MO-8203_36789_M_DENR_20230615_ChurchInquiry

From:Ghiold, Sharon
To:"Bill W Stegall"
Subject:RE: [External] Re: Well water testing associated with former Fred Staton Store UST Incident 36789
Date:Thursday, June 15, 2023 7:10:00 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Mr. Stegall,

Yes, you interpreted my response correctly: we will continue to sample area wells until we consider
there is no further risk from petroleum contamination. I fully agree that the best permanent
solution is a waterline to the area.

Best regards,

Sharon Ghiold
Hydrogeologist, Underground Storage Tank Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Bill W Stegall <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 11:06 PM
To: Ghiold, Sharon <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Re: Well water testing associated with former Fred Staton Store UST Incident
36789

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the
Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Thank you for your prompt response to the message I sent on May 18, 2023. I had delayed further
communication until I had a chance to talk with the some of the deacons to determine whether they
had further questions. If I interpreted your response correctly, you will continue to monitor the well
even with the change in ownership, even though you will not be able to provide another source of
water if it is found to be contaminated. I will be meeting with deacons next Monday night and I will
inform them of this if I have interpreted this correctly. Our best and hoped for solution would be to
secure water supplied by the county system. This source is currently about two miles from the
church but we have no indication of any timeline for this source reaching our facilities.
Thank you again for your response and for the additional information. This helps us to understand
the total situation better.
Sincerely,
Bill W Stegall, Member of Deacon Board, Olive Branch Baptist Church

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 7:15 AM Ghiold, Sharon <[e-mail]> wrote:
Good morning Mr. Stegall,

Yes, we usually sample the monitoring wells and area supply wells near the former Fred Staton
Store gas station at least once a year. We sampled your church well (WSW-7) and the former
Heith and Brenda Baucom well adjacent to your church (WSW-1) in January 2023, and mailed the
results to the church. The letter is attached. In January, both water samples met drinking water
standards for the petroleum compounds we analyzed for. We do not analyze for bacteria. In
future, who should I mail these letters to so that the appropriate people are updated?

In answer to your question, the supply well which provides water to the former Baucom home
(New WSW-1) is located only 290 feet from petroleum contaminated groundwater associated
with the release from the former tank system. That well currently provides potable water to the
residence as well as their son Richard Baucom’s family (the former gas station site). If the church
also uses the well, the increased demand may draw additional contaminants into the well. There
is still significant petroleum contamination near the former tank basin (the second attachment is a
copy of the most recent Monitoring Report). We have tried to address the contamination, and
will continue to do so, but the contaminants are traveling in fractured bedrock which is very
difficult to remediate.

The incident is in the State Lead Cleanup program, and we will continue to monitor area
groundwater quality related to the petroleum release. However, upon property transfer, new
owners are responsible to provide their own clean water source since we have limited funding,
and providing alternate water is intended to be an emergency measure. We maintained a point
of entry (POE) carbon filtration on the original Baucom supply well until we replaced it with the
new well. If the bacteria in the church’s well (WSW-7) can not be addressed, another possible
solution is to install a POE carbon filtration system on the well if contaminants are drawn into it.
The church would be responsible for doing that at this point.

Please review the attached information and feel free to contact me with any questions.

Best regards,

Sharon Ghiold
Hydrogeologist, Underground Storage Tank Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Bill W Stegall <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 5:52 PM
To: Ghiold, Sharon <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Well water testing

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with
the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

(I left a telephone message earlier, but decided the email message provided below might be
helpful.)
My name is Bill Stegall and I serve as a deacon at Olive Branch Baptist Church, 8804 East Hwy 218,
Marshville, NC 28174. The church has purchased property which adjoins the church property.
This was done during the 2021 calendar year. The property was purchased from Ms. Brenda
Baucom who is a member of the church. The property includes a dwelling and a private well.
I have before me a letter from your office dated July 30, 2018. This is in reference to the well
noted above. The letter is addressed to Heith and Brenda Baucom, former owners of the property
(house, lot, and well). Heith Baucom is now deceased. The deacon board has asked me to contact
you: we would like to secure information related to the following:
1. The letter notes that the information is from a sample dated July 18, 2018, or thereabouts.
Was this the most recent testing of the water through your agency?
2. We interpreted the letter to say that none of the targeted compounds were detected. Ms.
Baucom indicates she believes she does (did when she last lived there) detect the odor of gas. She
lived there until approximately June of 2021.
3. The private well we are currently using for the church fails to pass inspection on some
occasions due to bacteria level. We are considering switching to the "Baucom well" to eliminate
this problem.
4. I am not capable of interpreting all of the information in your letter attachment, but I assume
there was not testing for bacteria. We have taken one sample to have it tested and there was
no problem with the bacteria level.
5. The deacon board wishes to know, from your perspective, if there is any reason this well could
not be used as our primary water supply. Does it need to be tested again for the compounds for
which it was previously tested? I realize, or assume, that we must turn elsewhere for answers
regarding the bacteria status.
Thank you for your assistance,
email [e-mail] Phone numbers: 704-651-3834 704-233-5551

Bill W Stegall
[e-mail]
Wingate University

--
Bill W Stegall
[e-mail]
Wingate University