20110905 Ver 1_WiRO Email_20130117

Strickland, Bev
From:Henderson, Ginny
Sent:Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:40 PM
To:Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject:RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905
Thanks!

Ginny Henderson, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Waste Mgt. - Superfund Section - Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:37 PM
To: Henderson, Ginny
Subject: FW: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905

From: Ted Sampson, Sr \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905

Joanne,
We are currently in a temporary hiatus. The Coast Guard contract documents specified two MSWLFs at which the dredge
spoil had to be disposed of. One of those landfills, the one closest to Morehead City, at the last minute declined to take
the material because of concern with its gumbo muck consistency and the possibility that it could plug up its leach/drain
system. The only remaining disposal site listed by the CG contract more than doubles the trucking costs due to distance,
and the tipping cost as well would go up. Since such a sizeable portion of the costs of this contract are associated with the
trucking and tipping, we are under discussions with the CG concerning a change order, and at the CG’s request we are
exploring whether there many be some lower cost alternatives for ultimate disposal of the material; i.e. lower tipping costs,
shorter distance to haul. We have hired an environmental consultant with the soils/land-disposal background to explore
this for us, and that report will probably go to the CG today. That consultant has indicated that a lower cost alternative
may be to utilize a DENR Permitted Soil Remediation Site, and we have some of those sites checking with DENR to see if
they will be allowed to take the material under their Permits.
If we cannot find a lower cost alternative for the CG for disposal, then the dredging is essentially complete (there is one
area where they want us to cut it down a little further—about 100 CY), and only trucking/disposal remain, as the CG will
be descoping the project to save money. If we can find a suitable lower cost disposal alternative, it is possible the CG may
ask us to go back in and remove more of the permitted cut, up to about another 4000 CY, but I rather doubt this will
happen.
I may know more tomorrow, but it is more likely that it will be early next week before I really know how this will go forward.
I will give you an update when I have one.
1

Let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Best regards,
Ted Sampson

-----Original Message-----
From: Steenhuis, Joanne \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:03 PM
To: Ted Sampson, Sr; Henderson, Ginny; Willis, Linda
Cc: [e-mail]; 'Office Manager'
Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905

Ted,
What is the status of this project? Has it been completed? I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Joanne Steenhuis
Sr. Environmental Specialist

From: Ted Sampson, Sr \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne; Henderson, Ginny; Willis, Linda
Cc: [e-mail]; 'Office Manager'
Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905

JoAnne, Linda, Ginny,

JoAnne, again thank you so much for your efforts to get this matter addressed prior to the onset of the Labor
Day long weekend. We appreciate being able to move forward with our planning without having to wait until
next Tuesday.

For moving forward I want to ensure that I understood correctly what you conveyed to me on the telephone just
now. It was my understanding that you indicated that what was being provided in the attachment to your email
were recommendations, and not requirements, and that the recommendations were to provide some guidance
that should be sufficient to alleviate any concerns that the Mining Commission may have relative to leachate or
stormwater runoff.

In the Dredging Plan that we put forward to the Coast Guard, we had already planned to address these issues in
the same manner as the suggestions put forward, and intend to ensure that our operations will not be able to
result in the spoil mixing with onsite soils, or the leachate or stormwater moving through the spoil and into
onsite soils, and aquifers. About the only area in which our plans differed from the recommendations is in the
mil of the plastic that we intended to use. We had proposed to use 4 mil plastic, and believe that this should be
adequate in that we do not plan to operate equipment on top of the spoil, and the lower mil will allow us to
more easily handle this material over the extent of the spoil pile.

Linda, and/or Ginny, given the above, does the 4 mil plastic sound ok to you?

As for the turbidity boom/turbidity curtain, there already exists a permit requirement for a turbidity barrier to
be in place around the dredging operations, and we intend to fully comply with this requirement.

I noticed in the email attachment that a concern was raised for whether the sand mine was within the counties
for which your Wilmington Regional Office has responsibilities. The sand mine is in Carteret County, which is one
of your counties.

Thank you again, for the assistance that all of you have provided on this matter.

2

With best regards,
Ted Sampson
Sampson Contracting, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steenhuis, Joanne \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:05 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Gregson, Jim; Wicker, Christine W SAW
Subject: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905

Ted,
I am attaching all the comments I have gotten concerning the dredge sediments and how to handle
them during the drying process as to ensure that they will not cause additional issues with the leachate
and potential stormwater runoff.
The DWQ also would like to request that you keep a boom/turbidity curtain in place to keep down the
turbidity as much as possible as well as the sediment contaminants from migrating elsewhere. Please
do not hesitate to call me, Linda Willis or Ginny if you have any other issues. 910.796.7215 is the
general number you can reach any of us.
Sincerely,
Joanne Steenhuis
Senior Environmental Specialist
3