NCD079044426_20010119_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA RD_Remedial Design Groundwater 1999 - 2001-OCR

·,· 4DD80 Holcomb Bridge RoJd
' . Building I Oll. Suite 190 ,,
Roswell, Gt\ 3007li
vvwvv.geotransi nc.com 770-642-1000 Fi\X 770-642-fllHJll
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Projedt Manager
U.S. EPA Regio1n 4
I 6 I Forsvth Street
January 19, 200 I
NOl133S ON03M3dnS
Atlanta~ Georgid 30303-8960
Reference: !Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report -' Revision of Tables. I GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
I Geo Trans Project No. N754-100
Dear Ms. Bennett:
As we b~gan preparation of the quarterly report for December 2000 date, we
discovered that Tables 3-6 and 3-7 of the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance M6nitoring Report -2000 were inadvertently omitted. This report was
submitted on De1cember 21, 2000. Discussions with David Mattison also revealed that
WW-82 data wa~ omitted from Table 3-5, These tables are attached for insertion into
the report We 1]ope that you will accept our apologies.
Please cLI me at 770-642-1000 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,-/
~_,-4-U~r--
Phili~ber, P,E,
Senior Engineer
cc: Lee Hun;1phrey (GE)
P:IGE00CS\EPA\Epa92.wDd
David Mattison (NCDENR)
Tom Aubpurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
Jim LaForcst (COM Federal)
' Gary Hill
I
~G.~~rrafiS, Inc. I
vvvv,v.geotransi nc.com
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Prdject Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth St~ect
Atlanta, Geofgia 30303-8960
.I 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Builclin~ 100. Suite 190
Ro,well, G1\ 31J07(i
770-642-1000 Fr\\ 77l)-642-tl808
December 21. 2000
SUPERFUND SECTION
Reference: Annual Performance Monitoring Report -2000
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI Geo Trans Project No. N754-l 00
Dear Ms. Bennett:
Encl Jed please find four copies of the Annual Groundwater Remedial
Action Perfo~mance Monitoring Report -2000. Copies of this report have been
sent to Mr. dhvid Mattison, Mr. Jim LaF orest, Mr. Tom Augspurger, and Dr.
Gary Hill. T~is report summarizes the results from the September 2000 annual
sampling event.
Pleasl feel free to call Lee Humphrev at 828-693-2533 or me ifvou have I " •
any further questions.
cc: Lee H,umphrey (GELS)
David Mattison (NCDENR) I
Sincere! ·.
4.JJ~
Ph. p Weeber, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife)
Jim LhForest (COM Federal)
' Gary Hill
P:ICEIOOCS\EPA\Epa91.wp<J
tt!1
◄GEOTRANS
., 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 200, Suite 305
Roswell, Georgia
30076
A TETRA Tl:CH COMPANY
Ms. GiezellJ Bennett
Remedial Pr~ject Manager
U.S. EPA R~gion 4 ' 6 I Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Gedrgia 30303-8960
NOV 2 0 2000
November 17, 2000
SUPERfUi~U c,t.GTION
Reference: Request for Abandoning of Monitoring Wells
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI GeoTrans Project No. N754-038
I Dear Ms. Bennett:
FAX [phone]/l
On Jhalf of General Electric Lighting Systems, HSI GcoTrans is
requesting pJrmission from the Agency to abandon monitoring wells 63 and 63A.
'
The lells are located on the south side of Roper Road in Dr. Gary Hill's
' farm field (Figure 1). The pair of wells were installed in 1997 as a part of the
' Preliminary ~30%) Design. M W-63 is a saprolitc well and MW-63A is a shallow
bedrock weJ]l. The wells disrupt the use and productiveness of Dr. Hill's hay field.
The wells arJ not used as part of performance monitoring, are not within the
radius of inflhence of the Shepherd Faim recovery wells, and are not anticipated
to be used fo} future monitoring.
I -
The wells tested at non-detect levels for remediation target VOC and
SVOC contalninants in 1997 (see Table I). Additionally, a GeoProbe survey of
groundwater ~t the Shepherd Farm Subsite, conducted in 1998, demonstrated that
' VOC contaminants had not advected or been transported to this area. MW-63 did
indicate a coJcentration of manganese of 1220 µg/L which is above the
remediation ioal. However, HSI Ge0Trai1s believes this is a background level.
All other rem'ediation target metals were below the remediation goals. The 1997
I laboratory results for MW-63 and MW-63A are attached.
I
I
A:\l;.pa55wpd
I • •
Upol attaining Agency approval, the wells will be abandoned according to
North Carolina specifications by grouting the wells and cutting the casings below
' grade. All above land surface well casing, concrete pads, and cement poles will
be removed.I The work will be scheduled for the Spring of 2001. The land
' surface will be graded and reseeded after work has been complete.
PleaL feel free to call me if you have any further questions.
I Sincer-,
I 4;J~
cc:
I
Lee Humphrey (GE)
Davi~ Mattison (NCDENR)
Garyil·lill
I
I
Phili eeber, P.E.
Senior Engineer
2
HSIGEOTRANS
,A.;\EpaBB.wpd
•
Table I. List of Remedial Target Compounds and Laboratory Data from MW-63 and MW-63A.
I
Contamindnt Remediation MW-63
I Goal (µg/L)
Organics I I
voes I l
Vinvl CbloJide
" ' 1 u
1,2-Dichlorbcthene 70 u
'
Chloroform1 1 u
' I cis-1,2-Dichloroethane I u
' I
trans-1,2-Dichlorocthane I u
' I
Trichloroethene 2.8 u
'
Benzene I 1 u
I Tetrachloroethene I u
'
I
svoc I
Nitrobenzetje 10 u
I
Metals I
Barium ' I 2000 592
Beryllium I 4 2.0
' Nickel I 100 31.3
Lead I 15 I 7.1
Manganese I 50 1220
I
Notes: \ .
U indicates la non-detectable amount of compound.
' I
I
I I
3
MW-63A
u
lJ
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
154
2.0
20.0
5.6
15.4
HSIGEOTRANS
P:\ge\Gis-gw10ffiwOOC.S~1sitaMW_wor
Explanation
Soil excavation area 0 300 600
Site monitor well SCALE IN FEET
1 ppb contour of total volatile organic compounds
LOCATION
Location of Shepherd Farm Subsite
Monitoring Wells MW-63 and MW-63A
East Flat Rock, NC
HSI CHEC!<EDSY p::
ORAFTEDSY p_, ..... ◄ GEOTRANS "'""'' SFSITEMW.WOR
::::fflt; A TETRA TECH COMPANY DATE j 11114/00
FIGURE:
1
lA
ORG~S ANALYSIS
EPA SAMPLE NO. VOLATILE
Lab Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Lab Code: PACE Case No.:
.trix: (soil/water) WATER
Sample wt/vol:
Level: (low/med)
% Moisture: not dee.
GC Colum..,: DB-624
5. 000 (g/mL) ML
LOW
ID: 0.32 (mm)
DATA SHEET • Contract:
SAS No.:
MW63
SDGNo.: 3973
Lab Sample ID: 10214021
Lab File ID: 21715
Date Received: 07/29/97
Date Analyzed: 08/05/97
Dilution Factor: 1.0
Soil Extract Volume: (uL) -----Soil Aliquot Volume: ____ (uL)
CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q
75-01-4---------Vinyl Chloride : 10 u 75-09-2---------Methylene Chloride ·>10 u 156-60-5--------trans-l,2-Dichloroethene 10 u 75-34-3---------1,1-Dichloroethane --10 u 156-59-2--------cis-l,2-Dichloroethene 10 u 67-66-3---------Chlo~oform 10 u 71-55-6---------1,1,1-Trichloroethane 10 u 71-43-2---------Benzene 10 u 107-06-2--------l,2-Dichloroethane 10 u 79-01-6---------Trichloroethene 10 u 78-87-5---------1,2-Dichloropropane 10 u 75-27-4---------Bromodichloromethane 10 u 127-18-4--------Tetrachloroethene 10 u 79-34-5---------1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 u --
FORM I VOA OLM03.0
100071
lB
SEMIVOLATILE OR.ICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET.
EPA SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name: PACE AN~.LYTICAL SERVICES
J-', Code: PACE Case No.:
Matrix: (soil/water) WATER
Sample wt/vol:
Level: (low/med)
% Moisture:
995.0 (g/mL) ML
LOW
decanted: (Y /N)
Contract:
SAS No.:
MW63
SDGNo.: 3973
Lab Sample ID: 10214021
Lab File ID: 22611
Concentrated Extract Volume: l000(uL)
Date Received: 07/29/97
Date Extracted:07/31/97
Date Analyzed: 08/14/97
Dilution Factor: 1.0 Injection Volume:
GPC Cleanup: (Y /N) N
CAS NO.
2. D (uL)
pH: 7. 0
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
(ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L
98-95-3---------Nitrobenzene
91-20-3---------Naohthalene ---------
117-81-7--------bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate_
FORM I SV-1
10 U
10 U
10 U
Q
OLM03.0
EiIROFORHS/INORGANIC CLP
1 •
SAMPLE NO.
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET XXMW63
:,,~ Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES Contract:
Lllb Code: PACE Case No.: SAS No.: N/A SDG No.: XT3973
~atrix (soil/water): WATER
Level ( low/med) :
% Solids:
LOW
o.o
Lab Sample ID: 214021
Date Received: 07/29/97
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): UG/L
CAS No.
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-3B-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-4B-4
7440-50-8
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-09-7
77B2-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-23-5
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
ilor Before: COLORLESS
1lor After: COLORLESS
Analyte Concentration C
-Allilllinum -Antimony -Arsenic -Barililll 592 -
Beryllililll 2.0 u -
Cadmium -CalciUlll -Chromium 76.3 -
Cobalt 19.6 B
Copper -Iron 36300 -
Lead 17.1 -MagnesiUlll -
Manganese 1220 -
Mercury 0.20 u
Nickel 31. 3 B
Potassililll -Selenililll -Silver -SodiUlll -Thallililll -VanadiUlll -Zinc 112 -
Cyanide -
Clarity Before: CLEAR
Clarity After: CLEAR
FORM I -IN
Q M
---
-p
p -
--p
p
-E p
p --p
AV
p
-
----
-p
-
Texture:
Artifacts:
9ooocn
lA
ORGAN.S ANALYSIS
EPA SAMPLE NO.
VOLATILE
Lab Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Lab Code: PACE Case No.:
~rix: Csoil/water) WATER
Sample wt/vol:
Level: (low/med)
% Moisture: not dee.
GC Column: DB-624
5.000 (g/mL) ML
LOW
ID: 0.32 (mm)
DATA SHEET • Contract:
SAS No.:
MW63A
SDG No. : 3 9 7 3
Lab Sample ID: 10214039
Lab File ID: 21716
Date Received: 07/29/97
Date Analyzed: 08/06/97
Dilution Factor: 1.0
Soil Extract Volume: _____ (uL) Soil Aliquot Volume: ____ (uL)
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q
75~01-4---------Vinyl Chloride 10 u
75-09-2---------Methylene Chloride 10 u 156-60-5--------trans-l,2-Dichloroethene 10 u --75-34-3---------1,1-Dichloroethane 10 u 156-59-2----~---cis-l,2-Dichloroethene 10 u 67-66-3---------Chloroform 10 u 71-55-6---------1,1,l-Trichloroethane 10 u 71-43-2---------Benzene 10 u 107-06-2--------1,2-Dichloroethane 10 u
79-01-6---------Trichloroethene 10 u
78-87-5---------1,2-Dichloropropane 10 u
75-27-4---------Bromodichloromethane 10 u
127-18-4--------Tetrachloroethene 10 u 79-34-5---------1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ·10 u --
FORM I VOA OLM03.0
100075
lB EPA SAMPLE NO.
SEMIVOLATILE OR.res ANALYSIS DATA SHEET.
Lab Name: PACE ANhlYTICAL SERVICES
T-b Code: PACE Case No.:
Matrix: (soil/water) WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000 (g/mL) ML
Level: (low/med) LOW
% Moisture: decanted: (Y /N)
Contract:
SAS No.:
MW63A
SDG No.: 3973
Lab Sample ID: 10214039
Lab File ID: 22617
Concentrated Extract Volume: l000(uL)
Date Received: 07/26/97
Date Extracted:07/31/97
Date Analyzed: 08/14/97
Dilution Factor: 1.0 Injection Volume:
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO.
2. 0 (uL)
pH: 7.0
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
(ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L
98-95-3---------Nitrobenzene
91-20-3---------Naohthalene ---------
117-81-7--------bis(2-Ethylhexyl)pnthalate
FORM I SV-1
10 U
10 U
7 JB
Q
OLM03.0
40(;0135
EiIROFORMS/INORGANIC
1
CLP
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
,~b Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES Contract:
•
,ab Code: PACE Case No.: SAS No.: N/A
SAMPLE NO.
XMWA63
SDG No.: XT3973
!atrix (soil/water): WATER
,evel (low/med):
t Solids:
LOW
0.0
Lab Sample ID: 214039
Date Received: 07/29/97
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): UG/L
CAS No.
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-09-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-23-5
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
lor Before: COLORLESS
lor After: COLORLESS
=ents:
Analyte Concentration C
-Aluminum -Antimony --Arsenic -Barium 154 B -Beryllium 2.0 u -Cadmium -Calcium -Chromium 5.0 u
Cobalt 10.0 u
Copper -Iron 589 -Lead 5.6 -Magnesium -Manganese 15.4 -Mercury 0.20 u
Nickel 20.0 u -Potassium -Selenium -Silver -Sodium -Thallium -Vanadium -Zinc 11.l B -Cyanide -
Clarity Before: CLEAR
Clarity After: CLE.AR
FORM I -IN
Q M
-
-: --p
p -
--p
p --E p
p
-p
AV
p -
-----
-p
-
Texture:
Artifacts:
900003
i,□RTH SUPERFUND
November 20, ?.0DIJ
Ms. Oizel]e. Bennett
•
El' A Region ·1 Pruj. i'vlgr.
61 Forsyth Street
Atlu.nta, GA 30303-896D
Ms Bennett·
i✓OV 27'00 9:05 No.001 P.01
FAX
St.vernl comments llnd point:, are presented ~low in re~ponse to two letters forwarded to me ou. 20 N,iv 2000, from }.1; Phillip Weeber, PE, HSI Geotrans, INC, AtlUJ1ta Th~se lett~rs pertain to ongoing processes at the EPA/ GE /Shepherd Farm Site, and adjac~nt la.ud owned by mt and my family in East Flat R,,ck, NC.
L) I ~i(.r~' with the lettc:,r and documentation supplied by Mr Weeber to you rngarding removal of two test wells, -/163 and 1163A. S\nce th(mi wells arc out of the zone affoct~d by the GE contamiM!ion, and sinoo water &ta indicates no COnQentrations of targeted chemicals above regulatory standards, I am formally requestin& that they be removed as soon e-.s p0ssible. I further requesr that the cns!ng pipes and all related materials be e,xtracted and r~movcd from the property, ir:suiad of the proposoo cutting of ~asings below grn(!e. There were no well ~asings before you forced this activity (Drilling wells/in.stalling-, casings), and if you and your ag:cncy want to µrote;;t and preserve the environment, the entire well construction equipment ,hould b~ re)lloved. !ft.his actio!l i, prevented by law, implied by th.e letter of Mr. Weeber, p!ea,e inform m(I o.f L'1e statute.
2.) Punc.h List. The list of sit,;; re$toration activities in Mr. Weeber's second Jetter (Nov. 17. 7,000; dflivcrod to my i~sidcnce Nov. 20, 2000), h conunendab!e. Mr. Theron Maybin is a trusted friend of the fomily and knowledge~ble ofth~ l~nd, stn1ctmes, etc. on Oltt' proptl1)', I ut11 glad that he was ~sked to engage :n the prc1ces~ of enumerating site restoration. HOWEVER, l AM THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEREFORE, l RESERVE THE RIGHT TO A.DD OR AMEND THIS LIST, ON MY PROPERTY AND THAT O\llNED BY MY MOTHER. furtheimor~, l was a little surpl'ised to rec~ive thi8 le1ter, indicating Mr. Weeber asked Mr. Maybin to do the ii1i\.ial punch ilst, when I was not notified cf the intc;ntiou to proceed with the activity, or for entrie8 to go on the list. In a telephone couversation with Mr. Todd Hagemeyer., HSI Oeotum, Inc., approximately 2 months 11go, I infonne<l him that I would be ~t the NC site~ around Tha.'lksgivi.ng. He ir,dicate!d tli~t I could se~ what had been done iu installing lir.es, junc(ion boxes, wells, eto., aud make n:commrndations about site restoration. Appure11tly he Md Mr. Weeber ignored a haste point !n the Access Agrcernellt that states that I would be informed befor~ restoration activity or other activities that mii,ht unpact our farn1. While Mr. Maybin is a friend nnd operative, yo~ will not find Mr. Mayhln li~ted l.n the agrecme;.it, nor have I transferred any poweJ'1i to b.im to ~peak for me or my mother. I clo not consider being informed of an importllnt at,tion, suc:h us site rc3toration, after ii has occurred as being in line with the ,U\Ulm~r,ts ln, intent and pu1po,e of the Agretment. I believe I llave well-demonstrated that ! am available, I can and do communicate by Telephone, FAX, and letter. Why wa.s I uot informed of
NORTH SUPERFUND ID : • NOV 27'00 • 9:07 ~o.001 P.02
this activity in advance, and why we.a J not aske<l to pw:ticipate or for my opinions on th~ site restoralion? These actions tend '.o further verify the claims concerning a disregard for the Agreement, ~nd iutentions of GE, HSI and EPA as outlined in the Jette( FAXed to yo\l or, November 13, :woo.
3 .) Water Pressure Problem in Rt'5ideuce, \\'hen I wrntc letters of complaint. about low water pressure in my moth1"J''S house, dated October l 0, 2000, and November I 3, 2000, that initially occurred in early September v,nen ~ water main w~~ severed dming installation of the remediatiou pipeline project, lvfr. Hagemeyer acd now Mr. Weeber were quick to clocumellt the number of times a plwnber was sent to the site, and promises of rapid solutio!lll. Mr. Lee Humphrey, from GE, indicated in one recen1 telephone conv~rsation that some of the pressure problems wue not c.1used by the severed line/reconnection--! suspect L1at was also the belief of, Mr. Hagemeyer. Last night, November 20, 2000, my mother infonned me that tll~ plumbers were at her house at least half a day yesterday, They fuially decid~d to remove two o: three pipes in the basement of the hous~, to seie if that could possibly be the reason for water still trickling in bathroom, kitchen and into laundry roorn. They were amazed to find that the pipes were olofiied v,ith pebble.s, trash, mud aild other debris. This fact is relutod to you primarily to v~rify that tl1e problem WAS THF. RESl.J1T OF THE SEVERED LINE IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, NOT ANY PRE-EXISTING PROBLEMS. I wn not an en¢neer or D plumber, but it is just plain ,onunon sense that when w~ter contaminated, with this debris is pump~d u.nder pressure imo pipeo in a house that are of much reduced diameter than in the mWJ:1 lines, ~t the end of the pipeline system, blockages will almost always occur, Why were the !im,s ill the house 11ot inspected and cleaned on the first nip????'? In the mean tim~, after ewer 6 trips to the house over a two or three month period, the inco11Venience of having water at low pressure, or cut off during fl)! these "repairs", Wt!S endured by my mother. Again, Ms. Bellnett, Mr. Hwnphrey, Mr. Hagemeyer, how would you like it if this happeued at your mother's ho,1se 01 your own????????????? I doubt seriously if any of you would stand for this blatant disrega.rd for the Agreemc-nt, the inconvenience, or the !ftck of concen1, when the problem was obviously caused by someone else.
I plan to return to the farm tomorrow, Novt,;tnber 22, :2000, l hope to find adequate water piessure through.out the bou~e and the fann buildings. I will be personally monitorini these sites for ,everal days. I will probably go through the restoration punch list and observe the final installotion of wells and pipelines. Additions to the punch list will be related to HSI Geotrans, Inc,, Arl!Ulta, GA, So far, the remediation process has ouly brought decreased property ~.v11luation, a w11ter problem that seems impossible to remedy, and the potential for erosion iilld soil p1oblenis along the pipeline. I seriously d\Jubt any relief or chauges will occur durJng tile remainder of th.is Agreement--These a-:tions have oaly brought u.& problems, NO SOLUTIONS.
Sir,~eroly,
,,,'>IJ~ '71r .. ,7,.lle7
Oary M. flil!
250 Old TyTy Road Tel. [phone]; Work 229-386-3215 Tifton, GA 3 ! 794-6607 Cc: Todd Hag~meyer; Lee HWJ1µhrey
. . . ••• • ·REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION
FACT SHEET UPDATE
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM
SITE
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
_ _ _ _ _ _ July 2000
This fact sheet 1s one m a sequence of notices prepared to keep the public informed. This fact sheet is not to be
considered as a technical document although the information it contains is based on technical materials.
INTRODUCTION
The Remedial Design for treatment of contami-
nation in groundwater from the GE/Shepherd
Farm Site has been completed in accordance
with the September 1995 Record of Decision.
The Remedial Design includes both the GE
plant property as well as the Shepherd Farm
Subsites.
BRIEF HISTORY
Groundwater contamination in the form of or-
ganic compounds was first discovered in June
1986 when four monitoring wells were installed
,.rou11ti ihe D1 y Sludge hnpoundmeni on ihe GE
property.
In 1988/89 the Environmental Protection Agency
conducted site inspections and investigations to
assess the contamination at the GE facility and
Shepherd Farm property. Results of the analy-
ses revealed the presence of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) in the soil and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was the
most common contaminant present in the
groundwater with the greatest concentrations
found along a failed drain line located on the GE
property which has been replaced. All under-
ground storage tanks and the contaminated
soils associated with them have been removed.
FINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN -GE Subsite
An Accelerated Groundwater Remediation Sys-
tem was installed on the GE property in 1997
and has been operating since that time to
recover and treat the most heavily contaminated
groundwater.
The groundwater recovery system currently
operating on GE property has four extraction
wells. The new system will have five monitoring
wells. '.
In the 1995 Record of Decision, EPA proposed
to treat the groundwater by in-situ bioremedia-
tion and extraction/treatment of contaminated
groundwater via air stripping and carbon adsorp-
tion with discharge of the treated groundwater to
Bar Fork Creek. An Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) will be issued this month
modifying the selected remedy.
A 12-'NP.P~ treatability st•Jdy '!.'as ccndu::tad to
determine if in-situ bioremediation would work
on the GE property. The study found that the
PCE would not completely break down despite
the addition of various nutrients. Therefore full-
scale implementation of in-situ bioremediati~n
would perform poorly in the field and was not
recommended. The ESD also changed the
discharge of treated groundwater, instead of
discharging into Bat Fork Creek, the treated
water would be pumped back into the GE plant
for use as process water in their current opera-
tions. The selected remedy will extract ground-
w~ter and treat the water to remove voes and
metals to meet EPA's remediation goals. Dia-
gram # 1 on the following page features the .
extent of the volatile organic compounds in
groundwater on the GE property.
The operation of the groundwater extraction
system_will be relatively automated. Weekly
1nspectIons will likely be required by operating
personnel to ensure that the system is main-
tained at peak efficiency. The system will have
an automatic fail-safe control/alarm in the event
of a malfunction or other incident.
•
£.rqla11a1io,1
Monitor well location wt July 1997 • TVOC value (ppb) Indicated
Resld1nll.1I well locallon w/ July 1997 ~ TVOC valua (ppb) Indicated
G.oproba loca11on wl 1998
• TVOC value (ppb) Indicated
75 -'\ TVOC laoconc:enlfaUon con1oura fppb)
• • 1994 data used
i
!
I ··7'-
. -_ _/ ___ -
0 500
r----s;;J
SCALE IN FEET
..
•
Site monitor well with PCE concentration (in ppb) in July 1997
Residential well w·1Ih PCE concentration (in ppb) in July 1997
Geoprobe locations with PCE concentrations (in ppb) in May 1998
• Sde mon·11or well with PCE concentration (in ppb) in June 1998
5~ PCE concentration contours (in ppb)
Extent of TVOC in groundwater for
baseline conditions 1,000 k-=~ ___ _::..::;c:.::.:.:.:_:.::::--"--------l I GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
Extent of PCE in groundwater
at the Shepherd Farm Subsite
t1c,u,u
600
Shepherd Farm Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
•
After installation of the recovery system has
been completed, startup activities will be per-
formed. The startup and shakedown period for
the system will be approximately two to three
weeks from the time of construction completion.
After everything has been checked out, the sys-
tem will be in full operation.
FINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN -Shepherd Farm
Subsite
The groundwater recovery system will be similar
to that at the GE Subsite. However, the system
at the Shepherd Farm Subsite will have four
extraction wells which will be connected to a
header piping which will transport the ground-
water to the treatment building located at the GE
Subsite. Diagram #2 features the extent of the
PCE in groundwater at the Shepherd Farm
Subsite.
Treatment of the extracted contaminated
groundwater from the GE and Shepherd Farm
Subsites will take place on the GE property and
will consist of air stripping to remove organic
compounds and granular activated carbon to
treat the vapor from the stripper unit. Ground-
water monitoring will be performed to assess the .
progress of the remedy and determine when the
remediation goa1s\1ave' been achieved .. Aiotal
of 21 wells will be sampled on a quarterly basis
for the first three years, semi-annually for two
years, and annually thereafter until remediation
goals have been met. In addition, residential
wells and surface water/sediment samples will
be taken. Treated water from the system will be
sampled quarterly and the treated vapor from
the air stripper will tie sampled to make sure air
quality standards are being met.
.• .,1, I . • ~,
SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST
Construction of the groundwater extraction and
treatment system began on July 11, 2000.
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
If you have technical questions concerning this
Site, please contact Giezelle Bennett, EPA Site
Project Manager at 1-800-435-9233, or if you
need more information, please contact Diane
Barrett, Community Involvement Coordinator at
the same toll free number.
-
•
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
Copies of all documents developed during the
Superfund process for this Site are ho'used in
the Information Repository located at:
Henderson County Public Library
301 North Washington Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Please be sure to review these documents for
more details.
Region 4
•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
A~anta, Georgia 30303
·-,, -_,.
\ i
f ' 1· ·, ,,~•oo 1
;· North Sfte Management Branch I J. ti
Diane Barrett, Communfty Involvement Coard.
Giezelle Bennett, Remedial Project Manager'-. , , . ·. _./ .... :. ~~ ,..,..
Official Business RECE!VJ:"
:JUL 312000
SUPERFUNO ~l::CTION
Penafty for Private Use $300
S/F
PUBLIC INFO. ASST.
, N.C. SUPER FUND SECTION
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES
, P. 0. BOX 27687
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150
RALEIGH NC 27611-7687
GESF 533
~, -Lil; II, ,ii,11,; I Ii, .. 1,1, .. ,11 .. ll ,ii ii ill,"' ,1,1,iil,,1 .. H
May 18, 2000
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
' ....... '
30/0 Spartanburg f-lwy., P.O. Box 4506
!tendersonvilfe, NC 28793
Re: GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
Hill Property Access Agreement
Dear Ms. Bennett:
GE Lighting 'Systems, Inc.
The purpose of this letter is to request the assistance of the US EPA in obtaining
a property access agreement for the property now owned by Gary Hill on the
Shepherd Farm Site. General Electric and HSI Geotrans have made repeated
attempts to obtain a signed agreement for the completion of the groundwater
remediation system. We have not had success, and are now at a point where
this could interfere with the project schedule.
Attached is a chronology of attempts made to reach an agreement. We would
greatly appreciate any help in this matter.
Sincerely,
~~S¥
Oanet S. Boyer, PE
EHS Manager
cc: Todd Hagemeyer, HSIG
David Mattison, NC DENR
• •
Chronology of Gary Hill Access Agreement
Approximately May 1997 -GE obtained access agreement from Mrs. Bettie Hill
for pre-design sampling.
June 9, 1997 -Theron Mabry notified Todd Hagemeyer, HSIG, verbally that
Gary Hill now owns some of the property.
September 29, 1998 -HSIG faxed a map to Gary Hill showing groundwater
plume and indicated the anticipated area of groundwater remediation. Todd
Hagemeyer had a phone conversation; Gary Hill expressed his concerns for the
impact his property may have experienced from the pre-design sampling on his
property and soil excavation at Shepherd's property. Gary stated his displeasure
with groundwater remediation system on his property, including underground
piping.
October 5, 1999 -HSIG wrote letter to Gary Hill's attorney, Theron Mullinax,
describing the proposed design and stated our desire to work closely together "to
minimize disruptions to the property operations." EPA was cc'd.
February 22, 2000 -Had meeting at HSIG's office in Atlanta to discuss
proposed design and access agreement. Again stated our desire to work
together to "minimize disruptions to the property operations." Gary Hill stated
that he did not like the access agreement that his mother (Bettie Hill) had signed
with GE. When asked (repeatedly) what he would like to propose that the
agreement contain, he deferred to GE to draft the agreement. His only input was
that GE should "dig deep", he wanted "time limits", he wanted to be the main
point of contact.
Based on Gary Hill's comments from the meeting, the design was modified. The
underground piping has been moved. An extraction well was moved. A new
gravel access road is proposed in the field to limit and control traffic to recovery
wells. A new fence entrance was offered.
March 9, 2000 -GE sent a draft or proposed access agreement to Gary Hill.
March 17, 2000 -HSIG sent a letter to Gary Hill with data that he requested.
(schedule, remediation goals, maps, etc.)
March 21, 2000 -GE faxed, at Gary Hill's request, a copy of the agreement that
his mother signed for connection to city water supply.
2
• •
April 18, 2000 -GE sent a letter to Gary Hill stating that if no progress towards
an agreement was made by May 1, GE would seek help from US EPA.
April 29, 2000 -Janet Boyer phoned Gary Hill to discuss the letter. Gary Hill
indicated that his attorney was working on a response to the draft agreement
(sent March 9). He again made statements about GE "digging deep". It was
explained to him, again, that it had not been GE policy to pay cash for access,
but rather to compensate in property improvements. He was also asked, again,
to at least name a price so we could begin negotiations. He refused and said
that we should hear from his attorney soon. He stated that if US EPA took over
the negotiations, they wouJd have to pay for access as well.
There has been no communication since April 19.
3
tti:.
GEOTRANS
A TETRA TECH COMPANY
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
--080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, Georgia
30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
May 17, 2000
\ ~ ~.\'-1-1 ~ :~-1 ~
1 l""c.~ (" "--
L. ~J..~ 1',c<,JS ~I {
Reference: Groundwater Modeling Results
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI Geo Trans Project No. N754-034
RECEIVED
MAY 18 2000
SUPERFUND SECTION
Dear Ms. Bennett:
At your request, HSI Geo Trans Inc. (HSIG) has completed model simulations of
alternative groundwater remediation scenarios at the GE Subsite. The groundwater
model presented in the March 2000 Final Design Report was used to generate the
scenarios. A total of 11 scenarios are presented. Scenarios have different impacts to the
bunched arrowhead habitat (measured as reduction in baseflow), VOC mass removal
rates, and VOC mass containment. Results are presented in the enclosed figures and
tables.
GE and HSIG look forward to the Monday, May 22 meeting at your office to
discuss these results. In the meantime, please feel free to call Janet Boyer at 828-693-
2505 or me if you have any questions or comments.
cc: Tom Augspurger, FWS
Janet Boyer, GELS
Shirley Denton, BRA
Lynne France, COM
David Mattison, NC DENR
P:\GE'OOCS\EPA\Ep, 71S.wpd
Sincerely,
r~~
Todd Hagemeyer, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
Associate
Table I. Comparison of groundwater remediation alternatives at the GE Subsite.
AGRS I 0% Baseflow Reduction in BAH 15% Baseflow Reduction in BAH
Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7
Total Extraction Rate (gpm) 25 4 IO 18 7.5 14.5 23
Total Number of Extraction Wells 4 2 4 4 3 5 5
Water Table MW-27 0.03 0.01 0. 16 0.18 0.01 0.17 0. I 9
Drawdown (ft) MW-28 0.2 I 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.08
BAPZ-3 0.26 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bunched arrowhead 37% 10% 10% 10% 15% 15% 15%
Baseflow habitat (BAH) • Reduction Large wetland on west 10% 2% 21% 23% 3% 24% 27%
side of Bat Fork Creek
Capture ofTVOCs Mass• 68% 15% 35% 51% 26% 53% 64%
Initial TVOC Mass Removal Rate (LbsNr)** 140 28 31 18 45 48 27
Notes:
Based on baseline TVOC mass distribution measured in 1997.
Based on model extraction rates and estimated TVOC concentrations at individual wells.
•
Table 1. Comparison of groundwater remediation alternatives at the GE Subsite. (continued)
25% Baseflow Reduction in BAH 50% Baseflow Reduction in BAH
Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 Scenario 11
Total Extraction Rate (gpm) 14 19.5 43 60
Total Number of Extraction Wells 3 6 9 12
Water Table MW-27 0.02 0.18 0.32 0.34
Drawdown (ft) MW-28 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.27
BAPZ-3 0.17 0.18 0. I 8 0.36
Bunched arrowhead 25% 25% 25% 50%
Baseflow habitat (BAH)
Reduction Large wetland on west 6% 26% 49% 52%
side of Bat Fork Creek
Capture ofTVOCs Mass• 45% 63% 92% 98%
Initial TVOC Mass Removal Rate (LbsNr)** 85 78 67 168
Notes:
Based on baseline TVOC mass distribution measured in 1997.
Based on model extraction rates and estimated TVOC concentrations at individual wells.
•
Table 2. Calculation of representative TVOC concentrations at individual recovery wells.
PARAMETER RW-1 RW-2 RW-3 RW-4 RW-5 RW-6 RW-7 RW-8 RW-9 RW-10 RW-11 RW-12
Q(.;:s (ug/1)
Benzene 1.1 3.9 3.7 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bromodichloromethane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chloroform 5.8 2.0 1.6 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,2-Dichloroethane 26.7 110.5 62.4 82.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ir-is-1,2-Dichloroethene 133.6 221.0 78.7 91.1 29.9 93.0 93.0 49.2 11.8 11.8 14.8 14.8
rans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0 2.5 5.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 1,2-0ichloropropane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Methylene Chloride 5.3 26.3 5.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 etrachloroethene 1169.0 1399.3 710.5 1079.8 178.6 295.0 295.0 388.0 123.6 123.6 140.8 140.8
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Trichloroethene 6.7 36.0 46.8 89.5 8.7 28.0 28.0 13.8 27.0 27.0 33.8 33.8
1vinyl Chloride 1.3 0.0 2.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
i {VCn ... s (ug/1) 1 6 180 918 1o,1 '" 416 416 464 16: 162 189 189
Data llsed in Calc11lation for Each Proposed Recovery Well
Data Set a <11 a Q Q B (2) B B B B B B B
Representative Data Points RW-1 RW-2 RW-3 RW-4 MW-8 MW-8 MW-8 MW-8 MW-14 MW-14 MW-14 MW-14
MW-9 MW-9 MW-9 MW-9 MW-14A MW-14A MW-14A MW-14A
MW-20 MW-18 MW16 MW16 MW16 MW16
MW-20B MW-23 MW-16A MW-16A MW-16A MW-16A
MW-21 MW-58 MW-22A MW-22A
MW-38
MW-59 • llil1..:
(1) Q = Quarterly data from July 1997 to September 1999.
(2) B = Baseline data from July 1997 (except MW-16A. MW-65, and MW-66 which were collected in June 1998).
AGRSmod.tables2.xls
~ -N-
I (
0
RW-1 (!I 5 Recovery well
extraction rate (gpm)
,~ Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
TITLE
Scenario 1
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
-HSI CHECKEDBY RTH FIGURE:
~-GEOTRANS~M~MTE=o~~+,c~L ___ __J -4 AT£TRATECHCOMPANY FILENAME AGRS.WOR
DATE 5116/00
1
"~,
'""
'"'~-"'"'
(
Wetlands,"\ -~-~
'"-;
RW-l Recovery well
0 2 extraction rate (gpm)
,,,,---Baseline PCE
concentration contour
0 500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
D
0
~ ,,
Scenario 2
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HS I CHECKED BY RTH
-OFl:AFTEDBY TCL ~ GEOTRANS ",",CE-'-N'-"AME"--'-+-AG_R_S_mod-1.W-O"'R,---1
--A TETRA TECH COMPANY OAT'E 5/16100
FIGURE;
2
'"",~
~"-,
'"" \ ~
~ -N-
I (
o
OS; Wetlands '-\;
'
RW-1 ® 2 Recovery well
extraction rate (gpm)
,,,---Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
~
',,,"-,,'-( "
Scenario 3
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
-HSI CHECKEOBY RTH
~-GEOTRANS DRAFTEDBY TCL -◄ ATETII.ATECHCOMPANY FILENAME AGRSmod2.WOR
OATE 5/16100
FIGURE:
3
RW-9 c:::;
-· 5
",'--~
Wetlands, ::\
'-;~
·-~~",,,,
~ ~~,
~ -N-
I (
0
RW-S Recovery well
® 5 extraction rate (gpm)
, ,,,---Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
Scenario 4
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI ~c_,,_c,_,o_,--lY _RT_H ____ FIGURE:
OR,&.FTEO av TCL 4 ~ GEQTRANS F"-'NAME AGRSmod2.WOR :11>:t ~ A TETRA TECH COMPANY DATE S/J/OO
I~________../
\---------\
\ "\ I-J
'
'~ ~
"~
\ \
'
Wetlands. '<
~~ ' ~' /1 . 1/.✓ JI ~ ~,, '/2
I "·, ~
L __ c.LR~i---;~_:::::;::::,.__ ______ .L.::='.:':'.:· SS:~' Wetlands RW-1 R ..:,..~"'-'"---'"-------------__j
~ z.s ecovery well ~ -N-
I (
0
,,,.--
extraction rate (gpm)
Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
Scenario 5
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
~ -N-
I (
0
RW-l Recovery well
0 2 extraction rate (gpm)
,,,,,.---Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
Scenario 6
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI CHECKEOBY RTH
DRAFTED BY TCL ◄ GEOTRANS FILE,AME AGRSmod2.WOR :19lit> A TETRA TECH COMPANY DATE 5/16/00
FIGURE:
6
~
0
,..,----------~
i I
' ' ' ' \. -.-r ..
~',,
~~~
O~-Wetlands ~ I
r
(
RW-5 ~ 5 Recovery well
extraction rate (gpm)
,,,----Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
Scenario 7
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
-HSI CHECl<EDBY RTH FIGURE:
~ G,!;9!~~~ ~::~," :~~Smod2WOR 7
DATE 5/3/00
'"",~ <\
'"",,, \\
~ -N-
I
0
Wetlands, \0:,
"~,
'¾,,
RW-7 Recovery well
® 5 extractio·n rate (gpm)
Baseline PC E
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
"', ',
~"~,
, Wetlands
II
'',--'"-~"""----.Y--------------
TITLE
Scenario 8
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI i:c::"'::c'::::'::"::'+.:R:.:.THc_ __ _., FIGURE:
OAAFTED BY TCL 8 ::-GEQTRANS FILENAME AGRSmod1.WOR <!l!h -A TTI1lA TECH COMPANY DATE S/l 6/00
0
r
(
RW-1 ® 2 Recovery well
extraction rate (gpm)
,~ Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
Scenario 9
LOCATION
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
-HSI CHECKEOBY RTH FIGURE:
-:;-;,, G~,!~~~ ~=~EBY :~~Smod2WOR 9
DATE 5116100
'
~ -N-
I
0
',
Wetlands ""' ~ ",
RW-S Recovery well
® 5 extraction rate (gpm)
Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
~'
'\ '\
TITLE
LOCATION
W~9 C:J
10
-11
i
W-12
Pl
Wetlands
Scenario 10
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HS I CHECKED BY RTH
DRAFTED OY TCL
FIGURE:
10
,;------7
\ I r-'
-10
I,
1..,,,-P"'-..,:~ i;, -11
' ' . :., . .,
' •• ""~ .... f"
~ ~
·. "~
Wetlands
Wetlands
'--·,
~
-N-
I
0
r
RW-5 ® 5 Recovery well
extraction rate ( gpm)
Baseline PCE
concentration contour
500 1000
SCALE IN FEET
'--.::: ~
LOCATION
" "
Scenario 11
GE Subsite E -, ast Flat Rock NC
......,..._ HSI C"'CKEDBY RTH ,
:ft: 4 ~,!;OTRANS DRAFTED BY TCL
RA TECH COMPANY FILE NAME A GRSmodall.WOR
5/16100
FIGURE:
11
P.'.G~100pcMGRSmod.tables.x!s,Ag.n, .
a, 180 -• ns -.-BAH Baseflow Reduction = 10%
er.:: 160 ~BAH Baseflow Reduction= 15% -ns -a-BAH Baseflow Reduction = 25% -> 140 -0 ■ AGRS E 120 • Full Containment a,
er.:: -I.,
ti) ~100
ti) ti) ns .c ..
:E -80 -.
(.) -0 60
> .
-
1--40
. ........ -'-. ns ----:.:; 20 C: .. -
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TVOC Mass Containment (%)
TITI.E·
Summary of model results
LOCATION:
GE/Shepherd Fann Site, East Flat Rock, NC
CHECKED : PAW FIGURE:
~HSI DRAFTED: RTH ■ 11111 ?!~:CH~~~ ALE: anrsmod. t:ables2.xls 12
DATE: 05-17-00
.JA.MES Bi HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR .:"~
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
March 31, 2000
Mr. R. Todd Hagemeyer, P.G,
HIS Geo Trans
l 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Bldg. l 00, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
NOR;e:AROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT 'AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
RE: Right of Way Encroachment Agreement
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Mr. Hagemeyer:
Please find attached the signed Addendum to Right of Way Encroachment Agreement
between North Carolina Department of Transportation and General Electric Lighting
Systems.
If you require further assistance in obtaining this encroachment agreement, please feel
free to contact me at [phone], extension 349.
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Attachment
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH. NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX 919-71 S-3605 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER · 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
ADDENDue)o RJGHT OF WA y ENCROACI--L\!E. AGREE/v!ENT BETWEEN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TR.A.NSPORTATION AND (:,.,._.,_H~\ [ l"-<-t,,<--l.-\:jkT 'j ~,t...,._,,
?arsc:ant to the Memorandum of Agr_eement between North Carolina Department of Envirc:::-:oent and Natural Resources (DENR) and North Carolina Department ofTranspor.ation (DOT) dated J.c._7uary 25, 1999, ("the MOA") and in connection with the application of Gs,..,.,_\ qL~T,: ~ L-·.5-s,·,~ $111/-,,.,_, (hereinafter, "the Applicant") dated t._.'.,, 1\ 2--for a Right::-\Va} btroachment Agreement for the Piping of Treated Effluent Encroa2hments on Primary and Se:::;cary Highways (hereinafter, "the Application"), the undersigned DENR employee/official anest:s ~ follows:
DENR has examined the Application and has reviewed the information provided.
v,,+.-ea./el :. DENR will designate and permit the specific discharge ofEreali0 effluent at the specific dis;",-:::· pair.:; Reced en the Application. on -&If<:. -1-t-c:-»-l-me"+ 4?ac, (1+~ c1:;, ,w+<ed <'."-t"'\ -+w::. Ai,l'b-Q>{:;o,,
__ The Applicant has proved to the DENR employee/official signing this Addendum that it is eco:-.::-:oicaily infeasible to remediate and/or discharge in any other manner other than by the means set fo,_': in t~e Application.
:=::..;RT,-i~R.v!ORE, .~.pplicant, DENR and DOT agree that all terms and conditions of the MOA 2nd the _.:._?pli:2tion shall gove:-n the encroachment described in the Applic.::nion.
~,is the Bo day of /)71112.CH ·, 2,00 O '
(App!ica~ :-c.1~059)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NA TUR.AL RESOCRCES
BY <it-cJr 2c.fl &
TITLE: ;ea}_ &derc / 12lJr2/,~r\ /J=rich '
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TR.A.NSPORTATION
BY:
TITLE: --------------
APPLICANT:
(Print or Type Name)
ttf1
GEOTRANS
A TETRA TECH COMPANY
Mr. David Mattison
NC DENR, Superfund Division
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
• 1080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, Georgia
30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
March 23, 2000 RECc.lVe.D
MAR 2 4 2000
SUPERfUND s1:.cnoN
Reference: Application fo Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI GeoTrans Project No. N754-034
Dear Mr. Mattison:
Enclosed please find a copy of the application for right-of:way
encroachment agreement sent to the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) on February 11, 2000. Also enclosed is the response from NCDOT
dated February 23, 2000 indicating that we must first obtain proper certification
from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR).
Please review the application and obtain the proper NCDENR
authorization to satisfy the requirements of the addendum to right-of~way
encroachment agreement.
Thank you for your assistance in this approval. Please feel free to call me if
you have any questions.
Sincere!/
~4d/4
Philip Weeber, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Todd Hagemeyer, HSI GeoTrans
P. IGEIOOCS\EPA\tlaJenrt)1 .WPO
.,
GA
~CDENR
JAMES 8. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
,.._.,. __ ._·:::.~·:· '.-;~,·
• ·-~· "'. ,-:,,/2'. . NOR-I CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
March 13, 2000
Memorandum
TO: Landon Davidson
Groundwater Section
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
FROM: . ',ff" David B. Mattison, CHMM t"
RE:
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
Final ( I 00%) Remedial Design &
Remedial Action Work Plan for Groundwater
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
HSI Geo Trans, on behalf of General Electric, has completed the Final (I 00%)
Remedial Design & Remedial Action Work Plan for Groundwater at the General
ElectridShepherd Farm National Priorities List (NPL) Site. The document being
reviewed is attached.
Please distribute this document to the appropriate sections and submit any comments
to the NC Superfund Section. We would like to have the views and permitting
requirements of the Groundwater Section and the Water Quality Sections by March
27, 2000.
If you or your staff have any questions, please feel free to call me at (9 I 9) 733-280 I,
extension 349.
Attachment
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE 919-733·4996 FAX 919-715·3605 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLE0/10% POST•CONSUMER PAPER
•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES 8. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. R. Todd Hagemeyer, P. G.
HSI Geotrans
l 080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Bldg. l 00, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
February 23, 2000
Reference: Right of Way Encroachment Agreement
General Electric Lighting Systems, Inc.
UG Non-potable Groundwater Pipeline
US 176, SR 1807, SR1809
Dear Mr. Hagemeyer:
RECEIVED
MAR 2 4 2000
SUPERFUND SECTION
DA YID McCOY
SECRETARY
A preliminary review of site plans for the referenced project has been performed by this
office. · We offer the following comments:
I. The applicant is required to obtain proper certification from the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) before the encroachment application will
be considered by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). See
attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) forms.
2. The MOA provides that only the piping of treated effluent within NCDOT highway rights
of way shall be considered for approval.
3. In addition to DENR certification, applicant shall submit one (1) original and three (3)
copies of right of way encroachment form R/W 16. l C, entitled Piping of Treated Effluent
on Primary and Secondary Highways, to appropriate District Engineers office.
Instructions for submittal are given on sheet 4 of5 ofR/W 16.lC. A copy of this form is
attached.
4. One encroachment agreement should be used to cover all state road routes that will be
encroached on, over or under. From the plans you submitted to this office, we have
identified that US 176, Roper Rd. (SR 1807), and Tabor Rd. (SR 1809) will be affected.
Phone: (H28) 891.79 I I Division 14, District I
4!42 Haywood Road, llorsc Shoe, NC 28742 rax: [phone]
•
Mr. Todd Hagemeyer, P. G.
February 23, 2000
Page 2
•
Upon receipt of the aforementioned items, we shall continue our review.
If any additional information or assistance is needed regarding these comments, please
contact Ms. Teresa J. Charnell, of my staff, or myself at 828-891-7911.
EAG/TJC
attachments
Sincerely,
~ Edward A. Green, P. E.
District Engineer
ROt.:TE :5 f< 18<>7 PROJECT ________ COL;,."TY OF Ht.•o EL;fou
-----0------------.1--------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-AND-
RIGHT OF WAY E;-;CROACHME\T AGREE~IE\T
FOR THE PIPING OF TREATED EFFLUE;-;T o;,; PR!lvl-\R Y AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
THIS AGREEMENT, rrodc and entered into this the day of ____ 19_ by and between the Dqianmcnt ofTransporrntion (DOT), pany of the first; and parry of the second pan.
WITNESS ETH
TH.-\ T WHERE.-\S, the party of the second pan desires to encroach on rbc right of way of the public road designated as Route :5> Ii: I Bo.") located Q<..o-~ jl.,.__ j-...,h «-f lu..,T f1.;:t R.,J; with the
follov:ing: ----------------------------------
WHEREAS. it is to the rnatcrial advantage ofrhc party ofrhc second pan 10 effect this cncroachmcm. and rhc pany ofrhc first pan and in the exercise ofaurhoriry conferred upon it by stature. is willing 10 per.nit the cncroachmcm within the !units of chc right of wo.y as indicated. subject to the conditions of this agrccmc:-n. and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between DOT and the Di,·ision of En,·ironmcnt and Natural Resources (DENR) dared January 25. I 999. and the laws and regular ions of this State and the instructions comJ.incd herein:
NO11·. THEREFORE IT IS AGREED that the party of the first pan hereby gr.ints to the pany of the second pan. ancr appro,·al by DENR pursuant to the MOA. the right and privilege to rr.ake this cncroachmcot as shown on ar.achcd plan shcer(s). specifications and special provisions which arc made a pan hereof upon the fol!owing conditions. to wit:
That the installation. operation. and maintenance ofrhc above described facility will be accomplishe<I
in accordance with the party of the first pan's latest POLICIES AND PROCEDl.:RES FOR ACCOMMOD-'. TING UTT LIT TES ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. and such revisions and arncndmcms thereto as may be in effect at the date of this agreement. Information as to these policies and procedures may be obtained rrom the Division Engineer or State Utility Agent of the pany ofrhe first pan.
That the said party of the second pan binds and obligates himself to install and maintain the encroaching facility in such safe and proper condition that it will not interfere with or endanger 1r.ivcl upon said highway. nor obstruct nor interfere with the proper maintenance thcrccf. 10 reimburse the party of the first pan for the cost incurred for any repairs or maintenance to its roadways, drainages and structures ncceSS.1.f)' due to the installation and cxisrcncc of the facilities of the pany ofrhc second pan. and ifat any time the pany ofrhc first pan shall require the removal ofor changes in the location of1hc said facilities, 1ha1 the said pany of the second 0pan binds himself. his successors and assigns, 10 promptly remove, 10 airer. or close down the said facilities, in order 10 conform 10 the said requirement and laws of this S1a1c. without any co'1 ro the party ofrhc first pan.
Thar the pany of the second pan agrees to provide during construction of the cncroachmcm and any subsequent maintenance and/or repair proper signs. signal lights, flagmen and other warning devices for the pro1ecrion of traffic in conformance with the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
I of 5
Hi~hwavs and Amendments or Supplements thereto. Information as ro the abo\'C rule, and regulation, may be obtained ti-om rbe DOT Divisi.n~incer. • That the par.y ofrhc .second pm hereby agrees to indemnify and sa,·e harmless the pany oftbe first pan ti-om all damages and claims for d:J.m.1ge that m.1y arise by reason of the installation. ope~arions and maintenance oi this encroachment. This will include any and all third pany claims for d:J.m.1gcs and claims rrom adjoining land owners. businesses. etc. that may be affected by said encroachment :icti\·irics. The encroaching party is responsible for posting a bond. the amount ro be scr by DOT and DE:\R . which will be usl!d to cover :iny expenses. l:n1,;.suits. judgments etc. rcl:Hcd ro the cncro.:icbing acti\·ity. Ir is clearly understood by the party of the second part that the party of the rirsr part ,viii assume no responsibility for any damage that may Ix caused to such facilities. within the highway rights of way limits. and .:my arc::is oursidc those limits that arc :iffccrcd by said cncroo.chmcnt acti\·itics in carr:,-ing out its construction and maintenance operations. DQT may allow piped water across its fee-owned right-of-way and nor be in violation of any and all applicable cn,·ironmenral laws and DENR 'D\\'Q regulations and \'PDES permit conditions. Piping across DOT right of way that DOT does not own in rce will require the written appro,·al Q.f all2'![Qining land owners robe obtained by rhe encroaching party. Thar the party of the second part agrees r□ restore all areas disturbed during installation and maintenance to the sarisfacrio□ of the Di,·ision Engineer of the party of the first pan. The party oi the second pan agrees ro exercise ever:,...· rc::isonab\e prec:i.utio□ du1ing construction and rm.inrcn:ince to preve:1t eroding of soit si!rin<s or pollution of rivers, :-;m::l!TlS. l:ik~:-;. rcser,;oirs. other water impour.dmcnts. ground 5ur::lces or orhc:-propeny: or pollution ofrhe air. The party ofrhe second part shall comply at all rimes and be responsible for such cornpliance. cornpliance v,irh applicable rules and regulations of DE:-. 'R. and with ordinances and regulations of \·arious counties. municip.'.llities and other offic\:.il agencies relating ro pollution co□riol and prc\·cntioa that r..Jy be affccrcd in Jny w:iy by rhis encroach.meat activity. \\ "'nc□ any inst:111:nio□ or ~inre:-::111cc oper;:nion disturb'.\ the ground surface and the existing ground co\·cr. the: par.y of tbe :)econd p.1!'1 J.grees to r~movc and replace the sod or other.vise reestablish the gr:iss cover to meet rbe s.:nisfacrion oftbe DOT Division Enginc..::r. That the parry of 1he :)Ccond paii :1gre~s 10 assume the ac1u:il cost of :iny inspccrion of rhe work considered ro bt! necessary by the DOT Division En~inccr or DE\R rcprc~c~tJtivc pursu:m ro the \10.-\. Tnc p::i.ny of the second p::i.rt J.gre:.:s to :ibidc by Jny and :ill ~<PDES p(;ITTllts. DE\'R. rules or regu!ar:ons wd 2-.,y ~d all other applicable la"·s. Tn::it the pa11y of the sc::ond p::irt :1grc~s to h:ise Jvaibblc at rht.: cncroachlng site. Jt 3.U t~--n~s dt!ring construction. a copy of this agreement showing evidence of approval by the parties. DOT and DE\'R reserve the (lg.ht ro stop aU work unless e\·idcncc of ;ipprova! c:m be shown. Other documents may be required :o r::~in on-site as well .1s may be required by a rcprcscnr;uivc of DE~-R. The p;iny of the second p:irt J.grccs to give \1,-rirtcn notice to both the DOT Division Eng.in('~r and DWQ representative when all work contained herein has been completed. Thor in the case of noncompliance with rhe terms of this agreement by the pany of the second part. the party of the first part reserves the right to stop all work until the facility has been brougbt into cornpliancc or removed from the right of way at no cost to DOT. This can b,; done by any pmy. including a request by D2''R pursuant to their regulatory authority and the MOA at any time. for any reason. The party of the second part hereby covenants that any action pursuant to the allowed encroachment will not violate any law or environmental rules or standards applicable during the tcrtn of the encroachment. Any such violations will be the sole responsibility of the party of the second pm. DE?--iR will nor cite, file or hold DOT in violation of any state laws or regulations if caused by the action/discharge by the party oi the second pm. Abo, the parry oftbe second pan cs wholly liable for anv nro.,imarelv caused damages (i.e .. off sire ground water contamination. surface water contamination. erosion or siltation problems, ere.) that may occur due to the encroaching activity, regardless ii DOT is negligent for any reason in partly causing aoy said damages. DOT is entitled to any re-imbursement or payment of any costs incurred due to any problem or occurrence initially caused by tbe encroaching party, to be paid out ofrhe posted bond monies. 2 of 5
DOT has the specific right to end this agreement ar any time for J.Il;" rclson. This :.i~rccmcnt may be modified. with the consent of the panics. in writing. •
IN \VITNESS WHEREOF. cl of the panics to this agreement has caused the s:unc to be c~ccutcd the day and year first above written.
RECOMME'\DED BY:
Division Engineer
DEPART~!ENT OF TR.-'-''\SPORTATION
BY: ___________ _
Asst. Manager of Right of \Vay _ _,. TTEST OR WIT:-iESS:
Second Porry
3 of 5
\Vbcn the applic:rnt is a corpoliion or a municipalicy. this :igrccmcnt must h.thc corpor:Hc sc:1I :ind be :mcsrcd by rhc cori:>oration sc.,ry or by the cmrowcrcd ciry official. unkss i\·cr of corpor:irc sc::i! and attestation by the secretary or by the empowered City official is on file in the R.1lcigh office ofchc :.fan:igcr of Rig.ht of \Vay. In the space pro\·idcd in this agreement for execution. the n:unc of the corporation or municipality shall by tvpcd abo,-c the name. and title of all persons signing the agreement should be typed directly below their signature.
\\tbcn the applicant is not a corporJtion. then his signamrc must be wirncsscd by one person. The address should be included in this agrccmcm and the n:imcs of a!! persons signing the agrccmcm should be typed dircci:ty below their signature.
This agreement rTI.1..ISt be accompanied. in the form of an attachment. by plans or drawings showing the following applicable iniot1r.ation:
I. All roadways and r:J.mps.
1 Right of way lines and where applicable. the control of access lines.
3. location of the proposed encroachment. Location should be shown on the appropriate l!SGS i.'2~ k. quad map including !oc:irion of the disch.1rge. If this discharge involves piping across lands outside of DOT awned right of way. or to ex.isring sewer SJ-Stem-;, such written granc of authority must be attached.
4. Lengtb and rypc of encroachmenL
5. Location by highway sur,cy s,ation number. If station nwnbcr cannot be obtained. location should ti,: shown by distance !Tom idcntiffa.ble point. such as a bridge. ro:id. intersection. etc. (To assist in preparation ·of the encroachment pl;:i.n, the Dep;:i.nmcnt's roadwJy plans may be seen at the various Highway Division Offices. or at the R.1lcigh office).
6. Drain::ige structures or bridges if affected by cncroachrnenr.
7. Typical section indicating the pa\·errcnt design and width. a.nd the slopes. widths ;ind derails for eithe:-a curb and gutter or a shoulder and ditch section. whichcvc, is applicable.
8. Amount of rr.atc:ial to be rcmo,·cd and.'or placed on '.\COOT right oi way. if applicable.
9. Cross•se:tions of a!! grading oper:11ions. indic,:ning slope r:i.rio J.nd reference by st.:irion whe:-c applicable.
10. All pertinent dwinagc structures proposed. 'Include al! hydwuiic C::2::1. pipe ~izcs. structure de:.:iib :i.~d other rc!;J.tcd infoITT1.1tion.
11. Erosion and sediment control.
! 2. · Any special pro\·isions or specifications as to the perfor.n.ancc of the work or the mer hod of consm.iction rhat m:iy be required by the Depanment must be shown on a scr::i.r::ite sheet atrachcd lO 1hc enc:-oJchment agreement provided th.:it such inform.ation cannot be shown on p!ans or drJwings. 13. The Dq,anmem's Division Engineer must be given notice by the ::2pplic::int prior 10 acwa! staning oi· installation included in this agreement.
14. Method of handling traffic during consmiction where applicable.
15. Scale of plans. north arrow. etc.
16. Copies of all applicable permits issued for the installation . operation and maintenance of the encroaching facility and any other permits or authorizations as rmy be necessary.
\ 7. Seal :i.nd signawre of the Registered Professional Engineer in direct charge of the design. instalbtion.
opcr.:nion and maintenance of the encroaching facility.
IS. Posting for an appropriate bond to ensure payment by pany of the second part for any compensable violarions it rr.ay incur pursuant to its encroaching activities. Such bond must be submitrcd in a form acceptable to DOT, prior to the grant of any encroachment.
19. The discharge ti-om the encroachment must be shown. \Vncrc applicable. the encroaching party must firs! obtain the necessary permits for such discharge and rmkc copies available to the Division
Engineer.
20. All plans and the encroachment must adhere to the dictates of the :v10A between DOT and DE:-SR dated January 25, 1999, that provides for such encroachments on DOT right of way.
21. The encroaching party must obtain a copy of the agreement and instructions from the DOT Division
Engineer. Tnc encroaching party supplies all necessary information and returns such to DOT. DOT will review and if approved, forward such to the responsible DE'.\R official for their review. Upon
4 of 5
STA TE OF '-:OR TH CAROLl'-:A
ROCTE US \'.] (., PROJECT _______ COL~TYOF.f\t.'-'D£'--C•..J ------•~----------'-
DEP.-\RTMEi',T OF TRANSPORTATION
-AND-
RIGHT OF \liAY E'-:CROACHME'-:T AGREE,IE'-:T
FOR THE PIPING OF TREATED EFFLUE'-:T
O'-: PRJ1'-L-\R Y AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
THIS AGREEMENT, mode and entered into this the __ day of ___ ~ 19_ by and
bm,:ccn the Dq1anmcnt ofTramponation (DOT). pany of the first; and parry
of the second pan,
WITNESS ETH
TH.-\ T WHERE.-\S, the party of the second pan desires to encroach on the right of way of the public road
designated as Route US l7, located 0<-4r :\h.c., j • ...,, ,£ E~,1" EI4• g,,.~ with the
following:----------------------------------
WHEREAS, it is to the motcrial advantage of the parry of the second pan to effect this encroachment.
and the party of rhc first part and in the exercise of authority conferred upon it by statute, is willing to permit
the cncroachmcnr within the limits ofrhc right of way as indicated. subject to the conditions of this agrccmcnr.
and the Mcmorandwn of .-\grccmcnt (MO.-\) between DOT and the Di,·ision of Em·ironmcnt and Natural
Resources (DE,.,-R) dated January 25. 1999. and the laws and regulations of this State and the instructions
conraincd herein:
N011·. THEREFORE IT IS AGREED that the pany of the t1r.;1 pan hereby grants to the pany of the
second part, a:icr appro,·al by DENR pur.;uant to the MOA. the right and privilege to make this encroachment
as shown on anachcd plan shcct(s). specifications and special provisions which arc made a pan hereof upon the
following conditions. tO wit:
That the installation. operation. and maintenance of the above described facility will be accomplished
in accordance with the pany of the first pan's latest POLICIES AND PROCEDl..iRES FOR
ACCOMMOD.-\ TfNG l.TTILITIES ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. and such re,isions and amendments
thereto as may be in effect at the date of this agreement. Information as to these policies and procedures may
be obtained Ii-om the Division Engineer or State Utility Agent of the party of the first pan.
That the said pany of the second part binds and obligates himself 10 install and maintain the
encroaching facility in such safe and proper condition that it will not interfere with or endanger travel upon said
highway, nor obstruct nor interfere with the proper maintenance thereof, to reimburse the party of the first pan
for the cost incurred for any repairs or maintenance {O its roadways, drainages and structures necessary due to
the installation and e,istenee of the facilities of the pany of the second part. and ifat any time the pany of the
tirst pan shall require the removal of or changes in the location of the said 'raeilitics, that the said pany of the
second 'ran binds himself, his successors and assigns, to promptly remove, to alter. or close down the said
facilities. in order to conform to the said requirem:::m and laws of this State, without any co,110 the party of the
first pan.
That the pany of the second pan agrees to provide during construction of the encroachment and any
subsequent maintenance and/or repair proper signs. signal lights, flagmen and other warning devices for the
protection oftraffie in conformonce with the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
l of 5
Hiohwovs ond ·Amendments or Supplements thereto. Information as to the abo_.rulcs ond rcgulotions rnay be obtained from tbc DOT Divi.ngineer. •
That the pony of the .second port hereby agrees to indemnify and sa,·e harmkss the pon:· oftbe first part from all damages ond clauns for damage that may arise by reason of the installation. ope:ation; and maintenance of this encroachment. This will include any and all third party clauns for damages and claims from adjoining land owners. businesses. etc. that may be affccrcd by s.:iid cncroachmcm acti\·itics.
The encroaching party is responsible for posting a bond. the amount to be set by DOT and DE\R. which will be us~d to cover any expenses. \a\1,,:suits. judgments etc. related to the cm:roacbing acti\·iry.
It is clearly understood by the party of the second part that the party of the tirn part will assume no rc.sponsibility for any damage that may~ caused to such facilities. within the highway rights ofwoy limits. and any areas outside those limits that arc affected by said encroachment activities in can;,ing our its construction and maintenance operations. DQT may allow piped water across its fee-owned right-of-way and not be in violation of any ond all applicable en,·ironmental laws and DENR 'D\\'Q regulations and \PDES permit conditions. Piping across DOT right of way that DOT docs not own in fee will require the written appro,·al Q[ all adioining bnd owners to be obtained by the encroaching party.
That the party of the second part agrees to restore all areas disturbed during installation and rnaintcnance to the S-'.ltisfaction oi the Di,·ision Engineer of the party of the first part. The party oi the second pan agrees to exercise every rc:1sonable prec1utio□ du1ing consrruction and maintenance ro prevent i:::roding of soil: silting or pollution of ri\·ers. streams. l:ikcs. reservoirs. mhcr warcr impour:dmcnts. ground sur.jces or orher property-. or pollution of the air. The panv of the second part shall comply at all times and be re,ponsiblc for such compliance. compliance with applicable rules and regulations of DE:--"R. and with ordinances and regulations of \·arious coumies. municipJ!iries and other offici:1! agencies r~lating ro pollution conrrol and prc\·cmio□ that rrt1y be affected in any way by this encroachment activiry. \\ be□ any insij.11:nioo or rr:::1ime:-::1ncc operation disturbs the ground surface and the existing ground co\·er, the parry ot tbe second p~n agrees 10 remove and rcp!:tc~ the sod or orher.vise rccs1ab!ish rhe g.r:iss cover to mccr rbc s.;irisfacrion ofrhe DOT Division Engineer.
Th:it the p:irry of the sc::ond pan ::igrecs to assume the acrua\ cosr of any inspccrion of rhc work considered to b~ necessary by th~ DOT Di\'ision Engineer or DE\R rcprc:-.cntarivc pursl!.:!m to the \-10..\. Tnc pony of the second part agrees to abide b:· any and oil \'POES permits. DE\R rules or regulations and any a:id all other applicable laws.
Tn:ir rhc p.::iny ofrhc second p.:111 ::i~rees to ha\·c avaibble .::it the cncro:iching site. ::it aU r~11es dL:ring consrrucrion. a copy of this agreement showing evidence of approval by the panics. DOT arld DE\R rcscr.:c the eight 10 swp aU work unless c\·idcncc of approval can be shown. Other documents m.:iy be required ro remain on-site as well as may be required by a rcprescntati,·c of DE\R.
The party of the second port agrees to give written notice to both the DOT Division Engineer and D\VQ representative when all work contained herein has been completed.
That in the case ofnoncomplioncc with the terms of this agreement by the party of the second part. the pony of the first part reserves the right to stop all work until the facility has been brought into compliance or removed from the right of way at no cost to DOT. This con be done by ony party. including a request by DDiR pursuant to their regulatory authority and the MOA at any time, for any rcoson.
The party of the second part hereby covenants that any action pursuant to the allowed encroachment will not violate any law or environmental rules or standards applicable during the term of the encroachment. Any such violations will be the sole responsibility of the party of the second part. DE;'iR will not cite. file or hold DOT in violation of any state laws or regulations if co used by the action/discharge by the party of the se·cond part. Also, the party of the second part is wholly Liable for any pro,imatclv caused darnagcs (i.e .. off site ground water contamination. surface water contamination. erosion or siltation problems, etc.) that rnay occur due to the encroaching activity. regardless if DOT is negligent for any reason in partly causing any said darr.agcs. DOT is entitled to any re-imbursement or payment of any costs incurred due to any problem or occurrence initially caused by the encroaching party. to be paid out of the posted bond monies.
2 of 5
" DOT has the specific right to end this agrccmcm at any 1imc for :iny rc:i:-on. This a~rccmcm may be
modified, wirh 1hc consent 9c panics. in writing. •
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. each of the panics to this agreement has caused the same to be executed the day and yc::ir first ::ibovc written.
RECOMME:\DED BY:
Division Engineer
DEPART:-.1E:siT OF TR.Ac'\SPORT A TION
BY: ___________ _
Assr. Man::igcr of Right of\Vay
ATTEST OR WITNESS:
Second Pany
FUR:.! R:W 16.lC (I ~!:.iy, 1997)
3 of 5
l'\STRUCTIO\S
\\-bcn the app!ic:int is a co.tion or a municipality. this agreement must. the corpor.:irc sc:il and be
:rncstcd by the corporation secretary or by the empowered ci1y official. unkss a wJi\·cr of corrior:Hc sc.'.ll and
actcstation by the sccrcr::uy or by the empowered Ciry official is on file in the R:ilcigh office of the \lan::igcr oi
Right of \Vay. In the space pro\·idcd in this agreement for execution. the nJ.mc of the corporation or
municipality shall by tvped abo,·e the name. and title of all persons signing the agreement should be typed
directly below their signature.
\\tbcn the app!ic:1.m is not a corporation. then his signacurc must be witnessed by one person. The address
should be included in this agreement and the names of all persons signing the :igrccmcm should be typed directly
below their signature.
This agreement must be accompanied. in the form of an auachmcm. by plans or drawings showing the fo!lowing
applicable information:
I. All roadways and ramps.
1 Right of way lines and where applicable, the control of access lines.
3. Location of the proposed encroachment. Location should be shown on the appropriate L!SGS l:'c.:
k. quad m.1p including location ofrhe discharge. If this discharge involves piping across lands outside
of DOT owned right of way. or to existing sewer systcm'i. such written gram oi authority must be
attached.
4. Lengtb and type of encroachment.
5. Location by highway sur,ey station number. If station number cannot be obtained. location should be
shown by distance rrom identifiable point, such as a bridge, road. intersection. etc. (To assist in
preparation 'of the encroachment plan. the Department's roadway plans m:iy be seen at the various
Highw:iy Division Offices. or a1 the R.J.leigh office).
6. Drainage structures or bridges if affected by encro:ichmem.
i. Typical section indicating the pa\·crrcnt design and width, and the slopes. widths and der:iils for eithc:-
a curb and guncr or a shoulder and dirch section. whichever is applic:ib!c.
8. A.moum oi r..aterial robe removed and'or pl::iccd on ;--..:CDOT righr of way. ii applicable.
9. Cross-sections of all grading oper::i.tions. indicating slope ra1io and reference by st:11ion where
applicable.
! 0. All pcninent drain::ige structures propos~d. ·Include all hydr.iuiic cfa:.1. pipe sizes. structure de::iib :ind
Olher re!atcd information.
11. Erosion ond sediment control.
\ 2. · Any special provisions or spccific:nions as to the perforrn..1nce of the work or the method of
construction that rrny be required by the Department must be shown on J SCjlJSJ!e sheet :itt:iched 10
the encroachmcnr agreement provided th::it such information cannot be shown on plJns or drawings.
13. The Dep::inment's Division Engineer must be given notice by the applic::int prior to :1c1ual staning of
installation included in this agreement
14. Method of handling traffic during construction where applicable.
15. Scale of plans. north arrow, etc.
16. Copies of all applicable permits issued for the installation . operation and maintenance of the
cncroJching faci!i1y :ind any other permits or authorizations as m.1y be ncccss::iry.
17. Seal and sign:nurc of the Registered Professional Engineer in direct charge of the design. insta!!::ition.
oper::i.tion :ind maintenance of the encroaching facility.
18. Posting for an appropriate bond to ensure payment by pany of the second part for any compensable
violations it rr.ay incur pursuant w its encroaching ::ictivitics. Such bond must be submit1cd in :1 form
acceptable to DOT, prior to the grant of any encroachment.
19. The discharge from the encroachment must be shown. Where applicable. the encroaching party must
firs! obtain the neccss::iry pcnnits for such disch:irgc and m.1ke copies available to rhe Division
Engineer.
20. All plans and the encroachment must adhere to the dictates of the MOA between DOT and DE:-.'R
dated Januar,· 25, 1999, that provides for such encroachments on DOT tight of way.
21. The cncro::iching party must obtain a copy of the agreement and instructions from the DOT Division
Engineer. Tne encroaching party supplies all necessary information and returns such to DOT. DOT
will review and if approved, forward such to the responsible DE:-.'R official for their review. Upon
4 of 5
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Stormwater Pennit Compliance Certification
I, ---------------~-a duly authorized representative of
. an industrial facility requesting -----------------
arrachmenr to a North Carolina Deoanment ofTra.nsoorcation hi2:hwav drainarre svstem . . . -., -.
at
1n -----------------------------
--------------County, do hereby cercify the following:
______ The industri2.! facility does require 2.n \1'DES stormwater pe:-mit. 1;1e pem1.it has bee:; ob,air1ed, and a Stonnwater Pollution Prevemion Pim (SPPP) is in place.
I understand if the Depanment of T r2..nsportation detemiines the industrial faciliiy is not ir1 compliance with NPDES stormwater permit requireme:m, the Department v.ill report the noncompliance to the N.C. Division of Water Qua)ity. I also understand that falsification of this certification may result in penalty of law against the industrial facility and me as prescribed in the North Carolina General Statutes.
(Signed) -------------
(Date)
• ADDENDUM TO RJGHT OF WAY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRA.NSPORTATION
AND C-~u-\ ~\<.~tr :c.. [....;JL...±,=j .Sy ~:f:e-r
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agr!'ement between North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) dated January 25, 1999, ("the MOA'') and in connection with the application of~ [\,<t,1<--l\~Nl=-j S,okf,...,_, (hereinafter, "the Applicant") dated ~\, \\ 2ooo for a Right of Way Encroachment Agreement for the Piping of Treated Effluent Encroachments on Primary and Secondary Highways (hereinafter, "the Application"), the undersigned DENR employee/official arrests as follows:
I. DENR has examined the Application and has reviewed the information provided.
2. DENR will designate and permit the specific discharge of treated effluent at the specific discharge points noted on the Application.
3. The Applicant has proved to the DENR employee/official signing this Addendum that it is economically infeasible to remediate and/or discharge in any other manner other than by the means set forth in the Application.
FURTH.ER.'v!ORE, Applicant, DENR and DOT agree that all terms and conditions of the MO.-\ and the Application shall govern the encroachment described in ihe Application.
This the day of ---------------
(App I ication .2°405 9)
NORTH CAROLI1';A DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NA TUR.AL RESOURCES
BY:
TITLE: __________ _
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TR.-\NSPORTATION
BY:
TITLE: ___________ _
APPLICANT:
(Print or Type Name)
• • MEMORANDUL'vl OF AGREEMENT
between
NORTH CAROLrNA DEPARTivfENT OF ENVTRONi'vfENT A1'sU NA TUR.AL RESOURCES
and
NORTH CAROLfNA DEPARTMENT OF TR.At\fSPORT.-\TION
This Memorandum of Agreement (iv!OA) is made and entered into this the)~ay of ~ 1999, by and between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural U ~r~es (DENR) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) Both DEN'R and DOT are agencies of the State of North Carolina and enter into this MO.-\ for the purpose of providing an umbrella agreement between the two sister agencies outlining procedures to be followed when DENR requires responsible parties to perform remediation of petroleum contaminated soils and groundwater from leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites and said permitted remediation will, for the purpose of discharging treated effiuent to a permitted discharge point, require the responsible parties to encroach on, over or under rights-of-way under the responsible control of DOT.
WTmESSETH
WHEREAS, both DENR and DOT wish to enter into a cooperative working agreement that will expedite the remediation of UST sites as directed by DEN'R and required by law; and
WHEREAS, both DENR and DOT recognize that in the remediation of certain UST sites, special hardship circumstances may exist whereby responsible parties may request to encroach on, over or under DOT rights-of-way for the purpose of conveying treated effluent to discharge points permitted by D El'iR; and
WHEREAS, DENR recognizes that by virtue of having acquired rights-of-way DOT does not in all cases own the land in fee; and
WHEREAS, DOT does not operate or use and does not plan to ever operate or use any UST within any acquired right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, DENR has the experience and expertise in regulatory UST remediation and DOT has the experience and expertise to assist DENR by allowing hardship case encroachments where appropriate onto DOT rights-of-way similar to utility encroachments, with the promise that DENR will not cite DOT for any violations, nor hold DOT liable for any violations. To the extent permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct, DENR will provide joint legal representation for DOT through DENR's attorneys in the Attorney General's Office along with DOT's legal counsel for any and all potential legal liabilities including, but not limited to, third party claims or actions that may result from the encroachment or any part of the encroachment that may be
• granted by DOT pursuant to this Agreemerit; and
WHERE.-\S, DENR intends to require that all such remediation efforts and necessary encroachments are conducted in compliance with all applicable standards. rules, regulations. statutes, laws and this Agreement.
THEREFORE, DENR and DOT by entering into this MOA agree that:
(l) Under no circumstance shall this MOA be applied or be construed to apply to the discharge of treated effluent to surface waters except at specific discharge points designated and permitted for that specific discharge by DENR; and
(2) All conveyance of treated eflluent shall be through a completely enclosed and encased conduit system satisfactory to both DE!','R and DOT and said conduit system shall extend continuously from the remediation site to the permitted discharge point; and
(3) The preferred encroachment for constructed conduit systems will be a near perpendicular crossing of the right-of-way. Where no other option exists, DOT will consider a conduit system connection to existing DOT storm water conveyance infrastructure within the right-of-way. New construction of conduit systems which would fall within and parallel the alignment of the right-of-way poses significant long-term concerns for DOT, and, as such, will only be considered in the most extreme situations where none of the previous options are available.
[n such cases, DOT reserves the right to require the responsible panies, by having DE" "R require such as a permit condition, to locate all potentially affected utilities prior to construction, to oversee avoidance during construction and to map the location of the conduit system in relation to all proximate utilities after construction is complete. The responsible panies, through DENR's regulatory requirements and authority, will be responsible for any and all costs associated with all perpendicular crossing, conduit connection and parallel alignment encroachments. In no case will DENR hold DOT responsible for any and all costs associated with said encroachment. Such costs are to be borne by the encroaching pany; and
(4) DOT shall develop and maintain a right-of-way encroachment agreement for these specialized non-utility encroachments on primary and secondary highways to be executed in all cases where an encroachment by a responsible pany is necessary to comply with remediation orders issued by DENR. The agreement and any future revisions shall be approved by both DOT and DENR, and, for this reason, is incorporated herein by reference; and
( 5) The execution of the agreement shall be on a case-by-case basis as follows:
(a) The responsible pany shall obtain a copy of the encroachment agreement
2
• • and supporting information requirements from the respective DOT Division Engineer and shall sign and return the agreement and all required supporting information regarding the requested encroachment to DOT; and
(b) Upon review and approval by DOT, the agreement shall be signed by the Assistant Manager of the Right-of-Way Branch, DOT and forxarded to DENR; and
(c) Upon review and approval by DENR, an addendum shall be signed by the responsible DENR Section Chief stating the rights and responsibilities between DOT, DENR and the encroaching party, which will be signed by the encroaching party, and returned to DOT; and
(d) Upon receipt of the signed addendum, DOT shall provide a copy to the responsible/encroaching party along with the executed encroachment agreement. The responsible/encroaching party shall furnish a copy of the executed encroachment agreement and signed addendum to DENR as evidence that they have received same from DOT; and
( e) The responsible DENR Section Chief shall not issue an authorization to construct the required remediation until the responsible/encroaching party has provided DENR with the required evidence that DOT has issued to them the executed encroachment agreement and signed addendum.
(6) Requests for these special encroachments are to be evaluated by the proper DOT official and considered on a case-by-case basis as determined by the respective DOT Division Engineer or, ultimately, DOT's Chief Engineer. DOT reserves the right to deny any and all encroachment requests under this Agreement on DOT rights-of-way. Parallel alignment encroachments will only be considered in extreme hardship situations. Both the responsible DENR Section Chief and DOT reserve the right to condition the encroachment agreement on a case-by-case basis to address special concerns; and
/fr ,4,..,/,~-T r~~,.·a /-,'_,.7 ,,,,,.=7_,..~uce;S.S F' ,..-, "(7) DENR will require that the permittee prove that it is economically infeasible to remediate and/or discharge in any other manner before considering a possible DOT encroachment agreement. DEi'-iR will assure that its economic evaluation of the permit/discharge is thorough and complete; and
(8) In cases where issues of concern to DOT cannot be satisfactorily addressed by either the responsible party or DENR, DOT reserves the right to deny the encroachment request; and
(9) The encroaching party will be required, as part of any encroachment agreement hereunder, to execute a hold harmless clause to DOT' s benefit. The encroaching party must submit an after-use inspection report certifying that no spills have occurred during the remediation, which report will be reviewed and approved by DEN"R.; and
3
• ( I 0) DOT will assure consideration of these encroachment requests on DOT ri2hts-of way where DOT owns the property in fee simple. In other cases, such as where DOT's· underlying property interest is by permanent easement or some lesser property interest, the encroaching party must obtain the written permission of the fee simple property owner(s) and/or the adjoining property owners where _the encroachment will be located and present such to DOT before DOT can consider the request. [n such cases, DOT will provide access to records to identify the underlying property 01.vners for the encroaching party; and
(II) !n all cases DOT reserves the right to require the posting of a performance and/or indemnity bond if deemed necessary in the discretion of DOT. DOT in consultation with DENR shall determine a bond amount adequate to cover the costs for any cleanup from a spill of improperly treated effluent. Said bond shall be payable to DOT and will be released upon DEl'l'R approval of the after-use inspection report; and
(12) This MOA may be amended through the written mutual consent ofDEN'R and DOT. Should either party to this MOA choose to withdraw from this MOA, \.vntten notification must be given to the Secretary of the other agency ninery (90) days prior to withdrawal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this MOA has been executed, in duplicate, the day and year heretofore set out, on the part of each Agency by authority duly given.
APPROVED AS TO FOR..e\1:
7#~4,icf
PECIAL DEPUTY
A TTOR..e'-."EY GEN"ERAL
APPROVED AS TO FOR..ev1:
BY /i. • c) (1\..,/_cc..l. cj
· II o -;\SSfS r"'n l 1/11< ., , ,,.,.,~ /
ATTOR.N"EY GEN"ER.AL
USTMOA6DOC
4
NOR.TH CAROLINA DEP.-\.R.T~IEN'T
OF ENVIB.Ol',1v!El'l'T A.ND NA TUR..\L
RESOu'R~
BY~/'?~
SECRET..\.,t1. y
W1Th::aJ -~ ~
BY~ ~/1;~
~ J
NOR.TH CAROLINA DEPART~l','T
OF SPOR.~AT'.77
B . ¼ ,C---V{fY
February 11, 2000
Mr. Edward A. Green, P.E.
District Engineer, District I, Division 14
North Carolina Department of Transportation
4142 Haywood Road
Horse Shoe, North Carolina 28742
•
Reference: Application for Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement
Dear Mr. Green:
Rl::CclVl=D
MAR 2 4 2000
SUPERFUND SECTION
We are seeking access to the NCDOT rights-of-way at U.S. Highway 176 (Spartanburg
Highway) and SR 1807 (Roper Road) in East Flat Rock, for the purpose of two underground
pipeline crossings. The pipeline shall convey non-potable groundwater from a nearby well field
to a water treatment plant located on private property on the opposing side of the railway track.
The pipeline is necessitated by a Consent Decree and Record of Decision issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region IV (Atlanta), wherein, our client, General
Electric Lighting Systems, Inc. (GELS), is responsible for remediating contaminated
groundwater by active extraction and treatment. GELS shall be the owner of the proposed
pipeline and is party to the agreement. The design of the proposed pipeline crossing was
conducted considering encroachment checklist for private utilities and Form R/W 16.1, provided
to HSI Geo Trans by Ms. Teresa Charnell (NCDOT). In summary, our proposed pipeline
crossing design is as follows:
I. Carrier pipe for groundwater shall be 2"-diameter (JPS), high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe.
2. Casing pipe shall be 4" or 6"-diameter, ductile iron pipe of Class 50 strength.
3. Carrier pipe shall convey up to 50 gpm of non-flammable, non-explosive groundwater
containing diluted volatile organic compounds.
4. Carrier pipe internal pressure is not likely to exceed I 00 psi, and is rated for a maximum
working pressure of 200 psi.
5. Two additional casing pipes shall be installed for power and communication wiring.
Wiring conduit shall be PVC.
6. The method of installation of casing pipe shall be by boring.
7. Depth of bore shall be no less than 3 feet below the road bed.
P;IGEIOOCSIGW1001NCOOTPIPELN_LET.WPO
February 11, 2000
•
Mr. Edward A. Green, P.E. 2 March 23, 2000
Enclosed please find four (4) copies Form R/W 16.1 and four (4) sets of pre-final (90%)
engineering plans. This information is submitted by HSI Geo Trans on behalf of GELS. The plans
contain further detailed information including plan and elevation sections of the crossing, width of
rights-of-way, and crossing details. The plans are also in the review of the U.S. EPA, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), and Norfolk Southern
Corporation. We are seeking a similar encroachment agreement with the latter party. The project
has not gone to bid and no contractor has been selected at this time.
We are in the process of obtaining property access agreements with the private property owners
adjacent to Roper Road. The private property adjacent to the Spartanburg Highway portion of
the pipeline are owned by GELS.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Sincerely,
R: Todd Hagemeyer, P.G.
Project Manager
P. \GE\OOCSIGW1 OOVIOOolpipeln_lflt wpd
March 23, 2000
ROUTE SR 1807
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-AND-
General Electric Lighting Systems, Inc.
COUNTY. ----------
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Henderson
RIGHT OF WAY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the day of 19 by and between the Department
of Transportation, party of the first part; and General Electric Lighting Systems, Inc.
party of the second part,
WITNESSETH
THAT WHEREAS, the party of the second part desires to encroach on the right of way of the public road designated as
Route(s) SR 1807 aka Roper Road , located near the town of East Flat Rock
Henderson County, North Carolina
with the construction and/or erection of: an undergroud water pipeline in support of the US EPA Remedial Action at the
GE/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
WHEREAS, it is to the material advantage of the party of the second part to effect this encroachment, and the party of
the first part in the exercise of authority conferred upon it by statute, is willing to permit the encroachment within the limits of the
right of way as indicated, subject to the conditions of this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that the party of the first part hereby grants to the party of the second part the right
and privilege to make this encroachment as shown on attached plan sheet(s), specifications and special provisions which are
made a part hereof upon the following conditions, to wit:
That the installation, operation, and maintenance of the above described facility will be accomplished in accordance with the party of
the first part's latest POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCOMMODATING UTILITIES ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY, and such
revisions and amendments thereto as may be in effect at the date of this agreement. Information as to these policies and procedures
may be obtained from the Division Engineer or State Utility Agent of the party of the first part.
That the said party of the second part binds and obligates himself to install and maintain the encroaching facility in such safe and
proper condition that it will not interfere with or endanger travel upon said highway, nor obstruct nor interfere with the proper maintenance
thereof, to reimburse the party of the first part for the cost incurred for any repairs or maintenance to its roadways and structures
necessary due to the installation and existence of the facilities of the party of the second part, and if at any time the party of the first part
shall require the removal of or changes in the location of the said facilities, that the said party of the second part binds himself, his
successors and assigns, to promptly remove or alter the said facilities, in order to conform to the said requirement, without any cost to the
party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to provide during construction and any subsequent maintenance proper signs, signal lights,
flagmen and other warning devices for the protection of traffic in conformance with the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Streets and Highways and Amendments or Supplements thereto. Information as to the above rules and regulations may be obtained
from the Division Engineer of the party of the first part.
That the party of the second part hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the party of the first part from all damages and
claims for damage that may arise by reason of the installation and maintenance of this encroachment.
That the party of the second part agrees to restore all areas disturbed during installation and maintenance to the satisfaction of the
Division Engineer of the party of the first part. The party of the second part agrees to exercise every reasonable precaution during
construction and maintenance to prevent eroding of soil; silting or pollution of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, other water
impoundments, ground surfaces or other property; or pollution of the air. There shall be compliance with applicable rules and regulations
of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, and with ordinances
and regulations of various counties, municipalities and other official agencies relating to pollution prevention and control. When any
installation or maintenance operation disturbs the ground surface and existing ground cover, the party of the second part agrees to
remove and replace the sod or otheiwise reestablish the grass cover to meet the satisfaction of the Division Engineer of the party of the
first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to assume the actual cost of any inspection of the work considered to be necessary by the
Division Engineer of the party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to have available at the construction site, at all times during construction, a copy of.this
agreement showing evidence of approval by the party of the first part. The party of the first part reserves the right to stop all work unless
evidence of approval can be shown.
Provided the work contained in this aareement is beina oerformed on a comoleted hiahwav ooen to traffic: the oartv.of the second oa·rt
b.
c.
d.
e.
made a part of this contract. -•
Nondiscrimination: The contract~ith regard to the work performed by it during the tract, shall not discriminate on the
grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials
and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by
Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B
of the Regulations.
Solicitations for Subcontracts1 including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive
bidding or negotiation made by t_he contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of
materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the
contractor's obligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color,
or national origin.
Information and Reports: The contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives
issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its
f~cilities as may be determined by the Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent
to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of a contractor is in the
exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the contractor shall so certify to the
Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has
made to obtain the information.
Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this
contract, the Department of Transportation shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration
may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to,
(1) withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and/or
(2) cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
f. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor shall include the provisions of paragraphs "a" through ur in every subcontract,
including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued
pursuant thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Department
of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including
sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that, in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with,
litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the Department of
Transportation to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, the contractor may request
the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
RMI (161): Party of the Second Part certifies that this agreement is true and accurate copy of the form
RMI (161) incorporating all revisions to date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties to this agreement has caused the same to be executed the day and
year first above written.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
DIVISION ENGINEER
ATTEST OR WITNESS:
Second Party
INSTRUCTIONS
When the applicant is a corporation or a municipality, this agreement must have the corporate seal and be attested by the corporation
secretary or by the empowered city official, unless a waiver of corporate seal and attestation by the secretary or by the empowered City
official is on file in the Raleigh office of the Manager of Right of Way. In the space provided in this agreement for execution, the name of
the corporation or municipality shall be typed above the name, and title of all persons signing the agreement should be typed directly
below their signature.
When the applicant is not a corporation, then his signature must be witnessed by one person. The address should be included in this
agreement and the names of all persons signing the agreement should be typed directly below their signature.
This agreement must be accompanied, in the form of an attachment, by plans or drawings showing the following applicable information:
1. All roadways and ramps.
2. Right of way lines and where applicable, the control of access lines.
3. Location of the existing and/or proposed encroachment.
4. Length, size and type of encroachment.
5. Method of installation.
6. Dimensions showing the distance from the encroachment to edge of pavement, shoulders, etc.
7. Location by highway survey station number. If station number cannot be obtained, location should be shown by
6.
7.
8.
All pipe encasements as to mat,and strength shall meet the standards and specifa_ons of the Department.
Any special provisions or speci ns as to the performance of the work or the met..,f construction that may be
required by the Department must e shown on a separate sheet attached to encroachment agreement provided that
such information cannot be shown on plans or drawings.
The Department's Division Engineer should be given notice by the applicant prior to actual starting of installation
included in this agreement.
ROUTE us 176
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-AND-
General Electric Lighting Systems, Inc.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the day of
COUNTY.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Henderson
RIGHT OF WAY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
19 by and between the Department
of Transportation, party of the first part; and General Electric Lighting Systems, Inc.
party of the second part,
WITNESSETH
THAT WHEREAS, the party of the second part desires to encroach on the right of way of the public road designated as
Route(s) US 176; Spartanburg Highway , located between the towns of East Flat Rock and
Hendersonville, Henderson County, North Carolina
with the construction and/or erection of: an undergroud water pipeline in support of the US EPA Remedial Action at the
GE/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site
WHEREAS, it is to the material advantage of the party of the second part to effect this encroachment, and the party of
the first part in the exercise of authority conferred upon it by statute, is willing to permit the encroachment within the limits of the
right of way as indicated, subject to the conditions of this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that the party of the first part hereby grants to the party of the second part the right
and privilege to make this encroachment as shown on attached plan sheet(s), specifications and special provisions which are
made a part hereof upon the following conditions, to wit:
That the installation, operation, and maintenance of the above described facility will be accomplished in accordance with the party of
the first part's latest POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCOMMODATING UTILITIES ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY, and such
revisions and amendments thereto as may be in effect at the date of this agreement. Information as to these policies and procedures
may be obtained from the Division Engineer or State Utility Agent of the party of the first part.
That the said party of the second part binds and obligates himself to install and maintain the encroaching facility in such safe and
proper condition that it will not interfere with or endanger travel upon said highway, nor obstruct nor interfere with the proper maintenance
thereof, to reimburse the party of the first part for the cost incurred for any repairs or maintenance to its roadways and structures
necessary due to the installation and existence of the facilities of the party of the second part, and if at any time the party of the first part
shall require the removal of or changes in the location of the said facilities, that the said party of the second part binds himself, his
successors and assigns, to promptly remove or alter the said facilities, in order to conform to the said requirement, without any cost to the
party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to provide during construction and any subsequent maintenance proper signs, signal lights,
flagmen and other warning devices for the protection of traffic in conformance with the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Streets and Highways and Amendments or Supplements thereto. Information as to the above rules and regulations may be obtained
from the Division Engineer of the party of the first part.
That the party of the second part hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the party of the first part from all damages and
claims for damage that may arise by reason of the installation and maintenance of this encroachment.
That the party of the second part agrees to restore all areas disturbed during installation and maintenance to the satisfaction of the
Division Engineer of the party of the first part. The party of the second part agrees to exercise every reasonable precaution during
construction and maintenance to prevent eroding of soil; silting or pollution of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, other water
impoundments, ground surfaces or other property; or pollution of the air. There shall be compliance with applicable rules and regulations
of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, and with ordinances
and regulations of various counties, municipalities and other official agencies relating to pollution prevention and control. When any
installation or maintenance operation disturbs the ground surface and existing ground cover, the party of the second part agrees to
remove and replace the sod or otherwise reestablish the grass cover to meet the satisfaction of the Division Engineer of the party of the
first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to assume the actual cost of any inspection of the work considered to be necessary by the
Division Engineer of the party of the first part.
That the party of the second part agrees to have available at the construction site, at all times during construction, a copy of this
agreement showing evidence of approval by the party of the first part. The party of the first part reserves the right to stop all work unless
evidence of approval can be shown.
Provided the work contained in this agreement is being performed on a completed highway open to traffic; the party of the second part
b.
c.
d.
e.
made a part of this contract. ~ •
Nondiscrimination: The contract~ith regard to the work performed by it during the ract, shall not discriminate on the
grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials
and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by
Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B
of the Regulations.
Solicitations for Subcontracts, including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: ln all solicitations either by competitive
bidding or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of
materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the
contractor's obligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color,
or national origin.
Information and Reports: The contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives
issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its
facilities as may be determined by the Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent
to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of a contractor is in the
exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the contractor shall so certify to the
Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has
made to obtain the information.
Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this
contract, the Department of Transportation shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration
may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to,
(1) withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and/or
(2) cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
f. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor shall include the provisions of paragraphs "a» through "f' in every subcontract,
including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued
pursuant thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Department
of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including
sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that, in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with,
litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the Department of
Transportation to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, the contractor may request
the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
R/W (161): Party of the Second Part certifies that this agreement is true and accurate copy of the form
R/W (161) incorporating all revisions to date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties to this agreement has caused the same to be executed the day and
year first above written.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
DIVISION ENGINEER
ATTEST OR WITNESS:
Second Party
INSTRUCTIONS
When the applicant is a corporation or a municipality, this agreement must have the corporate seal and be attested by the corporation
secretary or by the empowered city official, unless a waiver of corporate seal and attestation by the secretary or by the empowered City
official is on file in the Raleigh office of the Manager of Right of Way. In the space provided in this agreement for execution, the name of
the corporation or municipality shall be typed above the name, and title of all persons signing the agreement should be typed directly
below their signature.
When the applicant is not a corporation, then his signature must be witnessed by one person. The address should be included in this
agreement and the names of all persons signing the agreement should be typed directly below their signature.
This agreement must be accompanied, in the form of an attachment, by plans or drawings showing the following applicable information:
1. All roadways and ramps.
2. Right of way lines and where applicable, the control of access lines.
3. Location of the existing and/or proposed encroachment.
4. Length, size and type of encroachment.
5. Method of installation.
6. Dimensions showing the distance from the encroachment to edge of pavement, shoulders, etc.
7. Location by highway survey station number. If station number cannot be obtained, location should be shown by
6. All pipe encasements as to mateiilfnd strength shall meet the standards and speci~-ns of the Department.
7. Any special provisions or specifi.,,s as to the performance of the work or the met~f construction that may be
required by the Department must be shown on a separate sheet attached to encroachment agreement provlded that
such information cannot be shown on plans or drawings.
8. The Department's Division Engineer should be given notice by the applicant prior to actual starting of installation
included in this agreement.
-.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
November 1, 1999 RECEIVED
4WD-NSMB NOV O 3 1999
Ms. Janet Boyer SUPERFUND SECT\01'<
EHS Manager
GE Lighting Systems, Inc
3010 Spartanburg Highway
Hendersonville, NC 28792
SUBJ: GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Dear Ms. Boyer:
This letter is written in response to HSI GeoTrans' October 5, 1999 letter in
which clarification was requested on three issues for the groundwater remediation
design. The issues and the Agencies' (EPA and NC DENR) responses are below.
The first issue was overall groundwater design. HSI seems to be under the
impression that the Agencies would like to achieve total plume containment at the
expense of the endangered plant in the area. This has never been the case and it is
ludicrous to even hint that the Agencies would require GE to damage or destroy an
endangered species. With a proper design, the remedy can achieve extensive plume
containment without threatening the habitat of the Bunched Arrowhead plant. The next
design submittal must include data and documentation supporting a balance between
containment and protection.
The second issue was bedrock mass calculation. HSI did not think that it was
useful or necessary to calculate a VOC mass in the bedrock. The Agencies disagree.
Including the calculation will provide a design that will not be challenged or questioned
because it has taken all known contamination into account. The next design submittal
should include this calculation.
The third issue, as stated by HSI, was whether or not the groundwater treatment
system could discharge water that contains contaminants that exceed the ROD-
specified remediation goals, but are below the maximum concentration defined in the
NPDES permit. However, the issue is not stated properly. The NPDES permit does not
contain discharge concentrations for the contaminants in question, namely manganese
and lead. Therefore, the contaminants would not be below the permit specifications
because there are none.
Internet Address (URL)• http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based l!"ks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsurrier)
• • The Record of Decision (ROD) states that "Discharge standards will be driven by
the surface water discharge requirements (ARARs, See Section VII) and will be defined
during the development of the Remedial Design." NPDES is one of the ARARs listed,
however there are others, namely the Federal Water Quality Criteria and the State
Water Quality Standards and Surface Water Effluent Limitations. Therefore, the mos.t
conservative of these standards will apply to GE's discharge of treated groundwater to
surface water. In addition, the surface water and the treated groundwater must be
analyzed for the metals of concern as stated in the ROD; i.e. barium, beryllium, nickel,
lead and manganese.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 404/562-8824.
cc: David Mattison, NC DENR
iezelle S. Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
Todd Hagemeyer, HSI GeoTrans
Lynn France, COM
Tom Augspurger, US F&W
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
4WD-NSMB
Ms. Janet Boyer
EHS Manager
GE Lighting Systems, Inc
3010 Spartanburg Highway
Hendersonville, NC 28792
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
July 6, 1999
SUBJ: GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Dear Ms. Boyer:
RECEIVED
JUL 08 1999
SUPERFUND SECTION
Attached are the Agency's comments on the Intermediate (60%) Design for
Groundwater dated May 28, 1999. Please submit a response to these comments no
later than August 2, 1999. The 60% Design Report will not be finalized. These
comments will be incorporated into the PreFinal (90%) Design Report.
If .you have any questions, please give me a call at 404/562-8824.
cc: David Mattison, NC DENA
Since
/'
elle S. Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
Todd Hagemeyer, HSI GeoTrans
Lynn France, CDM
Tom Augspurger, US F&W
Internet Address (URL)• http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable• Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper {Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
• COMMENTS ON THE INTERMEDIATE (60%) DESIGN
GENERAL
1. The proposed design has a major flaw which must be addressed before moving
forward with the 90% design documents. This design flaw is in the groundwater
recovery systems. While the PRP has presented recovery well systems at both
the GE Subsite and the Shepherd Farm Subsite which appear to adequately
achieve the objective of hydraulically containing the groundwater plume (to
prevent further migration of contaminants into Bat Fork Creek), they do not
achieve the objective of remediating the aquifer as efficiently as possible.
The PRP currently has a recovery well system operating in the source area at the
GE Subsite which is doing an excellent job of removing contamination from the
aquifer system in an efficient manner. However, the proposed design for the GE
Subsite calls for shutting this recovery well system down and replacing it with a
system which only has recovery wells located a significant distance downgradient
of the source area. The PRP also proposes a similar system for the Shepherd
Farm Subsite. Such a system will be very inefficient in removing contamination
because the heart of the plume will have to be pulled downgradient before it can
be removed. The PRP claims that the existing recovery well system is "relatively
inefficient in achieving hydraulic containment of the plume". While this may be
true, it doesn't mean that this system should be abandoned. Expansion of this
system is what is needed, and this is what was expected when construction and
operation of an AGRS was proposed by the PRP. As the PRP states, the
objective of constructing and operating the AGRS prior to preparing the remedial
design was to "collect performance data that could be used to determine
appropriate system expansion or other enhancements that would produce a
significant increase in the rate of contaminant mass removal and not cause
adverse effects on the environment". Surely the PRP can use their groundwater
flow model, which they developed using the data collected from the AGRS
operation, to design a recovery system at both the GE subsite and the Shepherd
Farm subsite which both provides hydraulic containment and removes
contamination efficiently (i.e., pumps from the areas where contamination is
greatest). These two goals are not mutually exclusive. ,
2. In modifying the system, the design report also appears to have modified the
treatment remediation goals without justification. Section 4.1 says the system will
be modified to hydraulically contain the VOC plume. This contradicts the goals
stated on page 1-5, specifically numbers 6 & 7. Continued operation of the
existing recovery wells in the most contaminated area of the plume should be a
part of the modified system.
3. There needs to be a list of the drawings and specification sections anticipated for
the final design. It looks like there may be some drawings missing. For example
-1-
• • an overall site plan (showing contractor work limits), piping plans, (show all
valves), well construction details and sections, miscellaneous details, etc.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS -MAIN REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Several discrepancies were noted during the review of the Table of Contents.
Please correct these oversights.
a. The title and page number for Section 5 should be given as "Groundwater Remedial
Action at the Shepherd Farm Subsite" and 5-1, respectively.
b. Section 5.2.2 and Section 5.3 were inadvertently omitted from the Table of Contents.
c. The title of Appendix C should be given as "AGRS Equipment."
d. The title for Figure 2-9 should be given as "Location of the Bunched Arrowhead
Habitat" in the List of Figures.
1.2.1 REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES
2. Remedial objective 6 indicates that contaminant concentrations in surface water,
ground water, and surface and subsurface soils are to be reduced to levels specified:
by the remediation goals (numerical concentration limits). However, the only
numerical remediation goals appear to be for ground water (Table 1-1). When
effluent is released into Bat Fork Creek, the criteria are _set by the NPDES permit•
(section 1.2.4), and the only numerical criteria are for mercury. The effluent does
have to pass the chronic toxicity test, but apparently does not have to reach a·
numerical goal for almost all the contaminants. Thus, it appears that ground water
in situ must reach the numerical remediation goals, but that once ground water is
extracted and released as effluent, the contaminant concentrations do not matter, as
long as the chronic toxicity test is passed. Treatment for voes apparently is done
so that the NPDES permit criteria can be met, but no treatment for metals is done '
(apparently because the metals concentrations are below some specified or .
unspecified limit). Rewording of the text is recommended for clarification of the
remedial goals for effluent, of remedial objective 6, and of the overall need to meet
or not meet numerical goals (especially for the effluent). This clarification within the
text of remedial goals and permit requirements would help in understanding why
metals treatment is not required and why the design effluent concentrations exceed,
in some cases, the ROD specified remediation goals (as revealed in Table 4-1 ).
There is similar confusion in understanding the related section 4.2.3.
1.2.2 SELECTED REMEDY
3. This section discusses the selected remedy , however, the last sentence which
discusses treatment of Shepherd Farm groundwater by GAG, is not in the ROD.
-2-
• • 1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
4. In the text, "Section 9" should be "Section 8":
2.3.3 AQUIFER PARAMETERS
5. Please place a period at the end of the last sentence of Section 2.3.3.
2.3.4.1 RESIDENTIAL WELL USAGE
6. The total amount of residential pumpage should be 7,840 gpd (80x2x49) (5.4 gpm).
7. The net ground water recharge rate is misprinted as 105 in/yr. It should be 10.5
in/yr.
2.4 SURFACE WATER
8. The third sentence of Section 2.4 should state that "Figure 2-7 graphically represents
the temporal distribution of stream discharge in the French Broad River basin at the
nearest gauging station to the site." Please correct this oversight.
9. The reference to Figure 2-8 in the first paragraph should be to Figure 2-7.
2.6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
10. Although it is expected that volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination will be
the contributing factor to this remedial design, please revise Section 2.6 to include
a discussion of the other forms of groundwater contamination present at the site,
specifically metals contamination.
2.6.1.2 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
11. Figures 2-1 O and 2-11 appear to be developed using concentration values from both
the saprolite wells and the shallow bedrock wells, with perhaps somewhat more .
saprolite wells used than shallow bedrock wells. Thus, the baseline conditions .
represent the plume over these two zones. This was likely done due to limited data, •
and the need tci include more data to allow contouring. However, it is recommended
that a discussion be included establishing the appropriateness of including
concentrations from both the saprolite and shallow bedrock zones, or whether the
two zones should be considered separately. ·
2.6.1.3 voe MASS
12. VOC mass in place was calculated by multiplying concentrations by the area,
porosity, and saturated thickness of the aquifer, the latter being determined by
subtracting the top of bedrock elevation from the water table elevation. However, this
-3-
• is the saturated thickness of only the saprolite portion of the aquifer, and some of the
concentrations used are from shallow bedrock wells (or recovery wells screened in
both the saprolite and shallow bedrock). In addition, figures in Appendix B indicate
relatively high concentrations within the bedrock. Thus, it appears that the mass in
place calculations should use the full thickness of the aquifer (saprolite, shallow
bedrock, and deep bedrock) if concentrations are used from all these zones, to
provide a more accurate mass in place. It is recommended that an explanation be
provided for why this was not done, for example, perhaps it was assumed that the
volume of water in bedrock fractures was small compared to the water volume in the
saprolite. Alternatively, a mass in place could be calculated using the full saturated
thickness or calculated separately for each of the three zones.
13. Previous contaminant contouring used control points that were assumed to have zero
concentration. The use of control points should be briefly mentioned and defended
here, if they were used in the mass-in-place calculations.
14. The calculations of voe mass do not appear to be very accurate because (1) they
only take into account the saturated thickness of the saprolite, and (2) they were
performed from a two-dimensional perspective. With respect to item (1 ), significant
contamination has been found in the bedrock portion of the aquifer but according to
the text, the PAP calculated the thickness of the aquifer by subtracting the top of
bedrock elevation from the water table elevation, thus excluding the bedrock portion
of the aquifer. With respect to item (2), given the importance of this calculation and
the extensive database for this site, it would behoove the PAP to perform a much
more accurate calculation of voe mass by looking at the data in a three-dimensional
perspective (i.e., grid, contour, and krige three-dimensionally).
2.6.2.2 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
15. The first sentence in Section 2.6.2.2 needs revision.
3.2.2 OPERATIONAL DISCHARGE RATE
16. According to the text, operation of the AGAS is limited to 40 gpm. Is this due to the
sustainable capacity of the recovery wells, the recovery well pumps, or the treatment
system? Please indicate the limitations of each of these individual components of
the AGAS.
17. The flow rate of the existing system needs to be clarified. The text states that the
system can run up to 40 gpm. Later in this section the text states that with the ion
exchange the capacity was reduced "from 30 to 20 gpm". Later in Section 4.3.3 the
text states the system "components" can handle the new design flow rate of 88 gpm,
but some piping or pumps "may" need to be modified. Based on all of this the
capacity of the existing system is unclear.
-4-
• • 18. The statement that ·replacement of transfer pumps and piping within the system may
be necessary to handle this flow" is not appropriate for a 60% design. At this stage,
the engineers should know exactly what components must be replaced and what the
performance criteria of the new components should be.
19. Any information on the air stripper could not be located in Appendix C and the design
criteria for the other components is not provided.
3.2.3 HYDRAULIC CONTAINMENT
20. As indicated in the comment for section 2.6.1.3, the mass in place was apparently
calculated for just the thickness of the saprolite. Calculations of percent of mass
contained should be corrected to reflect this issue, or a discussion included in the
text.
3.2.4.2 GROUNDWATER
21. The second and third sentences should state that "Quarterly groundwater monitoring
data are.provided in Appendix D. The time-concentration graphs of these wells are
provided in Appendix D." Please correct these oversights.
22. The first sentence of the second paragraph states that "Water quality of the
groundwater from 10 residential wells is monitored on an annual basis." However,
Table 3-6 only provides the results of annual groundwater sampling for seven.
residential wells. Please clarify this discrepancy.
23. It should be stated in the last paragraph that metals are not being discharged above
remediation goals.
3.2.7 AGRS PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
24. The first sentence of Section 3.2.7 states that "Table 3-X summarizes the
groundwater, AGRS effluent, and surface water data for 1997 and 1998, after more
than one full year of continuous operation." However, the summary table was
inadvertently omitted. Please correct this oversight and revise the first sentence of
Section 3.2.7 (and the Table of Contents) to reflect the correct table number.
25. Table '3-X' is not included. None of the regularly numbered tables appear to have
all the information that is stated to be in this table.
3.3 ENHANCED IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION
26. What is the significance of this section? Enhanced bioremediation does not appear
to be proposed as a remediation technology to be implemented. However, the last
sentence in the section (page 3-8) seems to indicate it has some significance. This
should be clarified.
-5-
• 4 GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ACTION AT THE GE SUBSITE
27. The first sentence of Section 4 should state that "The groundwater extraction and
treatment system at the GE subsite is based on several investigations and studies
including site characterization results (Section 2), and the performance and operation
of the AGRS (described in Section 3.2)." Please correct this oversight.
28. It is stated that capture does not extend to the creek so that impact on surface water
and wetlands is limited. Some clarification might be needed here, because there are
portions of a radius of influence (cone of depression) that are outside of a capturra
zone. That is, water might not be captured by the well, but drawdown will still occur.
This drawdown might affect the wetlands.
4.1 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION GE SUBSITE
29. Please delete the abbreviation "ppb" in the first sentence of Section 4.1. The first -
sentence should state that "The existing groundwater extraction and treatment
system, referred to as the accelerated groundwater remediation system (AGRS), will
be modified to hydraulically contain the voe plume at the GE Subsite and treat
extracted groundwater."
30. The proposed system flow rate is 88 gpm. Clarify what the current system can
handle. If 12 new wells are installed, each capable of an average flow of up to 10
gpm (page 4-4), and if the existing 4 wells continue to be used, then 88 gpm may not·
be an appropriate design flow rate.
31. This section proposes a rather dramatic change in the recovery well operations, :
specifically, to suspend operation of existing recovery wells RW-1 through RW-4, the :
wells that are located at the core of the contaminant plume. The planned well
placement now relies on additional new recovery wells located further from the core
of the volatile organics contaminant plume. While the proposed adjustment will
ensure plume capture and thus satisfies the plume hydraulic containment goal of the
remedial action, it may sacrifice mass removal efficiency (mass removed per volume
of ground water extracted) in the process. That will potentially result in a longer
cleanup time than alternative designs that place more emphasis on mass removal
efficiency. The design report needs to present a quantitative evaluation of this trade
off to demonstrate that the restructuring of the recovery well system is optimized with
respect to attaining both objectives.
4.2.1 voe AND INORGANIC INFLUENT CONCENTRATION ESTIMATE METHOD
32. Section 4.2.1 references Appendix G as the location of the calculations used to
estimate contaminant concentrations in the influent to the ground-water treatment
system. The referenced appendix does not include that information, and it was not
found elsewhere in the design report.
-6-
• • 33. The last sentence of the first paragraph states that "The monitoring wells, water
quality data, and weighting factors used to estimate representative recovery well
voe concentrations and the corresponding treatment system influent concentrations
are provided in Appendix G." However, the aforementioned information was
inadvertently omitted from Appendix G. Please correct this oversight.
34. The last sentence of Section 4.2.1 should state that "Since calcium, magnesium, and
hardness were not analytes for 1997 inorganics testing, the design concentration for
these parameters was based on data collected during the RI." Please correct this
oversight.
4.2.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN INFLUENT AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS
35. The following problems with Table 4-1 need to be corrected:
• Maximum concentrations are missing
• Many design effluent concentrations (MeLs) are incorrect
• The ROD Specified Remediation goals for chloroform, and PeE
are incorrect
4.2.3 EFFLUENT DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
36. It is stated that the NPDES permit designates those voes that must be monitored
and that are subject to limitations. However, it is unclear what those limitations are.
From reading the text (and referring back to the NPDES permit requirements list on
p. 1-6), it appears that the voe concentrations in the effluent must be determined,
but then nothing needs to be done regardless of the concentrations. Rewording of
the text for clarification of the remedial goals for effluent is recommended.
37. Table 4-1 lists the design effluent concentrations. As mentioned above, it is not clear
how these were developed, although they are MeLs, perhaps by default. If they
were specified by the NPDES permit, then this section and section 1.2.4 should be
revised. These design effluent concentrations (which represent the effluent
discharged per the -NPDES permit) are in some cases greater than the ROD-·
specified remediation goal. It appears then, that the ROD-specified remediation
goals do not really apply to the effluent; thus, that column should be removed from
Table 4-1 to prevent future confusion.
Section 4.3.2 PUMP, PIPING AND LEVEL CONTROLS
38. Using the average rate assumed (70 gpm) the velocity in the 2-inch header is
approaching maximum recommended for force mains. If the flow rate is potentially
higher, this is even more of a problem. After flow rates are confirmed, the designers
need to confirm that the 2-inch header pipe size is the best choice.
-7-
• • 39. The sixth sentence of the second paragraph of .section 4.3.2 indicates that "Th.e
header pipe and power supply electrical line will be placed in a trench at
approximately 36-inches and 24-inches below grade, respectively." Please provid.e
details regarding the minimum burial distances for frost protection and for state/local
code compliance. Furthermore, please provide details regarding the type of cold
weather protection to be used at the well head, the treatment building and any other
place where piping may be exposed.
4.3.4 OUTFALL STRUCTURE
40. What is the discharge capacity of the existing AGRS outfall as constructed? Can it
handle the maximum design flow rate?
4.4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING
41. Please explain the purpose of each of the proposed "Groundwater Constituent"
monitor wells presented in Table 4-3, and how they were selected. The logic behind
this proposed performance monitoring network is not clear.
42. To monitor remediation progress, the list of parameters for performance monitor wells
(Table 4-4) should (at least initially) include all the COCs. Benzene, nitrobenzene,
and all the metal COCs except manganese are missing from this table.
4.6.1 NPDES PERMIT
43. The first sentence of Section 4.6.1 should state that "Treated groundwater from the
GE Subsite will be discharged to a on-site outfall to Bat Fork Creek in accordance
with the requirements of an existing NPDES permit administered by the State of
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources."
44. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for GE states
that "The treatment system is designed to treat 100 gpm (0.144 MGD), although
anticipated flow is expected to equal 24 gpm. The system is not currently designed
to treat the permitted flow of 0.3 MGD. GE must submit a separate ATC
(Authorization to Construct] necessary to upgrade system to treat 0.3 MGD." Please
provide the necessary documentation to apply for an Authorization to Construct and
provide a schedule for implementation. Please bear in mind that GE must receive
the Authorization to Construct from the NC DENR prior to implementation.
4.6.2 AIR PERMIT AND EMISSION CONTROLS
45. The first sentence of Section 4.6.2 states that "An air permit to discharge treated air
stripper off-gas was not required for the AGRS off-gas and is not anticipated to be
required for the full scale system." Please provide the necessary documentation and
calculations in order to support this statement.
-8-
• 4.6.3 OTHER PERMITS AND APPLICABLE CONTROLS
46. Section 4.6.3 indicates that other permitting and inspection requirements are to be
determined. Please provide the required documentation for all required permits and
inspections and provide a schedule for implementation. ·
47. The last sentence of Section 4.6.3 states that "A state withdrawal permit may be
required if the recovery well systems exceed a capacity of 100,000 gallons per day
(approximately 70 gpm continuously)." Since the design capacity is 70 gallons per
minute (gpm) (with a maximum design capacity of 88 gpm), please provide the
necessary documentation to apply for the state withdrawal permit and provide \:!-
schedule for implementation. Please bear in mind that GE must received the state
withdrawal permit, as is the case for all required permits, prior to implementation.
4.7 REMEDIATION SYSTEM START-UP AND SHAKEDOWN
48. Please revise the fifth item of Section 4.7 to include the following statement: "At a
minimum, filter bags should be replaced monthly."
5.1.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM
49. At the 60% design stage an electrical engineer should have already been consulted.
The electrical requirements should be known and plans should be shown on how the
electrical requirements will be met.
5.2 EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
50. The second sentence of Section 5.2 states that "A modification to the existing
NPDES permit or a new NPDES permit (see Section 1.2.4) will be obtained for this
discharge." Please provide the necessary documentation to apply for an
Authorization to Construct and provide a schedule for implementation. Please bear
in mind that GE must receive the Authorization to Construct from the NC DENR prior
to implementation.
51. It is stated that NPDES permit limitations will be equivalent to the AGRS
requirements. A brief mention of the AGRS requirements here and in section 4.2.3
might lessen some of the confusion in understanding the issue of effluent discharge
requirements.
5.2.1 OUTFALL STRUCTURE
52. Section 5.2.1 briefly describes the construction of an outfall structure for the
Shepherd Farm groundwater remediation system. Please provide the design details,
including drawings, in order to construct this structure, including all ancillary
equipment.
-9-
• 5.2 OTHER PERMITS AND APPLICABLE CONTROLS
53. Section 5.2 indicates that other permitting and inspection requirements are to be
determined. Please provide the required documentation for all required permits and
inspections and provide a schedule for implementation.
5.3 PERFORMANCE MONITORING
54. Why wasn't well SWW-9 (or a new monitor well in its place) proposed to monitor the
fate of the contamination in the heart of the Shepherd Farm plume? All the monitor
wells proposed for this subsite are located downgradient of the source area where
contaminant concentrations are relatively low.
6 SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST
55. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 6 should state that "The AGRS will
continue to be monitored quarterly during operations." Please correct this oversight.
56. The schedule needs refining. As you can see, the Agency is allowing 4 weeks, not
6 to respond to Agency comments. From initial comments to submittal of the pre-final
is over 4 months. This seems excessive. And, if the pre-final is of good quality, it
should not take another 2 months to submit the final design.
7.2 SHEPHERD FARM SUBSITE
57. The Schrauf et al. (1994) reference is not provided in the References.
58. The UVB™ technology was patented by a German organization and is licensed to
US companies other than Wasatch Environmental. The ground water circulation well
and sparging technology developed by Wasatch Environmental is the Density-Driven
Convection (DOC) system. Although similar, there are some differences between
these technologies.
REFERENCES
59. The list of references is incomplete (e.g., the Trapp (1990) reference mentioned on
page 2-1 is not included, nor is the Preliminary Design Report mentioned on page
1-1) or slightly erroneous (e.g., HSI GeoTrans (1997) on page 1-1 is given as HSI
Geo Trans (1997a) in the references). A complete and correct reference list would
assist in referring to and finding the relevant documents.
Figures
Figure 2-13_ Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
60. Figure 2-13 indicates that there is no surface water or sediment sampling location
-10-
• • immediately downstream of the Shepherd Farm Subsite. However, the groundwater
modeling that GE has performed indicates that the groundwater contamination
existing at the Shepherd Farm Subsite flows into Bat Fork Creek. Please revise
Figure 2-13 to include an additional surface water and sediment sampling location
immediately downstream of the Shepherd Farm Subsite.
Figure 4-1 Simulated Capture Zone: Run May 14 (70 gpm)
61. Figure 4-1 indicates that the existing extraction wells are not to be used for the
proposed groundwater extraction system. Please provide the results of analyses
completed, if any, evaluating the impacts of allowing the highest levels of
contamination (currently in the immediate vicinity of the existing extraction wells), to
migrate in a northeastward direction to the proposed extraction wells.
62. Figure 4-1 indicates that the proposed groundwater extraction system has difficulty
in capturing portions of the groundwater plume along the eastern boundary. Please
provide the results of analyses completed, if any, evaluating the impacts of moving
proposed extraction wells RW-8 through RW-13 in an easterly fashion.
Figure 4-4 Recovery Well Vault Detail
63. Figure 4-4 indicates the relative location of the variable area flowmeter and the flow
totalizer. Please provide the minimum length of piping required on either end of the
flowmeter and the flow totalizer in order to obtain accurate measurements of flow.
64. Figure 4-4 indicates that the recovery well vault will be placed 36-inches (minimum)
below grade. Section 4.3.2 indicates that "The header pipe and power supply·.
electrical line will be placed in a trench at approximately 36-inches and 24-inches ·
below grade, respectively." Please clarify which specification is to be used for setting ·
the recovery well vault, or whether the header pipe is to simply enter the recovery
well vault at the vault's base. Furthermore, please detail how high groundwater
elevations are to be addressed in low lying areas (i.e., near wetlands) in order to
prevent groundwater infiltration into the recovery well vaults.
Figure 4-5 Typical Trench Detail
65. Please revise Figure 4-5 to reflect the Section 4.3.2 that indicates that "The header
pipe and power supply electrical line will be placed in a trench at approximately 36-
inches and 24-inches below grade, respectively." Furthermore, please clarify the
purpose and specification (including depth of placement) for the 2-inch
communications cable conduit. Please include the communications conduit on
Figure 4-4, and in all other appropriate figures.
-11-
• • Figure 4-7 Process and Instrumentation Diagram with Control Loops (As-Built)
66. The title of Figure 4-7 should be "Process and Instrumentation Diagram with Control
Loops (As-Built)." Please correct this oversight.
67. Figure 4-7 indicates that several components are to be or have been "Installed by
Others." Please clarify this statement.
68. Figs. 4-6 and 4-7 -The text (page 3-2) indicates that the ion exchange component
has been removed. However, the ion exchange unit is shown on these figures.
Which is correct?
Figure 5-5 Performance Monitoring Network
69. Please revise Figure 5-5 to include groundwater monitoring well MW-3 as part of the
performance-monitoring network, as stated in Table 4-3.
Figure 6-3 GE Subsite Groundwater Remediation Costs
70. The line item, "Construction Oversight," is misspelled in the Construction Cost
Estimate. Please correct this oversight.
71. Please provide the basis for the quantities given for the annual operation and
maintenance costs.
Figure 6-4 Shepherd Farm Subsite Groundwater Remediation Costs
72. The line item, "Construction Oversight," is misspelled in the Construction Cost
Estimate: Please correct this oversight.
73. Please provide the basis for the quantities given for the annual operation and
maintenance costs.
Table 2-1 Well Construction Information
74. Table 2-1 indicates that shallow groundwater monitoring well MW-9 has been
abandoned. However, the groundwater elevations included in Figure 3-2 and the
hydrographs included in Appendix A indicate that shallow groundwater monitoring
well MW-9 is an existing functioning well. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Table 3-6 Water Quality of Groundwater at Residential Wells in July and September
1998
75. Please revise the title of Table 3-6 and the corresponding entry in the Table of
Contents to "Water Quality of Groundwater at Residential Wells in July 1997 and
September 1998."
-12-
• • Table 3-10 voe Mass Removed from AGRS In 1997 and 1998
76. The values given for flowrate (in cubic feet per day (ft3/d)) for Quarters 1, 3 and 4 .in
1998 in Table 3-1 Odo not reflect the correct conversion factor. Please correct this
oversight as well as the mass calculations that utilize this data. Additionally, the
quarterly mass subtotals for Quarters 2 and 4 in 1998 are incorrect as is the total
mass removed. Please correct these oversights. Prudent use of significant digits
and conventional "rounding" procedures should be implemented rather than
haphazardly "rounding off" some values and simply truncating others.
Table 4-1 Design Influent and Effluent Concentrations
77. Table 4-1 indicates there is no ROD-specified remediation goal for PCE. Table 22
of the ROD lists a PCE remediation goal of 1 ug/L.
78. The values reflecting maximum contaminant concentration detected in 1997 were -
inadvertently omitted from Table 4-1. · Please correct this oversight. Additionally, the
design effluent concentrations for several contaminants exceed the design influent
concentrations, including a 150% factor of safety. Furthermore, the design effluent
concentrations for several contaminants exceed the Record of Decision (ROD)
specified remediation goal. Please justify the use of these design influent and
effluent concentrations as well as provide the North Carolina surface water standards
for each contaminant.
Table 4-2 Groundwater Treatment System Effluent Compliance Monitoring
79. Table 4-2 indicates that trans-1, 2-dichloroethene is to be monitored quarterly as part
of the groundwater treatment system effluent compliance monitoring. However,
Table 1-2 indicates that cis-1, 2-dichloroethene is a NPDES parameter. Please
clarify this discrepancy.
Table 4-3 System Performance Monitoring Program
80. Please revise Table 4-3 to accurately reflect the system performance monitoring•
program requirements for the remediation system start-up and shakedown.
Table 4-4 List of Parameters for Performance Monitor Wells
81. Please revise Table 4-4 to include all of the target compounds that have specified
remediation goals as given in Table 1-2.
82. Table 4-4 omits monitoring of some contaminants of concern (COCs) in the ground
water. These COCs include certain of those listed in Table 4-1 that have a ROD-
specified remediation goal. While it is reasonable to limit the frequency or spatial
coverage of wells for monitoring those constituents, they should not be eliminated
entirely from the performance monitoring program, until such time as they are no
-13-
• • longer present in concentrations above specified remediation goals. The design
report needs to modify Table 4-4 to propose an appropriate sampling for those
constituents.
APPENDIXC AGRS EQUIPMENT
83. Appendix C is incomplete and should be revised to include all calculations and
design criteria necessary to select the components, including those of an ancillary
nature, to be used for the GE Subsite groundwater remediation system.
84. Appendix C is incomplete and should be revised to include all components of the
Accelerated Groundwater Remediation System (AGRS). Items conspicuously absent
include the 110-gallon capacity tank, blower, low profile air stripper, vapor phase
granular activated carbon (GAC) absorber, cation exchange unit, tank, transfer
pump, filter unit, heating/ventilation system components, automated control system
and miscellaneous components of the AGRS. Although it is recognized that the make
and model of various items may change during the design process, the remedial
design must attempt to specify all items, including those of an ancillary nature.
Additionally, please include a Process and Instrumentation Diagram and cut sheet
identifying all components (including make and model) of the AGRS.
Appendix E Groundwater Model Report
2.3.4 INFERRED FLOW PATH FROM PLUME ORIENTATION
85. It is stated that the average ground water flow direction was obtained from the
orientation of the plume at the Shepherd Farm Subsite, and that the model was
adjusted to reproduce this orientation. It is recommended that discussion be
included regarding whether this orientation also reflects the GE Subsite plume
orientation as determined by sampling at the GE Subsite.
3.4 INFERRED FLOW PATH F_ROM PLUME ORIENTATION
86. Figure 3.8 was missing from the reviewed Report.
87. It is stated that the simulated ground water direction and the plume orientation at the
Shepherd Farm Subsite match, in 'this area'. It is unclear if a match was attempted
between the simulated flow direction and plume orientation at the GE Subsite, and
if so, how well they matched.
4 PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS FOR THE GE SUBSITE
88. Figure 4-2 provides a little information on possible radius of influence of the pumping
wells, and Figure 4-1 indicates the position of the capture zone. Some discussion
is recommended on the possible impact of the pumping on the wetlands.
-14-
• • GENERAL
89. A long-standing concern about this site has been certain aspects of the ground-water
flow modeling. The latest iteration of that modeling is included as Appendix E to the
design report. Review of that modeling indicates that with regard to the previously
expressed concern about a cluster of large negative residuals in a part of the model
domain (reference my previous comments-March 18, 1999 and January 14, 1999)
the most recent modeling shows some marginal improvement. Eight points were
identified in the referenced March 18 memorandum where the average residual was
-2.11 feet. The average residual for those wells is now -1.86 feet. Overall, the
calibration statistics for the entire set of data points show a minor improvement in the
modeling analysis compared to the November 1998 reported results (compare Table
4-2 of the November 1998 modeling report to Table 3-2 Appendix E to the 60%
Design Report). Figures 1 A and 1 B of these comments graphically show the.
difference that has been achieved in terms of residuals within the most critical part
of the model domain. Overall, these figures show that not much has changed.
One might assume from the fact that the flow model has been revised that the
adjustments to the model have resulted in attainment of about as good a match as
possible (at least adequate for the predictive modeling simulations). This assumption
would be made, however, without seeing the results of a sensitivity analysis that
demonstrates how the steady-state model results vary as the key model input is
varied. A response to comments letter report dated February 10, 1999 indicated that
such a sensitivity analysis would be presented in the revised modeling report. The
sensitivity analysis is absent from this version of the flow modeling and has to be
included before the report can be considered finalized.
APPENDIX F
General
INTERMEDIATE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
90. The Contract Drawings that are discussed in Appendix F were inadvertently omitted.
Please correct this oversight.
91. Please include a Table of Contents for the Specifications in all future submittals.
Section 01010 Summary of Work
92. Section 1.2, B -If these specifications do not cover the modifications to the
treatment system then the 'design is incomplete. What modifications need to be
made to the existing treatment system and where is the design information for them?
93. The second sentence of Paragraph 1.5.C of Section 01010 does not make sense.
Please correct this oversight.
-15-
• • Section 01050 Surveying
94. The numbers identifying the section located at the lower right corner should be
"01050." Please correct this oversight.
95. The last sentence of Paragraph 3.38 of Section 01050 is unclear as to the surveying
tolerance to be used for horizontal locations of other groundwater remediation
system structures. Please clarify this oversight.
Section 01500, Temporary Facilities.
96. It is recommended that a Site Plan be provided showing the contractor where the
temporary facilities are to be located.
Section 02110, Clearing, Grubbing and Stripping
97. Typically, a drawing is provided showing the contractor's limits for clearing, grubbing
and stripping.
Section 02250, Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 1.2
98. Is the contractor required to obtain the permit, if required?
Section 02671 Groundwater Recovery Wells
99. Paragraph 2.2 and Paragraph 2.3 of Section 02671 should be completed prior to the
next submittal of the Specifications.
100. The second sentence of Paragraph 3.3. E of Section 02671 is unclear as to the
frequency of sampling of the drill cuttings. Please correct this oversight.
Furthermore, please revise this paragraph to include a discussion of the geologic
logging and collection of soil samples for headspace analysis and, as needed,
laboratory analysis.
101. The fifth sentence of Paragraph 1.1 0.A of Section 02671 states that "Drill cuttings will
be spread at the drill site." This is an unacceptable method of drill cuttings disposal.
Please revise Paragraph 1.1 0.A to include the proper off-site disposal of drill
cuttings.
Section 11210 Well Pumps
102. Section 1.1.C says that 20 wells are to be installed. Section 2671 and the document
text indicates 12. The specification says well pumps are "expected to be mainly 1/3
or ½ horsepower with a maximum of 1 horsepower at any well". The contractor
cannot select a well pump based on these criteria. The specification should include
the pump performance criteria (i.e. flow rate and design head).
-16-
• •
Section 15050. Page 8, Section 3.2, B
103. What pressure and temperature measurements are to be made to determine if the
pipe test is successful? How will you determine if it passes?
Section 13120 Pre-Fabricated Bulldlng
104. Section 13120 should be completed prior to the next submittal of the Specifications.
Section 15900 Groundwater Well Pump Level Controls
105. Section 15900 should be completed prior to the next submittal of the Specifications.
APPENDIXG DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND EQUIPMENT CUT SHEETS FOR
SHEPHERD FARM SYSTEM
106. Appendix G is incomplete and should be revised to include all calculations and
design criteria necessary to select the components, including those of an ancillary.
nature, to be used for the GE Subsite groundwater remediation system.
107. Appendix G is incomplete and should be revised to include all components of the
proposed Shepherd Farm groundwater remediation system. Items inadvertently
omitted include valves, flowmeter, pressure indicators, high-pressure alarms,
heating/ventilation system components and the automated control system. Although
it is recognized that the make and model of various items may change during the
design process, the remedial design must attemptto specify all items, including those
of an ancillary nature. Additionally, please include a Process and Instrumentation '
Diagram and cut sheet identifying all components (including make and model) of the
Shepherd Farm groundwater remediation system.
-17-
(
• •
Figure lA. Model Layer 1 Map of Residuals
(Observed Water Level Minus Modeled Water Level)
May 1999 Modeling Analysis
base map modified from Figure 2-31, GE/Shepherd Farm Preliminary Design Report
Key to Figure
negative residual positive residual
♦ > 1 foot • > 1 foot
<> 0.5 to foot @ 0.5 to foot
◊ < 0.5 feet • < 0.5 feet
I
' .. t •• •..:.
(
•
Figure I B. Model Layer I Map of Residuals
(Observed Water Level Minus Modeled Water Level)
November 1998 Modeling Analysis
I I
base map modified from Figure 2-3 I, GE/Shepherd Farm Preliminary Design Report
Key to Figure
negative residual positive residual
♦ > 1 foot • > 1 foot
0.5 to foot 0.5 to foot
◊ < 0.5 feet < 0.5 feet
-'~?--,, ,.
• UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
MEMORANDUM RECEJVEo
JUN 07 1999
SUPERFUNO SECTION
DATE: June 1, 1999
SUBJECT: GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, NC
FROM:
TO:
Giezelle S. Benne.~tt~.,,
Remedial Proje ~ •~•<V--"'---
GE Technical Reviewers
Elmer Akin/Bill O'Steen -OTS
Scott G. Huling, ORD
Archie Lee, ESD
David Mattison, NC DENR
Lynn France, COM
Tom Augspurger, US F&W
Attached is the 60% RD for groundwater at the GE/Shepherd Farm Site. Please
review it and provide any comments that you have to me no later than June 24, 1999. I
appreciate all the support over the years and hopefully, we're coming into the home
stretch.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 404/562-8824.
Internet Address (URL)• http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/R.cyclabhi • Printed with Vegetable OIi Based Inks on Recyded Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GoVCRNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
. WILLIAM L MEYER.;\ : ,
. ';.,.-:: ... ::.,.~-... ,-..:/.•~;. .. _:,;f;:J. ·~;-~i~:;l
-·: -·; --y~~~ A l'. -~)i
}' 'd:">; t .... •';::~;
! . . t. ~ ... ;
, I t •-:<
t ··1 . i ' ~ '-., : r ~ ,, i-, .,...,-~
•,:: • '"\ 'r .r.·.~ ~«.~' ... ;: · r·;
·_·.·.····.· :/_, __ !,:_:_,_:_·_~:--ff --'·· ::· --~ -,~,.._
<if'i:i~;;~~~
.. · --,~~·.: ., .. -.. _. :~--:, :.
•
June 7, 1999
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
RE:
NORTH !ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Arthur Mouberry, Chief
Groundwater Section
Division of Water Quality
David B. Mattison, CHM&'
Environmental Engineer
S uperfund Section
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Intermediate (60%) Design for Groundwater
General Electric/Shepherd Farm NPL Sile
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
HSI Geo Trans, on behalf of General Electric, has completed the Intermediate (60%)
Design for Groundwater at the General Electric/Shepherd Farm National Priorities
List (NPL) Site. The document being reviewed is attached.
Please distribute this document to the appropriate sections and submit any comments
to the NC Superfund Section. We would like to have the views and permitting
requirements of Groundwater, and Water Quality Sections.
If you or your staff have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone],
extension 349.
Attachment
401 OBERL.IN ROAD, SUIT£ 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] F.l..X 91 &•715-3605
AN EQUAL OPF'ORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· 50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
RIP G-IJ
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
4WD-NSMB
Ms. Janet Boyer
EHS Manager
GE Lighting Systems, Inc
3010 Spartanburg Highway
Hendersonville, NC 28792
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
May 10, 1999
SUBJ: GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Dear Ms. Boyer:
RECEIVED
MAY 121999
SUPERFUND SECTION
., This letter is written in response to your April 30, 1999 letter in which you stated that
GE ·cannot submit the' remedial design for grouridwater until three critical groundwater
remedia.tion issues are resolved, 'The Agency'doeii'not understand GE's sudden confusion
about the remeay. ' · ' . ' .. . .
On the first point, " Definition and scope of the ROD Remedy," GE had a very thorough
understanding of the remedy at the RD Work Plan stage. In that document, GE correctly
states that the groundwater remedy consists of "Extract groundwater that exceeds remediation
goals for voes or metals; treat groundwater; discharge treated groundwater to Bat Fork
Creek; monitor groundwater and surface water; implement in-situ bioremediation based on
results of treatability study." There was no need to state that all contaminated groundwater
was expected to be extracted. Simply stating that groundwater that exceeds remediation
goals required extraction was very clear. And there was no confusion about what in situ
methods would be used; the work plan ciearly shows that GE understood that i! in situ
bioremediation was not a viable option based on the results of the treatability study, then this
portion of the remedy would not be implemented. It clearly did not contemplate "proposing"
other in situ methods.
In addition, in your April 30, 1999, letter, you included an excerpt from the September
1995 Record of Decision (ROD). However, your excerpt incorrectly re-stated the language of
the ROD, substituting the phrase "in-situ remediation" for the correct phrase "in-situ
bioremediation." The Agency will assume that the mistake was inadvertent, despite the fact
that this mistake pertains to the very issue you have raised. As the actual language of the
ROD states, in-situ bioremediation is the only other component of the groundwater remedy to
be considered in addition to extraction and treatment. Clearly, .natural ,attenuation cannot be
construed as a type of in-situ bioremediation. Furthermore, the ROD states in the paragraphs
following the language incorrectly quoted in your letter: "The in-situ treatment will involve the
construction of infiltration trenches or injection wells at an appropriate location ... to introduce
Internet Address (URL) • ht1p:/lwww.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
--.
,::~{~·:
•; ;,•-;~
• •
microorganisms, nutrients, etc., into the aquifer." Again, it is very clear that the ROD
contemplated bioremediation as the only in-situ treatment that would be considered.
On the second point, "Approach and schedule," the mere fact that a small pump and
treat system has been started before the groundwater remedial design is complete, makes this
a 'phased approach'. But it was also clearly understood by both GE and EPA that this AGRS
would not delay the completion of the remedial design. The April 1, 1999 request for the 60%
RD to be submitted by May 3, 1999 should not have come as a surprise; the initial RD work
plan proposed submittal of the 60% RD in June 1998; a schedule submitted in October 1998
proposed submittal of the 60% RD in February 1999. Therefore, requesting the report in May
1999 is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and should not have been a hardship. In
addition, the four critical reports referred to were never contemplated to be entities in and of
themselves. They were considered to be precursors or previews to the intermediate design;
i.e., all of the information in these reports would make up the 60% design. These reports do
not receive EPA approval; neither do the 60% and 90% reports. The four "critical" reports
should be combined and submitted in a design report that will be reviewed by the Agency in
preparation for the 90% and final remedial design.
On the final point of "Level of Care Necessary to Protect Endangered Species", EPA, of
course, does not want to harm the endangered species in this area. However, a one or two-
year delay in the remediation to "study" the hydrology and health of the Bunched Arrowhead is
not acceptable either. This appears to be a design issue, one that a competent hydrogeologist
and engineer can easily resolve, that will take into account the need to remediate the
groundwater and ensure the protection of the endangered species. This should not be used
as a further delaying tactic.
In conclusion, EPA expects GE to comply with the Consent Decree by completing the
remedial design and remedial action within a timely manner. All "points of confusion" on GE's
part that were brought up have been addressed, and therefore, EPA is again requesting the
submittal of the groundwater 60% RD, this time, no later than June 1, 1999. In addition, the
Agency is also requesting an updated schedule. This schedule, once approved by the
Agency, will be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Consent Decree.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 404/562-8824.
cc: David Mattison, NC DENR
iezelle S. Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
Todd Hagemeyer, HSI GeoTrans
Lynn France, COM
Tom Augspurger, US F&W
•
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
lt',.',7lm!J .):-s;ems Uemrtmenr
D'ur1era1 il?:;ac l'Jil!Mr;~-
Heade:sr:n:'ii/e. 1'.1C 28139
April 30, 1999
Reference: GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI GeoTrans Project No. N754-008
Dear Ms. Bennett:
GE lighting Systems
RECEIVED
MAY 06 1999
SUPERFUN0 SECTION
This letter highlights three critical groundwater remediation issues that must be
resolved between General Electric ("GE") and EPA before the remedial design for
groundwater can be completed.
As you know, GE has made significant progress in the Remedial Design/Remedial
Action ("RD/RA") at the GE/Shepherd Farm site. Table 1 is a brief summary of the
project chronology documenting the progress of the project. GE's strong
commitment to cleaning up the soil and groundwater contamination since the Record
of Decision ("ROD") was completed in 1995 is highlighted by the following activities:
Completed Soil Activities
• Soil remediation at the Shepherd Farm Subsite has been completed and
approved by EPA.
• Soil remediation at the GE Subsite is designed and ready for construction.
Completed Groundwater Activities
• The Accelerated Groundwater Remediation System ("AGRS") which includes
four extraction wells and a groundwater treatment system, has been completed.
The AGRS is operating as designed at an average extraction rate of
approximately 25 gpm. Accomplishments achieved through the operation of the
AGRS include, extraction and treatment of 16 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater, hydraulic containment of the majority of the VOC mass in the
plume (55 percent), and removal of nearly 135 pounds of VOCs.
• •
• The evaluation of several potential AGRS enhancement including additional
extraction, in-situ remediation (both enhanced in-situ bioremediation and natural
attentuation), and pulsed pumping has been completed.
There are currently three fundamental issues that directly affect the direction of
future RD/RA activities for groundwater which must be resolved between GE and
EPA:
1. Definition and scope of the ROD remedy;
2. RD/RA approach and schedu!e; and
3. Level of care necessary to protect the listed, on-site endangered species.
Each of these three issues is discussed below.
DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF THE ROD REMEDY
GE understands the ROD to confirm -implicitly and explicitly -that while some
extraction of contaminated groundwater is required, not all contaminated
groundwater must be removed for treatment. In a good-faith effort to capture and
treat the bulk of the contaminated groundwater, GE is operating a groundwater
extraction system (the AGRS), per the requirements of the Consent Decree (CD)
and, in accordance with the Remedial Design Work Plan. Per the requirements of
the ROD and CD, GE is also evaluating potential AGRS enhancements including
additional extraction (using groundwater modeling), in-situ remediation (using a
laboratory treatability study for the evaluation of enhanced in-situ bioremediation and
a field study to evaluate natural attenuation), and pulsed pumping (using
performance monitoring data collected during the operation of the AGRS). The
results of these evaluations have been presented to EPA in various reports.
Although EPA has not yet provided approval on any of these reports that evaluate
potential AGRS enhancements, EPA has stated its belief in written correspondence
(most recently in a March 19, 1999 letter) and through verbal correspondence that
because the enhancements presented fail to extract all contaminated groundwater,
they are therefore unacceptable. However, as explicitly stated in the ROD excerpt
provided below, the ROD does not require that all contaminated groundwater must
be extracted.
XI. B. The Selected Remedy -Groundwater Remediation (pp. 105-106)
Groundwater remediation will address the contaminated groundwater at the
site. Groundwater remediation will include extraction of contaminated
groundwater, treatment, in-situ remediation and final discharge to Bat Fork
Creek, or the treated water may be used as a source of water for the in-situ
EPA54 (2).doc
April 30, 1999
• •
treatment of the groundwater. The viability of using treated water in the GE's
plant process may also be evaluated. (Emphasis added).
The ROD clearly calls for several methods of groundwater remediation, including
extraction in combination with in situ methods, and expressly acknowledges that
not all groundwater can or will be extracted to accomplish the remedial objectives.
Thus, EPA is incorrect in concluding that the ROD requires all groundwater to be
extracted.
EPA has further stated in a January 22, 1999 letter that the remedy must be pump-
and-treat and shall not include natural attenuation. The ROD simply does not support
this position. The ROD is clear that groundwater extraction is only one component of
the remedy. The remedy described in the ROD excerpt above (Section XI.B.)
illustrates that the ROD contemplates other remedial methods besides solely pump-
and-treat. GE strongly believes that the AGRS satisfies the groundwater extraction
requirements of the ROD. Nevertheless, GE continues to evaluate the benefit of
incorporating enhancements to the AGRS. There can be no question that in-situ
remediation is considered a viable remedial action in the ROD. In-situ remediation
includes both enhanced bioremediation and natural attenuation, both of which have
been evaluated for potential applicability at the site. Reports describing applicability
of enhanced bioremediation and natural attenuation have been provided for EPA
review.
GE respectfully requests that EPA reconsider its understanding of the ROD remedy
for groundwater at the site. In addition to the plain language of the ROD, the
following facts are provided in support of this request:
• Site data reveal that the VOC mass from 1994 to 1997 has been reduced
approximately 20 percent under non-pumping conditions (i.e., natural
attenuation).
• GE has already obtained substantial containment of the groundwater plume (55
percent of the voe mass).
• Performance monitoring of Bat Fork Creek, the final receptor of groundwater
discharge from the site, has revealed no detectable VOC contamination,
indicating that contaminated groundwater is not leaving the site unattenuated or
unremediated.
• There is no known risk to the human health or the environment that would require
immediate extraction of all contaminated groundwater.
Based on data collected as part of this RD/RA, GE and HSI Geo Trans (the
Supervising Contractor) conclude that in-situ remediation via natural attenuation is a
viable complement to groundwater extraction and that these combined remedial
EPA54 (2).doc
April 30. 1999
• •
methods are actually called for within the selected remedy of the ROD. GE and HSI
GeoTrans continue to evaluate potential enhancements to the groundwater
extraction system, but do not agree that the remedy provide for extracting all
contaminated groundwater.
APPROACH AND SCHEDULE
GE understands the ROD and CD to define a phased approach to the remedy. The
ROD states the following:
XI. B.1. The Selected Remedy -Groundwater Remediation -Extraction
and Performance Standards (pp. 105-107)
Groundwater contamination may be especially persistent in the immediate
vicinity of the contaminants' source, where concentrations are relatively high.
The ability to achieve remediation levels at all points throughout the area of
attainment, or plume, cannot be determined until the extraction system has
been implemented, modified, as necessary, and plume response monitored
overtime.
This statement from the ROD clearly describes a phased approach. To date, this
phased approach has been followed and has proven successful. The AGRS has
been installed and is being monitored. The performance monitoring data is being
used to assess if modifications are necessary and appropriate.
Contrary to the ROD requirements for a phased approach to the remediation, GE
received a letter from EPA on April 8, 1999 that required the submittal date of the
60% Remedial Design for groundwater on or before May 3, 1999 (i.e., within 20 days
of receipt of the letter). This submittal date is unreasonable, arbitrary, and
capricious. EPA provided no prior notice of this submittal due date to GE. In
addition, four critical reports submitted in November 1998 that review the remedy
performance and evaluate the need for potential modifications have not yet received
EPA approval. Fundamental issues presented in these reports must be addressed
before the 60% Remedial Design can be completed. Therefore, GE respectfully
requests that the four referenced reports receive EPA approval before the 60%
Remedial Design is required to be submitted. ·
LEVEL OF CARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT ENDANGERED SPECIES
For decades, GE has taken great care to protect the Bunched Arrowhead, a rare and
endangered plant species listed on the federal endangered species list and located
on site. A hydrogeologic study of the Bunched Arrowhead conducted by Snipes et
al. (1986) concluded that a small amount of groundwater extraction could cause the
plant to perish. Therefore, recognizing the potential conflict between the remedial
program and the Endangered Species Act requirements, HSI GeoTrans sent a letter
EPA54 (2).doc
April 30. 1999
• •
to EPA dated September 8, 1998, stating that existing data were not sufficient to
determine what level of groundwater extraction could be sustained without causing
adverse impacts to this listed species and recommending a hydrologic study of the
habitat. GE and HSI Geo Trans opine that the current groundwater extraction system
is not adequate and sufficient until the Bunched Arrowhead habitat studies can be
completed.
GE and HSI GeoTrans initiated a field program in April 1999 (per a January 1999
work plan) to monitor the hydrology and health of the Bunched Arrowhead.
Hydrologic data of the Bunched Arrowhead habitat is scheduled to be collected for a
period of two years. This data is vital to understanding the potential for groundwater
extraction to adversely impact this endangered plant species. The CD specifica_lly
states that the remedy cannot cause adverse impacts to the environment. In
addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed support for the efforts GE
has demonstrated over the decades to protect this endangered species. Therefore,
GE and HSI Geo Trans believe it is not prudent to expand groundwater extraction at
the site until data from the hydrologic study is collected to enable more confident
predictions. To date, EPA has denied GE's request to postpone final design until
such data could be collected. Again, GE respectfully requests EPA to reconsider its
postion.
GE and HSI GeoTrans are available to meet at your convenience to discuss these
important issues. We believe such a meeting is necessary given the present
circumstances described in this letter. In the interim, feel free to call me at 828-693-
2505 if you have any remaining questions or comments.
~ncerely,
i; ,..I+< n r+cVv\l~ __:;_. ,~~/~
I . ; Janet S. Boyer, P.E.
'·
cc: Tom Augspurger (US Fish and Wildlife Service)
Todd Hagemeyer (HSI GeoTrans)
Lynn France (COM Federal)
David Mattison (NC DENR)
Peter Rich (HSI GeoTrans)
Matt Tanzer (GE)
EPA54 (2).doc
April 30, 1999
Table 1. Project chronology.
DATE
July 1995
September 1995
September 1996
April 1997
July 1997
September 1997
November 1997
EPA54 (2).doc
April 30. 1999
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ACTION
EPA issued Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for site .
EPA issued Record of Decision (ROD) for site .
Consent Decree (CD) order signed and lodged .
Submitted to EPA the Remedial Design Work Plan (RDWP) for soil and groundwater .
Conditional EPA approval of work plan granted May 1997.
Completed baseline sampling, per the RDWP .
Completed construction of Accelerated Groundwater Remediation System (AGRS)
per the CD consisting of four recovery wells and a groundwater treatment system.
The AGRS operated intermittently from August to November 1997 but has operated
continuously since December 1997.
Submitted Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) for excavation and restoration of
Shepherd Farm soil to EPA. EPA approval of work plan granted October 1997.
Completed excavation and removal of nearly 7,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated
soil from the Shepherd Farm site. Remedial Action report documenting soil removal
submitted to EPA September 1998. EPA granted Remedial Action report approval
January 1999.
•
•
Table 1. Project chronology (continued).
I DATE
February 1998
April 1998
September 1998
October 1998
November 1998
January 1999 to
Present
EPA54 (2).doc
April 30, 1999
I ACTION
• Submitted Preliminary (30%) Design report for groundwater to EPA. The report
contained as appendicies the Groundwater Modeling Report and Natural Attenuation
Report.
• Submitted Intermediate Design Groundwater Investigation Work Plan to EPA to
address EPA field investigation concerns with the Preliminary (30%) Design report.
• EPA signed an Explanation of Significant Difference for Landfills A and B (excavation
selected over ROD remedy of capping).
• Submitted to EPA the Final (100%) Remedial Design for GE Subsite soil.
• Submitted Intermediate Design Groundwater Investigation report to EPA. The report
described field investigations completed to address EPA concerns with the
Preliminary (30%) Design report.
Submitted the following reports to EPA:
• Work plan to investigate the hydrology of the Bunched Arrowhead habitat
• Pump-and-Treat Performance Evaluation
• Enhanced Biodegradation Treatability Study, Final Report
• Natural Attenuation Evaluation, Final Report
• Numerical Groundwater Flow Model
• EPA granted approval of Shepherd Farm soil remedial action .
• Responded to comments on outstanding reports. Re-submitted reports or
replacement pages to reports to EPA.
• Initiated the hydrology investigation of the Bunched Arrowhead habitat.
• Selected remediation subcontractor for the remedial action of the GE Subsite soil.
I
•
•
Baseline PCE ccncemation (ppbf ii goondwalef
in J u1y 1997 (from HS Goo Trans. 1993) 0 500 1000 ux,.n,,,
SCIJ..E 1H FEET
'' ''
'' '' ' " ' '
' ' ' ' z m z
GE S..bsila, East Fial Rock, NC
H "'°'"""" R1H --Sf ==+~---.....,...,
" " to ,,
;· ;i'
)!
""-"''
~ 0
z
D
A)
-< :r:
"° Vl
z
D
0
0
'° v
0