standards and speci fy that these standards are "target corrective action levels".
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The intent of the Commission to protect groundwater to the standards
specified in .0202 is stated in .0103(a) and .0103(b). The standards specified in .0202
are not considered to be "targets". The standards specified are the established
corrective action levels unless approved otherwise by the Director.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 2j: Rule .0103(b)(2)-Approval of disposal systems;
Reinstate the lan gua ge that prohibits g roundwater gualti y standards violations beyond
pro perty boundaries. Enforcement of groundwater rules for contaminates that cross
pro pe rty boundaries will be difficult.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The amendment was proposed in order to provide consistency with
15A NCAC 2L .0107.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing:)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
(**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the Salisbury hearing)
31
Donnell Van Noppen ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC-27611
COMMENT 2k: Rule .0103(b)(2)-Approval of disposal systems and support for
designated compliance boundary language;
I support the pro posed amendments because restrictin g dis posal sy stems to a
compliance boundary may encomp ass a much smaller area of contamination relative to the
area resulting from allowing contaminants to travel toward prop e1ty boundaries.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 21: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be performed
by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
We supp ort this chang e requiring Professional Engineers and Licensed Geologi st
perform certain actions in the rules as the means to assure high quali ty ofremediation
sv stems, s pecialized construction , and accurate interp retation of geologi c environments.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted. ·
(Written Comment)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Joseph P. Nestor, P.G., Project Manager, Cooper Environmental, 2300
Sardis Road North, Suite Q, Charlotte, NC 28227
Curtis H. Springer ill, Director of The Environmental Soil
Recycling Program, Cherokee Environmental Group, 1600 Colon Road,
Sanford, NC 27330
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearing:)
Rick Catlin, President, Richard Catlin and Associates, 220 Old
Dairy Road, Wilmington, NC 28405
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
32
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury and Asheville
hearings**)
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing:)
Richard Cottingham, North Carolina Board of Registration for
Professional Engineers/ Law Engineering, 3301 Atlantic Avenue,
Raleigh, NC 27619
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing:)
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC
27406
COMMENT 2m: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be
performed by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
This rule is unfair to many practitioners in the groundwater field who have not been
licensed by state boards and recommend a state accreditation pro gram. similar to what the
Asbestos Control Branch uses , be implemented. We also feel this amendment needs to be
postponed.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment ta.
(Written Comment)
Dolly Bidwan, Law & Company, 1711 Castle Street, P.O Box 629,
Wilmington, NC 28402
COMMENT 2n: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be
performed by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
Amend Rule .0103 (e ) to require professional engineers and licensed g eologists review
remediation sy stem desi gn and g roundwater investigations.
RESPONSE:
In the case of site assessments, rule .0103(e) requires that all work must be
performed by persons, firms, or corporations duly licensed to offer geological or
engineering services. Remediation system design may only be performed by persons,
firms, or corporations duly licensed to offer engineering services. It is the opinion of
Staff that .0103(e) provides adequate controls on the quality of data the Division will
be receiving.
(Written Comment)
R.W. Dozier, Sr., Quick Chek, Inc., 220 West Spring Street, Troy,
NC 27371
33
COMMENT 2o: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be
performed by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
Amend this rule so that re ports and other activities can be performed b v individuals
certified b y the American Institute of Hydrology of the National Water Association.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment la.
(Written Comment)
John Estridge, Engineer, Duke Power Company, Environmental
Division, 13339 Hagers Ferry Road, Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
COMMENT 2p: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be
performed by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
This rule is inconsistent with federal regulations. The U.S Environmental Protection
A gency, under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA), recogn izes
qualified groundwater professionals. 40 CPR 260.10 and 40 CPR 258.50 (0 provide a
definition for g round-water professional. In addition , Rule .0111 excludes p ersons with
backg rounds in h ydrology and h ydrogeology from practicing their trades. Change this
rule to be consistent with federal law.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The federal government recognizes that the needs of each State are
different. Accordingly, States have the option to promulgate rules which are more
stringent than those of the federal government if deemed necessary. Therefore, the
State is within its rights to more stringently define the qualifications of those
performing environmental work within its boundaries. See also the response to
comment la.
(Written Comment)
Dario J. Dal Santo, Senior Hydrologist/Senior Program Manager, Rust
Environment & Infrastructure, P.O. Box 1308, Cary, NC 25512
COMMENT 2q: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be
performed by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
Amend this rule to further sp ecify the ex pertise needed to perform the activities listed.
RESPONSE:
The State Legislature has defined the necessary requirements and expertise by
Statute.
(Written Comment)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
34
COMMENT 2r: Rule .0103(e)-Requirement that certain technical work be
performed by persons duly licensed in their respective field;
Revise this rule so that only inde pendent persons . firms or professional coo peration's
that are duly licensed b y the a pp ro priate occupational boards can perform the activities
listed in Paragra ph (e). This prevents res ponsible parties from actin g as their own
environmental consultant.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment la.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 2s: Rule .0103(e)-Defmition of Specialized Construction;
A clear definition of "S p ecialized Construction" needs to be included in this revision.
Certain activities related to pump and treat sy stems mav not need a Professional Engineer's
Seal such as remediation packag es that size pumps based on geologic conditions. In
addition, this term could be construed in a manner such that res ponsible parties are
restricted from pe1formin g their own remediation activities. This will waste trust fund
money and restrict some members of the regulated community from access to innovative
technologies.
RESPONSE:
If questions arise as to the need of a seal for a certain type of work, an initial
determination will be requested from the appropriate board. These responses would
be compiled and saved in order to address similar inquiries in the future.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 2t: Rule .0103(e)-Specialized Construction and the permitting process;
Requiring a Professional Engineers seal to s pecialized construction activities should not
be a pp lied toward closed-loo p groundwater remediation sy stems where the plume has been
delineated. One single permit can handle this non-discharg e activity. Requiring a P.E. seal
for every ste p in the remediation process could slow down permitting thus lead to more
contaminant plume s pread.
35
RESPONSE:
The process of designing specialized construction should take no more time for a
Professional Engineer than it would for anyone else.
The rule does not specify the number of permits any specialized construction
activity might be required to have.
Under the proposed amendments, if a site is contaminated to the extend it
requires active remediation, then it deserves the attention of a Professional Engineer
or Licensed Geologist even if that expertise must be applied to every step in the
remedial process. As groundwater flow rates are generally very small, the time
required for additional expertise should contribute little to the spread of the
contaminant plume.
(Written Comment)
Harvey C. Danner, Jr., President, Salem Environmental,
Inc./Certifoam Services, Inc., P.O. Box 5524, Winston-Salem, NC
27113-5524
COMMENT 2u: Rule .0103(e)-Clarification on the allowable role for Professional
Engineers;
Are Professional Engineers restricted from performing subsurface investi gations?
RESPONSE:
No. The proposed amendment specifies that both Professional Engineers and
Licensed Geologists are qualified to perform subsurface investigations.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 2v: Rule .0103(e)-New defmition for professionals duly licensed in their
respective field;
We pro pose to include the words "qualified professional" or "other qualified
professionals" in Rule . 0103. This will exp and the number of professions beyond
geologists and engineers. Also make Rule .0110 and .0111 consistent with this chang e.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. See the response for comment la.
(Written Comment)
Craig A. Bromby, Hunton & Williams, One Hanover Square, Suite 1400,
Fayetteville Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27601 (representing the
North Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals)
Jerry McCrain, Vice President, Environmental Services Inc., 1318
Dale Street, Raleigh, NC 27605
36
COMMENT 2w: Rule .0103( e )-Types of technical work performed by persons duly
licensed in their respective field;
This p aragraph is in conflict with Chapter 89E (Geologists Licensing Act) of the
General Statutes. This allows geologists to be involved in subsurface investigations and
s pecialized construction techniques in remediation system design . The actual roles of both
these professions are ve1y complex. Here are some suggested changes:
Subsurface investig ations (Site Assessments);
a) Engineering ... This profession should act as the evaluator of pro perties of subsurface
materials.
b ) Geologists .... Contamination investigations are the realm of these individuals.
Corrective Action (Remediation Sy stem Design): Although there is much overlap of a
number of professions , this a pp roach is most prudent.
a ) Engineerin g ... Groundwater p um p and above ground treatment.
b ) Licensed geologi st or a Professional Engineer ... In-situ remediation (air s parging and
bioremediation).
RESPONSE:
The North Carolina Joint Committee for Professional Practice reviewed these
comments. The following is a summary:
-The Committee reviewed the curriculum offered by North Carolina Universities
for both geologists and engineers and found that training necessary to perform
assessment work is as clearly provided for in some engineering curriculums as it
is in a geology curriculum.
-The opinion of the Committee was that design of remediation plans intended for
construction or plans and specifications of any type, require the seal of a
Registered Professional Engineer. This issue is very clear and we do not
recommend that any distinction be made for any particular type of remediation.
-The construction of remedial systems is not limited to engineering firms by the
proposed amendment. The proposed amendment states that the design is
restricted to persons or professional corporations who are duly licensed to offer
engineering services. The specialized construction of the remedial system does
not have to be performed by persons or firms who are engineers.
(Written Comment)
R. Paul Clark, P.G., President, Clark Environmental Services, Inc.,
7225 Wrightville Avenue, P.O. Box 10136, Wilmington, NC 28403
COMMENT 2x: Rule .0103(e)-Restricting specialized construction work to
engineering persons, firms and corporations;
The requirement to restrict s pecialized construction to engineers and en gineering groups
is unfair to other qualified professions and will add additional cost to the State Trust Fund
b y forcin g res ponsible parties into hirin g the services of these firms. It deviates from the
37
intent of Federal regu lations (40 CPR Parts 280 and 281 ) in that it excludes tank owners
and o perators from direct partici pation in cleanup activities. Amend this rule to allow all
those qualified/insured to perform specialized construction work.
RESPONSE:
See responses to comments la and 2p
(Written Comment)
R. Paul Clark, P.G., President, Clark Environmental Services, Inc.,
7225 Wrightville Avenue, P.O. Box 10136, Wilmington, NC 28403
COMMENT 2y: Rule .0103(e) -The impact on corporations of restricting specialized
work;
The impact of this rule on firms and co rp orations is unclear. It is inappropriate to place
this paragra ph under the Policy section. It should be placed under Rule .011 l (b) for
clarification and deleted from Rule . 0103.
RESPONSE:
.0103(e) defines which professions shall be allowed to perform certain types of
work. As such, it is not appropriate for this section to appear in .0111 which deals
with reporting requirements.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 2z: Rule .0103(e)-Qualifications of Professional Engineers and Licensed
Geologists to perform certain tasks;
The p ossession of a professional license as re quired in the rules will not gu arantee
that remediation work will be of an acce ptable quality. Many as pects of site
characterizations involve the evaluation of toxicological effects. The Professional
Engineers exam does not involve this facet of the work that is required in Rule . 0106.
RESPONSE:
See responses to comments la and 2p.
(Written Comment)
DeWitt Whitten, Stalite Environmental, P.O. Box 1037, 205 Klumac
Road, Salisbury, NC 28144
3) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0104: RESTRICTED DESIGNATION (RS)
COMMENT 3a: Rule .0104-Restricted designation (RS);
I support the changes to the rule allowing the Restricted desi gn ation (RS ) as a temporary
status for contaminated groundwaters.
38
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 3b: Rule .0104-Provide an expanded definition of the Restricted (RS)
Designation;
Further delineate the Restricted Design ation (RS ) and establish this as a classification
under Rule .0201 of this Subchapter.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. RS is intended to only be a temporary designation.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc:, Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 3c: Rule .0104-Application of the RS designation to Hazardous solid
wastes and other permitted sites;
Revise this rule to exclude permitted solid waste , hazardous waste and other dis posal
facilities and sites. This is a loo phole in the current rule that could impact our health.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. Activities which were permitted pursuant to 143-215.1 prior to
December 30, 1983, should be allowed to use the alternate cleanup provisions
specified in Rule .0106 if necessary. Such activities were permitted prior to the
existence of groundwater rules in the State of North Carolina and did not receive the
same kind of review as is performed today. The rule will be amended to allow
activities permitted prior to December 30, 1983 to remediate naturally. This
comment is offered by the Environmental Management Commission.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Judith B. Wood, Natural Resources Chairperson, League of Women
Voters of Chapel Hill/ Carrboro, 9 Mt. Bolus Road, Chapel Hill, NC
27514
COMMENT 3d: Rule .0104-RS classillcations and property rights of adjacent
landowners;
Place a requirement in the rule that a pp licants for an RS desi gnation obtain consent from
and ad jacent landowner to any contaminate migration onto his lands. An alternate course
is to prohibit an RS design ation in situations where a pro pe rty boundary would be
impacted.
39
RESPONSE:
Staff is of the opinion that, under certain circumstances, the RS designation
should be prohibited where a property boundary is impacted and permission has not
been received from the adjoining property owner. However, the RS designation
should not be prohibited in areas where public water supply is available. Staff
recommend that the following be added to .0104:
(d) No area maybe designated RS where a contaminated groundwater plume has
crossed an adjacent property boundary unless the adjacent property is served by an
approved public water supply or the adjacent property owner grants consent for the
RS designation.
(Written Comment)
Donnell Van Noppen III, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 3e: Rule .0104-Proposed deadline for removal of Restricted (RS)
designations:
It is a waste ofresources to require an indefinite length of time on an RS designation.
Amend this rule to require a year of quarterly groundwater monitoring to detect trends.
Evaluate a monitoring schedule if required. Any remedial actions should be based on
statistically significant increases of regulated substances in groundwater.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. Because the nature of the contaminant, hydrogeology, and other site
specific considerations play a factor in the length of time to naturally remediate a site,
placing fixed time frames with regard to monitoring cannot be accomplished. A
contaminated site with a RS designation should be monitored until the site is fully
remediated. In the event the length of time associated with monitoring costs are
considered prohibitive, active remediation of the site is always a viable alternative.
If monitoring indicates a significant increase in regulated substances at any time
during the RS designation or if it indicates that natural remediation is no longer
taking place, the Director may decide to implement active remediation at the site.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
COMMENT 3f: Rule .0104-Add greater flexibility to the Restricted (RS) designation;
RS designations should not be limited to only those areas where public water supplies
exist. Circumstances such as large acreage's or placing public water supply transmission
lines to rural areas through the Trust Funds need to be considered. Amend this rule to
reflect these options.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The proposed amendments do not restrict the establishment of RS
designations solely to those areas in which public water supplies exist. However, the
40
rule does allow the establishment of a RS designation in areas where a public water
supply exists even though no contamination may be present. Staff feel the wording of
the rule needs modification.
It is the opinion of Staff that the costs involved in the installation of water supply
lines to rural areas would be prohibitive. A better use of Trust Fund monies would be
the provision of bottled water or point of entry treatment systems.
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing:)
Ann Coan, Natural Resources Division Director, North Carolina Farm
Bureau Federation, P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 3g: Rule .0104-Language used in this Rule;
The wording of this rule is confusin g and needs major revisions. Parat!ra ph (c ) needs to
be divided into Sub paragra phs for clari ty sake.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. It is the opinion of Staff that much of the rule appears obscure. In
particular, the section regarding the approximation of RS boundaries as determined
by right angles drawn to the direction of groundwater flow. Based on public
comment, alternate language is being proposed. The alternate language is based on
the boundary requirement buffer required under .0107(b) for compliance boundaries
and should make the text much easier to understand.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
(**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the Salisbury hearing)
COMMENT 3h: Rule .0104(a)-Technology specified for a Restricted (RS)
designation;
The language "readily available and economically reasonable technology " is
inconsistent with the statutory language "best available technology" found and will not
survive leg al challenge.
RESPONSE:
Staff agree. Specific language has been removed. The phrase "best available
technology" will be used where appropriate ..
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
41
COMMENT 31: Rule .0104(a)-Director's authorization to designate GA and GSA
groundwaters as Restricted (RS);
We su pp ort this change allowing the Director to design ate an area as RS.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina
Power & Light Company, Technical Services Department, 411
Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT 3j: Rule .0104(a)-Limit the Director's authorization to designate GA
and GSA groundwaters as Restricted (RS);
Make the followin g chang e to Rule .0104(a):
"(a) The Director is authorized to design ate GA and GSA groundwaters as RS under all of
the followin g circumstances:"
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The comment would remove a great many sites from consideration for
RS designation even though the site may deserve and need such designation.
(Written Comment)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O . Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602(**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 3k: Rule .0104(a)(l)-The RS designation and economically reasonable
technology.
Many Point of Entry groundwater treatment sy stems utilize carbon only to remove
contaminates. For sites with hi gh contaminant concentrations. the rule needs to s pecify
when this technology becomes infeasible.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The proposed rules contain a provision that comprehensive site
assessments and corrective action plans be done by a Professional Engineer or
Licensed Geologist. These two professions are responsible for review and selection of
treatment technology.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC 27515
42
COMMENT 31: Rule .0104(a)(l)-Restricted designation (RS) and "economically
reasonable" technology for alternate corrective actions;
The phrase "economically reasonable" needs to be more clearly defined. Some
res ponsible parties may be less financiall y capable that others.
RESPONSE:
This portion of the proposed rule has been removed.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT 3m: Rule .0104(a)(l)-Restricted designation (RS) and apparent
contradiction with Rule .0104(c).
The proposed Rule .0104 (a )(l) states that RS desi gnated groundwaters can be made
potable using readily available technology . However. Rule .0104 (c) says that RS
design ated g roundwaters cannot be made potable without si gn ificant treatment.
Correct this error b v changin g the next to last sentence in Rule .0104 (a )(l) as follows:
" ...... the g roundwaters cannot be made potable b y using readily available and economicall y
reasonable technology."
RESPONSE:
Staff agrees the rule needs clarification and revision. See response to
comment Jg.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 3n: Rule .0104(a)(l)-Restricted designation (RS);
Though some additional guidance may be needed, we su pp ort this change to the RS
desi gn ation. Delineate the technical criteria further.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment) .
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
Inc., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC
27603
43
COMMENT 3o: Rule .0104(a)(3)-RS designation of GA and GSA groundwaters;
Revise the wording of the rule to state the followin g:
"(3 ) Where the area impacted is served b y anyone using groundwater as a potable water
source."
RESPONSE:
.0104(a)(3) would allow an area to be designated RS even though no
contamination exists. The only requirement would be that a public water supply
exists. Staff recommend that .0104(a)(3) be deleted.
(Written Comments)
G. Gary Nixon, P.E., Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited, One
Centerview Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
COMMENT 3p: Rule .0104(a)(3)-RS designation of GA and GSA groundwaters;
I am concerned that these rule do not include anv provisions to protect water su pp l y and
sewer lines. Certain contaminates may impact and degrade these transmission lines at hi gh
concentrations.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. Certain contaminates can corrode and weaken water and sewer lines.
The defmition of "Receptor" includes a provision for structures and should be
sufficient to treat this concern.
(Written Comment)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 3q: Rule .0104(a)(3)-The RS designation in areas served by a public
water system;
There needs to be a definition for "public water sy stem". If no definition can be
provided. delete this subp aragra ph.
RESPONSE:
Staff has recommended the deletion of this subparagraph. However, a defmition
of "public water system" is provided at North Carolina General Statute 130A-313.10 ..
See comment 3g and 3o.
(Written Comments)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
44
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 3r: Rule .0104(a)(3)-The RS designation in areas served by a public
water system;
Certain livestock o perations such as dairy farmin g re quire hi gh quali ty drinkin g water.
Change this rule to recognize non-human drinkin g water uses.
RESPONSE:
Staff recommend the deletion of .0104(a)(3). See response to comment 3g.
(Written Comments)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
Ann Coan, Natural Resources Division Director, North Carolina Farm
Bureau Federation, P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 3s: Rule .0104(a)(3)-Definition the word "impacted";
There is no clear definition for this word "impacted". Please define it so that the public
understands where an RS desi gn ation can occur.
RESPONSE:
Staff recommend the deletion of .0104(a)(3). See response to comment 3g.
(Written Comments)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 3t: Rule .0104(a)(3)-Public water supplies;
Revise the wording of the rule so that only those areas served b y protected public water
supp lies derived from surface waters can receive an RS design ation. Future g roundwaters
need to be preserved for the population growth of the state.
RESPONSE:
The majority of the State currently possesses an abundance of groundwater. As
such, water conservation measures are not required at this time.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air Natural Resources, League of
Women Voters, 411 Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
45
CO1\1MENT 3u: Rule .0104(b)-RS designation of groundwaters;
Change the rule so that the Director can desi gn ate areas RS even when they are not
served b v a public water supp ly sy stem. This limitation prevents the Director from setting
cleanup priorities.
RESPONSE:
The current wording of the rule does permit the Director to designate areas RS
even though those areas may not be served by public water supplies. See comment 3g.
(Written Comment)
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC
27603
COMMENT 3v: Rule .0104(b)-Provide more enforcement flexibility in designating
groundwaters RS that are inside compliance boundary
areas;
Change Rule .0104 (b) to read as follows:
"(b) Groundwaters occurring within an area defined b y a compliance bounda1y in a waste
dis posal permit may be desi gn ated RS.
RESPONSE:
One of the purposes of the RS designation is to serve as a warning to the public
that the groundwater in a particular area may not be suitable for human or animal
consumption. Therefore, any groundwater occurring within a compliance boundary
must be designated RS.
(Written Comment)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
.COMMENT 3w: Rule .0104(c)-The meaning of "significant treatment";
The term "si gn ificant treatment" is ambi guous and needs further definin g in these rules.
This word term is also found in Rule .0103 (a).
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 3g.
(Written Comments)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
Inc., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 NorthpointDrive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
47
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I Du.Pont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Feny Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1
G. Gary Nixon, P.E., Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited, One
Centerview Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602
COMMENT Jx: Rule .0104(c)-The use of the word "significant" in this paragraph;
Remove the underlined word "si gn ificant" from this p aragra ph.
RESPONSE:
See the response to comment Jg.
(Written Comments)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT Jy: Rule .0104(c)-Boundaries of the RS designated area;
There may be great difficultv in a pp roximatin g the area of a contaminant plume in
urban areas. Underground utilities provide numerous pathway s for contaminant movement
that may not be included in an area a pproximation. In addition , 40 CPR 280.65 requires
investigations for soil and groundwater cleanup . Change the langu a ge to require that the
plume be defined not a pp roximated.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted. Groundwater remediating naturally may not adversely effect a
receptor. Structures, such as underground utilities, are defined as a type of receptor.
(Written Comments)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 3z: Rule .0104(c)-Boundaries of Restricted (RS) areas;
Reinstate the previous overstruck lan gu a ge. Delete all the new language that s pecifies
the dimensions of the Restricted areas. Groundwater flow may fluctuate and may not be
monodirectional over time. The previous lan guage gives the Division the necessary
flexibili ty .
RESPONSE:
See the response to comment Jg.
48
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company hie., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 3aa: Rule .0104(c)-Boundaries of Restricted (RS) areas;
Is this area referrin g to a three dimensional contaminant plume? For clarity sake divide
the second sentence of this Paragrap h into two se parate sentences.
RESPONSE:
See the response to comment 3g.
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
hie., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, hie., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
COMMENT 3bb: Rule .0104(d)-The Restricted (RS) designation and groundwater
monitoring;
There is no definition for "design ated area" in this rule or Rule .0102 Definitions. Is a
"design ated area" the same as a "compliance boundary ".
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of Staff that the "designated area" refers to the area defined by
the RS designation. Staff recommends that the wording be changed to " ... establish
and implement a groundwater monitoring system sufficient to detect changes in
groundwater quality within the designated RS area."
(Written Comments)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 3cc: Rule .0104(d)-Applicable groundwater standards monitoring
systems must meet under the RS designation;
Are the "app licable g roundwater standards" the standards in Rule .0202?
RESPONSE:
"Applicable groundwater standards" may refer to any standards set as the result
of a corrective action plan or the standards defmed in rule .0202.
(Written Comments)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
49
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 3dd: Rule .0104(d)-Required groundwater monitoring under the
Restricted (RS) Designation;
We are concerned that groundwater monitoring sy stems. re quired under the RS
desi gnation . will make the res ponsible party to perform continuous, perp etual and
unnecessa~ groundwater monitoring . We recommend the requirement for continued
groundwater monitoring be conting ent on the typ e of corrective action being p erformed
under Rule .0106.
RESPONSE:
See the response to comment 3e.
(Written Comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 3ee: Rule .0104(d)-Frequency of required groundwater monitoring
under the Restricted (RS) Designation;
The responsible p arty should be required to desi gnate the fre quency of monitoring and
length of program. The typ ical monitoring p eriod for a UST program is one year. The
requirement to p erform additional remedial actions should be based on statistically
si gn ificant increases in groundwater concentrations detected b y the monitoring sy stem.
Change this rule to include these conce pts.
RESPONSE:
Staff are of the opinion that monitoring frequency should be included in the rule .
. 0104(e) has been rewritten to read" ... Monitoring shall be quarterly for the first
year and may be reduced to semi-annually thereafter until the applicable standards
have been achieved ... "
(Written Comments)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 3ff: Rule .0104(d)-Frequency of required groundwater monitoring
under the Restricted (RS) Designation;
Chang e the second sentence of this Paragra ph to read as follows:
"Monitoring shall be conducted semi-annually or until a pp licable standards are achieved."
This chang e provides the res ponsible parties and regulators with a definitive schedule for
g roundwater monitoring .
RESPONSE:
Staff are of the opinion that monitoring frequency should be included in the rule.
50
.0104(e) has been rewritten to read" ... Monitoring shall be quarterly for the first
year and may be reduced to semi-annually thereafter until the applicable standards
have been achieved ... "
(Written Comments)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 3gg: Rule .0104(d)-Clarify the meaning of "sufficient monitoring";
A new definition for "sufficient monitoring " will need to be provided. The number of
wells and groundwater modeling needs to be s pecified in the rules.
RESPONSE:
See the responses to 3e and 3ff
(Written Comments)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC
27406
COMMENT 3hh: Rule .0104(d)-Make this rule consistent with "Responsible Party"
definition;
Change the words "person res ponsible" to "res ponsible pa rty ". The phrase "person
responsible for groundwater contamination leading to an RS Design ation" a pp ears to
restrict enforcement to only those individuals "wholly or partiall y responsible" in Rule
.0102(1 9 )(a ) and this chang e will address that discre pancy .
RESPONSE:
Staff has recommended the deletion of the term "responsible party". See
response to lgg.
(Written Comments)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina
Power & Light Company, Technical Services Department, 411
Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT 3ii: Rule .0104{d)-Directors option to require additional remedial
actions in an RS designated area;
51
Delineate the conditions under which the Director will require additional remedial
actions. Clarify the meaning of "may be required".
RESPONSE:
The rule states that additional corrective action will only be required if the
contaminant concentrations increase. The meaning to the term "may be required" is
that prescribed by common English usage.
The conditions under which additional remedial actions might be required cannot
be defined. Each site is different and may require different measures in order to
achieve compliance.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 3jj: Rule .0104(d)-Impact Directors authority to allow monitoring
where multiple environmental problems exist;
How does this Paragra ph protect pro pe11y owners with potential environmental
problems of their own? What if the ad jacent property owner has problems more serious
than the res ponsible parties leaking UST? What if the ad jacent property owner has
problems less serious than the res ponsible patty 's leaking UST? These rules allow the
Director to have too much autonomy with reg ard to cleanups.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted. A paragraph .0104(d) has been added as follows:
(d) No area may be designated RS where a contaminated groundwater plume has
crossed an adjacent property boundary unless the adjacent property is served by an
approved public water supply or the adjacent property owner grants consent for the
RS designation.
15A NCAC 2L in no way alters or changes the common law property rights of
the private citizen. In the event the migration of contamaination results in the loss of
property value, adjacent property owners may redress any concerns through the legal
system. The purpose of this rule is to define those conditions under which a site is
eligiable for an RS designation. The rule does not define, limit, alter, or modify any
right prescibed by law to the property owner.
Instances in which contaminants from several sites have mixed, and there is more
than one responsible party, will have to be treated on an individual basis.
(Written Comments)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
Inc., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 3kk: Rule .0104(e)-Public notice of Restricted designation (RS);
Amend this rule to provide regular public notice through listin g RS design ations with
52
issued NPDES p ermits. An alternate action would be to publish notice through the
Environmental Clearinghouse bulletins.
RESPONSE:
There is no relationship between NPDES permits and RS designated sites.
The purpose of notice is to notify the people living in the area that a RS
designated site is proposed for their area. Notice in the Environmental Clearinghouse
Bulletin would do little to reach the average private citizen.
(Written Comments)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
COMMENT 311: Rule .0104(e)-Public notice of Restricted designation (RS);
I support the notice requirements in that they need to be comparable with the
requirements in Rule .0114.
RESPONSE:
The rule has been modified to require that notice be given in accordance with
NCGS 143-215.4. The rule is also being modified to requre that the applicant for an
RS designation give notice to all property owners within and adjacent to the proposed
RS designation.
The other report requirements specified in .0114 require far too much
information to reasonably incorporate into a notice.
(Written Comments)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 3mm: Rule .0104(e)(l)-Notice requirements for a Restricted (RS)
designation;
Add a requirement that notice of a Restricted design ation (RS ) be p osted at the site. This
will provide local citizens with information that is readil y available to them.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. Rules requiring notification of local property owners by the applicant
are being proposed in the revised rules.
(Written Comments)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 3nn: Rule .0104(e)(l)-Noticing the "chief administrative officer" under
notice requirements for a Restricted (RS) designation;
The phrase "chief administrative officer of the political jurisdiction in which the
contamination's occurs" could be interp reted to mean all administrative officers of all the
cumulative jurisdictions would need notification. We do not feel that this was intended and
53
pro pose to change this rule as follows:
"(1) Notice shall be published one time in a news pa per having general circulation ..... final
action. fu addition , notice shall be provided to the local County Health Director and the
chief administrative officer of the smallest political jurisdiction , or jurisdictions in the event
the contamination extends across the geographic boundaries of jurisdiction ,
in which the contamination occurs ."
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The chief administrative officers of all the cumulative jurisdictions
have the right and the need to be notified when public hearing is to be held regarding
RS designation.
(Written Comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.1 DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT Joo: Rule .0104(e)(l)-Purpose of Public Notice requirements;
What are the objectives of a public hearin g for an RS designation? What happ ens if the
public re jects an RS desi gn ation and how would this impact alternate cleanup levels in the
process of bein g formulated for a site?
RESPONSE:
Public hearings are held to receive public input on a proposed action. If sufficient
information is presented to indicate that a natural remediation program, or
termination of corrective action, is not in the best interest of the public or the
environment, the director can specify that active remediation continue.
(Written Comments)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
fuc., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 3pp: Rule .0104(e)(2)-Notice requirements for a Restricted (RS)
designation;
These notice requirements need an additional provision that includes the county title
number, county tax identification number. or the prope1tv tax book and pa ge identifiers.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. Staff recommends the addition of this requirement into the proposed
rule.
(Written Comment)
Edward L. Berry, Consulting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
Raleigh, NC 27614
COMMENT 3qq: Rule .0104(e)(3)-Requirement for public notice of Restricted (RS)
54
designation;
The Division is re quired to issue only one media notice to local media when the
Director determines a public hearin g is necessa1y for a site that is under consideration for
the Restricted (RS ) desi gnation. This rule should be revised to require several sep arate
notices over a short p eriod of time. Use of television and radio should also be considered.
These changes will allow interested citizens an o pp ortunity to partici pate in this process.
RESPONSE:
Staff recommends that the paragraph be reworded as follows:
(1) Notice shall be published at least 30 days prior to any proposed final action in
accordance with G.S. 143-215.4. In addition, notice shall be provided to all property
owners identified pursuant to paragraph (t) of this Rule and to the local County
Health Director and the chief administrative officer of the political jurisdiction(s) in
which the contaminantion occurs.
(Written Comments)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air Natural Resources, League of
Women Voters, 411 Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27 514
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his
comments at the Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT Jrr: Rule .0104(e)(3)-Public notice of Restricted (RS) designation;
Amend this rule to define "si gn ificant public interest". There is no way for the public to
know what criteria the Director is using in his determination.
RESPONSE:
This phrase is consistent with other regulatory references as to when the director
must hold a public hearing.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 3ss: Rule .0104-Proposed new paragraph at the end of Rule .0104;
55
Add a new paragra ph (f) in Rule .0104 to delineate the RS design ation as a restriction
on a deed. It should read as follows:
"The RS design ation shall be attached as a restriction to the deed to any effected prop e rty,
includin g all adjoinin g pro perties".
RESPONSE:
Disagree. Staff do not feel this is necessary. The RS designation is temporary
and will be removed when the remediation process is complete.
(Written Comments)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
56
COMMENT 3tt: Rule .0104-Proposed new section at the end of Rule .0104;
Add to this rule a new paragraph {g) that requires all uses of groundwater should be
registered and recorded includin g all water wells. on-site dis posal systems . and sources of
contamination.
RESPONSE:
Staff does not think this necessary or feasible. Maintaining a database of all
groundwater use activities, including inception and closure, would be an enormous
undertaking.
(Written Comments)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC
27515
4) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0106 CORRECTIVE ACTION
COMMENT 4a: Rule .0106-Petroleum contaminants with no specific standard in
Rule .0202 and Corrective actions;
A large number of petroleum contaminants do not have a standard in Rule .0202. For
these compounds there are no s pecific remediation actions s pecified in these rules. Require
corrective actions to eliminate taste , odor, and irritation effects to humans.
RESPONSE:
Rule .0202 states that those compounds for which there is no standard established
will not be allowed in detectable concentrations in GS or GSA groundwaters.
Therefore, there should be no taste, odor, or irritation problems for those sites being
remediated in accordance with the requirements of .0202.
(Written Comment)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
(**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the Salisbury hearing)
COMMENT 4b: Rule .0106-Corrective Actions and adjacent property owners
rights;
Where ad jacent prop erties are impacted or threatened b y contamination. include
provisions to s pecify that a pp licants for alternate cleanup levels , natural remediation,
a pp roval of corrective action plans or termination of corrective action must acquire consent
from those ad jacent prope1ty holders to allow contamination across their lands. Otherwise,
prohibit the above actions where contaminates a pproach pro pe1ty lines.
RESPONSE:
Agree. The rights of adjacent property owners should be protected at all times.
Staff feel that the rules should specify that if public water supply is not available the
adjacent property owners must consent to the migration of contamination onto their
property or the site must undergo active cleanup activities.
In addition, Federal law provides certain basic rights to the property owner.
57
North Carolina General Statute 143.211 also provides for the protection of property
owners.
See response to comment 3jj.
(Written Comment)
Donnell Van Noppen Ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4c: Rule .0106-Compensating costs of adjacent property owners
impacted by contamination;
Place a provision requiring the a pp licant fund the ad joining pro pe rty owners costs
incurred in evaluation and res ponding to the res ponsible parties a pp lication if migration is
contemplated including consultants and attorney 's fees.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 4b.
(Written Comment)
Donnell Van Noppen Ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4d: Rule .0106-The use of the word "violation" in Rule .0106;
At places in this rule where the word "violation" a pp ears , please rep lace it with the word
"contamination".
RESPONSE:
The word "contamination" is not appropriate. Compounds existing in
groundwater in compliance with the groundwater standard specified in .0202 are still
considered to be groundwater contamination. The groundwater standards simply
specify the degree of contamination the State of North Carolina is willing to allow in
its groundwater. A "violation" is a chemical concentration which exceeds the
contaminant levels specified by the State. The text of rule .0106 requires the use of the
word "violation" and not "contamination".
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
58
COMMENT 4e: Rule .0106-Protecting surface waters and aquatic organisms from
contaminated groundwater discharges;
These rules do not go far enough at protectin g surface waters from the discharge of
contaminated g roundwater at points of interaction with surface waters. S peci fy that the
g roundwater rules provide protection for critical habitats of a quatic organisms.
RESPONSE:
The proposed amendment will include a provision that will protect surface waters
from groundwater discharge. .0106(j)(5) is proposed as follows:
"(5) that, if the contaminant plume is expected to intercept surface waters, the
groundwwater discharge will not possess contaminant concentrations that would
result in violations of standards for surface waters contained in 15A NCAC 2B .0210"
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Chuck Friedrick, 210 Dry Avenue, Cary, NC 27511
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Margaret R. Jones, President, Save Our Rivers, Inc., P.O. Box 122,
Franklin, NC 28734
COMMENT 4f: Rule .0106-Remediation of Contaminated soils;
The rule needs to s peci fy that res ponsible parties must remove and treat contaminated
soils. The proposed chang es could be inte rp reted to allow hi ghly contaminated soils to
remain unremediated. Groundwaters would eventuall y be impacted.
RESPONSE:
Contaminated soils need not be removed in every instance. Those sites which are
allowed to remediate naturally are not required to remove soils.
(Written Comment)
DeWitt Whitten, Stalite Environmental, P.O. Box 1037, 205 Klumac
Road, Salisbury, NC 28144
COMMENT 4g: Rule .0106-Use of the term "foreseeable receptor";
Unless "foreseeable rece ptor" is clearl y defined in Rule .0102 Definitions. delete this
term from Rule .0106 (i ). Rule .0106(i)(A ). Rule .0106 (i )(B). Rule .0106 (k)(B). and Rule
.0106(k)( 4).
RESPONSE:
See response to comments lg and lbb.
(Written Comment)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr.
Howey repeated his comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and
Asheville hearings**)
59
COMMENT 4h: Rule .0106-Corrective actions and "sufficient" groundwater
monitoring;
These rules fail to give s pecific technical requirements for the monitoring sy stems that
are needed Rule .0106(k)(4) and Rule .0106 (1). How many wells will be required to meet
the criteria of "sufficient monitorin g "?
RESPONSE:
Because each site is different, "sufficient" must be determined by staff and
consultants on a case-by-case basis.
(Written Comment)
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC
27406
COMMENT 4i: Rule .0106-Corrective actions the Directors authority over
groundwater monitoring;
These rules gives the Director comprehensive authori ty over groundwater monitoring .
This could lead to unending assessments with no resolution. Personnel chang es could alter
policies considerably .
RESPONSE:
It is true that the proposed amendments give the Director a great deal of
authority. However, because sites differ so radically one from the other, it is not
possible to define by rule what the best monitoring approach might be. In addition,
the responsible party's professional consultant will have input into any proposed
monitoring plan.
In response to several comments concerning monitoring, staff have recommended
that the proposed rules be modified with a time frame for monitoring. See response to
comment Jee.
(Written Comment)
Mike Harman, Project Manager, Spatco Environmental Company, 5100
North I-85, Suite 6, Charlotte, NC 28206
COMMENT 4j: Rule .0106(a)-Reinstate previous wording of Rule .0106;
There is little difference in the new wording of this rule and the proposed rule. Reinstate
the previous lan guag e and delete the prop osed.
RESPONSE:
The older wording omits the phrase "the goal of any required corrective action"
which must be included in order to permit natural remediation as a means of cleanup.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
60
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
61
COMMENT 4k: Rule .0106(a)-Technological and economic feasibillty of corrective
action;
We support the provisions in this rule allowin g consideration of technolo gical and
economic feasibili ty .
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company,
Tennessee Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
COMMENT 41: Rule .0106(a)-Concept of "economically and technologically
feasible" as applied to corrective action;
This conce pt of "economically and technolo gicall y feasible" needs to be clarified.
Some responsible parties mav be less financiall y capable that others.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment lf.
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Fann Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company,
Resurgens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT 4m: Rule .0106(a)-The goal of corrective actions;
We agree with the Division that the goal of an y required corrective actions should be
the Rule .0202 groundwater standards.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
62
COMMENT 4n: Rule .0106(a)-The goal of corrective actions;
The goal of corrective actions should be the Maximum Contaminant Levels found in the
rules that govern public water supp lies 15A NCAC 18C. This rule should be changed to
reflect these standards.
RESPONSE:
There are less than fifty defined Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). Many
of the chemicals released into the environment do not appear on this list. In addition,
the MCLs are less stringent than the groundwater standards defined in .0202.
(Written Comment)
Robert Alan Cohen, Chairman-Groundwater Subcommittee, North
Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, 225 Hillsborough
Street, P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT 4o: Rule .0106(a)-The goal of corrective actions;
The goal of corrective actions should be the levels of chemicals at pre-existing
conditions. If this is not feasible the goal should s pecify that these level should be at or
below the standards in Rule .0202. The goals should also emphasize immediate cleanup as
a priority.
RESPONSE:
Most commonly, the contaminants being cleaned up do not exist in groundwater
at all. Therefore, the pre-existing concentration of these compounds would be zero
milligrams/liter. This is an impossible cleanup goal in most cases. See the response for
comment2b.
(Written Comment)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
(**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the Salisbury hearing)
COMMENT 4p: Rule .0106(a)(g)(j)(i)(k) and (I)-Concepts proposed in these rules;
We supp ort the provision that corrective actions should consider technolog ical and
economic feasibili ty in pursuing the goal of groundwater restoration. In addition , we
support all the languag e allowing the Director to consider time , cost and degradation of
contaminates. We also support the recogn ition that alternate cleanu p levels and
bioremediation be allowed under conditions as outlined in the rules. Finall y. we support the
provision allowing termination of corrective action.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
63
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC
27603
Robert Alan Cohen, Chairman-Groundwater Subcommittee, North
Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, 225 Hillsborough
Street, P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC 27602
Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental Affairs, North Carolina
Citizens for Business and Industry/Federal Paperboard Company, P.O.
Box 8, Rieglewood, NC 28456
Ronald N. Walton, Environmental Section Leader, Cape Industries,
Highway 421 North, P.O. Box 327, Wilmington, NC 28402-0327
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, Inc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
COMlVIENT 4q: Rule .0106-Public notice provisions of Rule .0106;
The public notice provisions do not speci fy that the Director shall hold hearin gs for
decisions on alternate cleanu ps. natural remediation or termination of corrective actions.
Amend this rule to speci fy this notice.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. There are no statutory requirements for public hearings regarding
corrective action plans required by Subchapter 2L.
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMlVIENT 4r: Rule .0106(b)-Changing a word in the Paragraph
The word "or" after the "groundwaters of the State ." should be deleted.
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of Staff that the word "or" is required for the sake of clarity.
(Written Comment)
Edward L. Beny, Consulting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
Raleigh, NC 27614
64
COMMENT 4s: Rule .0106(b) and (c)-Corrective action creating duplicative
requirements on responsible parties;
These requirements are duplicative with res pect to Federal and State statutes and
regulations found in 15A NCAC 2N. Res ponsible parties should not have to make rep orts
under Rule .0106 (b ) ifthev have done so under 15A NCAC 2N (40 CFR Part 280). Nor
should they have imposed on them the abatement requirements of Rule .0106 (c ).
RESPONSE:
The reporting requirements in 15A NCAC 2N will satisfy the reporting
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(b). To the extent that the requirements of
.0106(b) meet those specified in 15A NCAC 2N, the work does not have to be
repeated.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4t: Rule .0106(b) and (c)-Make these Paragraphs consistent with the
"Responsible Party" defmition;
Replace the word "person" with "res ponsible partv".
RESPONSE:
Staff recommends the deletion of the term "responsible party". See response to
comment lgg.
(Written Comment)
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina
Power & Light Company, Technical Services Department, 411
Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT 4u: Rule .0106(c) and (d)-Proposal of time frames and procedures for
handling site assessment and corrective action plans;
The Division needs to identify se parate time frames between submission of site
assessments and implementation of a pproved corrective action plans in this paragra ph of
the rule. A greement must be reached between the Division and responsible p arties on the
findin g s and completeness of the site assessment prior to implementation of the corrective
action plan. These paragra phs need to be more clearl y written and must define a ste pwise
process.
RESPONSE:
Time frames cannot be specified because site conditions vary so greatly.
Appropriate time frames are already defmed in regulations for some sites and for
other sites they will have to be identified on a case-by-case basis.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
65
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
CO:Ml\1ENT 4v: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Reporting to local health director in accordance
with Rule .0114(a);
This re porting requirement is duplicative and should be deleted. An initial report to the
Division will suffice.
RESPONSE:
Local officials should be made aware of contamination incidents just as State
officials should be. Staff feels the duplication is necessary.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S .A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
COMMENT 4w: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Reporting to local health director in accordance
with Rule .0114(a) and Rule .0ll0(a);
We firml y supp ort the notification re quirements of this rule.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
Ronald N. Walton, Environmental Section Leader, Cape Industries,
Highway 421 North, P.O. Box 327, Wilmington, NC 28402-0327
COMMENT 4x: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Exemption for agricultural operations from
corrective action requirements;
The exemption for a gri cultural o perations should be removed so that these o perations
are under the same rules as other non-permitted activities.
RESPONSE:
Staff Disagrees. Agricultural operations have been exempted by the Legislature
by statute in NCGS 143-215.2(a). The Division of Environmental Management does
not have the authority to apply these rules to agricultural operations.
(Written Comments)
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC 27515
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
66
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Donnell Van Noppen ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4y: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Clarify the meaning of "prompt action";
Provide clarification of the meaning of "prompt action".
RESPONSE:
Staff recommend that the text be modified as follows:
"(2) take immediate action to eliminate the source or sources of contamination;"
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences
Inc., 3208 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4z: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Corrective action plans to restore groundwater
quality;
Reinstate previous langu age that calls for "a plan and schedule" for restoration of
groundwaters.
RESPONSE:
The person responsible is still required to submit a plan for approval. In
addition, the person responsible may submit a proposed implementation schedule for
review by the Director or his designee. Therefore, reinstating the previous language
would not appear to accomplish anything.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 4aa: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Requirement for responsible parties to take
prompt action to eliminate the source or sources of contamination;
The use of the word "eliminate" can be interpreted to mean that the source is removed.
This is inconsistent with the rest of the Subchapter and we recommend chan ging the phrase
in Rule .0106 (c)(l) as follows:
"(I ) as a result of activities . other than agri cultural o perations , not p ermitted b y the State,
shall immediately noti fy the Division of the increases ; take prompt action to miti gate the
cause or causes of contamination ."
RESPONSE:
67
Staff disagree. The term "eliminate" refers to the removal of those conditions
which have resulted in the contamination event. It does not require that the item or
items from which the contamination came be physically removed or destroyed.
(Written Cormnent)
J.D . Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I Du.Pont De Nemours &
Company Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4bb: Rule .0106(c)(l)-Providing flexibility for responsible parties to
take prompt action to eliminate contamination;
Chang e this rule to allow res ponsible parties to im plement irmnediate corrective action
u pon the discovery of the contamination and re quire them to submit a corrective action
plan within 60 day s of the discovery of incident. Also sp ecify that if actions taken
jeo pardize public health or the environment, the res ponsible party loses trust fund
eligibility and the professional held liable.
RESPONSE:
The proposed amendment already requires that immediate action be taken to
eliminate the source or sources.
With regard to underground storage tanks, a time frame for the submission of
corrective action plans has already been established.
(Written Comment)
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 4cc: Rule .0106(c)(2)-Specifying types of facilities where alternate
cleanups apply;
S peci fy that the facilities that rule changes a pp l y to are those non-permitted facilities.
Permitted facilities have compliance boundaries which provide them the necessary
relaxation.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 3c.
(Written Comment)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115
West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 4dd: Rule .0106(c)(2)(B)-Violations of Groundwater Standards beyond
compliance boundaries;
Amend this rule to require a Licensed Geologi st or Professional En gineer conduct these
68
reviews of groundwater standards violations beyond compliance boundaries.
RESPONSE:
The rule requires PE's and LG's perform certain types of analytic work. Among
the types of work listed is the site assessment. A site assessment may be performed at
any location where contamination is thought to exist. The existence, or lack thereof,
of a compliance boundary is irrelevant to the work requirement.
(Written Comment)
G. Gary Nixon, P.E., Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited, One
Centerview Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
COMMENT 4ee: Rule .0106(d)-Required corrective actions following discovery of a
release;
The requirement to remove contaminates from the subsurface (i.e. soils) should not be a
blanket rule in all cases. Removal and treatment should be required only where necessary.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. A contaminated soil will slowly leak the contaminant into the
groundwater over time. The soil then becomes a secondary source of pollution. The
rule provides for the removal and treatment of soils.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4ff: Rule .0106(d)-Required corrective actions following discovery of a
release;
I support the incorporation of this new paragraph in these rules.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC
27406
COMMENT 4gg: Rule .0106(d)-Required corrective actions following discovery of a
release;
To clarify the intent of Paragra ph (d) place the word "Initial" at the beginning of the
paragra ph. This parag ra ph is referring to initial actions a res ponsible pa 1ty must take and
this chan ge will preclude any confusion with activities described in Paragraph (f).
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of Staff that the text is equally clear with or without the inclusion
69
of the term "initial".
(Written Comment)
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, Inc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
COMMENT 4hh: Rule .0106(d)(4)-Corrective actions following discovery of a
release;
This para~rr a ph shows that soil removal is required concurrent with the site assessment.
This could be an unnecessary effort if the site assessment findin g s show no need for it and.
in these cases, serve to increase costs. Remove the sentence re quirin g soil removal in all
circumstances.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. See response to comment 4ee.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's
Food Systems, Inc., 1233 Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky
Mount, NC 27802-1619
COMMENT 4ii: Rule .0106(d)(4)-Corrective actions following discovery of a
release;
This rule re quires the removal of secondary pollution sources that would be "a potential
continuing source of pollutants to the groundwaters ... ". The word "potential" should be
removed because the res ponsible party should be allowed. within the corrective action
p lan , to decide if a secondary source is a potential problem.
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of Staff that Corrective Action cannot be properly performed
without the removal of secondary sources of pollution.
(Written Comment)
Jerry Henderson, Groundwater Subcommittee Chairman, Chemical
Industry Council of North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite
455, Raleigh, NC 27603
70
COMMENT 4jj: Rule .0106(e)-Procedures for site assessments and corrective action
plans;
Amend this to require site assessment re ports be reviewed and a pp roved b y the Division
prior to the prep aration of the corrective action plan.
RESPONSE:
The proposed amendment specifies that plans are to be prepared by a
Professional Engineer or Licensed Geologist to ensure quality of work. Staffing
limitations prohibit the Section from reviewing all plans prior to development of a
Corrective Action Plan.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon
Company, U.S.A., P.O. Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader,
BP Oil Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4kk: Rule .0106(g)-Criteria for evaluation of corrective action plans;
I supp ort the inco rp oration of the pro posed new lan gu a ge in this Paragra ph.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
(Written Comment)
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC
27406
COMMENT 411: Rule .0106(g)-Third party property rights and the evaluation of
corrective action plans;
In considering cmrective action plans , the Director has no obligation to consider the
rights of ad jacent prop erty owners. The rules in their present form gives the Director the
discretion to allow unwanted groundwater or soil contamination to mi grate or persist on a
third party 's land. Change this rule to give consideration to the prope1ty values of ad jacent
landholders.
RESPONSE:
It is the opinion of Staff that the rights and investments of adjoining property
owners should be protected at all times. See response to comment 4b.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Donnell Van Noppen III, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
71
COMMENT 400: Rule .0106(h),(i),(j)-Enforcement of alternate cleanup
S pecify in these rules that fines be placed on res ponsible p arties as an enforcement tool
to assure hi gh quali ty environmental evaluations for alternate cleanup levels. natural
remediation and best available technology.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the changes not be made in this rule. North Carolina
General Statutes 143-215.6 allows for significant civil penalties and it is not necessary
to state this in the rules.
(Written Comment)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.,
7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615 (**Mr. McClintock also presented
comments at the Salisbmy hearing)
COMMENT 4pp: Rule .0106(h),(i),(j),(k),(l),(m) and (n)-Alternate cleanup, natural
remediation, termination of corrective action and best available
technology;
We SUPPORT the amendments to 15A NCAC 2L .0100 and .0200 with res pect to the
provisions in Rule . 0106 allowing natural degradation , alternate cleanup standards, and
re quiring best available technologies .
RESPONSE:
Comment noted; These alternative corrective action methods will protect the
environment, will serve toward prioritizing State Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund cleanup monies, and provide for efficient and timely environmental cleanups.
(Written Comment)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Dolly Bidwan, Law & Company, 1711 Castle Street, P.O Box 629, Wilmington, NC
28402
John Estridge, Engineer, Duke Power Company, Environmental Division, 13339
Hagers Ferry Road, Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina Power & Light
Company, Technical Services Department, 411 Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551,
Raleigh, NC 27602
Edward T. Perkins, Vice-President; Huffman Oil Co., P.O. Box 730, Burlington, NC
72
27216-0730
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearing)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr. Howey repeated his
comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury and Asheville hearings)
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Frank McNeill, Jr., Vice-President, McNeill Oil Company, P.O. Box 396, Aberdeen,
NC 28315
(Comments made at the Salisbury hearing)
Paul Siceloff, Consulting Manager, Siceloff Oil/Triple Land Companies of High Point,
NC, 606-A Hillsborough Road, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comments made at the Asheville hearing)
Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental Affairs, Nmth Carolina Citizens for Business
and Industry/Federal Paperboard Company, P.O. Box 8, Rieglewood, NC 28456
COMMENT 4qq: Rule .0106(h),(i),(j),(k),(l) (m) and (n)-Director's discretionary
powers over corrective action plans that use natural remediation;
In their present form, we oppose the amendments to 15A NCAC 2L .0100 and .0200
with respect to the provisions in Rule .0106 allowin g alternate cleanu p, natural
degradation , and a pp lication of the Restricted (R S ) desi gn ation. Too much discretion is
given to the Director in these rules. There is no indication of how lon g an RS design ation
can remain on a piece of pro perty . These rules do not s peci fy the criteria the Director must
use in determining if a site qualifies for natural remediation. The alternate cleanup, natural
remediation and the RS desi gn ation removes the enforcement incentive to cleanup sites.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered in the hearing record. The Administrative Procedures Act
(N.C.G.S 150B) provides the means to intervene upon a Director's decision.
(Written Comment)
Thomas G. Bean, Director of Government Affairs, North Carolina Wildlife Federation,
P.O. Box 10626, Raleigh, NC 27605-1923
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101 West Third
Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, P.O. Box 27766,
Raleigh, NC 27611
73
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North Carolina/ Sierra Club, 1024 Washington
Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1258
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/ Air Natural Resources, League of Women Voters,
411 Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box 286,
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
Judith B. Wood, Natural Resources Chairperson, League of Women Voters of Chapel
Hill/ Carrboro, 9 Mt. Bolus Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box 848, Marshall, NC
28802 (**Mr. Zeller repeated his comments at the Asheville hearings**)
(Comments made at the Salisbury hearing: )
Ann Coan, Natural Resources Division Director, North Carolina Farm Bureau
Federation, P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
(Comments made at the Asheville hearing:)
Leni Sitnick, 90 Gertrude Place, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 4rr: Rule .0106(h),(k),(l) and (n)-Natural remediation on third party
properties;
The rules need to be changed to protect third pa1ty pro perty ri ghts from moving
contaminant plumes. Require cleanu p of groundwater contamination if it reaches an
ad jacent prope rty and require the prevention of movement under the pro pe1ty .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to applicable paragraphs of
this rule. See comment 4b with regard to property rights.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air Natural Resources, League of Women Voters,
411 Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
74
COMMENT 4ss: Rule .0106(h)(i) and (k)-Alternative cleanup and natural
remediation in fractured rock and other complex geologic
environments;
Numerous studies of various groundwater contamination incidents and studies of the
geologic environment of the proposed Wake/Chatham Low Level Radioactive Waste Site
suggest that monitoring the flow of toxic materials in fractured rock will be a costly and
laborious task. Determining the direction and flow of contaminants will be quite difficult
and there is no assurance that alternate cleanup levels or natural remediation will be
protective of public health. The Commission needs to carefully consider the applicability of
these alternate cleanup proposals to complex geologic environments.
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced
with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Mary MacDowell, Research Coordinator, Chatham County Site Designation Review
Committee, P.O. Box 87, Pittsboro, NC 27312
COMMENT 4tt: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in Corrective
Actions;
Revise this rule to include another exception to the requirement of using best available
technology for corrective action. Add a Subparagraph that is states "the increase in
concentration of substances in excess of the groundwater standards is a result of a release
from a petroleum underground storage tank". This will make the rules more specific with
respect to leaking underground storage tanks.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. The natural
remediation exceptions should not be limited to leaking petroleum underground
storage tanks.
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearings)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr. Howey repeated his
comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
75
COMMENT 4uu: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in Corrective
Actions;
Best available technology needs to be defined clearl y . Groundwater cleanup goals
mav not be accomplished in a timel y manner due to the negotiations the Section would
need to engage in with res ponsible parties.
RESPONSE:
This term is defined by North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3(e)(2). The
requirement that Best Available Technology be used in groundwater cleanup is a
legislative requirement. The Division of Environmental Management does not have
the authority to modify State legislation.
(Written Comment)
Julianne M. Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
James Ponder, Geologist, Geo-Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1016 McClelland
Court, Charlotte, NC 28206
COMMENT 4vv: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in Corrective
Actions;
Delete the phrase "best available technology " and revise the p aragraph as follows:
"(h) A corrective action plan must be im plemented utilizin g technology capable of
achieving the target levels as previousl y defined, unless:"
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. The use of the phrase
"best available technology" specifies the most current and effective technology
developed.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4ww: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in Corrective
Actions;
Delete Rule .0106(h)(l) and (2) allowin g alternate cleanu p levels and natural
remediation. The Commission can provide assistance in s pecial cases.
76
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. The rule changes
provide the means by which the Commission can consider alternate solutions to
groundwater remediation.
(Written Comment)
-Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O.
Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 4xx: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in Corrective
Actions;
Using the phrase "best available technology " in this Paragraph is contradicto ry with
the concept of usin g readily availab1e cost e ffe ctive equipment.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made in the rule. The use of best
available technology does not preclude cost effective technology. Rule .0106(a)
specifies corrective actions are to be economically feasible.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945
East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT 4yy: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in Corrective
Actions;
"Best Available Technology" (BAT) should not be required for g roundwater
restoration projects. Remediation efforts for contaminated g roundwater varies greatly from
site to site. The interaction of the contaminate with geologic sutToundin g s can g reatl y v a1y
the outcome of a remediation effort. The wastes encountered can vary greatly due to the
mixture and number contaminates. Many times biologic rece ptors cannot possibility be
impacted due to site s pecific features. Delete the phrase "best available technology" and
re place it with "readily available and economically reasonable technology ".
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made in the rule. If it is
demonstrated that Best Available Technology will not succeed at bringing down
concentrations at a particular site, then corrective action using alternate remediation
would be a viable option after review of corrective action plans.
77
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company
Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
CO:Ml\1ENT 4zz: Rule .0106(h)-Lack of public notice provision for technologies
defined as "Best Available Technology";
This paragraph does not include a public notice provision regarding which current or
emergin g technologies are regarded as Best Available Technolo gies for Corrective Actions
in 15A NCAC 2L .0106. This needs to be included.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Consulting services
that provide remediation to responsible parties have the expertise to develop new
technologies, procedures and strategies to remediate contaminated groundwaters.
Corrective Action Plans will be reviewed by Division Staff for the applicability of
BAT.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company
Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4aaa: Rule .0106(h)-Specify conditions under which alternate cleanups
will occur;
Reiterate in this Paragrap h that alternate cleanups should only be made available to
non-permitted sites s pecified in Rule .0106 (c)(l).
RESPONSE:
Agree. See response to comment Jc.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4bbb: Rule .0106(h)(2)-Clarify "natural remediation";
This p assag e referrin g to "natural remediation" is vagu e.
78
RESPONSE:
The comment is correct and Rule .0102 (13) dermition for "natural remedial
processes" will be changed to read as "Natural Remediation". The phrase "natural
remedial processes" is not used in any part of the Subchapter and will be deleted.
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208
Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4ccc: Rule .0106(i)-Alternate cleanup levels;
The present cleanup standards provide the public with sufficient protection. Alternate
cleanup standards will most likel y not serve the public as well.
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and
replaced with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 4ddd: Rule .0106(i)-Alternate cleanup levels;
Sp eci fy that alternate cleanu p will be allowed where a contaminated groundwater
plume has disbursed before reachin g a human drinking water supp ly.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to this rule.
The "Practical Quantitation Limit" as defined in .0102 is recognised by EPA and
is commonly used and accepted by laboratories.
(Written Comment)
R.W. Dozier, Sr., Quick Chek, Inc., 220 West Spring Street, Troy, NC 27371
COMMENT 4eee: Rule .0106(i)-Third party property rights and the establishment
of alternate cleanup levels;
In establishing alternate cleanup levels the Director is not required to assess the imp act
of that level, on the prop e11y value of an individuals land. Change this rule to require the
79
Director include this in his evaluation.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. The rules are established to protect human health and the
environment. If an individual feels that he has incurred damage to property value
then this issue should be addressed through a third party claim.
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced
with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Donnell Van Noppen ID, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary & Lawrence, 200 West
Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4fff: Rule .0106(i)-Alternate cleanup to Rule .0202 standards;
Unless EPA "Limit of Detectabili ty " is reinstated in Rule .0202 then these alternate
cleanup standards will not be based on anyth in g.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. Alternate
cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced with the
option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 4ggg: Rule .0106(i)-Alternate cleanup to Rule .0202 standards;
Chang e the rule to sp eci fy default alternate cleanup levels be the maximum
contaminant levels found in 15A NCAC 18C. A pply them to the groundwaters of the state
that are already known to be contaminated.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. Alternate
cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced with the
option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Written Comment)
Lynn Phillips, P.E., Regional Vice-President, Heritage Environmental Services, Inc.,
4132 Pompano Road, Charlotte, NC 28216
80
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearing)
John D. Grady, President, Contractors and Engineers Services, Inc., 1304 North
William Street, P.O. Box 762, Goldsboro, NC 27533-0762
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622(**Mr. Howey repeated his
comments at the Raleigh, Salisbury, and Asheville hearings**)
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina,
225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC 27603
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental Affairs, North Carolina Citizens for
Business and Industry/Federal Paperboard Company, P.O. Box 8, Rieglewood, NC
28456
COMMENT 4hhh: Rule .0106(i)-Restricting alternate cleanup to non-permitted
sites;
Restrict alternate cleanups to non-permitted locations such as underground storag e
tanks of petroleum products. Add this phrase at the beginnin g of Rule .0106 (i ) as follows:
"(i) For persons described in Paragra ph (c)(l). an alternate cleanup level to a standard
established in Rule .0202 .................. supp ort a determination b v the Director that:"
RESPONSE:
Disagree. See response to comment 3c.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4iii: Rule .0106(i)-Provide for public notice of an alternate cleanup
level;
Public notice needs to be provided when a res ponsible pa11y requests an alternate
cleanup. These rules do not sp ecify this.
RESPONSE:
Agree. Public notice will be required under .0106(j) and (k) of the proposed
amendment.
81
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
Teny Burnham, Rowan county resident, 1070 Driftwood Trail, Salisbury, NC
COMMENT 4jjj: Rule .0106(i)(l)-Criteria to develop alternate cleanup levels;
Chan g e Paragrap h (i) to s peci fy alternate cleanup levels be develo ped on site-s pecific
risk and exposure assessment information.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. Alternate cleanup levels
have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced with the option to include
cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COlVIMENT 4kkk: Rule .0106(i)(l)-Alternate cleanup levels and providing
information on the presence of foreseeable receptors;
The res ponsible party should be required to give a dilig ent effort to ascertain
foreseeable receptors but should not be required to provide a guarantee that he has found
all rece ptors for consideration of pro posed alternate cleanup levels. End the sentence after
"foreseeable receptor" with a period and delete the material that discusses site s pecific
conditions and engineerin g controls on the contaminant.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. It may be a difficult
task to determine all "foreseeable receptors". Therefore, the provision of site specific
information or engineered controls over the site will greatly enhance protection of
receptors. The inclusion of these activities does not in any way infer a perpetual
guarantee the all foreseeable receptors have or will be identified.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company
Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
CO1\1MENT 4m: Rule .0106(i)(l)-Alternate cleanup levels and the defmition of
"receptor";
82
Is the groundwater defined as a "receptor" in Rule .0102 part of the groundwater of the
contamination incident plume?
RESPONSE:
The defmition of groundwater has changed. Groundwater is no longer
considered a receptor.
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, P .O . Box 27766,
Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4mmm: Rule .0106(i)(1)-Alternate cleanup levels and impacts to
receptors;
Change the wording " .. evidence that the contaminant will not adversel y impact any
existing or foreseeable rece ptor .. " to read as " .. evidence that the contaminant will not
present an unacce ptable risk an y existin g or foreseeable receptor .. ". This lan gu a ge will
clari fy the rule.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The use of the word
"unacceptable" introduces subjective judgment into defining risk to receptors and
will make the Director's determination more difficult.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4nnn: Rule .0106(i)(1)-Additional restrictions on the establishment of
alternate cleanup levels;
Add a new Sub paragra ph outlining additional conditions that res ponsible parties must
meet in order to supp ort a determination for an alternate cleanu p level. For areas in which
groundwater contamination has occurred or could migrate . require that areas elig ible for
alternate cleanup rel y on public water supplies derived from surface waters or from
h ydraulically isolated groundwaters.
S peci fy in the Paragra ph that for any other areas , eli gi bilitv for alternate cleanup levels
be restricted to those groundwaters not-for-drinking-water use or any used inconsistent
with an alternate cleanu p level. This determination is to be made through a local or
statewide water use p lanning process.
83
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup standards have been removed from the rule. However, it is
important to protect drinking water supplies from contaminants which might migrate
from sites remediating naturally. Therefore, staff recommend that the following
terminology be added to .0106(i) and .0106(j):
"that contaminants have not and will not migrate onto adjacent properties, or that
(A) such properties are served by an existing public water supply system
dependent on surface waters or hydraulically isolated groundwater, or
(B) the owners of such properties have consented in writing to the request;"
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4000: Rule .0106(i)(l)-Director's discretion and the establishment of
alternate cleanup levels;
This rule allows the Director too much discretion in establishing alternate cleanups.
Delete the last phrase in Rule .0106 (i)(l). "such evidence could include but is not limited
to:" and re place it with "such evidence must establish , at a minimum, that:". This change
will clearly delineate to res ponsible parties that the minimum requirements for a pp roval of
alternate cleanups is contingent u pon meetin g requirements of Rule . 0106 ( i )( 1 )(A ) and (B ).
RESPONSE:
Much of Rule .0106 has been re-written in order to provide greater clarity.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4ppp: Rule .0106(i)(l)-Alternate cleanup levels;
Is a quantitative risk assessment associated with an alternate cleanup level
determination?
RESPONSE:
The Director has the authority to ask for such information if deemed necessary.
The proposed Rule does not specify that a qualitative risk assessment must be
submitted.
(Written Comment)
84
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208
Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4qqq: Rule .0106(i)(l)(A)-Establishing alternate cleanup levels based
on movement and time of travel criteria;
We have great reservations about the abili ty of groundwater science to predict the
movement and time of travel for groundwater in mountainous and piedmont regions of the
state. Information on the movement. attenuation and degradation of contaminants is not
well understood for these areas. There is not enough data available to accurately model
groundwater in these structures to supp ort determinations required for alternate cleanup
levels and natural remediation in Rule .0106 (i)(l) and Rule .0106 (k)(2 ),(3 ) and (4 ). No one
knows the influence earthquakes may have on the movement of groundwater
contaminants.
RESPONSE:
All these considerations are site specific factors that must be considered as a part
of corrective action plan review.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Janet Hoyle, Director, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box 88,
Glendale Springs, NC 28629 (**Ms.Hoyle repeated her comments at the Asheville
hearing**)
Mary MacDowell, Research Coordinator, Chatham County Low Level Radioactive
Waste Site Designation Review Committee, P.O . Box 87, Pittsboro, NC 27312
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearings)
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC 27406
( Comment made at the Asheville hearings)
Virginia Sexton, Cherokee Indian Wake Up , P.O. Box 149, Cherokee, NC 28779
Leni Sitnick, 90 Gertrude Place, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 4rrr: Rule .0106(i)(l)(B)-Physical barriers and adjacent property
owners rights;
Taking this requirement in the context of Rule .0102 (1 9 )( c ) definition of a responsible
85
pa rty (ad jacent landowner who "obstructs"), are ad jacent landowners bein g forced to
submit to an y disruption of their land b y construction activities deemed necessary b y the
polluter?
RESPONSE:
Rule .0102(19) "Responsible Party" has been deleted and .0106(i) has been
reworded.
(Written Comment)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro,
NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 4sss: Rule .0106(i)(2)-Division of Epidemiology and development of
alternate cleanup standards;
A public partici pation process needs to be inco rp orated in this rule. The hazard
evaluation of alternate cleanup standards should not be the sole domain of one state
ag ency . This could lead to an arbitrary review process that would allow one g roup to
ignore or review an y toxicological information from an y party . Change the wording in the
rule so that the Division must "seek the o pinion of the Division of E pidemiology reg arding
the relevance of new data" and provide its o pinions on toxicologi c data in a timely manner
and make them make available to the public.
RESPONSE:
Staff consider this paragraph to be duplicative with regard to the requirements of
.0202(c). Staff recommend the deletion of .0106(i)(2).
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company
Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 4ttt: Rule .0106(i)(2)-Division of Epidemiology and development of
alternate cleanup standards;
86
This rule should be deleted entirel y since the review process entailed is totally ad-hoc
and does not allow p ublic comment and review.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 4sss.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro,
NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 4uuu: Rule .0106(j)-Requests for alternate cleanups and evidence
submitted to the Director;
S peci fy that requests for alternate cleanu ps include the existence or lack of the
existence of a p rotected public water supp l y.
RESPONSE:
The proposed Rules have been modified to treat the existence, or lack thereof, of
public water supplies. Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed
Rule and replaced with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4vvv: Rule .0106(j)-Clarification of alternate cleanup level request
procedures;
These rules do not sp eci fy how the state intends to classify s p ecific areas for alternate
cleanup levels. How can responsible parties know what to request? What are the methods
that will verify if an alternate cleanu p is acce ptable in that area? How can res ponsible
p arties know what to request?
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced
with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
87
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208
Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4www: Rule .0106(j)(4)-Requests for alternate cleanups and evidence
submitted to the Director that cleanup level is consistent with
other laws;
This rule could be interp reted to require res ponsible parties provide an exhaustive
analy sis all environmental laws regardless of relevance or geogra phic jurisdiction. Change
so that this anal y sis is focused on "relevant" environmental laws and limit the scop e to state
and local laws.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The word "relevant"
introduces a subjective evaluation on the part of responsible persons prior to
Director's evaluation of the request.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N .C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company
Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4xxx: Rule .0106(k)-Corrective action plans using natural
remediation;
We supp ort the natural bioremediation provision in corrective action plans. This will
serve to eliminate costly UST cleanu ps where they are not necessaiy .
RESPONSE:
Comment noted. Natural bioremediation will serve to eliminate costly and
unnecessary cleanups.
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearing)
A.J. Ballard, Jr., President, A.J. Ballard Tire and Oil Company, Inc., 3500 Charenton,
New Bern, NC 28562
88
COMMENT 4yyy: Rule .0106(k)-Corrective action plans using natural remediation;
Amend these rules to include a provision that all bi-products of natural remediation
need to be identified. Many of the bi-products ofbioremediation are toxic and need to be
evaluated. Corrective action plans that do not address this concern should not be approved.
RESPONSE:
Much of Rule .0106 has been re-written in response to public comment.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro,
NC 27510
COMMENT 4zzz: Rule .0106(k)-Natural remediation and the requirement for
active remediation in the event natural remediation does not
achieve required results;
This paragrap h after sub paragra ph (8) states that active remediation may be initiated at
a site if natural remediation fails. That failure is based on the plume mi gration to "any
existing or foreseeable rece ptor" and contaminant concentrations that are "not decreasing ".
This rule does not take into account the attenuation effects oflocal g eology on the plume as
it migrates. This paragra ph should be changed to allow consultation between the Director
and res ponsible pa rty prior to initiating active corrective measures.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. It can be assumed that
consultation will occur in the normal course of corrective action plan application and
review. Significant migration of contaminants offsite would preclude the use of
natural remediation as a corrective action.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I Du.Pont De Nemours & Company
Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4aaaa: Rule .0106(k)-The use of Natural Remediation to reduce
groundwater contaminant concentrations;
The sco pe of activities to comp lete a corrective action rel yin g on natural remediation is
unclear in these rules and the total costs of natural remediation is not known.
RESPONSE:
89
The scope of remediation activities and costs are a function of site specific
conditions. Policy and guidance documents will effectively address these impacts. The
rules are not the proper means to outline these parameters.
(Written Comment)
DeWitt Whitten, Stalite Environmental, P.O. Box 1037, 205 Klumac Road, Salisbury,
NC 28144
COMMENT 4bbbb: Rule .0106(k)-Clarification of the technical criteria for quality
assurance of natural remediation;
Should this rule be amended to outline the typ es of contaminants that bioremediation
should not be a pproved for (example: chlorinated contaminants)? Should not the kinds of
technical parameters be s pecified for consideration of a natural remediation corrective
action ( i.e. oxyg en, carbon dioxide . soil pH , moi sture conten t. tem perature)? Should these
factors be monitored on an ongoing basis as well? Will constant monitoring be needed?
RESPONSE:
Much of Rule .0106 has been re-written in response to public comment.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4cccc: Rule .0106(k)-Clarification of the time limit on natural
remediation;
Clari fy the time limit that the Division will allow for corrective actions relyi n g on
natural remediation. Is this time limit within y ears , decades , centuries?
RESPONSE:
It is recommended the change not be made in the rule. Time is not a factor as long
as the contamination is not projected to reach a point one years time of travel
upgradient of any existing or foreseeable receptor.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4dddd: Rule .0106(k)-Inadequacy of provision to initiate active
90
remediation if natural remediation fails;
This provision allows the Director too much authori ty in making determinations to
reo pen active remediation where natural remediation has failed. The rules do not req uire
investig ation to determine if natural remediation is actually occurring .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that this change not be made to the rule. Continuous
monitoring is required which implies an ongoing investigation by the Division
concerning the progress of natural remediation .. 0106 has been modified to require a
showing of contaminant reduction in .0106(1)(2)(A). The Director has adequate
authority to require active remediation if concentrations are not reaching the
required levels.
(Comment made at Raleigh hearing)
Carl Rupert, Number 2, Quintin Place, Durham, NC 27705
COMMENT 4eeee: Rule .0106(k)(l)-Add new subparagraph requiring responsible
party prevent contamination from getting on adjacent property
owners land;
Add Sub paragra ph (C ) that will require a ph y sical barrier exist to prevent
contamination on an ad jacent pro perty .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Physical barriers may
not be practical under all circumstances. Existing rule requires a showing that the
contamination will not migrate to any receptor above applicable standards.
(Written Comment)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro,
NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 4ffff: Rule .0106(k)(l)(A)-Evidence to support a corrective action
relying on natural remediation;
Change this rule to include "treatment" of soils and passive remediation of
g roundwaters as sufficient evidence to support the Directors determination for a corrective
action based on natural remediation.
91
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Commentors
proposed wording assumes natural remediation is always taking place at all sites. In
addition, treatment of soils may not be sufficient to prevent further contamination in
all environments. The current language is sufficiently protective.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswe11 Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4gggg: Rule .0106(k)(l)(B)-Sufficient information to support a
determination for an alternate cleanup and potential human
receptors;
Add to the end of this Part a new sentence providing additional protection to human
rece ptors as follows:
"A human rece ptor shall be presumed to exist in the absence of the determinations
specified in Paragraph (i)(l )(A) or (B)."
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Much of Rule .0106
has been re-written in response to public comment and in order to provide greater
clarity.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4hhhh: Rule .0106(k)(l)(B)-Amend rule to provide protection for
future receptors from migrating contaminant plumes:
Chang e the word "foreseeable" to "future" to increase protection to the public.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. There is no way to
ascertain the location or time "future" receptors will be in the vicinity of
contaminated groundwater. Foreseeable receptors are those that can reasonably be
anticipated and protected. The RS designation serves to prevent groundwater under a
natural remediation corrective action plan from being used as drinking water.
92
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 4iiii: Rule .0106(k)(l)(B)-Require identification of all by-products of
natural remediation;
Add a Sub paragra ph stating that " identification of all b y-products from natural
remediation with a through review of their toxicology ".
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 4yyy.
(Written Comment)
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main
Street, Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro,
NC 27510
COMMENT 4jjjj: Rule .0106(k)(2)-Natural remediation and groundwater
discharges to surface waters;
Chang e this rule to s peci fy that, where corrective actions relyi n g on natural
remediation are a pproved, the g roundwater will be allowed to discharge to surface waters.
These res ponsible party should be required to show that discharg es will not violate surface
water standards or imp air the use of surface waters. Change Rule .0106(k)(2 ) as follows:
"(2 ) evidence of the contaminant's degradation and attenuation capacity, includin g. where
a pp licable. natural g roundwater degradation to surface waters (p rovided that such
discharge causes neither a violation of a pp licable standards nor impairment of use to such
surface waters ).
RESPONSE:
Agree. The rule will be changed as follows:
"(C) that, if the contaminant plumes expected to intercept surface waters, the
groundwater discharge will not possess contaminant concentrations that would result
in violations of standards for surface waters contained in 15A NCAC 2B .0210."
(Written Comment)
93
Robert Alan Cohen, Chairman-Groundwater Subcommittee, North Carolina Citizens
for Business and Industry, 225 Hillsborough Street, P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC
27602
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4kkkk: Rule .0106(k)(4)-Five year time of travel for contaminants;
Revise the phrase "could travel in five years" to "is calculated to travel in five y ears".
RESPONSE:
Much of Rule .0106 has been re-written in response to public comment.
(Written Comment)
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Finday, OH 45840
COMMENT 4llll: Rule .0106(k)(4)-Corrective action using natural remediation and
"receptors";
Is the g roundwater defined as a "rece ptor" in Rule .0102 part of the groundwater of the
contamination incident plume?
RESPONSE:
The definition of groundwater has been changed. Groundwater is no longer
defined as a receptor.
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, P.O. Box 27766,
Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4mmmm: Rule .0106(k)(4)-Approval procedures for corrective action
plans involving natural remediation;
The a pproval process for natural remediation has the potential to introduce third paity
liabilities for ad jacent pro pe rty owners at an y site. If "no action" is a pp roved how will the
res ponsible party prevent contamination form gettin g onto ad jacent land?
RESPONSE:
94
It is recommended that the proposed change be made to the rule in the paragraph
after Rule .0106O)(2)(B) as follows:
"(B) that contaminants have not and will not migrate onto adjacent properties, or
that
(i) such properties are served by an existing public water supply system
dependent on surface waters or hydraulically isolated groundwater, or
(ii) the owners of such properties have consented in writing to the request;"
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4nnnn: Rule .0106(k)(5)-Evidence of projected groundwater use to
support corrective action plans;
This requirement to evaluate pro jected groundwater use has no s pecified time and will
be burdensome to res ponsible parties. This information may not be known for many y ears
and will be particularl y difficult to ascertain in rural areas. Add the followin g p hrase to the
beginning of Rule .0106(k)(5 ):
"(5) where contamination is present in Class GA and GSA groundwaters, and the
res ponsible party cannot reasonably demonstrate that the plume will be contained on-site
b y the natural remediation progr am, written documentation of pro jected g roundwater use in
the contaminated area based on current state or local government planning efforts."
RESPONSE:
It is recommended this change not be made in the rule. The proposed change does
not provide additional substance to the rule. However, Staff would recommend a
rewording of the paragraph as follows:
"(3) The Director shall not authorize termination of corrective action for any
area that, at the time the request is made, has been identified by a State or local
groundwater use planning process for resource development."
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
95
Raleigh, NC 27602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville heaiings**)
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box
848, Marshall, NC 28802
COMMENT 40000: Rule .0106(k)(6)-Notice requirements for natural remediation;
S peci fy that this notice is required only if contamination exists or is ex pected to
migrate onto the pro pe1iy . This notice should be limited to a statement that a corrective
action plan is required and it should refer the pro perty owner to the Division or County
Health Director's Office so that they can g ather additional information .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to this rule. All potentially
effected persons need to be properly noticed.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4pppp: Rule .0106(k)(6)-Change the rule to allow consent from
adjacent property owners for natural remediation;
Make responsible p arties prove in writin g that the y have consent from all ad jacent
landowners as a part of the evidence the Director needs to consider corrective action using
natural remediation.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change be made in the rule. See response to comment
4mmmm.
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 4qqqq: Rule .0106(k)(6) and (8)-Corrective action plans using natural
remediation;
96
Rule .0106(k )( 6) and (8) that require responsible parties prove to the Director that
notice has been given to ad jacent prope1ty owners are redundant with resp ect to the Rule
.0l 14 (b). Compliance with Rule .0114 (b) is sufficient.
RESPONSE:
Agree. The paragraph has been modified to require compliance with .0114(b)
only.
(Comment made at the Jacksonville hearing)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622 (**Mr. Howey repeated his comments
at the Raleigh, Salisbury and Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 4rrrr: Rule .0106(k)(7)-Access agreements and natural remediation;
Ifno a greements are obtained how can monitoring plans be implemented for these
corrective action plans?
RESPONSE:
If the agreements cannot be obtained, natural remediation is no longer an option
if public water supplies are unavailable. If a public water supply is available, and no
receptors are present, natural remediation is an option for remediation.
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P .G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4ssss: Rule .0106(1)-Termination of corrective action;
This rule needs a provision that will allow a landowner the ri ght to give consent for the
contamination on his prop erty . This will protect those rural landowners that use a
community drinking water sy stem from loss of pro pe rty value or use.
RESPONSE:
.0106(1)(2)(B) has been added as follows:
"(B) that contaminants have not and will not migrate onto adjacent properties, or
that
(i) such properties are served by an existing public water supply system
dependent on surface waters or hydraulically isolated groundwater, or
(ii) the owners of such properties have consented in writing to the request;"
97
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Donnell Van Noppen ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary & Lawrence, 200 West
Morgan Street, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 4tttt: Rule .01060)-Termination of corrective action;
S peci fy in the rule that the Director can authorize corrective action when contaminate
levels have reached their maximum achievable cleanup level.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. Site specific
and regional geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and natural remedial processes in the
State vary too greatly to set a fixed numeric maximum achievable cleanup level.
(Written Comment)
R.W. Dozier, Sr., Quick Chek, Inc., 220 West Spring Street, Troy, NC 27371
COMMENT 4uuuu: Rule .01060)-Termination of corrective action;
Reinstate the former overstruck paragra ph ( e) and delete new material that allows
termination of corrective action. Have res ponsible parties submit a new plan and schedule
to remediate groundwaters.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that this change not be made to the rule. Alternate cleanup
levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced with the option to
include cleanup goals in corrective action plans. Reinstatement of the language struck
out would prohibit this.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 4vvvv: Rule .01060)-Clarify monitoring requirements
This rule need to sp eci fy a time limit for monitorin g groundwater after termination of a
corrective action.
98
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Geologic,
hydrogeologic, and unique contaminant characteristics in the State make it technically
impossible to set a specific time frame in these rules. Monitoring periods are site
specific.
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
(Comment made at the Salisbwy hearing)
Mike Harman, Project Manager, Spatco Environmental Company, 5100
North I-85, Suite 6, Charlotte, NC 28206
COMMENT 4wwww: Rule .0106(1)-Clarify off-site monitoring requirements;
There are no off site technical specifications for the number of wells or the dimensions
of the areas monitored. These factors need to be specified clearly.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Site specific geologic,
hydrogeologic, and contaminant characteristics make it technically impossible to
provide fixed dimensional areas for groundwater monitoring or provide a specific
number of wells.
(Comment made at the Salisbwy hearing)
Mike Harman, Project Manager, Spatco Environmental Company, 5100
North I-85, Suite 6, Charlotte, NC 28206
COMMENT 4:xxxx: Rule .0106(1)-Groundwater monitoring at a one year time of
travel distance;
Add the phrase "(using calculations)" after the phrase "time of travel". This is intended
to clarify the rule.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the word "predicted" be used before the phrase "time of
travel".
(Written Comment)
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Finday, OH 45840
99
COMMENT 4yyyy: Rule .0106(1)-Termination of corrective action and groundwater
monitoring "sufficient to track degradation";
This Paragraph sugg ests that the degradation of all contaminants are re quired to be
tracked perp etually when reviewed in li ght of Rule .0106(a ) and Rule .0106 (1)(1). Chan ge
Rule .0106 (1) after the overstruck text to delete the phrase "shall be re quired" and the word
"degradation" from this rule. Any continued monitorin g should be linked to the typ e of
corrective action performed. This will prevent unnecessa1y and perp etual contaminant
monitoring .
RESPONSE:
The recommendation is that the change not be made to the rule. The purpose of
tracking contaminants is to assure that the do not adversely impact the health and
safety of the public. The ultimate goal of the State is that groundwaters will be
remediated to the Rule .0202 standards in a cost effective manner. Other corrective
actions can be considered if the length of time to monitor sites is too great.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4zzzz: Rule .0106(1)-Termination of corrective action and groundwater
monitoring "sufficient to track degradation";
Clarify what the word "sufficient" means.
RESPONSE:
The term conforms to common English usage.
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
Terry Burnham, Rowan county resident, 1070 Driftwood Trail,
Salisbury, NC
COMMENT 4aaaaa: Rule .0106(1)-Termination of corrective action and
groundwater monitoring;
Quarterl y monitoring is inadequate to protect the public from moving groundwater
plumes.
RESPONSE:
Groundwater flow rates are small, generally centimeters per year. If trends for
100
contaminant movement occur or concentrations increase, quarter monitoring is
sufficient to detect these changes.
(Written Comment)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 4bbbbb: Rule .0106(1)(1)-Request to terminate corrective action based
on the 1:40 ratio;
This 1 :40 ratio is too vagu e to assure that residual contamination levels will be health
protective. A u pp er boundary level needs to be set as a target the Director can focus on
when he considers termination corrective actions. The 1 :40 ratio evaluation can be
tri ggered if a contaminant falls below a alternate cleanup levels added in these rules.
Additional specific circumstances will need to be reviewed and a fine also should be levied
with the implementation of a 1 :40 request to terminated corrective action.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. It is the opinion of Staff that the 1 :40 ratio is not vague. It defines a
mathematical means of determining the degree of cleanup. The interval of sampling,
number of sampling points, and time scale are all defined by this rule.
Comments made at the Raleigh hearing:
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc., 7533
Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615 (**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the
Salisbury hearing)
Carl Rupert, Number 2, Quintin Place, Durham, NC 27705
COMMENT 4ccccc: Rule .0106(1)(1)-Requests to terminate corrective action based
on the 1 :40 ratio;
This 1 :40 ratio is confusing and can be calculated numerous way s. It needs to be more
fully defined and explained. It a pp ears that one of the axis the curve would be calculated
on is time in y ears but what is the other axis? Could this axis be millig rams/liter,
micrograms/liter, grams/liter or unit inde pendent? What is the statistical curve fittin g
method used here ; best-estimate linear or least squares? Both statistical methods could
yield different results.
A scale for both of the axis needs to be clearly s pecified. Is the gra ph to be linear.
logarithmic or semilogarithmic? How man y cycles on the gra ph are considered sufficient
101
b v the Director?
RESPONSE:
See response to 4bbbbb.
(Written Comments)
John Estridge, Engineer, Duke Power Company, Environmental Division, 13339 Hagers
Ferry Road, Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
Joseph P. Nestor, P.G., Project Manager, Cooper Environmental, 2300 Sardis Road North,
Suite Q, Charlotte, NC 28227
Jonathan W. Peterson, Remediation Coordinator-Atlanta District, Amoco Oil Company,
Remediation Services Division, One Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, P.O. Box
7513, Chicago, IL 60680-7513
COMMENT 4ddddd: Rule .0106(1)(1)-Request to terminate corrective action based
on the 1:40 ratio;
This level a pp ears arbitrary in that no justification has been given to the public as to
the rationale behind selectin g a 1 :40 ratio. Different compounds decay at widely varying
rates and it is doubtful a 1 :40 ratio could be achieved. Change Rule .0106 (1)( 1) to state in
the second sentence that the minimum demonstration show the achievement of asymp totic
contaminant concentrations in groundwater demonstrated by a first order decay curve.
S pecify that the lower limit of this curve is to be substantiall y linear.
RESPONSE:
See response to 4bbbbb.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N .C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4eeeee: Rule .0106(1)(1)-Request to terminate corrective action based
on the 1:40 ratio;
S pecify in this rule that statistical methods , gra phical methods . exponential formula,
regression analy sis or any a pp ropriate method of analyzing of one y ears worth of quarterly
data will suffice to meet this requirement.
RESPONSE:
See response to 4bbbbb.
102
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4fffff: Rule .0106(1)(2)-State authority to evaluate costs at non-UST
trust fund remediation sites;
What authori ty does the Director have to evaluate costs of non-UST remediation sites?
RESPONSE:
The Commission is authorized in 143-2152(a) to issue orders for remediation that
it considers necessary and feasible to alleviate or eliminate pollution.
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4ggggg: Rule .0106(1)(3)-Evaluation of alternate treatment technologies
for consideration of terminating corrective actions;
The evaluation of alternate technologi es should be allowed at the beginning of a
restoration pro ject not just as part of the consideration to terminate corrective action.
RESPONSE:
.0106(1)(1)(B) has been added to specify alternate technologies as follows:
"(B) an evaluation of alternate treatment technologies which could result in
further reduction of contaminant levels projected capitol and annual operating costs
for each technology."
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4hhhhh: Rule .0106(m)-Designating non-potable groundwaters as RS
or Restricted;
The rule say s the Director can reclassify groundwaters if they can't be made potable b y
treatment. Since the RS desi gnation a pp ears to be a tempora1y classification , why classify
103
groundwaters RS if they can't be made potable? Res ponsible parties should not be req uired
to cleanu p groundwater to a hi gher quality than what was originall y the natural state of
those waters.
RESPONSE:
Groundwaters that cannot be made potable can be classified as GC. Add to the
last phrase at the end of Rule .0106(m) as follows:
.... potable by such treatment, the Director may consider a request
for reclassification of the groundwater to a GC classification as outlined in
Rule .0201.
The proposed rule in .0106(m) proposes to allow groundwaters to be designated
RS if they can be made potable by treatment.
(Written Comment)
G. Gary Nixon, P.E., Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited, One
Centerview Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
Jonathan W. Peterson, Remediation Coordinator-Atlanta District, Amoco Oil Company,
Remediation Services Division, One Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, P.O. Box
7513, Chicago, IL 60680-7513
CO:Ml\'.IENT 4iiiii: Rule .0106(m)-Reclassification of groundwaters as Restricted or
(RS) where the remediation system no longer brings about
contaminant reductions;
Clari fy this rule to delineate the a pp lication and a pproval process for the desi gn ation
of g roundwaters as RS once it is determined that corrective actions will not bring about
further reductions. Also delineate the technologies that are "readily available and
economically reasonable". Specify that site s pecific data will a pp ly as the basis to this
reclassification.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the changes not be made in the rule. Site specific data will
be included as part of the information the Director will consider for reclassification
but not as the sole basis for the determination. Technology is constantly changing and
cannot properly be addressed in rulemaking but will be incorporated in guidance.
Groundwater monitoring and the criteria for request to terminate corrective action
will be the basis of the Director's decision.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 4jjjjj: Rule .0106(m)-Clarify "readily available and economically
104
reasonable technology";
Clarify the wording in this rule since it allows the Director too much discretion.
RESPONSE:
Since technology is in a constant state of change, the rules cannot defme a general
definition for the term.
(Written Comment)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 4kkkkk: Rule .0106(n)-New technology to remediate contaminated
groundwater;
We are concerned that as new remediation technology becomes available , a
res ponsible pa rty may be faced with ever more restrictive cleanu p requirements if a site is
sub jected to additional remediation. Rule .0106 (a) s pecifies the cleanu p standards will be
the groundwater cleanup standards of Rule .0202 which are anticip ated to chan ge as new
amendments are ado pted. This could make requesting alternate cleanup, natural
remediation and variances unattractive o ptions because the issue could be reo pened
decades after the decisions are made. We recommend that the cleanup levels in Rule
.0106(n ) be sp ecifically exp ressed.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. As new technology is
developed, cleanup will become less expensive and time consuming. The goal is this
Subchapter is to restore groundwaters and this Paragraph acknowledges that future
technological change will accomplish that goat
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina Power & Light
Company, Technical Services Department, 411 Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551,
Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT 4lllll: Rule .0106(n)-The application of new technology to remediate
105
contaminated groundwater;
New technology should only be a pp lied to new remediation pro jects not existing ones.
Under this rule an agreed u pon corrective action could be overturned u pon the Director's
appraisal of the availability of that technology . In addition , this rule allows the schedule for
implementation of corrective actions using new technology to be arbitrarily set b y the
Director. This rule should be deleted. However. it is not deleted a sentence should be added
statin g "The Director shall consider any reasonable schedule proposed b y the responsible
party."
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change requesting deletion of Rule .0106 (n) not be
made. New technology must be required for previous as well as new remediation
projects to meet the states groundwater protection goals. The change requesting the
Director consider any schedule submitted by the responsible party will be made to the
rule as proposed.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 4mmmmm: Rule .0106(n)-Making the language of this rule consistent
with other rules;
We recommend langu ag e be added to this rule consistent with Rule .0106 (a ) that the
new technology be "economically and technicall y feasible".
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change be made to the rule as follows:
"(n) If at any time the Director determines that a new technology is available that
would remediate the contaminated groundwater to the standards specified in Rule
.0202, the Director may require the responsible party to evaluate the economic and
technological feasibility of implementing the new technology in an active groundwater
corrective action plan in accordance with a schedule established by the Director .... "
(Written Comment)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company, Tennessee
Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
106
COMMENT 4nnnnn: Rule .0106(n)-Application of new remediation technology to
contaminated sites;
S pecify in Rule .0106 (n ) that new remediation technolo gy be applied to only those
locations that have received an Restricted Design ation (RS ).
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. New technology
should not be exclusively limited to temporary changes in classification.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 400000: Rule .0106(n)-Application of new remediation technology to
contaminated sites;
S peci fy in this rule that the a pp lication of new remedial technology shall take into
account the factors in Rule .0106 (g) as part of the consideration for renewed groundwater
restoration at a site where corrective actions have been terminated.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change be made in the rule. add a sentence at the end
of Rule .0106(n) stating the following:
"The Director's determination to utilize new technology at any site or for any
particular constituent shall include a consideration of the factors in Rule .0106 (g)."
(Written Comment)
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 1233
Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1619
COMMENT 4ppppp: Rule .0106(n)-Using monitoring wells in the application of
new remediation technologies;
Allow monitorin g wells to be used as a delivery mechanism for nutrients and bacteria
to contaminated a quifers and soils. There are also new bioremediation technologi es that
degrade contaminants without the presence of oxyg en and produce no harmful bi-products.
All these inexpensive alternatives are worth pursuin g .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. Under certain
107
conditions pumping wells used for bioremediation can become clogged with bacterial
growths (Groundwater Remediation, Vol. 8, Randall J. Charbeneau et. al). In
addition, the process of injecting nutrients and bacteria for natural remediation may
interfere with monitoring by forcing contaminants away from the well. The
functioning of monitoring wells should be exclusively for groundwater monitoring.
The Division is willing to explore all new and viable technological developments in
bioremediation.
(Written Comment)
Roger Brewster, Project Manager, Arnold Equipment Company, Inc., P.O. Box 18207,
Greensboro, NC 27419
COMMENT 4qqqqq: Rule .0106(n)-Support for the Paragraph outlining application
of new remediation technology for contaminated sites;
I supp ort this change to Rule .0106.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
(Written Comment)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT 4rrrrr: Rule .0106-Proposed alternate version to Rule .0106;
Proposed is a revision of portions of Rule .0106 Corrective Action that were noticed
for hearings. These changes will encourage timely remediation response and still be
protective of public health. It also creates a permitting procedure for groundwater
remediation systems. This procedure delineates the objectives the responsible party needs
to meet in order to be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2L. Here is a summary of alternate
version to Rule .0106 and the important changes are as follows:
* Proposes alternate groundwater quality standards established
on a site specific basis by the Director or designee in Paragraph (a).
* Specifies that responsible parties must begin corrective
action immediately in Paragraph ( c )( 1) and submit rep01ts to the regional
office.
* Allows corrective action to be instigated and a report sent to
the Regional office outlining activities in Paragraph (f).
* Paragraph (g) will allow the Director to review initial corrective action by
responsible party and make assessment if full mitigation has occurred. If not
the Director can require a submission of a full corrective action plan. The
108
director can require risk assessments and cost effective alternate
technologies. The paragraph also specifies a permit to construct and
operate a Corrective action system will contain pertinent information and
have a term of no more than three years.
* Paragraph (h) allows the Director or his designee to
determine if corrective action is needed.
* Paragraph (i) states that the basis for alternate cleanup
levels will be contained in the comprehensive site assessment.
* Paragraph G) states that the responsible party can request a new permit for
remediation systems if the need for it continues and at the expiration of a
permit for a corrective action system submit a progress report on
groundwater remediation.
* Paragraph (I) requires the Director terminate corrective action at the end of
the permit period and as a result of the progress report submitted by the
responsible party.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted. Staff recognizes that cleanup could be performed under permit
but believes that the process proposed in these rules will be more effective.
(Written Comment)
Andrew M. Raring, Ph.D.,P.G., Geologist/Environmental Consultant, P.O. Box 354,
Bethania, NC 27010
COMMENT 4sssss: Rule .0106-Proposed new Paragraph to delineate new effective
date of this rule;
Rules governin g alternate cleanups should not go into effect until all guidance
documents on site assessments and alternate cleanup determinations be ado pted followin g
public in put. Add a Paragraph restricting the Director from a pp roving an y alternate cleanu p
until these documents are finalized.
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced
with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
((Written Comment))
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
5) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0107: COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
109
COMMENT Sa: Rule .0107-Clarify off-site monitoring requirements beyond
Compliance boundaries;
There are no off site technical s pecifications for the number of wells or the dimensions
of the areas monitored. These factors need to be sp ecified clearly for areas bevond
compliance boundaries.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Site specific
information needs to be evaluated before determining the number of wells and area
requiring monitoring. The rules cannot define general requirements to address site
specific concerns.
(Comment made at the Salisbmy hearing)
Mike Harman, Project Manager, Spatco Environmental Company, 5100 North I-85,
Suite 6, Charlotte, NC 28206
COMMENT Sb: Rule .0107(a)-Need for a definition for "disposal system".
There needs to be a definition for "dis posal sy stem". Compliance boundaries for
dis posal sy stems should be developed based on a set of criteria to define a boundary (i.e.
contaminant flow velocities or proximity of users ). This is a better alternative to fixed
distances. Also , a definition for dis posal sy stem is needed in Rule .0 I 02 that will delineate
which activities will be regu lated.
RESPONSE:
"Disposal system" is defined in the North Carolina General Statutes 143-213(10).
((Written Comment) )
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT Sc: Rule .0107(a)-Support for new amendments to compliance
boundary;
The chang es to this rule will enhance willin g compliance b v allowin g landowners to
reclaim the value of their land.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
((Written Comment) )
110
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 5d: Rule .0107(a) and (b)-Compliance boundary distance requirements
for individually permitted disposal systems;
I supp ort the use of the word "individually " in both p aragraphs. This terminology will
impel animal o perators to work through the permits process established b y the Soil and
Water Conservation Commission.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
((Written Comments))
Thomas W. Ellis, ID, Director of Aquaculture and Natural Resources, North Carolina
Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Natural Resources, P.O Box 27647, Raleigh,
NC 27611
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT Se: Rule .0107(b)-Compliance boundary distance requirements and
subsurface recharge systems for environmental remediation;
The fi fty foot distance requirement cannot be met with regards to subsurface recharge
systems for environmental remediation. Insert lan gu age in the rule statin g that meeting the
fi fty foot boundary is required provided h ydraulic control can be placed on the discharg e.
RESPONSE:
Compliance Boundaries are not applicable when there is no disposal of waste.
Subsurface recharge systems are not considered to be a disposal of waste.
((Written Comments))
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 5f: Rule .0107(d) Water supply wells and compliance boundaries;
This prohibition on constructing or o perating water supp l y wells within a compliance
111
boundary is too restrictive. Permitted non-discharge sites will not be able to use water
supp lies even though the groundwater is unaffected.
RESPONSE:
The continued land application of waste has a very high probability of
contaminating groundwater over time. This potential is the justification for the
establishment of compliance boundaries and the designation of all such sites as "RS"
in the proposed amendment. The risk to human health is too great to allow the
construction and operation of water supply wells within compliance boundaries.
(Written comments)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101 West Third Street,
Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT 5g: Rule .0107(e)(l)-Prohibition on the transfer ofland within a
compliance boundary;
This total prohibition on the transfer of land within a compliance boundary needs to be
amended to allow transfers of some typ es of industrial compliance areas on industrial
lands. Change Rule .0107 (e){l) as follows:
"(1 ) the land to be transferred is serviced b y an ade quate supp ly of water, given the
p roposed, future use of the land. obtained from a sy stem that will not foreseeabl y be
affected b y groundwater quali ty changes that mav result from the o peration of the dis posal
sy stem."
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The procedure
already established in Rule .0107(e) provides an adequate mechanism to transfer land.
(Written comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT Sh: Rule .0107(1)(3)-Director's discretion at terminating easements;
The Director should not have the discretion to terminate easements. The rule should be
changed to allow the Director discretion to determine if the terms of an easement have been
fulfilled.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The Director does not
have total discretion to terminate easements. The proposed rule states that
112
termination can be accomplished only when the purpose of the easement has been
fulfilled or the need for the easement no longer exists. In addition, the Director must
have the agreement of the landowner prior to easement termination.
(Written comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 5i: Rule .0107(1)(3)-Terminating easements;
Chang e the word "may " to "shall" in this rule. Easements must be terminated ifno
long er needed.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change be made to the rule. Easements must be
terminated if no longer needed.
((Written Comments))
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 5j: Rule .0107(e)-Allow termination of restrictive covenants;
Add similar wordin g as in Rule . 0107 (f)(3 ) that will allow for the termination of
restrictive covenants that are no long er needed.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. There is no way of
knowing if a covenant will be needed in the distant future. New technology to
remediate groundwaters covered in Rule .0106(n) may allow for the Director to
initiate additional corrective action and these covenants will be necessary to prevent
land transfers of these areas.
((Written Comments))
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT 5k: Rule .0107(g)-Ground adsorption treatment systems;
What are ground adsorp tion treatment sy stems?
113
RESPONSE:
Septic tank systems.
((Written Comments))
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
COMMENT 51: Rule .0107(g)-Ground adsorption treatment systems;
These systems should not be exempt from compliance boundruy re quirements. The
dis posal of household chemicals into se ptic systems and leaks from heating oil tanks make
sin gle famil y dwelling s a si gn ificant contributor to groundwater pollution.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. This would be a
prohibitively costly burden on homeowners. Local health department regulations and
environmental education can address this issue.
((Written Comments))
Julianne M. Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT Sm: Rule .0107(k)(3)(B)-Cleanup within a compliance boundary as
result of an imminent hazard;
S pecific criteria needs to be develo ped to s peci fy the real imminent hazards to public
health and safety . The current rule does not rule out perceived public threats from this
consideration.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Criteria specifmg
hazard to public health have been developed by other agencies and do not need to be
repeated in 2L.
The perception of public threat can be effectively treated with education.
((Written Comments))
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945 East
Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
114
COMMENT 6c: Rule .0109(b)-Clarification on consent orders;
Clarify this rule b y stating that Special Consent Orders are not re quired for corrective
action plans. implementation of plans or termination of corrective actions. These S p ecial
Consent Orders are unnecessary and provide no additional p rotection to health or the
environment.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. The rule does specify
that special consent orders are required for these activities. The Director's ability to
utilize special orders by consent should not be limited by these rules.
(Written comments)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
7) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0110: MONITORING
COMMENT 7d: Rule .0ll0(a)-Preparation of monitoring plans;
We supp ort the provision requirin g monitoring plans be prepared b y a Licensed
Geologist or Professional Engineer.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
(Written comments)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology. P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive,
Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Ronald N. Walton, Environmental Section Leader, Cape Industries, Highway 421 North,
P.O. Box 327, Wilmington, NC 28402-0327
COMMENT 7e: Rule .0ll0(a)-Preparation of monitoring plans and consistency with
Rule .0106;
Change the phrase" or groundwater cleanup pro g ram" to "or corrective action" to be
I 16
COM1\1ENT Sn: Rule .0107(k.)(3)(C)-Exemption of Coastal Plain limestones from
cleanup within compliance boundaries.
Wh y are limestones in Coastal Plain sediments s pecificall y exempted in this rule?
RESPONSE:
This requirement is directed toward fractured bedrock because the
hydrogeologic characteristics of these aquifer systems. Coastal Plain limestones are
hydrogeologically similar to unconsolidated sedimentary systems that are also not
addressed by this special requirement. Limestone aquifer systems can be modeled
just like unconsolidated sedimentary systems.
(Written comments)
Edward L. Berry, Consulting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
Raleigh, NC 27614
6) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0109: DELEGATION
COM1\1ENT 6a: Rule .0109-Support for proposed amendments;
I support the chang es in the rule.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
(Written comments)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COM1\1ENT 6b: Rule .0109(b)-Clarification on consent orders;
Is this sp ecial order supp osed to be a consent order? If it is the Paragra ph does not
allow for consent.
RESPONSE:
Rule .0109(b) does not address a special order by consent. Rule .0109(a) allows
the Director to issue a consent special order.
(Written comments)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
115
RESPONSE:
Septic tank systems.
((Written Comments))
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
COMMENT 51: Rule .0107(g)-Ground adsorption treatment systems;
These systems should not be exempt from compliance bounda1y requirements. The
disposal of household chemicals into septic systems and leaks from heating oil tanks make
single family dwellings a significant contributor to groundwater pollution.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. This would be a
prohibitively costly burden on homeowners. Local health department regulations and
environmental education can address this issue.
((Written Comments))
Julianne M. Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT Sm: Rule .0107(k)(3)(B)-Cleanup within a compliance boundary as
result of an imminent hazard;
Specific criteria needs to be developed to specify the real imminent hazards to public
health and safety. The current rule does not rule out perceived public threats from this
consideration.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Criteria specifmg
hazard to public health have been developed by other agencies and do not need to be
repeated in 2L.
The perception of public threat can be effectively treated with education.
( (Written Comments) )
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945 East
Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
114
consistent with the Rule .0106.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made in the rule. Activities such as
monitoring after termination of a corrective action, monitoring after an RS
designation, or upon Directors determination that new technology should be used to
reopen a corrective action that was previously terminated may not be regarded as
necessary monitoring if the wording is replaced with "corrective action". To avoid
confusion, keep the current language in the rule.
(Written comments)
Julianne M. Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 7f: Rule .0ll0(a)-Preparation of monitoring plans;
Add "qualified professions" or "other qualified professions" to allow other professions
to p articipate in this activity .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. The
requirement that allows Professional Engineers and Licensed Geologists to perform
this activity is necessary to assure competence and is consistent with the General
Statues.
Also see the response to comment la.
(Written Comment)
Craig A. Bromby, Hunton & Williams, One Hanover Square, Suite 1400, Fayetteville
Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27601 (representing the North Carolina Association of
Environmental Professionals)
Jerry Mccrain, Vice President, Environmental Services Inc., 1318
Dale Street, Raleigh, NC 27605
COMMENT 7g: Rule .0ll0(a)-Exemptions to monitoring groundwater;
Add variances to the exemptions listed in this p aragraph so that a monitoring sy stem
need not be installed at these locations.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. The
requirement for monitoring provides a necessary and needed window into subsurface
117
conditions. Through monitoring, the migration of contaminants, the effectiveness of
remediation, and the presence of any toxic compounds produced by remediation can
be determined. In order to protect the environment and the public, monitoring must
be the rule rather than the exception.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I Du.Pont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
8) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0111: REPORTS
COMMENT Sa: Rule .0111-Reports in light of 15A NCAC 2N rules;
These rep orts are dup licative with res pect to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2N
(Criteria and Standards A pp licable to Underg round Storage T anks). Specific
documentation requirements need to be stated in the rules so that the re gu lated community
has an o pp ortunity to comment on them.
RESPONSE:
If the reporting requirements of Rule .0111 and Subchapter 2N are duplicative,
compliance with one will result in compliance with the other. The documentation
requirements appear specific enough to clearly defme the needs of the Division and
need no revision.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT Sb: Rule .0lll(a)-Preparation of reports to the Director;
We su pp ort this provision requirin g Professional Engineers and Licensed Geologists
prepare these reports.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
(Written comments)
Julianne M. Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P .A., 2050
Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
118
COMMENT Sc: Rule .0lll(a)-Preparation of reports to the Director;
Add "qualified professions" or "qualified professions" to allow other professions to
partici pate in this activity .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rule. The
requirement that allows Professional Engineers and Licensed Geologists to perform
this activity is necessary to assure competence and is consistent with the General
Statues.
Also see response to comment la.
(Written Comment)
Craig A. Bromby, Hunton & Williams, One Hanover Square, Suite 1400, Fayetteville
Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27601 (representing the North Carolina Association of
Environmental Professionals)
Jerry McCrain, Vice President, Environmental Services Inc., 1318
Dale Street, Raleigh, NC 27605
COMMENT 8d: Rule .0lll(a)(3)-Preparation of reports describing proposed
methodology and timetable for corrective action;
Delete the proposed wordin g "con-ective action" and reinstate "restoration of
groundwater quality".
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rules.
Reinstatement of the original wording would require the submission of a timetable for
these sites remediating naturally. The rate of attenuation cannot be predicted.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
9) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0112: ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMMENT 9a: Rule .0112(1)(a)-Correction to the reference;
119
The reference guide "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater" now has an 18th edition. Please correct the rule citin g a 17th edition.
RESPONSE:
Agreed. Staff recommend that the Rule require that the most current version of
Standard Methods always be used.
(Written comments)
John Estridge, Engineer, Duke Power Company, Environmental Division, 13339 Hagers
Ferry Road, Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
COMMENT 9b: Rule .0112(b)(2)-Tests and analytical procedures approved by the
Director;
Delete new wording "practical guantitation level" and reinstate "limit of detectability ".
Practical guantitation level has no precise definition.
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section recommends that the precise term
"Practical Quantitation Limit" be used in lieu of "Practical Quantitation Level"
currently being used in Rule .0112(2). The limit of detectability is a vague term and
could easily be misunderstood as the method detection limit instead of practical
quantitation limit.
EES has also suggested that Method Detection Limits be used in .0112(2) for
those cases in which the groundwater standard is less than the PQL (verbal comment
made on 6/16/93)).
(Written comments)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 9c: Rule .0112(2)-The provision allowing the Director to approve an
analytical procedure.
In many instance the Practical Quantitation Levels will exceed the Rule .0202
groundwater standards. This paragra ph leaves o pen the possibility that the Division may
arbitraril y require its own anal yti cal methods with no public input. Delete this rule and
replace it with the followin g text:
"(2 ) In cases where the practical quantitation level is greater that the standard, the standard
is the practical quantitation level."
120
RESPONSE:
See the response to comment 9b.
(Written comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
10) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0113: VARIANCE
COMMENT 10a: Rule .0113-The use of Variances to Subchapter 2L amendments;
Variances are the most legally defensible means to deal with the financial hardship
cases that must comply with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2L and 15A NCAC 2N. This
approach should be taken instead of amending 15A NCAC 2L .0106. The variances
allowed by Rule .0106 Corrective Action are too broad and encompassing and are subject
to abuse. Relieve the financial burden on financially less capable owners and operators of
underground storage tanks through variances. Strict liability should be maintained on large
companies.
RESPONSE:
Variances to standards and limitations are still a valid means of addressing
particular situations that responsible individuals may have. The corrective action
procedures in Rule .0106 are not variances but administrative vehicles that recognize
natural bioremediation as a means to reduce contaminant levels, providing flexibility
in setting site specific cleanup standards, and enabling the use of developing new
technologies as a viable means to reclaim the groundwaters of the State.
Also see the response to comment 2b.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC 27515
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North Carolina/ Sierra Club, 1024 Washington
Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1258
Janet Hoyle, Director, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box 88, Glendale
Springs, NC 28629 (** Ms. Hoyle repeated her comments at the Asheville hearing**)
121
Marsh Smith, Lawyer, MooreFORCE, P.O. Box 541, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro, NC
27510
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air Natural Resources, League of Women Voters, 411
Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, 29 1/2 Page
A venue, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 10b: Rule .0113-The use of Variances to Subchapter 2L amendments;
Reinstate the previous language that is overstmck in the proposed mle and delete "the
rules of the Subchapter". All the rules should not be sub ject to variances.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rules. The
variances the Commission is allowed to grant are referenced in the N.C.G.S. 143-
215.3(e). In order to provide for the greatest flexibility in dealing with unusual
circumstances, all of the rules should be subject to variance if the need arises.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box 286, Wadesboro,
NC 28170 (**Ms.Lee repeated her comments at the Salisbury hearing**)
COMMENT 10c: Rule .0113-Information requirements for variance requests other
than compliance boundaries and water quality standards;
Not all the information requested may be needed for variance re quests other than for
chang es to the compliance boundary or groundwater standards. These circumstances need
to be sp ecified in the rules.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Informational
requirements vary from site to site.
122
Marsh Smith, Lawyer, MooreFORCE, P.O. Box 541, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro, NC
27510
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air Natural Resources, League of Women Voters, 411
Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, 29 1/2 Page
A venue, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 10b: Rule .0113-The use of Variances to Subchapter 2L amendments;
Reinstate the previous language that is overstruck in the proposed rule and delete "the
rules of the Subchapter". All the rules should not be subject to variances.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the proposed change not be made to the rules. The
variances the Commission is allowed to grant are referenced in the N.C.G.S. 143-
215.3(e). In order to provide for the greatest flexibility in dealing with unusual
circumstances, all of the rules should be subject to variance if the need arises.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box 286, Wadesboro,
NC 28170 (**Ms.Lee repeated her comments at the Salisbury hearing**)
COMMENT 10c: Rule .0113-Information requirements for variance requests other
than compliance boundaries and water quality standards;
Not all the information requested may be needed for variance requests other than for
changes to the compliance boundary or groundwater standards. These circumstances need
to be specified in the rules.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Informational
requirements vary from site to site.
122
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 10d: Rule .0113(c)(5)-Use of the term "best available technology
economically reasonable";
The phrase "economically reasonable" needs to be more clearly defined. Is there a
distinction being drawn here between less financiall y capable tank owners/o perators with
those that are more solvent?
RESPONSE: See response to comment lf.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945 East
Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT l0e: Rule .0113(c)(5)-Use of the term "best available technology;
Delete the phrase "best available technology economically reasonable" and replace it
with "readily available and economically reasonable technology ".
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. It could be interpreted
allow variances for substandard and ineffective technologies.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I Du.Pont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT l0f: Rule .0113(c)(5)-Use of the term "best available technology";
Delete the phrase "best available technology " and replace it with "su pp orting
information to establish that the restoration goals cannot be achieved b v technology which
is economically reasonable."
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. It could be interpreted
to allow variances for substandard and ineffective technologies.
123
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 10g: Rule .0113(c)(6)-Financial hardship information as a consideration
in variance requests;
Allowing variances based on hardshi p information can lead to arbitra ry and cap ricious
decisions.
RESPONSE:
The ability, or lack thereof, of the party responsible to perform cleanup must be
considered by the Division.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945 East
Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
Carl Rupert, Number 2, Quintin Place, Durham, NC 27705
COMMENT 10h: Rule .0113(e)(l)(A)-Public notice of variances to Subchapter 2L;
One notice in a local newspa per is not sufficient to assure citizen partici pation.
Broader advertisement is needed.
RESPONSE:
.0113(d) states that public notice must also be given in accordance to NCGS 143-
215.4(b). The text of .0113(e) defines notice requirements in excess of those required
by statute.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT l0i: Rule .0113(e)(2)(D)-Public notice of variances to Subchapter 2L;
124
Revise this rule to read as follows:
"(D) geo graphic descri ption and a map of a pro posed area for which a variance is
requested;"
RESPONSE:
A geographic description is sufficient for notice. If interested parties require
additional information, they may contact the Division.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT l0j: Rule .0113(e)(2)(1)-Contents of public notice for variance hearings;
Requirin g a pp licants to provide co pies of each variance a pp lication to the public is
burdensome. Amend this rule to require the a pp licant submit this document to the local
public library.
RESPONSE:
The Rule does not state that this is a requirement for the applicant.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945 East
Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
COMMENT 10k: Rule .0113-Add a new Part (K) which will include a procedure and
time for submitting additional comments.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that this change not be made because the public notice and
hearing process is already deemed sufficient to handle this concern.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare
County, P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
11) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0114: NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
COMMENT lla: Rule .0114-Notification of absentee landowners ;
125
There is no provision in these rules to provide public notice to out of state landholders.
One notice in the media may not be enough.
RESPONSE: Rule .0114(b) states that all property owners will be notified. This
includes absentee landholders.
(Comments made at the Salisbury hearing)
Terry Burnham, Rowan county resident, 1070 Driftwood Trail,
Salisbury, NC
COMMENT llb: Rule .0114-Notification;
The notification requirements needs to include notification to ad jacent landowners that
groundwater contamination exists in the area prior to identi fy ing res ponsible parties.
RESPONSE:
The identification of responsible parties generally does not require much time. It
is Division policy to always notify citizens whose health is threatened regardless of
efforts to identify responsible parties.
(Comments made at the Williamston hearing)
Therese Vick, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O Box 512,
Rich Square, NC 27869
(Comments made at the Asheville hearing)
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT llc: Rule .0114-Notification;
The public notification provision is inadequate to protect the public.
RESPONSE:
An exhaustive list of individuals and government entities are provided notice
under these rules. The rules allow for detailed site information to be included in the
notice, specifies public notice mailing procedures, and provides specific time frames in
which a Director is allowed to make decisions on any issue. In addition, rule 15A
NCAC 2L .0104 allows the Director to hold hearings prior granting a Restricted (RS)
designation.
(Written Comment)
126
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801
Katherine Hodge, President, League of Women Voters of Moore County, P.O. Box 1995,
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Phyllis Kalk, Natural Resources Unit Chair, League of Women Voters of Moore County,
P.O. Box 1995, Southern Pines, NC 28388
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
Terry Burnham, Rowan county resident, 1070 Driftwood Trail,
Salisbury, NC
COMMENT lld: Rule .0114-Notification;
These requirements place an unnecessary re gu latrny burden on resp onsible p arties.
Reports sent to the Division are public documents. This Rule should be deleted.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. This notification is
necessary for the public. This assures that documentation reaches the public in a
timely manner.
(Written Comment)
Mike A. Dickerson, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Exxon Company, U.S.A., P.O.
Box 2180, KT 1245, Houston, TX 77252-2180
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina Power & Light
Company, Technical Services Department, 411 Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O . Box 1551,
Raleigh, NC 27602
COMMENT lle: Rule .0114(a)-Notification report submittal;
Amend this rule requirin g "five days" to submit this re port to "five workdays".
RESPONSE:
Agree. It is recommended that the change be made to the rule. This change will
prevent any confusion about report submittal dates.
127
(Written Comment)
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
COMMENT llf: Rule .0114(a)-Submitting reports to the local Health Director;
This is an unnecessary requirement on res ponsible parties. Re ports under the
corrective action Rule .0106 are public record and are re quired b y the Division. Change
the rule state that submission of duplicate co pies of the site assessment and corrective
action plan be submitted to the local health director at the same time these documents are
submitted to the Division.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. Rule .0114 gives a
more complete set of information so local health directors can have a clear
understanding of the contamination event and the actions taken to mitigate and
control the problem.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 1233
Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1619
COMMENT llg: Rule .0114(b)-Public hearings and alternative corrective actions;
Change this rule to s peci fy that public hearings for alternate cleanu p levels and natural
remediation be required when such actions are undertaken. Notice should also be extended
to ad jacen t properti es even if a contaminant plume is not presently impacting their lands .
RESPONSE:
Notice after the decision making process is completed does not constitute an
adequate or proper notification of the public.
(Written Comment)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
128
COMMENT llh: Rule .0114(b)-Notification of chief administrative officers;
This rule needs to restrict the notice to only the smallest political jurisdictions impacted
b y the contaminant plume.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 3nn.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT lli: Rule .0114(b)-Notification of adjacent property owners;
To prevent an unnecessary burden on res ponsible parties. the pro pe1ty owners notified
should be for those prop erties where the followin g conditions occur:
1) For only those pro perties underlain b y the plume where
health based standards are or will be exceeded in a year.
2) Those pro perties where it could be reasonablv ex pected that
health based standards will be violated in a y ear.
3) Speci fy in the rule that the timing of public notice will be prior
to the implementation of a remediation sy stem.
4 ) S pecify that when remediation activities have terminated, the public
announcement will state the groundwater was remediated to the
previous established standards and that op eration will sto p .
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the changes not be made to the rule. All adjacent
property owners impacted, or having the potential to be impacted, by the contaminant
plume should be notified. The property values are as important as the health impacts
of contaminants. The Director must review notification prior to the implementation of
natural remediation or the termination of a corrective action contained in Rule .0106.
Therefore, specifying that notice be given prior to implementation of a corrective
action in the rule is unnecessary.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
N. Ray Watson, Jr., P.E., Director, Civil Engineering, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 1233
Hardee's Boulevard, P.O Box 1619, Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1619
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
129
COMMENT llj: Rule .0114(c)-Directors notification of a decision for an alternate
cleanup level, corrective action using natural remediation, or termination of active
groundwater remediation;
Amend this rule to allow the public to contest a Director's decision. Include detailed
filin g and submission information with s pecific time frames for contesting a Director's
decision.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The North Carolina
General Statutes 150B, Administrative Procedures Act, Article 4 contains the
information necessary to contest or intervene upon a Director's decision. The
proposed change in the rule is inappropriate.
(Written Comment)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
12) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0201: GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATIONS
COMMENT 12a: Rule .0201-Groundwater classifications;
We su pp ort groundwater classifications in Rule .0201. We do not supp ort numerical
classifications of substances within these classifications to groundwater remediation
pro jects. Chang es in the Rule .0202 standards can drasticall y increase costs of these
projects.
RESPONSE:
General groundwater classifications do not adequately protect groundwater users
from the deleterious effects of specific contaminants. The standards in Rule .0202 are
based on health effects information and provide the best protection.
(Written Comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 12b: Rule .0201-Proposal that Restricted Designation (RS) be placed as
a classification in Rule .0201:
130
Establish the RS design ation as a groundwater classification outlined as follows:
"(3) Restricted design ation (RS ); usage and occurrence:
(a ) Best usag e. The best usage of Class RS groundwaters is as attenuation or
recovery medium.
(b) Condition Related to Best Usage. This class includes those gr oundwaters that
are found to contain constituents in concentrations that render the water
unsuitable for human consumption."
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The RS designation is
temporary and limited to corrective action projects and should not be considered as a
groundwater classification.
(Written comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O . Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 12c: Rule .0201-Proposal that the unsaturated zone or partially
saturated zone be classified in Rule .0201:
Amend the pro posed rules to include these zones as part of the States groundwater
classification.
RESPONSE:
The degree to which soils must be cleaned is treated in the State's Soil
Remediation Guidelines. It is not necessary that a classification system for the
unsaturated zone be developed.
(Written comments)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
13) RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0202: GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS
COMMENT 13a: Rule .0202(a)-Proposed amendments to this paragraph;
These changes are consistent and appropriate with other changes in
this Subchapter.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
131
(Written comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company, Tennessee
Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
COMMENT 13b: Rule .0202(a)-Restoration of groundwater quality;
Reinstate the overstruck material in this paragraph.
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. The language could be
interpreted as to prohibit natural remediation and the use of corrective action cleanup
goals.
(Written comments)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 13c: Rule .0202(b)(l)-Use of term "Practical Quantitation Limit";
The phrase "practical guantitation limit" has no precise meaning to technical people.
Reinstate "limit of detectability".
RESPONSE:
It is recommended that the change not be made to the rule. This term is defmed in
the Definitions (Rule .0102) and certified laboratories are aware of its meaning and
application to sample analysis.
Also see response to comment lz.
(Written comments)
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O . Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 13d: Rule .0202(b)(l)-Use of term "Practical Quantitation Limit";
132
This term needs to be more clearly defined.
RESPONSE:
Practical quantitation level and practical quantitation limit are used
interchangeably throughout the rules. This has obviously resulted in confusion.
Practical quantitation limit is correctly stated. Practical quantitation limit should be
used in place of practical quantitation level.
This recommendation is made by the Environmental Epidemiology Section.
(Written comments)
James A. Bennett, P.G., Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208 Spring
Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
COMMENT 13e: Rule .0202(b)(2)-Risks associated with multiple carcinogens:
The second sentence of this rule assumes that all cancerous and toxic exposures are
additive which is an outdated concept. Amend this sentence in the followin g way :
"(2) Where two or more substances ...................... .in accordance with Paragraphs (c ) and (g)
of this Rule. In situations where multi ple hazardous constituents have demonstrated similar
toxic effects( e.g .. similar typ es of cancer or similar targ et organisms ), the risks associated
with concomitant exp osure to these materials may be considered additive."
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with this comment.
Additivity and synergistic effects for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds is
not an outdated toxicological concept and has been clearly and widely illustrated in
the scientific literature. The carcinogenic effects will be considered additive, and the
non-carcinogenic effects will also be considered additive. The following statement
from .0202B(2) is quite clear, "the carcinogenic risks associated with carcinogens
present shall be considered additive, and the toxic effects associated with non-
carcinogens present shall also be considered additive."
(Written comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 13f: Rule .0202(b)(3)-Criteria for establishing naturally occurring
substances in groundwaters;
133
There a pp ears to be no identifiable criteria in this rule the Director must use to
determine these levels. This could be interp reted broadly leading to an overload of requests
for these standards.
RESPONSE:
The Groundwater Section may want to consider listing the criteria used to
establish naturally-occurring concentrations for a given area. If the naturally-
occurring concentrations are known, then one could estimate the extent of
contamination introduced by the responsible party.
This comment was offered by the Environmental Epidemiology Section.
(Written comments)
Ronald N. Walton, Environmental Section Leader, Cape Industries, Highway 421 North,
P.O. Box 327, Wilmington, NC 28402-0327
COMMENT 13g: Rule .0202(b)(3)-Establishing naturally occurring substances in
groundwaters;
Change the last sentence that states "the standard will be the naturally occurring
concentration as determined b y the Director" to read as "the standard will be the naturally
occurring concentration or the laboratory anal ytical method practical guantitation limit.":
RESPONSE:
See the response to 13f above.
(Written comments)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 13h: Rule .0202(c)-Introduction of materials in class GA and GSA
groundwaters to enhance natural remediation.
The introduction of microorganisms , oxygen containing chemicals, (such as h ydrog en
peroxide) nutrients and surficants to enhance natural remedial processes used to fulfill
corrective action requirements of Rule .0106 (k) is not permitted in this rule and needs to be
amended.
RESPONSE:
The Rule .0106(k) states that the Director may be requested to approve a
corrective action plan dependent upon natural processes of degradation and
attenuation of contaminants. Therefore, these natural procedures should not violate
Rule .0202(c). Chlorination is not illegal. Public water supply wells are regulated by
134
the 15A NCAC 2B Classifications and water quality standards.
It is our responsibility to ensure protection of public health. The absence of a
groundwater standard for a detected chemical should not be misconstrued as being
non-toxic. We do not have a groundwater standard for every toxic chemical
manufactured or used in North Carolina. It is inconceivable and impracticaL
Therefore, in the absence of a standard (1) the chemical is not permitted above
detectable concentrations or (2) any person may petition the Director to establish an
interim maximum allowable concentration. (This is a common practice).
This comment is offered by the Environmental Epidemiology Section.
(Written comments)
Julianne M . Braun, Staff Geochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 North.point
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P .A., 2050
North.point Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602
COMMENT 13i: Rule .0202(c)-lntroduction of materials in class GA and GSA
groundwaters;
An exception needs to be included in the rule to allow for chlorination of drinking
water su pp lies. I've heard its been illegal since 1989.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 13h.
(Written comments)
Julianne M . Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 North.point
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
COMMENT 13j: Rule .0202(c)-Substances not naturally occurring with no specified
standard;
Amend this rule to allow non-carcinogenic substances with no s pecific standard to
remain in groundwater. It is unreasonable to treat groundwaters for these chemicals to a
stricter standard than known carcinogens. Some of these chemicals can be detected in such
135
low concentrations that there is no way to distin gu ish a samp lin g artifact from a real
contaminant. If this rule is not amended it should be deleted.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 13h.
(Written Comment)
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colonial Pipeline Company, Resurgens Plaza, 945 East
Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 13k: Rule .0202(c)-Substances not permitted in groundwater;
This Paragra ph is inconsistent with the rest of the rule. Chang e the restriction on
"substances which are not naturally occurring and for which no standard is s pecified" that
states they are not to be p ermitted in "detectable concentrations in Class GA or GSA
groundwaters". State that these detectable concentrations be tied to the laboratory
analyti cal practical guantitation limit.
RESPONSE:
See comment to 13h.
(Written Comment)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT 131: Rule .0202(c)-Requiring petitioners for interim standards submit
all data to establish a standard;
The word "all" in the p hrase "all toxicolo gical and e pidemiological" creates an onerous
requirement for petitioners. Change this word "relevant".
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section agrees with the change in .0202(c).
Change "all" to "relevant."
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.1 DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
136
COMMENT 13m: Rule .0202(d)-Criteria for establishing groundwater quality
standards in Class GA and GSA groundwaters;
Further restrict the app lication of odor and taste threshold limit values (T L Vs) in Rule
.0202 ( d )(3 ) and ( 4 ) as a basis for settin g standards. Require the use of odor and taste TL Vs
only when ade quate information exists for Rules .0202 (d )(l).(2 ),(5 ) and (6). S pecify that
no numeric standards can be set without this information.
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with the comment. Odor and
taste threshold limit values are utilized primarily to ensure that the groundwater is
suitable for its intended best usage (Rule .0202(a)).
(Written Comment)
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 13n: Rule .0202(d)(l)-Systemic threshold concentration calculation;
Amend this rule to reduce the 70 k g adult body wei ght and substitute with a child's
body weight. This will make the groundwater standards more protective health. Replace
the 70 k g weight with the "average child's wei ght of 10 k g ".
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section Disagrees with the comment. Federal
and state agencies almost universally utilize the 70 kg value in systemic threshold
concentration calculations. Most scientific data for animals and humans refer to
toxicological endpoints in terms of adult exposure, and thus, the calculations are
targeted for adults. Sufficient safety factors are used in the calculations to cover any
additional risk to children. In addition, children consume on the average only I liter
of water/day compared to 2 liters/day for adults. Environmental Epidemiology
Section will supply on request, peer-reviewed documentation to support this position.
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Sam McClintock, Environmental Chemist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies,
7533 Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
137
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
COMMENT 130: Rule .0202(d)(2)-Incremental lifetime cancer risk criteria for
determining groundwater standards for class GA and GSA groundwaters;
This incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 is overl y conservative compared to
other government agencies that use a 1 x 10-4 risk which is more a pp ro priate. This
regu lation does not s peci fy the equation used in settin g standards. Chang e this rule to
provide an equation for setting the maximum allowable concentration for carcinog ens for a
risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6. Make risk factors site s pecific based on the size of
exposed po pulation.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section stron gly disa grees with this comment. The
incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 is not overly conservative and is routinely
utilized for carcinogenic compounds by almost all states that have set groundwater
standards. The majority of respondents to the 2L rules that have commented on this
particular rule have supported the 1 x 10-6 risk value. Environmental Epidemiology
Section defines a "negligible" added lifetime cancer risk as less than one additional
cancer case in one million people exposed to a substance. This value is a health-based
value also utilized by EPA. A potency factor is derived from animal or human studies
in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the calculations are based upon the
potency factor and the 1 x 10-6 risk level as stated in Rule .0202(d)(2). A risk range
for a particular compound is unacceptable when a standard is requested. Site
specificity based on the size of the exposed population is not applicable to
groundwater, particularly where over half the state's population utilizes groundwater
for private well supplies. However, it should be noted that Environmental
Epidemiology Section provides site-specific risk assessments and recommendations
for continued water use upon receipt of water test results to private well owners and
for public water supplies.
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT 13p: Rule .0202(e)(3) and (4)-Reference materials used in calculating
groundwater standards;
Risk assessment data is not a source for toxici ty criteria. The definition of "risk
assessment" (Rule .0102 (20)) is inconsistent with this section because risk assessment
studies are not the best sources of information to set a toxicity standard. Change this rule as
138
follows:
"(3) Other toxicity data provided b y USEPA or ATSDR, or
( 4 ) Other scientifically valid toxici ty data."
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section agrees with this comment. However, the
use of risk assessment data should continue to be utilized. Our suggested changes:
"(4) Other appropriate, published health risk assessment data, and scientifically
valid peer-reviewed published toxicological data."
(a proposed revision to .0202(e)(3) was retracted verbally by EES on 6/16/93)
(Written Comment)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
COMMENT 13q: Rule .0202(c),(d) and (e)-Procedure to adopt interim groundwater
standards;
The procedure to ado pt new standards for substances listed in Parag ra ph (g) does not
assure public health is protected. A chemical can get a new standard based entirely on
information supplied b y res ponsible p arties and a review b y the Division of E pidemiology .
The Director has complete authori ty to ado pt these standards without any public in put.
The standards for any new or unlisted chemical should remain zero for all these chemicals
till the federal government provides more health information on that substance.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with this comment. The
procedure does provide for the development of an interim standard protective of
public health. Environmental Epidemiology Section reviews information supplied by
interested parties. In addition, the Environmental Epidemiology Section conducts a
detailed peer-reviewed literature search to determine the no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) or lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of a compound
which is based upon the most sensitive toxicological endpoint identified in the
literature. For carcinogens, health-protective levels are based upon the cancer
potency factor and a target risk of 1 x 10·6. For non-carcinogens, health-protective
levels are based upon a reference dose (which takes into account NOAELS or
LOAELS and safety factors; extrapolating from animals to humans and factors that
account for human variation). These values result in health protective standards for
groundwater. The process for compound review provides an opportunity for all
139
parties to evaluate the calculated standard and to submit scientific data that may
result in a further update of an interim standard. It is true that the federal
government does not have standards for many compounds, but they are not the only
source that can be utilized for health information. Information can be obtained from
the scientific literature, industry, other federal and state agencies, and health
professionals.
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Ginny Lindsey, Community Organizer, Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page A venue, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 13r: Rule .0202(g) and (h)-Groundwater quality standards for Class GA
and GSA groundwaters.
Res ponsible parties should not be held to the standards of these rules under all
circumstances but should be allowed , at the discretion of the Director, to remediate
groundwaters to the standards of 1 SA NCAC 18C rules that govern publicly owned
treatment works. Under the current 15A NCAC 2L rules , remediation pro jects must
cleanup contaminated groundwaters to a more strin gent set of standards than public
drinking water su pp liers are required to meet. The technology to remediate these
groundwaters cannot reach the standards for in Rule .0202 (g) and (h). The rules need to
reflect these 15A NCAC 18C public water su pp ly standards as default levels for variances
to the 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section strongly disagrees with this comment. It
should be noted that at each hearing, there was overwhelming support for the
utilization of current groundwater standards instead of public water MCLs, with only
one or two commentors stating otherwise. North Carolina Groundwater Standards
are health-based values, which provide a confidence in the protection of public health,
especially for private well owners who do not have the resources that public water
systems have in remediating contamination problems. Public water MCLs are not
health-based standards, but health-derived values that take into account economic
and technical feasibility. The use of public water MCLs may not be health protective
for groundwater for sites where multiple contaminants are present, as it does not take
into account additive or synergistic effects of carcinogens and would reduce public
health protection by up to several orders of magnitude for certain compounds. As
many commentors stated, the current groundwater standards are by far more health
protective than the use of public water MCLs. In addition, various contractors have
indicated to Environmental Epidemiology Section of engineering processes that vastly
improve the degree of groundwater remediation toward current standards. We have
received some examples of these processes and can make them available upon request.
As a result, the often repeated remark of not having the technology to remediate to
the groundwater standards may soon become an inaccurate statement.
140
(Comments made at the Jacksonville hearing)
John D. Grady, President, Contractors and Engineers Services, Inc., 1304 North William
Street, P.O. Box 762, Goldsboro, NC 27533-0762
COMMENT 13s: Rule .0202(g) and (h)-Revision of Twenty-Six groundwater
standards;
Each substance and concentration proposed for amendment in these groundwater
standards needs individual review and public comment. The request is that the
Commission not amend these standards with the other changes in Subchapter 2L but
pro pose amendment for each substance individually .
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section (EES) disagrees with these comments. The
revised standards have been out for public review for well over six months. During
this time, the methods and scientific literature utilized by EES for the new and
revised standards have been available for comment on their scientific merit. With the
exception of acetone, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, methoxychlor, lead, silver,
selenium, and xylenes, the remaining proposed standards have not been commented
upon by the public in this six month period. EES feels this period has provided more
than enough time to comment on the validity of standards that were calculated using
studies from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. After EES reviewed the
toxicological and health effects data, the proposed changes to the 2L standards were
provided to DEM. If additional documentation is required, EES would be happy to
provide this information. EES does not rely on EPA to provide a health risk
assessment. EES utilizes protocols and risk assessment approaches that are EPA
approved. These approaches are factored in with an EES evaluation of the scientific
literature.
(Comments made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
COMMENT 13t: Rule .0202(g)-Information on groundwater standards proposed for
amendment and new standards;
We do not feel that these groundwater standards should be a p art of the rulemaking
with the revisions to Section .0100. The public has not received ade quate information nor
time to review these chang es. No toxicolo gical or health effects information on any of
these chemicals was presented at the hearing s. There is no indication as to whether the
141
standards came from the USEPA or another a gency . MCLs have not vet been established
for the seven new chemicals pro posed for amendment.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Management Commission Groundwater Committee meetings
have publicly revealed this effort has been ongoing for over a year. The public notice
of this rulemaking exceeded the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes,
Chapter 150B-21.2 and adequate time was given for review of all these standards.
Information concerning approval of standards was available though the Groundwater
Section and technical information on the development of standards could be obtained
through the Division of Epidemiology. No request for detailed information was made
concerning changes to the levels found in Rule .0202(g) during the public comment
period. Hearings were conducted in accordance with North Carolina General
Statutes, Chapter 150B. The seven chemicals have interim maximum allowable
concentrations established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0202(c), (d) and (e).
(Written Comments)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
(Comment made at the Raleigh hearing)
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602 (**Mr. Outwater repeated his comments at the Salisbury and
Asheville hearings**)
(Comment made at the Asheville hearing)
Ginny Lindsey, Community Organizer, Clean Water Fund of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 13u: Rule .0202(g)-Filtration of groundwater samples for Class GA
groundwater analysis of constituents;
The exce ption allowin g filtration could be interp reted to mean post-samplin g filtration
of groundwater sam ples. This lan guag e is inappro priate and should be deleted. Heavy
metals in the groundwater could be removed b y allowin g filtration.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section agrees with this comment.
(Written Comments)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
142
(Comment made at the Salisbury hearing)
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc., 7533
Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615 (**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the
Salisbury hearing)
COMMENT 13v: Rule .0202(g),(h) and (i)-Proposed groundwater standards for GA,
GSA and GC groundwaters;
We recommend these standards be ado pted as proposed.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record.
(Written comments)
Ronald N. Walton, Environmental Section Leader, Cape Industries, Highway 421 North,
P.O. Box 327, Wilmington, NC 28402-0327
COMMENT 13w: Rule .0202(g)(l)-The proposed new Groundwater Standard for
Acetone;
Amend this proposed new Acetone standard as 3 .5 milli grams/Liter in lieu of the
proposed 0.7 milli grams/Liter. This level is based on US EPA information from its
Integrated Risk Information Sy stem (IRIS).
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section (EES) disagrees with this comment. The
acetone standard is based on a reference dose derived from the scientific literature.
The comment about acetone having a standard in the EPA IRIS system as of 6/93 is
incorrect. Acetone is not listed in IRIS has having a standard of 3.5 mg/L. The
reference dose for acetone is listed in IRIS as matches the reference dose EES used in
its calculation.
(Written comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company, Tennessee
Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
COMMENT 13x: Rule .0202(g)(42),(43) and (53)-Proposed amendments to
Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, and Methoxychlor;
143
The pro posed amendments to the standards for Heptachlor, Heptachlor E poxide, and
Methoxy chlor should be deleted and replaced with the current standards. These chang es
will be extremely costl y to the regulated community because numerous laboratories have
stated that the lower standards will be difficult to verify with the instrumentation available
to the ma jority of laboratories. It would force labs that do these analy sis to dedicate
equipment for these purposes be of the extremely low levels of detection and the possibility
of sample contamination. In addition . we do not feel that these changes add an y benefit to
the public. (Laboratories contacted were H ydro Analytical Laboratories . En-CAS
Analytical , Weston-Gulf Coast, Inc., IBA Laboratory, Research and Analyti cal
Laboratories, Inc., and Savannah Laboratories & Environmental Services Inc.)
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with this comment. The
proposed amendments to the standards for heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and
methoxychlor should remain. These proposed standards were calculated by using the
criteria listed under Rule .0202(d) and the most up-to-date toxicological data. It is our
responsibility as health professionals to ensure protection of health for the residents in
North Carolina. These standards are protective of health. The calculations used to
generate these standards can be provided.
(Written comments)
J. Stephen Shi, Petree Stockton, Attorneys at Law, 1001 West Fourth Street, Winston-
Salem, NC 27101-2400
COMMENT 13y: Rule .0202(g)(48)-The proposed amendment to the Groundwater
Standards for Lead;
This pro posed level of0.015 milligrams/Liter for Lead is an EPA "action level" that
applies to water as it arrives at a consumers ta p and not indicated for situations where
sp ecial water treatment is needed. Amend this rule to restore the former standard of 0.05
milligrams/Liter for Lead.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with this comment. The proposed
level of 15 ppb for lead in groundwater while currently an EPA action level will soon
become a public water MCL. The reduction from 50 ppb to 15 ppb was in response to
a voluminous data base that clearly showed an increase in blood lead levels when the
water level exceeded 15 ppb. Children and pregnant women in particular may be at
an increased health risk following short and long-term exposure. Environmental
Epidemiology Section would be happy to supply the necessary documentation upon
request. 15 ppb is a public health protective standard that allows risk assessors to
· target potential sources after testing and to make recommendations to reduce health
risks.
144
(Written comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company,
Tennessee Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
COMMENT 13z: Rule .0202(g)(64)-The Groundwater Standard for pH.
The current groundwater standard for pH is 6.5 to 8.5. I know of acid rock wells in
Wake County with pH concentrations of 4.5 to 7.0. This standard in Rule .0202 needs to be
amended.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with the comment. The current
pH standard ensures protection of health and maintains ideal aesthetic qualities. As
the pH becomes more acidic, adverse health effects could occur. It is advisable to
keep the standard as it currently exists. If the pH of groundwater is naturally acidic,
it should be treated to bring the pH up to the 6.5 -8.5 range if it is to be used as a
source of public drinking water.
(Written comments)
Edward L. Berry, Consulting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
Raleigh, NC 27614
COMMENT 13aa: Rule .0202(g)(66)-The proposed amendment to the Groundwater
Standard for Selenium;
This pro perl y ado pts the Maximum Concentration Level as the groundwater standard.
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section agrees with the comment.
(Written comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company, Tennessee
Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
COMMENT 13bb: Rule .0202(g)(67)-The proposed amendment to the Groundwater
Standard for Silver;
This 0.018 milli grams/Liter level is for esthetics only since silver causes discoloration.
The Secondary Maximum Concentration Level for Silver is 0.1 milligrams/Liter and
should be the limit in this rule.
145
RESPONSE:
Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with this comment. The revised
value for silver is a health-based consideration, not aesthetic. A systemic threshold
concentration was calculated utilizing a specific reference dose as derived from the
scientific literature.
(Written comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company,
Tennessee Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
COMMENT 13cc: Rule .0202(g)(79)-The proposed amendment to the Groundwater
Standard for Xylenes(o-,m-,and p-);
The Environmental Protection A genc y has stated that 10 parts per million ofxylenes
(o-,m-,and p -) is protective of health in the January 30 , 1991 issue of 56 Federal Register
Vol. 56. No. 20., on pa ge 3591. There is no justification for a lower standard of 0.53
milligrams/Liter.
RESPONSE:
The Environmental Epidemiology Section disagrees with this comment. The
proposed amendment to the standard for xylenes should remain. This proposed
standard was calculated by using the criteria listed under Rule .0202(d) and the most
up-to-date data. It is our responsibility to establish standards that will ensure
protection of human health and that would ensure the groundwater suitable for its
intended best usage (Rule .0202(a)). According to the criteria listed under Rule
.0202(d) "Groundwater quality standards for substances in Class GA and Class GSA
groundwaters are established as the lesser of:
(1) Systemic threshold concentration calculated as follows: [Reference Dose
(mg/kg/day) x 70 kg (adult body weight) x Relative Source Contribution
(.10 for inorganics; .20 for organics)] / [2 liters/day (avg. water
consumption)];
(2) Conc_f tration which corresponds to an incremental lifetime cancer risk of
lxlO ;
(3) Taste threshold limit value;
(4) Odor threshold limit value;
(5) Maximum contaminant level; or
(6) National secondary drinking water standard.
The odor threshold of 0.53 mg/L was the lesser of the (6) criteria.
(Written comments)
V. Collins Chew, Environmental Affairs, Eastman Chemical Company, Tennessee
146
Eastman Division, P.O. Box 1993, Kingsport, TN 37662
147
SUM:MARIZED GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND STAFF RESPONSE TO
15A NCAC 2L .0100 AND .0200 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
COMMENT #1: We su pp ort the chang es in 15A NCAC 2L. The current rules are causing
overbearing financial burdens to owners and o perators of underground storage tanks.
Locations with minor soil and g roundwater contamination problems are being forced to
undergo expensive cleanu p and monitoring activities where human health is not impacted.
Current Subchapter 2L standards re quire expensive active cleanup activities even at sites
where natural bioremediation is reducing contaminant level. The regulated community has
lost business profits , been forced to perp etually finance unreimbursed costs , and in some
instances forced out of business. In most instances these adverse business impacts have
occurred as a result of efforts to fulfill regulatory requirements of Subchapter 2L in areas
where the p ublic does not use groundwater for consumption and where the contamination
will not have an adverse effect on the environment.
The State Trust Fund used to reimburse leaking underg round storage tank cleanup
cost is bein g wasted incrementally to finance remediation pro jects reg ardless of the volume
of the contaminate, concentration level, health effects or the threat posed to drinkin g water
supplies and sources. Taxp a yers have been forced to pay increased administrative costs for
the Department to administer the current groundwater protection pro gram.
The current 15A NCAC 2L rules are imposin g a severe hardshi p on those who can
least afford to p ay for cleanup. The pro posed changes will ease this burden where
groundwater contamination poses no impacts to public health and the environment. We
feel the funds that are currently being used in these circumstances could be best a pp lied to
preventin g future incidents.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record. The proposed amendment will act
toward eliminating these problems.
(COMMENTORS)
Robert J. Arey, Jr., Operator, Arey Oil Company, 1906 East Dixon Boulevard, Shelby,
N.C. 28150
A.J. Ballard, Jr., President, A.J. Ballard Tire and Oil Company, Inc., 3500 Charenton, New
Bern, NC 28562
Graham Bennett, President of NCPMA, Quality Oil Company/North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Association, P.O. Box 2736, Winston-Salem, NC 27102 (**Mr. Bennett
repeated his comments at the Salisbury hearing**)
Dolly Bidwan, Law & Company, 1711 Castle Street, P.O Box 629, Wilmington, NC
28402
Julianne M. Braun, StaffGeochemist, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint
148
Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Rick Catlin, President, Richard Catlin and Associates, 220 Old Dairy Road, Wilmington,
NC 28405
Chris Campbell, Sales Manager; Campbell Oil Company, P.O. Box 637, Elizabethtown,
NC 28337
Thomas F. Cecich, Vice President-Safety and Environmental Affairs, Glaxo Incorporated,
Five Moore Drive, P.O. Box 13358, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Robert A. Cohen, Attorney at Law; Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A., P.O Box 19764,
3200 Beechleaf Court, Raleigh, NC 27604-1064
Harvey C. Danner, Jr., President, Salem Environmental, Inc./Certifoam Services, Inc., P.O.
Box 5524, Winston-Salem, NC 27113-5524
J.M. Davis, President, J.M. Davis Industries, Inc., 201 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC
28557
John Estridge, Engineer, Duke Power Company, Environmental Division, 13339 Hagers
Ferry Road, Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
George Everett, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina, 225
Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC 27603
Helen Finch, Legislative Agent, North Carolina Association of Convenience Stores, P.O.
Box 1151, Raleigh, NC 27602
Banks Garrison, Vice-President, South Central Oil Company, 2121 West Main Street,
Albemarle, NC 28001
Arthur S. Gillespie, Jr., Environmental Manager, FMC Corporation/
Chemical Industry Council of North Carolina, P.O. Box 795, Bessemer City, NC 28016
Chip Gould, Vice-President, Cason Companies Inc., P.O. Box 2030, Hendersonville, NC
28793
John D. Grady, President, Contractors and Engineers Services, Inc., 1304 North William
Street, P.O. Box 762, Goldsboro, NC 27533-0762
Jerry Henderson, Groundwater Subcommittee Chairman, Chemical Industry Council of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, NC 27603
Edward S. Homes, Jr., Vice-President, Kenan Oil Company, 100 Europa Drive, Suite 450,
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-2310
149
John Hogan, Hogan Commercial Real Estate, 2711 Anderson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27608
Steven E. Hooper, Assistant to the President, Glen Raven Mills, Inc., 1831 North Park
Avenue, Glen Raven, NC 27215
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
J. Hayden James, President; McCracken Enterprises, Inc., 853-D Wake Forest Business
Park, P.O. Box 1497, Wake Forest, NC 27588
Steve Jarrett, President, Superior Oil Company Inc., P.O. Box 103, Salisbury, NC 28145
Mary Kanyha, Mayor, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, 100 Municipal Circle, Pine Knoll
Shores, NC 28152
John W. Keefer, Crossroads Fuel Service, Inc. 335-G.S. Centerville Turnpike, Chesapeake,
VA23322
Owen G. Kenan, President, Kenan Oil Company, 100 Europa Drive, Suite 450, Chapel
Hill, NC 27514-2310
Stanley D. Kornfeld, Ervin, Korf elf, MacNeill & McGirt, P.A., Attorneys at Law, 219 East
Boulevard (28203), P.O. Box 36878, Charlotte, NC 28236-6878
L.W. Locke, President, Eastern Petroleum Corporation, P.O. Box 398, Enfield, NC
27823
Steve E. Mason, President, Geoscience and Technology, P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive,
Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Frank McNeill, Jr., Vice-President, McNeill Oil Company, P.O. Box 396, Aberdeen, NC
28315
Daniel H. Moentner, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Marathon Oil Company, 539
South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840
Craig W. Morehead, Executive Vice President, North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O. Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
George J. Oliver, Ph.D., Manager-Environmental Services, Carolina Power & Light
Company, Technical Services Department, 411 Fayetteville Street Mall, P.O. Box 1551,
Raleigh, NC 27602
Ben Pace, Route 1, P.O. Box 726, Chandler, NC 28715
150
Edward T. Perkins, Vice-President, Huffman Oil Co., P.O. Box 730, Burlington, NC
27216-0730
Lynn Phillips, P.E., Regional Vice-President, Heritage Environmental Services, Inc., 4132
Pompano Road, Charlotte, NC 28216
Bob Pingry, President, Atlantic Environmental Services Inc., P.O. Box 15130, Charlotte,
NC 28211
Elizabeth M. Powell, Attorney, Smith, Helms, Mulliss and Moore, Attorneys at Law, P.O.
Box 27525, Raleigh, NC 27611 (comments from Van Waters and Rogers Inc.)
Gene F. Renzaglia, Plant Manager, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Basic Chemicals
Group, 5408 Holly Shelter Road, P.O. Box 368, Castle Hayne, NC 28429
J. Paige Straley, Corporate Environmental Manager, Sandoz Chemicals Corporation, P.O.
Box 669246, Charlotte, NC 28266
Erin Shubert, Environmental Claims Coordinator, Kenan Oil Company, 100 Europa Drive,
Suite 450, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Kaye W. Thompson, Controller, E.J. Pope & Son, Inc., P.O Drawer 649, Mt. Olive, NC
28365
Jeffrey Wade, Jobber, Rand Wade Oil Company, P.O. Box 127, Snow Hill, NC 28580
Hal Waddell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil Company, 751 Ash Street, P.O. Box 629,
Hendersonville, NC 28793
Ronald N. Walton, Environmental Section Leader, Cape Industries, Highway 421 North,
P.O. Box 327, Wilmington, NC 28402-0327
Sam M. Watkins, President, Rose Oil Company, Inc., P.O. Box 706, Henderson, NC
25736
William H. Weatherspoon, Executive Director, North Carolina Petroleum Council, P.O.
Box 167, Raleigh, NC 27602
A.P. Wilson, Gas Station Owner, Last Stop Convenience Store, 1419 East Trade Street,
Charlotte, NC 28208
Dillon Wooten, President, Wooten Oil Company, P.O. Box 1277,
Goldsboro, NC 27533-1277
S.R. Yandle, Environmental Affairs Manager, Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc.,
151
Takeda Drive, P.O. Box 2577, Wilmington, NC 28402
COMMENT #2: We o pp ose the pro posed amendments to 15A NCAC 2L. The langu ag e
in these amendments is too general and encompassin g. These rules could easily be a pplied
to facilities such as solid waste landfills . hazardous wastes landfills . low-level radioactive
waste facilities , intensive livestock op erations, abandoned waste dumps , Federal and State
Superfund Pro gram sites . wastewater treatment plants and industrial sites that pose
sign ificant health hazards to the groundwaters of the state. In addition , 70 p ercent of the
groundwater incidents in the state are due to underground storage tank leaks. The leeway
allowed the Director in a pp lyi n g corrective action provisions , alternate cleanup levels,
natural remediation , variance procedures . and the Restricted or (RS) desi gn ation to these
sites could expose the public to unhealthy levels of contaminants in the event decisions
prove erroneous.
It well understood that the leakin g underground storage tank fund has financial
trouble , that resources are not being used toward preventin g pollution, and less financiall y
capable owners and o perators of leaking underground storag e tanks are under enormous
hardship s. These problems should not be addressed in a manner that weakens the states
groundwater protection program. The rules need to be revised to allow leeway for those
facilities eli gi ble for underground storage tank trust funds and that assistin g financial
hardship cases should be the primary focus. Stren gthen the groundwater rules for the
state.
RESPONSE:
Comment is entered into the hearing record. The changes provide sufficient
protection to health and the environment while providing more flexibility in
remediating contaminated sites. The State Trust Fund is under a severe demands due
to a lack of prioritization of environmental cleanups. Natural remediation, the
application of the restricted designation, and allowing for termination of corrective
actions provide a means to prioritize groundwater cleanups, protect health and the
environment and preserve the solvency of the State Trust Fund.
(COMMENTORS)
Joann Almond, Farmer, Stanley Citizens Opposed to Toxic Chemical
Hazards, 28836 Canton Road, Albemarle, NC 2800 I
Bill Bailey, General Manager WSM, 3850 East Ridge Road, Salisbury, NC 28144
Thomas G. Bean, Director of Governmental Affairs, North Carolina Wildlife Federation,
P.O Box 10626, Raleigh, NC 27605-0626
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, 29 1/2 Page
Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801
Monroe Gilmore, P.O. Box 1341, Blackmountain, NC 28711
152
Gary R. Grant, General Director, Concerned Citizens of Tillery, P.O. Box 61, Tillery, NC
27887
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E. Franklin Street,
Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Katherine Hodge, President, League of Women Voters of Moore County, P.O. Box 1995,
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Margaret Holton, Director of Water/ Air Natural Resources, League of Women Voters, 411
Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Bill Holman, Conservation Council ofNorth Carolina/Sierra Club, 1024 Washington
Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1258
Harry Huberth, President, MooreFORCE Inc., P.O. Box 514, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Jean Joseph, First Vice President, League of Women Voters of Dare County, P.O. Box
689, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Phyllis Kalk, Natural Resources Unit Chair, League of Women Voters of Moore County,
P.O. Box 1995, Southern Pines, NC 28388
Mary Sauls Kelly, Ph.D., Coordinator and Ecologist, Western North Carolina Alliance, 70
Woodfin Place, Suite 03, Asheville, NC 28801
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box 286, Wadesboro,
NC 28170
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc., 7533
Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
John Medenwald, 10 Alexander Drive-Number #122, Asheville, NC 28801
Patricia Nunn, P.O. Box 172, Millers Creek, NC 28651
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602
Brenda B. Remmes, Chairperson, Northampton Citizens Against Pollution, P.O Box 486,
Woodland, NC 27897
Gary Roberts, Landowner, P.O Box 8, Alexander, NC 28701
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC 27515
153
Carl Rupert, Number 2, Quintin Place, Durham, NC 27705
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro, NC
27510
Curtis H. Springer ill, Director of The Environmental Soil Recycling Program, Cherokee
Environmental Group, 1600 Colon Road, Sanford, NC 27330
Virginia Sexton, Cherokee Indian Wake Up, P.O. Box 149, Cherokee, NC 28779
Leni Sitnick, 90 Gertrude Place, Asheville, NC 28801
Erik Umstead, Research Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street,
Carrboro, NC 27510
Donnell Van Noppen ill, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, P.O Box 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
Therese Vick, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O Box 512, Rich Square, NC
27869
Al Westerberg, Reverend, Church of the Divine Inspiration, P.O. Box 361, Woodleaf, NC
27054
Rochelle Whiteside, Homemaker, P.O. Box 247, Burgaw, NC 28425
DeWitt Whitten, Stalite Environmental, P.O. Box 1037, 205 Klumac
Road, Salisbury, NC 28144
Judith B. Wood, Natural Resources Chairperson, League of Women Voters of Chapel
Hill/Carrboro, 9 Mt. Bolus Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Laura B. Wooten, 8033 Malpass Comer Road, Currie, NC 28435
Cory Zeller, High School Senior, P.O. Box 848, Marshall, NC 28753
COMMENT #3: A sy stem to prioritize UST trust funds must be put in place to make
prudent cost/benefit decisions in regards to site cleanups. Changes in the Subchapter 2L
rules will not address this issue.
RESPONSE:
In addition to the 15A NCAC 2L amendments, the Commission is interested in
additional strategies to prioritize and efficaciously disburse State Trust Funds.
154
(COMMENTOR)
J. Hayden James, President; McCracken Enterprises, Inc ., 853-D Wake Forest Business
Park, P.O. Box 1497, Wake Forest, NC 27588
COMMENT #4: An article in the Jacksonville Daily News has shown that the Douglas
Boykin. a hearing officer, is biased a gainst maintaining the existing groundwater rules.
This is inapp ro priate conduct and we recommend that Douglas Boykin be removed from
partici patin g as a hearing officer for these rules. In addition , he should be barred from any
future p roceedin gs related to the 15A NCAC 2L amendments. We also request that the
hearing officers recommend to the EMC that these hearin gs be terminated and the hearing
process started over. This bias behavior has had an intimidating effect on public
partici p ation in this rulemakin g action.
RESPONSE:
There is no indication that the news article prejudiced the public hearings.
Environmentalists, industry representatives, local and state officials, environmental
consultants and other citizens were well represented at the hearings and in the written
comment. Mr. Boykin has voluntarily removed himself as a bearing officer and his
term as an EMC member expires July 1, 1993.
It should be noted that a public hearing is not a court of law and that the hearing
officer is under no compulsion to be totally unbiased in all regards. Members of the
Environmental Management Commission, because of the intimacy with which they
work with the groundwater program, must develop attitudes regarding the best
means of protecting the resource. This in no way precludes a fair public hearing nor
does it mean that public comment will be ignored.
(COMMENTORS)
Molly Diggins, Chair, Sierra Club, North Carolina Chapter, 1135
Kenwood Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Bill Holman, Conservation Council of North Carolina/ Sierra Club, 1024 Washington
Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1258
John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 3793, Chapel Hill, NC 27515
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box
848, Marshall, NC 28802
155
COMMENT #5: We need to expedite the prioritization of groundwater remediation b y
grantin g the Director of the Division of Environmental Management board powers to
prioritize sites , select remedial actions and determine alternate cleanup levels.
RESPONSE:
The rules as proposed and changes resulting from public comment serve this
purpose.
(COMMENTOR)
John D. Grady, President, Contractors and Engineers Services, Inc., 1304 North William
Street, P.O. Box 762, Goldsboro, NC 27533-0762
COMMENT #6: I am dee ply concerned about the state of research relating to the
groundwater resources in this state. We do not know the extent of groundwater
contamination in our aquifers and vital recharge areas. In addition , there is no clear
information concerning the demands increased development is on our groundwater
resources. Of particular interest is the Castle Hayn e aquifer that su pp lies the New Hanover
County area. Most public water utilities have not pursued research into future g roundwater
demands and available resources. More funds need to be placed into dealing with these
problems.
RESPONSE:
Comment Noted.
(COMMENTOR)
Georgia W. Smallman, Eco-Wise Services, Inc./League of Women Voters of New
Hanover County, 613 Orange Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
COMMENT #7: The costs and environmental imp acts that will be incurred on the state to
enact alternate cleanup provisions and natural remediation are not s pecifically known. No
study has been done on this issue. In addition. no studies have been performed on the
impact the rules may have on the resources of the Division and the Groundwater Section.
Any relaxation in 15A NCAC 2L will need be accompanied b y an increase in the human
and financial resources of the Department. The rules require site assessments , remediation
of primary and secondary sources of contamination , a review of the efficacy of monitorin g
and remediation sy stems , reviews of natural remediation re quests , reviews of alternate
cleanup levels requests and RS desi gn ations re quests. The Division could be inundated
with these requests from res ponsible parties with marginally contaminated sites.
RESPONSE:
Comment noted.
156
(COMMENTORS)
Tom Carson, (unregistered speaker at Raleigh hearing)
Chuck Friedrick, 210 Dry Avenue, Cary, NC 27511
Mike Harman, Project Manager, Spatco Environmental Company, 5100
North 1-85, Suite 6, Charlotte, NC 28206
Bill Holman, Conservation Council ofNorth Carolina/ Sierra Club, 1024 Washington
Street, Raleigh, NC 27605-1258
Samuel C. Mcclintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, 7533
Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North Carolina, P.O. Box 1008,
Raleigh, NC 275602
John M . Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC 27406
Maureen Sutton, MooreFORCE, 345 North Page Street, Southern Pines, NC 28387
COMMENT #8: The problems with the State Trust Funds can be alleviated by an increase
in gasoline taxes and tank registration fees to add additional revenue in these Funds. We
recommend the Commission pursue this avenue rather than change its groundwater rules .
RESPONSE:
Increases in fees and gasoline taxes alone will not alleviate the current problems
that are effecting the State Trust Fund. Cleanup moneys are being used where no
foreseeable health or environmental benefit can be ascertained. Groundwater
remediation is continuing even when current technology is shown inadequate to
provide cleanup. State Trust Funds are continuously being wasted on projects where
no further reduction of contaminants is possible.
(COMMENTORS)
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Route 2, Box 286, Wadesboro,
NC 28170
Leni Sitnick, 90 Gertrude Place, Asheville, NC 28801
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 West Main Street, Carrboro, NC
27510
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641-G Randleman Road, Greensboro, NC 27406
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, P.O. Box
848, Marshall, NC 28802
157
COMMENT #9: The rules need minimum requirements for site remediation. I feel the
sy stem I have submitted based on the enforcement prioritization criteria the Division uses
should be a re gulatory requirement in these rules.
RESPONSE:
The criteria the Division uses is for enforcement purposes and are not regulatory
requirements. The 15A NCAC 2L amendments improve delineation of the process.
(COMMENTOR)
Douglas Howey, Environmental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum Marketers
Association, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
COMMENT #10: We do not feel the a pp lication of these rules should be strictly limited to
groundwater contamination from leaking petroleum underground storage tanks. There is no
technical basis for the Division to treat these chemicals any different than those at industrial
locations. Extensive information on industrial chemicals is available to the Division.
Natural remediation . alternate cleanu p and request to terminate corrective actions should be
available to all responsible parties.
RESPONSE
Comment noted.
(COMMENTORS)
Elizabeth M. Powell, Attorney, Smith, Helms, Mulliss and Moore, Attorneys at Law, P.O.
Box 27525, Raleigh, NC 27611 (comments from Van Waters and Rogers Inc.)
Lynn Phillips, P.E., Regional Vice-President, Heritage Environmental Services, Inc., 4132
Pompano Road, Charlotte, NC 28216
COMMENT # 11: Our environmental consulting firm has experienced great
difficulty in identi fyi n g public water supp lies near contaminated sites. Many counties do
not require permitting of water supplies so no records exist. Where records do exist. many
times the information is inadequate or incomplete. Many of these wells are not visible
from the surface and may still be in use even if a publicly owned water supply is available
in the area. There needs to be a rule requiring prope rty owners register their wells when
they file county taxes.
RESPONSE
Comment noted.
158
(COMMENTORS)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101
West Third Street, Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
COMMENT #12: Default remediation target levels need to be placed in these rules
re gardless of the presence of a public water su pp ly . Res ponsible parties are not alwa ys
willin g to cleanu p their sites.
RESPONSE
The default levels are those found in Rule .0202.
(COMMENTORS)
Mary G. Curtin, Environmental Scientist, UTTS Environmental, 1101 West Third Street,
Suite-A, P.O. Box 190, Ayden, NC 28513
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT #13: We feel certification of all groundwater related professional disci plines
best serves the public interest. Our organization and the National Association of
Environmental Professionals have an active certification pro gr am and are workin g toward
the goal of develo pin g a uniform national certification pro gr am.
RESPONSE
The requirement for Professional Engineers and Licensed Geologist to perform
certain activities reflects changes enacted in the General Statutes. If a profession
wishes to be recognized they must be included for licensing in the statute.
(CO:MMENTOR)
Craig A. Bromby, Hunton & Williams, One Hanover Square, Suite 1400, Fayetteville
Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27601 (representing the North Carolina Association of
Environmental Professionals)
COMMENT #14: The a pp roval process for activities outlined in Rule .0106 is quite vagu e
in these rules. These rules do not define specific time periods at which actions are to be
taken. It does not outline permitting re quirements but just indicates "a pp roval" is needed. It
is unclear if this is verbal or written app roval. These issues need clari fyj ng. There are many
ambi gu ous terms in these rules.
159
RESPONSE: .0106 has been modified as a result of public comment. Staff hope the
modifications will help to clear up any confusion.
(COMMENTORS)
Harvey C. Danner, Jr., President, Salem Environmental, Inc./Certifoam Services, Inc., P.O.
Box 5524, Winston-Salem, NC 27113-5524
COMMENT #15: We o ppose the use of numerical groundwater standards as statewide
enforceable limits for groundwater remediation pro jects. We offer an alternate regu latory
pro posals in our comments.
RESPONSE
Numeric standards are vital to protect the public from the adverse effects of
individual contaminants or groups of contaminants.
(COMMENTOR)
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Environmental Affairs, E.I DuPont De Nemours & Company Inc.,
Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinston, NC 28502-0800
COMMENT #16: We feel that the Commission should ado pt a general policy of allowing
15 additional day s after the last hearing to receive comments. The time that was allotted for
the 15A NCAC 2L hearing s was too constricted. We request the Commission consider any
late comments received after the A pril 23 . 1993 deadline. Not enough public notice was
given to tank o p erators about these rule chan ges.
RESPONSE
The public notice for the 15A NCAC 2L amendment exceeded the requirements
specified in N.C.G.S. lS0B-21.2. Over 300 individual notices were sent out to
interested parties, a public notice was placed in the North Carolina Register, notices
were sent to various newspapers across the state, and the Department sent out press
releases. The public had 39 days to comment on these rule changes. To create an
internal policy that routinely extends public notice will serve only to delay
rulemaking.
(COMMENTOR)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ben Pace, Route 1, P.O. Box 726, Chandler, NC 28715
160
COMMENT #17: The State needs to proceed with develo ping a guidance document which
delineates the "decision tree" re garding the new corrective action requirements. Public
in put needs to be included in develo ping this material and these rules should not go in
effect until that guidance document is completed.
RESPONSE
Comment noted. If it is determined that a guidance document is needed to more
efficiently expedite these rules, Staff will develop one.
(COMMENTORS)
W.B. Jenkins, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
COMMENT #18: We are submitting to the Division and the Environmental Manag ement
Commission a copy of a model Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action process. We
ho pe that the State will consider this in further develo pin g its UST program.
RESPONSE
This material will be entered into the hearing record.
(COMMENTORS)
Lesley Hay Wilson, Environmental Resources Management-Group Leader, BP Oil
Company, 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
COMMENT # 19: Corrective actions based on natural remediation should not be regarded
as the answer to every p articular remediation problem. Natural remediation does not
alway s produce the same results due to innumerable site s pecific factors.
RESPONSE
Approval of natural remediation corrective action plans will take into account
site specific factors.
(COMMENTORS)
DeWitt Whitten, Stalite Environmental, P.O. Box 1037, 205 Klumac
Road, Salisbury, NC 28144
COMMENT #20: I am deepl y concerned that the alternate cleanup provisions in Rule
.0 I 06 could be a pp lied to areas where future groundwater use has not been adequately
delineated. The planning efforts of the State and local governments should be completed
before alternate cleanup provisions are a pp lied.
161
RESPONSE
The Division will carefully review all requests for natural remediation and will
not approve such a request if it appears such approval could endanger the public
health. Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and
replaced with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
(COMMENTOR)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT #21: I feel that the basic regulato ry structure contained in 15A NCAC 2L is
sound and provides enough flexibili ty with res pect to alternate actions the Commission can
undertake to elevate hardshi ps encountered (i.e variances). It is not necessa1y to change the
rules but to address other persistent problems such as inadequate staff resources, lack of
timelv develo pment of guidance and an increased workload for the staff. The problems
cited b v critics of the current rules such as State UST Trust Fund de pletion , the need to
assist financiall y incap able owners and o perators of USTs . the need to prioritize cleanups ,
unworkable variance procedures , the slow s peed of cleanup s , and the lack of cost effective
technology are not sufficient reasons to discard the current rules for a new set of rules that
are intended to sacrifice some groundwaters in the present with little consideration given to
the future needs of the State. I do not feel that these problems outlined b y the critics can be
addressed through amendments to 15A NCAC 2L. They need to be addressed b y the
Environmental Management Commission through the provision of guidance documents to
the public.
RESPONSE
These issues raised at the hearings; depletion of the State Trust Funds, financial
incapability of responsible persons, and the inability of current technology to achieve
groundwater cleanup are all reflected in documentation from the Groundwater
Section and regional offices. The rule changes are part of an evolving strategy to
restore and protect the groundwaters of the State. The regulatory basis for guidance
documents needs to be established and the Commission has the authority to establish
rules under the North Carolina General Statutes 143B-282.
Also see response to 2b.
(COMMENTOR)
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number#404, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
COMMENT #22: The rules need to s pecify fines for noncompliance and should be
weighted according to the typ e of p etroleum contamination. This is an effective means to
162
prevent pollution.
RESPONSE
It is not necessary to outline penalties in the rules. Fines are outlined in the North
Carolina General Statutes.
(COMMENTOR)
Terry Burnham, Rowan county resident, 1070 Driftwood Trail,
Salisbury, NC
Samuel C. McClintock, Environmental Scientist, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc., 7533
Milestone Court, Raleigh, NC 27615 (**Mr. McClintock also presented comments at the
Salisbury hearing**)
COMMENT #23: There have been no studies on the imp act these rules changes will have
on rural develo pment and businesses that use wells.
RESPONSE
Comment is entered into the hearing record. It is the intent of these rules to
protect the groundwater resource and that has been the focus of their development.
(COMMENTOR)
Janet Hoyle, Director, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League,
P.O. Box 88, Glendale Springs, NC 28629
COMMENT #24: The State and re gulated community need to improve the a pp lication of
current technological developments in groundwater remediation treatment strateg ies. These
new technologies should be reimbursable.
RESPONSE
Developing new cost effective and efficient remediation technology is of prime
importance to the Commission.
(COMMENTOR)
Dean Gokel, Owner, Geochem Inc., 2500 Gateway Center Boulevard,
Morrisville, NC 27560
COMMENT #25: How do these rules impact contamination plumes traversin g from
federal land to state land?
163
RESPONSE
The federal government can be held responsible if contaminants enter state land.
All applicable federal laws will effect contamination on federal lands.
(COMMENTOR)
Mike Sexton, Cherokee Indian Wake Up, P.O. Box 149, Cherokee, NC 28779
164
GROUNDWATER STAFF COMMENT RESULTING FROM THE
HEARINGS CONCERNING 15A NCAC 2L
DRAFT 7/28/93
1) STAFF COMMENT TO RULE .0102-DEFINITIONS
COMMENT lA: Rule .0102 (4)-Defmition for "Corrective action plan".
Delete the second sentence in this definition.
RESPONSE:
Agree. The mechanisms used by Corrective Action Plans in accomplishing their
goals are best left out of the definition.
Written connnent:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT lB: Rule .0102 (19)(b)-Definition for "Responsible Party";
Rule .0102 (1 9 )(b) should be deleted because it will result in a proliferation of
abandoned industrial properties and force industry to use undevelop ed rural land.
RESPONSE:
Agree. Staff recommend the deletion of the definition of "Responsible Party" at
.0102(19).
Written connnent:
Roy Davis, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place,
Asheville, NC 28801
2) STAFF COMMENT TO RULE .0104-RESTRICTED
DESIGNATION (RS)
COMMENT 2A: Rule .0104-Impacts of proposed Restricted Designation (RS)
amendments on enforcement;
Regional offices are already inundated with a number of work priorities. It will be an
extremely difficult burden on the groundwater staff to also add on requests for RS
designations.
RESPONSE:
Contaminated Sites require site investigations and a certain degree of paperwork.
Whether the site is under consideration for RS designation or not, the site will still
require staff time. It is hoped that those sites undergoing natural remediation will not
require more staff time than those being remediated actively.
Written Comment:
Nile Testerman, Environmental Engineer I, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 2B: Rule .0104-Impacts of proposed Restricted Designation (RS)
amendments on enforcement, groundwater reclassification,
and monitoring;
Amend this rule to include parameters for establishing the typ e of monitoring network
and time length for monitoring inside an RS designated area. Reclassification of
g roundwaters using natural remediation as a corrective action mechanism will be a
monumental task for re gional offices to undertake.
RESPONSE:
The type of monitoring network and time length for monitoring cannot be
specified by rule because of differing site conditions. These considerations will have to
be decided on a site by site basis.
See response to comment 2A with regard to Staff time.
Written Comment:
Lany D. Coble, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Winston-Salem Regional Office, 8025 North
Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27106-3203
COMMENT 2C: Rule .0104(a)-Directors authority over designation of GA or GSA
groundwaters as RS;
The Director should not have blanket authority over desi .gn ating gToundwaters RS.
Some public drinkin g water is groundwater. The rules need to clari fy the levels that RS
designated groundwater is to be treated and should state those concentrations.
RESPONSE:
Public drinking water supplies may not be designated RS nor may these supplies
be impacted by a site designated RS. Prior to RS designation approval, a study must
be performed in an effort to determine if any receptors exist which might be
impacted. If the Director determines that a contaminant at a site being remediated
naturally has the potential to impact a receptor, the Director may require the
implementation of active cleanup.
The RS designation is considered temporary. The goal of a naturally remediating
site is that the groundwater should eventually conform to the groundwater quality
standards specified in .0202. If the Director determines that remediation is not taking
place at a site designated RS, the Director may require the implementation of active
cleanup.
Written Comment:
Nile Testerman, Environmental Engineer I, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 2D: Rule .0104(a)(l)-Clarify approval of RS designation;
On the sixth line down isn't the word "Director" su pp osed to be "Division"?
RESPONSE:
The word is supposed to be "Director".
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 2E: Rule .0104(d)-Implementation of groundwater monitoring under
the RS designation;
S pecify that the implementation of a monitoring sy stem needs Divisional a pproval.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. 15A NCAC 2L .0110 specifies that the Director or bis designee have
the option to require specific monitoring plans and that such plans must be designed
by a Professional Engineer or Licensed Geologist.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist,
DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 2F: Rule .0104(e)-Public notice of Restricted designation (RS);
This amendment a pp ears duplicative in that it requires the same typ e of p ublic notice
that Rule .0114 does.
RESPONSE:
.0104(e) sets forth more requirements than does .0114. Among these
requirements are those relating to public hearing, county tax identification number,
and actions or intended actions to restore groundwater quality.
Written comments:
Roy Davis, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place,
Asheville, NC 28801
COMMENT 2G: Rule .0104(e)(3)-Public notice of Restricted (RS) designation;
This rule should be amended to require the Groundwater Section use the same public
notice procedure as the Division's Air Quality and Water Quality Sections. This
subparagraph of the rule will serve to confuse the public.
RESPONSE:
The only major difference in the Water Quality Rules 15A NCAC 2H .0109 and
the 15A NCAC 2L .0104 public notice procedure is that the 2L rule requires 30 days
notice instead of the 45 days required in 2H.
Written Comment:
Larry D . Coble, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Winston-Salem Regional Office, 8025 North
Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27106-3203
3) STAFF COMMENT TO RULE .0106-RESTRICTED
DESIGNATION {RS)
COMMENT JA: Rule .0106-Define the situation where only monitoring will be
required in a corrective action;
A "no action" corrective action should be granted under the followin g conditions:
1) A small release in an urban area with public water supplies in place.
2 ) No risk to surface waters or subsurface utilities from the release.
3) Only a small number of monitoring wells show sli ght elevations of substances above
15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards.
4 ) The release is confined within the p ro p e ,ty or the extent of its area is less than 500 feet
from the source.
The proposed amendments do not provide enough protection for future groundwater
resources in the state. They need to be redrafted and sp eci fy that in areas already served by
public water and in cases where contamination is minor will alternate cleanup contained in
Rule .0106 be implemented.
RESPONSE:
106(i),(j), and (k) have been re-written to treat concerns generated by natural
remediation. Staff believe that the modifications to .0106(i),(j),(k) will be protective of
human health and the environment. Alternate cleanup levels have been removed
from the rule.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3B: Rule .0106(d)-Clarify corrective action following the discovery of a
release;
Delete the word "unauthorized" and replace it with "un permitted".
RESPONSE:
Disagree. An unauthorized release at a permitted site has just as much potential
to damage human health or the environment that a release at an unpermitted site
does. Therefore, both types of sites should be treated in this paragraph.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT JC: Rule .0106(e)-Clarify site assessment requirements:
These site assessment requirements in Rule .0106 ( e )(3 ). ( 4 ) and (5) need to be more
sh arpl y defined as to the extent of the evaluation entailed.
RESPONSE:
Disagree. Staff can determine the sufficiency of the detail provided during the
review process. It should also be remembered that site assessments must be
performed by a PE or LG. Therefore, controls are in place to ensure the quality of
the documents received.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3D: Rule .0106(h)-Use of Best Available Technology in
Corrective Actions;
Best available technolo gy needs to be defined clearl y. Groundwater cleanu p goals
may not be accom plished in a timely manner due to the ne gotiations the Section would
need to en gage in with res ponsible parties.
RESPONSE.
This term is defined by North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3(e)(2). The
requirement that Best Available Technology be used in groundwater cleanup is the
same language that is used in the statute.
Written Comment:
Larry D. Coble, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Winston-Salem Regional Office, 8025 North
Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27106-3203
COMMENT 3E: Rule .0106(i)(B)-Alternate cleanups and engineered barriers;
En gineered barriers do not quali fy as cleanup of contamination. This does not address
future groundwater use.
RESPONSE:
Engineered barriers have been removed from the Rule. The purpose of natural
remediation and RS is the eventual remediation of contaminated groundwater to the
levels specified in .0202.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist,
DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3F: Rule .0106 (i) and (k)-Technical considerations for establishing
alternate cleanup levels and approving natural remediation
requests;
It will be extremely difficult to verify the assumptions of models used by consultants
in evaluating sites for natural remediation. This will be es peciall y true in fractured rock
geologi c environments.
RESPONSE:
The purpose of the modeling is to determine if the contaminant in question poses
a threat to any receptor. If the modeling results appear inaccurate, poorly developed,
or based on false assumptions, the Division is under no compulsion to approve the RS
designation. The primary focus of this activity is the protection of health and the
environment, not RS designation. It is the intent of the Division to approve RS
designations only in those areas in which it can be shown with reasonable certainty
that the contaminant poses no threat to any receptor.
Written Comment:
Nile Testerman, Environmental Engineer I, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3G: Rule .0106(k)-Application of natural remediation levels;
Natural remediation should be protective of groundwater resources in addition to the
goal of protecting human health. Allow alternate cleanup s in urbanized area but not in rural
areas.
RESPONSE:
The goal of natural remediation is compliance with the groundwater quality
standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. This is protective of the groundwater resource
both in and out of urban areas.
Written Comment:
Connie Crossley, Environmental Chemist II, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
Nile Testerman, Environmental Engineer I, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COM1\1ENT 3H: Rule .0106(k)-Application of natural remediation;
The natural remediation provisions are so vagu e that the regi onal staff antici pate a
flood of needless submittals for this typ e of corrective action. Bioremediation is not well
understood at this point and I have little confidence that computer modelin g will provide a
sufficient information to solve this dilemma.
RESPONSE:
The proposed rule .0106(k) has been modified and is now more specific.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 31: Rule .0106(k)(2)-Natural remediation and evidence of contaminant
degradabillty;
Contaminant degradability is highl y theoretical and is not a sound basis to make
decisions.
RESPONSE
The rules require monitoring at sites remediating naturally. In the event natural
processes are ineffective in remediating the site, the Director may designate the
remaining area of contaminated groundwater RS. In the event the site cannot be
treated using available and economically reasonable technologies, the Director may
consider a request to reclassify the groundwater to GC.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3J: Rule .0106(k){4)-Monitoring requirements for alternate cleanups;
These monitoring requirements for alternate cleanup levels need to be more detailed.
Responsible parties should be required to monitor annually or bi-annuall y alon g prop e rty
lines or a fixed distance from the center of the plume. The inherit unpredictabili ty of p lume
modeling makes it necessary to re quire these chang es to the pro posed rules.
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced
with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
Written Comment:
Connie Crossley, Environmental Chemist II, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3K: Rule .0106(k)(4)-Monitoring requirements for alternate cleanups;
How much offsite monitoring is required? Is the point "one year's travel time
u pgradient" measured from the plume edge or at the release point? The "five year travel
time" to reach a rece ptor is arbitrary .
RESPONSE:
Staff will determine the sufficiency of monitoring to track "the degradation and
attenuation of contaminants" and contaminant by-products produced by the plume.
The travel time is from the plume edge. The "five year travel time" has been deleted
from the Rule.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3L: Rule .0106(i)(l)-Alternate cleanups levels and receptors;
Due to the fact that it is difficult to predict "foreseeable rece ptors", alternate cleanups
should be limited to urbanized areas only.
RESPONSE:
Alternate cleanup levels have been removed from the proposed Rule and replaced
with the option to include cleanup goals in corrective action plans.
Written Comment:
Nile Testerman, Environmental Engineer I , DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENT 3M: Rule .0106(1)(5)-Public notice of termination of corrective action;
This rule should be amended to require the Groundwater Section use the same public
notice procedure as the Air Q uality and Water Quali ty Sections. This subp aragra ph of the
rule will serve to confuse the public.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 2G.
Written Comment:
Larry D. Coble, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Winston-Salem Regional Office, 8025 North
Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27106-3203
4) STAFF COMMENT TO RULE .0107-COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
COMMENT 4A: Rule .0107(d)-Compliance boundaries and septic tanks;
This rule a pp ears to prevent the construction of a well if you own a se ptic tank.
RESPONSE:
Septic tank systems are not permitted and possess no compliance boundary as
defmed in .0107 of this Rule.
Written Comment:
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
5) STAFF COMMENT TO RULE .0114-NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
COMMENT 5A: Rule .0114(b)-Requirement that persons requesting alternate
corrective actions under Rule .0106 provide public notice;
This rule should be amended to require the Groundwater Section use the same public
notice procedure as the Air Quality and Water Quality Sections. This subparagraph of the
rule will serve to confuse the public.
RESPONSE:
See response to comment 2G.
Written Comment:
Larry D. Coble, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Winston-Salem Regional Office, 8025 North
Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27106-3203
GENERAL CO:Ml\1.ENTS ON RULES:
The rules as presented at the public hearings are vague general and do not provide the
regional staff enough guidance. Consequently. regional staff will be constantly interpreting
these rules for consultants and responsible parties on a site by site basis. If these rules are
implemented, the already extended resources of the state will be further stretched. These
rules need to be amended.
RESPONSE:
The rules have been modified in order to provide additional clarity in response to
public comment.
The rules do not constitute a guidance document for regional office activities and
cannot be interpreted as such. Regional Office roles will be defined by the Division.
Written Comment:
Larry D. Coble, Regional Supervisor, DEM-Winston-Salem Regional Office, 8025 North
Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Winston-Salem, NC 27106-3203
Kathy Grant, Hydrogeological Technician, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office, 3800 Barrett
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
Jay Zimmerman, Regional Groundwater Hydrogeologist, DEM-Raleigh Regional Office,
3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA JOINT COMMITTEE
FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE CONCERNING 15A NCAC 2L
AMENDMENTS REQUIRING PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Introduction:
On May 12, 1993 the Groundwater Section convened the Joint Committee concerning
public comments on the proposed changes to 15A NCAC 2L. The Committee was
requested to address these public comments on the professional registration requirements
proposed in the rules and provide a recommendation to the Section.
Recommendation of the Joint Committee:
We recommend that DEM bring the 15A NCAC 2L rules into compliance with
existing State law that requires certain groundwater remediation activities be performed by
individuals or firms duly licensed and accountable to existing boards ofregistration. We
feel that placing these activities under the responsible charge of Registered Engineers and
Licensed Geologists is the best way to assure professional accountability. We do not
believe an undue hardship will be brought on to any firm by these rule changes since most
environmental firms in the State meet these requirements
RESPONSE:
Agree. The proposed rule contains language which will bring 15A NCAC 2L in
compliance with existing state law.
Members of the Joint Committee for Professional Practice
Steve Burrows
Rick Catlin
Mike Cleary
Douglass Dixon
David Garrett
Bill Reid
PROCEEDINGS OF HEARINGS AND PARICIPANTS LIST
Introduction
Five public hearings were held in North carolina by the
Envircmiental Management Ccmnissian to receive public cx:mnent an the
amendments to 15A tr.AC 2L .0100 and .0200 Groundwater Classification and
Standards. 'lhe first hearing was held in Jacksooville at the Onslow
County Courthouse ( Old Courthouse) en April 1 , 1993. 'lhe second hearing
was held in Williamstcn at the Martin County camumity College College
Auditorium building an April 5, 1993. 'lhe third hearing was held in
Raleigh an April 7, 1993 in the Ground floor Hearing Roan of the
Archdale Building. 'lhe fourth hearing was held in Salisbury at the
Rowan-cabarrus camumity College Teaching Auditorium an April 20, 1993.
'lhe fifth hearing was held in Asheville at Ute-Asheville in the
Cannichael Lecture Hall en April 21, 1993. All the hearings took place
at 7:00 pn.
Public notice of these hearings was mailed to local governments,
enviroonental organizatiCDS, and perSCf'lS registered as having and
interest in groundwater regulatien. Public notice was also published in
the 'Ihe Daily News (Jacksonville) en March 14, 1993, 'lhe Enterprise
(Williamstan) an March 18, 1993, Raleigh News and Ci:>server an March 21,
1993, 'lhe Salisbury Evening Post an April 4, 1993 and 'lhe
Asheville-Citizen Times en April 4, 1993. Timely notice was also given
through 'lhe Olarlotte Ci:>server, 'Ihe Winston-Salem Journal, and the
Wilmington-Star News. In additien, the Deparbnent p:rovided the media
with a press release concerning these hearings.
Persa1s presiding as hearing officers over these public meetings
were as follows: Presiding over the Jacksanville and Raleigh hearings
was the Groundwater Ccmnittee Chai:r.man of the Envircnnental Management
Ccmnissien, Ccmnissianer Douglas S. Boykin; Presiding over the
Williamstcn hearing was Ccmnissianer Rebert W. Griffith, Jr. ; Presiding
over the Sali.swry hearing was Ccmnissiooer Dennis C. Ioflin; Presiding
over the Asheville hearing was Ccmnissiooer Winstcn W. Pulliam. In
additicn, Mr. Mick Noland, the Divisien of Envircnnental Management
Regiooal Supervisor for the Fayetteville Regiooal Office was in
atteooance at all five of these hearings as a co-hearing officer.
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
'1he ~ is a list of persais atterxling the hearings ai the
pre~ amerdlelts to 15A RX 2L • 0100 and .0200:
Attendees-at the April 1--JacksaIVil.le Hearing
Jeffrey wayne Allen, Great Gas and Oil caipany, P.O. Box 129,
Jacksc:nville, NC 28540
K.E. Austin, Jr.' President, K.E. Austin Corp:>raticn, p .o. Box
3986, Wilmingtcn, NC 28406
A.J. Ballard, Jr., President, A.J. Ballard Tire and Oil Colpany,
Inc. , 3500 Oiarentan, New Bern, NC 28562
Doug Barrett, Director of Aviaticn, .Onslc:M Co.mty-A.J. Ellis
Airport, 264 Ellis Airport Road, Richlands, NC 28574
Dolly Bidwan, Manager, Law & Colpany, P.O. Box 629, Wilmington, NC
28402
Rick ca.tlin, President, Richard ca.tlin arrl Asscx:iates, 220 Old
Dai:cy Road, Wilmington, NC 28405
Jim Crunpler, OWner, Cnmlpler o:nstructicn caipany, P.O. Box 379,
Q:>ldsbozo, NC 27533-0379
Roger Dail, Assistant Fire Marshall, Lenoir Co.mty, P.O. Box 3289,
Kinston, N.C. 28502
Gene Dexter, Citizen, 112 Ramsey loop, Jackscnville, NC 28546
Brian Fisher, Assistant Manager, Fisher Stores Inc. , 110 Riverdale
Road, New Bern, NC 28562
R.D. Fisher, President, Fisher Oil carpany, 110 Riverdale Road, New
Bern, NC 28562
Oluck Friedrich, Stalite Envircnnental, P.O. Box 1037, Salisbury,
NC 28144
John D. Grady, President, Contractors arrl Engineers Services, Inc.,
1304 North William Street, P.O. Box 762, Goldsb:xro, NC 27533-0762
Iouglas N. Haggett, Senior Engineer, Law Engineering, 1410
Chmonwealth Drive, Wilmington, NC 28409
William J. Hall, Di visicn Manager, Stali te Envircnnental, P.O. Box
1037, Salisbury, NC 28144
waiter Haven, Geologist, Installaticn/Restoraticn Envi.roonental
Management Deparbnent, Building #1-Marine Corps Base, camp Lejune,
NC 28542
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Robert Heath, Envi:rmnental Director, Sampscn Bladen Oil Conpany
Inc., P.O. Box 617 Cl.intcn, N:! 28328
Bill Hemes, Reporter, 'lhe Daily News of Jackscnville, P.O. Box 196,
Jackscnville, N:! 28541
Douglas Hewey, Enviroomental Specialist; North carolina Petrolemn
Marketers Associatiai, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, N:! 27622
Mary Kanyha, Mayor of Pine Knoll Shores, '1am. of Pine Knoll Shores,
100 K.micipal Circle, Pine Knoll Shores, OC 28152
Roy C. Iaird, Owner, Iaird's Exxon, 420 Marine Blvd., Jackscnville,
N:!
Henry Lyai, District Manager, N.E.T, 301-A North Green Meadows
Drive, Wilmington, IC 28405
Noel Lyais, M::Gill Enviramental System Inc., Ralte 1, P.O. Box
212, Rose Hill, N.C. 28458
Terry Martin, Reporter, Winstcn-Salem Journal, 402 Deese Road,
f.txlroe, IC 28110-9289
L.P. M::Cullen, President, Marine Oil Conpany, P.O. Box 685, Warsaw,
OC 28398
Craig M:>rehead, Executive Vice-President, North carolina Petrolemn
Marketers Associatiai, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, IC 27622
Mary Helen Orth, League Of Wcmen Voters, 4713 Rushing Drive,
Wilmington, OC 28409
Geo:cgia W. Smallman, F.oo-Wise Services, Inc./League of Wcmen Voters
of New Hanover County, 613 Orange Street, Wilmingtan, oc 28401
James Smith, Fire Marshall, Lenoir County, P.O. Box 3289, Kinston,
N.C. 28502
Rudy Smithwick., Richard catlin and Associates, 220 Old Dairy Road,
Wilmingtan, IC 28405
John Strick.land, wayne Oil Conpany, 1301 wayne Marorial Drive,
Goldsboro, IC 27534
Herb Strickler, General Electric, P .o. Box M/C J26, Wilmingtan, NC
28402
Jim swartzenbel:g, Reporter, Wilmingtan r-'brning Star, 16 East
Bayshore Blvd. Jackscnville, NC 28540
Bobby Tripp, General Manager, Davenridge Oil CaJi)any, P.O. Bax 567,
Greenville, N:! 27858
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Jeffery R. Wade, Rand wade Oil Cotpany, Route 2, Bax 286A, Snow
Hill, OC 28580
Ra\d W. wade, Rand wade Oil Canpany, Route 2, Bax 286A, Snow Hill,
OC 28580
Atteooees-at the April 5-Wi.ll.i.amsta Hearing
Bill a:xx, Encx:m Associates, Inc., 7309 Ridge Grove Court, Raleigh,
IC 27615
Mary G. curtin, Envircnnental Scientist, urrs/Envi:roomental, P .o.
Bax 190, Ayden, OC 28513
Percy Lee Davis, Land loss Fund, P.O. Bax 61, Tillery, OC 27843
Gary R. Grant, General Director, Ccncerned Citizens of Tillery,
P.O. Box 61, Tillery, IC 27887
Brian E. Gray, President, urrs/Envi:cawental, P.O. Box 190, Ayden,
OC 28513
Stephanie Haffner, Camunity Based Health Coordinator, CCI' Area
Wide Health C.annittee, P .0. Bax 61, Tillery, OC 27887
Willie A. Hardi.sen, Regiaial Gcoundwater SUpervisor,
DEHNR/DEM-Groundwa.ter Secticn-WARO, P.O. Bax 2188, Washingtcn, NC
27889
Cllarlie Harriscn, Vice-President, urrs/Envircnnental, P .o. Bax 190,
Ayden, NC 28513
Iblglas Hc:Mey, Envircnnental Specialist; North carolina Petroleum
Marketers Associaticn, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, OC 27622
William E. Ingram, Jr., Manager, N.C. Green Oil Canpany Inc., P.O.
Box 429, Williamstcn, OC 27892
Craig r-'brehead, EKecutive Vice-President, North Qn:olina Petroleum
Marketers Associaticn, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, OC 27622
Jim Mulligan, Washingtcn Regional Supervisor, DEHNR.-WARO, P.O. Box
2188, Washingtcn, NC 27889
Qiy Pearce, Hydrogeologist I, DnlNR-DEM-Groundwater Secticn-WARO,
P.O. Box 2188, Washingtcn, :tC 27889
Iaura Pinkham, Property Owner, 108 Spruce Street, Washingtcn, NC
27889
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh.)
James A. Pinkham, Property Owner, 108 Spruce street, Washingtc:n, NC
27889
Alan Pinnix, Geologist, UITS/Environmental, P.O. Bax 190, Ayden, NC
28513
Brenda B. Rames, Chairperscn, ~ten Citizens Against
Pollutia1, P.O Bax 486, ~, NC 27897
Bill Schinming, Manager Envircnnental Affairs, Texasgulf, P. 0. Bax
1480, Aurora, NC 27806
'lherese Vicic, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense league, P.O Bax 512,
Rich Square, NC 27869
Tim walls, Engineer, Texasgulf, P.O. Bax 1480, Aurora, NC 27806
C.L. Whitehead, Manager, Spruill Oil Ccropany, 310 U.S. 13-17 South,
Windsor, NC 27983
Attendees-at the .Aprl.l 7--Ral.eigh Hearing
Jinmy Adams, Store Operaticns, E .J. Pope and Sells, Inc. , P .o. Bax
649, MJtmt Olive, NC 28365
'lhanas Allm:xls, Project Manager, Environmental Hydro Ccnsultants,
P .0. Bax 902, Red Springs, NC 28377
Gary Angyal, Project Manager, O'Brien and Gere Ccropany, P.O. Box
80308, Raleigh, NC 27623
Reginald W. Barnes, Plant Engineer, N.C. Products Corporatia1, P.O.
Bax 27077, Raleigh, NC 27611
James A. Barnwell, President, Hazzard Oil Ccropany, P.O.Box 731,
Burlington, NC 27215
Linda v. Bauch, Asscx::iate Director of 'lhe North Carolina Petroleun
Co\mcil, North carolina Petroleum Council, P.O. Bax 167, Raleigh NC
27602
'Ian Bean, Director of Governmental Affairs, North Carolina Wildlife
Federatia1, P .0. Box 10637, Raleigh, NC 27605
Graham Bennett, President of OCPMA, Quality Oil Ccropany/North
Carolina Petroleum Marketers Asscx::iatia1, P.O. Box 2736,
Winstcn-Salem, NC 27102
Jay Bennett, Manager-Site Assessments, ESE Biosciences Inc., 3208
Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Tan A. Berry, Berico Fuels Inc. , P. o. Bax 1111 , Greensooro, NC
27402
Rich Bolich, President, Geo-SolutiCX1S, Inc., 2903 Anderson Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27608
Dain H. Boothe, Coordinator Public and Govermnental Affairs, Texaco
Inc., 5555 Triangle Parkway, N'.Jrcross, GA 30092
Michael Branson, Senior Geologist, Rust Environment &
Infrastructure, P.O. Bax 1308, Cary, NC 27512
Kevin Buchanan, Route 2, P .0. Bax 307, Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Ernie Carl, Edgerton Envirc:nnental Services, P.O. Bax 4350, Cary,
NC 27519
Tan Carsen, Geologist, Midwest Research. Institute, 401 Harrison
oaks Blvd., Cary, NC 27513
Ted Olandler, Vice-President, Olandler C.oncrete, South Church
Street, Burli.ngtoo., NC 27215
Haden M. Clark, General Manager, United Energy Inc., 1183 West
Cl1atham Street, Cary, NC 27511
Rogers H. Clark, President, Sanpson-Bladen Oil Ccmpany, Inc., P.O.
Bax 617, Clintoo., NC 28328
Arme Coan, Natural Resources Divisicn Director, NC Farm Bureau
Federaticn, P.O. Bax 27766, Raleigh, NC 27611
Jerry Coker, Area Env:i.ra:u:nental Manager, weyerllaeuser, P.O. Bax
786, Plym:>uth, NC 27962
Richard Cottingham, North carolina Board of Registraticn for
Professia,al Engineers/raw Engineering, 3301 Atlantic Avenue,
Raleigh, NC 27619
Jdm Daving, Project Manager, Enviranmental Industries, 2327
Englert Drive, Durham, NC 27713
Keith F.dwards, Hydrogeologist, DEHNR-DEM/Gra.mdwa.ter Secticn-RRO,
3800 Barrett Dr. , Raleigh, NC 27609
Marien F. Erwin, Vice-President, Erwin Oil Ccmpany, 701 washingtan
Street, P.O. Bax 1971, Durham, NC 27702
Helen Finch, Legislative Agent, North carolina Associaticn of
Ccnvenience store, P.O. Bax 1151, Raleigh, NC 27602
Chuck Friedrick, 210 Dry Avenue, Cary, NC 27511
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Banks Gazrisoo., Vice President, South Central Oil Conpany, 2121
West Main Street, Albemarle, N:! 28001
L. Gilbert, Texaco, P.O. Box 654, Roswell, GA 30075
Dean Gokel, Owner, Geochem Inc., 2500 Gateway Center Boulevard,
t-brrisville, NC 27560
Kathy Grant, Hydrogeological Teclmician, DEHNR-DEM-Groundwa.ter
Sectioo.-RRO, 3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, NC 27609
Jeri Gray, WRRI/NCSU, P.O. Box 7912, Raleigh NC 27695-7912
Steve Gray, Vice-President, Gray and Sans, Route 10, P.O. Box 255,
Kinston, NC 28501
David A. Griffin, Project Manager-Planning, rns Sirrine
Engineers/OCAEP, 5511 capital Center Drive-HS00, Raleigh, NC 27606
Joe Harrell, President, Harrell Oil Corpany, P.O. Bax 1947, tvbunt
Ai:cy, N:! 27030
Gary F. Harris, Executive Assistant, North carolina Petroleum
Marketers Associaticn, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
Lark Hayes, Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center, 137 E.
Franklin Street, Number #404, Oiapel Hill, NC 27514
Robert Heath, Enviroornental Director, Sampscn-Bladen Oil carpany
Inc., P.O. Box 617 Clintcn, NC 28328
'Ihanas R. Hegele, Deputy Director, DEHNR-Public Affairs Office,
P.O. Bax 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Jerry D. Henderscn, F.nviroornental Manager, Dupont Inc., P.O. Bax
800, Kinstcn, N:! 28501
Gregory B. Hinnant, Environmental Engineer, Phillips Fibers
Corpora.ticn, P.O. Box P-66, Rocky M:xmt, NC 27802
Beau Hodge, Project Manager, Groundwater Technology, 1 000 Perimi ter
Park Drive, SUite I, t-t>rrisville, N:! 27560
Bill Holman, C.anservaticn Council of North carolina/ Sierra Club,
1024 washingta1 Street, Raleigh, N:! 27605-1258
Edward S. Holmes Jr., Vice-President, Kenan Oil Corpany, 100 Europa
Drive, SUite 450, Oiapel Hill, N:! 27514
Margaret Holten, Director of water/Air Natural Resources, League of
~ Voters, 411 Holly lane, Oiapel Hill, N:! 27514
Sanuel M. Holten, M.D., 411 Holly Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Steven E. Hooper, Assistant to the President, Glen Raven Mills,
Inc., 1831 North PaJ:K Avenue, Glen Raven, oc 27215
Douglas Howey, Envircnnental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Associaticn, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, OC 27622
Janet lbyle, Director, Blue Ridge Envircnnental Defense I.eague,
P.O. Bax 88, Glendale Springs, IC 28629
Harry Huberth, President, M:xlreFCR:!E Inc., P.O. Bax 514, Southern
Pines, OC 28388
Del:i>ie Jernigan, Manager, Robin Hcxx1 Oil Colq;)any Inc., P.O. Box 70,
Bensen, OC 27504
Rick Jdmsan, MJoreFORCE 140 West Venrait Avenue, Southern Pines,
OC 28387
Larry Jordan, North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Associaticn, P.O.
Box 22V, Apex, OC 27582
W. L. Joyner, General Manager, Dumas Oil Ccopmy, P .0. Box 1296,
G:>ldsboro, OC 27533
Jennifer Kelvingtcn, Staff Envircnnental Engineer, IBM, Deparbnent
559, Building 002, P.O. Box 12195, Rl'P, OC 27709
Mike Kmpf, Director of state Government Affairs, BP America, 09040
Roswell Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30350
wayne J. Land, President/Owner, L&L Food Stores Inc., P.O. Box 699,
Nashville, IC 27856
Tim Laughlin, Engineer, North carolina Petroleum Marketers
Associatic:n, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, OC 27603
Denise Lee, Blue Ridge Envircnnental Defense League, Raite 2, Box
286, wadesooro, OC 28170
L.W. Iocke, President, Fast.em Petroleum Corparatic:n, P.O. Box 398,
Enfield, IC 27823
Mary Ma.cn:Mell., Research OX>rdinator, Chatham County ICM' Level
Radioactive Waste Site Designaticn Review Ccmnittee, P.O. Box 87,
Pittsboro, OC 27312
Susan Major, Persamel Director, ERC Inc., 1100 logger Court, Suite
103, Raleigh, N:! 27609
Anita Martin, Office Manager, ERC Inc., 1100 I£>gger Court, Suite
103, Raleigh, IC 27609
Bill Martin, Director of Maintenance, Quick Stop Food Mart, P.O.
Box 2427, Fayetteville, oc 28302
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Jim Mauney, Operaticn Manager, Williams Oil canpany, P.O. Bax 910,
Shelby, NC 28151
Kimberly D. Maw, 4000 Cumnings Circle 1-H, Raleigh, NC 27613
J. F. Medlin, Engineer, EKxal Conpany-U. S. A. , P. 0. Bax 30451 ,
Olarlotte, NC 28230
Khurshed Mehta, Attorney, Hunten & Williams, Cne Hannover Square,
Suite 1400, Fayetteville street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27601
Samuel c. r-t::Clintock, Envircnnental Scientist, Alii'la--Garrma
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestcne Court, Raleigh, NC 27615
G. Pat Mc:Coo.iga, Sales Manager, Dumas Oil canpany, P.O. Bax 1296,
Goldsboro, NC 27530
Jerry r-t::Crain, Vice-President, Enviralmental Services Inc., 1318
Dale street, Suite 220, Raleigh, re 27605
R.L. r-tFadyer, P.O. Bax 827, Red Springs, re 28377
Frank lllk:Neill, Jr., Vice-President, ~ill Oil Ccmpany, P.O. Box
396, Aberdeen, NC 28315
Jack H. J.llbody, Manager, Lindsey-campbell Oil, Route 6, P.O. Bax
238, Lumbertcn, NC 28359
Sandra fvbore, Student-N::SU, 3952 wendy Lane, Raleigh, NC 27606
William L. fvbore III, state Engineering Geologist, tOX:71', P.O. Box
25201, Raleigh, NC 27611
Craig r-brehead, EKecutive Vice-President, North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Associaticn, P.O Bax 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
Eric M:>tzo, Hydrogeologist, North Carolina Deparbnent of
T.ransportaticn, 4809 Beryl Road, Raleigh, NC 27603
Josep1 P. Nestor, Project Manager, Cooper Envircnnental Inc. , 2300
Sardis Road North, Suite Q, Olarlotte, NC 28227
William M. Newnan, Divisicn Manager, Envircnnental Aspects Inc.,
6112 Saint Giles Street, Raleigh, NC 27612
David Newscm, President, Newsan Oil Corpany, P.O. Bax 506, Roanoke
Rapids, NC 27870
Ted outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean water Fund of North Carolina,
P.O. Bax 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602
Oru.ck Overtcn, Vice-President, Blue Flame Fuels Inc., P.O. Bax 6,
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
W. Mark Pattersc:n, Cherokee Sanford, 520 Brickhaven Drive, Raleigh,
OC 27606
E'd Perkins, Vice-President, Hoffman Oil CClnpany, P.O. Box 730,
Burli.ngtcn, OC 27215
Claude H. Pope, 833 Lake Bcx:ne Trail, Raleigh, oc 27607
Elizabeth M. Powell, Attorney, Smith, Helms, Mulliss and M:lore,
P.O. Box 27525, Raleigh, OC 27611
Arnold J. Ramsey, Project Engineer/ Hydrologist, O'Brien and Gere
Inc., P.O. Box 80308, Raleigh, OC 27560
'lhcmas P. Raynaid, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Atec Associates
Inc., 4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, OC 27609
Dc:rl Reuter, Public Informatic::n Officer, EHNR-DEM, 12704 Timberlake,
Court, Raleigh, OC 27613
Olarlie Ross, Senior Scientist, Carolina Power and Light CClnpany,
Inc.-, P.O. Box 1551-3A3--cPB, Raleigh, OC 27602
Ken Rudo, 'Ibxicologist, DEHNR-Di visic::n of Epidemiology, P.O. Box
27687, Raleigh, OC 27611
earl Rupert, NLmlber 2, Quintin Place, Durham, OC 27705
Jeffery Showers, Project Manager/Geologist, AT.OC Associates Inc.,
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, OC 27609
Erin Shubert, Envirc:nnental Claims Coordinator, Kenan Oil Canpany,
100 Europa Drive, Suite 450, Olapel Hill, OC 27514
Graham Simnennan, Senior Proposed Geologist, ATOC Associates Inc. ,
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, OC 27609
Brad Skipper, President, ERC, 1100 IDgger Court, Suite F-103,
Raleigh, OC 27609
Greg Smith, Envirc:nnental Geologist, NCDOI', P.O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, OC 27611
Marsh Smith, Lawyer, M:>oreFORCE:, P .0. Box 541, Southern Pines, OC
28388
Alan Spalt, Director, Agricultural Resources Center, 115 west Main
Street, carrboro, OC 27510
Curtis H. Springer, Director, Cherokee Envirc:nnental Group, 1600
Coloo. Road, Sanford, OC 27330
Maureen suttan, M:>oreFORCE, 345 North Page street, Southern Pines,
OC 28387
VERSI01 07/15/93 (dh)
Jeff swartz, Pmject Manager, ERC, 1100 IDgger Court, Suite F-103,
Raleigh, NC 27609
Alicia Taylor, Citizen, P.O. Bax 1463, Burgaw, NC 28425
Jesse 'Ihanas, 'Ihanas Oil Conpany, P.O. Bax 334, Sanford, NC 27330
Kaye w. 'lharpsal, Ccntzoller, E.J. Pope & Sen, Inc., P.O Drawer 69,
Mt. Olive, NC 28365
Erick Unstead, Research Divisicn, Agricultural Research Center, 615
Willard Place, Raleigh, NC 27603
Willem van F.cJ.c, Pmfessor :mneritus, Friends of Roanoke Island Inc.,
1702 Kilarney Drive, Cary, NC 27511
Ih1nell Van Noppen III, Attorney at Law, Patterson, Harkary &
Lawrence, 200 West r-'brgan street, P .o Bax 27927, Raleigh, NC 27611
John Vernen, Vice-President, Rose Oil Canpany, P .0. Bax 706,
Henderscn, NC 27536
Hal Waddell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil ~Y, 751 Ash Street,
P.O. Bax 629, Henderscnville, NC 28793
Jeff wade, Rand-Wade Oil catpany, P.O. Bax 127, Snow Hill, NC
28580
Rand W. wade Jr., Rand-wade Oil Conpany, P.O. Bax 127, Snow Hill,
NC 28580
William Wa,gne:r, Pmject Manager, ERC, 1100 Iogger Court, Suite
F-102, Raleigh, OC 27609
Sam M. watkins, President, Rose Oil Conpany, Inc., P.O. Bax 706,
Henderscll, OC 25736
David B. Wells, Operatioos Manager, Envircnnental Aspects Inc. ,
6112 Saint Giles Street, SUite 200, Raleigh, :tC 27615
Rochelle Whiteside, lt:llenaker, P.O. Bax 247, Burgaw, NC 28425
Vicky Will, Senior Envirc:nnental Olemist, Mallinckrodt Inc. , P. 0.
Bax 17627, Raleigh, NC 27619
Tinothy Wills, Canpliance Officer, ERC, 1100 Iogger Court, Suite
F-102, Raleigh, NC 27605
'lhana.s A. Williams, Operator, Williams Oil Canpany, P.O. Bax 910,
Shelby, NC 28150
DeWitt Whitten, Enviroomental Operatioos Manager, Stalite
Envircnrental, P .o. Bax 1037, Salisbury, NC 28145
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Judith B. Wood, Natural Resources Oiairperscn, league of Wcmen
Voters of Chapel Hill/can:i:xlm, 9 Mt. Bolus Road, Cllapel Hill, NC
27514
Dilloo Wooten, President, Wooten Oil C'.anpany, P.O. Bax 1277,
Goldsboro, NC 27533-1277
Laura B. Wooten, 8033 Malpass Comer Road, Currie, NC 28435
Iaris Zeller, Blue Ridge Ehvin:nnental Defense I.eague, P. o. Box
848, Marshall, NC 28802
Attendees-at the April 20-Sal.ishJry Hearing
Tim Agner, Plant Engineer, carolina Stalite, P.O. Box 1037,
Salisbury, NC 28145-1037
Cliarles E. Akin, Directar-Calsb:ucticn and Maintenance, Service
Distri.buticn Ccmpany Inc., P.O. Bax 310, Albemarle, NC 28001
Joann Alnald, Fanner, Stanley Citizens Opposed to 'lbxic Olemical
Hazards, 28836 Cantcn Road, Albemarle, NC 28001
Bill Bailey, General Manager WSM, 3850 East Ridge Road, Salisbury,
NC 28144
Mrs. L. Lee Bailey, Haneowner, 3850 East Ridge Road, Salisbury, NC
28144
Graham Bennett, President of tCFMA, QJality Oil Canpany/North
carolina Peb:oleum Marketers Asscx::iatioo, P.O. Box 2736,
Winstcn-Salem, NC 27102
Pam Beroth, Beroth Oil canpany, P .0. Box 187, Mt. Airy, NC 27030
'Ihorntcn Beroth, Vice-President, Beroth Oil Corpany, P.O. Bax 187,
Mt. Airy, OC 27030-0187
Wendell C. Boggs, Vice-President, Rhodes and Beal Oil Corpany, 1404
Fast Main Street, Linoolntcn, OC 28092
Horace P. Badurant Jr. , President, M:unt Airy Oil Corpany Inc. ,
P.O. Box 824, KJunt Airy, NC 27030
Julianne M. Bralm, Geochemist, Geoscience & Technology, P.A., 2050
North Point Drive, Suite A, Winstcn-Salem, NC 27106
Roger Brewster, Project Manager, Arnold F.quipnent Canpany, Inc. ,
P.O. Box 18207, Greensboro, NC 27419
D. calvin Brc:Mn, 6160 Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, OC 28146
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Terry Burnham, RcMan county resident, 1070 Driftwcx::rl Trail,
Salisbury, oc
Robert caccia, Engineer, Duke Paler carpany Inc. , 13339 Hagers
Ferry Road, Hunterville, OC 28078-7929
J.W. cauble, 32647 Bridge Road, Mt. Pleasant, OC 28124
Terry J. cauble, 32564 Bridge Road, Mt. Pleasant, oc 28124
H.F. Craven, Secretary-Treasurer, Leonarii Oil Corpany, P .0. Bax
10796, Winston-Salem, OC 27108
Ann Coan, Natural Resources Di visicn Director, North Carolina Fann
Bureau Federaticn, P.O. Bax 27766, Raleigh, oc 27611
Harvey Danner, President, Certifoam Services Inc., P.O. Bax 5524,
Winston-Salem, OC
Barry Delzell, Project Engineer, ():pen Environmental and
Engineering, 9800 West Kincey Avenue, Suite 190, Huntersville, OC
28078
Broadus J. Embler, R.L. HcMbarrier Conpany, P.O. Bax 7007, High
Point, OC 27264
Jahn Estridge, Engineer, Duke Paler Corpany Inc., 13339 Hagers
Ferry Road, Hunterville, OC 28078-7929
George Everett, Executive Director, Oiemical Industry Cotmcil of
North Carolina, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 455, Raleigh, OC
27603
Banks Garriscn, Vice-President, South Central Oil Coopan.y, 2121
West Main Street, Albemarle, OC 28001
Tan D. Glover, Manager, Gastcnia United Oil Coopan.y, Inc. , P. 0. Box
68, Gastonia, OC 28053
William S. Hall Jr., 9780 N.C. Route 801, Mt. Ulla, OC 28125
Mike Hannan, Project Manager, Spa.tea Environmental Conpany, 5100
North I-85, Suite 6, Olarlotte, OC 28206
Joe Harrell, President, Harrell Oil Carpany, P.O. Bax 194 7, Mt.
Airy, OC 27030
Steve Hart, Hydrogeologist, Dames and M:x>re, 4601 Charlotte Parle
Drive, Charlotte, OC 28217
Clevie Hatley, 30129 Bridge Road, Mt. Pleasant, OC 28124
David M. lblding, lblding Brothers Inc., P .0. Drawer 647, Ccncord,
OC 28026
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Dane A. Homa, Envircnnental Services Manager, S&ME Inc. , P.O. Box
7668, Charlotte, oc 28078
Oluck Howard, President, Autabell Carwash Canpany, 201 South
Independence Boulevard, Olarlotte, OC 28204
William C. Howard Jr., R.J. Reynolds CCJnpany, P.O. Box 2959,
Winston-Salem, OC 27102
Dempsey Hmeycutt, President, lhmeycutt Brothers Sand & Gravel
CCJnpany, 2425 Laburnum Avenue, Charlotte, OC 28205
Iois lhmeycutt, Fano::,wner, 32646 Bridge Road, Mt. Pleasant, OC
28124
Henry Horn, Horn Oil Carpmy Inc., 190 North Main Street,
Ivbcksville, OC 27028
Douglas Howey, Envircnnental Specialist; North carolina Petroleum
Marketers Asscx::iaticn, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
Steve Jarrett, President, Superior Oil Carpmy Inc., P.O. Box 103,
Salisbury, NC 28145
William S. Jahns, E.P. Nisbit Canpany, P.O. Box 35367, Charlotte,
OC 28236
Mark P. Jahnsen, Mark Oil CCJnpany, P.O. Box 32064, Charlotte, NC
28232
E. Fraser Jahnstone, Geologist, Exxon Inc., P.O. Box 30451,
Charlotte, OC 28230-0451
Jeffery Jones, Utility Engineer, City of Salisbury, P.O. Box 479,
Salisbury, NC 28145-0479
Arvi Kiri, Director of Operaticns, Worth Chemical Corparaticn, P.O.
Box 20725, Greensooro, NC 27420
Denise I.ee, Blue Ridge Envi:rcnnental Defense League, Route 2, Box
286, wadesboro, NC 28170
Alan D. Martin, Staff Geologist, Ogden Envircnnental and
Engineering, 9800 West Kincey Avenue, Suite 190, Huntersville, NC
28078
Steve E. Mascn, Licensed Geologist, Geoscience and Technology,
P.A., 2050 Northpoint Drive, Suite A, Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Sanru.el C. M:::Cl.intock, Envi:rcnnental Scientist, Alpha-Garnna
Technologies, Inc., 7533 Milestone eourt, Raleigh, NC 27615
Jerry Meade, Meade Engineering, 6627 Old Providence Road,
Charlotte, OC 28226
VERSIClil 07/15/93 (dh)
Jerry Menges, Reporter, Salisbury Post, P.O. Box 4639, Salisbury,
OC 28144
Marshall Miller, Envinnnental Manager, R.J. Reynolds Inc., 401
North Main Street, Winston-Salem, OC 27102
James F. f-brtoo, P .E., Engineering Co1su.ltant, 101 North Clinton
Street, Olina Grove, tc 28023
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean water Fund of North carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, tc 275602
T.J. OVerby, Vice-President, Central Distributing Ccmpany, Box K,
Kannapolis, N.C. 28081
Bob Pingry, President, Atlantic Enviramel.tal services Inc., P.O.
Box 15130, Charlotte, tc 28211
Gorden Plyer, President, catawba Oil Ccmpany, P.O. Bax 848, M:xu:oe,
OC 28111
James Pa'lder, Geologist, Geo-Envinnnen.tal Co1su.ltants, Inc., 1016
r-t::Cl.elland Court, Charlotte, tc 28206
Alfred L. Price, Atlantic Oil Service Inc., 1614 Fast Innes Street,
Salisbury, tc 28146
Andrew M. Raring, Geologist, P.O. Bax 354, Bethania, OC 27010
Al Ray, City of Winston-Salem, P.O. Box 2511, Winston-Salem, OC
27102
Ray airl Marian Ross, 4507 Chow Road, r-tnroe, OC 28112
Bob L. Rusher, President, Rusher Oil Ccmpany, P .0. Box 1483,
Salisbury, tc 28144
Joey Rusher, Vice-President, Rusher Oil Catpany, P .0. Box 1483,
Salisbury, tc 28144
Ethel Scarlett, 1030 Seigle Avenue, Charlotte, tc 28205
Michael Shaw, Project Manager, Spa.tea Fnvircnnental, 5100 North
Interstate-BS Service Road, Suite 6, Charlotte, OC 28210
William Shipton, Maintenance SUpervisor, Mid-state Oil Canpany,
P.O. Box 849, Iexingt:cm., N.C. 27293
Blair Shwedo, President, Southeasteni Petroleum Systems, P.O. Bax
548, Paw Creek, OC 28130
Paul Siceloff, Co1su.lting Manager, Siceloff Oil/Triple Land
CCJnpanies of High Point, OC, 606-A Hillsborough Road, Carrboro, oc
27510
VERSIOO' 07/15/93 (dh.)
Barl>ara Sifford, Enviroomental c.cntrols Coordinator, Fieldcrest
Cannan Inc. , P. 0. Box 107, Kannapolis, NC 28082
W.C. Stanback, Olainnan, Stanback Colpmy, P.O. Box 1669,
Salisbury, NC 28144
Mike Stanforth, Principal Engineer, Matrix Enviraimental
Technologies Inc., P .0. Box 668163, Olarlotte, NC 28266-8163
James Steele, Owner, James Steele Well and Pl.mp Colpmy, 6120
Chenault Road, Cleveland, NC 27013
Danny M. Stegall, Vice-President, Service Oil of M:lrll:oe Inc., P.O.
Box 766, M:xu:oe, NC 28111
John M. Stewart, Geologist, 2641--G Randleman Road, GreensJ:oro, NC
27406
Deanna R. Taylor, Hydrogeological Technician I, D~ter
Secticn-WSRO, Route 2, Box 209, Denten, NC 27239
George R. Wagoo.er, 16251 Hyway 73 Fast, Mt. Pleasant, NC 28124
wayne Watterscn, Deparbrent Manager, S&ME Inc., 3718 Old
Battleground Road, Greensboro, NC 27410
Lecnard watts, Manager, Lee Oil Colpmy, P. 0. Box 16786,
Greensboro, NC 27416-0786
wayne watts, Lubricant Representative, Lee Oil canpany, P .o. Box
16786, Greensboro, NC 27416-0786
Jeannie Welch, Secretary, Harrell Oil, P .0. Box 194 7, Mt. Airy, NC
27030
Al Westerberg, Reverend, Church of the Divine Inspiraticn, P.O. Box
361, ~eaf, NC 27054
DeWitt Whitten, Enviraimental Operaticn Manager, Stalite
Enviraimental, P.O. Box 1037, Salisbury, NC 28144
Arthur T. Williams III, President, A.T. Williams Oil canpany, P.O.
Box 7287, Winstco-Salem, NC 27109
Luarme K. Williams, 'lbxicologist, DEHNR-Di visicn of Epidemiology,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
David Williams, Enviraimental Engineer, NC Office of Waste
Reducticn, 3825 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609
James J. White, President, E.P. Nisbet CCJrpan.y, P.O. Box 25367,
Olarlotte, NC 28235
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Jinmy White, E.P. Nisbet Oil Canpany, P.O. Bax 35367, Olarlotte, NC
28235
Individuals making cxmnent at the April 21-Asheville Hearing: (Persons
in lx>ld type suanitted presentatiC11S in writing) :
Attendees-at the April 21-Asheville Hearing
Jan Aixlerscn, Envircnnental Engineer, DEHNR-Groundwater
Secticn-ARO, 59 ~in Place, Asheville, OC 28801
Gerald Baker Jr., President, Burke, Inc., P.O. Bax 128, Valdese, NC
28690
Bruce Bridges, General Manager, Ray 'lhcmas Petroleum Canpany Inc. ,
P.O. Bax 338, Shelby, OC 28151-0338
Millie Buchannan, Asheville Director, Clean water Furrl of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page Avenue, Asheville, OC 28801
Kay Dechant, Hydrogeologist, DEHNR--Groundwa.ter Sectic:n-ARO, 59
~in Place, Asheville, OC 28801
Dennis Dillinger, Engineering Tec.lmician, F & R Industrial
Lal:oratory, Asheville, OC 28805
Patricia Dimsdale, Ccncenled Neighbor Of General Electric, 1167 oak
Creek Road, East Flat Rock, OC 28726
Barry Edwaros, General Manager, Henderscn Oil Ccmpany, 7 45 Ashe
Street, Henderscnville, OC 28792
Jeffrey L. Enders, Retail OperatiC11S Manager, Henderscn Oil
Ccmpany, 745 Ash Street, Henderscnville, OC 28792
Scott Epley, Manager, Robbins Oil Ccmpany, P .0. Bax 207, Forest
City, OC 28043
Diane Fskenasy, Hydrogeologist, DEHNR-Groundwater Secticn-ARO, 59
~in Place, Asheville, OC 28801
Bob Gelder, western North Carolina Alliance, 602 Abbey Circle,
Asheville, OC 28805
Tinker Gelder, westeJ:n North Carolina Alliance, 602 Abbey Circle,
Asheville, OC 28805
John H. Ghent, 71 Kukenda.11 Branch Road, Asheville, NC 28804
Arthur S. Gillespie, Jr. , Environmental Manager, FM:!
Corporaticn/Olanical Industry Council of North Carolina, P.O. Box
795, Bessemer City, OC 28016
Faye K. Gillespie, 618 Hillcrest Road, Gastcnia, OC 28052
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
M:l'u:oe Gilm::>re, P.O. Box 1341, Blackm:xmtain, NC 28711
Otlp Gould, Vice-President, Cason Conpanies Inc., P.O. Bax 2030,
Henderscnville, NC 28793
Iblald Gowan, Pump Technician, Robbins Oil Ccmpany, P .0. Box 207,
Forest City, NC 28043
Michael Grant, Robbins Oil Ccmpany, P .0. Box 207, Forest City, NC
29043
R.J. Gussman, Pitti Glatfelts Ccmpany, P.O. Box 200, Pisgah Forest,
NC 28768
Freddie Harrill, President, Blue Ridge Envircnnen.tal Services Inc. ,
406 Bea.um::nde Avenue, Shelby, NC 28150
James Haynes, Office Manager, Robbins Oil Ccmpany, P.O. Bax 1161,
Marien, NC 28752
Olris Henderscn, 71 Kuykendall Branch Road, Asheville, NC 28804
Jim Hensley, Project Manager, Rollins Oil Ccmpany, P.O. Bax 207,
Forest City, NC 28752
Andi Hcneycutt, Student, F.arthdance Institute,
Ibuglas Howey, Envircnnental Specialist; North Carolina Petroleum
Marketers Associaticn, P.O Box 30519, Raleigh, NC 27622
Janet Hoyle, Director, Blue Ridge Envircnnen.tal Defense League,
P. 0. Bax 88, Glendale Springs, NC 28629
Margaret R. Janes, President, Save OUr Rivers, Inc., P.O. Box 122,
Franklin, NC 28734
Mary Sauls Kelly, Ph.D., Oxxrdina.tor and F.cologist, Westeni North
Carolina Alliance, 70 Woodfin Place, Suite 03, Asheville, NC 28801
Ginny Lindsey, Comlmity Organizer, Clean water Fund of North
Carolina, 29 1/2 Page Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801
Den Link, Regional Groundwater Supervisor, DEHNR-Groundwater
Secticn-ARO, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, NC 28801
Duane M::Kibbin, President, Henderscn Oil Calpany Inc., 745 Ashe
Street, Hendersonville, NC 28792
Stephen A. lJtSween, Attorney at Law, Edgerton, :t,,k;:A;Eee,
Annistead & Davis, P.C., 500 First .American Center, P.O. Box 2047,
Knoxville, 'IN 37901 (representing H.T. Hackney CD./ Hackney
Petroleum, Inc. )
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
John Medenwald, 10 Alexander Drive-Number #122, Asheville, N:!
28801
Evelyn Nichols, CcxlceJ:ned Neighbors of General Electric, 107
Maplewood Drive, East Flat Rock, NC 28726
Harrette Nonnan, 30 Bc:Nnan Road, Franklin, NC 28734
Ted Outwater, Raleigh Director, Clean Water Fund of North carolina,
P.O. Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 275602
Ben Pace, Route 1, P.O. Box 726, Chandler, NC 28715
R.S. Patterscn, Rankin-Patterscn Oil canpany Inc., P.O. Box 5956,
Asheville, N:! 28813
Mack Ramsey Jr. , Manager, cascn canpanies, P .o. Bax 7 46, Spruce
Pine, N:! 28777
Iavid C. Reeves, President, cascn canpanies, P.O. Box 2030,
Henderscnville, N:! 28793
Bruce Roberts, F.cology Specialist, BASF Corporation, Sandhill Road,
Enka, N:! 28728
Gary Roberts, Landowner, P.0 Bax 8, Alexander, NC 28701
Ieisa Roberts, NBAD-BREDL, P.O. Box 8, Alexander, N:! 28701
Ken Rudo, State 'Ibxicx>logist, Division of Epidemiology, P.O. Box
27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Anne Runbough, Envircnnental Technician, DEHNR-Groundwater
Secticn-ARO, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N:! 28801
Erin Shubert, Envircnnental Claims Coordinator, Kenan Oil Conapany,
100 Europa Drive, Suite 450, Olapel Hill, N:! 27514
Margaux Sim::n, Student. Farthdance Institute,
s. Michele Si.m::rleamc, Student, 105 Ashe Hall-Ole University
Heights, Asheville, NC 28804
Ieni Sitnick, 90 Gertrude Place, Asheville, NC 28801
J. Stephen Shi, Petree Stocktcn, Attorneys at raw, 1001 West Fourth
Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
Brain Strange, Teclmical Representative, Continental Envircnnental
Services, 6316 J. Richazd Drive, Suite B, Raleigh, N:! 27613
Michael Streeter, Hydrogeological Technician, DEHNR-Groundwater
Section-ARO, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, NC 28801
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
Mike Sextcn, Olerokee Indian wake Up, P.O. 13ax 149, Olerokee, NC
28779
Virginia Sextcn, Olerckee Indian Wake Up , P.O. 13ax 149, Cherokee,
NC 28779
Ned Taylor, Vice-President, Gecnetics, P.O. 13ax 1577, Boclle, NC
28603
Dan Waddell, President, Reaben Oil Canpany, P.O. Bc»c 629,
Henderscnville, NC 28793
Hal Waddell, Vice-President, Reaben Oil Conpany, P .0. Bc»c 629,
Henderscnville, NC 28793
Chuck Wakild, Director of Envircflmental Affairs, North Carolina
Citizens for Business and Industry/Federal Paperboard Canpany, P.O.
13ax 8, RieglEHJOd, NC 28456
Marien J. wallin, Citizen, Extensicn Hcrnemakers and Madison
Enviranmental Alliance, P.O. 13ax 203, Marshall, NC 28753
A.E. Ward, Landowner, 20 Goldview Drive, Asheville, NC 28804
Lucia F. Ward, Landowner, 20 Goldview Drive, Asheville, NC 28804
DeWitt Whitten, Enviranmental Operations Manager, Stalite
Environmental, P.O. 13ax 1037, Salisbury, NC 28145
Douglas E. Williams, Geologist, P.O. 13ax 5064, Asheville, NC 28813
Jdm Wright, Secreta:cy /Treasurer, Wright Oil Canpany, P.O. 13ax
2119, Hendersanville, NC 28793
C.ory Zeller, High School Senior, P.O. 13ax 848, Marshall, NC 28753
Louis Zeller, Blue Ridge Envircnnental Defense League, P.O. Box
848, Marshall, NC 28753
VERSICN 07/15/93 (dh)
PROCEEDINGS OF HEARINGS SUMMARY
Introduction
Five public hearings were held in North carolina by the
Enviranmental Management carmissian to receive public cxmnent on the
amendments to 15A :tCAC 2L .0100 and .0200 Groundwater Classification and
Standards. 'Ihe first hearing was held in Jacksonville at the Onslow
County Courthouse (Old Courthouse) on April 1, 1993. 'Ihe second hearing
was held in Williamston at the Martin County camnmity College College
Audi tori um building an April 5, 1993. 'Ihe third hearing was held in
Raleigh an April 7, 1993 in the Ground Floor Hearing Roan of the
Archdale Building. 'lhe fourth hearing was held in Salisbury at the
Rowan-cabarrus camnmity College Teaching Auditorium an April 20, 1993.
'Ihe fifth hearing was held in Asheville at arc-Asheville in the
cannichael Lecture Hall on April 21 , 1993. All the hearings took place
at 7:00 pn.
Public notice of these hearings was mailed to local governments,
environmental organizations, and perscns registered as having an
interest in groundwater regulatian. Public notice was also published in
a total of seven local newspapers: 'Ihe Daily News (Jacksonville) on
March 14, 1993, 'Ihe Enterprise {Williamston) an March 18, 1993, Raleigh
News and Obsei:ver an March 21 , 1993, 'Ihe Salisbury Evening Post en April
4, 1993 and 'Ihe Asheville-Citizen Times an April 4, 1993. Timely notice
was also given through 'lhe Olarlotte Obsei:ver, 'Ihe Winston-Salem
Journal, and '!he Wilmingtcn-Star News. In addition, the Deparbnent
provided the ne:lia with a press release concerning these hearings.
Persais presiding as hearing officers over these public meetings
were as follows:
HE'AR1N3 OFFICER
Daiglas s. Boykin
Robert W. Griffith, Jr.
Dennis C. Ioflin
Winston W. Pulliam
MEEI'mG(S) PRESIDED OVER
Jackscnville and Raleigh
Williamston
Salisbury
Asheville
Mr. Mick Noland, the Di visian of Environmental Management Regional
Supervisor for the Fayetteville Regiooal Office was in attendance at all
five of these hearings as a co-hearing officer.
DRAFT RE.VISIOO' 07/02/93 (dh)
.:
PUBLIC PARI'ICIPATICN
A broad cross secticn of perscns were represented at the hearings
and in the written ocmnent record for 1 SA OCAC 2L • 0100 and . 0200.
Citizens representing indusb:y, envircnnental interests, the legal
professico, haneowners and state government attended the hearings or
participated through providing written ocmnent. A total of 346 persons
registered their attendance at the public hearings for 1 SA NCAC 2L • 0100
and . 0200. Eighty-Six of these persons provided ccmnents at the
hearings. 'lhe nmiber of attendees at each public hearing and the number
of speakers are outlined as follows:
JACKSCNJILLE
(April 1, 1993)
WILLIAMS'RN
(April 5, 1993)
RALEIGH
(April 7, 1993)
38 persons registered
10 perscns spoke
21 persons registered
3 persons spoke
129 perscns registered
33 persons spoke
SALISBURY
(April 20, 1993)
95 persons registered
20 perscns spoke
ASHEVILLE
(April 21 , 1993)
63 persco registered
20 persons spoke
'Ihe Divisico also received sixty-eight (68) letters of written
ocmnent caisisting of 390 pages of infonnatico between April 1 , 1993 and
April 23, 1993 as a result of the public notice for the proposed
amendments. Also, the Olainnan of the Environmental Management
Connissico received 194 letters fran citizens, the majority of which
reside in wake and Durham C.ounties.
DRAFr REVISICN 07 /02/93 (dh)
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 15A NCAC 2L
.0100 General Considerations
.0101 Authorization (no change)
.0102 Definitions
Adds definitions for "Corrective Action Plan", "Exposure
Pathway", "Division", "Free Product", "Natural Remedial
Processes", Responsible Party", "Receptor", "Professional
Engineer", "Licensed Geologist", "Practical Quantitation Level",
and "Time of Travel" .
. 0103 Policy
The intent of the existing rules is changed from restoration of
all degraded groundwaters to restoration "where feasible and
necessary to protect human health and the environment, or to
ensure its suitability as a future source of drinking water".
The proposed rule requires that the performance of work falling
within the definition of work restricted to professional
engineers or licensed geologists shall be done by persons duly
licensed in those fields. This is a major change and will most
assuredly evoke much comment. The Section believes this change
is necessary to assure that practitioners are accountable for
their work .
. 0104 Restricted Designation
Authorizes the Director to designate
"Restricted" upon termination of
natural remediation is authorized if
for use as drinking water, or where
by a public water system.
substandard groundwaters as
corrective action or when
the groundwater is treatable
the area impacted is served
The rule is also amended to recognize that groundwaters within
a compliance boundary of a duly permitted facility are deemed to
be designated "Restricted".
The rule is further amended to require responsible parties to
establish and implement a groundwater monitoring system to detect
changes in groundwater quality within a designated RS.
An amendment is included requiring the Division to provide public
notice of its intent to designate groundwaters RS to the County
Health Director, local government officials, and local media. If
the Director determines there is significant public interest,
public hearing would be held.
Summary2.(02/24/93) - 1
.0105 Adoption by Reference (Repealed, 1989)
.0106 Corrective Action
The proposed rule emphasizes the importance of taking prompt
action to eliminate a source of contamination. The rule requires
the implementation of a groundwater restoration plan in
accordance with a schedule established by the Director.
In a new paragraph minimum cleanup requirements for all sites
are set forth. These include: prevention of fire or explosion,
containment of the plume, removal of contaminant sources and any
secondary sources of pollution.
Other new paragraphs list the issues or topics required to be
addressed in any site assessment or corrective action plan.
These include: corrective actions taken to mitigate hazards,
elimination of pollution sources, identification of all
groundwater receptors and exposure pathways, describing the
extent of contamination, restoration plans, monitoring plans and
an implementation schedule.
The rule authorizes the Director to evaluate and approve
corrective action plans and sets forth factors to be considered
in the evaluation process. New among those factors are "the
potential for degradation of the contaminants in the environment,
the time and cost to achieve restoration and the probable
consequences of alternative actions."
A new paragraph is also included which stipulates that a
corrective action plan must use best available technology . Best
available technology must be implemented to restore groundwater
quality to the level of the standards specified in Rule .0202 of
Subchapter 2L unless an alternate cleanup level is set or natural
remediation is approved. Alternate cleanup levels must be
protective of human health and the environment based on site
specific evidence that contaminates will not reach a human
receptor, or toxicological information justifies a different
standard from Rule .0202. The paragraph also outlines the
conditions in which an alternate cleanup level may be set.
Another paragraph specifies a stepwise procedure for requesting
an alternate cleanup level. Requesters submit to the Director
technical reasons for an alternate cleanup level, supporting
evidence for that level and proof that public notice has been
provided pursuant to Rule .0114.
Another change is a paragraph addressing requests for corrective
action plans that rely on natural degradation and attenuation of
contaminates. This paragraph specifies the required supporting
materials required by the Director for his evaluation of
requests. The materials must include convincing evidence that:
Summary2.(02/24/93) - 2
all sources of contamination and free product have been
removed or controlled;
any migration of contaminates will not result in
concentrations above applicable standards at any existing or
foreseeable receptor;
the contaminates are degradable in the environment;
the groundwater moni taring program is sufficient to track
the progress of natural degradation processes upon the
contaminates;
the present and projected uses of groundwaters have been
determined;
public notice has been
.0114 in addition to
impacted or potentially
and
provided in accordance with Rule
separate notices to individuals
impacted by the contaminate plume;
site specific characteristics that indicate conditions are
favorable for contaminate degradation and attenuation have
been identified.
It is important to note that at any time monitoring indicates
that a natural remediation program cannot provide the intended
level of corrective action, the Director may require
implementation of an active groundwater remediation system.
The paragraph dealing with termination of corrective action
remains essentially unchanged except that, upon the Director's
approval to terminate such actions, the Director shall designate
the remaining degraded groundwaters as Restricted. The notable
change from the current rules is that the termination of
corrective action is not necessarily concluded by
reclassification or variance procedures. The Director can
authorize additional corrective actions if monitoring reveals
contamination above the Rule .0202 standards .
. 0107 Comp1iance Boundary
Additional language has been added to allow the Director to
terminate easements for compliance boundaries when they are no
longer needed.
A new paragraph has been added relieving small residential ground
adsoption systems from the prohibition against construction of
water wells within compliance boundaries and the requirements for
restrictive covenants to property deeds.
Summary2.(02/24/93) -3
•
.0108 Review Boundary
No change proposed .
. 0109 Delegation
This rule is changed to allow the Director or his designee to
give public notice of consent special orders under 15A NCAC 2H
. 1203
.0110 Monitoring
A groundwater monitoring plan, where required, shall be prepared
under the supervision of a Professional Engineer or Licensed
Geologist and bear the appropriate seal .
. 0111 Reports
A report required under this rule shall be prepared under the
supervision of a Professional Engineer or Licensed Geologist and
bear the appropriate seal .
. 0112 Analytical Procedures
No significant changes .
. 0113 Variance
This rule is proposed to be changed to provide for variances from
any rule of the Subchapter, not just the rules regarding water
quality standards and the compliance boundary .
. 0114 Notification Requirements
A new rule is proposed requiring responsible parties to submit a
report to the appropriate County Health Director describing the
area contaminated, the nature of the contaminants, actions taken
to mitigate threats to human health and the description of
monitoring systems. The rule also requires the responsible party
to advise all property owners residing within or adjacent to the
contaminant plume, that the Director has been requested to
approve an alternate remediation plan or to terminate
remediation. Persons authorized by the Director to cleanup to an
alternate cleanup level, rely on natural remedial processes or
terminate corrective action must provide notice of the Director's
decision to property owners and county administrative personnel .
. 0200 Classifications and Water Quality Standards
.0201 Groundwater Classifications
No significant changes.
Summary2.(02/24/93) - 4
.0202 Water Quality standards
The introductory paragraph to this rule has been changed to
delete a sentence regarding the purpose of restoration efforts.
The sentence was deleted because it was considered to be
inappropriate to this rule.
Paragraph ( c) has been changed to allow the use of tracers in
concentrations protective of human health.
The water quality standards are amended to include the new
standard for methyl-tert butyl ether (MTBE). Interim maximum
allowable concentrations for 1,1-dichloroethane (0.7 mg/1),
Heptane (2.1 mg/1) and trichlorofluoromethane (2.1 mg/1), acetone
(0.7 mg/1), di-N-butyl phthalate (DBP) (0.7 mg/1),
diethylphthalate (DEP) (5.0 mg/1) and di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
( DEHP ) ( 0 . O O 3 mg/ 1 ) are proposed as standards to meet
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0202(c).
Twenty-one (21) groundwater standards have been proposed for
amendment by the Division of Epidemiology and are included in
this rule. Substances used as tracers for monitoring groundwater
movement are authorized when determined by the Division of
Epidemiology to be safe.
Paragraph (i), which describes the standards for Class GC waters
has been amended to clarify the narrative standards for Class GC
groundwaters .
. 0300 Assignment of Groundwater Classifications
No changes proposed.
Summary2.(02/24/93) - 5
. ..
'-_ ..
state of North Carolina
D,epartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources R'A Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary DEHNA.
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 28, 1993
Ms. ·Ginny Lindsey
Comnmi.ty Organizer
Clean Water Fund of North Carolina
29 1 /2 Page Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Ms. Lindsey,
As you requested, the enclosed are meroranda fran the Di vision of
Epidemiology recarmending interim maximum allowable concentrations for
the seven (7) chemicals proposed for permanent standards in the February
10, 1993 draft hearing version of 15A NCAC 2L .0100 and .0200
Classif icatians and Water Ouali t y Standards Applicable to the
Groundwaters of North Carolina.
'lhe following listing shcMs these substances and the respective
interim maximum allCMable concentrations in milligrams/liter:
SUBSI'ANCE
Acetone
1 , 1 Dichloroethane
Di..:.n-butyl(or dibutyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Heptane
Trichlorofluoranethane
CXNCENI'RATICN ( rrg/L )
0.7
0.7
0.7
5.0
0.003
2.1
2.1
'lb reiterate fran our April 15, 1993 discussion, if you need
additional documentation regarding notice and Division approval of these
interim maximum allCMable concentrations contact me at the Groundwater
Section at [phone].
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
If you need toxicological, epidemiological, or any scientific
infonnatian regarding the developnent of these interim standards,
proposed amendments to 1 SA NC'AC 2L . 0202 ( g) and (h) , or any groundwater
standard in Rule .0202, please contact Dr. LuAnne Williams, Division of
Epidemiology at [phone].
Enclosure
cc: Carl Bailey
Arthurl'lbuberry
LuAnne Williams
S~el~ ~~
Environmental Specialist II
Groundwater Section
~~ ... ::~ ....
.,-•Carl Bailey
Page 2
July 12, 1991
heptane -refe?:"_ence dose =· 6 X 10-2 mg/kg/day. NOTE: There was not a
reference dose set for heptane in the literature. The value
presented is that of hexane, a structurally similar compound with
toxicological properties that parallel those found with heptane.
70 kg/adult -body weight assumption
2 liters/day -consumption rate
0.2 -relative source contribution from water
6 X 10-2 mg/k g/day (70 k g) X 0.2 = 0.42 mg/liter
2 liters/day
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 733-3410.
KR:lp
cc: Perry Nelson
Dr. John Freeman
..
. · ,Mr. ,Cal!l Bailey
.,.f • t-... . ..
· ~
1
·• Page 2 · · · ·
Dacember 11, 1992
(2) Concentration which corresponds to an incremental lifetime cancer risk
of "·1 X 10-6 -:cannot be calculated based on lack of human or animal
carcinogen_icity ~ta ( see enclosed.· reference) •
(3) Taste. Thresh~ld J,imit Value is .Jot-·available.
/(4_) -:·The·:odor ·Thr~shoi<i Value· in wat~r· 1s reported as 20 ppm (W/V.) j,n the
October 1992° ·:Draft. Toxicologic~ ·Profile ·for Acetone which· llas
·prepared for Unite·d States-Department of Health and Human Services,
·.figency for ·Toxic•-SUbstances ·an4_ Qisease Registry. The reference cited ,~c:lS ,Amoore and Hautala 1983; :· ·: . . .
,,.,-._ :·-·
°(-5) ·irhere is currently." no maximµm ~?,~taminant level for .acetone,.
_;'a(6) There is cur,;Eintly no second~-~~ contaminant level for acetone.
••. •:• . ! ·,,_ . -~r -•.
·•· .· ,. . :r ---,._,_ ·•·-· .
If you-have any questions~. please contact· me .·at ·J-3410.
l:JCW:KR_:tm
i!:nclosures
.. -'.~:-it ;~f ~ .·
·:·,:: ·~---7 .
. ·-·~ .. : ' . ~' ..
]ii,;:·
--~ ... _:~
DIVISIOO' OF ENVIRCN-1ENI'AL MANAGEMENI'
Groundwater Secticn
May 12, 1993
MEMORANDUM
'IO:
FRCM:
Paula 'Ihanas
/7/) 7
David Hance / ✓
SUBJECI': 'Ihe nurrl)er of local government and county government
participants in the public hearings for title 1 SA NCAC 2L.
Per our conversaticn at the May Groundwater Camdttee meeting, I
have done a careful review of all the ocmnents received. 'Ibis review
includes late ccmnents as well as those that were received before the
deadline in the public notice (.April 23, 1993). A total of 116 written
ccmnentors resi;x:::rrled to the notice. A total of 86 people made cx:mnents
at the hearings. 'Ibis give a total nunber of ccmnentors at 202 people.
A total of four local government peq>le attended these hearings
and two of these individuals made written and oral ccmnents. Here are
the names of the people in a local government who made cx:mnent
concerning 1 SA NCAC 2L at the hearings.
Mary Kanyha, Mayor of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Pine Knoll
Shores, 100 Municipal Circle, Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28152
(written ccmnents were subnitted at Jacksonville on APril 1 , 1993 )
Mary MacO:Mell, Research Coordinator/Chatham Site Designaticn
Review carmittee, Olatham County Government, P.O. Box 87,
Pittsboro, NC 27312
cc: Carl Bailey
F!BERS
KINSTON PLANT
P.O. Box 800
Kinston, North Carolina 28502-0800
Phone [phone]
July 20, 1993
Mr . Preston Howard
Director, N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Howard:
NORTH CAROLINA GROUNDWATER REGS .. SUBCHAPTER 2L
Du Pont wishes to commend the Division for their efforts in rev,s,ng
these regulations. It has been a major effort and we understand the time and
energy required to obtain public comment. We cannot recall any recent public
hearing that generated the volume of comment from all sectors of the
environmental community. This has both positive and negative impacts.
On the positive side, we all got an opportunity to submit our input on
the proposed amendments. On the negative side, the assimilation of all the
comments into a final draft involved only the Division and those of us who had
worked hard to review the proposed amendments were not able to see the draft
until it was submitted to the Groundwater Committee for approval on 7/7/93.
What was presented as a consensus draft is different from what we commented on
during the public hearings.
Changes to accommodate suggestions from various segments of the
environmental community have raised new concerns from other segments. It is
our understanding this draft will be considered for approval and
implementation at the 7/26 meeting of the EMC without any additional comments
being accepted. This appears a little too fast.
We recognize the Division has followed the standard protocol of issuing
a draft, obtaining public comments, refining the draft, and submitting the
draft to the EMC for approval. However, with such widespread interest, and
hundreds of comments, the new version of the 2L REGS is so different from what
we commented on, that we feel we have not really had an opportunity to comment
on the proposal that the Division intends to implement.
Better Things for Better Living
Mr. Preston Howard
Page 2
July 20, 1993
We suggest forming an Environmental Review Team from a cross section of
the environmental community and allowing them time to review and comment on
these proposed regulations prior to submitting them for approval by the EMC.
If this is not possible, at least written comments should be accepted from
concerned parties. Consensus and cooperation on these new regulations seems
more important than simple expediency.
Situations like this highlight a flaw in the review process used to
obtain and respond to public comment. Once obtained, there is an expectation
created that the response will reflect the input. It appears the process
should be revised to provide some public review, in a timely manner~ of how
the comments were addressed. Then if there are new questions and concerns,
they can be addressed.
Attached are some examples of concerns we expressed in April, which we
do not feel have been adequately addressed and some new concerns raised by the
modifications to the 2L Rules. Please recognize that these are offered in the
spirit of cooperation and desire to have regulations that protect the
environment, but do not penalize economic growth due to administrative
procedures.
/pwo
ENV:WPS+
Attachment
ATTACHMENT
RULE .0102 DEFINITIONS
.0102(7) Our original comment suggested additional language to include the
need for a receptor to qualify as exposure. We believe this should be added .
. 0102(9) By deleting the entire definition of "Responsible Party" the state
had indicated they have other means to deal with the refusal of adjacent
property owners to allow investigations to determine whether offsite
contamination has occurred. Please specify what these means are.
RULE .0103 POLICY
There still needs to be a definition for "Significant" treatment.
RULE .0104 RESTRICTED DESIGNATION
This rule is almost totally rewritten. Therefore, the regulated community
needs adequate time to evaluate the implications of this rule and provide
additional comments, if necessary.
RULE .0106 CORRECTIVE ACTION
This rule has been almost totally rewritten. The regulated community needs
time to evaluate the implications of this rule and submit comments, if
necessary. At first glance, it appears to possibly preclude natural
remediation for permitted sites. This is a significant departure from the
intent of the original proposed draft of the 2L REGS.
RULE .0106 (i)
We continue to be concerned about the reference to best available tech~~logy.
We believe that there are grave technical barriers to the application of this
concept to groundwater remediation (see our previous comments for additional
detail.) In view of these concerns and the forbearance on the part of other
states to adopt this type of requirement, we urge the Division to reconsider
this proposed rule. In addition, we are concerned that the Division has
proposed requiring best available technology (BAT) without specifying what
comprises BAT.
RULE .0112 (2)
We are not aware of a response to our comments on the analytical procedures
proposed in the previous draft of these regulations. Yet the only change is
the addition of the term "method detection limit value,• which is undefined.
Since the detection limits established for the analytical methods enumerated
in Rule .0202 are generally set at the lowest levels possible, we do not
understand the proposal to possibly lower these limits outside the boundaries
of established testing procedures. We request an opportunity to discuss this
further in an effort to arrive at a fair and appropriate procedure.
. North Carolin.a Department of Environment,
. . _____ Health, and .Natural Resources @ Prinledon~Pape,
. . ... ... -.....
DIVISION OF ENVIRCNVIENI'AL MANAGEI'-'IENI'
Groundwater Section
June 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM
'IO: Jennie Odette
FR(lv]: earl Bailey (/2
SUBJECI': Travel Reimbursement for El'IC Members that Attended a June 29,
1993, "2L" Hearing Officers Meeting
This merro is to verify that Environmental Management Crnmission
(EM:) member Dennis C. Loflin attended a "2L" Hearing Officers meeting
on June 29, 1993 at 11:00 A.M. in the Archdale Building, Raleigh, N.C.
The meeting was canpleted at 5:00 P.M.
The purpose of this meeting was to finalize Hearing Officer
response to public ccmnent presented at five Public Hearings held
regarding proposed amendments to 1 SA NCAC 2L, Groundwater
Classification and Standards. Final revisions to the proposed 2L
amendments were also approved. The Hearing Officers are resp:::,nsible
for making a recarmendations to the El<C for the adoption of prop:::,sed
"2L" amendments.
~ Sb: Rule .0107(a) and (b)-Corpliance boundary distance
requirements for individually permitted disposal systems;
I support the use of the word "individually" in both paragraphs.
'Ibis tenninology will~ animal operators to work through the permits
process established by the Soil and water Ccnservation Crnmission.
RESFCNSE:
O:mnent made at the Raleigh hearing:
Written carrnents:
'1t10nas w. Eillis, III, Director of Aquaculture and Natural
Resources, North carolina Deparbnent of Agriculture, Aquaculture
and Natural Resources, P.O Bax 27647, Raleigh, te 27611
W.B. Jenkins, President, North carolina Fann Bureau Federation,
P.O. Bax 27766, Raleigh, tC 27611
~ Sc: Rule .0107(d) water supply wells and carpliance boundaries;
'Ihis prohibition on constructing or operating water supply wells
within a carpliance boundary is too restrictive. Pennitted ncn-discharge
sites will not be able to use water supplies even though the groundwater
is unaffected.
RESFCNSE:
Written carrnents:
Mary G. Curtin, Envircnnental Scientist, urrs Envircnnental, 1101
West 'Ihird Street, Suite-A, P.O. Bax 190, Ayden, tC 28513
CXJIIMENI' Sd: Rule .0107(e)(1 )-Prohibition on the transfer of land within
a carpliance boundary;
'Ibis total prohibition on the transfer of land within a carpliance
boundary needs to be amended to allow transfers of sane types of
industrial carpliance areas on industrial lands . Change Rule .0107(e)(1)
as follows:
"(1) the land to be transferred is serviced by an adequate supply of
water, given the proposed, future use of the land, obtained fran a
system that will not foreseeably be affected by groundwater quality
changes that may result fmn the operation of the disposal system."
RESFCNSE:
DRAFl' OOLY-pub.ocmnent sumnaries as of 05/19/93-no respc:nses
Written ccmnents:
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Envircnnental Affairs, E.I DuPalt De Nenours &
CClnpany Inc., Kinstcn Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinstcn, OC 28502-0800
a»1ENr 5e: Rule .0107(f)(3)-Director's discretion at terminating
easements;
'!he Director should not have the discretion to terminate easements.
'!he rule should be changed to allcw the Director discretian to detennine
if the tenns of an easement have been fulfilled.
Rl!SPC6SE:
Written ccmnents:
J.D. Henderson, N.C. Envircnnental Affairs, E.I DuPalt De Nenours &
CClnpany Inc., Kinston Plant, P.O. Box 800, Kinstcn, OC 28502-0800
a»1ENr 5f: Rule .0107(f)(3)-Terminating easements;
Change the ~ "may" to "shall" in this rule. Easements nrust be
tenninated if no lc:nger needed.
RESFCHiE:
Written ccmnents:
W.B. Jenkins, President, North carolina Fann Bureau Federatian,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, OC 27611
a»1ENr 5g: Rule .0107(e)-Allcw tenninatian of restrictive covenants;
hid similar \tOrding as in Rule .0107(f)(3) that will allcw for the
tenninatian of restrictive covenants that are no lcnger needed.
RESPCH3E:
Written ccmnents:
W.B. Jenkins, President, North carolina Fann Bureau Federatian,
P.O. Box 27766, Raleigh, OC 27611
CXMVIENl' 5h: Rule .0107(g)-Ground adsorpticn treabnent systans;
What are groond adsorptian treabnent systans?
Rl!SPC6SE:
DRAFT 00..Y-pub.cx::mnent sumnaries as of 05/19/93-no res:EXJI)SeS
Written cx:mnents:
Daniel H. MJentner, Manager of Govemrrental Affairs, Marathcn Oil
Canpany, 539 South Main Street, Findlay, CH 45840
CXM"1ENI' Si: Rule .0107(j)(B)-Cleanup within a carpliance bcAmdary as
result of an i.mninent hazard;
Specific criteria needs to be developed to specify the real
imninent hazards to public health and safety. '!he current rule does not
rule oot perceived public threats fran this ccnsideration.
RESPCJSE:
Written ccmnents:
Philip C. Perley, Staff Geologist, Colcnial Pipeline canpany,
Resw:gens Plaza, 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30326-1125
a:M-IENI' Sj: Rule .0107(k)(3)(C)-Exemption of Coastal Plain limestones
fran cleanup within carpliance boundaries.
Why are limestones in Coastal Plain sediments specifically exenpted
in this rule?
RESPCJSE:
Written ccmnents:
Fiiward L. Berry, Coosul.ting Hydrogeologist, 11821 Peed Road,
Raleigh, NC 27614
Crnments made:
6) RULE 1 SA RX! 2L . 0109: ImB:il\'l'IW
CCJVr'1ENI' 6a: Rule .0109(b)-Clarification on consent orders;
Is this special order supp:>Sed to be a consent order. If it is the
Paragraph does not allow for ccnsent.
RESPCJSE:
DRAFT OOLY-pub.ccmnent sunnaries as of 05/19/93-no responses
L-. -~;: -~~-
~ ': ti .: rr..-..: ;,~). ·. .· !.,.\\l•f.
t !, ' ~ ·~ ~:::, .:J~}
,A.PA _coo.~-~~}T?~_ ~;: .. :.•.:. ~:,.: ?t\L!\ ., . · ..
ATTORNEY GENERAL '(ENV .PROT. ·SECT.·)
~--· -·-•:'",'' -'i ·.-.... ,·; :._ . ',, " ·. •'-•. ~-· ~ ' ' ~ •. ' .•
··o
~•-.
DEPUTY SECRETA~Y, 'EHNR
. .
BLACKW~LL, DEIDRA;'DEHNR
DIV.OF COASTAL MGMT 1
.DEM RE(it:ONA,L SUPERVISORS:
... 7 ~ · ~";: ---ARO • -. _. -.• ~ • • • • .• .• ~ • • • • • • ·• _. • • 1
:.· ·"
..... ~7": _ .... FRO. ~ ., -.... --• .. _. -.. · ... -~-~ ~---\,;.:~ . ~ .-1
__ -_., .. -·~:·~ ••· . . ... -~ -., . ..j. · . .: ..... :' •' .
MRO • ~ • ~ •. • • • • • • • • • •· · .-~-:::f-. ·. • • • • 1
·waShRO .. ~ .••.••• -. -.......... ~-. -_.·,
wi·1Ro. !' ·~. ~ •• _.._ •• · .• ~ •1• •· •• -.·-.:_,
HAZARDOUS WASTES· 'MANAGEMENT COMM. 1
.. -t:· ,:
:.,.~~'. t
·/ .. /:f,: <~ .·
!i:-•·
U.S. ·. FISH AND WILDLIFE 1
' •. r•i
VOIGHT, VICTORIA, EHNR~SUPERFUND PROGRAM '-ii•"'; ·,,.:
1
(BOLD WYPEtMEANS INDIVIDUAL oR GROUP Is NOT ·oN THE
GROUNDWATEif MAILING LIST OF 3/5/93)
·'.·,~_j•·/~-'_j; 1 \-,I!.
,, ~ .:,.._
-l
0
-l
D r
• I
BY WJWAM L HOLM ES
DAILY NtWS STAl'f
A bevy of oi l tr .•
came to Jacksonville 1as1 veek I
groundwater cleanup rui,1•;-p-1i\1<1s••.
the state.
Most of the• , ,
shared pc~o,r:l ' .. 1 l t
had incurred u nd ~ 1 !l ,
rules, which requir~t• ,."•i ,,. ~-r:J: i.itC:' br;
cleaned up by th~ lan:lu\1·1 e~
New rules would req1 1i'" le
clean ground\\ :.il ~ , , , ,:r
supplies only.
"I believe everyr ui .... , 1·
state's groundwa)·' I
the state's waters ur
"'D
S) .
,.J
r1en e
II '
s;1ir! he had e:e1: ,
I r:1:.ntarnrna e-a groune.·.;,•a~e.· Sile:,
1\h·rnt JO 1>ec•r•.-2 a tended ihi:> me!'un~ ,
,,u~1house $(,f:'lt-•!n\ 1
r,1111nrntal)r:s :1ave sa,d tne nro r•5f1
!"'Jle$ 1~(1t.d weLki~ 'Ot: awa:er L1rot.:c
'·· I
at Ue M·ar111
"Wc'u, :llH:,\•iui-
sa,d :10. g 13,)l·ldi:. th,.. 1011
·11e.11::
l1Clll;11f 'I
,.
.·.I!-....... . ~t .
McJ 1
C,
"-tnxes. ooe:
.. ,pa. Mo•JM
!' "1mn Cl['"lt!
td. The s·.•
1;,s last y~1
expc~clnl
l
CENTRAL PIEDMONT
COALITIO N
Cll#slerfiel"-116rl/MW E11vil
/Jrtu~C'liM Ass#-uliiM
fCHEPAJ /Jw'te CHRly, 1/C
CHEPA is wor-king well with their co .
commissioners . More communitie5 in
their area are beginning lo deal with
industrial expansions that threaten
water sheds and other envtl i,sues
The LUM (land-use management)
sy&tem proposed by CHEPA last year
has been ver'i effective in offering
regulatory protection tr, Burke County
citizens. Conti/Kl .. /times A. Jt'lftns,.,.,
7()4•'4,J1-9,J8::?
D1vle Envlronment1/ Action
L11gue {DEAL) Davie Co, NC
fhe Davie County Recydlng Com-
mittee purchased 2 mini-buses to
transport prisoners who work in the
recycling center The program has
expanded from the Mocksville-
Cooleemee service area, offering
curbside pickup in rural areas .
With county-wide curbside pickup as
their goal. the committee mav use
funds from rec.yclable sales to. pur-
chase "blue bags· for curbside ser-
vice. Davie Co . has a new contract.
with a company for newspaper &
now ,Kcepls recyclables from Spen-
cer . DEAL members attended a meet-
Ing in Winston-Salem on a proposed
20-yr regional landfill in Forsyth
Co . One aspect of the proposal
involves garbage mining to generate
electricity, but DEAL saw it. as a
regional incinerator in disguise!
Contact 6e11eflalt 9/9/998-96{'15
SOUTHERN PIEDMONT
COALITION
Prist111,rs "'Or~
fPOOIIJ lf«t/Mlltlr# Ct1, NC
POOH has managed to get compliance
with Bio-Medical in shuttmo down
the st1:1cks in foggy w~ather.
Because of POOH's efforts &. to com-
ply with new a1r--Qu1Jlity standards,
East Coast Contamers (formerly A-
cademy Steel Drum) is replacing its
old solvent stacks with new emiss-
ions control equipment. t":..>?tl'4ct
6e.r..e~,w JCMSM le,"14/tJ"':.:"' ! -? l 47
NORTHER N PIED MONT
COALITION
Northampton Citizens Ag1insl
Pollution (N-CAP J
N11rth1mplon County, NC
fhermaIKEl1 & the town ,)t' Woo,1hmd
rear:t1ed an out-of-c.ourt settlement.
m a iawsu,t filed bv the comoanv ,n
A~;nl. 19':12 Th>:> 3;J,t c~me ;~ft~r a
town ordinance wl',Kh the rnmpanv
fr,lt wa5 pr(,htbitr;;e to t,lfll,jmq a
h,~Z~!'•lt)IJS-W('!S!,~ f,~(l!t(V !O v,/,):),j-
/ariJ Alth,,iutJh fherma/Kfl"l r,1,m s i.(,
proceed w1t.h perm,ttmo. ver v little
~,as been filed so fa~ {1avton
Ct11lier ano Charlie, Garnt!I'. N-CAP
"found mg rat hers ." were t;,,nored
with awards for oromotino c1t1zen
mvot-.,e.ment Audre ·., t,ar-~er and
Therese Vtd atten,.:1e,J the St,uthern
CommtJnih · Labor ~\inference M
fnvtl Justice m New IX-leans . Co.
,:;;,mm13s1,.iners have re,Ju1r1;.d
Carroll Foods to mstail test wells on
thew 5 .000 -so ·!', r,10 farm As
Cioldsboro F1illm9 plans to set up
or,erat1Ms here. "•~erticalh •JnJan-
Ized · hwge pI9 operators are ev~mo
the r.c,1.ml:. With the gnw,th of th15
mdustrv imminent. t-l-CAP mem-
bers tra,ned to de, lielHest10Q, and
fouM fecal bacteria m 5 ~)f 10
wells U-CAP'3 Earth D,r.-· cele-
bratwn tn ·woodland for l"larch 21
"l(,·~·e Your Ne19hbor. Lo·v·e the
forth ." l't111tc1d 8rendii Remmes
(9 /fll ,'7<,'?7-.998 !
Alliance for a Responsible
Swine Industry (ARSI)
AR.31 1s another new chapter. ·w1tt1
,ipprox,matelv 1 O(l members m a 12-
co untv are.a The ·{ are pnmanl ·y• con-
,:ernetJ with current. methods M fe-
cal waste disposal used bv r..c,rpor-
ate hog farms. fhese 150-200 ,Kre
farms ·3h)re wast.e in lagoons 30-40
teet 1jeep. oft.ef! ,tt depths aMve tr,e
water table This 13 later 5Draved
Of! the farm. reoaraless of adtacent
riropert·. The contam,n.~tion ,i drm~-
mg water. destruct ,on ot ponds . &
ammonia odor:; ,lre twoblem:::. cIt.ed.
Ai:;'.~31 proposetJ requlat,ons for hOo
farms at recent h?ilrtr.as w1tr, th~
ri(: (Jept Llf fo.'tl r1Jt C tinU"·:
~.:7Jr/es ':•.'/e.r~· :7' /.9-... '-~~:--,--.. ~:_ ~,
COASTAL COALITI ON
Co1st1I Environmen/1/
Aw1reness Group fCEAGJ
Pender County, NC
CE A6 is plannin9 to sp,)nst,r a
:;trt>arn-wakh prc,grarn on tht"
~fortheast Cape Fe~r River Basin
fron·, the Duplin ((lunt.y line tc, thi:
,~ew Hanr.rver i)xmty Line.. In a
f'klrch 16 meeting with 6el',rgf
~orris of the Division of Wat.er
Res(,urces r,eld Ir, Pf.nder C,ittnty.
member5 ,:,f CEA6. CC3C, ,md CCNH
met to discuss plans In regards fr,
the swine issue in Pendt?-r C,)unt v.
tht> grt)ur, is trying tr, increa~t?
::atbads and rnova t.he line
[\r,eratlons away from residences
and r,ubltc i,lar:es A z,:,r,ir11J
ordinance allo~tng sewagt" and
:;lud9a to ba dumped ,:,nly or,
industrial property and not rural.
a9,·ic1Jltural, or residential pro
-perUes Is oeln9 planned . Another
ordinance proposed by CEA6 would
regulate hazardous and rad wash"
for Pander C,)unty CEA6 also
(1ffered assistanci: tl, Bronswid
C1>unty dt.izens who had to deal with
a sodium nltratf splll In February .
Contact T(}m Nath,~,; .9 !.9,259-4,J6 !
CNK'N"IIM/ CiliZMS ,F
Slm/lStlll CHIiiy (CCSCJ
S.,,,,S-C.-ty,IIC
r:r:sc Is relieved ttiat 6Frs
(Browning Ferris lnduslries) permit
to b1Jil<l a 26--(;ounly meqadumr, in
Sarnr:,sor, c,,1.mt.y has not yet been
ar,provi::.d H,:,pefolly U,t::ir i.<mlinued
e.ffrJrl.s tr,, c;lr,,r., I.he pl.,m will res1Jlf. in
'3arnpson C,;,mty deali,,g with 1.0,mty
wast':' only . A. primary c(,m.erri for-
CCSC is tt,e pr.-,tectio,, of e,eari;!:in
CrP.t?~:, which is a bfJIJrtdary for I.he.
pr·oposed landOll site . CCSC 1<:i cur--
rtrillv wr;r~mq on a 5treamwatct1
~1r iJgrarr1 for Btl1rsr. in CretL ,,rhh:h
r·uns into ttie L!Hle C(ihane Cree~.,
ber:iJrnlrig the Bl&r..k Ri ver. ~i tri-
b1Jtarv of the Car.1e F~ar . CCSC
ieadi':r Edvvard Pi.!rler alter1ded 1;1
1-1ar·ch 16 meeting in Pimder Cour,ly
f.,j <Ji':>(tJ55 strear<match (.t(iJjeo:I.':> for
I.he Northeast C.~pe fear Piver Basin
wltti iJU,er environmental grotJr.,5
(,:v,t;-,c{ [,t,...•:1,r,i Pt!ri·e.,-{if!~ •. •;52'5
-1)/},_Tp