4104_HighPoint_MSWLF_DIN22430_20141028.pdf

SEABOARD
 GROUP
 II
 AND
 CITY
 OF
 HIGH
 POINT

Page
 1
 of
 7

October
 28,
 2014

Mr.
 Larry
 Stanley

North
 Carolina
 Department
 of
 Environment
 and
 Natural
 Resources

Division
 of
 Waste
 Management

1646
 Mail
 Service
 Center

Raleigh,
 North
 Carolina
 27699-­‐1646

Re:
 Quarterly
 Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report,
 3rd
 Quarter
 2014,

Seaboard
 Chemical
 Corp.
 and
 Riverdale
 Drive
 Landfill
 Site,
 Jamestown,
 North

Carolina

Dear
 Mr.
 Stanley:

Seaboard
 Group
 II
 and
 the
 City
 of
 High
 Point,
 NC
 (hereinafter
 the
 “Parties”)
 provides
 this

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report
 for
 the
 former
 Seaboard
 Chemical

Corporation
 facility
 (SCC)
 and
 closed
 Riverdale
 Drive
 Landfill
 (Landfill)
 located
 in
 Jamestown,

NC
 (collectively
 hereinafter
 referred
 to
 as
 the
 “Site”).
 The
 Remedial
 Action
 Pre-­‐Construction

Report
 for
 the
 physical
 treatment
 systems
 was
 submitted
 to
 North
 Carolina
 Department
 of

Environment
 and
 Natural
 Resources
 (NCDENR)1
 on
 December
 28,
 2009.
 The
 report
 was

subsequently
 approved
 by
 NCDENR
 on
 March
 22,
 2010.
 Although
 the
 Natural
 Treatment

Systems
 Remedial
 Action
 Pre-­‐Construction
 Report
 has
 not
 been
 formally
 approved
 by

NCDENR,
 it
 was
 submitted
 on
 October
 25,
 2010,
 and
 the
 Parties
 have
 included
 comments

on
 activities
 associated
 with
 that
 process
 as
 well.
 Collectively
 these
 reports
 are
 referred
 to

herein
 as
 the
 “Pre-­‐construction
 Report.”

Remedial
 Construction
 Work
 Performed
 since
 the
 Last
 Progress
 Report

A
 quarterly
 Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report
 was
 submitted
 to
 NCDENR
 in

January
 2014
 updating
 progress
 at
 the
 Site
 through
 the
 end
 of
 December
 2013.
 The

activities
 conducted
 since
 that
 report
 mainly
 involve
 the
 initial
 startup
 and
 testing
 of
 the

physical
 and
 phytoremediation
 treatment
 system
 components.
 Technical
 Memoranda

numbers
 E-­‐4,
 E-­‐5,
 E-­‐6,
 E-­‐7,
 E-­‐8,
 and
 E-­‐9
 explain
 in
 some
 detail
 the
 difficulties
 that
 have
 been

experienced
 in
 the
 construction
 and
 startup
 of
 this
 system.

 The
 remedial
 system
 startup

has
 fallen
 behind
 the
 schedule
 in
 the
 original
 Scope
 of
 Work
 included
 in
 Remedial
 Action

Settlement
 Agreement
 (RASA).
 As
 previously
 reported,
 the
 delays
 were
 caused
 by
 the
 failure

of
 the
 physical
 treatment
 system
 manufacturer,
 Purifics
 ES,
 Inc.,
 to
 manufacture,
 deliver

and
 install
 a
 fully
 tested
 and
 operational
 system
 without
 defects
 as
 required
 by
 its
 contract

with
 the
 Parties.

 The
 Parties
 have
 devoted
 substantial
 time,
 resources
 and
 expenditures
 to

1
 NCDENR
 is
 used
 in
 this
 report
 to
 refer
 to
 the
 North
 Carolina
 Department
 of
 Environment
 and
 Natural
 Resources,
 and
 collectively

the
 associated
 Division
 of
 Waste
 Management,
 Solid
 Waste
 Section,
 Hazardous
 Waste
 Section,
 and
 the
 Inactive
 Hazardous
 Sites

Branch,
 all
 of
 which
 are
 involved
 in
 the
 regulatory
 oversight
 of
 this
 remedial
 action.

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report

October
 28,
 2014

Page
 2
 of
 7

correct
 and
 repair
 the
 numerous
 deificiencies
 in
 the
 Purifics’
 treatment
 system

components.

Initial
 testing
 prior
 to
 startup
 began
 during
 April
 2013
 when
 the
 irrigation
 network
 control

software
 was
 incorporated
 into
 the
 system
 control
 and
 data
 acquisition
 programming

(SCADA),
 and
 the
 automation
 upgrade
 was
 completed.
 Once
 that
 equipment
 was
 installed,

and
 the
 final
 data
 inputs
 were
 added
 to
 the
 SCADA,
 the
 automation
 contractor
 tested
 the

system,
 and
 both
 the
 automation
 and
 irrigation
 system
 upgrades
 were
 complete.
 At
 that

time,
 the
 system
 was
 tested
 and
 shown
 to
 be
 able
 to
 operate
 in
 automatic
 mode
 for

sustained
 periods
 in
 all
 flow
 paths
 including
 through
 the
 AOP+2
 process.

During
 the
 initial
 startup
 attempt
 it
 was
 determined
 that
 the
 level
 of
 metals,
 in
 particular

iron,
 calcium,
 manganese,
 and
 magnesium
 in
 the
 leachate
 and
 shallow
 groundwater
 were

significantly
 higher
 than
 those
 reported
 during
 earlier
 testing.
 At
 first
 this
 was
 thought
 to
 be

a
 temporary
 spike
 in
 metal
 concentrations
 due
 to
 initial
 system
 operations.
 However,
 it
 was

subsequently
 determined
 to
 be
 an
 indication
 of
 a
 more
 chronically
 high
 level
 of
 metals,

particularly
 in
 the
 leachate.
 As
 a
 result,
 a
 30’
 by
 30’
 building
 housing
 a
 new
 filtration
 system

(referred
 to
 as
 the
 “Filter
 Building”)
 was
 installed
 and
 all
 piping,
 electrical
 and
 automation

work
 is
 complete
 at
 this
 time.
 The
 system
 startup
 testing
 recommenced
 as
 soon
 as
 those

modifications
 were
 complete.

During
 January
 2014,
 the
 system
 resumed
 operation,
 and

 a
 series
 of
 required
 pre-­‐
operational
 tests
 was
 commenced.
 Initially,
 the
 system
 was
 operated
 on
 a
 limited
 basis

processing
 only
 city
 water
 to
 retest
 all
 of
 the
 alarms
 and
 interlocks,
 leak
 check
 the
 entire

system
 and
 prove
 the
 viability
 of
 automatic
 operation
 of
 each
 possible
 flow
 path.
 The
 Pre-­‐
construction
 Report
 proposed
 that
 the
 initial
 testing
 would
 also
 include
 a
 30-­‐day
 aquifer

drawdown
 test,
 an
 AOP+
 performance
 test,
 and
 certain
 other
 tests
 that
 were
 thought

necessary
 prior
 to
 beginning
 regular
 operations
 and
 monitoring.
 The
 Project
 Managers
 felt

that
 the
 30-­‐day
 drawdown
 test
 would
 not
 provide
 useful
 data
 due
 to
 its
 limited
 scope,
 and

submitted
 TM-­‐E8.
 TM-­‐E8
 included
 a
 revised
 Remedial
 Monitoring
 and
 Effectiveness

Evaluation
 Plan
 (RMEEP),
 which
 specified
 a
 longer-­‐term
 capture
 zone
 evaluation
 period.

TM-­‐E8
 and
 the
 new
 RMEEP
 were
 approved
 by
 NCDENR
 during
 February
 2014.

At
 that
 time,
 the
 contractors
 had
 finished
 most
 of
 the
 modification
 of
 the
 remedial
 system

thought
 to
 be
 necessary
 to
 remove
 the
 additional
 metals
 and
 the
 associated
 sludge
 this

generated,
 and
 the
 system
 resumed
 startup
 testing.
 During
 the
 initial
 operating
 period
 in

the
 first
 quarter
 of
 2014,
 the
 startup
 advanced
 to
 the
 point
 that
 all
 the
 groundwater
 and

leachate
 sources
 were
 introduced
 into
 the
 process,
 and
 the
 entire
 system
 was
 operated
 in

various
 configurations
 to
 test
 the
 automation
 controls.
 The
 testing
 progressed
 fairly
 well
 to

that
 point;
 however,
 the
 management
 of
 the
 solids
 generated
 by
 the
 process
 made
 it

necessary
 to
 evaluate
 the
 need
 to
 install
 additional
 solids
 removal
 equipment.

2
 The
 term
 AOP+
 is
 used
 in
 this
 report
 to
 refer
 to
 a
 photo
 catalytic
 ultraviolet
 light
 oxidation
 process

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report

October
 28,
 2014

Page
 3
 of
 7

The
 solids
 problem
 was
 present
 in
 two
 locations.
 The
 most
 serious
 problem
 occurred
 when

the
 new
 filter
 discharge
 pump
 impeller
 (P-­‐605)
 ceased,
 causing
 the
 system
 to
 shutdown.

Upon
 inspection
 it
 was
 determined
 that
 solids
 had
 caused
 deposits
 to
 buildup
 between
 the

impeller
 and
 the
 backing
 plate
 on
 the
 pump
 casing.
 To
 address
 this
 problem
 the
 Project

Managers
 sent
 a
 sample
 of
 the
 solids
 and
 sludge
 from
 the
 system
 to
 a
 NC
 certified

laboratory
 to
 be
 tested.
 The
 results
 indicated
 that
 the
 filter
 media
 being
 used
 in
 the
 new

filters
 was
 not
 performing
 as
 efficiently
 as
 required.
 To
 address
 this
 problem,
 it
 was
 decided

to
 replace
 the
 existing
 single
 sand
 bed
 with
 a
 two-­‐layer
 bed
 comprised
 of
 a
 bottom
 layer
 of

garnet
 and
 an
 upper
 layer
 of
 Filter
 AD.
 This
 two-­‐layer
 system
 provides
 the
 requisite
 solids

removal
 and
 eliminates
 the
 problem
 in
 the
 P-­‐605
 pump.
 However,
 it
 became
 apparent
 that

the
 sludge
 generated
 at
 Lift
 Station-­‐1
 (LS-­‐1)
 would
 be
 much
 more
 than
 the
 existing

equipment
 could
 properly
 handle.

The
 enhanced
 filtration
 in
 the
 filter
 building
 also
 raised
 the
 concern
 that
 during
 filter

backwash
 the
 amount
 of
 solids
 being
 removed
 would
 be
 more
 than
 the
 existing
 bag-­‐filter

will
 be
 able
 to
 efficiently
 remove.
 Therefore,
 the
 Project
 Managers
 sent
 a
 sample
 for
 testing

to
 determine
 the
 particle
 size
 distribution
 in
 the
 sludge.
 From
 that
 it
 was
 determined
 that

about
 98%
 of
 the
 larger
 particles
 (above
 74-­‐microns
 in
 size)
 could
 be
 removed
 using
 a

hydrocyclone.
 Therefore,
 a
 hydrocyclone
 was
 added
 to
 the
 filter
 backwash
 line
 before
 the

bag-­‐filter
 to
 handle
 the
 increase
 in
 solids.
 The
 bag-­‐filter
 was
 then
 operated
 with
 a
 filter
 bag

designed
 to
 capture
 particles
 greater
 than
 25-­‐micron
 in
 size3,
 allowing
 the
 backwash
 water

to
 be
 reused.
 This
 modification
 was
 installed
 without
 a
 full
 system
 shutdown.
 After

installation,
 it
 was
 determined
 that
 the
 hydrocyclone
 alone
 would
 not
 adequately
 remove

the
 solids,
 and
 the
 bag
 filter
 was
 plugging
 frequently
 during
 each
 backwash
 cycle.
 As
 a

result,
 the
 Project
 Managers
 shutdown
 and
 installed
 a
 sand
 bed
 filter
 at
 the
 back
 of
 the

filter
 building.
 They
 then
 had
 the
 piping
 modified
 to
 send
 all
 of
 the
 backwash
 water
 to
 the

lined
 sand
 bed
 filter.
 The
 underflow
 from
 the
 sand
 bed
 is
 collected
 and
 returned
 to
 the

system
 for
 treatment.

The
 other
 concern
 raised
 by
 the
 amount
 of
 solids
 generated
 by
 the
 treatment
 of
 shallow

groundwater
 and
 leachate
 was
 the
 possible
 plugging
 of
 the
 line
 from
 LS-­‐1
 to
 LS-­‐2
 and
 from

LS-­‐2
 into
 the
 filter
 building.
 The
 improvements
 in
 the
 filter
 media
 will
 address
 the
 concerns

in
 all
 locations
 except
 LS-­‐1.
 This
 line
 raises
 up-­‐hill
 about
 70-­‐feet
 and
 could
 become
 fouled

with
 the
 high
 solids
 content
 of
 the
 mixed
 groundwater
 and
 leachate.
 Therefore,
 it
 was

decided
 to
 install
 a
 sand
 bed
 filter
 at
 LS-­‐1
 and
 direct
 all
 flow
 from
 the
 T-­‐121
 tank
 into
 that

sand
 bed
 filter.
 The
 underflow
 from
 the
 sand
 bed
 filter
 is
 directed
 through
 a
 second

hydrocyclone
 installed
 in
 the
 line
 from
 the
 LS-­‐1
 discharge
 pump
 (P-­‐120)
 to
 LS-­‐2.
 Flow

entering
 LS-­‐1
 is
 adjusted
 to
 a
 pH
 of
 9.25
 and
 treated
 with
 polycarbonate
 to
 chelate
 and

separate
 the
 metals.
 This
 should
 remove
 the
 majority
 of
 the
 solids
 from
 the
 process
 before

they
 enter
 the
 line
 feeding
 LS-­‐2,
 and
 reduce
 the
 calcium
 and
 iron
 content
 to
 a
 level
 the

treatment
 system
 can
 tolerate.

3
 It
 may
 be
 possible
 to
 use
 a
 filter
 bag
 as
 fine
 as
 10-­‐microns..

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report

October
 28,
 2014

Page
 4
 of
 7

In
 addition,
 during
 full
 operation
 the
 effluent
 showed
 signs
 of
 colloidal
 iron
 (or
 something

that
 caused
 an
 iron-­‐like
 color)
 remaining
 after
 all
 treatment.
 The
 effluent
 from
 the
 Settling

Tank
 in
 the
 main
 treatment
 structure,
 which
 feeds
 either
 the
 irrigation
 process
 or
 the
 AOP+

unit,
 continued
 to
 show
 a
 significant
 amount
 of
 color.
 This
 was
 thought
 to
 be
 colloidal
 iron.

To
 address
 this,
 the
 Parties
 retained
 the
 services
 of
 a
 consulting
 process
 chemist
 who

evaluated
 methods
 to
 flocculate,
 coagulate,
 or
 otherwise
 remove
 the
 remaining
 color
 from

the
 process
 effluent.
 Although
 this
 may
 not
 be
 a
 problem
 for
 the
 irrigation
 effluent,
 it
 would

not
 be
 suitable
 for
 processing
 through
 the
 AOP+
 unit.
 This
 unit
 relies
 on
 the
 transmissivity
 of

light
 to
 operate
 efficiently.
 Therefore,
 this
 effluent
 color
 would
 have
 interfered
 with
 the

AOP+
 operation,
 reduced
 its
 effectiveness
 and
 increased
 its
 operating
 costs.
 After
 the

modifications
 mentioned,
 and
 some
 modification
 to
 the
 chemical
 treatment,
 the
 iron

discoloration
 was
 removed.
 However,
 when
 processing
 in
 the
 AOP+
 unit,
 the
 flow
 is
 filtered

through
 a
 1-­‐micron
 filter
 cartridge
 that
 cost
 $450
 each.
 Tests
 indicated
 that
 cartridge
 was

plugging
 off
 after
 approximately
 15-­‐hours
 of
 use.
 To
 correct
 this,
 the
 Project
 Managers
 have

installed
 two
 bag
 filters
 that
 can
 be
 operated
 in
 series
 or
 as
 a
 spared
 (parallel)
 system.

When
 discharging
 to
 the
 irrigation
 system,
 the
 filters
 will
 be
 operated
 as
 a
 spared
 system

with
 25-­‐micron
 filter
 bags
 so
 that
 the
 bags
 can
 be
 changed
 without
 shutting
 the
 system

down.
 During
 this
 operation,
 the
 1-­‐micron
 filter
 will
 be
 bypassed.
 When
 discharging
 to
 the

AOP+
 unit,
 the
 filters
 will
 be
 operated
 in
 series
 as
 pre-­‐filters
 to
 the
 1-­‐micron
 filter
 unit.
 The

inlet
 filter
 will
 be
 fitted
 with
 a
 25-­‐micron
 bag,
 and
 the
 outlet
 filter
 will
 be
 filtered
 with
 a
 5-­‐
micron
 bag.
 This
 should
 capture
 the
 majority
 of
 the
 suspended
 solids
 and
 extend
 the

operating
 life
 of
 the
 1-­‐micron
 filter.

Finally,
 the
 Project
 Managers
 determined
 that
 it
 would
 be
 necessary
 to
 design
 a
 method
 to

handle
 and
 dry
 the
 sludge
 and
 filter
 backwash
 solids
 generated
 by
 the
 two
 new
 sand
 filter

beds.
 To
 determine
 the
 requirements,
 a
 sample
 was
 collected
 and
 sent
 for
 hazardous
 waste

characteristic
 testing,
 including
 a
 full
 TCLP
 metals
 and
 organics.
 That
 testing
 showed
 that

sludge
 did
 not
 exhibit
 any
 of
 the
 characteristics
 of
 hazardous
 waste.
 Therefore,
 the
 Parties

are
 exploring
 methods
 to
 thicken
 the
 sludge
 and
 release
 entrained
 water
 more
 quickly.
 In

addition,
 they
 are
 exploring
 methods
 to
 dry
 the
 sludge
 to
 make
 disposal
 in
 a
 sanitary
 landfill

possible.

Remedial
 Construction
 Work
 Remaining

The
 following
 summarizes
 the
 status
 of
 the
 treatment
 system
 components
 and
 the
 activities

that
 remain
 to
 complete
 the
 construction
 and
 start-­‐up
 of
 the
 remedy:

1. Physical
 Treatment
 System

1.1. Lift
 Station-­‐1

Complete
 except
 for
 any
 required
 sludge
 thickening
 and/or
 drying
 equipment
 needs,
 as

well
 as
 an
 update
 of
 the
 SCADA
 to
 reflect
 recent
 changes.

1.2. Lift
 Station-­‐2

Complete.
 Except
 for
 an
 update
 of
 the
 SCADA
 to
 reflect
 recent
 changes

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report

October
 28,
 2014

Page
 5
 of
 7

1.3. Main
 Treatment
 Structure

Complete,
 except
 for
 an
 update
 of
 the
 SCADA
 to
 reflect
 recent
 changes.

1.4. Filter
 Building

Complete
 except
 for
 an
 update
 of
 the
 SCADA
 to
 reflect
 recent
 changes.

1.5. SCADA

Complete
 except
 for
 an
 update
 of
 the
 SCADA
 to
 reflect
 recent
 changes

Phytoremediation
 System

Complete.
 Testing
 for
 leaks

Significant
 Potential
 Future
 Requirements

Monitoring
 Well
 Abandonment

The
 Project
 Managers
 submitted
 Technical
 Memorandum
 E-­‐1
 dated
 January
 4,
 2011

identifying
 a
 portion
 of
 the
 monitoring
 wells
 at
 the
 Site
 that
 are
 no
 longer
 necessary
 and

requested
 permission
 to
 plug
 and
 abandon
 them.
 NCDENR
 verbally
 approved
 the
 well

abandonment
 in
 March
 2011,
 and
 the
 Project
 Managers
 originally
 intended
 to
 perform
 this

work
 during
 2013,
 in
 conjunction
 with
 the
 annual
 monitoring
 work.
 However,
 because
 of

the
 effect
 of
 the
 PW-­‐6I/PW-­‐6D
 well
 casing
 problem
 (see
 below),
 the
 Project
 Managers

elected
 to
 delay
 the
 monitoring
 well
 abandonment
 until
 after
 that
 problem
 is
 resolved.
 In

addition,
 there
 are
 several
 additional
 wells
 at
 the
 Site
 that
 are
 not
 intended
 to
 be

monitored,
 gauged,
 or
 maintained
 and
 have
 not
 been
 an
 active
 part
 of
 the
 Site
 remedial

monitoring
 program.
 The
 Project
 Managers
 are
 in
 the
 process
 of
 identifying
 those
 wells
 and,

once
 complete,
 will
 submit
 additional
 wells
 to
 NCDENR
 for
 approval
 to
 abandon.
 At
 the

request
 of
 NCDENR,
 the
 potable
 water
 well
 in
 the
 front
 area
 of
 the
 Landfill
 will
 also
 be

plugged
 and
 abandoned
 at
 that
 time.
 This
 work
 can
 now
 proceed
 with
 the
 replacement
 of

the
 PW-­‐6I/PW-­‐6D
 wells.

Monitoring
 Well
 Transducers

In
 the
 revised
 RMEEP,
 the
 Parties
 proposed
 to
 install
 level
 transducers
 in
 seven
 additional

monitoring
 wells.
 These
 includes
 OW-­‐DR-­‐2,
 OW-­‐DR-­‐3,
 OW-­‐DR-­‐4,
 PW-­‐6D,
 and
 OW-­‐LFS-­‐2,

which
 are
 located
 on
 the
 landfill,
 and
 PW-­‐15D
 and
 PW-­‐16D
 located
 across
 the
 Randleman

Reservoir
 on
 property
 within
 the
 Randleman
 Reservoir
 buffer.
 There
 is
 an
 existing

transducer
 in
 PW-­‐DR-­‐1.
 The
 equipment
 design
 was
 completed
 in
 the
 second
 quarter
 of

2014
 and
 those
 transducers
 have
 been
 installed
 at
 this
 time.
 These
 new
 level
 indications
 are

recorded
 by
 the
 SCADA
 and
 drawdown
 is
 indicated
 in
 all
 of
 the
 wells
 except
 OWDR-­‐3.
 After

review
 of
 the
 historic
 performance
 of
 OWDR-­‐3,
 it
 was
 determined
 that
 the
 well
 has
 never

shown
 any
 influence
 from
 pumping
 PWDR-­‐1,
 and
 it
 was
 decided
 to
 relocate
 that
 transducer

to
 PW-­‐6I
 which
 is
 screened
 into
 the
 hanging
 wall
 of
 the
 Deep
 River
 fault.
 Water
 level

monitoring
 during
 recent
 testing
 indicated
 that
 pumping
 PWDR-­‐1
 does
 affect
 the
 level
 in

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report

October
 28,
 2014

Page
 6
 of
 7

PW-­‐6I
 and
 this
 location
 will
 give
 the
 Parties
 data
 on
 the
 effect
 of
 the
 capture
 zone
 on
 the

upper
 aquifer
 at
 the
 site.

Summary

The
 remedial
 system
 startup
 has
 fallen
 behind
 schedule
 based
 upon
 the
 original
 Scope
 of

Work
 included
 in
 Remedial
 Action
 Settlement
 Agreement
 (RASA).
 The
 delays
 were
 caused
 by

the
 failure
 of
 the
 AOP
 system
 manufacturer,
 Purifics,
 to
 manufacture,
 deliver
 and
 install
 a

fully
 tested
 and
 operational
 system
 without
 defects
 as
 required
 by
 its
 contract
 with
 the

Parties.
 However,
 significant
 progress
 has
 been
 made
 at
 this
 time,
 and
 the
 items
 required

for
 startup
 are
 complete.
 Startup
 resumed
 during
 September
 2014,
 and
 testing
 should
 be

finished
 by
 December
 31,
 2014.

Please
 contact
 Mr.
 Gary
 D.
 Babb,
 P.G.
 (919-­‐325-­‐0696)
 or
 James
 C.
 LaRue
 (281-­‐431-­‐3571)
 if

there
 are
 any
 questions
 or
 comments.
 Please
 direct
 correspondence
 related
 to
 this
 matter

to:

Gary
 D.
 Babb,
 P.G.

Seaboard
 Group
 II
 and
 City
 of
 High
 Point

c/o
 Babb
 &
 Associates,
 P.A.

P.O.
 Box
 37697

Raleigh,
 NC
 27627.

Communications
 via
 electronic
 mail
 should
 be
 directed
 to
 [e-mail]
 and

[e-mail].

Respectfully,

Seaboard
 Group
 II
 and
 City
 of
 High
 Point

James
 C.
 LaRue

Seaboard
 Group
 II

Gary
 D.
 Babb,
 P.G.

City
 of
 High
 Point

Attachment
 -­‐
 Project
 Schedule

cc
 Amos
 Dawson,
 Esq.
 Counsel

 Terry
 Hauk
 -­‐
 City
 of
 High
 Point

 Randy
 Smith
 -­‐
 Seaboard
 Remediation
 Trust

 Jackie
 Drummond
 –
 NCDENR

Remedial
 Action
 Construction
 Progress
 Report

October
 28,
 2014

Page
 7
 of
 7

PROJECT
 SCHEDULE

2014

October
 1
 –
 December
 31
 Commence
 operation
 of
 the
 AOP+
 unit
 to
 test
 performance,

operate
 system
 for
 a
 sustained
 operating
 period
 and
 address

any
 programming
 needs.
 Complete
 all
 testing
 including
 the

AOP+
 performance
 test.
 Design
 procedure
 and
 install

 solids

handling
 upgrades,
 if
 required.

2015

January
 1,
 2015-­‐
 Begin
 to
 operate
 using
 the
 phytoremediation
 system.
 Operate

system
 at
 50-­‐GPM
 sustained
 flows
 with
 discharge
 to
 the

irrigation
 network.

January
 31
 -­‐

 Submit
 Construction
 Completion
 Report.