15A NCAC 2L .0100 AND .200 1993 AMENDMENT VOL. 3

. TABLE 2 ~©~~ ) SELECTED BTEX DATA HOLLOWAY'S 66, CHAPEL HILL, N.C. 1993 EmYL IRO DATE WELL BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE CTIO~ LD. (PPB) (PPB) (PPB) "t 5/28/92 MW•l <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8/14/92 MW•l <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1/7/93 MW-1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8/14/92 MW-2 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1/7/93 MW-2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5/28/92 MW-3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8/14/92 MW-3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1/7/93 MW-3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5/28/92 MW-4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8/14/92 MW-4 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1/7 /93 MW-4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 a·.:'"-~#,-l '/. "(,!jO 5/28/92 MW-S '"1..6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8/14/92 MW-S '"1..9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ••1/7/93 MW-5 5/28/92 MW-7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8/14/92 MW-7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1/7 /93 MW-7 <0.5 <0.5 <O.S <0.5 8/14/92 MW-8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1/7/93 MW-8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 7/30/92 UPSTREAM "2.5 22 0.61 1.9 7/30/92 DOWN-STREAM <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 TIS 02L .0202 GROUND WATER 1 1,000 29 400 STANDARDS • ABOVE TI5:02L .0202 STANDARDS •• WELL PAVED OVER Richard Cailln & Associates, Inc. CONSUL TING ENGINEERS AND HYDROGEOLOGISTS
Mr. Hance
Page2
April 22, 1993
Since the later rules provide for a demonstration to show that these
choices are adequate for the situation, this is a very practical definition
which Eastman supports.
(14) "Practical Quantitation Level" is a more appropriate and universally
applicable measure than "Limit of Detectability " which is in the present
rules.
(19) "Responsible Parly" appropriately includes the proper groups to be
considered for the purpose of the definition.
The proposed rule in Section .0106(a) properly includes consideration of
corrective actions which are economically and technologically feasible. This
recognizes the value of scarce resources and the futility of performing actions
almost automatically without consideration of the value derived from those
actions. The requirements shown in subsequent sections assure that the proper
protective action can be recognized, considered, and approved. Properly justified
"alternate cleanup levels" are particularly appropriate and practical concepts for
use with the corrective action plan. Likewise, it is quite appropriate to
discontinue corrective action if it is shown, as required in the proposed rules,
that further action would not be productive as a practical endeavor.
Section .0106(n) needs an addition at the end to be consistent with the philosophy
of the rest of the document. u Suggested wording is: ->1
': •••• with a schedule
established by the Directo r"°if it is determi~d th at_a lication of the new .. , ~.
· technolo_g is economi all and technologically feasible.+--..:c d1 a, ':iS e, J.. ~ w,. '¥-/h.
V. C . c~ -4k ~o e. s o. '('e, ~ -, t.. ~"i\~C l,~d ~rec... ii)_fj---S-/5 / q 3
Section .0202(a) has proposed changes in wording which are quite appropriate to
coincide with the change in philosophy of the rule.
Section .0202(g) contains some proposed new standards which require comment:
(1) Acetone: 0. 7 (mg/L). -Acetone is a very common chemical so that it may
be an indicator of manmade contamination; however, its very low toxicity
does not present a threat at the low level proposed here. The US EPA
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) lists a reference dose for
chemical exposure (RID) of 0.1 mg/Kg-day for acetone. This RJD is the
daily does of acetone which can be tolerated by human populations
(including sensitive groups) over a lifetime without appreciable risk of
deleterious effects. A drinking water criteria for acetone may be
calculated based on this RID and a 2 liter/ day water consumption rate by
a 70 Kg individual. This criterion of 3.5 mg/L would be appropriate as a
groundwater standard. Eastman recommends that the standard for
acetone be 3 .5 mg/L.
"
Mr. Hance
Page2
April 22, 1993
Since the later rules provide for a demonstration to show that these
choices are adequate for the situation, this is a very practical definition
which Eastman supports.
(14) "Practical Quantitation Level" is a more appropriate and universally
applicable measure than "Limit of Detectability " which is in the present
rules.
(19) "Responsible Patty " appropriately includes the proper groups to be
considered for the purpose of the definition.
The proposed rule in Section .(H06(a) properly includes consideration of
corrective actions which are economically and technologically feasible. This
recognizes the value of scarce resources and the futility of performing actions
almost automatically without consideration of the value derived from those
actions. The requirements shown in subsequent sections assure that the proper
protective action can be recognized, considered, and approved. Properly justified
"alternate cleanup levels" are particularly appropriate and practical concepts for
use with the corrective action plan. Likewise, it is quite appropriate to
discontinue corrective action if it is shown, as required in the proposed rules,
that further action would not be productive as a practical endeavor.
Section .0106(n) needs an addition at the end to be consistent with the philosophy
of the rest of the document. k Suggested wording is: ~-... with a schedule
established by the Directo r'"" if it is determined h t a lication of the new
technolQ.g is economi allv and technologi~ally feasible t -..:c d\ ~" ~s e J ~-l.v\ ¾
V.C.(,~ -~ b-°ote.s o.'<e. 4' H., '-'-"'~j,.,;·,u~A.-rec... {i)_}}---s15(({3.
Section .0202(a) has proposed changes in wording which are quite appropriate to
coincide with the change in philosophy of the rule.
Section .0202(g) contains some proposed new standards which require comment:
(1) Acetone: 0.7 (mg/L). · Acetone is a very common chemical so that it may
be an indicator of manmade contamination; however, its very low toxicity
does not present a threat at the low level proposed here. The US EPA
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) lists a reference dose for
chemical exposure (RID) of 0.1 mg/Kg-day for acetone. This RID is the
daily does of acetone which can be tolerated by human populations
(including sensitive groups) over a lifetime without appreciable risk of
deleterious effects. A drinking water criteria for acetone may be
calculated based on this RID and a 2 liter/day water consumption rate by
a 70 Kg individual. This criterion of 3.5 mg/L would be appropriate as a
groundwater standard. Eastman recommends that the standard for
acetone be 3.5 mg/L.
..
Mr. Hance
Page 3
April 22, 1993
(48) Lead: .015 (mg/L). The proposal improperly applies the newly
promulgated "action level" as a standard. Even in drinking water the
level of 0.015 mg/L for lead is not a determined level which is not to be
exceeded. Rather it is a level which applies at the consumers tap and is
used to indicate a situation where special treatment should be considered
or implemented. If proper treatment is given, the level may still be above
the action limit without being in violation. Eastman recommends that the
former Maximum Concentration Level of 0.05 mg/L is the appropriate
groundwater standard.
(66) Selenium 0.05 (mg/L). The proposed rule properly adopts the new,
recently promulgated Maximum Concentration Level as the groundwater
standard.
(67) Silver 0.018. The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for Silver is
0.1. This is not for toxicity, but is rather for esthetics since silver can
cause discoloration. There is no reason why the groundwater standard
should be lower than a Secondary limit such as this for silver. Eastman
recommends the limit for silver be no lower than 0.1 mg/L.
(79) Xylenes (o-, m-, and p-) 0.53. In 56 Federal Register Vol. 56. No. 20., on
Page 3591, January 30, 1991, it states:
"EPA has set the drinking water standard for xylene at 10 parls per million
(ppm) to protect against the risk of these adverse health effects. Drinking
water that meets the EPA standard is associated with little or none of this
risk and is considered safe with respect to xylene."
If 10 ppm of xylene is safe in drinking water, there seems no justification
for a lower standard in groundwater. Eastman recommends a standard of
10 ppm xylene as the standard for groundwater iiI North Carolina.
Eastman appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed
groundwater regulations and hopes they may be used to help North Carolina
promulgate an ideal set of groundwater standards which will serve the state well
and perhaps be a model for others. If you have questions about these comments,
please call me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
7/~~
V. Collins Chew
Environmental Affairs
P. 0. Box 1993
P.O. Box 172
Millers Creek, N.C. 28651
April 23, 1993
Dear~~,
@J©i~li)
~ APR 181991
tiROUNDWATf.R SECTION
RALEIGH. NC
I am writing to express my concern about the new
groundwater contamination proposals. I think they are
outrageous, and I can't believe they are even being
considered! No one has a right to pollute someone else's
property and then declare it a restricted zone.
These new proposals will only benefit those who pollute.
The average citizen today is already fighting a losing battle
against companies who pollute. If these changes are approved,
we won't have a chance! We should strengthen our groundwater
protection policy, not weaken it. Any rule changes should be
specifically stated and leave no loopholes for polluters to
take advantage of.
Finally, if you haven't heard much opposition expressed
in regard to these proposals, it's because most people aren't
aware of them. This has happened very quickly and apparently
hasn't been given much attention in the press. I hope you
will take this into consideration before the final decision
is made.
Sincerely,
~~~
Patricia Nunn
J,Ii©JJ l~Jg]j
APR 2'1 1993
DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGMNT.
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE •
RES URGEN S PlAZA 945 EAS T PAC ES FERRY ROAD ATlANTA, GA. 30326-1 125 (404J 26 1-14 70
April 19, 1993 15:@)~Jfrmi
c:-l "~ '~ J:.{ :~,-CERVINO V.A. YARBOROUGH
Direc tor-Engineering
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
<!!j ronmental Manager
APR 22 1993
GJi'ou, ,vD'+ilTt=fi' "c·
FiALtlGH. :J!..C710N , Ne
Re: Comments to proposed EHNR Amendments to the Groundwater Classifications
and Standards, 15 NCAC 2L.0114
Dear Mr. Hance:
Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the Division of Environmental Management's proposed regulations regarding
groundwater standards and classification. As . an interstate transporter of
refined petroleum products with breakout tanks in Charlotte and Greensboro,
Colonial will be impacted by these proposed regulations.
Colonial appreciates the Division's attempt to develop water quality standards
and corrective action procedures that are fair and equitable. Colonial suggests
that the Division clarify its definition of "economically feasible". Feasible
could be a function of the economics of the remediation · system or of the
economics and finances of the corporate responsible party. In addition, Colonial
is concerned that an undue burden is placed upon industry to e~ther remediate or
demonstrate that site contaminants, not included in the Class GA Standard be
remediated to non-detectable concentrations.
I can be contacted at the letterhead address below if you have any questions
regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
.,1'/4lj. (: ~ /Lt,
Philip C. Perley
Staff Geologist
Attachments
cc : J . I. Boyd
T.W. Cervino
A.M. Taylor
V.A. Yarborough
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 18855 ATlANTA, GA. 30326-0855
Colonial Pipeline Compa.n.>"
COMMENTS TO PROPOSED NCAC 2L.0014 REGULATIONS
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS
SECTION .0102 (4)
Statement: ... propose remediation by the degradation and natural attenuation of
the contaminants ... "
Comment: Colonial suggests that either guidance be developed or performance
standards written to enable responsible parties to adequately support
applicability of what is essentially passive bioremediation.
SECTION .0102 (19)
Comment: A fourth paragraph needs to be added specifically stating that if an
individual or company fails to utilize the "one call" utility location and
clearance system, then that third party is the only "Responsible Party." For
example, if a contractor excavated and damaged Colonial's pipeline, which later
failed, then the third party would be liable for clean up of the spill.
SECTION .0104 (A) (1)
Statement: " ... using readily available economically reasonable technology."
Comment: The term "economically reasonable" requires clarification. For
example, it may be economically reasonable for a company in or near bankruptcy
to propose degradation and natural attenuation of site contaminants whereas a
Fortune 500 company can afford to design and implement an air sparging system at
similar sites.
SECTION .0106 (a)
Statement: " ... as closely thereto as is economically and technologically
feasible ."
Comment: The term "economically . . . feasible" requires clarification. For
example, it may be economically feasible for a company in or near bankruptcy to
propose degradation and natural attenuation of site contaminants whereas a
Fortune 500 company can afford to design and implement an air sparging system at
similar sites.
SECTION .0106 (h)
Statement: " ... using best available technology ... "
Comment: This statement contradicts the intent of Section .0106 which is to
utilize readily available and cost effective equipment.
SECTION .0107 (j) (B)
Statement: "an imminent hazard or threat to the public health or safety exists;"
Comment: Colonial suggests that the Division develop criteria to determine when
such a threat exists. A "perceived" threat may develop into a situation that is
politically expedient to declare a public threat.
SECTION .0113 (c) (5)
Statement: " ... best available technology economically reasonable."
Comment: The term "economically reasonable" requires clarification . For
example, it may be economically reasonable for a company in or near bankruptcy
to propose degradation and natural attenuation of site contaminants whereas a
Fortune 500 company can afford to design and implement an air sparging system at
similar sites .
Colonial Pipeline Company
SECTYDN .0113 (c) (6)
It should be noted that any groundwater remediation system will create a serious
hardship on the responsible party. However, allowing a variance to be approved
by supplying hardship information will allow for arbitrary and capricious
decisions.
SECTION .0113 (e) (2) (I)
Comment: Requiring an applicant to provide copies of each application to the
public may become burdensome. Colonial suggests that as part of a public notice,
the responsible party provide to nearby libraries copies of the permit and
supporting documentation for public inspection and copying.
SECTION .0202 (c)
Statement: " ... substances which are not naturally occurring and for which no
standard is specified shall not be permitted in detectable concentrations ... "
Comment: It is unreasonable for substances that are not carcinogenic to be
removed from groundwater when carcinogens such as benzene are required to be
removed to concentrations less than 0.001 mg/1. For example, bis(2-ethylhyexyl)
phthalate could be detected at low concentrations (<0.050 mg/1) in groundwater;
its source could either be a sampling artifact or a site contaminant. As
currently proposed, the responsible party would have to go to great expense to
demonstrate through interim standards that this compound is not a threat.
. . .
..
April 21, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Andrew M. Raring, Ph.D., P.G.
Geologist/Environmental Consultant
P. 0. Box 354, Bethania, NC 27010
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Subject: Proposed 15A Subchapter 2L changes; suggestion of alternate .0106 language
Dear Mr. Hance:
Enclosed in suggested alternate language for section .0106 Corrective Action, within Subchapter
2L. I attended last night's public hearing in Salisbury.
The thrust of my suggested alternate language is to specifically allow initial corrective action at all
groundwater contamination sites, followed by a report to the section. After review of that report,
the Division could require a CAP and a permit for operation of a remediation system. Permits
would be reserved for cases where corrective action was not forthcoming, or was inefficient, and
for high priority sites, those at which significant concern exists for public heath and safety. It
would be necessary to allow closed-loop systems to operate without a non-discha,rge permit, a
worthy reform in itself. Evidence that reinjection of treated groundwater was not harmful would
be required in the report ..
The proposed revision to 2L encourages initial remedial response. However, many parties will
prudently not take initiative unless the regulation clearly tells them to do so. They fear that
penalties may result from lack of a permit. The many R.O.s who would be remediating sooner
without the cumbersome report review and permitting process would be able to do so without
fear of reprisal.
Thank you for considering this alternate to .0106. I trust that the revised 2L will be passed in a
form that will accomplish the Section's ends.
Sincerely,
~VY\~
Andrew M. Raring
.
'
J
· -.0106 CORRECTIVE ACTION
(a) The goal of corrective action shall be to restore groundwater of degraded quality
to the quality standards specified in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter, or to alternate quality
standards set on a site specific basis by the Director, or designee.
(b) Any person conducting or controlling an activity which results in the discharge of a
waste or hazardous substance or oil to the groundwaters of the State, or in proximity
thereto, shall take immediate action to terminate and control the discharge, mitigate any
hazards resulting from exposure to the pollutants and notify the Division of the discharge
(c) Any person conducting or controlling an activity which results in an increase in the
concentration of a substance in excess of the groundwater standard:
(1) as the result of activities, other than agricultural operations, shall immediately
notify the Division of the increases; take prompt action to eliminate the source or
sources of contamination; begin coITective action; and submit a report to the
regional Division office assessing the cause, significance and extent of the violation
and describing the instigated corrective action.
(2) as the result of activities conducted under the authority of a permit issued by
the state, shall, where such concentrations are detected:
(A) at or beyond a review boundary, demonstrate, through predictive
calculations or modeling, that natural site conditions, facility design and
operational controls will prevent a violation of standards at the compliance
boundary; or submit a plan for alteration of existing site conditions, facility
design or operational controls that will prevent a violation at the
compliance boundary, and implement that plan upon its approval by the
Director, or his designee.
(B) at or beyond a compliance boundary, shall assess the cause,
significance and extent of the violation of groundwater quality standards
and submit the results of the investigation, and a plan with proposed
schedule for con-ective action to the Director, or his designee. The
permittee shall implement the plan as approved by and in accordance with a
schedule established by the Director, or his designee. Any reasonable
schedule proposed by the pennittee shall be considered.
(d) -SAME-
(e) -SAME-
(f) The report on corrective action instigated for restoration of groundwater quality,
required in Paragraph (c) of this rule shall include:
(1) A description of the corrective action and reasons for its selection.
(2) Specific plans, including engineering details where applicable, of the system
installed for the purpose of groundwater quality restoration.
(3) A plan, with schedule, for monitoring the effectiveness of the corrective action
system.
(4) A plan, with schedule, for monitoring the impact of coITective action on
groundwater both within and beyond the contaminant plume.
(g) In the evaluation of coITective action, the Director, or his designee, shall determine
whether any threat to human health or safety posed by degraded groundwater
quality has been fully mitigated by the cotTective action and whether real or
potential damage to the environment is being mitigated by lhe corrective action. If
it is dcLcnnined that the coITective action undertaken by the responsible party has
not eliminated the threat to public health and safety and/or protected the
environment, the Director shall require that a coITectivc action plan be submitted
and approved and that implementation of that plan proceed under permit from the
Division.
(1) The Director, or his designee may require a risk assessment of the responsible
patty as an tool for dete1mination of the threat to human health and safety posed
by the impacted groundwater. The risk assessment is subject to review and
approval by the Division.
(2) In the evaluation of cotTective action plans, the Director, or his designee shall
weigh the costs estimated to achieve groundwater quality restoration by use of the
proposed and alternate technological approaches against the public benefit to be
deli ved from the restoration.
(3) The petmit to constmct and operate a corective action system for
groundwater restoration shall contain:
(A) a schedule for the implementation and operation of the proposed plan,
(B) a monitoring plan for dete1mining the effectiveness of the proposed
c01Tective action and the movement of the contaminant plume,
(C) a term of no more than three years from the onset of operation.
(h) If the Director, or his designee dete1mines that a coJTcctive action plan and
pennitted corrective action system are needed, groundwater quality must be restored to
the level of the groundwater quality standards specified in Rule .0202 of this Subchapter
unless:
(1) an alternate cleanup level has been established by the Director pursuant to
Paragraph (i) of this Rule, or,
(2) natural remediation has been approved by the Director in accordance with the
provisions of Paragraph (k) of this rule.
(i) An alternate cleanup level to a standard established in Rule .0202 of this
Subchapter may be assigned by the Director, or his designee if sufficient information is
presented to suppo1t a determination that:
(1) -SAME-
(2) -SAME-
r The information necessary for assignment of alternate cleanup levels should be contained
in the comprehensive site assessment, if the responsible party seeks alternate standards.
Public notice of assignment of alternate cleanup standards must be provided in accordance
with Rule .0114(b) of this Subchapter plior to their implementation.
(j) At the expiration of a permit for corrective action system, the responsible party
will submit a report on the progress of groundwater remediation. The report will include:
(1) a summary of groundwater monitoring data since inception of operations,
(2) an evaluation of change in plume volume and configuration,
(3) a description of remaining 1isk to human health and safety as well as damage
to the environment,
(4) a request for repermitting of the remediation system. If modification of the
remediation system or alternate cleanup levels are requested as part of the progress
report, all necessary suppo1ting evidence must be included. Such info1mation will
include:
(A) a description of site specific conditions;
(B) the technical basis for the request;
(C) a discussion of and rationale for the request;
(D) any other information requested by the Division; and,
(E) evidence that public notice of the request has been provided in
accordance with Rule .0114(b) of this Subchapter.
(k) -SAME-
(1) The Director will consider requests to terminate corrective action as part of the
the progress repmt at the end of the term of con-ective action permits. The request must
include:
(1) -SAME-
(2) -SAME-
(3) -SAME-
(4) -SAME-
(5) -SAME-
The Director may auth01ize the termination of the c01Tective action, or amend the
con-ective action plan after considering all the information in the request. Upon
te1mination of corrective action, a groundwater monitoring program shall be required
sufficient to track the degradation and attenuation of contaminants at a location of at least
one year's time of u·avel upgradient of any existing or foreseeable receptor. The
monitoting program shall remain in effect until there is sufficient evidence that the
contaminant concentrations have been reduced to the level of the standards.
(m) -SAME-
(n) -SAME-
(o) -SAME-
~
STAL/TE
ENVlRONMENTAL
~) J[I
,~.:i Kh!P'c c R >ad
'..l,IS· '...TV \C 2d' i
70<t 031 '",, /'l 1
such a scope of work may actually be more expensive than treating the
contaminated soil and groundwater.
A third area of concern is the area of economics. Numerous comments
have been heard regarding the economic pressures that have been brought to
bear on many individuals and small companies due to the strict State
regulations. While it may be that the clean-up standards may be overly strict in
certain cases, consideration must be given to the potential adverse impact of
taking too great a swing in the opposite direction and thereby removing the
economic responsibility of those that have created the problem and placing on
others future costs that will surely be even greater than they are now. It must
not be forgotten that those in the petroleum producing and supply business are
well aware, or should be, of the products they sell, both the positive and
negative. It must be assumed that they remain in this business area because it
is financially profitable. Indeed, one of our personnel is aware of one jobber that
had problems spending $15,000 to investigate a site but had the financial
resources to purchase a shopping center through the RTC.
During the Raleigh Public Hearing, several items were presented which I
would like to comment on: underground storage tank leaks account for 70% of
the groundwater incident sites; a Durham case study; the reason for requiring
PE/PG seal on reports; and an example of "natural degradation".
It was stated by a DEM representative that underground storage tanks
account for 70% of the groundwater incidents in the State of North Carolina. If
roll. ree soo-470 £-tir•o this is the case, it would seem that extreme and careful consideration should be
given to the actions that are applied to such situations; based upon many of the
fax I 4 b,lts J4)
comments that have been heard, it is the impression that the proposed changes
are simply a way to escape the financial responsiblity of having to correct the
problems they have created.
The DEM representative also provided a brief case study involving a site
in the Durham area saying that $500,000 had been spent to date with little or no
evidence that anything had been accomplished. However, under the proposed
guidelines, only $250,000 would have been spent to reach the same status.
Based on what was heard, it would appear that the extra cost was not a lack of
work being performed at the site but rather poor management of the way the
work was performed. It would seem that perhaps more effort should be placed
on trying to establish better controls by the responsibile parties to assure that
only the necessary work is performed.
STAL/TE
ENVIRONMENTAL
p
Sil, bury, JC. )81 'I
The audience was informed by the DEM representative that the reason for
requiring reports to be sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer(PE) or
Professional Geologist(PG) was to ensure that the work was performed by a
responsible party. It should be pointed out that because an individual has a PE
or PG license does not promote that the person sealing the report is qualified to
make many of the decisions that are required by the current or proposed
regulations. Based upon a review of the proposed regulations, it appears that
the primary purpose of the Initial Site Characterization (ISC) report and
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) report will be to perform a risk
assessment of the project site and how it will affect the surrounding sites. Risk
assessments, if performed properly, can cost tens of thousands of dollars and
therefore may not be the economical salvation that many appear to think it might
be. A major portion of any __,risk assessment is the evaluation of the
toxilogical evaluation of the contaminants of concern on the potential receptors
and may include assigning a monetary value to plant life, animal life, and even
human life. While not familar with the exam to become a PG, I am somewhat
familar with the PE exam and to the best of my knowledge it does not address
any of the principal areas that must be covered in an ISC report or a CSA report,
101 ,:F 21Q1 particularly in the area of risk assessments, much less the preparation of a
Corrective Action Plan (CAP). By saying that one must have a PE .to sign
• reports opens the door for any professional engineer whether that person has a
PE in civil, electrical, chemical, etc. disciplines. While it is true certain
TC'. f ee Rori 470 ',8, c specialities within a branch of engineering may be more qualified than others,
the proposed regulations do not identify those individuals but rather leave a
ax n l ti o 014J
great deal of leeway in who can prepare these reports.
Also, based upon discussions with various individuals familar with the PG
exam, it also does not address many of the concepts that must be evaluated to
adequately prepare reports that are of any substance. Therfore, the question
again must be raised as to whether simply having a PG license make an
individual qualified to supervise the necessary site work and generate
acceptable reports.
While it is agreeable that certain qualifications must be required for the
types of work being performed, it can not be assumed that the PE or PG license
is the tool by which the decision of capability is determined. I would strongly
urge that careful consideration be given to the qualifications of those that
generate such reports. I am sure that those knowledgable in this field would
!fl
STJ LITE
">di' t l'Y 1 14
agree that simply having a PE or PG registratation does not ensure the ability of
an individual to perform the work but rather the registration along with a
knowledge of the theories as well as the practical experience gained only over a
period of time.
Lastly, one individual who apparently owns and operates a number of
facilities with underground storage tanks related an incident regarding the
purchase of a facility which operated as a gas station for 40 years prior to his
purchase of the site. After purchasing the site, his company installed new tanks
during which apparent contamination was noted. A number of monitoring wells
were installed, sampled and analysis performed revealing high levels of
contamination. After two additional sampling events and analysis, the levels of
contamination had greatly declined without any type of corrective action and
therefore was attributed to passive remediation or natural degradation. Since
many of the details were not provided, it could not be evaluated that natural
degradation had occured, but rather it appeared that possibly the plume had
moved out of the area being monitored. However, the speaker's main point
• appeared to be that he had spent a great deal of money correcting a problem
that he did not originate. Little sympathy can be given when the obvious reason
re-' I ree 80L 416 i.ROO
for purchasing the facility in the first place was to make money and that an
inexpensive and simple investigation prior to the purchase of the site would have
revealed a problem.
In summation, the proposed regulations in the current format must be
opposed. The regulations appear to very open-ended and do not appear to give
consideration to those that may be impacted while releasing responsible parties
from their financial obligations to correct the problems that have generated.
Prepared by: DeWitt Whitten, CHMM, REM, REPA
[phone]
G/GWRESPNS.DOC
2) Find a creative solution to assist small business owners and gas stations with cleanup
expenses, but DON'T do it by creating broad and discretionary regulatory loopholes which
could greatly endanger water sources.
3) Maintain the existin~ definition .of a "responsible party."
4) Protect other people's (and future generations and landowners!) property rights ·by putting
.in the regulations a specific statement that polluters must also be responsible for the cleanup ·
and protection of groundwater on affected neighboring properties
5). Please be con~ervati~e in your rulemaking, iri your consideratlon of the science;' and in
your consideration of the fact _ that much is still unknown and, in · fact, unknowable . and
_-unpredictable about the movements of groundwater, of synergistic effects -of toxins, and of our
· future water needs. · · · · ·
Again, these rules will affect our ~tate's groundwater, our health and welfare, for many future _·
generations. We believe that clean groundwater. is a priceless gift to us from nature, the
birthright of every living person and thing. We.·must be very protective of this birthright, and
make sure it is one we leave for those who will come after.
Thank you for considering our-comments .
.Sincerely,
~ Mary Sauls Kelly, PhD
Coordinator and Ecologist
2
,.,-,----! -~---~ ...... ~---------," N?KQi QJFPUNA O TIZE NS Cbain:ien ci i!!c: @rd. it Srua."t DicJc.:;on. Cl1dl)tt,:
f;."'# -~c,;, Clraitm<1!l. J. Ric.~rtl F't.-:reil Jr_ !!ocl:-t Mo~!
Scc-oad Vice Cbai.-mllll. G. Smedes York. Ra!ei,;h
:;:-t=U."a!; S:o:?nen P. 2ei.a.ale. Ir. R.,,ieic;b.
F O .2 B U S I N :E S S A N r> I N D TJ S T 2 Y
225 Hillsborough Street, RO. Bo:z: 2508, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27602, Telephone [phone] ~r:icnt ci See.~ Phillip J . .!Cirlc, ir:. R4li!ic;il
E:z.eer.s!ive C-omrci!tee:
Rvbani K. Alli!n
Raleigh
foh.!i A. Alli:;on. IV
Wil=
Jobn V. Andrew!
Moa.-oe
L M. &ker. Jr.
W-m.sioa-$clem
John Eon,;,·
Kill Devil Hills
W-J.lbur f. BoswelL m
~Fa.-e!l!
Tho~ W. Bmdsh.1w. Tr.
Raleigh
Doncld J. Brady
Green:sboro
Paqgy M. Bndi;ics
Shelby
Charles G. Buie. Tr.
l,muinbu:g
Feltcu I Capel
Pizzeblulf
frank H. Dww. Jr.
Chc.."lottu
IoeS. Epley
Cnadotie
Seddon Goode, Jr.
Chcr:iotte
Cam,11D.Gray
pior1ot1e
Charles A. !·fay~
GreeMOoro
!obn u. McH,MY
Kin:ton
J. Billie ~y. Ir.
Chc,r/afts
PculJ.Ri=
Cho;,d,1fi/l
£.Rhone:~
WbireViUit
Harley F. Shu!on=l. Jr.
.Hidory
Kenn,;th G.. Ycn,nq..,.-.1:.
Cherr111i/le
Charles E.. 2£,ic;li:!'. Jr-.
Gasrol1ic;r
Past Cho,mien:
Their~ M. Belk
Charlotte
&!wt::. a. Boi,;!en
Go/dsb,;ro
R.ic:...Sr:ti L Daugh,:riy
.Rt!$catcb Tritui(lle P....ric
Doacld R, ffo,;hes
Green:sboro
Willi..= S. Lee
Cb.crfotte
John F. M,;Ncir, m
Wiliston-Salem
04ude Ramsey
Ash.eville
"1erwood H. Smith. Jr.
,lalei9lr
S.B. T=er.m
Rr.rthetiotdtan
April 20, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental
Management, Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
I. Introduction
These comments are presented with respect to the
riroposacl ~sionc _to-No:ri:h Cero1ina-A<lm..i.nlst..rative
Code, Title 15A, Chapter 2L (the 11 2L regulations" or
"2L"), promu.l.gated for public comment in 7:24 North
carol.ina Register 2668 (March 15, 19.93). These
comments have been prepared by the Groundwater
SUbcomm.ittee of the Environmental Concerns Committee of
North caro1ina Citizens for Business and Industry
("NCCBI"). NCCBI is a statewide organization of
manufacturers, related service industries and other
.businesses seeking to promote the best possible
economic environment for North carolina employers,
employees and citizens.
NCCBI briefly addresses its support of the new
ruies, and one proposed revision, in the following
section. HCCBl:'s own criticisms of the 2L proposal
appear in the following sections •
rr. The New Rules Recocrnize Reality
It is difficult to conceive of an environmental
prob1em with a more elusive solution than groundwater
contamination. While the technology exists, in many
cases, to address problems relating to air and surface
water emissions, the plain fact is that no technology exists to
effectively address most instances of groundwater contamination.
Regrettably, for the foreseeable future, prevention of
groundwater pollution is far and away the best protection
available.
Fortunately, not all groundwater prob~ems are created equal.
Apart from relatively rare exigent situations, the great majority
of the groundwater incidents pose no genuine environmental or
hea·1th threat Whatsoever. SU.ch situations include contamination
in urban areas served by lllllnicipal water supply, incidents in
rural areas which will naturally bioremed.iate long before any
potential drinking water receptors cou.J.d be affected, and many
others. Other incidents, while posing threats to individual
residential water wells, are more easily abated as to that
particular problem..
Importantly, while the technology to restore contam.lllated
water to regulatory standards does not exist, the ability to make
case-by-case determinations as to which problems require active
remediation does. Likewise, arresting the flow of contaminated
water is well within current capabilities. The new regulations
would offer these options, in lieu of a mandatory cleanup command
that cannot be obeyed. The key change is to 15A N.C. Adm.in. Code
Ch. 2L. 0106, the corrective action regu.irement, which harein
shall.be referred to as "Rule 106."
The revised Rule 106, without in any way sacrificing
protection of actual or potential drinking water supplies, gives
DEM and OSWM the discretion to assess the actual risk involved.
Contrary to criticiS1llS that the new rule provides no criteria or
~delines for such risk determinations, revised Ru.le 106
requires the agencies to consider a nwnber of factors well within
the ability of existing science to determine. These include the
contaminant migration, the existence of urban or other drinking
water supplies, natural attenuation and the application of best
available technology, among others.
NCCBI strongly recommends adding groundwater discharge to
surface water as a natural re.taediation process in Ru.le .0106(k).
Anyone wishing to use th.is form of remediation must provide
su.fficient evidence demonstrating that surface water quality
standards will not be violated, or any uses ilnpaired, by the
groundwater discharge. ·
There are likely many circumstances today where remediation
by this process is happening. Where unlined waste lagoons or
landfills are near but upgradient from rivers, contaminated
groundwater flow to those rivers is and has been occurring. The
reason that receiving streams are not impacted is because the
rate of groundwater discharge is often low reiative to stream
-2-
flow, and the concentrations of contam.i.nants is below surface
water standards.
Accordingly, NCCBI recommends that proposed 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 2L. 0106(k)(2) be revised as follows (proposed additional
language in bo.ld.):
(2) evidence of the contaminant's degradation
and attenuation capacity, inc1uding, where
applicable, natural groundwater discharge to
s~ace waters (provided that such discharge
causes neither a violation of app1icable
water quality standards nor impa.i:cment of use
of such_surfa.ce waters).
NCCBI believes that existing Rule 106, which issues a
cleanup mandate and offers no guidance whatsoever as to how the
impossible goal is to be accomplished, is far more susceptible to
a charge of vagueness than the proposed ru.J.e. The proposed
revisions to Rule 106 substitute reality for fantasy.
NCCBI does not believe, as apparently some critics of the
proposed rules do, that the proposed discretion to be granted to
the two groundwater agencies would permit responsible parties to
avoid addressing true problems. NCCBI may have more experience
with DEM and DWSM staff than,do such critics, and obviously more
faith in those agencies' dedication to environmental protection.·
III. Maxi.mum Co ntam inant Level s ("MCLs") Should Be
Re-established As Cleanup Goals.
. NCCBI cannot fully support the proposed 2L draft. As a
historical matter, an ad hoc advisory committee of interested
parties, including representatives of industry, the consulting
comm.unity, environmentalist groups and the state agencies, began
to meet over one year ago to discuss the flexibility concept now
embodied in proposed Ru.le 106. This process culminated in a
draft set of revisions dated November 18, 1992, which was widely
circulated.
In December, 1992, at what amounted to the eleventh hour,
certain membars of the environmentalist community began to voice
concerns regarding the proposed revisions. At about the same
time state epidemiologists also criticized the rules. These
critics' concerns, among others, were heard in a large-scale
working session held on January 5, 1993 in Raleigh. Although
support for the new rules was widespread among business, academic
and governmental representatives at the working session, a number
of late-arising criticisms were adopted and incorporated into the
current proposed 2L amendments.
-3-
NCCBI does not dispute the right of intarested parties, and
-particularly representatives of such significant interests as
organized environmentalists and public health, to voice concerns
at any point in an informal rulelnak.ing process. NCCBI melllbers
who were present from the beginning of the year-long process
would note for the record that substantial. courtesies were
extended to those who, for whatever reasons, chose not to become
actively involved in the revision process at an earlier point in
time.
But criticisms voiced late in the game, which might ~ell
have been fairly and effectively dea.J.t with earlier on, should be
assessed in comparison to views aired for debate fro~ the
beginning of the process. A chief example of a recent revision
Which suffers from such a comparison is the ill-conceived
deletion from the proposed rules of the November draft's adoption
of the water quality standards established at 15A N.C. Admin.
Code Ch. 1sc as cleanup goals. {See, 15A NCAC 2L .0106(a),
November 18, 1992 draft revisions.)
The so-cal.led maximwn. contaminant limits ("MCLs"),
incorporated at 15A N.C. Admin. Code 18C, are drinking water
standards designed to protect the public. The November 18 draft
attempted to incorporate MCLs as the cleanup standard for
groundwater once it had become contaminated. Establishing MCLs
as the cleanup standard in no way affected the overall
groundwater quality standards established at 15A N.C. Adm.in. Code
Ch. 2L. 0200 et seq.; rather, incorporation of the MCLs was meant
to avoid, in many cases, extended case-by~case decision making
processes regarding what would be an "alternative cleanup level"
for contaminated groundwater.
Using the MCLs made sense for a number of reasons. First,
these are levels already established as safe for drinking water
purposes.-Second, these are cleanup levels which are at least
possible to obtain, as opposed to the 2L groundwater
classification levels which generally are set at 1/lOth of the
MCLs. Third, use of the Mets provided administrative convenience
in that negotiation of a new .·cleanup standard would not
necessarily be required for each an_d every incident of
groundwater contamination.
Onfortwiately, use of the MCLs was un:fairly criticized on
the grounds that drinking water standards were insufficient with
respect to groundwater protection. This argument requires one to
forget that MCLs wou.ld apply on1y to groundwater which is already
contaminated. And, with all due respect to those who oppose
using MCLs, NCCBI must point out that the MCL standards were
established with the benefit of extensive research and, in most
cases, as the result of formal rulemaking.
-4-
NCCBI is aware of claims that 2L standards must be more
strict than MCLs due to a claimed (but not, to NCCBI's knowledge 1
substantiated) ncumulative effect of cancer risk." If such a
cumulative risk exists, why is it not applied to the public
drinking water supply? Why wou1d a p@lic water supp1ier be
permitted to "cumu1ate11 chemicals at MCLs, if such a risk truly
exists? Why, in any case, should well water suppliers be held to
a different standard? In the absence of solid scientitic
evidence, it must be assumed that the MCLs were set with
cumulative risks in mind.· It is simply unwarranted to apply a
risk analysis to groundwater that does not apply to drinking
water.
Groundwater standards had been set at 1/lOth of the MCLs for
the purpose of providing a "safety cushion" between safe drinking
water levels and groundwater classifications. Such concerns need
not be, and should not be, applicable to groundwater which is
known to be contaminated. The 2L standards 1nerely trigger the
need for corrective action. With respect to known contaJD.inated
groundwater, there is "sa£etyn built into the system in that
remediation would be underway. Remediation would not be
al:>andoned or discontinued until it was established with
scientific certainty that the MCL levels had bean achieved.
Furthermore, many MCLs are at least arguably possible to
achieve via remediation. While in many cases a responsible party
would be unable to achieve even an MCL, it is quite often
impossible to achieve groundwater standards via existing
technology.
It is substantially more responsible for the groundwater
agencies to insert a standard --the MCLs -which is at least
conceivably achievable, than it is to reinstate a target that can
never be hit. NCCBI respectfully urges that the November 18,
1992 version of 15A N.c. Adm.in. Code Ch. 2L. 0106 be adopted in
lieu of the current proposed version.
IV. The Proposed Responsible Party Definition i~
Improper.
NCCBI supports the adoption of a workable delineation of 2L
"responsible parties." The definition proposed in the
November is, 1992 revisions1 while not iJIImune to criticism, is
acceptable to NCCBI in the spirit of compromise. Two recent
a~ditions to the rules --15A N.C. Admin. Code Ch. 2L.0102(19)(b)
and .0102(19) (c) -are unfair, unconstitutional and will
discourage voluntary cleanups.
NCCBI is aware that co:mments dated March 31, 1993 on this
issue were submitted by NCCBI member law firm Maupin Taylor Ellis
& Adams, P.A. Essentially, NCCBl: agrees with and incorporates by
reference the points raised in the March 31, 1993, letter. For
-s-
convenience and ease of reference, portions of that letter are
summarized herein.
A. The Proposed Rule is Unfair and Will he Ineffective
Rule .0102(19) (b) probably was intended to forestall
atteinpts to avoid cleanup liability via contaminated property
transfers. In reality, the rule will not affect liability-
avoidant behavior one way or the other. It will, however, create
sUbstantial unfairness.
To attempt to affix 2L responsibility on a party who is a
complete stranger to any nactions causing or contributing to the
violation of groundwater quality standards" (language taken from
Part (a) of the SaJne definition} is inconsistent with state law. rt is an odd result to hold a purchaser of contaminated property
liable when that new owner has had nothing to do with the
contamination, and finds no support in North Carolina. statutory
or case law.
True responsible parties cannot escape 2L liability si:m.ply
by selling their property. Under the 2L rules, once an entity is
a responsible party, it is presumably always subject to
corrective action. Thus, there is no deterrent effect
accomplished by this proposed rule. It is merely an attempt to
improperly punish the new owners, or to widen the liability "net"
without justification.
In many cases, sellers are not themselves 2L responsible
parties. In such cases, sales of contaln..inated property cannot be
seen as attempts to shift 2L responsibilities, since the seller
has no 2L responsibility to hide from. If a seller is a 2L
responsible party, as noted above, a sale of the property woUld
not appear to absolve that seller's 2L liability. In fact, DEM
should encourage such sales, as it could provide a source of
money (the sale proceeds) which might be used for cleanups.
B. The Proposed Rule Is Unconstitutional
Regardless of a seller's status as a 2L responsible party,
attempts to impose strict liability on purchasers of property,
based solely on their status as purchasers with knowledge, cannot
be established by rule. Imposition of this CERCLA-like liability
cannot be accomplished by administrative procedures;
constitutionally, only the legislative branch can make such laws.
An effort to impose corrective action liability on a subsequent
purchaser via a 2L regulation would not pass muster ·if it were
challenged.
-6-
C. The Proposed Rule Encourages Waste of
Existina Resources
A great nwnber of plant facilities will lay fallow if the
new rule creates an inability to transfer properties '-7ith
rehabilitation in mind. Companies seeking to expand must instead
construct new facilities, which construction of course poses
environmental costs. Fundamentally, any rule which in its
operation restricts property transfer forces our society to
overlook, and thereby waste, valuable existing assets.
D. The Proposed Rule Will Discourage
Sale and Remediation" Agreements
Rule .0102(19)(b) discourages voluntary cleanups. Many
current owners of contaminated property are not responsible
parties under existing 2L regulations, and wouJ.d not be under the
proposed version. Many of these owners would gladly undertake a
voluntary c1aanup if to do so would facilitate a sale. We have
represented clients in this situation who have successfully done
so.
Obviously such sales almost always include an agreement to
clean up the property; 2L liability aside, no one will buy
contaminated property absent a binding and effective cleanup
commitment. However, no such promise will be sufficient if the
buyer automatically beco~es a responsible party upon closing.
Imposing such strict liability allows the state to bypass the
cleanup contract between buyer and seller -which would be an
unacceptable risk to the typical buyer. Accordingly, productive
and beneficial "sale and re.mecliationn arrangements will no longer
be available in North Carolina. Certainly, in most situations it
would be far preferable to use existi+tg industrial and commercial
properties rather than creating new properties in "green field"
areas. The 2L regulations should not discourage the continued
use of existing industrial properties by new owners (or lessees)
as the proposed 2L.0102(19)(b) would do.
E. Rule .0102(19) (c) is Defective and contrary to statute
Part (c) of the proposed definition purports to render 0 an
adjoining property owner ~ho obstructs the implementation of
corrective action that would prevent further contamination" fully
refillonsible for all contamination at issue.
Although NCCBI believes the spirit of this revision is
sound, the regulation is overbroad in the extreme and addresses a
matter l:>est left to the legislature. Furthermore, the General
Assembly has to some degree spoken on the subject of an adjoining
landowner's cooperation with a cleanup -and the Legislature's
position is contraty to Ru.le .0102(19){c). N.C.G.S. § 130A-309
-7-
excuses adjacent site cleanup if the responsible party can
· demonstrate that the adjacent site owner will not cooperate.
Clearly, the 2L regulations cannot take a contrary position.
To be sure, it is difficult for NCCBI's members to conceive
of being party to any "obstruction" of an ongoing reJI1ediation.
However, the term "obstructs" is vague and overbroad, and the
penalty for being an "obstructionist" is quite drastic. For
these reasons, this section, which purports to give the executive
branch of government the power to impose strict liability on
adjoining property ot.mers, is flatly unconstitutional.
NCCBI understands this rule as .an attempt to give DEM anr.i
DSWM the authority to put·1nonitoring wells, or possibly recovery
or sparging wells or other remedial technology, on the property
of an adjacent land owner without that landowner's permission.
NCCBI's members are sympathetic, having more than once
encountered what appears to be completely irrational resistance
to such efforts.
However, a private property owner's rationale for not
permitting intrusions on his property must be a strictly
individual matter. It goes without saying that a person 111ho acts
without reason in this cont¢ may well be waiving his rights
against the adjacent polluter -or may risk becoming a liable
party under statute or common law. But, if the govermnent wishes
to remove the potii7er to assess these risks from the individual, it
must do so via the legislative1 not the executive, branch.
NCCBI urges that parts (b) and (C) of 15A N.C .. Adluin. Code
2L .0102 be entirely stricken from the proposed draft.
NCCBI wishes to thank the staff, the Commission and its
assistants for their time in considering these comments.
l.550419O
Very truly yours,
~~U-
Robert Alan Cohen
Chairman, Groundwater
Subcolllllli.ttee
North Carolina citizens
for Business and Industry
Environmental Concerns Committee
-8-
GROUNDWATER
1 SA NCAC 2L
CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
AMENDMENTS: RULE ·.0102; .0103; .0104; .0106; .0107
.0108; .0109; .0110; .0111; .0112; .0113; .0201 AND .0202
ADOPTION: RULE .0114
{APPROVAL DATE:
VOLUME ONE:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OCTOBER 1, 1993 (RULE .0103 EFFECTIVE
NOVEMBER 1, 1993)}
I. FINAL APPROVAL MATERIALS
A. Final Rule
B. Submission for Filing Forms
C. Rule approved by Rules Review Commission (RRC)
D. RRC Memoranda and Final Changes to Rules
E. RRC Objection to Rule .0103 and Response
II. HEARING OFFICERS MATERIALS
A. Summary of Hearing Officers Recommendations to the
Environmental Management Commission
B. Rule presented to the Environmental Management
Commission
c. Douglas Boykin's letter
D. Staff Memorandum and other documents
III. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS
A. Submission for Notice Form
B. Rule presented at the hearings
C. Newspaper notices
VOLUME TWO:
IV. RULEMAKING SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
A. APA Form 101
'B. Summaries of Comment from Hearing Notice
C. Hearing list
D. Proceedings of Hearing Summary
V. CORRESPONDENCE
VI. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
VOLUME THREE:
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Written Comments
VOLUME FOUR:
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Written Comments (CONTINUED)
B. Timely Legislative Comment
C. Timely Letters to the EMC Chairman
VOLUME FIVE:
IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS
'A, Timely Letters to the EMC Chairman (CONTINUED)
B. Groundwater Section Staff Comments
C. Timely Response/Comment from Professional Practice
Boards (Geology and Engineering)
D. Responses of the Division of Epidemiology
E. Late Comments
.. N'ORTH C.AROLlNA
PETROLEU!Vi
COUNCIL
WILLIAM H. WEATHERSPOON
B11.«11tlw Dim/or
J\ Ojyj5/on of the Amerkan Petroleum ln1!1tute
P.O. BOX lf:17 • RALF.IGH, N.C . 2'602
g191826-S438 • fAX 919182t•OJ37
UM D!\. V M UC H
Atot,~{:t te DiJt.'tt.Oi'
April 23, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater section
PO BOX 2953$
Raleigh NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr~ Hance:
Thank you for the opportunity to co:rnment on the rUl '-1 chang~~
proposed for the North Carolina groundwater program. (15A NC5C &L}
You should anticipate hearing from our member companies on an
individual basis regarding their specific recommendations.
I have attended several of your public hearings and commend ~h e
staff on the manner in which the audience was briefed and the wa y
in which the hearin9s were conducted.
We wish to support in a general sense the direction that t h<a
proposal takes -namely a recognition that there are limit.ea
financial resources available and that informed judgments that
optimize the funds available should play an important part in
maxifflizing cleanup efforts.
Contaminated groundwater is a major problem when it impacts our
drinking water supplies. The state needs to constantly seek tha~
delicate regulatory balance that is strong enough to enforci~
cleanup and smart enough to avoid wasteful spending.
As you know, the EMC has -in the past -asked intere~ted parti -~
to consult and work out "sticking points 0 in proposed rule changes
where significant citizen input was received. Should that
eventuality occur again, we will volunteer now to bring whatever
expert opinion we can to the table to assi~t the staff and the EMCa
Sincerely,
w~~ ~~i~~oc~
WHW/jm
. The rules are too broad. If the problem is with the financing of the trust fund and with
· petroleum contamination from· l.u.s.t.s., on which staff's presentations at the public
hearings have focused entirely,.then focus the rules on these cases.· Landfills,
hazardous waste sites, superfund sites, illegal dumps and all other sites sh9uld not be
included. ·
The rules should start with a clear statement that North Carolina's p olicy is "y ou mess it
u p, y ou clean it u p ." In addition the rules should clearly prohibit pollution from cross·ing
property bound~ries. · Pump ~nd Treat technology is a proven way of containing • ·.
contamination and is the front line of defense in protecting other people's property. It is
the other 'no action' options that are unproven in this regard. The factthat the .· · ·
groundwater under my pr,operty, my groundwater, dilutes the pollution· spreading from
your property to 'below the standards' _cannot be used as an excuse for not requiring
·active remediation.
The rules alread include a variance . rocedure that ives the Director broad author· to
make exce ptions where needed. In eed the proposed changes make the variance
possiblities even broader. Those polluters·wishing to be excused from the responsibility
for cleaning up sho.uld use that procedure ...
Our s·pecific comments on individual sections include: · .
· Section .0102 (13): Definitions need to be includeq for the terms dilution, filtration,
sorption, ion~exchange, chemical transformation and biodegradation. Bi0degradation
needs to be recognized as·an engineered solution that has its own requirements
including the use of EPA tests 625, 8250 and others regarding toxic constituents; source
of oxygen; bioassay of existing "bugs," etc. What is meant by 'dilution'? Are we creating
mixing'.zones so that diluted pollution meets standatds?
. · · .0102 (18)'the definition of receptor should be expanded to include livestock,
wildlife, wetlands-and crops for human consumption.
. .0102 (19)the definition o.f responsible party needs complete-revision ... particularly
(b) and (c)._What is the d_efinition of 'obstructs'·in (c)? How does this definition of ·.
responsible party relate to the EPA definition? As a delegated state,·doesn't EPA's
definition_ apply to NC? ·
Section .0103 (a): what is the definition of '.significant'? ·'
Also what is the definition· of 'where feasible and necessary'?
.~ ....... 0103 (b) (2) do not delete the phrase "beyond the boundaries of the property etc.'.'
0103 (e)_we support this as written.
0104 (a): Thissection should be limi~ed-to petroleum produc,s. The word 'any'
should be changed to 'all' in the phrase _"under any of the following circumstances."
0104 (b): change this to "may be designated RS".
· 0104 (d): Under wtiat_conditions will the director .require additional remedial action?
What does the phrase 'may be required' mean?
..
. .· 0104 (e): the pU:blic notice requirements are inadequate. One time notice in a
newspaper is inadequate; 30 day n.otice is inadequate; adjacent landowners must be
contacted individually.·. ·
. 0106 Corrective Action: This entire section needs extensive study as to its Impact
on our presentand future uses of groundwater. This should be the beginning point and
in depth comments abo~t whatis propos~d is fut~le. Section (k)(1).(B) for example .. ·
should read ''the contaminants present will not migrate to any existing or Mure receptor."
(k)(4) is no~ possible in_ many _areas ... (k)(5) cur~ent state or local Q.Overilment planning _
efforts are inadequate 1n many cases ... (k)(6) this should read "written consent from all .
property owners etc:" In ·addition, section (i)(2) allows the Div. of Epidemiology to either
weaken or strengthen a standard. · This sho~ld follow public input and debate at the
least. ·
. · 0262: Out.of 73 current standards; there are 27 standa.rd changes: ·over 1 /3 of.the
standards. So many changes at one time make it impossible to realfy get public input
cibout any one of them'. Our focus here wm be on the new standards being· proposed for
seven cherTJicals thaJ are currently not legally allowed in our groundwater.· 'c
First, .it is important. to know that while anyone can ask that groundwater standards be
adopted that allow more chemicals in our water, it is.not the (amilies with contaminated
wells who are asking for these standards. _ It is the pollute~s who face groundwater· . ·
cleanups who want these standards to be made. By making standards, we· are allowing
the introduction of these man-made ~hemicals into our groundwater. · -
The federal . government has not set maximum contaminant leve,s for th·ese chemicals,
not because they: are safe, but because vital information is lacking .. There is not an
agreement about what a safe dose of these chemicals might be. According to the EPA
there is inadequate information available to determine whether these suostances can
cause cancer. We don 1t know enough about tl1e long-term effects on these chemicals
on children .or adults. · •. ·
These are vital pieces of health information that .are lacking. While anyone can. come up
.with numbers, it is difficult to believe that without this: vital information that such numbers
will real_ly protect the health of our children and families. C.an · we truly say that these
· proposed standards-are health based? . ·
Indeed, even our own groundwater;-section; responsible for these standards and rule
changes, has inadequate information about the bases of these proposed standards. .We
.recommend that more informatio11 on these standards be prepared for the public. Such
· information should include a summary of information on each chemical and the criteria
the proposed standards are·based·upon. If any standard.is set.at this time it-should be
set-at zero;
To:
From:
Subj~:
Environmental Management Commission
do Mr David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
The League of Wo~~. Voters of Dare County,
P.O. Box 689, Kitty Hawk NC 27949
Proposed Changes to Groundwater Regulations,
Title 15A of the NC Administrative Code 2L
April 15, 1?J3
"· We appreciate the opportunity to comment ori the proposed changes to your regulations,
and hope you will consider our ideas.
In general, we think it is important to keep in mind that "today's field is tomorrow's
subdivision" and not make decisions that could preclude safe use of the . state's resources.
Once contaminated, groundwater is difficult to reclaim, especially when there is as little
research into the exact condition of the aquifers as there is in our area. There has never
been -as far as we can discover -a full hydrogeological study of the groundwater supply
in Dare County and its adjacent area. ·
We are concerned about the proposed weakening of cleanup requirements where chemical
pollution has been found. We do not think . "alternate cleanup levels," unspecified, can be
as good as cleanup to the level of the quality standards as now required.
We can not find a definition in your regulation of "significant public interest." ·1s it one
phone call, 50 letters, or what? A single aiuiouncement in the local newspaper can easily
be missed even by people who read the legal notices regularly; there should be a.
requirement for repeated advertisements -perhaps 5 or 6 over a period of at ,east 2
weeks, with at least one in large type -for notification to a community affected· by
contaminated groundwater that you are going to allow less than standard levels of cleanup.
Radio and TV announcements should be made for those who do not read newspapers.
Our objection is not to variances per se, but to blanket changes in regulations. We do not
suggest that there could not be specific assistance to a single small business having
difficulty in complying. But you · should not weaken the rules themselves; it would be better
to keep the rules and allow occasional exceptions on a case by case basis.
We urge you to strengthen, not weaken the groundwater regulations. Rural groundwater
protection is particularly important, and local governments probably ·do not have the
expertise to deal with these problems. They have to rely on the . state program. Similarly,
local citizens cannot do the enforcement . job which requires scientific analysis and
professional knowledge of the water supply and surrounding area.
We do support · the requirement to have professional engineers and hydrogeologists perform
the analyses to determine what is necessary for repairing damage to water supplies.
The League believes that no decrease in groundwater protection should result from your
deliberations on this regulation. We urge you to strengthen, not weaken, its requirements;
Jean Joseph, First Vice President
...
LWV of Dare · County
April 15, 1993 Page 2
Specific comments related to numbered paragraphs follow .
. 0102 Retain the former #8 "Limit of Detectability" definition. No substitute definition is
provided. Not using this EPA standard definition weakens considerably the material in
paragraph #.0202 as well.
There is no definition of "person" in . the document. One might assume it to mean
human beings, corporations, and other business entities normally considered "persons" but it
would be good to be specific, as you are about many other definitions. Otherwise, the
application of the term "responsible party" could . be hard to determine .
. 0103 (a) The underlined change weakens · the regulation too much. ''Where feasible" is too
indefinite. And who ·knows whether this level would "ensure suitability as future source of
drinking water"?
(b) i£ the "compliance boundary" is not the property line, can we assume it is somewhere
beyond the property line? How will it be identified? Does this make enforcement more
difficult?
.0104 (c) The word significant should not be inserted here.
(d) Does "within the designated area" mean the same as "within the compliance boundary"?
It would help us unders.tand what the regulations mean if the terminology were used
strictly. "Compliance boundary" was defined in .0102 (3) but "designated area" was not.
(e) The public notice provision is inadequate. Many NC citizens do . not read. Not all
readers get newspapers. Additional notification by Public Service Announcements (PSA) or
paid advertising on radio and local TV should be required in addition to several newspaper
notices, not just one. . . . . .
"Significant public interest'' in having a public hearing is not defined. It should be.
In a . tourist area like · our county, local government . would prefer not to let citizens or
tourists -know about a pollution problem i£ they could avoid notification.
The quantity of bottled water sold on Outer Banks stores is already large because
visitors and residents don't like the taste of the public water supply product, but they
would all be very upset if they thought it might be unsafe .
. 0106 (c)(l) Retain the previous language which calls for a plan and a schedule for
restoration. Not requiring a schedule leaves too much leeway for delay.
(h) End the sentence before "unless" and do not provide loopholes in the regulation. The
Commission should handle special cases as exceptions, rather than changing the regulations
to accommodate problem situations before they arise.
(i) There is not much of a standard in Paragraph .0202 unless you retain the EPA ''Limit
of Detectability" definition on which so much is based.
(I) Termination of corrective action should not be allowed just because the action · has not ·
been successful in reducing the concentration of pollutants.
A new plan and schedule, not termination, should be required.
The previous regulation (Paragraph e, stricken out) should be retained 'in place of
the proposed (I) .
. 0111 "Restoration of groundwater quality" (stricken out) is preferable to the proposed
wording "corrective action," which is much less specific and less demanding.
\
LWV of Dare County
April 15, 1993 Page 3 _,.
I .0112 (2) Retain the wording "Limit of detectability" which has a precise meaning
incorporating by reference the EPA standards (and restore the definition to Section .0102).
The tighter definition is better than the proposed change "practical quantation level" which
has no precise definition or standard .
. 0113 Keep the previous, specific wording (stricken out in the proposal) as to what
variances the Commission may grant. ·
If you allow variances to "the rules of . this subchapter," then the entire regulatory
structure is eligible for variance. This seems a very bad idea ...
(e)(l)(~) One time publication in the newspaper is not sufficient public notice. Gtizen
participation in making decisions about variances to safe drinking water requirements is
very important. Broader advertisement is necessary for protection of the public interest.
(e)(2)(D) Add, after "geographic description" the words "and a map."
(e)(2)0) Add a subparagraph K that will include the procedure and time for submitting
additional comments .
. 0114 (c) Add that notification shall include information explaining how and where to file a
petition contesting the decision, time limits for contesting the decision, and how to address
a petition for· reversal of the decision .
. 0202 (a) Restore stricken sentence at end of paragraph.
(b)(l) Retain previous language. "Practical quantation limit" has no precise meaning; '1jmit
of detectability" does have specific meaning to technicians .
(g) Why have the allowable concentrations of so many of the contaminants been increased?
Only a few are decreased. Is there scientific justification for lqwering the standards and
allowing greater concentrations of pollutants? No · reference is made in this subparagraph to
EPA standards, as was made in (e). Is this an oversight?
The League of Women Voters of Dare County
P.O. Box 689
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
\
, ,
Sal~m Environmental, Inc./
Certifoam Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 5524
Winston-Salem, NC 27113-5524
919/661-9231
919/66 t -9241 CF AX)
21 Apr11 1 993
Mr David Hance
NC-DEHNR
Groundwater Sect I on
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Re: Proposed 1 SA NCAC 2L Amendments
Sir:
\993
~NQ\\'Alft st~~
RALEIGH, NC ?
Prior to starting my environmental services company in late 1988, I spent
over twelve years as operations and general manager of a mid-size
petroleum marketer in the Piedmont Area. I also own property where a
third party is responsible for the removal of three abandoned USTs.
Naturally, my perspective on the current debate is colored by these
experiences. I am concerned by two points raised in the proposed
amendments. One applies directly to myself, wh1Je the other affects my
customers (and potentially myself) where we are investigating
groundwater releases at some 20 sites in all seven regions.
First, I find fault with the vague definition of responsible party under the
new amendment in Section .0102 ( 19)(a). As a property owner who has
asked for action through my ex-wife to get her father to handle this
situation, I am completely frustrated. He has a record of non-compl1ance
with the DEM at numerous sites and has publicly stated (in print) his
contempt for any remedial efforts "forced" on him by the DEM. Under this
new definition I could potentially be interpreted to be a responsible party
due to its lack of focus. Just because I own a site purchased in 1981 that
possessed tanks should not open me to possible liability in the event of a
release. This was long before any regulations or widespread knowledge of
the hazards and costs resultant from a release into the surrounding soils
or groundwater. It must be defined what constitutes "a person who is
Page 2
21 April t 993
Hance,cont.
wholly or partially responsible" in far greater detail before this phrase is
inserted.
Second, I was of the understanding that the General Assembly enacted a
statute allowing for the installation of a closed-loop groundwater
remediation system (once the prevailing plume flow had been delineated)
by issuing one simple permit. This was accomplished to prevent plume
spread onto adjacent properties and partially clean up the effluent stream.
However, the requirements of having engineer-stamped non-discharge
permits at each step of the remediation process serves to slow action
appreciably. It ts established that granting any permit, particularily in
some of the reg1onal offices, adds months to the establishment of a
sensible system to control the spread of the shallow plume.
Although this issue is not referred to 1n the proposed alterations to
Section .0106, it 1s representative of what could happen under the amend-
ments. Our consulting geologist, who shares office space with my firm,
served as a Groundwater Section Regional Supervisor for nearly a year and
is fam111ar w1th regulatory activities. His and my concern is that the
permitting process 1s extremely vague here.
Suppose the following. We go to a site where a plume is determined to
impact a nearby supply well within two months if it is not checked. The
proposed amendments do not define if we have to get initial permitting -
only "approval". Is this verbal or written? As we could be fined for act1on
or inaction on the behalf of our customer, this needs to be addressed more
clearly. The responsible party could also seek redress.
Also, In the past two years the current review process has cost me over
$4,000 in unpaid bills when a new regulator re-interpreted a site situation
such as I have described above. I had recieved verbal guidance that was
reneged on after each activity was completed; as the customer(s)
considered my work not necessary, they did not pay their invoices. This is
another reason why the vagueness of the wording appJfcable to
implementing an "approved" plan under Section .0106 (c)( 1) should be made
perfectly cl ear.
I appreciate the load the DEM and EMC labor under. On the whole I feel the
Page 3
21 April 1993
Hance,cont.
proposed regulations are a positive step. I am overly familiar with
petroleum marketer finances and the actual costs associated with all
phases of remediation, and I can assure you that many multiple tank
owners cannot continue to supply jobs, or, even continue operations
without bankruptcy proceedings, unless some rational relief ls supplied.
Your attempts are applauded and welcomed.
Sincerely,
-/J ~
Harvey C. Danner, Jr.
President
cc: Mr Doug Howie, NCPMA
Ms Judy Hunt, 40th District, General Assembly
Mr Nelson Cole, 25th District, General Assembly
Mr David Flaherty, 46th D1str1ct, general Assembly
Mr George Rob1nson, 46th D1strict, General Assembly
Mr Sandy Sands, 24th District, NC Senate
TFI .: 1 91 CJ ?6 ?87S5 J 3:3 3 Nr .0 1 3 P.0 7
Because this policy change will evoke such hardship on thase individuals, we
need to comment that knowledge and forewarning has not been generally
dislf'itJutod.
Through informal discussion with various individuals in the environmental field
we have found many are unaware that this policy change is even proposed
much less open for public comment. People cannot respond on matters for
which they are unawa,e.
We wish to recommend that the designation of qualified consultants be
postponed. We further recommend a Stata lave! accreditation program be
implemented in a manner similar to the 11Asbestos Control Branch'• where
individuals may be tested on their ability and fairiy accredited to practice. This
program can be funded through course tuition, testing fees. and annual
accreditation fees.
Sincerely,
~\~j,.._,~
Dolly Bidwan
Law & Company. rnc.
/(ENAN OIL
April 23, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
re: Proposed Amendments to 15A NCAC 2L
Dear Mr. Hance,
o~©m?l'fi~
23 1993 ~,f
GROUNDWATER SECTION
RALEIGH, NC
Kenan Oil Company strongly supports the proposed amendments to the 2L Groundwater
Classification and Standards. The Division of Environmental Management needs to have the
authority to adjust cleanup standards and make adjustments on a case by case basis. They (DEM)
currently do not have any flexibility that allows them to make changes to existing cleanup
standards where site specific factors suggest more cost efficient and effective cleanups. These
proposed amendments benefit not only the responsible party but also all impacted parties.
Kenan Oil Company is a medium siz.ed petroleum distributor based in Chapel Hill. We sell
gasoline through approximately thirty retail outlets in central North Carolina. Our company has
taken a proactive approach to our environmental problems. We have aggressively sought to find
and remediate our environmental problems. We presently have 10 locations where we are doing
environmental work. There are probably others. The expenses and time that we have invested in
environmental cleanups has been astonishing. Kenan Oil Company has spent over one Million
dollars investigating and cleaning up environmental problems. This is more money than our
combined operating profits in the past 10 years combined.
Kenan Oil Company does not believe that the proposed changes will affect all of our sites. We
have several groundwater cleanups underway now that are clearly necessary. VVe don't .vant and
can't afford to pass on potential risks to other people. Many of our employees drink from wells
daily. We all share the desire to protect our groundwater. There are however other locations
where we have spent tremendous sums of money and realize there is no benefit to the
environment from what we have done.
Kenan Oil has one location that we believe is a case where had the proposed changes been in
effect, we would have saved time and money and the environment would not have been negatively
impacted. The location is in the environmental sensitive town of Chapel Hill. We owned a
service station and leased it to a dealer. The tanks were installed in the 1960's. Because of the
age of the tanks and other economic factors, Kenan Oil decided to discontinue to lease the
location as a service station. Our primary concern was to remove the tanks before we had a leak.
We removed the tanks in the summer of 1990.
100 Europa Drive • Suite 450 • Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514-2310
Chapel Hill [phone] • Durham [phone] • Fax [phone]
...
GROUNDWATER ~f~ . .-.;,
During the tank excavation, we discovered gasoline in the tank hole. We immediately notified
DEM and contracted an environmental consultant. The CSA showed groundwater contamination
that exceeded the Standards. We then developed a CAP. The CAP called for the active
remediation of an impounded drainage ditch immediately downgradiant of the petroleum plume.
The ditch was acting as an interceptor. It also called for us to use a soil venting system to clean
the soil. Our consultants told us at the time that the groundwater restoration was unneeded but
that we had to implement the groundwater treatment in this ditch in order to comply with the 2L
regulation. The design for this system and expense for obtaining the permits for this CAP greatly
exceeded $10,000.
By the time we received all the necessary permits and approval of our CAP, our periodic
monitoring indicated that the levels of benzene had fallen to below detection levels in most
instances. Our consultant contributed this to several reasons. First, the source of contamination
was removed. Second, the soil type in this area allowed for natural degradation of the
hydrocarbons. This natural cleaning occurred during this period. Attached is a summary of the
analytical results of the water quality monitoring. We still have a soil vent system in place which
we expect to remove within a year.
If DEM had the ability to adjust the groundwater and cleanup standards at the time this release
was discovered, Kenan Oil and the UST trust fund could have saved tens of thousands of dollars.
The Environment would have been no worse off and we could have put our financial and human
resources to more productive and effective uses.
Please give DEM the tools and regulations it needs to make this a safe state for all of us. Please
amend the NC 2L regulations as proposed. We will be happy to provide you any other
information on our sites that may help you in amending these regulations.
Thank you very much for the time you, your staff and the Environmental Management
Commission have taken in dealing with these changes.
Sin
Owen G. Kenan
&~
President
enclosure
cc: Mr. Doug Boykin
Edward S. Holmes, Jr.
Vice President
CSG A 1NFOF:D NC ID:919-774-5300 APR 23'93 15:56 No.017 P.03
Through our efforts and others in the soil recycling business,
North Carolina enjoys some of the lowest remediation/recycling
costs on the East Coast. Everyone in North Carolina wants a clean
environment, we are sure that the Environmental Management
Commission will make the right choice.
/w Marathon
~ Oil Company
April 23, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental
Groundwater Section
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Management
State Government Affairs
, r• 1f,5 l.;1 t!!l-~ J:S J!!i r, --;1rc-3fff}ft~~
Findlay, Ohio 45840 i 0 ..., ff 1993 539 South Main Street I}
Telephone [phone] N"'n
GROUNDWATER SECTION
RALEIGH, NC
Subject: Proposed Amendments -Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hance:
Marathon Oil Company appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the
proposed amendments to North Carolina's groundwater regulations.
Marathon Oil Company engages in all aspects of petroleum operations.
Marathon is the nation's seventh largest refiner and supplies over 3,800
Marathon-and subsidiary-brand retail outlets located throughout the
Midwest and Southeast. In North Carolina, Marathon operates a refined-
products terminal at Charlotte and, through a subsidiary, markets motor
fuels to the public at 36 retail outlets, which operate under the
11 Speedway II brand. Al so, the company is a significant suppl i er of
petroleum products to independent jobbers and wholesalers, who market our
products under their private brands.
Marathon strongly supports the proposed amendments to the state's
groundwater regulations. The proposed regulations are protective of the
state's groundwater resources, yet provide significant flexibility. This
flexibility will serve to maximize the effectiveness of regulatory and
industry resources dedicated to groundwater protection and remediation.
We are pleased that the proposed regulations permit alternative methods
and approaches with respect to groundwater remediation that will promote
environmental responsibility on the part of regulated parties and
encourage aggressive measures to respond to incidences of groundwater
contamination.
Marathon's only substantiative concern is with the language of .0106(n),
which could be interpreted to suggest that a site previously remediated to
then-existing clean-up standards (consistent with .0106(a)) may
subsequently be subjected to further remediation requirements if new or
improved technology is developed at a later date. This would mean that a
regulated party would constantly face the possibility of ever more
stringent clean-up requirements. Also, we note that the language of
.0106(n) does not require that new technology be determined to be both
"economically and technically feasible," consistent with .0106(a). We
recommend that these requirements be specifically expressed in .0106(n).
A subsidiary of USX Corporation
,:.j ~J 1 5 ', 4,' 'v;·•, COOPER ENV IRONM ENTA L CHAR LOTTE NC
Mr. David Hance
• April 22, 1993
Page2
P, 2/ 6 ...... -.. -
... 0102 [1 8J I believe the definition of receptor is somewhat misleading. When
dealing with toxicology and risk assessment1 I think of a receptor as a living
organism which is exposed to a toxic agent. I think of wells as physical
components which may be part of an exposure pathway to a receptor. I
suggest that DEM clarify this definition with persons experienced in toxicology .
. 0103 le) I support the provision for the requirement of professional geologists
and engineers to oversee investigations and corrective actions .
. 0,1,06 (k) (l} ( IJ I believe this section which specifies a slope of less than 1 :40 is
meaningless unless the axes on which the slope is plotted are specified. To
illustrate this point, I have attached a table showing hypothetical quarterly
monitoring data which shows a decrease in concentrations 'With time. Three
graphs are also attached which illustrate the decreasing concentration trend.
The first graph shows all data points from the table. The first graph
shows that concentrations are approaching an aeymptote at 0 ug/1. The slope
of a best fit line drawn through the last four data points is approximately 1 :60.
The second and third graphs illustrate the decreasing trend of the last
four data entries from the table. The slope of a best fit line drawn through the
four points is approximately l: 1.2 on the second graph and 1 :20 on the third
graph.
The graphs have been presented to show that the specified l :40 slope is
not meaningful without further specification of the scale of the axes onto which
the slope is plotted.
APRt23 93 15:46 COOPER ENVIRONMENTAL CHARLOTTENC P, 6/ 6
DA~E CONCENTRATION
01/01/93 10.00
()4 /0 t/93 6. 67
~6/30/93 4.44
09/28/93 2.96
12/27/93 1.98
03/27/94 1.32
06/25/94 0.88
09/23/94 0.59
12/22/94 0.39
03/22/9S 0.26
06/20/95 0.17
09/18/95 0.12
1211119s o.oe
03/16/96 o.os
06/14/96 0.03
09/12/96 0.02
12/11/96 0.02
. \
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Samuel C. Mcclintock
7533 Milestone Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
0N) 954-0033, (H) 847-0033
April 22, 1993
utWUfWWATEfl SECTION
RALEIGH, NC
Subject: Proposed Amendments to 15A NCAC 2L -Groundwater Rules
Dear Mr. Hance:
The following is my response to the Proposed Amendments to the "2L" Rules. Though
I am an environmental consultant, and have worked from time to time for oil companies,
I am only representing myself with these comments. Please enter them into the public
record as such.
I wanted to thank those personnel in the Groundwater office, particularly Mr. Mouberry,
in providing material and answering questions on this subject. Everybody was very
helpful and courteous, and the office as a whole seemed a model for other government
offices to emulate.
PERSONAL BRIEF
I am a resident of North Carolina, and I am currently employed with Alpha-Gamma
Technologies, Inc. as a Staff Environmental Scientist. However, the views expressed here
are my own, and are in no way associated with my employer. I have worked as a
contractor for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developing new methods for air
sampling and analysis, and writing federal guidelines for state regulators. I have also
worked as a consultant for industrial clients such as Texaco, Arco, and several other
chemical and manufacturing companies. My expertise centers around air quality issues,
but I am also involved in hazardous waste and petroleum issues. I have been selected
by the Governor's Waste Management Board to make presentations on hazardous waste
issues, and I was just recently invited to speak to the National Oil Recyclers Association
at their annual meeting in Cleveland, Ohio.
1
D. Hance, DEM
April 22, 1993
INTRODUCTION
I would like to commend the Environmental Management Commission and the Division
of Environmental Management for addressing these rules. The business community and
state regulators have long addressed the need for more specific guidance on
groundwater issues, and these proposed amendments are a laudable first step.
However, these amendments should be NOT be passed in their current form.
The regulations of North Carolina, as with other laws and rules, are meant to provide
guidance to responsible citizens and businesses, and to provide avenues of enforcement
or punishment for those few entities who choose to be irresponsible. Concise, well-
written, and tightly-woven regulations provide cornerstones for:
o Business Management and Planning
o Regulation and Enforcement Actions
o Protection of Citizen's Rights, and
o Environmental Protection.
These goals are ideals that all regulations should strive for, if not achieve. These
amendments, in their current form, fail to adequately address many of these issues, and
major revisions are needed before they become part of the North Carolina Administrative
Code.
Many of my comments deal with the overall goals, tone, and philosophy that the current
amendments seem to condone. Whether intentionally or not, the proposed amendments
seem to encourage responsible parties NOT to clean up pollution, particularly with
regards to groundwater. This, in essence, changes the overall philosophy of those
regulations dealing with the environment. That philosophy should be that responsible
parties will clean up pollution and remediate the affected areas to those conditions
existing before the pollution occurred. Most people realize that this is not always
possible, and that the regulations must address the cases where this philosophy or goal
is infeasible. However, the alternate goals of "drinking" water quality and alternate
cleanup levels should be worded as alternative goals that should be addressed only when
the primary goal of complete remediation is proven infeasible. The wording I am
proposing would not alter the scope or meaning behind the changes proposed, but would
clearly indicate that pollution of groundwater is to be avoided, and that all reasonable
measures will be taken to protect our groundwaters.
In addition, much of the proposed amendments is unclearly written. The rules should be
written in such a way that the general public can understand their rights and obligations
under them. In their current form, many individuals would be forced to hire a consultant
2
D. Hance, DEM
April 22, 1993
or attorney to translate their meaning and purpose. This type of action is well beyond the
means of many who would be affected by the amendments. Please review these
regulations from the standpoint of a layperson, and reword them appropriately.
Specifically, break up the many-worded sentences, and provide examples of how the
regulations would be enforced. I have found that introducing several theoretical or actual
case studies (such as Examples 1, 2, & 3) go a long way to clarify how each section of
a regulation will address violations.
I also see no evidence that a comprehensive study was conducted to assess the
economic and environmental impact of the proposed amendments. An impact study is
usually conducted for all regulations -federal, state and local -to ascertain that the
objectives influencing the change will actually be met. In fact, several other consultants,
not just environmental groups, have indicated during the public hearings that the
proposed amendments will lead to increased costs, while deemphasizing public and
environmental protection. ·
I offer the following specific suggestions to the Division of Environmental Management
and the Environmental Management Commission. These suggestions appear in the order
of the proposed amendments, section by section. I ask that you postpone the passage
of these amendments until: all such suggestions are given fair and equal review, and
appropriate changes made; that officials in all branches of DEM that are affected by these
amendments be given a chance to review them; and after a thorough impact study has
been performed on how the amendments will actually affect business, citizens, and the
environment.
Section .0103 ( a) -Policy
Please strike the work "significant" from the sentence "These groundwaters generally are
a potable source of drinking water without the necessity of si g nificant treatment." The
existing rule better reflects the reasonable expectation that citizens should be able to drink
their groundwater without having to treat it.
Section .0103 (b) (2) -Policy
As the proposed amendments are written, the regulations change existing law and allow
excursions beyond property lines and does not address potential contamination. This
should be rewritten as "a violation of groundwater standard beyond the boundaries of the
property on which the source of pollution is located, or has the potential to lead to this
type of violation."
3
D. Hance, DEM
April 22, 1993
All land, whether private or public, must be protected under the regulation. Though
trespass laws may supersede these regulations, the current wording allows for ambiguity
on the responsibilities of the applicable party. Mr. D. Van Noppen, a Raleigh attorney,
made some thoughtful comments at the Raleigh public hearing on how these regulations
affect the rights of nearby residents and property owners. I agree with his comments,
and would like to add my concurrence to much of his presentation.
Section .0104 -RS Restricted Designation
This entire section is very confusing, starting with paragraph (a) (1). This section should
be reworded to clearly state the implications of this designation so that the general public
can understand it.
Paragraph (c) should be reworded into subparagraphs better defining boundaries and
ensure that the rights of nearby residents and property owners are addressed.
Section .0106 (a) -Corrective Action
This paragraph should be rewritten as follows 11Where groundwater quality has been
degraded, the goal of any corrective action shall be restoration of the groundwater quality
.to pre-existing levels. Failing this goal, corrective action should restore groundwater
quality beyond or close to the standards specified in Rule .0202 as is economically and
technologically feasible."
The first goal, despite any feasibility, is to clean up contamination to precontamination
standards. Only after the infeasibility of this goal is established should other standards
be addressed. It would be appropriate to insert a few sentences such as "These
regulations provide specific guidance for groundwater remediation and monitoring. The
first priority for any excursion of contaminants into the soil should be immediate cleanup,
with all other priorities considered thereafter as determined by the applicable regulatory
agency." This wording would make it clear that the first priority of any pollutant spill which
could be transported by groundwater is cleanup. Any other wording is ambiguous, and
deprioritizes the importance of policing our collective environment.
4
D. Hance, DEM
April 22, 1993
Section .0106 (h)(i)O) -Alternate Cleanup Levels
The use of alternate cleanup levels may become necessary due to circumstances beyond
the control of the responsible party. However, as worded in the proposed amendments
these rules provide too much latitude and discretion on the part of the responsible party
and regulatory agency, thus increasing agency workload and delaying cleanup efforts.
I would suggest that a specific Alternate Cleanup Level (ACL) be established, such as
those levels of contaminants depicted in Section .0202 (g), and that specific
circumstances be provided for their use. I would also suggest that a specific fine be
stipulated and enforced to use the ACL. The combination of specific ACL's,
circumstances for use, and fines would eliminate a lot of guesswork and review on the
part of the regulator, alleviate paperwork, and provide some incentive for responsible
parties to investigate all alternatives to cleaning up groundwater.
Section .0106 (I) -Use of the 1 :40 Ratio
Many of my comments towards the use of the 1 :40 ratio in decontamination are the same
as for the use of ACL's. More specifically, I would tie the 1 :40 ratio in with the specific
ACL I mentioned above. Once contaminant levels fall below the specific ACL established
above, then the 1 :40 ratio may be implemented. Again, more specific circumstances for
its implementation should be stated, and a fine should be assessed commensurate with
'its implementation.
Section .0202 -Groundwater Quality
Though the amendments did a commendable job in providing a list of groundwater
standards, they failed to provide a list of other contaminants that provide clear indication
of groundwater contamination by petroleum products. The toxics listed in Section .0202
usually represent less than one percent of the compounds found in unadulterated
petroleum products. Hence their nondetection is not a clear indication that the
groundwater has been remediated. The levels established here fail to protect or address
citizens' rights not to have groundwater contaminated with petroleum products that are
not toxic, but nonetheless, affect their standard of living. This observation was also made
at the Raleigh public hearing by Mr. Gokel, president of GeoChem, a laboratory that
specializes in soil and groundwater testing.
5
D. Hance, DEM
April 22, 1993
The proposed amendments should provide a separate section that addresses petroleum
compounds that are non-toxic. This section should determine what levels are needed to
remediate groundwater below the thresholds for human detection by odor, taste, or
physical irritation of the eyes, skin, lungs and digestive system. Without this section , the
p ro posed amendments will be remiss in addressin g the ri ghts of residents and
landowners in affected areas of contamination. · ·
Section .0202 (g) -Class GA Standards
One sentence in this section seems insignificant on the surface, but may have broad
implications in its implementation. The sentence ''This does not apply to sediment or
other particulate matter which is preserved in a groundwater sample as a result of well
construction or sampling procedures" should be deleted from the amendments.
Groundwater sampling systems should and can be constructed so that groundwater
extracted from them provide a representative sample without resorting to physical
treatment after sampling. The inclusion of the above sentence could lead to the
interpretation that post-sampling treatment is allowed, such as filtration. Depending upon
the type of methods and filters used, filtration will remove colloidal particles, particularly
toxic metals, that are transported by groundwater. Removal of this sentence will eliminate
any such interpretation, and encourage responsible parties to construct and install
monitoring wells that can provide representative samples.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution prevention is part of our national environmental policy and is specifically aimed
at reducing pollution at the source when and wherever possible. In their current form,
these amendments do not provide specific guidance or incentives for businesses to
address pollution prevention.
1. According to the Office of Waste Reduction, NCDEHNR, they have not been contacted
to provide comments on these rules. This office generally presents a non-biased effort
to prevent pollution and waste. They should be provided the opportunity to comment on
all new rules to ensure that the rules address pollution prevention when and where
applicable. · This office was formed to address some of these very issues, and their input
should be considered an integral and mandatory part of the regulatory review process.
6
D. Hance, DEM
April 22, 1993
•
2. The proposed amendments provide little incentive, either in the way of enforcement
actions or fines, to encourage responsible parties not to spill chemicals into the ground
or groundwater. The assessment of fines and related fees should be specifically
addressed by the regulations. Though considered by some to be inappropriate, the
inclusion of fines provides a basis for business planning and management, and provides
a sound basis for business decisions aimed at pollution prevention. Clearly worded rules
on fines also alleviate guesswork and headaches on the part of the regulatory agencies
when assessing enforcement actions. The standard fine should be gauged so as to
provide a clear incentive for businesses to prevent the excursion of contaminants into the
groundwater.
Fines and related fees should be weighted according to the contamination. Virgin
petroleum products of gasoline and No. 2 fuel oil would be weighted with a multiplying
factor of one (1). All other contaminants would be assessed a higher factor based on
toxic/ carcinogenic qualities.
Twice the standard fine, based on weight, should be assessed immediately upon
discovery for all spills, regardless of size and impact. The net effect of double fines allows
for deposits to be made against cleanup. If a cleanup is initiated, then the business
receives half of its money back to assist with cleanup efforts. If the responsible party can
demonstrate that cleanup would be ineffective, then the ALL of the double fine would
remain with the state.
Should you have any questions about my comments, please feel free to call me anytime.
Sincerely,
5---1 C Mii· .. ~1
Samuel C. Mcclintock
cc: Mr. Barlow Hergett, Raleigh City Council
North Carolina Senator Linda Gunter
Mr. Preston Howard, Director, DEM
Mr. Jonathan Howes, Secretary, DEHNR
All EMC Members
7
Standards. If more funds are required, then raise the tank registration fees, charge
the same fee for all USTs regardless of size, and/or increase the motor fuel tax. If
consulting firms are taking advantage of the system, put tighter controls on how and
when monies can be spent.
2. If the Department is going to allow alternate cleanup levels to be established or allow
natural remediation to occur, then it has to determine how these sites are going to be
monitored. I am concerned that in the Piedmont and Mountain Physiographic regions
of the State, insufficient knowledge about the rate and direction of groundwater
movement is known. The regolith and underlying bedrock.are commonly fractured and
foliated, providing pathways for water movement that is very difficult, if at all possible,
to monitor with any degree of confidence. The presently accepted models to predict
groundwater flow direction and rate are based upon assumptions that the aquifer is
homogeneous and uniform in nature; something fractured rocks are not. In addition,
very little is known about the degradation and attenuation of chemicals in naturally
occurring aquifers. Much research has been conducted in these areas in the
laboratory. However, the extension of this knowledge to the field is in its infancy. I
therefore find it difficult to believe adequate data is available to model an aquifer in
the Piedmont and Mountain regions of North Carolina to satisfy the requirements in
Section .0106(i)(l), and (k), (2), (3) or ( 4).
3. In both Sections .0104 and .106 the proposed rules that monitoring systems sufficient
to detect changes in the groundwater quality be installed. Who decides what is
sufficient? Are the models discussed above to be used and believed? If I am to stake
my reputation and license on the line in developing a monitoring system sufficient to
detect changes in a certain area and which is to protect the public welfare. I will not
base my decisions on a model but on numerous monitoring wells.
4. Section .104 states that the RS designation is temporary. The proposed rules allow
for natural remediation of the site with "sufficient" (my emphasis) monitoring. I
propose that a temporary condition and natural remediation are at odds with each
other. If this language is to be used, then the proposed rules need to define
"temporary" as meaning decades. When I worked for the DEM, there were numerous
sites which had been contaminated since the early 1980s, and the levels of
contamination at three sites have not decreased significantly even today. The
literature is full of articles which state that for bioremediation to succeed, the bacteria
need enough oxygen to produce energy and commonly need micronutrients which may
not be present in the soil in amounts necessary for the bacteria to grow in large
numbers. If the Department is going to allow natural remediation to occur, then it
needs to understand that these sites will persist for decades.
In closing, I would like to commend those persons working in the regional offices. I know
first hand what they go through every day. They are the ones who have to implement
1
2.
3.
Standards. If more funds are required, then raise the tank registration fees, charge
the same fee for all USTs regardless of size, and/or increase the motor fuel tax. If
consulting firms are taking advantage of the system, put tighter controls on how and
when monies can be spent.
If the Department is going to allow alternate cleanup levels to be established or allow
natural remediation to occur, then it has to determine how these sites are going to be
monitored. I am concerned that in the Piedmont and Mountain Physiographic regions
of the State, insufficient knowledge about the rate and direction of groundwater
movement is known. The regolith and underlying bedrock are commonly fractured and
foliated, providing pathways for water movement that is very difficult, if at all possible,
to monitor with any degree of confidence. The presently accepted models to predict
groundwater flow direction and rate are based upon assumptions that the aquifer is
homogeneous and uniform in nature; something fractured rocks are not. In addition,
very little is known about the degradation and attenuation of chemicals in naturally
occurring aquifers. Much research has been conducted in these areas in the
laboratory. However, the extension of this knowledge to the field is in its infancy. I
therefore find it difficult to believe adequate data is available to model an aquifer in
the Piedmont and Mountain regions of North Carolina to satisfy the requirements in
Section .0106(i)(l), and (k), (2), (3) or ( 4).
In both Sections .0104 and .106 the proposed rules that monitoring systems sufficient
to detect changes in the groundwater quality be installed. Who decides what is
sufficient? Are the models discussed above to be used and believed? If I am to stake
my reputation and license on the line in developing a monitoring system sufficient to
detect changes in a certain area and which is to protect the public welfare. I will not
base my decisions on a model but on numerous monitoring wells.
4. Section .104 states that the RS designation is temporary. The proposed rules allow
for natural remediation of the site with "sufficient" (my emphasis) monitoring. I
propose that a temporary condition and natural remediation are at odds with each
other. If this language is to be used, then the proposed rules need to define
"temporary" as meaning decades. When I worked for the DEM, there were numerous
sites which had been contaminated since the early 1980s, and the levels of
contamination at three sites have not decreased significantly even today. The
literature is full of articles which state that for bioremediation to succeed, the bacteria
need enough oxygen to produce energy and commonly need micronutrients which may
not be present in the soil in amounts necessary for the bacteria to grow in large
numbers. If the Department is going to allow natural remediation to occur, then it
needs to understand that these sites will persist for decades.
In closing, I would like to commend those persons working in the regional offices. I know
) first hand what they go through every day. They are the ones who have to implement
I
April 23, 1993
Members of the Environmental Management Commission
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Proposed Amendments to the North Carolina
Groundwater Classifications and Standards,
15A NCAC Subchapter 2L
Dear Commission Members:
OitOUNDWATER SECTION
RALEIGH, NC
I want to first thank you for the opportunity to be able to comment on the proposed
amendments to the Groundwater Classifications and Standards. I have lived and worked in
North Carolina for a little over 5 years. During this time I worked for the Division of
Environmental Management as a hydrologist and Regional Groundwater Section Supervisor
in the Winston-Salem Regional Office for just under 2 years. For the last 3 1/2 years I have
worked as a consulting geologist and hydrogeologist. I am a licensed geologist and the
company I work for is a corporation licensed to practice both geology and engineering in
North Carolina. Prior to working and living in North Carolina, I taught geology at Southwest
Missouri Sate University in Springfield, Missouri.
Having carefully reviewed the proposed amendments I would like to make the following
comments. There are many parts of the amendments that I favor, such as requiring work that
includes geology and engineering to be signed and sealed by one licensed to do so in the
State of North Carolina. I also favor much of the language in Section .0106; especially parts
( d) through (g). However, I am concerned that many of the amendments have been designed
so that those responsible for contaminating the groundwater will not be required to cleanup
their contamination. Using my knowledge of North Carolina geology and experiences, I
would like to share with you some of my specific comments regarding the proposed
amendments.
1. The proposed rule changes, if passed, will regulate not only owners of Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs), but also all other forms of business which may contaminate the
groundwater through their actions. I do not believe that the 2L Standards should be
changed solely to benefit a select business group. If the Department is concerned that
the Trust Fund is in jeopardy of going broke, then fix the Trust Fund, not the 2L
..
whatever rules are decided upon, and I sincerely hope you requested their candid comments
on the proposed rules. I do not envision a decrease in the work load for these people,
however, I do envision a status quo or very possibly an increase in the work load. Every C,
D, and E site in the State is going to submit requests for RS designation, natural remediation,
or alternative cleanup levels. The remediation of the primary and secondary sources of
contamination will still be required at all of theses sites. A site assessment to determine the
extent of contamination will still be required at all sites where groundwater contamination
is suspected, and either the adequacy of a monitoring system or a remediation system will
have to be reviewed. I do not see these proposed rules as time or money savers as they seem
to have been presented. So again, I respectfully submit that the Commission consider only
those proposed changes which are intended to make a responsible party be responsible for
their actions and not those solely designed to save the Trust Fund money.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have and to participate in what I hope is an
ongoing process.
Sincerely,
J2-M . ~J--
. Stewart
HEARING ON GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
ASHEVILLE, NC
APRIL 21, 1993
COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
AND FMC CORPORATION, LITHIUM DIVISION
My name is Arthur Gillespie, and tonight I am speaking for FMC
CORPORATION, LITHIUM DIVISION, of Gastonia and Bessemer City, NC,
and for THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA, a
pro-active industrial Environmental Action Organization
representing over fifty environmentally responsible and caring
chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing firms in North carolina.
Although we have some concerns about the wording in the proposed
rule changes, FMC, CICNC, and its member companies fully support
the concepts in the pioposed amendments. The principles upon which
these amendments are based are sound, involving good science,
engineering, and economics.
The proposed amendments acknowledge that current technology cannot
in some cases return contaminated waters to pristine
conditions--at any cost. They recognize technical limitations and
allow remediation to be suspended when its limits have been
reached. This flexibility is important.
In some cases it is not necessary to undertake active remediation
programs, where there are no immediate health risks and where
natural remediation takes place to solve the problem in time. The
Division of Environmental Management has the capability to
evaluate contamination incidents to determine which ones need
remediation.
There are limited amounts of monies available to the State and it
must prioritize the money it spends on environmental threats. The
same can be said for industries and for municipalities faced with
cleanup needs. These amendments would allow the State to make
responsible decisions about the expenditure of limited resources.
There are numerous cases where municipalities , industries, or
governmental organizations have had to spend vast sums of money in
order to try to achieve near perfection in groundwater cleanups.
In most cases the cost goes up greatly as the residual amounts of
contamination are removed. The old question is "How clean is
"clean""? Some degree of reasonableness based on good risk
assessments is needed.
Again, we support the concept of these proposed rules.
Thank You!
Arthur S. Gillespie, Jr.
April 21, 1993
Save Our Rivers, Inc.
P.O. Box 122
Franklin, NC 28734
(704) 369~7877
Environner.t.2,.l Management Commission
512 ~alisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C.
Re: Grondwater Rules
Dear Sir,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding groundwater
rules affecting ourvaluablewater supply.
This past fall, in Macon. Courity, an incide1it. occurred in which
a filling station attendant was Pumping diesel fuel, then le.ft the
nozzle to answer the telephone. Unknown to him, the nozzle fell
to the grourid and continued pumping, this time onto the ground.
It was a fiasco after he realized what had occurred. The proper
emergency personnel were not available tb handle the situation.
Thank goodness for the Franklin police who kriew to put down
sawdust. That evening, heavy'rains fell, allowing more fuel to
flow through the gutters the distance of two blocks to the Little
Tennessee River, at which downstream are located critical habitats
of several.fragile.species.
This episode can happen anywhere, contaminating our groundwater.
SAVE OUR RIVERS, INC .. takes the position _that if a party contam-
inates, it must be held responsible and clean up the mess. If
groundwater contamina.tion meets a neighbor's property line, all
precautions inust be made by the contaminator to clean it up and
prevent it from movi•ng urider the neighbor's lands. We also ask
that the the state require training of anyone working with possi~-
ble pollutants in the chemical and petroleum industries in order
:that he/she kriow how to handle properly the material and to know
what to do in the case of an accident.
While international groups such as the National Geographic Society
are stressing the value of our water supply and :the importance of
protecting it, we strongly urge _the Environmental Management Com-
mission and others in the state to do the sanie.
Thank you.
Sincere:ly,
SAVE OUR RIVERS, INC.
,~ 6 /A' fZcJo-;-->--.J
Margaret R. Jones
President
• ' .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GROUN0WAiER SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO r LElGH, NC
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
Mr . Arthur Mouberry
Groundwater Section Chief
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
April 16, 1993.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
REF: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO GROUNDWATER
CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS, 15A NCAC 2L .0102,
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING RECORD
Dear Mr. Mouberry:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is deeply
concerned. about the proposed definition of nResponsible Party".
Title 15A NCAC 2L .0102. (19)(b) and (c} have the potential to
significantly impact the NCDOT and may result in significant
costs to the citizens of this state.
15A NCAC 2L . 0102 ( 19} (b). The NCDOT must acquire
additional Right of Way for widening existing roadways. This
often requires the acquisition of properties containing UST's.
Acqµisition of these properties for public use should not result
in the State naming itself a "Responsible Party". While we
recognize.that the statutes may provide for the current property
owner being named a "Responsible Party'', we do not believe that
this should be applied in situa.tions where properties are
acquired for public use, and that this should be reflected in any
rules revisions.
A high percentage of all UST's are located. on properties in
close proximity to highways that are subject to widening. The
adoption of definition (19)(b) has the potential to transfer a
significant portion of the owner/operator liability t,o the public
which is already contributing to clean up through the motor fuels
tax.
15A NCAC 2L .0102 (19)(c). The citizens of North Carolina
through the Department of Transportation own property adjacent to
al.most every UST site in the state, and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation holds title to this property in
"public trust". The possibility of the State naming itself a
MR. ARTHUR MOUBERRY
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
April 16, 1993
Page 2
"Responsible Party" under this definition is unacceptable. This
proposed rule has the potential to make the Department a
"Responsible Party" merely by owning clean property adjacent to a
contaminated property and not allowing the adjoining property
owner the opportunity to use and to contaminate public property
in order to·clean up private property. The Department has long
sought to avoid situations that will increase public liability
and will contaminate the public's right of way. Further, we do
not believe that there is any statutory authority for this
proposed definition of an adjoining landowner to be named a
"Responsible Party".
WGM:WLM:wpl
cc: Secretary Sam Hunt
Sincerely,
William G. Marley, Jr., P.E.
State Highway Administrator
Deputy Secretary Garland Garrett, Jr.
J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E. -Chief Engineer-Preconstruction
D. w. Bailey, P. E. -Chief Engineer-Operations
J
Mr. David Hance
Page 2
April 15, 1993
you should strive to responsibly dedicate your efforts to main-
taining the maximum protection to the public that we are finan-
cially able to provide. A means to this end 1s responsible
dec1s1on making rather than strict adherence to 111 founded regu-
lations at any cost.
ROSE OIL CO MPAN Y
Hr. David Hance
P.O. BOX706
HENDERSON, N.C. 27536
PHONE [phone]
Div of Environnental Mgt
Grouncwater Div
P. o. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
April 14, 1993
-r\i"fo,•;.,
Full Line Lubricants
Jobber
Tires, Batteries and
Accessories
Dear Mr. Hance: GROUNDWATER SEtr,ok
RAL.EJGH. Ni:!
I appreciate the opportunity to speak very brieily
at the hearing in Raleigh, N. C. I am delighted to see
some effort being made to allO'w sorae common sense and
prHctical judgement to take place in the area of tank
removal a.rid clean uu. It is long over due. How did we
ever get to the point that we thought someone could
write a regulation and standard that would fit every
problem out there. That the regulation would be able
to provide a better solution to each problem than
someone looking at the problem who has 30 years experience.
Just about as ridiculous as it would be to have a
doctor have a set of regulations to tell him how to
fix a problem after he opened up the patient.
There were a couple of good cases shown focusing
on the tremendous waste going on. I would like to again
tell our story. Chevron 8il Company purchased a site
next to ours. They never-developed it. There were 3
other gasoline units in the area. They drilled and
found contamination. We were told it was our responsibility
to prove it wasn't us. .After spending $40 ,ooo we
decided to remove our tanks and lines. We paid consultant
<1?4,300_ to be there and take sanj_bles • The samples were
good samples. We had no problem what so ever. We then
purchased the property from Chevron. The contamination
was then on us only. on City water., no wells in arEa,
and doing no harm to anyone. 1',-e paid our lawyer to go
with us to Raleigh to see ¥.r. Zimmerman. We had spent our
$50,000 and were there only to request that the State
not waste taxpayers money by requiring further cleanup .
~:fr. Zinmerman agreed that it ma.de no sense, but said the
regulations gave him no authority to make that decision.
The trust fund is in the process of ~pending major
dollars at this time. We believe this to be a pure
waste of funds needed in many other places to prevent
further possible problems. We don't-have unlimited funds
arid don't believe the trust fund has. ':(lwenty million
dollars is a pi tance if _some sani. ty doesn't come
forwe.rd. Fees will continue to go up, problems put off,
new-equipment go unbought. 1Ul of this as we soothe
our conscience that we are doing some noble thing while
we poor func1 s down a rat hole.
\ta,,6rte en LtEAGU E OF WOMEN VOTER S OF NORTHACprAi·
1
R0
7
,L
1
1
9
N
9
A
3 ~~ to HEARING OFFICER, PUBLIC HEARING
Environmental Management Commission Raleigh, N.C.
AMENDMENTS TO 15A NCAC 21 .0100 and .0200
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
I am Margaret Holton, Director of Water/Air and Natural Resources for the
League of Women Voters of North Carolina and speaking for our 20 Units across
the state. The position of the League of Women Voters of NC is for "stringent
controls to protect the quality of current and potential drinking-water
supplies, including protection of watersheds for surface supplies and of
recharge· areas for groundwater".
It is difficult to predict the impact of the proposed revision draft of ISA
NCAC 21 Groundwater Classification and Standards for existing and potential
sources of public and private drinking water supplies in N.C. This revision
of standards, if enacted, will mean that N.C. has retreated from its antidegra-
dation goal for the protection of groundwater. These proposed rules are a
drastic change from the present NC Groundwater Regulations because of the new
RS, Restricted Designation, definition and application. Why did the Task
Force not work through the .0113 VARIANCE section where the rules give the
public and the affected parties more opportunity through the Public Notice and
Hearing to learn of the problem and proceedings for Cleanup of Contamination?
There are loopholes in the application of the RS Designation,as only one
local media notice(there should be three and that should apply to Variance as
well) may not be seen by interested citizens. The responsible party under Rule
.0106 Corrective Action must report to the Health Director in the county or
counties where the contamination has occurred, .1114 Requirements. How much
later does the responsible party have to notify the adjacent owners of the
contamination? The RS Designation relieves the responsible party from having
to get a Variance. Only if the Director detemines there is significant pub-
lic interest would a public hearing be held.
The RS Designation leaves a great deal of discretion to the Director and
the approval for an alternate cleanup plan including "natural remediation"
that will leave many unanswered questions for adjacent neighbors. The rules do
not address exactly what criteria the Director will use to declare that the
respopnsible party can use"natural remediation" ~~£.__d_<? '..!i.!1.~,,~ive a definite
time as to when the RS Designation would be lift~<f1,-~should address
the rights of adjacent landowners and those beyond if the contaminant plume
has extended and that groundwater contamination that reaches a neighbor's prop-
erty line must be cleaned up and prevented from moving under the neighbor's
land. Keep the existing rule on liability for responsibile party.
Groundwater and surface water quantitiy and quality issues are inextricably
interrelated in that groundwater represents the source of fifty percent of
average stream flow. Available knowledge and expertise on quantity, quality,
protection and management issues of groundwater is far less advanced in N.C.
than that of surface water,and predictions for future use. The RS Designation
will further decrease ability to have future water supplies preserved. Why not
use it only where surface water from a reservoir is available and have the re-
sponsible party clean up contaminated groundwater? N.C. needs all the future
water supplies that it must protect for our population growth.
801 Oberlin Road Suite 32 ~-~ ~ ~ ~alelgh, N.C. 27605 919/839·!5}2 , J ~~~~ ·~yi ~~~~4~4~~Ad
C O NCERNED CITIZE NS OF TILLERY, INC.
P. 0. BOX 61 ~ TILLERY, N ORTH CAROLINA 27887
(919) 826 · 3244
APRIL 5, 1993
On behalf of the Concerned citizens of Tillery (CCT) and Halifax
Environmental Loss Prevention (HELP), I address the North Carolina
Environmental ~nagement Commission this evening to say that we are
shocked and outraged at the new proposed rules regarding the Clean up
of groundwater pollution. ~ . . The stat;s groundwater 1s already being
degraded rap idly and well water throughout rural eastern North
Carolina is at risk to say the least. It is foolish to expect the
public to believe that there are "pockets" of contaminated groundwater
in existence which will not contaminate other sources of groundwater
us·ed for drinking, agriculture and the like. We, the people,
,,understand that there is such a thing as an ecosystem which means that
when one part of the life cycle is put into jeopardy, so are many
other parts of the life cycle put into jeopardy. We, the Concerned
Citizens of .Tillery and Halifax Environmental Loss Prevention, firmly
oppose~ -te' the state of North Carolina's abandonment of its
"nondegredation policy" with regard to groundwater.
ccT · is a community organization which serves the rural, eastern
half of Halifax County and has an active membership of more than 350
families. HELP is an interracial grassroots organization which works
to protect the air, water, soil and quality of life of rural Halifax
County as well as the health of the county's citizens. The two
organizatio~ impact thousands of homes in Halifax County. ,Tn this
•
~ery poor part of one of the poorest counties in North Carolina, the
majority of residents depend on shallow wells for drinking water. It
is our understanding that there have been several cases where the
state of North Carolina has erroneously determined that no one was
using a well near a contaminated site. It seems that it is always
poor, African-American and Native American communities where such
"erroneous" determinations are made. What will you do when drinking
water is polluted? How will you correct problems resulting from
erroneous determinations? Bottled water cannot replenish or replace
clean, local sources of drinking water and will cost a tremendous
amount in the end. with so many bodies of water already too polluted
to drink, the Commission mu ~t
health is already threaten~t y
protect all the state's waters. Our
poverty, resulting in malnutrition, lack
of heat, and having to choose between buying food and medicine. We
cannot risk such errors.
Eastern Halifax county is already the victim of Environmental
Racism in the form ofj ~tensive vertically integrated corporate
livestock industry wtri ch a r e locating tlu1H:' "factory farms" in
predominantly African-American communities. Being a poor area and a
Black area, environmental regulations are not enforced the way they
would be in rich, more affluent white neighborhoods with political
clout. Already our health and the quality of our water are threatened
by the huge cooperate hog factories. Creation of loopholes for
cleanup requirements of groundwater pollution would clearly seal our
fate. With more pollution and less enforcement, our water and
therefore our health will be swiftly ruined.
With all of these concerns in mind, we urge you: Do not abandon
the nondegredation policy with regard to groundwater. Do not ease the
clean-up requirements.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Mr. David Hance
Page 2
9 April 1993
going into the various cleanup accounts are being projected to be
less than the claims for cleanup by 1995.
Tn th~s end he shou d t be held to requirements sP.t ·forth in
Rule .0202 9) &. (h). Thus, the authority to grant va iances is an
important par f the rules.
For example, the rules require benzene to be cleaned up to
1 part per billion, while public drinking water standards is 5
parts per billion. This should be changed unless factual risk
assessment would dictate otherwise. I, therefore, would suggest
further examination of the basis for risk assessment prior to final
rule making or revisions.
It is well known that the most currently used remediation
method -"pump and treat" -cannot meet this current requirement in
Rule .0202 (g) &c (h). So why continue to bankrupt everyone by
continuing such a process or any process attempting to reach
unreachable goals. This opinion is shared by academia also. See
comments by Dr. Heath and others at Groundwater Rules Workshop in
Raleigh on 5 3anuary 1993.
I have been engaged in attempting to drain wet soils in situ
for a period of 50 years, and I know how difficult it is to remove
water from the soil. Small droplets of water containing hydro-
carbons will cling to the soil particles or be trapped in the small
pore water spaces, especially in fine-grained soils such as silty
clays and clayey silts, and cannot be moved by gravity. The con-
centration of hydrocarbons within these droplets will in general
cause the allowable residuals to be exceeded, especially when we
are talking in terms of 1 part per billion.
JDGjr: lw
(comments.lw3)
Very truly yours,
~~~~
John D. Grady, Jr., P. E.
President
cc Senator John Kerr, III
Representative Phillip A. Baddour, Jr.
Representative Jerry Braswell
Representative Carolyn Russell
N. C. Petroleum Marketers Association
Nr. Bo Radar
Mr. John Strickland
CONTRACTORS AND €NGIN€€RS SE:R\IICE:S, INC.
1304 NORTH WILLIAM STREET
P. 0. BOX 762
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27533 .. 0762
TELEPHONE: [phone]
[phone]
Mr. David Hance
Div. of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27625-0535
9 April 1993
The inforaat:ion herein
.,,.. p•rti•lly pr....,,,ted
at the Public He•ring
in 3•ck.anville on
1 April
Re: Comments on Proposed
Revisions to 15A NCAC 2L
Dear Mr. Hance:
F>fl()u'·lj\.,!"li~{_rir.p ~~t"1·i~\•~ Un i.&J,,,,,,_,\ •J;._.11,Vtl!
I am the president of Contractors and Engineers Servic~fiGJi NG
Inc., a consulting engineering firm located in Goldsboro, North
Carolina.
Ny company is currently actively engaged in the remediation of
several contaminated sites, primarily caused by leaking underground
storage tanks and attendant piping, overfill of tanks, or surface
spills.
I am aware that millions of dollars have already been spent in
site remediation and, in some instances, wasted due to inappro-
priate and haphazard methods of cleanup.
Furthermore, I am aware that follow-up inspections on some
supposedly cleaned and closed sites reveal that contamination is
still there.
.J
I am also aware that many crossroads "Mom & Pop" grocery
stores have either gone bankrupt attempting to clean up or have
simply closed down and await the knock on the door by the Attorney
General.
I believe everyone wants to protect the State's groundwater
from contamination~ but I also believe that not all of the ground-
waters are a potential source for drinking water. For instance, I
cannot conceive of a site on Fayetteville Street in Raleigh ever
becoming a source of drinking water. Therefore, each situation is
site-specific and should be treated as such. In view of this, it
is my opinion that the Director should be given even more leeway in
deciding what remediation efforts should be made, and what level of
residuals can be left in place, and which sites shall be cleaned up
first. In other words, the remediation efforts should be priori-
tized. Especially is this true in the face of the fact the funds
.,
r r
Mr. David Hance
Page 2
9 April 1993
going into the various cleanup accounts are being projected to be
less than the claims for cleanup by 1995.
·To .this end he should not be held to requirements set forth in
Rule .0202 (g) & (h). Thus, the authority to grant variances is an
important part of the rules.
For example, the rules require benzene to be cleaned up to
1 part per billion, while public drinking water standards is 5
parts per billion. This should be changed unless factual risk
assessment would dictate otherwise. I, therefore, would suggest
further examination of the basis for risk assessment prior to final
rule making or revisions.
It is well known that the most currently used remediation
method -"pump and treat" -cannot meet this current requirement in
Rule .0202 (g) ~ (h). So why continue to bankrupt everyone by
continuing such a process or any process attempting to reach
unreachable goals. This opinion is shared by academia also. See
comments by Dr. Heath and others at Groundwater Rules Workshop in
Raleigh on 5 January 1993.
I have been engaged in attempting to drain wet soils in situ
for a period of 50 years, and I know how difficult it is to remove
water from the soil. Small droplets of water containing hydro-
carbons will cling to the soil particles or be trapped in the small
pore water spaces, especially in fine-grained soils such as silty
clays and clayey silts, and cannot be moved by gravity. The con-
centration of hydrocarbons within these droplets will in general
cause the allowable residuals to be exceeded, especially when we
are talking in terms of 1 part per billion.
J'DGjr:lw
(comments.lw3)
Very truly yours,
~t:7:t,~~
John D. Grady, Jr., P. E.
President
cc Senator John Kerr, III
Representative Phillip A. Baddour, Jr.
Representative Jerry Braswell
Representative Carolyn Russell
N. C. Petroleum Marketers Association
Mr. Bo Radar
Mr. John Strickland
April 7, 1993., Ground v atar Classification 8J1d Standards Hearing
Comments of Judith B. Wood of the
League of Women Voters of Chapel Hi11/Carrboro (L WVCH/C)
The League of Women Voters of Chapel Hill/Carrboro (L'tlVCH/C)
opposes some of the proposed revisions of state's pollution cleanup rules (TITLE
1 SA SUBCHAPTER 2L REVISIONS). L WV CHIC believes some of these
revisions vould veaken the state's antidegradation goal by providing loopholes
that can adversely effect North Carolina's futW'e water supplies.
Vie are especially concerned about the so-called "n~tural rerri.ediation" that
would allow tank owners to petition the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission to let contaminated groundwater remain where it is in
the hopes that the petroleum or other contaminants would breakdown through
natural processes before reaching any ,,ells in the area.
Can we afford this risk when health authorities cite petroleum
contamination as the main threat to our unde~grounp. supply of drinking vater?
We think not because benzene, one of the components of petroleum., has been
shown to cause cancer. This chemical can cause health risks not only when it
occurs in the vat.er we drink, but also in vapor form when we bathe or cook with
water containing benzene.
Because other chemicals can also cause heal th problems, ve believe that the
new RE~Tt>t('T~D OE~TGNATION relaxing groundwater rules should NOT be
applied to permitted sites because such areas include hazardous and of.her waste
sites.
.,,,We also wonder how ve could be assured that groundwater contaminated
,,ith petroleum or other chemicals would stay underground and not be discharged
into vetlands or surface waters? And hov vould citizens be informed of such
things as cleanup and monitoring procedures?
In essence, we believe we need strong groundwater rules that uphold North
Carolina's antidegradation standard so that all of North Carolina's vat.er supplies
will be protected because we do not yet know what water supplies ve may need in
the future.
FINKBEINER, PETTIS & STROUT, LIMITED
CO~SULTft,;G ENGINEERS
ESTABLISHED 1900
OM CENTERVIEW DRIVE
GREENSBORO, NC 27407
919-292-2271
919-855-5648 FAX
April 5, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Hance:
Re: Proposed Amendments
Groundwater Classifications
and Standards
Our office has reviewed the Proposed Amendments to the
Groundwater Classifications and Standards and offer the following
comments for your consideration:
1. Paragraph .0104(a)(3) -You may want to consider revising the
wording to the following: "Where the area impacted is served
by anyone using groundwater as a potable water source"
2. Paragraph .0104(c) -The term "significant" is perhaps too
general. Are their minimum treatment standards suggested for
"significant"? or should the term "significant" be defined.
3. Paragraph .0106(c)(2)(b) Corrective Action -We strongly
endorse the requirement that_ the corrective action plan
should be submitted by a Professional Engineer or a Licensed
Geologist. We also believe that the regulations should
require the review to be also performed by a Professional
Engineer or a Licensed Geologist.
4. Paragraph .0106(m) -In this section of the regulation, it
discu~ges th~t the Directer 'hus the option to classify
"groundwater that cannot be improved but can be treated and
made potable" as RS. If RS is supposed to be a temporary
classification, why classify a groundwater as RS if it cannot
be improved further?
If you would like further clarification of our comments,
please contact Harold R. Jensen, P.E. of our office.
Yours truly,
11 a , A
.,)J /~ v~
G. Gary Nixon, P.E.
GGN/mb
A CITIZENS REVIEW OF GROUNDWATER
PROBLEMS IN MOORE COUNTY
prepared by
MooreFORCE
P.O.Box 514, Southern Pines, NC 28388
and the
Clean Water Fund of North Carolina
P.O.Box 1008, Raleigh, NC 27602
March, 1993
A CITIZENS REVIEW OF GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS IN
MOORE COUNTY
INTRODUCTION:
There is an old blues song whose refrain says "Lord I asked for water ... she gave me gasoline, she
gave me gasoline." Sadly, this could be sung by hundreds of North Carolinians: rural citizens who turn
on their faucet one morning and fill their glasses with petroleum contaminated water, contaminated by
a leaking underground storage tank.
When this happens, citizens turn for help to North Carolina's Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR), the agency of state government delegated by the General Assembly to
enforce our environmental laws and regulations. These regulations currently allow a citizen to drill a
well on his property to obtain water uncontaminated by human activities: "It is the policy ... that the
best usage of the groundwaters of the state is as a -source of drinking water. These groundwaters
generally are a potable source of drinking water without the necessity of treatment." (N.C. Title 15A,
Subchapter 2L Rules)
North Carolina thus has a "non-degradation" of groundwater policy. The rules require that those
responsible for pollution cleanup or "remediate" the groundwater, thereby protecting the health, safety
and property of citizens living nearby. This is important because over time pollutants in groundwater
often move and a plume of such contamination can ruin the groundwater under a neighbour's property.
How long it takes for a plume to move under your property, and how long it takes for DEHNR and
the polluters to start cleanup actions are two closely related questions. ·
In Moore County, members of the environmental organization Moore For a Clean Environment
(MooreFORCE) and the Clean Water Fund of North Carolina (CWF-NC) have looked at how these
questions apply locally. The organizations have cooperated in a limited review of the groundwater
contamination cases on file with DEHNR in its Central office in Raleigh and in the Fayetteville
Regional Office. These cases include leaking underground petroleum storage tanks, contamination from
industrial activities; and contamination from abandoned industrial hazardous wastes.
This report is to advise our friends, neighbours, local and state officials as to what we have found and
how this relates to the environmental and economic health of Moore County. For people who care
about groundwater protection, this report comes at a critical time. The existing non-degradation policy
requiring groundwater cleanup is being challenged and public hearings will soon be held on major
revisions that ease clean-up requirements and impact on everyone living near or owning property near
a source of groundwater contamination.
We hope that the concerns raised by citizens in this report will have an impact on the groundwater
policies and protection activities of our state and local governments.
OUR CONCERNS:
After reviewing the state's environmental files and talking to state and public health officials,
MooreFORCE and CWF-NC-have the following concerns.
First, we are concerned by just the number of cases that threaten groundwater supplies in Moore
County. In this small county we looked at more than tw~ dozen sites: many are unresolved, some may
never be resolved. They range from the massive groundwater contamination at the Aberdeen Pesticide
Superfund sites to the far too common corner gas station with a leaking tank. We question whether the
state has enough personnel and resources dedicated to groundwater protection.
Second, we are appalled at how long it can take to begin groundwater protection and cleanup activities.
Years can go by after a problem is initially reported before even the most basic site assessment is
conducted. The problem may be finger pointing and blame avoidance on the part of responsible parties,
or the complicated, extensive nature of some cases. Whatever the problem, the logjam of inactivity
needs to be broken. The state has the power to require faster ACTION now, and it should. In Moore
County there is at least one documented case in which citizens lost their drinking water well while
those responsible argued and pointed fingers.
Note: There is a great deal of discussion among groundwater experts about the ability of remediation
efforts ever to return groundwater to its original condition. This is one purpose of a common system
now in use, the pump and treat system. The other purpose of a pump and treat system is to stop or
slow the movement of groundwater contamination away from the site. Thus pump and treat systems
do protect the property of nearby citizens and delays in initiating them can have significant
consequences whether or not a drinking water supply well is affected.
Third, while these delays are of great concern, we also recognize that our state environmental officials
do attempt to move the process along. The Fayetteville Regional Office of the DEHNR has regularly
issued notices of violation to those failing to perform and report by specific deadlines. On the other
hand, the much touted threat of "$10,000 per day fines" seems to be just a paper threat. The first
contaminated groundwater samples at Country Cubbard were discovered at least as early as 1987. As
of today; and after sending notices of violation, DEHNR had still not received comprehensive site
assessment from the responsible parties.
Fourth, DEHNR is to be commended for reviewing the work of various environmental contractors who
offer clean-up services. The system of groundwater protection is based upon the honesty and
professionalism of these contractors and poorly done or questionable activities need to be spotlighted.
Indeed, one Moore County case resulted . in the Fayetteville Regional Office stating that it would no
longer consider a certain contractor qualified to do such work. One positive rule change now being
proposed would require the use of licensed professional engineers.
Fifth, the safety net of environmental protection can have some pretty big holes in it. Delays and
mistakes often occur, turning neighbours into victims and leaving them with poisoned property and few
choices within the current system. Just identifying citizens who use drinking water wells near a source
of groundwater contamination can be very difficult. In at least one case, the SCM Proctor-Silex State
Superfund site, state officials indicated that no one using a well lived nearby only to find one such
household at a much later date. Testing shows that well is contaminated.
One area not addressed in this report is the impact of golf courses on our groundwater supplies.
Moore Cou.Q.ty is an international golfmg center with miles of immaculate fairways. These fairways
are a major local industry that require fertilizers and pesticides whose use nationally has been linked
to a number of water quality problems. Liability for extremely expensive and uncertain groundwater
cleanup, should wells be contaminated; concern over buildup of contaminates in water holes on the
course; and the increase in public perception of golf courses as dangers to streams and human health
all have potential negative impacts on the golf industry. J:"ortunately, much of the industry is beginning
to respond with new awareness, developing new methods and technologies for course management.
How this awareness applies to Moore County's golf courses may be the topic of a future update report.
WHAT WE LOOKED AT; WHAT WE FOUND:
This part is divided into three sections with brief summaries of the cases we looked at. First is a look
at the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps, a federal Superfund site, and the Proctor-Silex State Superfund site.
Second, we examine selected contamination cases in state files. Third, we discuss briefly Carolina
Galvanizing and its groundwater contamination problem.
SECTION ONE: SUPERFUND SITES IN MOORE COUNTY: A BRIEF DESCRIPTION
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS SITE
The Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site (APDS) is a United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) federally listed National Priority List (NPL) Superfund Site located in Aberdeen, North
Carolina. The site is actually four separate dump sites and one industrial site.
Beginning in 1936 and continuing until 1987, three successive companies operated a pesticide
formulation plant here whose process involved blending concentrated pesticides such as Toxaphene,
DDT, and Lindane with inert agents to make commercial grade pesticide products for agricultural use.
Hazardous wastes, residues and pure product were buried in many unlined trenches. On-site soils
contained high levels of DDT (11,700 ppm), DOE (43,000 ppm), and toxaphene (7,000 ppm). This
improper disposal has resulted in extensive groundwater contamination as on-site soils are permeable,
allowing pesticides to leach into groundwater. Over 5,000 people use drinking water from public and
private wells within a three mile radius. Testing shows that 70 off-site wells contain lindane, DDT,
DDD, ODE, heptachlor.
The clean-up of contaminated groundwater first requires the removal of the source of contamination,
in this case over 100,000 cubic yards of soil. At this time, EPA has decided upon a process involving
excavation, on-site thermal desorption, and on-site ash disposal. The cost for this range upwards of
$30,000,000. The actual clean-up of the groundwater is still under study.
From a citizen's point of view the process for the cleanup of this NPL site is complicated and far too
lengthy. "The investigations began back in 1985," said Rick Johnson, past president of MooreFORCE,
a local citizens' environmental group, "and the threat to the aquifer Aberdeen depends upon is still
very grave." In 1991, MooreFORCE applied to EPA for a $50,000 Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
to help obtain technical, expert assistance in evaluating EPA's cleanup proposals. "This grant should
be a great help to us. It is so hard to learn how to 'speak EPA,' to find out what our rights are, to find
out what hasn't been done that should be done."
"The cleanup of this site is going to go on for years and there is a good chance that mistakes will be
made along the way. Citizens have got to organize for the long haul. They have to form groups like
MooreFORCE and do the things that will keep their gro"9p together ... that's alot of bake sales but its
better than a lifetime of bottled water, " Johnson concluded.
PROCTOR-SILEX STATE SUPERFUND SITE
In 1989, DEHNR investigated the Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex plant in Southern Pines. DEHNR
found elevated levels of toxic chemicals and carcinogens at several locations, including a buried trench.
The site was listed as a low priority one because of the belief that it did not pose an immediate health
threat; no one nearby was using a drinking water supply well for example. Little else was done here
until 1991, when employees of the plant demanded further testing.
County officials discovered and tested an adjacent private drinking well and found trace amounts of
1, 1, 1,-Trichloroethane, a hazardous chemical also disposed of in the buried trench. This implies that
the contamination has moved off-site; yet nothing more has been done, including additional testing,
since 1991.
SECTION TWO: NOTES ON OTHER CONTAMINATION CASES IN MOORE COUNTY
These notes are an indication of some of the cases to be found in the files of the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR).
EASTWOOD 66 SERVICE CENTER, EASTWOOD.
DEM Incident No. 8135. Potential Responsible Party (PRP): Fred Thomas, Thomas Oil Co.
Sanford. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case. Notice' of Regulatory Requirements (NRR)
sent by DEM 6-30-92 after 5-29-92 incident report. Comprehensive Site Assessment due 10-2-92 to
determine groundwater flow direction, extent of plume and downgradient groundwater users. 75-100
drinking wells nearby. Former owner or operator Quality Oil Co. dug up tanks in 1989; soil tests
submitted (after letter from DEM) in 1991 were negative. During tank testing in May, 1992, a leak
was detected. Additional soil tests were required including the site of the removed tanks where
contamination was now found.
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ISSUED, NC211/SR2075.
Issued 4-23-92 to Thomas Oil Co., Sanford for 10 wells
to monitor for groundwater contamination.
1· VILLAGE HALL, VILLAGE OF WHISPERING PINES.
LUST case. Notice of Violation (NOV) of N.C. Groundwater Standards sent 3-18-92.
Monitoring well (1) construction permit issued 5-22-92.
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ISSUED, SOUTHERN PINES.
Issued 6-4-92 to Gouger, O'Neal and Saunders Real Estate Services for 2 wells at the
intersection of Connecticut Ave. and Bennett St.
ELKS LODGE, SOUTHERN PINES.
PRP: Efrs Lodge. LUST case. NRR sent 4-20-92 after 1-22-92 notification. "a small amount
of contaminated soil found after tank removal" 7-23-92. Letter from DEM-Fayetteville office to
R.G.Edwards, owner, of Petro-Tee Environmental Services, Aberdeen, that DEM considered
Petro-Tee "no longer qualified to perform UST closures."
SIGNAL TOOL HOUSE, CSX PROPERTY, ABERDEEN.
DEM Incident No. 7728. PRP: CSX Transportation. LUST case. NRR sent 2-24-92 after
2-11-92 notification. Monitoring Well (1) Construction permit issued 4-23-92.
STANLEY FURNITURE CO., WEST END.
Monitoring wells installed to monitor for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and phenol. Slightly
detectible level of phenol (.006) in well #6 8-27-92.
SANDHILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, PINEHURST.
LUST case. NRR sent 1-29-92 after 2-22-92 notification.·
COUNTRY CUBBARD, HILLCREST.
DEM INCIDENT NO. 2902. LUST case. PRP: Country Cubbard, Inc. (operator) & Charles
Fry, owner. NOV issued 12-11-91 for failure to submit Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) by
9-13-91 deadline (deadline set 7-29-91). NOV sent 2-12-92 for failure to report and perform by
deadlines set in 12-11-91 letter. First reported in mid-1980s, groundwater contamination moved off site
contaminating well supplying several residences. Disputes among potentially responsible parties appear
to have delayed remediation efforts.
BREWER'S REPAIR SHOP, EAGLE SPRINGS.
DEM Incident No. 6538. PRP: H.R.Holt Oil Co. Troy. Conventional Rate Soils Landfarming
permit issued on 2-11-92 for on site disposal of 150 cubic yards. NOV issued on 10-17-91 for failure
to submit CSA by 9-16-91, deadline set 5-21-91.
LASSITER'S GULF STATION, NC24/27.
DEM Incident No. 4091. PRP: Holt Oil Co. LUST case. Remedial Action Plan approved
6-15-89.
HIGHWAY PATROL STATION, MOORE COUNTY.
DEM Incident No. 4025. PRP: N.C. Highway Patrol. LUST case. NOV sent 2-14-89 after soil
contamination found. Monitoring well installed. NOV sent 4-7-89 after 1" of gasoline found in
monitoring well. Contaminated soil removed, and no groundwater found in monitoring well 10-8-90.
FOXFIRE VILLAGE, JACKSON SPRINGS.
DEM Incident No. 5457. Village Water Supply Well #1 contaminated by LUST and closed.
Nearby municipal u.s. t. removed and groundwater remediation begun resulting in 61.3 % decrease in
benzene found in monitoring well.
BILL CLARK CHEVROLET, PINEHURST.
DEM Incident No. 5532. L.U.S.T. case report 4-2-90. NOV issued for failure to submit CSA.
CSA completed. Monitoring well installed.
SECTION 3: A NOTE ON CAROLINA GALVANIZING
Carolina Galvanizing Corporation (CGC) is a holding company which owns property and operates a
water treatment facility on a 60 to 70 acre site on the Moore County/Hoke County line. CGC operates
the water treatment facility and leases the property to New South Industries, Inc. (NSI), a wholly
owned subsidiary of ERICO International Corporation (as is Eritech, Inc., which is building a new
galvanizing facility in Aberdeen). NSI is a coatings and electro-plating company operating the site
owned by CGC, which recently purchased the property from NSI. CGC has recently changed
ownership and had a change of management.
The facility, operated by NSI and now owned by CGC, has a long history of violations related to
industrial groundwater contamination. Members of MooreFORCE have discussed this situation with
CGC's new owner. He desires to operate a clean business and has already spent $200,000.00 in
groundwater remediation.
The proximity of neighbours, the extent of contamination and the problems of liability between
Carolina Galvanizing Corp., Eritech, Inc. ERICO International Corporation and New South Industries,
Inc. make this a complicated case in which resolution of liability issues may be difficult.
MooreFORCE will continue to monitor the situation here.
CONCLUSION: A LETTER TO OUR OFFICIALS
Over the past year, as we have reviewed groundwater issues in Moore County we have come to realize
how personal these public problems are. Each of these cases has a human face... the face of our
friends or neighbours. These citizens need to be told what is going on around them. They should have
a voice in the process so that their concerns are heard and addressed. They should feel that the rules
are for their protection and not for the protection of th~ polluters. __
It has also become clear that local citizens cannot simply trust in the system to p rotect them. The long
delays in clean-up activities; the shortage of state personnel and resources; .. the potential manipulation
of the system by certain polluters mean that local citizens MUST keep up with the cases they live near
and repeatedly ask: what is being done?
It is also clear that our local economic development depends on good supplies of groundwater. In areas
where jobs are scarce, good jobs scarcer yet, and poverty a far too common neighbour, groundwater
is basic to a community's bootstrap efforts to grow and prosper. The construction of new rural housing
and homesteads as well as the recruitment or creation of new industries and job opportunities is
obviously linked to this limited and precious natural resource. Here is the question: "If I buy a parcel
of land now, what assuranc~s do I have that I can build on it later if building on it means drilling a
well?"
As our state evaluates the groundwater policies our future depends upon, we ask our elected and
appointed officials to err on the side of caution for the environment. The no degradation policy of our
state should be maintained, but if revisions to such a policy are inevitable, they should be narrowly
focused and closely linked to an increase in personnel and resources at the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. For example, the proposed rule changes that allow the
relaxation of clean-up standards for contamination from leaking underground storage tanks also applies
to industrial or hazardous waste sites. This is too broad a change and should not be allowed.
Our review of groundwater problems in Moore County shows that this precious resource is AT RISK.
We hope that through greater public support of groundwater protection such a risk is never realized.
For MooreFORCE and the Clean Water Fund of NC,
President, MooreFORCE Raleigh Director, CWF-NC
STATEtlENT PREPARED FOR THE ENVIRON?IEN'l'AL tlANAGEm:NT COimISSION
Pub1ic Ha:a.ring on Proposad Aaa:ndma:nts
to 15A NCAC 2L: Groundwata:r C1assification and Standards
April 7, :1993
By: Ko.ya: W. Thompson, Controlla:r
E. J. Popa: & Son, Inc.
Pra:sida:nt, North Carolina Association of Conva:nia:nca: Stora:s
I am Ko.ycz Thompson, Control.l.a:r of E~ J. Popiz & Son, Inc., ha:adquarta:rCEd in :tiount
Ol.iva:, North Carol.ina. !:Iy campany owns 41. ra:tail. and 5 consignm.a:nt l.ocations
in Easta:rn, N.C. Popa: has ba:izn a whol.a:sal.a: distributor and ra:taila:r of pa:trol.a:um
products £or thra:a: ga:na:rations. Incl.uda:d in our corporata: ai.ssion stata:ma:nt ara:
our bd.ia:fs which incl.uda: PROTECTING OUR ENVIRON?Imr. As t _ha: cwna:r/opa:rator
0£ :191 tanks in Easta:rn N.C. l.ocata:d on owna:d and l.a:asa:d propa:rtia:s, wa:
hava: ba:a:n most conscia:ntious in complying with al.l a:nvironma:ntal. ra:gul.ations.
~or a:xa.mpl.a:, all. 1998 UST upgrada:s wa:ra: do~a: ba:fora: tha: a:nd of 1992. I offa:r
this information to ha:lp you unda:rstand that it is not our inta:ntion to avoid
a:nviro:nma:ntal.l.y sound busina:ss practica:s, but ratha:r to approach cl.a:an-up of
sita:s onl.y to tha: da:gra:a: na:a:da:d to pra:va:nt contamination of drinking wata:r
or to prota:ct pa:opla: and propa:rtia:s.
Sinca: 1989, my company has ba:a:n invol.va:d in cla:aning up 10 sita:s, most of which
hava: no ra:porta:d wa:ll.s in tha: a:stabl.ishCEd plwaa: of contamination. To data:,
wa: hava: spa:nt an a:stimata:d $721, 000·. Basa:d on approvrz:d Corra:ctiva: Action
Plans and bast a:stimata:s by rz:nvironma:ntal consu1tants, an additional $1,000,000
wil.l. ba: spa:nt on thasrz: 10 proja:cts. To data:, tha: UST Trust Fund ra:imburs~a:nts
ra:ca:iva:d total. $69,327.
Dua to tima: limitations, I wou1d l.ika: t~ offa:r £acts on ona: 0£ tha:sa: proja:cts
locata:d on Front Stra:a:t in Naw Ba:rn, ~.C., forma:rly a convania:nca: stora:, now
usrz:d as an offica:.
Bria£ history of incida:nt:
April, 1989 Pope excavated 4 ~anks and incinerated 4 7 .S tons of contaminated soils.
April, 1989
April 28, 1989
May -Sept. 1989
Fire Department detected gasoline vapors in a sanitary sewage line.
Notice of Violation Issued
Contamination Assessment Report was prepared by Delta Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
Water Well Inventory revealed no permitted water supply wells within 1/4 mile
of the site. The City of New Bern well field is located approximately 17
miles northwest of the ~ity limits.
TABLE 1 c_:1,,1,d ,4 ) . . .'.I SUMMARY OF GF.:OUND WATER ANALYTICAL RESULT / ,r l.. . ---. E.J. POPE g( SON, INC.
HANDY MART #8
NEW BERN, N.C.
DELTA PF.:OJECT NO. 50-8"3-034
ALL UNITS AF.:E REPOi;~TED IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
MW-1 BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
06/29/8"3 7'3 '3 <5 <5 5 < 0.020 NA
10/25/89 250 67 13 140 10 NA NA
01 / 18/'30 76 6 <1 1 1 NA NA
05/22/90 25 17 6 43 21 NA NA
0'3/1'3/90 <1 1 <1 2 '3 NA NA
02/21/91 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
04/17/"31 7 8 3 "30 170 NA NA
0"3/ 18/91 61 3 22 15 <1 <0.020 NA
03/18/'32 <1 2 •")
"' 42 1 <0.02 NA
07/08/92 <1 <1 <1 4 <1 <<). 02 NA
11 / 17 /"32 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
MW-2 BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
06/2'3/8'3 660 440 <125 1600 7400 < 0.20 NA
10/25/8"3 770 2400 400 2100 2100 NA NA
01/18/90 1400 670 <100 16000 1400 NA NA
05/22/"30 560 210 210 1400 370 NA NA
0'3/ 1 "3/90 1'300 210 270 730 630 0.14 630
02/21 /"31 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.020 1
04/17/91 3 .-, ..::. .-, .::. 11 <1 <0.020 NA
09/ 18/'31 170 1 "3 72 74 35 <0.020 <1
!/18/'32 <1 1 '3 43 58 3 <0.02 NA
07 /08/'32 4 <1 -. .::. 10 <1 <0.02 NA
11 / 17 /"32 550 7.0 50 26 12 NA NA
Mt..J-3 BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
06/29/89 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 < 0.0:20 NA
10/25/8'3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
01 / 18/'30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
05/22/90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0'3/ 1 '3/90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
02/21 /"31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
04/--17 /"31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0'3/ 18/"31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
03/ 18/"32 NA NA NA ' NA NA NA NA
07/08/92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11 / 17 /'32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nf-~ = NOT ANALYZED
13F.:OUND WATER CHEMISTRY r~ ,<,., --~-; J 'PAGE· 2 Of." 2 2-u ,r: 2... .. . ..... ..
MW-4 BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
06/29/89 <5 <5 <5 <5 ,· c:-
-....:i < 0.020 NA
)125/8"3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
,_, 1 / 18 / '30 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
05/22/'30 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
0'3/1'3/90 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
02/21/'31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
04/17/91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0'3/18/':H <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
03/18/'32 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
07 /08/'32 <1 <1 <1 2. 0 <1 NA NA
11 /17 /'32 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
Ml.J-5 BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
06/29/8"3 •.. C" ... ,...., <5 <5 <5 <5 < 0.020 NA
10/25/8"3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
01 / 18/"30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
05/22/"30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0"3/ 1 '3/'30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
02/21/91 NA NA NA NA NA I\IA NA
04/17/"91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0'3/18/"31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
03/18/'32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
07 /08/'32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11/17/"32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
n 'MW-E, BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
05/2'3/89 <5 <5 •' C" -: .. w <5 5 < 0.020 NA
10/25/89 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 NA NA
01/18/90 <1 <1 1 1 1 NA NA
05/22/'30 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 NA NA
0"3/ 1 '3/"30 <1 <1 <1 < 1 "3 NA NA
02/21 /"31 <1 <1 <1 <1 14 NA NA
04/17 /':H <1 <1 <1 <1 4"3 NA NA
0"3/18/"31 <1 <1 <1 <1 39 NA NA
03/18/'32 <1 <1 <1 <1 25 NA NA
07 /08/'32 <1 <1 <1 <1 :21 NA NA
111-1 7 /"32 <1 <1 <1 ' 1 35 NA
MW-7 BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL-XYLENE MTBE EDB DIPE
BENZENE
06/2'3/8"3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 < 0.020 NA
10/25/89 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
01/18/"30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
05/22/"30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0'3/ 1 "3/"30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
02/21/91 <1 <1 < 1 <1 <1 NA NA
04/17 /"31 <1 1 <1 1 <1 NA NA
0"3/ 18/'31 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
03/18/'32 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
,/08/"32 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
:n: I 17 /"32 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA NA
NA = NOT ANALYZED
-Page 2 -
OF THE GASOLINE SOLD NATIONWIDE. AS PMAA PRESIDENT, I HAVE
TRAVELED EXTENSIVELY TO EVERY REGION OF THE COUNTRY, AND I
HAVE DISCUSSED THE PROBLEMS FACING OUR INDUSTRY WITH
HUNDREDS OF PETROLEUM MARKETERS. MY TRAVELS HA VE GIVEN ME
A UNIQUE INSIGHT INTO THE CONCERNS OF PETROLEUM MARKETERS ---,
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OF WHICH IS TIIE HIGH COST OF COMPLIANCE
WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.
I HOPE TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY SOME OF THESE CONCERNS
AND TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE ON TIIE NEED
FOR A MORE FLEXIBLE AND COST-EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT. THAT IS AN ---APPROACH THAT rs AIMED
AT MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS ON SMALL BUSINESSES IN
SMALL COMMUNITIES. SPECIFICALLY, FOR THE REASONS THAT FOLLOW,
I URGE lliE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE ON GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT AS PROPOSED.
• Page 3 -
I CAN PERSONALLY A1TEST TO TI-IE FACT TIIAT TIIE illGH COSTS
OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IS ONE OF THE
MOST SIGNIFICANT _ .. IF NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ---PROBLEM
FACING PETROLEUM MARKETERS. TiiE OVER\VHELMJNG MAJORITY OF
PETROLEUM MARKETERS ARE SMALL BUSINESSES WHO LACK THE
RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE AND REMEDIATE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN THE CURRENT REGULATORY CLIMATE. IN ADDITION TO
CLEAN-UP COSTS, MARKETERS ARE FACED OVER TiiE NEXT FEW YEARS
WITH THE ENORMOUS COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH TANK UPGRADE
REQUIREMENTS, NEW CLEAN AIR STANDARDS, AND A HOST OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES. THE ECONOMIC BURDENS OF
COMPLYING WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS IS MORE THAN MANY
I
PETROLEUM MARKETERS CAN WITHSTAND.
IT WAS THESE ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES, OF COURSE, THAT
PROMPTED THE MATORITY OF THE STATES, INCLUDING NORTif
-Page 4 -
CAROLINA, TO ENACT LAWS PROVIDING FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANK TRUST FUNDS. AS ALL MARKETERS HAVE LEARNED, HOWEVER,
THESE FUNDS DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR :MANY
SMALL BUSINESSES WHO ARE LITERALLY THREATENED WI1H
BANKRUPTCY AS A RESULT OF ESCALATING COMPLIANCE COSTS. MANY
OF THE FUNDS ARE IN SEVERE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. IN ADDIDON,
MANY OF THE MOST SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS PRE-DATE
THE LEGISIATION CREATING THE FUNDS AND ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
COST REIMBURSEMENT.
THE ONLY REASONABLE SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS IS TO
LOOK FOR A NEW APPROACH TO COMPLIANCE, AND ONE THAT ACCORDS
A SIGNIFICANTI... Y HIGHER PRIORITY TO COST-EFFECTIVENESS. I BELIEVE
TIIAT THE CURRENT RIGID APPROACH, WHICH REQUIRES ACTIVE
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT IN VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE, WITHOUT
REGARD TO RISK FACTORS OR THE EXPENSE OF COMPLIANCE, rs
'
-Page S -
UNNECESSARY AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. NOT ONLY DOES IT CREATE
UNNECESSARY BURDENS FOR FINANCIALLY-STRAPPED MARKETERS, AND
DEPLETE FUNDS THAT COULD BE USED FOR LEAK PREVENTION, IT ALSO
VJ/JI 15/L 17y
THREATENS THE FINANCIAL OF THE STATE TRUST FUND.
AS YOU KNOW BETTER TI-IAN I, ACTIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,
ESPECIALLY PUMP-AND-TREAT SYSTEMS, ARE WASTEFUL IN MANY CASES
WHERE TIIERE .IS LITTLE RISK OF GROUNDWATER MIGRATION AND
WHERE GEOLOGICAL FACTORS LIMIT THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. IN MANY
CASES, ACTIVE REMEDIATION REQUIRES YEARS TO COMPLETE, AT A
COST OF HUNDREDS OF TIIOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. IN A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF THESE CASES, MOREOVER, ACTIVE REMEDIATION
ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE MORE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
THROUGH PASSIVE BIOREMEDIA TION, \VHICH COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER COST.
THE NEED FOR A MORE FLEXlBLE AND INNOVATIVE APPROACH IS
-Page 6 -
ILLUSTRATED BY A PROBLEM CURRENTLY FACING MY COMPANY,
EASTERN PETROLEUM CORPORATION. IN 19$>/:, MY COMPANY
PURCHASED A SMALL CONVENIENCE STORE AT A SITE WHICH HAD BEEN
UTILIZED FOR GASOLINE DISPENSING FOR OVER FORTY YEARS. DURING
~ .. '· .. : .
TIIE 1950'S AND 1960'S, THERE WAS A MOBIL OIL STATION LOCATED ON
THE PROPERTY. IN 1968, THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LOCATED
AT THE PROPERTY BEGAN TO l:EAK, AND TI-IE COMPANY TIIAT OWNED
THE TANKS AT THAT TIME MADE AN EFFORT TO PATCH THE TANKS.
WITHOUT ANY APPARENT SUCCESS. LATER, THE TANKS WERE
REMOVED.
DURING TI-IE EARLY 1970'S, A DIFFERENT FUEL SUPPLIER
INSTALLED NEW TANKS AT THE PROPERTY. THESE TANKS WERE
REMOVED IN 1984 AND, WHEN \VE PURCHASED THE SITE, NEW TANKS
WERE INSTALLED BY MY COMPANY. AT THE 'TIME TIIE TANKS WERE
REMOVED, TIIERE WAS A STRONG ODOR OF GASOLINE IN THE
-Page 7 -
SUBSURFACE SOILS.
IN SHORT, THE GROUNDWATER PROBLEM SUBSEQUENTLY
DISCOVERED AT TIIE SITE TS MOST LIKELY AN HISTORICAL PROBLEM. AS
IS OFfEN TI-IE CASE, HOWEVER, IT l.S THE CURRENT TANK OWNER THAT
IS CHARGED WITII RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLEAN-UP.
IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 1989, TEN MONITORING WELLS WERE
INSTALLED AT THE PROPERTY. GROUNDWATER SAMPLES SHOWED
SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION IN HALF OF THE WELLS.
VIHEN THE WELLS WERE MONITORED AGAIN IN OCTOBER OF 1991,
HOWEVER, THE CONTAMINANT LEVELS FELL DRAMATICALLY AS A
RESULT OF PASSIVE BIOREMEDTATION. IN TIIE MAJORITY OF CASES, THE
LEVELS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENEZENE, AND XYLENE FELL BY
THOUSANDS OF PARTS PER BILLION AND, IN SOME CASES, THE
CONTAMINANTS WERE REDUCED BELOW DETECTABLE LEVELS. IN
NOVEMBER OF 1992, TIIE PROBLEM WELLS WERE TESTED AGAIN. AS
-Page 8 -
BEFORE, TI-IE GENERAL TREND WAS DOWNWARD, WITH THE AVERAGE
CONTAMINANT LEVELS F ALLfNG SIGNIFICANTLY.
nus GROUNDWA1ER INCIDENT rs AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE FOR
A CONTINUATION OF PASSIVE BIOREMEDIATION. WE HAVE BEEN
ADVISED BY OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT THAT TIIERE ARE NO
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN THE AREA. IN ADDIDON, TIIB RESULTS OF THE
GROUNDWATER SURVEY SHOW THAT TifE CONTAMINANT PLUME HAS
NOT EXTENDED BEYOND ITS EARLIER CONFINES, AND THERE IS NO
OTHER EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINANT l\1IGRATION.
WHILE IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ANY ACTIVE SYSTEM
WOULD HA VE ACHIEVED A BEITER RESULT IN TERMS OF REDUCING
CONTAMINANT LEVELS, AN ACTIVE SYSTEM IS REQUIRED UNDER
CURRENT REGULATIONS. AS A RESULT, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANT DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE OF PASSIVE
BIOREMEDIATION, AND RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION IN 1HE
-Page 9 -
FORM OF A PUMP-A.ND.TREAT SYSTEM. THE ESTIMATED COST OF TIIB
SYSTEM IS IN EXCESS OF $129,000 OVER FIVE YEARS, WITII THE MAJORITY
OF TIIE MONEY TO BE EXPENDED IN START-UP COSTS.
THE PUMP-AND-TREAT SYSTEM WAS RECOMMENDED
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE SITE IS COMPRISED OF A TIGHT
CLAY, WHICH SEVERELY INHIBITS THE AREA OF INFLUENCE OF 1HE
PUMPING UNIT. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. SUCH AS AIR
SPARGING AND VAPOR RECOVERY, WOULD FACE THE SAME PROBLEM.
BECAUSE OF THE RIGIDITY OF THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. HOWEVER,
I AM COMPELLED TO PROCEED WITH AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE ACTIVE
SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT PARTICULARLY WELhSUITED TO TIIE
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH IT \VILL BE REQUIRED TO OPERA TE.
THERE APPEAR TO BE NUMEROUS INSTANCES WIIBIN THE STATE
IN WHICH ACTIVE SYSTEMS ARE MANDATED, WITifOUT ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION OF RISK FACTORS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. A MORE
. .
-Page 10 -
FLEXIBLE, INNOVATIVE AND COST EFFECTIVE APPROACH COULD FREE
UP MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT COULD BE BETfER SPENT ON
PREVENTING GROUNDWATER INCIDENTS.
AS YOU KNOW, PETROLEUM MARKETERS 'IHROUGHOUT THE
NATION FACE THE ENORMOUS COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH UPGRADING
THEIR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS TO COMPLY WITII
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS. A MORE FLEXIBLE, COST-
EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO GROUNDWATER TREATMENT WOULD FREE-UP
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WllH 1HE TANK UPGRADE
REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OIBER SPILL
PREVENTION MEASURES. SUCH A NEW APPROACH WOULD ALLEVIATE A
NUMBER OF UNNECESSARY ECONOMIC BURDENS ON PETROLEUM
\
MARKETERS AND, AT TIIE SAME TIME, ENCOURAGE NEW, MORE
EFFECTIVE METHODS OF GROUNDWATER TREATMENT.
FOR TIIESE REASONS, I URGE THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE
-Page 11 -
RULE AS PROPOSED. THE PROPOSED RULE IS CONSISTENT IN ALL
-
RESPECTS WITH EPA1 S DIRECTIVE ON STREAMLINING CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RELEASES, DATED
NOVEMBER 23, 1992. THE EPA DIRECTIVE CORRECTLY RECOMMENDS
THAT THE STATES ACCELERATE EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE TIIEIR
APPROACHES TO CLEAN.UPS, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES LOCATED IN SMALL
COMMUNITIES.
TIIE PETROLEUM MARKETING COMMUNITY AGREES WITH EPA
THAT ''EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT' SHOULD BE MADE TO REDUCE
COMPLIANCE COSTS AND MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY ECONOMIC
HARDSHIPS. THE NEW RULE IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
Mr. David Hance
March 31, 1993
Page 2
do so in the strongest possible terms. our clients urge DEM to
strike proposed Rule .0102(19)(b) in its entirety.
This part purports to impose corrective action requirements
on "a subsequent purchaser of property which is the source of
groundwater standards violations and who purchased the property
with knowledge of the contamination." Although at first blush
this may seem a reasonable basis for affixing responsibility, in
practice such a rule would be unfair, counterproductive and would
serve as a disincentive to voluntary cleanups.
One client's specific situation is an excellent illustration
of the problem. This client owns a former industrial facility,
which currently is out of use. The company is attempting to sell
the property, and in the course of the sales effort discovered
groundwater contamination. This contamination was wholly caused
by a former owner and was unknown to our client at the time of
purchase in the early 1970's. Thus, this client would not be
required to take 2L corrective action under existing or proposed
rules.
The requisite DEM Regional Office agreed with that
conclusion, and intends to send a Notice of Violation to the
former owner (and not to our client). Whether the former owner
will comply with a DEM cleanup directive is unknown. Very often,
such parties cannot or will not do so.
Virtually the only asset our client has is the property
itself. Assuming that our client was willing to proceed with a
voluntary cleanup of the property, it could not do so absent a
sale of the property. Assuming the former owner fails to accept
responsibility for the cleanup, our client might consider a sale
of the property with some of the sale proceeds being dedicated to
cleanup. Such "sale with remediation" agreements are currently
in wide use.
But the proposed definition found at Rule .0102(19) (b) would
make such transactions impossible, and wipe out a viable basis
for funding voluntary cleanups. New property owners would
immediately become responsible parties under the 2L regs,
virtually always an unacceptable business risk because of the
inability to accurately forecast the costs of remediation. The
irony of the situation is that our client and similarly situated
contaminated property owners would not themselves be 2L
responsible parties -but the new buyer, a complete stranger to
the original transaction with the "true" responsible party, would
be fully liable.
Mr. David Hance
i March 31, 1993
Page 4
(2) The Proposed Rule Is unconstitutional
Regardless of a seller's status as a 2L responsible party,
attempts to impose strict liability on purchasers of property,
based solely on their status as purchasers with knowledge, cannot
be established by rule. Imposition of this CERCLA-like liability
cannot be accomplished by administrative procedures;
constitutionally, only the legislative and judicial branches can
make such laws. An effort to impose corrective action liability
on a subsequent purchaser via a 2L regulation would not pass
muster if it were challenged.
We would note that, while we are not challenging Part (c) of
this rule and indeed support it, in all likelihood it too would
fail in a judicial challenge.
(3) The Proposed Rule Encourages Waste of
Existing Resources
Our client's situation noted herein is far from uncommon. A
great number of plant facilities will lay fallow if the new rule
creates an inability to transfer properties with rehabilitation
in mind. Companies seeking to expand must instead construct new
facilities, which construction of course poses environmental
costs. Fundamentally, any rule which in its operation restricts
property transfer forces our society to overlook, and thereby
waste, valuable existing assets.
(4) The Proposed Rule Will Discourage
"Sale and Remediation" Agr(;!ements
Rule .0102(19) (b) discourages voluntary cleanups. Many
current owners of contaminated property are not responsible
parties under existing 2L regulations, and would not be under the
proposed version. Many of these owners would gladly undertake a
voluntary cleanup if to do so would facilitate a sale. We have
represented clients in this situation who have successfully done
so.
Obviously such sales always include an agreement to clean up
the property; 2L liability aside, no one will buy contaminated
property absent a binding and effective cleanup commitment.
However, no such promise will be sufficient if the buyer
automatically becomes a responsible party upon closing. Imposing
such strict liability allows the state to bypass the cleanup
Mr. David Hance
1 March 31, 1993
Page 3
Accordingly, if Rule .0102(19) is adopted, our client's
property will lie fallow more or less indefinitely, and will in
all likelihood languish on one or more state or federal
contaminated site lists. Our client, and DEM, will be locked
into a no-win situation, whereby the property will not be cleaned
up for many years, if ever.
In our experience, the scenario described above is quite
common. Losing the "sale and remediation" option will diminish
voluntary cleanups and tie up industrial properties forever.
These are not environmentally or socially beneficial outcomes.
Rule .0102(19)(b) will not accomplish its apparent intended
purpose, and should be stricken for the following reasons:
(1) The Prop osed Rule is Unfair and Will be Ineffective
Rule .0102(19) (b) probably was intended to forestall
attempts to avoid cleanup liability via contaminated property
transfers. In reality, the rule will not affect liability-
avoidant behavior one way or the other. It will, however, create
substantial unfairness.
To attempt to affix 2L responsibility on a party who is a
complete stranger to any "actions causing or contributing to the
violation of groundwater quality standards" (language taken from
Part (a) of the same definition) is inconsistent with state law.
It is an odd result to hold a purchaser of contaminated property
liable when that new owner has had nothing to do with the
contamination, and finds no support in North Carolina statutory
or case law.
True responsible parties cannot escape 2L liability simply
by selling their property. Under the 2L rules, once an entity is
a responsible party, it is always subject to corrective action.
Thus, there is no deterrent effect accomplished by this proposed
rule. It is merely an attempt to improperly punish the new
owners, or to widen the liability "net" without justification.
In many cases, sellers (such as our client mentioned herein)
are not themselves 2L responsible parties. In such cases, sales
of contaminated property cannot be seen as attempts to shift 2L
responsibilities, since the seller has no 2L responsibility to
hide from. If a seller is a 2L responsible party, as noted
above, a sale of the property would not absolve that seller's 2L
liability. In fact, DEM should encourage such sales, as it would
provide a source of money (the sale proceeds) which might be used
for cleanups.
STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
GROUNDWATER COMMITTEE CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO 15A NCAC 2L:
GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
My name is Steve Hooper. I'm speaking on behalf of Glen Raven Mills, Inc., a family-owned
textile company headquartered in Glen Raven, N. C. Glen Raven Mills currently has twelve
registered underground storage tanks and has removed or closed seven additional tanks.
I would like to elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the removal of a pair of five
hundred gallon storage tanks. In 1983, Glen Raven Mills acquired a small piece of property in
downtown Burlington that was serving at the time of purchase as a parking lot. At a time
prior to 1970, the property had been used as a base of operations for an ambulance service
which utilized two five hundred gallon gasoline tanks to service its small fleet of ambulances.
In 1988, Glen Raven became aware of the existence of these abandoned tanks -having now
been abandoned for approximately twenty years -and promptly made plans to have them
removed.
As you might surmise, shortly after the removal of the tanks, contamination in both the soil
and groundwater was found to exist. Further testing at the site including monitoring wells
revealed low concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene, but above North
Carolina groundwater standards in at least one test well. The plume was determined to be
approximately 2,500 square feet and has shown no signs of moving. An environmental
assessment showed no wells existed anywhere nearby as the site is nearly dead center of
downtown Burlington. It would be fairly obvious to most reasonable people that no risk to
human health existed from the contamination found at this site.
At this site over the past five years, untold man hours have been spent in pursuing compliance
with current regulations regarding groundwater contamination. The State of North Carolina
has expended over $75,000 on this site out of the UST Trust Fund. Division of Environmental
Management personnel in both Winston-Salem and Raleigh have had their resources and
energies diverted from truly needy sites while administering this site over the last five years.
What is the outcome of this effort? Remediation to groundwater standards at best is still a
distant reality. I doubt that anyone truly believes that the above example represents a wise
investment of the State's limited resources. If the above were an isolated case, then
amendment of the current regulations might not be necessary. However, I suspect that Glen
Raven's experiences with a contaminated site are quite routine.
Glen Raven does not stand to gain by amending 15A NCAC 2L. However, it is our hope that
by amending the regulations so as to allow greater flexibility in compliance efforts, North
Carolina might better utilize its limited resources to improve the environment to the benefit of
all our citizens -present and future.
----r. " • -' ' '~~:-' ( I. ·;,-, ' . '
,::. April .1.s; ~i99~. ;\ / · ·\· . --~:." ·t '
;.~.i-·· : ~ · ~·:r •."' .. ):l· · ;· .,.-r -~;. <_ t · ·," . :··· · ~-.f. ;:,~-, -r ,ff ::~f.
, .;· -·~Eiivi~onme~ta'i·-'Management Commi'ssi.6n ~ :· .. " 'f.,>c/q''MrJ David•,"i:Iance".·' :'_-~· .. ,'',,·:,~"'"'C ·, '" -~
· :t., : NC ·p_epartmerit -~f. ~nv:ironment ;I: 1 > · •'-'~·
.,,,.· ... · · . Heal th and .. Natural Resources ·
... ,. '.Division\of ·,Eriv,ironmerital ·Management '
. '. Groundwater ~-:Section .. . ·.. . .
·P. ,o.· .Box 29535. . ·
'Raleigh, 'NC · _27'526-0535.
: \:.· . '-~ ;~~~· _.i-~~~,:~:~ .:,-~~ '!,-~_:,: ·.-~:.f. ·-·, '
Dear Commissioners::• . · ..
•' ·a:. \. .·'•,ti. "'.: _;• ·•·: (·;-;-
Ple.ase · regard·· this letter as' commentary on a portion of the-pro-
posed 15A_NCAC 2L Amendments, and to specifically request that the
commission consider revising language currently under consider-
ation:·,based 11po_n·· these .comments .. · · ·
This le~ters ·,spiqificallf-addresses 15A NCA~ 2~ .. 0103 Paragr~ph
( e) , . which :-.does · not fairly represent . the .1.nterests of licensed
geologists, professional engineers, .or those . of .• the regulated
conununity. Also, the .·subject paragraph appears to> conflict' with
C.hapter· . 89E ···(Geologists Licensing· "',Act) .,of· .. the North. ·carolina
General ,st:ittµtes .' ·,. \ -" · · · · . ·· P .
!" , , ,-~•• •:.-"''"I ~t-.-~,.· -.,. -~ I' ,.. . ••; >:
Par:a:9faph ;· ( ~) ·. ~pecif ies the roles · of · licensE:4 geologists and pro~
fes~.ional behgineers .. (and e~cludes ·others) . in the performance of
work assoc:::iated with '.complying with ··the amende_d~· standards. . As
proposed., -Jliceris~a'd' geologists, firms}. etc.r•·may' -of-fer subsurface
ge9lo9ical,,,i~ve~tigat?,ve ·_ service!·s;' · ~o~ever,. they inaY .. no~ prov:ide
remed1.a1· deeagll· .. services, nor :work involving . "specia.lized con~J
str\i'cticin t~fohriiquesll. Licensed engineers, firms·, etc. wou.ld be
·a!lo!Ned,, . to . ·pr~vide subsurfc,tc~ geo~ogical . ~ervices. , i,ncl~ding
"interpretation. of: subsurface geologic conditions"·. (in apparent
confli_ct_-with GS 89E), to provide remedial design services,· and.to
engage in , "s.pecialized construction · techniques" · (undefined in
.0102).' ., .. · . . . .
-.... • " -<
There is nc:> 'doubt that significant overlappage of geological and
engineering duties exists in many cases where groundwater must be
restored, and .in such instances, involvements by .· both professions
are critical·· t_o ·successful projects. The respective roles of each '
J?rof~ssi~n, however, are .·more complex t,han the ~ubject ·paragr~ph
implies, -and .. a more detailed treatment .is essential."· Also, while -~.
it , is . clear 'tha:t the . intent . of , this paragraph· is 'partially .. :to
protect .the resp_onsible party, the current draft will i_n·' fact harm
many· of . those· undertaking· clean-up•· -activities. The following
discussion a11d_suggestions -are presentedfqr_you.r consideration. ·
-~· .... • . ,.._;,fl~.~· . "' .,. t; . . , . '• '.,~:. -, -~..!' ' ' •. --.... i' . _::.. -_-/·~,;
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 10136, Wilmington, N.C. 28405 Shipping Address: 7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Telephone: [phone]
Mr;. D~via.' Ha~ce
April :15, .. 1;9~3.
Page 'l;'hree · . ·· ,.
'.\ '• ·-.'i __ , .• ~ -,. ·..: -. !1 _,
SPECXALXZED CON~TRUCTXON TECHNXQUES
• .-·:: ... ✓, ..:· .,•: . • .•.. . . • ' • . . ' . This ·phrase, as inserted in Para<1'raph (e), implies_ that an:y -con-.
struction whatsoever,. · being specialized in terms of relating. to
remediation, must be performed by engineering persons, firms or
corporations. To include . this in the rule would have severe
industry-wide ramification. . It would riot allow normal construc-
.tion firins, · pump and tank installation contractors, geological
corporations,· other qualified entities, or responsible parties to
participate in remedial constructions •. This limitation to engi-
neers is unfair and, will cause unnecessary additional cost to
responsible parties and to the state Trust Fund. It is also in
conflict with the intent of the Federal. regulations for. under-
c,round . storage tanks . (40CFR · Parts 280 and 281), which were not
intended to prevent the owner/operator from directly participating
in clean-up activities. Moreover, al though it is convenient to
consider. the amendments in terms of. situations involving under-
.ground storage tanks·covered under the Trust· Fund; there.are, and
.will· be.: many non-compliant sites requiring restoration which are
not ·covered. One lmportant example is· above ground tank sites
·whic;::h will soon be subject to similar Federal mandate. In many·of
t:tJ.ese ~9-~~~$, thE; · re_spon~ible. party will ei th.er . desire to or . by
financial necessity will-ne,~d to perform "~pecialized construction
techniqu:esfl on ·thei1; own· ·behalf. This phrase should be deleted in
its ·.,entirety, or the· · utilization· ·of -specialized construction
techniques· should be broadened to · include• allowing all those who
are qu_ali_fied/insured to ·perfo~~ such work. ·
In your consideration of these comments; please remember that the
final form should equally, fairly, and lawfully. protect · the
int_erests _ of all who ·are directly or indirectly impacted.·. Also,
the -'overall-goal of . insuring _the protection of human health. and
the environment should be·considered in context with the economic
impact of· -these rules to the regulated community .. A fair treat-
ment of ·the affected parties will insure the successful implemen-
tation·of the amended code.
Sincerely,
/?.~M-
R. Pau1·c1ark, P. G.
President
cc: ,·.
Mr. Craig Morehead; NCPMA
Mr. Dpug Howey, NCPMA
RPC/edr/b:HANCELTR.DOC
11!:I Cape Industries
Highway 421 North • P.O. Box 327
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-0327
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. David Hence
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Hence:
1~@iiwm:,
APR 231993 ~
GROUNDWATER SECTION
RALEIGH, NC
April 21, 1993
rw193113
cape Industries appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
proposed amendments to the North Carolina groundwater regulations,
15A NCAC 2L. Cape believes that, overall, the proposals are a vast
improvement to the existing rules, and supports the adoption of
these amendments for t~e following reasons.
The proposals are based on sound scientific principles and
research such as the U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System,
and data from the U.S. EPA's Office of Drinking Water, Health
Advisories publication.
The proposals also allow the Director to take into
consideration the rapid advances being made in the field of in-situ
bioremediation and other cutting-edge technologies. In certain
situations the use of new technologies may prove to be more
effective, more economical, less environmentally intrusive, and
ultimately more environmental beneficial than the customary "pump
and treat" or "excavation" alternatives.
Cape Industries would like to comment on several portions of
the proposal in particular. In addition, we are including several
comments regarding modifications we believe are worth consideration
by the Division •
. 0106 Corrective Action
Cape strongly supports the amendment that economical and
technological feasibility be considered when evaluating whether the
goal of corrective action (which is the restoration of groundwater
to the level of the groundwater quality standards) can be attained
{15A NCAC 2L .0106 (a)}.
I
DEM
April 21, 1993
p. 3 of 4.
Therefore, Cape Industries fully supports the proposal that
any person subject to the requirements of .0106(c) (1) {ie.,
corrective action} be required to submit notification of such
requirements to the appropriate Health Director and chief
administrative officer with local jurisdiction. This information
should include, but is not limited to, the extent of any
contaminant plume, documentation of the actions taken to date, and
plans for future activities {15A NCAC 2L .0110 (a)} .
. 0202 Groundwater Quality Standards
Cape Industries recommends the Groundwater Quality Standards
for Class GA, Class GSA, and Class GC groundwaters be adopted as
proposed {15A NCAC 2L .0110 (a)} .
. 0202 Groundwater Quality standards
Sections .0202 (b} (1) & (2) specify the mechanism for
determining whether an exception to the Groundwater Quality
Standards for specific contaminants is appropriate.
However, section .0202 (b) (3) states, "where naturally
occurring substances exceed the established standard, the standard
will be the naturally occurring concentration as determined by the
Director". Cape is concerned with the fact that the criteria or
mechanism the Director will use to make this determination is not
specified.
Unless the mechanism by which this exemption determination
will be made is clear, Cape feels the Division will experience an
overwhelming request for areas for consideration for exemption.
When no guidelines or ground rules exist, reviews of exemption
petitions will drain resources from the Division's staff and
preparing these arguments will be a cost to the industrial sector.
The utilization of these resources on more pressing environmental
issues would prove more beneficial to all involved.
Cape believes this is a critical point which if promulgated in
its current form, is open to broad, subjective interpretation.
Therefore, Cape proposes that the mechanism and instruments for
measurement of the "exemption criteria" be established by the
Division and following a comment period, included as part of the
final rulemaking.
DEM
April 21, 1993
p. 4 of 4.
Cape appreciates this opportunity to comment on these proposed
regulations and to be a part of the rulemaking process.
Should you have any questions or would like additional
information, please feel free to contact me directly at 919-341-
5577.
cc: Mr. E. B. Hackman -Cape
Dr. B. L. Kindberg -Cape
Mr. R. J. Mack -Cape
Very truly yours,
(k,1t_ 1t tr)~
Ronald N. Walton
Environmental Section Leader
Amoco Oil Company
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Post Office Box 7513
Chicago, Illinois 60680-7513
April 19, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental
Groundwater Section
Management
P.O. Box 29535 GROUNDW1,TER Sf.GTiOil Raleigh, North Carolina Rt,LEIGH, NC
Amoco Oil Company comments on proposed amendments to North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 2L,
Sections • 0100 and • 0200, entitled, "Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North
Carolina"
27626-0535
RE:
Dear Mr. Hance:
Amoco supports and is in favor of the proposed amendments to 15A
NCAC 2L (February 10, 1993) • In particular, we encourage the
proposed changes to Rule .0106 Corrective Action. The
distinction between site assessments and corrective action plans in
sections .0106(e) and .0106(f) is much clearer than in the 9/30/92
draft of proposed changes. The addition of sections . 0106 (h)
through • 0106 (1), which provide the opportunity for alternate
cleanup levels and recognize the natural remediation processes of
degradation and attenuation, will assist Amoco in fulfilling its
commitment to effective environmental protection in North Carolina.
In addition, we request the following comments be considered.
1. Section .0106(1)(1), referring to a request to allow the
termination of corrective action, requires that the request
must include,
"A demonstration by the party making the request that
continuance of corrective action would not result in a
significant reduction in the concentration of contaminants.
At a minimum this demonstration must include a showing that
the asymptotic slope of the contaminants curve of
decontamination is less than a ratio of 1:40 over a term of
one year based on quarterly sampling."
Amoco requests that the 1:40 slope requirement be more fully
defined and explained. As stated, one axis of the graph will
be designated as time (years). Is the other axis a
concentration in micrograms per liter, milligrams per liter,
or grams per liter, or is it unit independent? Also, the
method(s) of fitting the curve to the four (4) data points
(quarterly sampling over one year) should be specified. A
....
..
least-squares fit may give a different result than a best-
estimate linear fit.
2. Section • 0106 (m), referring to termination of corrective
action, states,
"Upon a determination by the Director that continued
corrective action would result in no significant reduction in
contaminant concentrations, and the impacted groundwaters can
be made potable by treatment using readily available and
economically reasonable technology, the Director may designate
the remaining area of degraded groundwater RS."
Amoco requests that the Department clarify the fact that some
sources of water are unsuitable as potable due to natural
processes, and that the goal of remediation is not to create
future drinking water sources from waters that are currently,
naturally unsuitable. A potentially responsible party should
not be required to remediate waters to a higher quality than
pre-contamination levels, even if the treatment technology
exists to do so. Distinction should be made between remedial
corrective action and the general public service of water
treatment.
Thank you for undertaking a continuous improvement approach towards
your environmental regulations.
Sincerely, µw. p,t____
Jonathan W. Peterson
Remediation Coordinator -Atlanta District
Remediation Services Division
cc: Jerry Hill, Public & Government Affairs, Amoco Oil Company,
Atlanta District, Atlanta Office
April 1, 1993
CAMPBELL OIL COMPANY
Post Office• Box 637
Elizabethtown, North Carolina 28337
Telephone [phone]
Environmental Management C.cmnission
Raleigh
North Carolina
Gentlemen:
While closing our leased station in Wilmington on June 3, 1987, we discovered
a small leak in the heating fuel oil tank. During that previous year, oh;I.y
50 gallons of #2 fuel was put in this tank for heating. There had been no
previous problems fran the past. The gasoline tanks were found to be in
excellent shai;e as expected since daily inventory checks had shown no
problem.
At time of rerroval, contaminates were found which required us to setup a
pumping station and nonitor the site on a quarterly basis. After running the
system for 4 years and shcwing ·significant improvement, the last 3 years have
care to a stand still. The last quarterly sampling was done on January 7, 1993
with small arrounts of Benzene, Ethyl Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes found but
no presence of #2 fuel oil. As of this test, the total spent for rerrediation
on this site has been over $263,938.00.
After conversation with the consultants, I am not sure whose problem we are
trying to correct and if it will ever be corrected to current standards.
We at campbell Oil caupany, along with others in this same tyi;e situation,
would like to see these sites closed and regulations changed to deal with
such situations. This site is currently leased to Hardees and has city water
and sewer within a shopping center. M:>nies S}?eilt on these tyi;e locations
could be used to up grade other facilities for all in the business. In certain
locations, current regulations may never be net and ours is on that list.
Please review current regulations and .allow alternate clean-up standards and
natural remediation in situations where there is no threat to human life.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
a£-·
Chris Campbell
Sales Manager
L. P. GAS• LUBRICANTS• DIESEL FUEL• GASOLINE
..
• ; l
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
j ATTORNEYS AT LAW
~HRISTOPHER W. LOEB
(7041 377-8343
1900 INDEPENDENCE CENTER
IO I NORTH TRYON STREET
SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE
THE GUARDIAN BUILDING
ONE LAW PLACE -SUITE 600
P.O. DRAWER I 2070
ROCK HtLL, S.C. 29731
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28246
Mr. David Hance
TELEPHONE <704> 377-2536
FAX !704) 378-4000
March 12, 1993
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
TELEPHONE <803) 325-2900
Re: Comment on Proposed Amendments to 15A NCAC 2L,
Section .0102{19) [February 10, 1993 Draft Hearing
Version)
Dear Mr. Hance:
I am submitting this comment on the above referenced
proposed amendment in response to the Division's request for
comments. I am an attorney practicing in Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson's environmental group in Charlotte, North Carolina. My
comment is intended to explain why the expanded definition of
"responsible party" under section .0102(19) of the proposed
amended regulations is not authorized by statute and is not wise
from a policy stand point.
I have enclosed two versions of the definition of the term
"responsible party" from drafts of proposed amendments to the
groundwater regulations. The version marked "old" is from the
draft circulated last fall. The version marked "new" is from the
February 10, 1993 Draft Hearing Version.
You can see that the proposed definition has been
dramatically increased in scope in the new version. Any party
purchasing a site that is the source of groundwater standard
violations with knowledge of the contamination would be a
responsible party under the new proposed definition. Adjoining
property owners could also become responsible parties if they
obstruct corrective action. The old proposed definition included
only parties in some way responsible for or contributing to the
violation.
The old proposed definition is generally consistent with the
existing groundwater regulations and State statutes. The new
proposed definition appears to go well beyond the existing
regulations and State statutes in establishing liability for
purchasers and adjoining landowners that played no role in
.-
.-Mr. David Hance
Page 2
causing the problem. The change is probably most important with
respect to petroleum based contamination. The federal CERCLA
statute has long imposed strict liability on owners and operators
of land in many situations involving hazardous substance
contamination, but CERCLA does not apply in most situations
involving petroleum based contamination. If the new version of
the definition is adopted (and is enforceable under
administrative law principles}, purchase of sites that are the
source of petroleum based contamination will become much more
risky.
I do not believe that the expanded definition is authorized
under existing North Carolina statutes. Existing North Carolina
statutes do not provide for cleanup liability for subsequent
purchasers or adjacent land owners merely because they know of
the contamination or obstruct corrective action. Under existing
North Carolina statutes, such parties can be held liable only if
they (a} controlled the contaminant prior to release(~, G.S.
143-215.84), (b) owned or operated an underground storage tank at
the time of release of a contaminant therefrom(~, G.S. 143-
215.94E(a)), or (c) were otherwise actively involved in discharge
or deposit of the contaminant(~, 130A-310.7). Under
administrative law principles, the Commission cannot expand the
range of potentially liable parties beyond the limits set by the
applicable statutes. See~ In re Appeal of Medical Center, 82
N.C. App. 414, 417-18; 346 S.E.2d 193, 195-96 (1986) (agency not
allowed to extend requirements of building code beyond extent
provided in the applicable statute); and State of North Carolina,
ex rel. Comrn'r of Insurance v. Integon Life Insurance Co., 28
N.C. App. 7, 11; 220 S.E.2d 409, 412 (1975) ("(a]n administrative
agency has no power to promulgate rules and regulations which
alter or add to the law it was set up to administer or which have
the effect of substantive law").
In addition, I believe that the proposed expansion of the
definition is unwise. If the expanded definition is adopted, few
if any purchasers will buy property known to be contaminated, and
no bank will finance such property. This situation already
exists with respect to contaminated properties potentially
subject to CERCLA, but the proposed expansion of the responsible
party definition under the groundwater regulations could bring
thousands of additional gasoline station, automobile dealership,
truck terminal, distribution and other properties into the
"untouchable" category.
We have had significant success to this point in
rehabilitating properties subject to petroleum contamination by
arranging for the sale of such properties for new uses, with the
proceeds of the sale being used to finance cleanups. The key to
such transactions has been the fact that the purchaser could take
.... ,@,mnpsnn-1Jlloo.en ®il Qrn .. Jnc .
_,JGERS H. CLARK, President, CEO
H.M. CLARK, JR., Vice President
DAVID K. CLARK, Sec.-Treas.
INCORPORATING SPIVEY OIL COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Box 617 Phone [phone]
FAX[phone]
DISTRmUTING PLANTS
BLADENBORO, N.C.
CLINTON, N.C.
ELIZABETHTOWN, N.C. CHARLIE E. HONEYCUTr, Mgr., Clinton
HUBERT C. KINLAW, Mgr., Elizabethtown
MR. DAVID HANCE
Qrtmtnn, N.at. 28328
APRIL 21, 1993
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
P. 0. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ROSEBORO, N.C.
RIEGELWOOD, N.C.
...
l&JID
1993
~•<OliNDW,.\Tf.R SECTION
RAi.£.JGH, . NC
SUBJECT: CONFLICT BETWEEN NCAC-2N AND NCAC-2L IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
OWNER OR RESPONSIBLE PARTY RESPECTIVELY.
DEAR MR. HANCE:
I SUBMIT THIS LETTER CONCERNING THE ABOVE SUBJECT AND REQUEST THAT
CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO REDEFINING THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.
THE DEFINITION OF OWNER IN 2N IS AS FOLLOWS:
A. IN THE CASE OF AN UST SYSTEM IN USE ON NOVEMBER 8, 1984 OR BROUGHT
INTO USE AFTER THAT DATE, ANY PERSON WHO OWNS AN UST SYSTEM USED FOR
STORAGE, USE, OR DISPENSING OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES.
B. IN THE CASE OF ANY UST IN USE BEFORE NOVEMBER 8, 1984 BUT NO LONGER
IN USE .ON THAT DATE. ANY PERSON WHO OWNED SUCH UST IMMEDIATELY BEFORE
THE DISCONT!NUATION OF ITS USE.
THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY IN THE 21 PROPOSAL HAS BEEN DEFINED AS:
A. A PERSON WHO IS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS CAUSING OR
CONTRIBUTING TO THE VIOLATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANTARDS.
B. A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF GROUNDWATER
QUALITY STANDARD VIOLATIONS AND WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION, OR
C. AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER WHO OBSTRUCTS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECT-
IVE ACTION THAT WOULD PREVENT FURTHER CONTAMINATION.
THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE (OWNER) IN 2N WOULD .BE THE UST OWNER NOT THE PROPERTY
OWNER NECESSARILY IF THE PROPERTY OWNER NEVER OPERATED THE UST. THIS INTERP.RE-
TATION REQUIRES THE POLLUTER TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION; WHEREAS, THE DEFINITION
OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY .IN 2L (19)l "(B) WOULD REQUIRE ANY SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY
OWNER WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONTAMINATION TO REMEDIATE THE
SITE.
UNOCAL
MARY KANYHA, "MAYOR OF PINE KNOLL SHORES
April 1, 1993
My topic is in regard to the Environmental Protection Agency
mandate for underground gasoline storage tank and the financial
responsibilities for clean-up of any leakage.
In 2 years, the town of Pine Knoll Shores has spent over
$49,000 to solve the minor soil-groundwater contamination. Part
of this cost includes the replacement of tanks above ground,
which was another mandate. The town of Pine Knoll Shores had
2 gasoline tanks underground (1,000 gal. and 2,000 gal.). In
1991, a leakage was discovered when the tanks were replaced in
order to comply with the EPA mandate. An Engineer firm was hired
by Pine Knoll Shores to supervise and monitor the clean-up of
the minor contamination. To comply with the EPA mandate, method
#602 for BTEX was used. Repeated sampling of 5 wells showed
no contaminations. The detection limit for the leakage was below
DEM standards. Based on the sampling and analytical results,
the engineer firm considered the groundwater contamination minor
and had dissipateJ. Therefore, they recommended final closure
of the project.
In June, 1992, DEM demanded that one additional monitoring
well be installed North of the existing above ground storage
tank building. The 6th monitoring well as requested by the DEM
was installed. The analysis indicated there is some groundwater
contamination. Hence, Pine Knoll Shores will have to continue
to spend thousands of dollars installing monitoring wells.
-2-
DEM specialists do not have any conceivable knowledge when
this small contamination will disappear. A small town the size
of 1,460 residents can not continue to spend money to comply
to DEM regulations for this type of remediation. If a town has
in good faith pursued the mandates, and if the drinking water
supply is not affected, the town should be relieved of spending
any more money on this type of endless project.
HUFFMAN OIL COMPANY, INC.
Phone [phone] / P. 0. Box ~O • Burlington, N. C. ffl
6
_
0730
:Harch 22, 1993
Mr. David Hance
DEM-Grotmdwa.ter Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Reference: .Amendments to 15A NCAC 2L Gr01.m.dwa.ter
Classifications and Standards
Dear 1:1r. Hance:
. _ ........
Per reference, this note is to infonn you that we are generally in agreerren.t
with the proposed amendments. We concur wholeheartedly with. the logic that
limited cleanup mmies would be rrore efficiently and prudently utilized in
cleanups which effect or potentially effect drinking water supplies.
Alternative cleanup levelf, requirerren.ts for the use of best available
technologies and provisions that would allow for natural degradation when
evidence has been established that drinking water is not endangered are
practical, nnre flexible and certainly nore cost effective approaches to
environmental problems.
Thank you for your considerations and look forward to meeting you in Raleigh
on April -7.
~·r'O ~·~
Edward T. Per~
Vice-President
ETP/dec
. _.1/ . (J~
CROSSROAOS FU~, INC.
335':.G S. CENTERVILLE TURNPIKE
I CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23322
PHONE: [phone]
Dear Mr. Hance:
We will be unable to attend the public hearings on the
ground water rules revisions, we would like for these comment~
to be a part of the record.
We have operated in North Carolina since 1971 and presently
have operations in Eliabeth City, Hertford, Columbia and Sunbury
in North Carolina. We think your department should know what
the overall financial impact of the very strict rules that now
exist in North Carolina, not only on distributors, but also
on all the citizens in North Carolina.
About 5 years ago there were 3 bulk plants in Columbia
N.C. serving Tyrrell c;1.nd Washington Counties. Because of the
strict pollution rules there is now only one. . The liability
that exists under the present rules are simply to much for most
oil distributors to bear. Because of the lack of bulk storage
facilities there is now no competition in Tyrrell and Washington
counties and everyone who uses petroleum products from gasoline
to heating and lubricating oils are being penalized.
We at Crossroads Fuel have dismantled our plant in
Columbia, three plants in Elizabeth City and will dismantle our
last plant in Elizabeth City this spring. We have spent about
half a million dollars in the past two years in clean-uup and
up-grading our storage plants and service stations.
We also distribute in the Tidewater and Suffolk areas of
Virginia and the regulations there are not nearly as burdensome
as in North Carolina. North Carolina allows 10ppm of total
hydrocarbons and Virginia allows 1 OOppm. While most of the
rural areas of North Carolina have access to a public water
supply, almost none of rural Virginia has access to a public
water supply.
While we strongly support a safe and clean enviornment,
and have up-graded our plant in Hertford to assure that there
will be no pollution from that location, the costs far out weigh
the benefits where a public water supply is available. All
of our employees have been trained in the safe handling of
petroleum products and all of our delivery equipment is
maintained to the highest standards.
It is our understanding that new rules are being proposed
that will save millions of dollars and yet do no harm to the
ground water or the enviornment. Because of the devastation
the present rules have caused to distributors and because the
proposed rules changes will not do harm to the enviornment,
J _r: .•
-2-
we whole heartedly support the adoption of the rule that allows
natural recovery of contaminated soils and water where there
is no danger of contaminating drinking water.
Many many smaller oil distributors have been forced out
of business because of the liabilities of contamination and
eve·ry time one is forced out, it eliminates some competition
and hurts every petroleum user in the area.
We believe very strongly that cost to benefit ratios must
be considered, before there are no small distributors left.
The major oil companies that can afford the high risks as they
now stand, do not serve the .smaller markets that exist in the
rural areas of North Carolina. Counties that we serve such
as Tyrrell, Washingtoi:i , Hyde, Camden and other areas of low
populations do not interest the major oil companies and they
are dependant on the small jobbers that are fast disappearing
because of the high risks.
We believe it is in the best interests of the state and
its business' that more reasonable rules be adopted and sincerely
hope that we can again put the danger of fire ahead of the danger
of a drop of oil hiting the ground.
Keffer.
statement Regarding Proposed Rule Changes
to the Groundwater Regulations
I am a tankowner. I am also the father of an eleven year old
son and an eight year old daughter, which makes me a concerned
parent about the environment that my children will inherit. My
overall impression of the changes proposed is that they are a
positive step toward reasonable cost/benefit review of site
cleanups. My concern is that, while it is on paper a positive
step, in reality it leaves too much to interpretation. Because of
emotional, public pressure the NCDEM Director and the regional
offices may not make any improvement at all in the cleanup review
process.
I am involved in a cleanup. I discovered, in August of 1990,
a significant release. The remediation has been pursued
aggressively from the day I discovered the release and as of
12/31/92, over $500,000 has been spent to remediate the site. At
this time, our quarterly reports reflect continued yet diminishing
progress in reducing groundwater contamination levels via pump and
treat technology. We are a long way from drinking water
standards and the likelihood of reaching the 1 ppb level for
benzene, etc. at this site is remote (see attached Table 1 for
sample results). The potential for reaching site closure under
the proposed rule changes is going to be difficult because the
Trust Fund will not reimburse me for the expense of a site
sensitivity evaluation, therefore I have no motivation to spend
the money. Also, NCDEM staff have expressed to me a belief that
"maximum achievable cleanup levels" as described in the proposed
rule changes are subject to incredibly difficult interpretation
given the pressure from the environmental community. They have
also said that a site may reach a flat asymptotic curve under the
pump and treat method, but once a system is turned off the
contamination levels will rise. Then they may reopen a site.
Over the nearly three year life of this project, I have had
to absorb the $50,000 Trust Fund deductable and have carried a
receivable averaging $75,000 for expenditures made but not yet
reimbursed by the Trust Fund. While the majority of the $500,000
has been reimbursed by the State UST Trust Fund, this carrying
cost continues.
The site referred to above is in the middle of Henderson,
N. C. where city water and sewer is available and the soil is a
heavy red clay. The threat to human health and drinking water is
nonexistant, therefore I ask, "Is this a good use of the Trust
Fund's money?" "Will the new rule changes address a site like
this?"
Whenever anyone spends money, they do a cost/benefit
calculation. Some of these calculations are intuitive where we
use common sense such as purchases of food, clothing,
entertainment, etc. My concern for the future of the Trust Fund
is whether or not we will get a system in place that will allow
for a prudent cost/benefit decision to be made in site cleanups.
•
TABLE 1
Concentrations of BTEX, MTBE, EDB
in Groundwater (ppb)
West End Amoco -Henderson, NC
1991 -1992
Slaaioa/
Date Beneae Toi-FJkylbemeae Xylene MTBE EDB
MW1
02/18i91 12,000 70,310 2,830 16,706 45,200 .. 2
07/23/91 4,770 35,300 1,610 9,530 6,630
10/24/91 ND 15,200 1,230 10,500 ND ND
01/24/92 S,940 SS,200 9,703 20,200 13,040 ND
0S(Zl/92 2,820 23,500 1,110 6,560 ND ND
09/11/92
11/18/92
MW2
02/18/91 ND ND ND 12.7 ND
07/23/91 34.1 1.8 28.6 431 9.0
10/24/91 37.8 7.9 27.1 458 37.8 ND
01/24/92 17.0 ND 7.3 156 8.2 ND
05/'ZT/92 24.0 ND 7.0 187 ND ND
09/11/92 19 ND 2 106 9 ND
11/18/92 17 ND 2 98 ND 9
MW3
02/18/91 ND ND ND ND ND
07/23/91 ND ND ND ND ND
10/24/91 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01/24/92 ND ND ND ND ~ ND ND
05/'ZT/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
09/11/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
11/18/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW4
02/18/91 10,SOO 69,700 ND 53,100 ND
07/23/91 702 15,600 1,230 6,450 ND
10/24/913 16,100 118,000 32,000 133,000 35,000 ND
01/24/92 820 1,310 195 2,200 65.S ND
0S/'ZT/92 146 3,210 404 2,7(,fJ ND ND
09/11/92 254 5,920 1,590 8,700 373 ND
11/18/92 119 1,120 200 1,730 ND so
MW5
02/18/91 ND ND ND ND ND
07/23/91 ND ND ND ND ND
10/24/91 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01/24/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
05/'ZT/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
09/11/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
11/18/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-'
02/18/91 6.S ND ND 28 6.S
07/23/91 25 ND ND ND 3.6
10/24/91 ND ND ND 48.7 ND ND
01/24/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
05/'ZT/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
09/11/92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
11/18,92 ND ND ND ND ND ND
S-1
02/18/91 3,900 47,200 2,070 16,700 2,700
07/23/91 34.2 905 523 1,070 ND
10/24/91 2,710 31,750 S20 10,040 1,550 ND
01/24/92 2,300 19,800 113 6,190 3,400 ND
05/27,92 4,240 38,900 1,Q(ifJ 8,250 4,810 ND
09/11,92 796 6,SS0 303 2,270 2,750 ND
11/18,92 1,700 16,400 S28 6,310 1,320 ND
92-ENV-08469.47-14
Sl:alioa/
Date
R-1
02/18/91
07{13/91
10/24/91
01/24/92
05,n192
09/11/92
11/18/92
R-2
09/11/92
11/18/92
lleaeae
199
603
548
7'12
793
632
637
965
1,150
1. ND = Not Detected
2 --= Not Sampled
TABLE 1
(Continued)
ConcentrationsofBTEX,MTBE,EDB
in Groundwater (ppb)
West End Amoco -Henderson, NC
1991 -1992
Toi-FJhyl1-.eac X:,leDe
2,850 146 1,710
6,520 948 6,711
1,390 ND 1,640
2,800 1,190 ND
6,780 239 2,000
3,360 101 1,180
3,159 154 1,460
8,910 449 2,820
8,430 403 2,910
3. Analytical results suspect, immiscible layer obsetved in sample vial by lab analyst.
MTBE EDB
ND
ND
240 ND
ND ND
ND ND
298 ND
356 ND
4,460 ND
6,330 ND
92-ENV-08469.47-14
samo.,
Due
R-1
02/18i91
07{Z3f)l
10/24f)l
01/24/92
0S/27192
09/11192
11/18192
R-2
09/11192
11/18192
1.
Beszme
199
603
548
1'12
793
632
637
965
1,150
ND= Not Detected
2 --= Not Sampled
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Concentrations of BTEX, MTBE, EDB
in Groundwater (ppb)
West End Amoco -Henderson, NC
1991 -1992
Tolaeae EdlJlbem.cae Xy)ae
· 2,850 146 1,710
6,520 948 6,711
1,390 ND 1,640
2,800 1,190 ND
6,780 239 2,000
3,360 101 1,180
3,159 154 1,460
8,910 449 2,820
8,430 403 2,910
3. Analytical results suspect, immiscible layer observed in sample vial by lab analyst
MTBE EDD
ND
ND
240 ND
ND ND
ND ND
298 ND
356 ND
4,460 ND
6,330 ND
92-ENV-08469.47-14
.. COMMENTS OF DONNELL VAN N0PPEN ID
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO GROUNDWATER
CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
15A NCAC 2L.0100 , et seq,
I am Donnell Van Noppen III, an attorney in private practice in Raleigh, NC. My work
includes representing people who live or own land next to sites of groundwater contamination,
people whose property has been damaged by migrating contaminants. Through no act of their
own, their property has lost value, indeed may even be unmarketable. In some cases, their
drinking water supply has been destroyed and even their health affected. They face potential
liability for the costs of cleaning up their property and for damages incurred by "downstream"
landowners.
When these innocent landowners seek redress in the courts, they rely on common law
principles of nuisance and trespass and on our Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control
Act ("OPHSCA"), N.C.Gen.Stat. §143-215.75, ~-See generally. Wilson v. McLeod Oil
Co., 327 N.C. 491, 398 S.E.2d 586 (1990). The law of trespass and nuisance allows the court
to enter an injunction to stop any unwarranted intrusion onto the landowner's property and to
award money damages for injuries caused by such an intrusion, including loss of property value.
The 0PHSCA significantly strengthens these remedies in mandatory, unequivocal language: the
polluter is strictly liable, without regard to fault, for all damages caused to adjoining
landowners, including damage to property, N.C.Gen.Stat. §143-215.93, and must clean up and
restore the area affected as nearly as may be to the condition existing prior to the discharge.
Id. at §143-215.84.
Thus, our common law, made by our courts, and our statutes, written by the General
Assembly, carry out our fundamental commitment to protect the rights of property owners.
Until now, the EMC has implemented the same principles in its groundwater regulations. The
) Commission's basic policy is expressed in 15A NCAC 2L.0103(b): "the Commission will not
approve any disposal system . . . which would result in . . . a violation of a water quality
standard beyond the boundaries of the property on which the source of pollution is located . •
.._." (emphasis added). Moreover, a "compliance boundary" for already permitted facilities at
which groundwater contamination occurs is always established at the property boundary, or in
most cases, even closer to the actual pollution source. 15 NCAC 2L.0107(a) and (b). Existing
regulations also protect the rights of adjoining landowners by requiring active cleanup of
contaminated sites unless this is economically or technologically infeasible. 15A NCAC
2L.0106(a). The Commission is now faced with a proposal which would drastically undermine
these policies and the rights of thousands of landowners who adjoin sites of groundwater
contamination across our State by allowing contaminant migration across property boundaries
and natural remediation in zones underlying their properties. 1 •
The proposed regulations present an ironic and confusing approach to the property rights
of adjoining landowners. Respecting those rights, the new regulations would require notice to
adjoining landowners when a person requests from the Director an alternate cleanup level,
approval of a natural remediation program or permission to terminate active groundwater
remediation. (Proposed Section .0114(b)). This notice must be given to all property owners
and occupants within or contiguous to the area underlain by the pollution plume or under which
1More specifically, the proposed alternate cleanup level
concept contemplates migration of contaminants to a point one year
in travel time upgradient of the nearest receptor while the notion
of natural remediations also includes dilution through plume
migration .• 0106(L) (1) and (k). In neither case do the proposed
regulations limit the migration to the responsible party's
property.
2
the plume is expected to migrate. (Id.) Thus, the right of the adjoining property owner to know
that someone near him is requesting State approval not to remediate contaminated groundwater
under his property, or soon to be under his property, is recognized. The person requesting such
a decision from the Director must also show that he has obtained "all necessary access
agreements needed to monitor groundwater quality .... " (Proposed Section .0106(k:)(7)). This
provision implicitly recognizes that a landowner may ordinarily refuse permission to another
private party to enter the landowner's land and drill monitoring wells, or even to cross the
landowner's land to get to monitoring wells.
Despite these recognitions of the fundamental property rights of adjoining landowners,
the proposed regulations would permit and give State approval to the migration of contaminated
groundwater onto the landowner's property. The person responsible for the contamination is not
required to obtain the consent of the adjoining landowner, to demonstrate financial responsibility
for further cleanup that may be ordered or for damages suffered by the landowner, nor to
assume liabilities which may ultimately be imposed upon the innocent landowner. Short of
eminent domain or the execution of a search warrant, I can think of no action by the State which
so directly tramples upon the property rights of an innocent landowner.
Indeed, the applicant, the person responsible for the contamination, need not even directly
address the impact of a proposed action on the adjoining landowner, and particularly upon the
value of the adjoining property. The information to be submitted in connection with a corrective
action plan (Proposed Section .0106(e), (g)), a request for an alternate cleanup level (Id. at (i),
(j)), a request for natural degradation (Id. at (k)), or a request to allow termination of corrective
action (lg._ at (1)), need not contain an assessment of the diminution in value of the adjoining
property or any other damage to or potential liability of the adjoining property owner.
3
The experience of property owners adjoining contaminated sites is uniform: their land
is greatly diminished in value, and perhaps rendered unmarketable. Lenders will refuse to
finance purchase of the property by an otherwise willing buyer, buyers are deterred by the
potential cleanup costs and potential liabilities to "downstream II property owners, and transaction
costs are tremendously increased due to the need for environmental assessments, reports,
consultants, and perhaps litigation. This effect is experienced whether the property is a
residence, commercial or industrial property, or raw land. How, consistent with our state and
federal Constitutions, our General Statutes, and the basic policy underlying these regulations,
could the State of North Carolina give its approval to such a potentially devastating impact?
In addition to causing direct and possibly devastating impact upon adjoining property
owners' value, the new regulations would hobble those owners' attempts to claim damages from
the responsible parties. In litigation, the responsible parties will rely on the regulations either
as preempting any claim for damages due to the State's approval of the migration of the
contamination, see, e.g., Biddix v. Henredon Furniture Industries, 76 N.C.App. 30,331 S.E.2d
717 (1985), or at least as evidence that the responsible party's conduct in failing to clean up the
contamination was not negligent. The responsible parties will also rely on the regulations to
argue that the impact on the innocent landowner's property was not a II substantial II invasion of
property rights. These arguments, to the extent they succeeded, would completely bar or greatly
reduce the landowner's recovery of compensatory damages.
Other impacts on the innocent landowner's right to recover damages would arise in the
area of statutes of limitations. The State's approval of the migration might lull property owners
into inaction, with the result that statutes of limitations on suits for damages would expire,
barring such claims. In addition, the State's new process for considering allowing the migration
4
would arguably begin a statute of limitations running earlier than it otherwise would, because
the landowner might be notified of potential contamination before the migration actually arrived
on the landowner's property. This again could result in the barring of meritorious claims for
damages.
The proposed regulations would impose other, substantial burdens upon innocent
landowners not related to litigation over damages. Once the landowner learns of a responsible
party's request for State approval of migration of contaminants onto the landowner's property,
the landowner will likely want to contest that application. In order to do so, the landowner will
need consultants to review and dispute the conclusions of the engineers who have prepared the
application materials for the responsible party. No provision is made to permit the adjoining
landowner access to the contaminated site for testing or sampling, to require the responsible
party to provide the adjoining landowner with all pertinent data (rather than only that data
submitted to the State), nor to make the responsible party bear the potentially enormous costs
of such an investigation by the innocent landowner. With what justification does the State
propose to shift onto an innocent landowner the enormous financial burden of fighting a battle
over the nature, extent and severity of a migrating contamination plume simply to protect his
own property from State-authorized invasion? Once a decision has been made permitting
migration, the landowner then must shoulder the tremendous additional expense of pursuing an
administrative and judicial appeal, again with no provision for shifting this cost to the applicant.
It is obvious that a responsible party cannot go into a North Carolina courtroom and
obtain a court order permitting the migration of groundwater contamination from that responsible
party's land onto the land of an innocent landowner. There is absolutely no basis under our law
for allowing such an invasion. The proposed regulations stand that principle on its head,
5
granting practically no respect to the sanctity of property rights and not acknowledging the
devastating consequences which even relatively low levels of groundwater contaminants can have
on property use and value. The proposals are likely unconstitutional and would place the State
in the position of taking the adjoining landowner's property without compensation, potentially
subjecting the State and its officials to money damages. The proposals also directly contradict
the explicit language and underlying purpose of the OPHSCA as well as the common law of
trespass and nuisance. There is no reason to open this Pandora's box and to permit this assault
on the rights of innocent landowners.
These general principles lead to the following itemized comments regarding specific
proposed changes, which are not meant to be exhaustive.
• Rule .0102<18}: Definition of "Receptor"
The "receptor" concept ignores the fact that contamination is an injury to adjoining
property from the fact of contamination, regardless of whether the contamination reaches the
surface water or is directly used by humans. If the definition is taken literally, all adjoining
property "is or may be affected by a contaminant" and thus "receptor" means nothing more than
the property boundaries of every contaminated site.
• Rule .0102{19}(c): Definition of Adjoining Property Owner as "Responsible
Party. II
As set out above, an adjoining property owner has the right to refuse entrance to a
responsible party for monitoring purposes and to refuse to permit contamination of his property.
Make the responsible party obtain the consent of the adjoining property owner, for which he
presumably will have to pay, rather than making the innocent adjoining property owner a
"responsible party" with all of the onerous ramifications of that classification.
6
• Rule .0103 (b)(2): Policy Re gardin g Off-Site Violations of Groundwater
Standards
Do not retreat from the basic policy of prohibiting violation of groundwater standards
beyond the boundaries of the responsible party's property.
• Rules .0104 and .0106: RS Classification and Corrective Action
As set out above, require the applicant for an alternate cleanup level, a natural remedial
process, approval of a corrective action plan or termination of corrective action to evaluate and
discuss the impact on adjoining property owners' use and value of their property, obtain the
adjoining property owners' consent to any migration onto those owners' lands, and assume any
liability later to be imposed upon the adjoining landowners. Short of this, simply prohibit
alternate cleanup levels, termination of corrective action or natural processes of degradation in
any circumstance in which there would be a violation of a standard or classification at the
property boundary. Require the applicant to fund the adjoining property owners' costs incurred
in evaluating and responding to the responsible party's application if migration is contemplated,
including, but not limited to, expert consultants' fees and attorneys' fees.
• Rule .0106(c)(l): Agriculture Exemption
Delete this exemption. There is no difference in the damage suffered by a landowner
adjoining agriculturally-related groundwater contamination and a landowner adjoining
contamination from other sources. There is no more justification for allowing an agricultural
responsible party's contamination to migrate onto the innocent landowner's property than any
other responsible party.
7
• Other
If any regulation is adopted which would permit or approve of any migrating
contamination beyond the property boundary, expressly provide that the regulation and approvals
issued thereunder not be admissible in evidence in court in the defense of any claim for damages
or injunctive relief by the adjoining property owners. Affirmatively state that these regulations
are groundwater classifications only and in no way diminish the common law or statutory rights
relating to real property, tort, negligence or environmental law in any action between an
adjoining landowner or occupant and a responsible party. Although such a provision does not
address the injuries that the proposed regulations will impose on adjoining landowners, it may
at least help leave existing private remedies intact.
To the extent that the proposed regulations would authorize and approve migration of
contaminants onto adjoining landowners' property, tremendous burdens are being imposed on
those landowners in direct violation of their constitutional, statutory and common law rights.
The laudable purpose of devoting scarce cleanup dollars to the more serious sites of
contamination cannot be stretched to justify these consequences for adjoining landowners. My
prediction, instead, is that the proposed regulations would spawn expensive and protracted
regulatory and judicial proceedings concerning the applications for approval of such migration
that would defeat the very purpose sought to be served. To the extent that the proposed
regulations would result in such interference with property rights, they should not be adopted.
8
Mr. David Hance
March 24, 1993
Page 2
inconsistency. The term receptor should be redefined as "any
unrestricted groundwater, surface water, human, or structure, other
than a monitoring well, which is or may be affected by a
contaminant from a contaminated site." Then natural remediation
may be allowed to take place in restricted groundwater areas such
as those served by public water systems where there is no danger
that the groundwater will be an exposure pathway during the time
that natural remediation is allowed to take place.
Please call me if you would like clarification of our comments
in any way.
Sincerely,
P~CJ,~
f~ohn J. /u'tl er
JJB/ghd
cc: Mr. William c. Steele
[g: \jjb\carco\haoce.ltr]
' .. I •
Duke Power Company
Generation Services Department
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
€9) DUKEPOWER ~-
April 20, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Subject: Comments on Proposed Groundwater Regulations -2L
File: GS-705.02
Certified: P 623 739 350
Dear Mr. Hance:
I
Duke Power Company has
Groundwater regulations.
changes to the regulations
change. Attached please
changes.
reviewed the proposed changes to the
In general, Duke Power supports these
and considers this a positive regulatory
find specific comments to the proposed
Should you have any questions feel free to give me a call at (704)
875-5965.
Sincerely,
~ (c.~Jcr'<--
John Estridge, Engineer
Environmental Division, Water Protection
jte/177
Attachments
Printed on recycled paper
)
Comments on Proposed Revisions to North Carolina Groundwater
Regulations-Subchapter 2L
Duke Power agrees with the State that some flexibility should be
added to the rules to allow for risk-based determinations of cleanup
levels. This allows resources to be dedicated to sites which truly
represent unacceptable risks to human health or the environment
rather than spending large sums to clean up insignificant levels of
contamination. This will result in a wise use of both public and
private resources.
Alternate Cleanup Levels
In particular, Duke Power applauds the inclusion of alternate cleanup
levels in the proposed rules. Alternate cleanup levels represents a
recognition by the State that cleanup to strict groundwater standards
is neither practical nor cost effective at many sites. Many sites
can be readily remediated to a level which is protective of human
health; however, the additional remediation required to reach the
groundwater standards is very costly and sometimes not even possible.
Natural Remediation
In addition, Duke Power agrees with the State's recognition that
natural remediation is a reasonable, cost-effective remediation
alternative. In cases where there is not an immediate human health
concern, natural remediation coupled with a groundwater monitoring
plan can provide a safe, effective, efficient cleanup while providing
assurance that human health is being protected.
Active remediation alternatives are still necessary at sites where
non-aqueous phase liquids are present or at certain other sites where
the extent or mobility of the contamination necessitates active
cleanup to protect human health. However, these sites may also be
candidates for natural remediation in conjunction with other methods
or after an initial phase of active remediation to reduce/remove the
threat to human health.
Cost Considerations
Also, the proposed rule includes provision for the consideration of
costs, as well as public and economic benefits derived from
groundwater quality restoration in making decisions on cleanup
actions. We believe that proper environmental decisions can only be
made by consideration of these factors. The overall benefit to the
public of any remedial activity should include factors related to
cost, as well as public and economic benefits in order to provide a
reasonable approach in the expenditure of public and private funds.
Professional Certification
Duke Power agrees with the State's recognition that there are
qualified individuals within the classifications of Professional
Engineer and Professional Geologist who are qualified to certify
reports required by the proposed rules. Both categories of
professionals include many individuals who have practiced in the
groundwater field for many years.
However, there are many qualified and capable individuals who can
perform site assessments who are not Professional Geologists or
Professional Engineers. We encourage that State to consider allowing
site assessment reports to be submitted by other certified
individuals. (e.g. American Institute of Hydrology, National Ground
Water Association)
Analytical Procedures 0.0112
The 18th Edition of Standard Methods is now the most current edition
of Standard Methods. The proposed wording reads 17th Edition,
... including any subsequent amendments and editions. Therefore, the
18th edition should be the one referenced in the proposed regulation
rather than the 17th edition.
Additionally, if a laboratory is certified by the State to perform an
analysis then the results of that analysis should be acceptable to
any State office regardless of the method selected to perform the
analysis.
Clarification of 1:40 Clean up Level (Section 0.0106)
In order to request termination of corrective action, a demonstration
must show that the asymptotic slope of the contaminants curve of
decontamination is less than a ratio of 1:40 over a term of one year
based on quarterly sampling. This is somewhat confusing and can be
calculated in several ways. Therefore, we request that further
guidance be provided on how to show this demonstration.
Work Schedule
The proposed rule allowed for the person submitting site assessment
reports to develop a schedule for work to be performed on the
impacted site. This will allow for site specific considerations to
be considered when developing a schedule. This is preferred over a
rigid or canned schedule of compliance which is seen in many other
regulations.
Conclusion
Duke Power supports these changes to the groundwater regulations and
believes that the changes _will enhance the States groundwater
program. These changes allow more judgement as to when cleanup
efforts can cease and gives more consideration to site specifics
information.
PUBLIC HEARING ASHEVILLE, NC
Mr. Commissioner
~@mii !i lID
1993
APRI R! .I p · -~~3 SECT1cr,
Rf,LEJGH. NC
My name is Erin Shubert and I am the Environmental Coordinator at
Kenan Oil, a small business in Central North Carolina dealing in
petroleum products. I have come on behalf of Kenan Oil to urge
adoption of the proposed changes to the 2L standards that apply to
underground storage tanks. I limit my support to UST's because it is
in that area alone in which I have gained enough knowledge to feel
confident in my analysis of the impact of the proposed changes.
The UST situation in North Carolina presents a problem different from
many others discussed in the context of this rulemaking. Hydrocarbon
contamination from underground storage tanks involves known types
of contaminants with known properties, and recognized methods of
remediation. When the problem occurs, we are ready and know how
to deal with it. However, some effective methods, such as natural
degradation, are currently not an option. I believe the new proposals
allow DEM the flexibility to evaluate site specific effectiveness of new
alternatives.
Laws are already in place requiring new tank standards be met by
1998. Because new tank standards apply to aii owners, the proposed
rules do not encourage irresponsibility by tank owners. We at Kenan
Oil expect to have all of our tanks and lines upgraded at the end of
this year. Therefore, the risk of future contamination is minimized and
we are faced mainly with the problem of existing hydrocarbon
contamination.
We are responsible for environmental damage that occurs in the
course of our business, and we do not contest that. But we do ask
DEM have the opportunity to consider more factors in determining
...
0. ))!l ~ ~ -4 ~ ~l I ~jl
1993
GROUNDWATER SECTION
RALEIGH, NC
what corrective action is necessary to restore groundwater quality
standards. We cannot realistically ignore financial considerations and
economic benefits of alternate cleanup levels and natural degradation.
When the new rules are in effect we can better protect the
groundwater in areas where it is the source of drinking water. We can
do this by shifting funds now consumed by clean-ups in areas where
groundwater is not considered a source of drinking water, such as
areas with city water. This money can be better used to remediate
areas in which wells are the predominant source of drinking water.
Such prioritization of resources should be a part of our 2L policy, and
we support the incorporation of this idea in the proposed rules.
Because such a shifting of resources is not accompanied by a release
of liability for contamination, we believe the rules are protective of third
parties. If permitted to use natural degradation, we accept the
requirement of continued monitoring, and acknowledge that we could
be required to implement an active remediation system if it is found
necessary. But, by permitting natural degradation, a process we
have found to be timely and effective, we can remediate while
conserving available funds. Where this is feasible it should be
permitted.
I will briefly mention a site where natural remediation has been used
with success even though we were not planning to use it.
Discuss Case: Holloway Motor Company
I close by stating that the groundwater we discuss today will be the
water all of our children will share. We in the oil business have an
interest in protecting the health and safety of these children too. The
proposed rules offer a way to protect both the financial burdens and
the environment of generations to come.
CHARLOTTE OFFICE
MAI UNG ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 31247
CHARLOTTE, N, C. 282.31
STREET ADDRESS
227 NORTH TRYON STREET
CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28202
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELECOPI ER 704/334-B467
Mr. David Hance
SMITH HELMS MuLuss & MooRE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 2752 S
RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
STREET ADDRESS
316 WEST EDENTON STREET
RALEIGH, N. C. 27603
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELECOPt ER 919/8 2B-7938
April 23, 1993
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-0535
Re: Van Waters and Rogers Inc.
Comments to 15A NCAC 2L
Dear Mr. Hance:
GREENSBORO OFFICE
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 21927
GREENSBORO,N .C. 27420
STREET ADDRESS
SUITE 1400
300 NORTH GREENE STREET
GREENSBOR0 1 N. C. 27401
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELECOPIER 919/379-9558
Please find attached comments by our client, Van Waters and
Rogers Inc., regarding the proposed amendments to Subchapter 2L.
We appreciate the Division of Environmental Management's
consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, do
not hesitate to contact me.
EMP:lm
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE
cJJ -·Jrdoe ,~ ov~
Elizabeth M. Powell
VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC.
COMMENTS TO SUBCHAPTER 2L
Van Waters & Rogers Inc. (VW&R) is a chemical distribution
company with distribution facilities nationwide, including
facilities in North Carolina. While VW&R's current operations
comply with all applicable regulations affecting the handling of
chemicals, VW&R owns properties upon which operations took place
prior to the implementation of such regulations where groundwater
remediation is presently underway.
VW&R strongly supports the proposed amendments and believes
they will provide great assistance to the regulated community, as
well as the Division of Environmental Management, by allowing the
Division to apply more practical standards to groundwater clean-
up. We believe the amendments, as written, provide sufficient
safeguards, through monitoring requirements, review criteria, and
requirements for preparation of plans and reports by licensed
professionals, to adequately protect human health and the
environment. Therefore, ~e request that the amendments be
accepted by the Environmental Management Commission as drafted.
In particular, VW&R would like to address the proposal,
raised during the public hearing process, that the amendments
should be limited to groundwater contamination from petroleum
underground storage tanks. We strongly disagree. Under the
rules, the responsible party would be required to provide to the
Division specific information about the particular contaminant(s)
involved, including its toxic properties and how it moves through
and continue to allow each contaminant to be reviewed
independently, then there is no basis for treating the
contaminants involved differently. The Division must determine,
based on the information provided and its review criteria, and
considering its own policy, whether the particular constituent
meets the criteria.
An argument has also been made, in public hearings, that the
petroleum industry should be allowed more flexibility, due to the
burden of expensive petroleum clean-ups on the state UST Trust
Funds. We see no basis for the state favoring one industry over
another in rulemaking. There are no trust funds available to
fund clean-up of groundwater contamination not caused by
petroleum underground storage tanks. These costs must be borne
entirely by the facility owner. If the present rules are
considered to be so inflexible that they reduce the cost-
effectiveness of remediation, as we believe they do, then this is
true for all clean-ups, not just one particular industry. We
believe the amendments, as drafted, will be sufficiently
protective and less costly for the entire regulated community.
All responsible parties, not just the petroleum industry, should
be allowed this flexibility and potential cost savings. Any cost
savings will allow industry to prosper in the state and prevent
the extra and unnecessary costs from being passed on to the
state's consumers.
3
and reacts with the soil and groundwater conditions on site.
Therefore, the Division will have sufficient information
regarding the particular chemical constituent(s) involved to make
a reasoned determination as to whether the request for
termination, alternate clean-up level, or use of natural
degradation should be granted. There is simply no reason that
petroleum, as opposed to any other substances, should be singled
out.
A suggestion had been made in earlier meetings on these
amendments that petroleum should be treated differently because
there was more information available about petroleum and its
effects than other chemicals. The chemical industry has
significant information on the characteristics, hazards, and
properties of chemicals and this information can easily be
provided to the Division. If, in reviewing a request for, for
example, the use of natural degradation, the DEM does not feel it
has sufficient information on a particular contaminant to
determine if such an option is sufficiently protective, it can
request additional information on that contaminant from the
responsible party. If sufficient information is still not
provided, then the Division can simply deny the request and
require active corrective action. Extending the amendments to
all constituents does not mean that all such requests will be
granted. The proposed corrective action will still have to meet
the rule's criteria. If the proposed amendments are determined
to be sufficiently protective of groundwater and public health,
2
' ..
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If
there are any questions, or if additional information,
particularly regarding the issue of continued inclusion of all
contaminants under this proposed amendment, is sought, please
contact our local counsel, Elizabeth M. Powell at Smith, Helms,
Mulliss and Moore in Raleigh, (919 8288207).
4
SANDOZ CHEMICALS CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 669246, CHARLOTTE, 28266
704 827. 9651
Fax: [phone]
Mr. David Hence
NC Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
A SANDOZ
April 21, 1993
Raleigh, NC 27626 -0535 GROUNDWJ\TfR S!tn-ow
RE: Proposed rules amendment at 15A NCAC 2L. 0100 & • 0200 HALEIGH, NC
Dear Mr. Hence:
I am writing on behalf of Sandoz Chemicals in order to support the
subject proposed rules amendment. The proposed amendments are
appropriate changes given the advancing knowledge of groundwater
cleanups.
Most hydrogeologists now admit that it is just about impossible to
clean up groundwater to pristine standards once it has been
contaminated by non-aqueous materials. Article after article in
the professional literature supports this point. Therefore, the
challenge to both the regulators and the regulated community is to
find a regulatory framework that protects human health and the
environment while at the same time establishing practical goals for
groundwater cleanups.
To us here at Sandoz, it appears that the proposed rule amendments
are the result of careful, rational thinking by DEM, taking into
account the known facts about groundwater cleanups. We believe
that the proposed rules are indeed sound, and represent a good
application of science and government.
Sandoz understands that some environmental groups are denouncing
these proposed rules. We trust that the State (and the
Environmental Management Commission), after careful consideration
of the issues raised by all parties, will make a decision which is
truly in the best interests of North Carolina.
If there are any questions, or if I may be of service to you in any
way, please do not hesitate to call me at 704 822 2701.
Sincerely,
g,,,~/J~~~
tfj_ Paige Straley, PE
Corporate Environmental Manager
cc: WM Archer
file: general\grwtr01.d93
Glaxo
Glaxolnc.
April 21, 1993
Mr. David Hence
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Hence,
Thomas F. Cecich
Vice President
Safety & Environmental Affairs
This letter is written on behalf of Glaxo Inc. in order to convey our position on the
proposed amendments to the groundwater cleanup standards (15A NCAC 2L.0100 and
.0200). Glaxo Inc. would like to provide our support of the proposed amendments as
both a private industry and as a member of the Chemical Industry Council of North
Carolina (CICNC).
Your continued endorsement of the proposed amendments will be of great benefit to both
the regulatory agencies and the regulated community. While there are concerns about
some of the wording, which have previously been addressed in CICNC's formal
comments, Glaxo Inc. fully supports the concepts outlined in the proposed amendments.
We concur that the principles upon which these amendments are based are sound and
involve good science, engineering, and economics.
Glaxo Inc. is concerned that the regulations, if not amended as proposed, will require
remediation efforts to obtain pristine conditions, a situation that current technology cannot
achieve. The proposed amendments recognize the technical limitations and allow
remediation to be suspended when its limits have been reached. Glaxo Inc. 's Zebulon
facility is currently undertaking an in-situ bioremediation project for a fuel oil release. It is
anticipated that clean up levels will approach the acceptable regulatory levels, however, if
the levels are not obtained after several years of treatment we do not believe ongoing and
ineffective treatment will benefit the environment. In addition the project will incur
excessive costs to continue the clean up of a site that poses no health risk or threat to the
environment.
Five Moore Drive, P.O. Box 13358 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 • Telex 802813 • Telephone [phone]
Page2
Hence
April 21, 1993
Glaxo Inc. believes the amendments as proposed allow your agency to make responsible
decisions about the potential environmental and health risks of each contaminated site and
to determine those sites which need active remediation. These regulatory changes will
allow for the most effective expenditure of limited resources.
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Cecich
cc: George T. Everett, PhD
. .
TO: David Hance
FROM: Craig Bromby
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 23, 1993
FILE: 46730.02
Comments on p rop osed 15A NCAC 2L
Enclosed please find comments on the proposed changes to 15A
NCAC 2L prepared by Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. Thank you
in advance for your careful consideration of these comments.
ij;©~K)_!)/JE )ID
2 1993
GROUNDWATER .. CllO
R.~lEJGH, NC
. .
Mr. David Hance
April 23, 1993
page 2
state agencies must prioritize the money spent on responding to
environmental threats. Limited resources exist and DEM staff must be
allowed to make responsible decisions based on their best professional
judgement on how best to spend the taxpayers' money. The proposed
amendments provide for the proper management of taxpayers' money. It is
not always fiscally sound to spend large sums of state or private money_to
resolve groundwater situations in short periods of time.
Takeda appreciates the opportunity to participate in public review of and
comment on proposed regulations. Takeda supports continued efforts to
provide for public comment and involvement early in the regulatory
development cycle.
This letter is being sent by facsimile to Raleigh for delivery on April 23,
1993. A hardcopy will be delivered by mail to provide a more legible copy
for inclusion in the comment file.
&c;U_
s .-:1 ;:-ndl :
Environmental Affairs Manager
,.
My name is Robert J . ~rey, Jr . and I am a fourth generation
operator of a small petroleum marketing business in Shelby, N.C.
Our family business has been serving North Carolinians for more than
82 years and never have we been as concerned about the future of our
Regulations have taken over the
entt=,•rprisr~•• oper.;~tion ,:,f OLAr· bu~.;i·ness. Only eight short years ago
our office and customer service staff consisted of 14 people who spent
approximately 79% of their time accounting for our company and serving
C US tOl"f1 1: l~S . Today we have 16 people who can spend only 57¼ of their
time accounting for our company and serving customers. In f1'1a.n1"·1ours
this equates as follows:
~ent 2,470 hours working for the company and 470 hours complying with
government regulations. Today, 16 employees spend l ,609 hours working
for the company and l ,158 hours complying with government regulations.
Government compliance work has increased 246¼ and company work has
With these statistics you can clearly see why everyone
in our company is concerned about our future and strongly support ~ny
amendments that would decrease unnecessary governmental compliance
atmosphere it 1s very frustrating for me to tolerate the current
groundwater classification standards. E:y '',;io,:-11 or·:Ler-1ted'' c1.nd ''bc:itt.,:,rn
Everyone must realize the fact that the ONLY way any
business, governmental agency or individual can survive, 1s, to not
..
♦
spend more money than you take in!
In 1988 we discovered that an underground gasoline tank had
leaked and been replaced by the previous owners. The •Jround ..... ,oiter
contamination showed up in a neighboring well.
contacted and uneconomical red tape and paperwork begin.
allowed to take any action until paperwork was processed, test were
rL~n, results •..vere clnalyzi=:1d, thE! site ''evRluatecl'' 21nd perri"1its issued .
While the contaminated plume spread and our neighbors were without
drinking water this process took over 16 months. Thii;:; is not ''bottom
1 i ne" ma.nageri1ent. Why not identify the leak one week and start clean-
ing it up the next? This is the way our company has had to do
lusiness in order to stay in business. Unrealistic and overly strict
standards are guiding North Carolina's residents, businesses, and
government towards certain bankruptcy. Theories, emotions and
personal opinions aside, facts are facts.
than you take in."
Note: The clean-up of this particular site has cost over
$350,000.00 and is currently costing approximately $2,200.00 a month
to operate. In my estimation, based on experience and expert advice,
this sit.e could t-·,ave b1'=.·en cli=:1an1'=.'cl to p1~E~vent ''threat to human h1?e:1lt..h''
for less than $125,000.00. About one year ago County water lines were
installed throughout this area and there is no ''threat to human
health" It is my understanding that with the current standards that
no lt2c1-,nology e:,-::ists to cl.1.:"!an thtc:! w,:;~ti=.~r-to "star·"io:::IE1rd~;" lE?Vf.-?.l
herefore these treatment costs will go on indefinitely
. .
($2,200.00/month X ??? months=$$ Millions$$) Possibly the state
U .S .T. fund will cover $950,000.00 of these costs but indefinite
continuation of this project will eventually break our company,
putting approximately 130 North Carolinians out of work and putting
the costs back on the state and ultimately the tax payers.
Another site in which our company was involved, incurred un-
necessary costs of over $2,700 .00. In the removal of 3 U.S.T . 's from
a single hole, 2 of 10 soil samples indicated 66 and 83 ppm. There
are no groundwater wells within 2500 + ft. of this site. Experience
and site analysis indicated the site was clean but strict standards
demanded that we re-excavate and take 3 more samples . These samples
tested clean. To the best of our determination the 66 and 8 3 ppm
_ontamination was introduced b y either gasoline on the hands of the
person taking the samples or gasoline fumes (from customers pumping
gasoline approximately 15 feet from the edge of the excavation) or
both . This was a clear case where, l) the original (bogus)
contamination levels were too low to be of concern and 2) there are
no groundwater wells within 2500 + feet of the site .
the standards are necessary .
Amendments to
Our concern is to keep our environment clean and to take the
necessary steps to alleviate groundwater health risks. The facts
are: Money for clean up is not unlimited; no one can spend more money
than they take in; the current standards are unrealistic and should
be amended so our environment can be cleaned up and health risks can
b e eliminated .
,
Carolina does not have a thorough assessment of its groundwater resources.
Furthermore, it is astounding that such major changes to state policy can be
made without significant background studies and analysis, or even a legal
analysis of the scope of the rules.
If the problem is really that it does not make sense to require urban
gasoline stations (i.e. the so-called "Mom and Pop" stations) to clean up
groundwater that will never be used as drinking water, then the rules should
focus on that rather than set out a method for all groundwater polluters to
escape from their duty to clean up the contamination. Of special concern are
owners of RCRA and CERCLA-regulated facilities and the commercial tank farms
which will use these rules to allow major areas to remain contaminated. The
responsible parties should not be allowed to get out of their responsibility.
variance p rovisions. The variance provisions of the current rules are
adequate and within the authority of the EMC and Division as provided by G.S.
143-215.3(e). The proposed rules will shortcut the procedural safeguards and
strict standards of the statute allowing the EMC to grant a variance.
The rules grant far too much authority to the Director in that a
corrective action plan or alternate cleanup level is a variance. The
standard in proposed rule .0104(a) is one of "readily available and
economically reasonable technology" is significant different than the "best
available tech~ology" st~ndard in the statute. The proposed variance
procedure would not withstand a legal challenge on these grounds.
Personal property rights. In addition to the public trust rights, these
proposed rules will significantly change the rights of adjoining landowners.
The RS designation can be made by a polluter not only under his property but
under his neighbor's property. That property can be rendered useless for
residential purposes if the groundwater is contaminated and it is outside an
area served by city water. Notification and monitoring are not adequate
protection.
There should be a new section declaring that these rules do not, and
indeed cannot, take away the common law and other legal property rights of
adjace,,t la~dc.whers from bri:v;ing l~::i gA.l ?J.Ctior-. tq enjoin the cpm:.ai,nination o .f
groundwater ·or to recover damages.
Other comments •
• 0102. A definition of disposal system should be added, such as "any
man-induced practice or s .tructure which causes non-indigenous contaminants to
enter into groundwater."
.0102(/4). The second sentence under "corrective action plan" should be
dropped siice it is not part of the definition .
• 0102(17). Add the following: "and qualified to judge the physics and
chemistry of water, with experience in geologic and hydrologic analysis as
well as engineering." Besides this section, there are other places where
expertise needs to be more exactly delineated, such as in .0103(e).
.I
April 15, 1993
Mr. David Nance
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1318 DALE STREET, SUITE 120
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27605
[phone]
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Proposed amendments 15A NCAC 2L
Dear Mr. Nance:
I am in receipt of the proposed amendments to groundwater regulations listed in 15A
NCAC 2L. For the most part, I have few comments on proposed changes. Any attempt
to simplify procedures for the regulated pubJic is a move in the right direction.
However, our firm is very concerned regarding one significant aspect of the new regulatione.:..
The proposed rules require that work performed pursuant to the aforementioned subchapter
be restricted to those individuals or firms licensed to offer geological or engineering
services. Such a restriction would severely restrict the ability of firms such as ours to offer
services which we have traditionally and responsibly provided to our clients.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) has provided groundwater monitoring, mitigation and
remediation assistance through our sister corporate entity, Southeastern Environmental
Audits, Inc. (SEAi). We do not have a professional geologist or professional engineer
registered in North Carolina on our staff, nor do we consider such individuals necessary for
the performance cf these tasks. Our key individuals are techt.dc.l}Hy trained (s~vernl 2:re
degreed geologists) to perform groundwater tasks, with. management and oversight by
certified professionals through the National Association of Environmental Professfouals
(NAEP). The NAEP certification program is a rigorous, peer review process that confers
certification credentials (CEP) on qualified professionals. Certification is based upon
advanced education, relevant experience, and examination. The NAEP code of ethics lrns
been supported and recognized by the federal courts in recent litigation.
In addition, our firm maintains a $1 million errors and omissions policy and liability
insurance as a measure of fiscal account~bility for protection of our clients. We have a
proven track record of performing quality work which has withstood .agency r~vie:w ~nd
confirmation.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Page 2
I understand that the basic premise for proposed restrictions is to provide for accountability
and responsibility in conducting groundwater tasks. However, I believe you would be remiss
in removing certain firms and individuals from consideration. Accountability can be realized
through other measures, such as recognition of other national certification programs or by
requiring fiscal responsibility (insurance, bonds, etc.). If professional training is the issue,
I am confused as to why you have limited these activities to Professional Geologists (PGs)
and Professional Engineers (PEs). The professional engineering test does not include a
single environmental questio::1 on the exam. In addition, mo.st cngiueers do not receive any
formal training in environmental issues. Yet the rules would provide license for these
individuals/firms to conduct tasks for which they have limited training, while, at the same
time, eliminating other competent parties from offering services.
In order to include other responsible parties, we recommend that terminology in Sections
.0103 (POLICY), .0110 (MONITORING), and .0111 (REPORTS) be expanded and
modified to include " ... other qualified professionals". We recommend that a definition of
"other qualified professionals" be included in Section .0102 to read " . .individuals in the
engineering, environmental or planning profession who demonstrate fiscal and professional
accountability and are certified, licensed, or registered by an organization that recognizes
competence in a specific area of practice. The organization and associated individuals must
subscribe to a code of ethics that assures competence in the applicable practice and
implementation of groundwater rules."
Thank you for your consideration. If I can answer any questions or provide additional
information during the decision making process, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
ENVIRON1\L13,NTAL SERVICES; INC.
IP~·4'~
~ry -£crain, Ph.D., CEP
Vice President
JM/pm
gwater
Mr. Hance
) 19 April 1993
Page 2 of 3
the need that qualified ground-water professionals (scientists or engineers) sufficiently trained and experienced
in ground-water hydrology and related fields (as may be certified by professional registrations or certifications)
make professional judgments regarding ground-water monitoring, contaminant fate and transport, and ground-
water remediation or restoration. Regulations promulgated at 40 CPR Section 260.10 and 40 CPR Section
25850(f), copies enclosed as Exhibit A, regarding solid and hazardous waste management define the USEPA's
meaning of a qualified ground-water professional.
This issue is being addressed by other states as well. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia is proposing
language in the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations, Amendment I (which was approved by the Waste
Management Board) defining a qualified ground water scientist. The definition is very similar to that accepted
by the USEP A. The State of South Carolina legislature is considering a bill that would create a State Board of
Registration for Hydrologists.
I believe recognition exists at the national level to ensure the public practice of hydrology, particularly ground-
water hydrology, by qualified individuals.
Can Qualified Professionals Practice Hydrology
Qualified hydrologists, particularly ground-water hydrologists, would be excluded from the list of specified
professionals who are accepted as being qualified for conducting and certifying ground-water related work under
the proposed amendments. This difficulty may arise because a formal hydrologist registration/licensing board
does not exist in North Carolina and geologist and engineer registration/licensing boards do not determine
whether an individual is qualified to practice hydrology, including ground-water hydrology.
Additionally, registration as a geologist or engineer typically requires a degree in geology or engineering,
respectively. Individuals with degrees and backgrounds in hydrology, ground-water hydrology, and water
resources typically would not be able to qualify and obtain either a professional geologist (PG) or professional
engineer (PE) registration. As a consequence, qualified professionals in hydrology (including ground-water
hydrology) would not be able to practice their profession independent of a PG or PE even though they may
possess significantly greater academic credentials and experience.
Based on current events, a need exists for qualified hydrologists to be allowed to practice their profession.
Models for Qualified Ground-Water Professionals
Two national organizations recognize professionals practicing in the field of ground-water hydrology. The
American Institute of Hydrology (Alli) recognizes the Professional Hydrologist-Ground Water and the
Professional Hydrogeologist. The distinction is based on the education, training, and experience of the individual;
the PH-GW comes from the more traditional hydrology school and the PHG comes from the more traditional
geology school. The National Ground Water Association recognizes a Certified Ground Water Professional
(CGWP). An overview of the AilI and certification requirements is enclosed (Exhibit B).
The language of the proposed amendments to Sections .0103 and .0111 of 15A NCAC 2L should be revised to
reflect that the work and reports prepared pursuant to this subchapter be performed by qualified ground-water
professionals as may be evidenced by registration by State or recognized national licensing or registration board.
Provision .0102 Definitions should be revised to include the definition of a qualified ground-water professional
such as has been defined by the USEP A.
NCAC21.ltr
Mr. Hance
19 April 1993
Page 3 of 3
By way of background, I am a hydrologist certified as a Professional Hydrologist-Ground Water by the American
Institute of Hydrology. I have spent much of my life acquiring the academic training needed to practice in my
discipline. I have more than 10 years experience with hydrologic applications for hazardous waste management
and 14 years experience in the overall field of environmental sciences. I hold an undergraduate degree (BS) with
study in clinical chemistry and environmental sciences, a graduate degree {MS) with study in environmental
sciences and public health, and a graduate degree (MS) from Georgia Institute of Technology with study in
hydrology and water resources. I have more than 85 quarter hours of academic cow-sework in hydrology,
hydraulics, and water resources. I have testified in Federal court as an expert witness in ground-water hydrology
for cases involving ground-water contamination. I have approximately 40 days of special training in ground-water
related topics. Unfortunately, under the proposed amendments I would not be qualified to conduct ground-water
hydrology related work addressed by the amendments without oversight or direct support of a North Carolina
PG or PE.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments regarding the proposed amendments. I would be happy
to discuss any questions you may have regarding these comments or recommendations.
Sincerely,
~(,fl <t-' ~4'! ~{,
Dario J. Dal Santo, PH-GW
Senior Hydrologist
Senior Program Manager
cc: Dr. David Hargett (RUST)
Dr. Joseph Rosenshein (AIH)
Dr. John Moore (AIH)
Dr. Vernon lchimura (Chem Nuclear)
Dr. Adel Bakr (NUS)
Dr. Joseph Register (IT)
Dr. Jack Monrad (Dames & Moore)
NCAC21.ltr
MUNICIPAL LANDFILL CRITERIA
TABLE 1-Contd.
MCL
Chemical (mg/I)
Vinyl Ch loride................................................. 0.002
Subpart E -Ground-Water Moni-
toring and Corrective Action
§258.50 Applicability.
(a) The requirements in this part apply
to MSWLF units, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
{b) Ground-water monitoring require-
ments under §25 1!.5 l through §258.55 of
this part may be suspended by the Direc-
tor of an approved State for a MSWLF
unit if the owner or operator can demon-
strate that there is no potential for migra-
tion of hazardous constituents from that
MSWLF unit to the uppermost aquifer
(as defined in §258.2) during the active
life of the unit and the post-closure care
period. This demonstration must be certi-
fied by a quaiified ground-water scientist
and approved by the Director of an ap-
proved State, and must be based upon:
(I) Site-specific field collected measure-
ments, sampling, and analysis of physical,
chemical, and biological processes affect-
ing contaminant fate and transport, and
(2) Contaminant fate and transport
predictions that maximize contaminant
migration and consider impacts on human
health and environment.
(c) Owners and operators of MSWLF
units must comply with the ground-water
monitoring requirements of this part ac-
cording to the following schedule unless
an alternative schedule is specified under
paragraph (d) of this section:
(I) Existing MSWLF units and lateral
expansions less than one mile from a
drinking water intake (surface or subsur-
face) must be in compliance with the
ground-water monitoring requirements
specified in §§258.51-258.55 by October
9, 1994;
(2) Existing MSWLF units and lateral
expansions greater than one mile but less
than two miles from a drinking water in-
take (surface or subsurface) must be in
compliance with the ground-water moni-
toring requirements specified in
§§258 .51-258 .55 by October 9. I 995:
(3) Existing MSWLF units and lateral
expansions greater than two miles from a
drinking water intake (surface or subsur-
face) must be in compliance with the
ground-water monitoring requirements
specified in §§258.51-258.55 by October
9. 1996.
(4) New MSWLF units must be in
compliance with the ground-water moni-
toring requirements specified in
§§258.51-258.55 before waste can be
placed in the unit.
(d) The Director of an approved State
may specify an alternative schedule for
the owners or operators of existing
MSWLF units and lateral expansions to
comply with the ground-water monitoring
requirements specified in
§§258.51-258.55. This schedule must en-
sure that 50 percent of all existing
MSWLF units are in compliance by Octo-
ber 9, 1994 and all existing MSWLF
units are in compliance by October 9,
1996. In setting the compliance schedule,
the Director of an approved State must
consider potential risks posed by the unit
to human health and the environment.
The following factors should be consid-
ered in determining potential risk:
(I) Proximity of human and environ-
mental receptors;
(2) Design of the MSWLF unit;
(3) Age of the MSWLF unit;
(4) The size of the MSWLF unit; and
(5) Types and quantities of wastes dis-
posed including sewage sludge; and
(6) Resource value of the underlying
aquifer, including:
(i) Current and future uses;
(ii) Proximity and withdrawal rate of
users; and
(iii) Ground-water quality and quanti-
ty.
(e) Once established at a MSWLF
unit, ground-water monitoring shall be
conducted throughout the active life and
post-closure care period of that MSWLF
unit as specified in §258 .61 .
(f) For the purposes of this subpart, a
qualified ground-water scientist is a sci-
entist or engineer who has received a bac-
calaureate or post-graduate degree the
natural sciences or engineering and has
sufficient training and experience in
groundwater hydrology and related fields
as may be demonstrated by State registra-
tion. professional Certifications. or com-
pletion of accredited university programs
that enable that individual to make sound
professional judgements regarding
ground-water monitoring, contaminant
fate and transport. and corrective-action.
10-2-92 Copyright © 1992 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
0013-9211/92/$0+.50
S-922
161:1907
(g) The Director of an approved State
may establish alternative schedules for
demonstrating compliance with
§258.5 I(d)(2), pertaining to notification
of placement of certification in operating
record: §258.54(c)(I ), pertaining to noti-
fication that statistically significant in-
crease (SSI) notice is in operating record;
§258.54(c)(2) and (3), pertaining to an
assessment monitoring program;
§258 .55(b), pertaining to sampling and
analyzing Appendix II constituents;
§258.55(d)(I ), pertaining to placement of
notice (Appendix II constituents de-
tected) in record and notification of notice
ir. record: §258.55(d)(2), pertaining to
sampling for appendix I and II to this
part; §258.55(g), pertaining to notifica-
tion (and placement of notice in record)
of SSI above ground-water protection
standard; §§258.55(g){l)(iv) and
258.56(a), pertaining to assessment of
corrective measures; §258.57(a), pertain-
ing to selection of remedy and notification
of placement in record: §258.58(c)(4);
pertaining to notification of placement in
record (alternative corrective action mea-
sures); and §258.58(f). pertaining to noti-
fication of placement in record (certifica-
tion of remedy completed).
[§258.50 corrected at 57 FR 28627, June
26, 1992]
§258.51 Ground-water monitoring sys-
tems.
(a) A ground-water monitoring system
must be installed that consists of a suffi-
cient number of wells, installed at appro-
priate location and depths, to yield
ground-water samples from the upper-
most aquifer (as defined in §258.2) that:
( 1) Represent the quality of back-
ground ground water that has not been
affected by leakage from a unit. A deter-
mination of background quality may in-
clude sampling of wells that are not hy-
draulically upgradient of the waste man-
agement area where:
(i) Hydrogeologic conditions do not al-
low the owner or operator to determine
what wells are hydraulically upgradient;
or
(ii) Sampling at other wells will provide
an indication of background ground-water
quality that is as representative or more
representative than that provided by the
upgradient wells: and
(2) Represent the quality of ground wa-
ter passing the relevant point of compli-
[Sec. 258.51(a)(2)]
211
GENERAL HAZARDOUS WASTE RULES
waste. hazardous waste constituents. or
leachate.
Management or hazardous waste man-
agement means the systematic control of
the collection. source separation, storage.
transportation, processing, treatment, re-
covery, and disposal of hazardous waste.
Manifest means the shipping document
EPA form 8700-22 and, if necessary,
EPA form 8700-22A, originated and
signed by the . generator in accordance
with the instructions included in the ap-
pendix to part 262.
Manifest document number means the
U.S. EPA twelve digit identification num-
ber assigned t0 the generator plus a
unique five digit document number as-
signed to the Manifest by the generator
for recording and reporting purposes.
Mining overburden returned to the
mine site means any material overlying an
economic mineral deposit which is re-
moved to gain access to that deposit and is
then used for reclamation of a surface
mme .
Miscellaneous unic means a hazardous
waste management unit where hazardous
waste is treated, stored. or disposed of and
that is not a container, tank, surface im-
poundment, pile, land treatment unit,
landfill, incinerator, boiler, industrial fur-
nace, underground injection well with ap-
propriate technical standards under 40
CFR part 146, containment building, or
unit eligible for a research, development.
and demonstration permit under §270.65
of this chapter.
[Amended at 57 FR 37263, Aug. 18,
1992]
Movement means that hazardous waste
transported to a facility in an individual
vehicle.
New hazardous wasie management fa-
ci/icy or new facilicy means a facility
which began operation. or for which con-
struction commenced after October 21.
1976. (See also "Existing hazardous
waste management facility".)
New tank s_vstem or new tank compo-
nent means a tank system or component
that will be used for the storage or treat-
ment of hazardous waste and for which
installation has commenced after July 14.
1986; except. however. for purposes of
§264.193(g)(2) and §265. I 93(g)(2), a
new tank svstem is one for which con-
struction commences after July 14, 1986 .
{See also "existing tank system.'')
On ground tank means a device meet-
ing the definition of "tank" in §260.10
and that is situated in such a way that the
bottom of the tank is on the same level as
the adjacent surrounding surface so that
the external tank bottom cannot be visual-
1 y inspected .
On-site means the same or geographi-
cally contiguous property which may be
divided by public or private right-of-way,
provided the entrance and exit between
the properties is at a cross-roads intersec-
tion, and access is by crossing as opposed
to going along, the right-of-way. Non-con-
tiguous properties owned by the same per-
son but connected by a right-of-way which
he controls and to which the public does
not have access, is also considered on-site
proi:;erty.
Open burning means the combustion of
any material without the following char-
acteristics:
· ( 1) Control of combustion air to main-
tain adequate temperature for efficient
combustion,
(2) Containment of the combustion-re-
action in an enclosed device to provide
sufficient residence time and mixing for
complete combustion, and
(3) Control of emission of the gaseous
combustion products.
(See also "incineration" and "thermal
treatment".)
Operator means the person responsible
for ~he overall operation of a facility.
Owner means the person who owns a
facility or part of a facility.
Partial closure means the closure of a
hazardous waste management unit in ac-
cordance with the applicable closure re-
quirements of parts 264 and 265 of this
chapter at a facility that contains other
active hazardous waste management
units. For example, partial closure may
include the closure of a tank (including its
associated piping and underlying contain-
ment systems), landfill cell. surface im-
poundment, waste pile, or other hazard-
ous waste management unit. while other
units of the same facility continue to oper-
ate.
Person means an individual, trust, firm,
joint stock company. Federal Agency, cor-
poration (including a government corpo-
ration), partnership, association, State.
municipality. commission. political subdi-
vision of a State, or any interstate body.
Personnel or facility personnel means
all persons who work. at, or oversee the
operations of. a hazardous waste facility ,
and whose actions or failure to act mav
result in noncompliance with the require"-
ments of part 264 or 265 of this chapter.
S-932
161:2105
Pile means any non-containerized ac-
cumulation of solid, nonflowing hazardous
waste that is used for treatment or storage
and that is not a containment building.
[Amended at 57 FR 37263, Aug. 18,
1992]
Plasma arc incinerator means any en-
closed device using a high intensity elec-
trical discharge or arc as a source of heat
followed by an afterburner using con-
trolled flame combustion and which is not
listed as an industrial furnace.
[Amended at 57 FR 38564, Aug. 25,
1992]
Point source means any discernible,
confined, and discrete conveyance, includ-
ing, but not limited to any pipe. ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fis-
sure, container. rolling stock, concen-
trated animal feeding operation, or vessel
or other floating craft, from which pollu-
tants are or may be discharged. This term
does not include return flows from irrigat-
ed agriculture.
Publicly owned treatment works or
POTW means any device or system used
in the treatment (including recycling and
reclamation) of municipal sewage or in-
dustrial wastes of a liquid nature which is
owned by a "State" or "municipality" (as
defined by section 502( 4) of the CW A).
This definition includes sewers, pipes, or
other conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW providing treat-
ment.
Qualified Ground-Water Scientist
means a scientist or engineer who has re-
ceived a baccalaureate or post-graduate
degree in the natural sciences or engineer-
ing, and has sufficient training and exper-
ence in ground-water hydrology and relat-
ed fields as may be demonstreated by
state registration, professional certifica-
tions, or completion of accredited univer-
sity courses that enable that individual to
make sound professional judgements re-
garding ground-water monitoring and
contaminant fate and transport.
Regional Administrator means the Re-
gional Administrator for the EPA Region
in which the facility is located, or his des-
ignee.
Replacement unit means a landfill, sur-
face impoundment. or waste pile unit (I)
from which all or substantially all of the
waste is removed. and (2) that is subse-
quently reused to treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste. "Replacement unit"
does not apply to a unit from which waste
[Sec. 260.10)
2-19-93 Copyright© 1993 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc.
0013-9211/93/$0+.50
79
I •
. . . . . . i
,:: :-: ~~~~·-'"--~:-,::,.::• ~
EXHIBITS (4 of 4)
T he American Institute of Hydrology (AIH),
was formed in 1981 as a non-profit scientific
and educational organization. AIH is the only
nationwide organization to offer certification and
registration to professionals in all fields_ of_ hydrol-
ogy. The Institute ddheres to the prmc1ples ?f
responsible professional conduct and public
service.
AIH PURPOSE
The purpose of AIH is to enhance and strengthen
the standing of hydrology as a science and a
profession by:
• Establishing standards and procedures to certify
individuals qualified in hydrology and
hydrogeology.
• Establishing and maintaining ethical standards
to protect the public from irresponsible work.
• Providing education and training in hydrology.
• Providing the public and government advice and
guidance concerning activities related to the
hydrologic profession.
AIH MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS
1. Peer recognition of professional competence in
hydrology or hydrogeology.
2. Free listing in the AIH Registry of Professionals
and a free copy of the Registry.
3 . Free copy of the AIH Bulletin four times a year.
4. Discount on AIH publications.
5. Reduced rates at AIH meetings, short courses,
and workshops.
REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTIFICATION
AIH certifies individuals, whose credentials are
evaluated by a panel of nationally recognized and
respected scientists. This evaluation involves review
of the applicant's education, the quality and extent
of professional experience, professional conduct,
and an examination. The applicant must:
1. Meet one of the following educational require-
ments:
• Graduate with a major in hydrology or
hydrogeology.
• Graduate with a major in physical or natural
sciences or engineering, including the
completion of 25 semester units or 37 quarter
units in hydrology/hydrogeology with at least
20 semester units or 30 quarter units acquired
in the third or fourth year or in graduate
courses.
• The above described educational requirements
may be waived for individuals who received
their last degree before 1970, and have proven
their professional competence and ability in
a responsible position and in publications in
hydrology and/or hydrogeology.
2. Have the following experience in professional
hydrological or hydrogeological work:
• Minimum of 8 years after the award of a
Bachelor's degree.
• Minimum of 6 years after the award of a
Master's degree.
• Minimum of 4 years after the award of a
Doctor's degree.
3. Perform substantive original investigations in
some phase of hydrological sciences and publish
the results in professional publications or reports
of agencies, institutes, or consulting firms.
4. Provide the names and current mailing addresses
of five referees who have present knowledge of
the applicant's qualifications, integrity, and
professional conduct.
5. Be reviewed and approved by the AIH Board
of Registration with respect to education,
experience, publication record, public conduct,
and relative and demonstrated possession of the
knowledge, skills, and competence in hydrology
or hydrogeology.
6. Have a passing grade on an examination
designed to determine the applicant's knowledge
of hydrology and hydrogeology and the ability
to apply this knowledge and understanding of
basic hydrologic principles to find solutions to
practical problems.
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE
If all'the requirements are met by applicants, they
will be certified and registered as Professional
Hydrologists, Professional Hydrogeologists, or
Professional Hydrologists (Ground Water). The
certificate must be renewed annually, and recer-
tification must be done every five years .
Because this policy change will evoke such hardship on these individuals, we
need to comment that knowledge and forewarning has not been generally
distributed.
Through informal discussion with various individuals in the environmental field
we have found many are unaware that this policy change is even proposed
much less open for public comment. People cannot respond on matters for
which they are unaware.
We wish to recommend that the designation of qualified consultants be
postponed. We further recommend a State level accreditation program be
implemented in a manner similar to the "Asbestos Contml Branch" where
individuals may be tested on their ability and fairly accredited to practice. This
program can be funded through course tuition, testing fees, and annual
accreditation fees.
Sincerely,
Dolly Bidwan
Law & Company, Inc.
David Hance
April 23, 1993
Page 2
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To limit the approved professionals to those who are registered on criteria other than
those addressing the specific tasks required in the proposed Rules is, at best, arbitrary.
There are other highly competent and speciali7.ed professionals who can perform, and have
performed, such work in the past, who will now have to seek out someone perhaps less
qualified, but who is properly registered with the approved licensing board. The Board of
Directors of the NCAEP suggests that the Rule be modified to substitute the words "qualified
professionals" in the language of . 0103, . 0110, and . 01 11, and define "qualified
professional" to be "individuals in a technical or scientific profession who can demonstrate
fiscal and professional accountability and who are certified, licensed or registered by an
organization or occupational licensing board that recognizes competence in a specific area of
practice relating to the requirements of these Rules. The certifying or licensing organization
must have adopted and require adherence to a code of ethics that assures that no licensee or
certified professional will practice in an area in which that professional is not competent."
The National Association of Environmental Professionals, to which NCAEP is
affiliated, has an active certification program and is presently involved in a joint effort to
create a uniform national certification program for disciplines addressing, among other
things, precisely the types of professional endeavor sought to be implemented by the
proposed Rules. We would be delighted to provide further information on these programs if
you would like. We feel that such certification is equally, if not more, pertinent to the
assurance the Rule seeks.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments. If you have any
questions, or would like additional information or explanation, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely yours,
~-4 ~
Craig ~omby ~
02453/07454
•:..,__ ____________ (uEHm6E) __
' ~@
Page -2-
April 21, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
2 • Adjoining or new property owners should not be subject to
additional regulation. The proposal to make adjoining
property owners who obstruct remediation activities
responsible parties sounds good but would only add
additional confusion. The existing Federal CERCLA law is
quite adequate for the situations that this proposal is
meant to address. In fact, the proposal will probably
prevent property transfers that embody legally
enforceable cleanup plans thereby resulting in fewer
cleanups and further spread of contamination.
In summary, the Division should endeavor to make the groundwater
regulations a tool to encourage voluntary cleanups. This will focus
our stateis resources on actual cleanup rather than on meaningless
paper exercises.
7/7;'~.
H. Lynn Phillips
Regional Vice President
cc: Robert Cohen
@ Rec,1cled Paper
April 19, 1993
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
P.O. Bex 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Proposed Regulations
Dear Mr. Hance:
© fcf]fi{) ffi1 ~-,---.
./~ ./!!lt!?L'!lit WJ;i 0)
\•, APR 81 1993 gj/
GtrOUt,JfJ'l{ATF ~
0A I ci, s.~c,·,n '"'h •. /;fGN ,._,'-•VN , ,,c
I am writing to give support to your proposed amendments to the North Carolina
Groundwater regulations. In particular, I support easing regulations in urban areas where
city water is used for drinking. It is prohibitively expensive and a waste of taxpayers
money to require the exhaustive clean up efforts in these urban areas where we do not
drink the water.
Let's get these new regulations into action ASAP!
If you have questions you can contact me at 787-2526.
Cordially, ~
f t>V'-
J ogan
JH/mm
League of Women Voters of Moore County
P.O. Box 1995
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Mr. David Hance, Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Hance:
~ dr.i, /C/93
GRU-i!J'tJM.\:~·rr.~ SECTION The League of Women Voters of Moore County has grave 1 •· 1-~•m,i;:., ·
concerns regarding the proposed easing of state pollution RAL£1GI-\ NC
clean-up rules, the "21" proposal, which we regard as,
threatening to our groundwater supply.
People who make a mess should clean it up. It appears
innocent landowners may suffer loss of property values
caused by a neighbor's failure to clean up a spill or
remove a leaking underground storage tank.
We believe there is too much latitude given for the
removal of the RS designation by the director, and
inadequate provision for public notification.
Please reassess the confusion that will be caused by
these new rules, and your responsibility to prevent the
degradation of North Carolina groundwater for years to
come.
Very truly yours,
~~J,e_,
Katherine Hodge, President
V~-~f!~
Phylfi s Kalk, Chair, Natural Resources Unit
S. Dillon Wooten , Jr.
Pres ident
SINCE 1927
Mr. David Hance
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Division
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Hance:
Convenience Stores/Petroleum Products
703 South George Street/P.O. Box 1277
Goldsboro, North Carolina 27533 -1277
Telephone [phone]
It is my understanding that the Environmental Management
Commission is accepting written comments on the Groundwater
Classifications and Standards proposed amendments. I attended
the public hearing on Wednesday, April 7 and voiced my support
for the proposed amendments. The purpose of this letter is to
submit a comment in writing that I strongly support and my
company strongly supports the proposed amendments. I feel that
generally the petroleum industry and other owners of
underground storage tanks and tank systems in the area of
eastern North Carolina that I serve are generally acting in a
responsible manner in upgrading their systems and protecting
the environment. If some degree of reasonableness is used in
our attempts to protect the environment I believe that it will
be beneficial in the long run because the huge cost and
inefficiency of some of the clean ups. that are required now
will cause a number of small businesses to go bankrupt. We of
course all want the cleanest environment possible but we need
to conduct the clean ups in a reasonable manner and <level op
methods that will work efficiently. My company now spends most
of it's capital budget on environmental matters and even
though we have been in business since 1927 there is no
assurance with the current rate of environmental expenditures
that we will be able to survive for a long period of time
without some relief from the unreasonable requirements of
cleaning up groundwater to impossible standards where it does
not impact human heal th and safety. We strongly support the
proposed amendments.
SDWJr/dbc
cc: Senator John H. Kerr
KWIK
MABT
Sincerely,
Wooten Oil Company
S. D. Wooten, Jr.
COUNTY OF CHATHAM
COMMISSIONERS
HENRY DUNLAP. JR., Chairman
MARY HAYES HOLMES
EARL D . THOMPSON
GUS MURCHISON
E.T. HANNER
P. 0. BOX 87
PITTSBORO, N. C. 27312
BEN SHIVAR
County Manager
ROBERT L. GUNN
County Attorney
Phone [phone]
ORGANIZED 1770 707 SQUARE MILES
Mr. David Hance
Chatham Site Designation
Review Committee
April 23, 1992
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
Dear Mr. Hance:
As a follow up to my
Raleigh concerning
classifications and
hydrogeologist George
1991-1992.
oral statement at the hearings on April 7 in
proposed amendments to our groundwater
standards, I am enclosing a report by
Bain done for Chatham County in the winter of
Chatham County hired Mr. Bain as a consultant in the spring of 1991
because he had extensive experience doing field geology for the US
Geological Survey in the Triassic basins of the Eastern United
States as the geologist in charge of an evaluation of Triassic rock
as a potential repository for hazardous wastes. I understand that
his conclusion for that study was that the Triassic geology,
because of dike intrusions and fracturing, was an unsuitable
formation for the disposal of toxic materials. He further
elaborated on the implications of spills of toxics in Triassic
locations in North Carolina in the attached report.
The basic conclusion is that fractured rock environments are
difficult to predict given the current state of the science of
geology. Given the fact that geologists can penetrate the earth's
surface by drilling in only a small fraction of the relevant
terrain, in spite of attempts to model and predict the path of any
plume, Bain points out that toxics have moved in unpredicted
directions at unpredicted speeds.
Even though this work was done in the past for other purposes, it
seemed to point out the difficulty of expecting geologists to
predict whether hazardous materials would migrate to any place they
could be picked up by drinking water wells in fractured geological
settings. Thus reliance on such judgements could be very risky as
a basis for determining decisions about remediation.
Mr. Hance
April 23 1 1993
Page 2
In addition our experience has been that this is a very costly
process. The cost of determining the path and predicting the
amount and timing of releases for the NC Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Facility from underneath 2 sites of approximately 50
acrei of disposal cells has been at least $18 million. and recent
findings after nearly 2 years of study suggest that more studies
must be done.
Please consider the foregoing points when evaluating the
advisability of adopting proposed Section .0106. especially (h).
(i). and (k). which necessarily involve predicting. contaminants'
travel time and direction in complex geologic settings.
Please ~efer to pages 1. 2, 4. 5-8. 38-42 for the material relevant
to your ae liberations.
Sincerely.
?¾~~~
Mary MacDowell
Research Coordinator
FEASIBILITY OF
LLRW STORAGE IN
FRACTURED TRIASSIC ROCK
AT THE WAKE/CHATHAM SITE
Prepared for
Chatham County
Board of Commissioners
LLRW Site __ :p,~s~g1J.tation Review Committee
Prepared by:
Bain;.:Patmer & Assoc., __ fnc.
2641-G Randlemari _Road
Greensboro, NC . 27:406
[phone]
fanuary ,2.~, 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
·~~; \
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...................................... 9
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Licensing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
North Carolina Licensing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
THE WAKE/CHATHAM POTENTIAL SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Regional Triassic Geology and Geohydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Diabase Dikes . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Local Site Geology and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
THE SPECIAL HYDROGEOLOGY OF FRACTURED ROCKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN MODELING FRACTURED ROCKS . . . . . . . . . . . 28
DEGREE TO WHICH THE WAKE/CHATHAM SITE MEETS REQUIREMENTS
FOR WASTE ISOLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Capable of Being Characterized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Depth to Water Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Groundwater Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Tectonic and Geomorphic Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
CASE HISTORIES OF LLRW STORAGE IN THE U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
LOCAL TRIASSIC HAZARDOUS WASTE INCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
IBM Site ................................................ • . . . . . . 38
Koppers Co. Superfund Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
General Timber Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX I
41
43
FEASIBILITY OF LLRW STORAGE IN FRACTURED TRIASSIC ROCK
AT THE WAKE/CHATHAM SITE
INTRODUCTION
LLRW (Low-Level Radioactive Waste) products must be disposed of in a manner which
protects man and the biosphere from harmful radiation. The primary goal in siting the facility
is to provide sufficient time for the decay of the radioactive elements which may leave the
site to degrade to a "safe level" before exposure to potential environmental receptors. The
period of time considered necessary for radioactive materials to decay to safe levels is equal
to ten times the half life of the radioactive substance.
The level of radioactivity decay achieved after 300 to 500 years is considered low enough to
meet the NRC's (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) performance objectives for protection
of the general public. The rules in 10 CFR Part 61 are based on the consideration that
radionuclides released to the atmosphere, groundwater, surface water, and soil must not
result in an annual dose to the whole body of 25 millirems, to the thyroid of 75 millirems, or
25 millirems to any other organ of the body.
Thirty years of experience with leaking LLRW disposal sites has taught us much about the
kinds of geological sites that are suitable for long-term waste isolation, causing scientists to
reevaluate the hydrologic principles governing the long-term isolation and monitoring of
radionuclides. The NRC and State agencies have, as a result, codified a set of stricter siting
and licensing procedures based on a better understanding of scientific principles. Unless the
requirements and guidelines are adhered to strictly, unsafe sites are likely to be licensed.
The author of this report, Mr. George L. Bain, P.G., has been retained by the Chatham
County LLRW Site Designation Review Committee to review the technical merits of the
Wake/Chatham potential site. This evaluation is based on Mr. Bain's past experience with
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 1
the geology and hydrology of the Durham Triassic basin; the Triassic geologic literature;
several site visits over the past year; review of the relevant State and Federal regulations and
guidelines, the Site Characterization Plan for the Wake/Chatham site, and the recent
literature concerning the modeling of fractured rock aquifers; and consideration of the site
data available to him from the first 90-day review of characterization.
Mr. Bain has 32 years of professional experience, 7 years of which were in subsurface waste
disposal research on the East Coast Triassic basins and 5 of whish were in Nuclear Plant site
evaluations. This experience is further detailed in Appendix I (Resume).
SUMMARY
1. Based on review of the available data, technical literature, and applicable guidelines
and regulations, the Wake/Chatham site is determined to be a complex site from a
hydro geological standpoint, fails to meet some of the requirements of NRC and State
guidelines, and may not be modelable or monitorable with the precision and
confidence needed for accurate prediction of the., long-term fate of radionuclide
contamination. Therefore, this site is likely to be an unsafe and unlicensable site.
2. Federal and State regulations and guidelines set forth site suitability requirements by
which the licensability of a site is to be judged. Those regulations and guidelines
pertinent to the Wake/Chatham site include the following:
a. Sites that are geologically and hydrologically simple and contain processes that
occur at consistent and definable rates are preferred over complex sites. For
modeling these simple sites, input assumptions must be representative of all
site conditions; otherwise, an invalid model is produced, and inaccurate
predictions are made.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 2
b. Sites with fairly deep water tables, lengthy travel times to points of
groundwater discharge and predictable contaminant migration pathways are
more suitable than those with complex hydrogeological frameworks.
c. Areas are not suitable for LLRW disposal if ground-water discharge features
such as springs, seeps, swamps, or bogs are present.
d. The hydrologic unit used for disposal should not have continuous permeable
or impermeable anomalies such as faults or fracture zones.
e. Some examples of areas not suitable for LLRW disposal include areas that
contain steep terrain, surface waters, wetlands, faults or fracture zones, karst
areas, and economic resources.
f. The disposal site must not be located where nearby facilities or activities could
adversely impact the ability of the site to meet the performance objectives ... or
significantly mask the environmental monitoring program.
Thus, the Wake/Chatham · site fails to meet some of the requirements of 10 CFR 61,
particularly in the areas of simple geology, modelability, wetlands, and economic resources.
These performance deficiencies are discussed below.
3. The Wake/Chatham potential site is neither geologically nor hydrologically simple.
This site is underlain with competent (hard and cemented), fractured, and jointed
Triassic rock; that change in composition and inclination in both vertical and
horizontal dimensions. The Triassic basin in which the site is located has been tilted,
faulted in several directions, and invaded by several episodes of diabase intrusion,
causing widespread development of secondary openings.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chathai:n Co.
Page 3
t
Groundwa·ter occurs both in the secondary openings provided by the joints and
fractures in the diabase dikes and sedimentary rocks and in the overlying mantle of
weathered Triassic rock and soil. Groundwater flows freely between the overlying soil
and the underlying rock which are in hydraulic continuity. The local source of
groundwater is entirely from precipitation, which recharges the soil and weathered
rock and in turn recharges the joints and fractures in the underlying Triassic rocks.
Local groundwater movement is through joints and fractures toward areas of lower
elevation at on site and offsite springs, seeps, streams, and lakes.
Fractured bedrock is the· most difficult of all geological terranes to characterize
hydrologically. The present development of the science of hydrogeological modeling
is not sufficiently advanced to accurately predict the location and/or. rate of
groundwater movement along the most critical fracture(s) by which · radionuclide
bearing groundwater may first enter the biosphere. Similarly, the complexity of
fracture systems at a site may be such that monitoring programs are ineffective in
promptly indicating whether, or even where, a leak has occurred. The accurate
prediction of the location, orientation and hydraulic characteristics of this most critical
fracture are the most critical aspects in characterizing the site to protect human health
and the environment.
Also, we must recognize that, at this point in their development, the geologic sciences
do not have some giant "CAT scan" suitable for accurately locating and characterizing
that one critical fracture. In fact, we cannot accurately characterize those few critical
fracture pathways without completely excavating (and thereby destroying) the site to
expose the pertinent fractures.
The Shearon Harris FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Report) identified an east-west
trending fault that is projected to cross the northern end of the potential site near the
auxiliary dam. On the basis of local geological work by Reinemund, Bain and Harvey,
Randozzi, and others which demonstrates rapid changes in basement depth over short
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 4
lateral distances and offset geological features, one can reasonably assume that this
is not the only fault in the area of the site. That is, if there is one documented fault,
there is a high probability that others of similar trend may cross the site.
4. The site area contains rock and clay which are used locally in brick manufacture.
Also, at least one nearby basin contains deposits of coal, oil, and gas.
5. Documented jurisdictional wetlands exist on site. However, the data necessary to
determine the location of any on site seasonal groundwater springs or seeps are not
available, such as the seasonal positions of the water table, the length of the site
streams that flow all year long vs. seasonally, or the age of groundwater present in on
site streams. The shallowness of the water table (based on personal observations of
the extent to which surface water drainages penetrate into the center of the site) and
evidence from infrared photography indicate that groundwater is likely to discharge
on site, contrary to NRC suitability requirements.
6. Most, if not all, of the existing and closed LLR W sites were modeled, prior to
construction, to predict the future movement and fate of radionuclides that could
eventually end up in the local groundwater system. However, almost all existing
LLRW sites have leaked much faster than their models predicted. Thirty years 1of
experience with leaking LLRW disposal sites have caused scientists to reevaluate the
hydrologic principles • governing the long-term isolation and monitoring of
radionuclides, resulting in stricter codified siting and licensing procedures.
The unanticipated rapid travel of radionuc1ides away from existing LLRW cells sited
on or above fractured rock leads to several critical observations. First, siting on
fractured rock may be an invitation to disaster because of much greater than predicted
groundwater velocities along individual fractures in hard rock. Secondly, the science
of fractured rock hydrology is in its infancy. Thirdly, failures occurred at LLR W sites
that computer modeling did not predict. A corollary to these observations is that it
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 5
is not the overall average groundwater velocity predicted from modeling the entire
rock mass that is the critical design velocity, but rather the velocity along that one
single "critical" fracture or fracture system at the LLRW cell which has the greatest
combination of water pressure and permeability (ease of flow).
7. Groundwater scientists consider flow and transport of contaminants in fractured rock
to be one of the most difficult and, as yet, unsolved problems of the profession. That
is, there is poor understanding of the physical and chemical process of flow in
fractures. There is no absolute way of accurately measuring or predicting the actual
geometry and direction of the flow pathway between two observation points; the
mathematical description of that fracture flow is much more complex than flow
through porous media; and no reliable and verifiable direct modeling techniques have
been developed.
The basic principles and means for evaluating the occurrence, storage, and movement
of groundwater have evolved from our understanding of groundwater flow through
fairly homogenous, granular, relatively permeable materials such as unconsolidated
sands, silts, and clays. Flow in granular materials is through the pore spaces around
and between individual grains. However, flow in fractured rocks is through the
interconnected but discontinuous joints and fractures that bound impermeable or
relatively impermeable blocks of rock. There are large differences in scale and
geometry between these two flow environments.
A volume of fractured rock containing all of the representative properties of the
larger rock mass could measure hundreds or thousands of feet in each dimension or
not exist at all. Whereas, a sample representative of all the variable physical
parameters of a homogenous sandstone could be only inches or fractions of inches in
size. This disparity in representative sample size is caused principally by the. vast
difference between the fine mesh of pores in homogenous, porous sedimentary
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 6
deposits vs. the equivalent fractures in dense, non-porous rock and the wide variety
of fracture size, spacing, geometries and orientation.
Compared to the between-grain spaces in normal sandstone aquifers, fractures have
low fissure volume (contain little water) but high permeability. Consequently, the
water stored in the fractures is depleted quickly because flow along the fracture is
rapid." Similarly, the zone of influence resulting from pumping a well may spread to
greater distances along discrete fractures when compared to a well in homogeneous
soil or rock having intergranular porosity (pore spaces between the sand grains). Flow
along the fractures or fracture sets commonly becomes directionally skewed rather
than directed radially toward the pumping well.
8. The development of models to enhance understanding of and to predict contaminant
transport in fractured rock systems is an active area of research. However, reliable,
field-validated models for predicting the results of clean-up scenarios at contaminated
sites are not yet available (Schmelling and Ross, 1989).
According to Domenico and Schwartz, Phvsical and Chemical Hvdro geolo gy , modeling
of flow through individual fractures or sets of fractures gives rise to several problems.
First, data is needed on the orientation, fracture density, degree of interconnection,
aperture size, roughness of walls, fracture infilling, and other features which may exist.
Second, flow may be turbulent or laminar, depending on fracture size. If turbulent,
Darcy's Law (mathematical formula for flow in porous material) no longer applies.
Third, the hydraulic conductivhy (permeability or ease of flow) of the fractures will
vary with changes in the rock stress field and the fluid pressure.
)
Testing and verification of fracture flow models is greatly impeded by the difficulty of
obtaining field data that truly describe the hydrogeologic characteristics of fractured
rock (Anderson, 1984). That is, there are few data because of the expense and sheer
difficulty of making observations below the rock surface.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 7
9. Groundwater in the fractured Triassic rock of the Durham (Triassic) basin is easily
contaminated. Numerous industrial sites exist in the Durham basin, some of which
have released toxic and hazardous materials that have subsequently contaminated local
groundwater supplies. In some of these instances, contaminants have moved great
distances, seemingly against the local gradient and in unpredicted directions. Case
histories which illustrate the problems of predicting, monitoring, and controlling the
movement of contaminants in the fractured Triassic rocks of the Durham basin are
presented later in this report.
10. The unpredictable lateral spread of contaminants, the anomalous results of pump
tests, and the recorded interference of distant pumping wells in the Durham Triassic
Basin demonstrate that high permeability paths, other than those associated with
diabase dikes, exist elsewhere in the Durham Basin and are likely to be present at this
site.
11. The site is adjacent to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, a source of radionuclides.
Any release to Harris Lake or airborne release to the ground surface of the site is a
potential groundwater contaminant that affects the ability to monitor the performance
of the site.
In conclusion, the Wake/Chatham site fails to meet Federal and State regulations and
guidelines in the following areas.
a. The site is neither geologically nor hydrologically simple.
b. The site groundwater in both the Triassic sedimentary rock and diabase dikes
occurs and flows through joints and fractures which cannot be reliably
identified.
c. The site contains wetlands and possible points of groundwater discharge.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 8
d. The site contains economic resources.
e. The site is adjacent to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, a source of
radionuclides which potentially mask the ability to monitor the performance of
the site.
f. The modeling literature strongly suggests that field-validated and verifiable
models suitable for the reliable prediction of the fate of radionuclide transport
in individual fractures are not available. Therefore, proof of the safety of a
fractured rock she via modeling especially as pertains to the predictability of
the LLRW site is highly questionable.
The issues summarized above are more fully developed in subsequent portions of this report.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
Federal and State regulations and guidelines set forth minimum performance requirements
for candidate LLR W disposal sites.
Federal Licensing Requirements
The Federal site suitability requirements (NRC) on which licensing is based are published in
Subpart D, 10 CFR 61.50. These requirements are reproduced below for reference.
"1. The disposal site shall be capable of being characterized, modeled, analyzed
and monitored.
2. Within the region or state where the facility is to be located, a disposal site
should be selected so that projected population growth and future
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 9
developments are not likely to affect the ability of the disposal facility to meet
the performance objectives ....
3. Areas must be avoided having known natural resources which, if exploited,
would result in failure to meet the performance objectives ....
4. The disposal site must be generally well-drained and free of areas of flooding
or frequent ponding. Waste disposal shall not take place in a 100-year
floodplain, coastal high-hazard area or wetland ....
5. Upstream drainage must be minimized to decrease the amount of runoff which
could erode or inundate waste disposal units.
6. The disposal site must provide sufficient depth to the water table that ground-
water intrusion, perennial or otherwise, into the waste will not occur. The
Commission will consider an exception to this requirement to allow disposal
below the water table if it can be conclusively shown that disposal-site
characteristics will result in molecular diffusion being the predominant means
of radionuclide movement and the rate of movement will result in the
performance objecti~es ... being met. In no case will waste disposal be permitted
in the zone of fluctuation of the water table.
7. The hydrogeologic unit used for disposal shall not discharge ground water to
the surface within the disposal site.
8. Areas must be avoided where tectonic processes such as faulting, folding,
seismic activity, or vulcanism may occur with such frequency and extent to
significantly affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the performance
objectives ... or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction of long-term
impacts.
9. Areas must be avoided where surface geologic processes such as mass wasting,
erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering occur with such frequency and
extent to significantly affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the
performance objectives ... or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction
of long-term impacts.
10. The disposal site must not be located where nearby facilities or activities could
adversely impact the ability of the site to meet the performance objectives ... or
significantly mask the environmental monitoring program."
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 10
NRC NUREG -0902 is a technical position paper developed by the Low-Level Waste
Licensing Branch on the above 10 reg·ulatory requirements. This paper interprets and·
presents the Branch's position on three subject areas: the site suitability requirements of 10
CFR 61, the site selection process, and site characterization activities. Parts of this document
which are considered pertinent to the Wake/Chatham potential site are reproduced below.
1. The disposal site shall be capable of being characterized, modeled, analyzed, and
monitored.
"The first requirement implies that the proposed site should be geologically and
hydrologically simple.
Since most modeling tends to homogenize the hydrogeologic units and average the
hydrologic properties for such units, the site characteristics should vary within a
sufficiently narrow range so that the input to the modeling is representative of the
hydrogeologic units and the assumptions underlying the modeling are valid. For
example, the hydrogeologic unit used for disposal should not have continuous
permeable or impermeable anomalies such as faults or fracture zones, sand lenses,
weathered horizons, or karstic features that provide preferential pathways for or
barriers to ground-water flow.
The first requirement also implies that natural processes affecting the disposal site
should be occurring at a consistent and definable rate such that the modeling of the
site will represent both present and anticipatable site conditions after closure. Finally,
since monitoring programs can sample only a small fraction of the surface area or
subsurface volume of the disposal site, site characteristics must be such that the small
number of monitoring points can adequately describe the extent to which
radionuclides have migrated from the waste disposal units."
Note that the Branch staff "considers the ground-water pathway to be the most significant
pathway for migration of radionuclides at humid sites."
7. The hydrogeologic unit used for disposal shall not discharge groundwater to the
surface within the disposal site.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 11
"The 'Seventh requirement, related to ground-water discharge, stipulates that the
hydrogeologic unit used for disposal will not discharge ground water to the ground
surface within the disposal site. Surface-water features sustained by ground-water
discharge, such as perennial and ephemeral streams, springs, seeps, swamps, marshes,
and bogs, should not be present at the proposed disposal site. This requirement will
result in a travel time for most dissolved radionuclides at least equal to the travel time
of the ground water from the disposal area to the site boundary. In addition, this
requirement should provide sufficient space within the buffer zone to implement
remedial measures, if needed, to control releases of radionuclides before discharge to
• the ground surface or migration from the disposal site."
10. The disposal site must not be located where nearby facilities or activities could
adversely impact the ability of the site to meet the performance objectives ... or
significantly mask the environmental monitoring program.
"The tenth requirement, related to effects of nearby facilities or activities, is included
so that the evaluation of any proposed disposal site will include not only the impacts
of that disposal site on its surroundings but also the impacts of the surroundings on
the disposal site. Nearby sources of airborne radionuclides, drift from cooling towers
at nearby electrical generating stations or other industries, adjacent hazardous waste
disposal facilities, and injection of water and/or liquid wastes upgradient from the
disposal site may adversely affect the ability to monitor the performance of the
disposal site."
Regulatory Guide 4.19 further develops the above ten regulatory requirements by stating the
following NRC positions.
"1.1 Capable of Being Characterized
... sites that are geologically and hydrologically simple and contain processes
that occur at consistent and definable rates are preferred over complex sites.
For mathematical modeling of the site, data input or assumptions must be
representative of all site conditions.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 12
1.3 Natural Resources
... areas should be avoided if they contain natural resources in quantities or of
such quality that future exploitation could. affect waste isolation.
1.4 Site Drainage
A 100-year floodplain, coastal high-hazard, wetlands, or areas where flood
velocities can cause damage are not suitable for waste disposal.
1.5 Depth To Water Table ··
Areas with a known or suspected high water table should be avoided.
1.6 Ground-Water Discharge
Areas are not suitable for LLR W disposal if ground-water discharge features
such as springs, seeps, swamps, or bogs are present.
2.0 Site Selection Process
2.1 Step 1
Some examples of areas not suitable for LLRW disposal include are_as that
contain steep terrain, surface waters, wetlands, faults or fracture zones, and
karst areas."
North Carolina Licensing Requirements
The procedures, criteria, and terms and conditions upon which the agency (Division of
Radiation Protection) issues licenses are set forth in Section Tl0:03G.3300 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 13
This section of the Code is stated to fulfill two objectives:
"l. To meet the requirements of com p atibilitv with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations, and
2. To provide general guidance for the design, operation, closure, and
institutional control of a low-level radioactive disposal site."
This section restates the four goals of 10 CFR Part 61, Section 61.7 Concepts as :
1. Protection of the public from releases of radioactivity,
2. Protection of an inadvertent intruder
3. Protection of workers at the facility, and
4. Assurance of long-term stability after closure."
S pecific Technical Information (.3306) required in the license application to demonstrate that
the performance requirements will be met include:
"13. ... description · of geologic, geotechnical, hydrologic,
climatologic ... (features) of the disposal site and vicinity:
characterization shall include sufficient and suitable data
performance analysis."
meteorologic,
where the site
for design and
The Technical and Environmental Analvses (.3308) that shall be performed by the applicant
include:
"1. ... the pathways analyzed in demonstrating protection of the general population
from releases of radioactivity including air, soil, groundwater, surface water,
plant uptake, and exhumation by burrowing animals."
These analyses must clearly demonstrate the difference in roles performed by the natural
characteristics of the site and the designed features and clearly demonstrate that radioactive
exposure to humans will meet the limits of Rule .3323.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 14
The Standards for Issuance of a License (.3314) states that a license will be issued upon
finding that the operation of the facility will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health
and safety or have a long-term detrimental impact on the environment.
Dis posal Site Suitability Requirements are dealt with in paragraph .3328. Basically, the North
Carolina requirements mimic those contained in 10 CFR 61, but with some additions. No.
4 of the above NRC requirements (10 CFR 61) has been modified to use the "Floodplain
Management Guidelines'" definition of the 100-yr. flood plain.
No. 6 of the NRC requirements has been revised to limit the bottom of the disposal facility
to at least 7 feet above the seasonal high water table, as defined in GS 104E-25(j). Provisions
to prohibit disposal in the recharge area of a sole-source aquifer and within 1000 feet of
drinking water wells have also been added.
GS 104E-25(d) requires the site to meet all applicable hydrologic and geologic suitability
requirements. "as though engineered barriers were not required. Engineered barriers shall
not substitute for a suitable site or compensate for any deficiency in a site."
Rules for Environmental Monitorin g are provided in paragraph .3331. The pre-operational
data must provide information on the ecology, meteorology, climate, hydrology, geology,
geochemistry, and seismology of the site area. In addition, during the construction,
operation,· and post-closure period, the monitoring program must be ca_pable of providing
early warning of releases of radionuclides before they reach the disposal site boundaries and
shall include types and location of wells in sufficient number to permit detection of
radioactive contamination.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 15
THE WAKE/CHATHAM POTENTIAL SITE
The Wake/Chatham site lies at the Wake-Chatham County line in eastern Chatham and
southwestern Wake County, just south .of Merry Oaks and highw·ay U.S. 1. The property is
about 24 miles southwest of Raleigh and across Harris Lake from the Shearon Harris nuclear
power plant. It lies within the Durham basin and is underlain in its entirety by a sequence of
sedimentary rocks known as the Triassic.
Regional Triassic Geology and Geohydrology
The Triassic rocks of the eastern United States were deposited in a series of several
elongated, narrow basins that extend from Nova Scotia to the subsurface of western Florida.
The Durham basin is one of these structures. Structurally, they consist of grabens and half-
grabens (areas of the ~arth's crust that have subsided adjacent to or between two faults) into
which erosional products from the surrounding highlands were deposited to form sandstones,
shales, mudstones, and siltstones and minor amounts of limestone, chert, and coal.
All of the Triassic basins have been subjected to post-deposition lithification (rock
solidification) and diabase dike intrusion. Diabase dikes were forcibly injected into the
Triassic sedimentary pile from late Triassic through early Jurassic time. There were
apparently three episodes of intrusion. The dikes emplaced during these episodes have
slightly different magnetic susceptibilities, chemistry, and remnant magnetic orientation.
Their present-day distribution, slope, and direction is a fossil record of the stress field in
existence at the time they were emplaced. _The forceful intrusion of the host liquid rock and
the heat caused baking, attendant mineralogic changes, and fracturing along a narrow zone
in the sedimentary rocks on either side of the dikes.
During the millions of years since the original infilling of these basins, the sands and muds
have been changed into very dense rock of low permeability. All of the basins have been
rotated or tilted about their long axes. For example, the Durham basin is tilted toward the
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 16
southeast. This basin, as others, has been further sliced lengthwise into at least three sub-
basins by post-early Jurassic normal faults. The southeastern border fault is not a single,
simple, down-to-the-west normal fault, but a fault zone 0.5 to 1.5 miles wide that causes the
basin floor to descend "stair step" fashion toward the northwest. Numerous post-late Triassic
normal cross faults, trending west to northwest, further break up the original continuity of
the Triassic sedimentary rocks in a roughly perpendicular direction. As a result, the
sedimentary rock units in the basin have been broken into rhomb to triangular shaped blocks
that average from 0.5 to 1 mile by 2 to 3 miles on the side.
All of the Triassic sedimentary rocks are well-cemented, and little if any original primary
porosity and permeability remain. When viewed under the microscope, the primary cause of
this reduction of primary porosity becomes evident. Overgrowths of quartz and feldspar
crystals result in a very dense rock when unweathered. Measured seismic velocities are also
high, giving further evidence for very dense and compact rock.
The lack of primary porosity and permeability in the Triassic rocks makes for correspondingly
poor infiltration from precipitation and overall poor water bearing characteristics. These
characteristics make the Triassic rocks poor aquifers. The groundwater that is resident in the
Tdassic sedimentary rocks is stored in and moves primarily through the secondary porosity
and permeability provided by the joints a _nd fractures. These joints and fractures are
recharged, principally, by water that has infiltrated down from groundwater stored in . the
overlying regolith (weathered rock and soil).
The water bearing joints and fractures of the Triassic rocks were created by two mechanisms:
(1) past tectonic activity, faulting, and diabase dike intrusion, as described above, and (2) by
additional jointing caused by the release of pressure or weight of the overlying rocks as they
were removed by erosion. These processes cause additional variability and less predictability
in the distribution and orientation of water bearing features.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 17
Groundwater in these rocks is stored in two principal ways: (1) in the joints and fractures
and (2) in the minute pores and secondary openings in the blocks of rocks between join ts and
fractures. The joints and fractures take on and drain water quickly; whereas the unfractured,
unjointed, well-cemented rock mass does so very slowly. The permeability difference between
these two_storage mediums is usually 3 to 4 orders of magnitude, or more.
Areas of most intense fracturing such as the zones on either side of diabase dikes form high
permeability paths and provide somewhat greater opportunities for groundwater storage,
resulting in much higher yields. However, because well yields depend on the number and
kind of fractures penetrated by a well, the erratic spacing of rock joints and fractures can
easily result in two identically constructed wells drilled within a few feet of each, having
highly different water levels and yields. This wide variation in hydrologic conditions over a
short distance severely limits the predictability of contaminant-migration pathways.
The occurrence of high permeability zones_ in otherwise low permeable rocks is a common
hydrologic phenomenon in competent sedimentary and crystalline rocks. The rock mass of
. the shallow crust is permeated with joints, fractures, and faults resulting from the stress of
tectonic movements and weathering. They serve as the conduits through which water stored
in the regolith from precipitation recharge these rock reservoirs and through which their
water is drained to the creeks.
Compared to the intergranular spaces in normal sandstone aquifers, (porous, isotropic
medium) fractures have low fissure volume and high permeability. Consequently, their stored
water is depleted quickly, because flow along the fracture(s) is rapid. For example, the zone
of influence resulting from pumping a well tends to be very narrow or lobate and to spread
to great distances along discrete fractures. In contrast, a well in isotropic (having the same
properties in all directions), homogeneous rock having intergranular porosity generally
develops a radial cone of depression around a pumping well. (Boonstra, J., and Boehmer,
W.K., 1986) and (Atobrah, K., 1988).
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 18
Accurately monitoring the hydrologic behavior of contaminants in fractured rock is difficult.
Two piezome.ters (monitoring wells) placed adjacent to each other but one in · an open
fracture and the other in a competent, unfractured block of rock ( or in a different set of
fractures) frequently exhibit significantly different water levels. Although two wells at the
same point may represent the same geographic point for monitoring purposes, both frequently
are non-representative of the true hydrologic situation at that point (Mercurio and Bain,
1981). Similarly, Nelson (1990) has documented as much as 10 feet in water level differences
in a single borehole where individual fractures were isolated and measured illustrating, again,
the severe difficulty in acquiring representative hydrologic data from fractured rocks
In summary, the lithology and character of Triassic sedimentary rocks change quite rapidly,
vertically and horizontally. Groundwater is contained for the most part in joints and fractures
that vary in spacing and frequency. Groundwater travel along fractures systems can be rapid,
occur over considerable distance, and in unpredictable directions. The rapid travel time and
lack of predictability are the principal reasons for the NRC guidance document advice for
avoidance of fractured rock sites.
Diabase Dikes
The occurrence of a much higher water well yield adjacent to diabase dikes in the Durham
Basin is common knowledge among the well drilling, geologic, and hydro geologic professions.
Dr. Jasper Stuckey, former director of the North Carolina Geological Survey, told stories
during his lifetime of his many successes in directing home owners and residents to locate well
locations adjacent to diabase dikes. This author and his colleagues have had many similar
successes during the past 30 years.
One of the best descriptions of the physical relationship between diabase dikes and the
surrounding Triassic sedimentary rock into which they are intruded is contained in U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 246 prepared by John A. Reinemund, 1955 entitled
Geolo gy of the Dee p River Coal Field North Carolina. The following quotes are relevant:
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 19
"Many streams originate in springs .produced by movement of groundwater along
margins of intrusives ( dikes). Some of these springs are shown in plate 1. They insure
a fairly steady flow of water in many streams in the region, and they are important
sources of water for domestic use. Local inhabitants have learned by experience that
dikes are favorable locations for water wells.
Rocks near some intrusives(dikes) appear little disturbed, as though the magma had
simply replaced the rock it intruded, but in other places, the rocks are considerably
fractured and disarranged (Reinemund, 1955). Diabase dikes in the Deep River coal
field range in width from less than an inch to more than 300 feet, and they range in
length from a few feet to almost 7 miles.
Most dikes have sharp, fairly straight contacts with the adjacent sedimentary rocks, as
shown in figure 21, but in areas of strongly faulted and folded rocks the dike contacts
may be very irregular, as shown iri figure 22. Wall rocks adjoining the dikes generally
show little deformation as a result of the intrusion of the diabase, although along some
dikes the strata have been contorted by faulting that occurred prior to the intrusion.
Near a few dikes, wall rocks have been tilted upward as much as 150 or 200 from
normal position by the intrusion."
Similar geologic expression of diabase dikes and their relationship to local faulting has been
described by Dr. J.M. Parker III in his 1979 publication entitled Geolo gy and Mineral
Resources of Wake County. The following quote illustrates the problem of relying too much
on regional magnetic surveys to locate all possible diabase dikes.
"Many diabase dikes have strong positive expression on the aeromagnetic maps, some
only faintly expressed, and some have no effect. These relations are described in a
separate section of this report. The aeromagnetic maps have been invaluable in
tracing many dikes between widely spaced outcrops and through sediment-covered
areas" (Parker, 1979).
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 20
Pump tests conducted at the IBM facility in Research Triangle Park (Cullen and Robertson ,
1988) illustrate that pumping wells in or adjacent to diabase dikes: (1) creates rapid
(
drawdowns over great distances laterally along the dike aquifer system, (2) creates little or
no drawdown in wells outside the dike aquifer system. Drawdowns, in turn, may be produced
in distant wells not adjacent to the diabase dikes but which are apparently in a fracture
system which intersects the diabase dike aquifer (Cullen and Robertson, 1988).
Geophysical work by Idris (1980), in eastern Chatham County indicated that groundwater in
and adjacent to diabase dikes was associated with a measurable low resistivity anomaly. Payne
(1984), found that there was an apparent correlation between well yields associated with the
diabase dikes and lower magnetic susceptibility.
Thus, common well siting knowledge, the Triassic literature, and pump test data all
substantiate that high permeability groundwater producing zones related.to diabase dikes, and
to joints, -and fractures in the surrounding sedimentary units are common occurrences in the
Durham Basin. Both diabase dike and non-diabase fracture system aquifers at the
Wake/Chatham potential site are potential pathways for rapid movement of radionuclides
from a LLR W c_ell.
Local Site Geology and Physiography
The 1~00 acre Wake/Chatham potential site, has low relief. Site elevations range from just
over El. 278 ft. MSL (mean sea level) to just below El. 220 ft. MSL. The site straddles a
drainage divide between a tributary of Shaddox Creek on the west and White Oak Creek on
the east. Both creeks drain to the Cape Fear River (about El. 160 ft. MSL) approximately
2.5 miles to the Southwest.
White Oak Creek has been impounded to form Harris Lake, a 4000-acre cooling pond for the
Shearon Harris nuclear power plant. Harris Lake borders the entire eastern side of the site.
The normal pool elevation of Harris Lake is El. 220 ft. MSL. The 100-yr. flood elevation is
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 21
El. 223 ft. and the maximum expected lake elevation is projected to be El. 239 ft. An
auxiliary dam and lake, which borders the northeast tip of the site, is located in the
headwaters of Harris Lake. Normal pool elevation for the auxiliary dam is El. 250 ft. MSL.
Intermittent and perennial streams dissect the site in east-west and in northwest-southeast
directions. Topographically, the site consists of several distinct, low, broad knolls of about
130 to 200 acres in size which drain to local hollows.
Geologically, the site is located in the eastern part of the Durham Triassic Basin in an area
dominated by fine-grained sediments such as mudstones and siltstones with occasional muddy
sandstones and wackes. Exposures of weathered rock suitable for geologic examination and
the production of detailed geologic maps are few to nonexistent because of the low
topographical relief of the site. The limited outcrops that are visible are small in areal
extent, shallow, badly weathered, and slumped. The individual beds appear to dip at low
angles toward the southeast. A thin mantle of White Store and Creedmoor soil blankets most
of the site.
Also, insufficient geological exposures are available to make definitive determinations of the
degree of fracturing and faulting. From field inspection, the site appears to be located in the
red mudstone-sandstone .facies of Bain (1980), and may or may not be vertically offset by
basin faulting. Vertical offset to the northeast and southwest, as determined from electrical
(resistivity) soundings, is on the order of 300 to 600 ft. on individual faults.
The Shearon Harris FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Report) identified one east-west trending
fault that is projected to cross the northern end of the potential site near the auxiliary dam.
One must assume, based on the Triassic geologic literature and experience with similar
Triassic geologic terrane (group or suite of rocks), that if there is one dqcumented fault,
there are others of similar trend that may cross the site.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 22
The site is underlain with competent (hard and cemented), fractured, and jointed Triassic
rock which has been intruded by swarms (many closely spaced) of diabas~ dikes. Groundwater
occurs in the secondary openings provided by the joints and fractures in the diabase dikes and
sedimentary rocks, as well as in the weathered Triassic rock overburden with which it is in
hydraulic continuity. Locally, the source of groundwater is entirely from precipitation which
recharges the soil and weathered rock which, in turn, recharges the joints and fractures in the
underlying Triassic rocks. Local groundwater movement in the rock is through joints and
fractures toward areas of lower elevation at . on site and offsite springs, seeps, s trecfins and
lakes.
The local Triassic water table aquifer, consisting of the fractured rock and weathered
overburden (regolith), is at greatest saturation (highest level) in late winter and early spring
prior to _ vegetation leaf-out. Where the water table surface intersects the land surface,
springs and seeps occur and stream flow begins. As the season progresses, lower precipitation
and greater evapotranspiration lowers the water table causing the points of spring, and seep
occurrence and streamflow maintenance to recede downstream. In wet weather standing
water, sufficient to support wetland vegetation, occurs at places in the poorer-drained uplands
and along the site streams. The poor drainage of the site soils allow these wetland sites to
survive between rainfall events, even in the drier parts of the year.
The diabase dikes identified to date (greater than 0.5 ft. in width) are on the southern and
western part of the site. Approximately eight diabase dikes, ranging in width from about 0.5
ft. to several feet in width and up to 2.5 miles in length, have been located by magnetic
traverses. No data are currently available on the existence of dikes having widths below the
resolution of the magnetometer suxvey used. Based on information on the hydrology of
diabase dikes elsewhere in this basin, a diabase aquifer consisting of a narrow zone of higher
permeability is expected to be present on each side of each of these dikes. In addition, the
hydrology of the adjacent unaltered sedimentary rocks is expected to be modified by these
higher permeability (preferential) pathways. For example, springs may occur on the
up gradient side of diabase dikes where they cross site hollows. Further, no information is
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 23
presently available on the hydrologic significance of any smaller diabase dikes not identified
with the current recon_naissance surveys.
Overburden (weathered rock and soil) thicknesses for the three precharacterization wells in
the Triassic sedimentary rocks range from about 11 ft. to 32 ft. and average . about 26 ft.
Based on two sets of measurements made in three monitoring wells in late 1989 and early
1990, the site water table is reported to range from about 16 ft. to about 21 ft. below the
ground surface (Site Characterization Plan).
THE SPECIAL HYDROGEOLOGY OF FRACTURED ROCKS
The principles of evaluation of the occurrence, storage, and movement of groundwater has
evolved from our understanding of groundwater in fairly homogeneous, granular, permeable
materials such as unconsolidated sands and permeable sandstones. Indeed, groundwater
scientists consider flow and transport of contaminants in fractured rock to be one of the most
difficult, and as yet, unsolved problems of the profession. The initial mathematical
groundwater flow equation was developed by Henri Darcy in the 19th Century. Darcy's Law,
which is based on flow through porous media, has served as the basis for predictive models
of contaminant migration in groundwater systems. However, Darcy's law is not applicable to
flow through individual fractures or fracture systems.
Gale (1982-A), a principal and well known fractured-rock researcher, states "The
hydro geologic characteristics of fractured argillaceous and crystalline rock masses are poorly
understood." In another publication, Gale (1982-B) states "The sparse data base, lack of
agreement on the appropriate conceptual models, and difficulty in conducting field studies
in low-permeability fractured rocks require that calculations of total-flux (flow) and transit
times (velocity) in such rock masses be supported and confirmed by other lines of evidence,
including geochemical and isotopic data." This is due to poor correlation of measurable data
Feasibil_ity -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 24
to the hydraulic character of the overall rock mass. Such data are not yet available for the
Wake/Chatham site.
Freeze and Cherry ·(1979) note that " ... although contaminant transport in fractured geologi.c
materials is governed by the same processes as in granular media--namely, advection (vertical
or horizontal flow), mechanical dispersion (change in concentration in different directions
caused by changes in velocity of flow), molecular diffusion (diffusion of molec1Jles), and
chemical reactions--the effects in fractured media can be quite different."
Robertson (1984), who studied the problems of existing LLRW sites for the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), found that "Hydrologic complexity has been a problem of varying magnitude
at many sites. It simply means the sites proved to be physically more complex than originally
anticipated, so that long-term (or even short-term) predictions were found to be in error."
He concluded that the problems found at existing sites (including hydrologic complexity) " ...
can contribute and has contributed to the migration of waste radionuclides away from burial
sites at faster rates or in different directions than expected." His recommended solution was
that such problems " ... could be reduced by avoiding media dominated by secondary features
(fractures) or complex stratigraphy."
Flow in fractured rocks is through the interconnected but discontinuous joints and fractures
that bound impermeable or relatively impermeable blocks of rock, as opposed to flow in
granular materials, which is through the pore spaces between individual grains. Large
differences in scale and geometry exist between the two flow environments.
A small volume (for example, a 1-inch cube) of homogeneous material such as sand or
sandstone, but which is quite large in comparison with its microscopic pores, can be
statistically representative of the whole aquifer. That is, there are no further statistically
significant variations in physical parameters of the sample with an increase in size of the
sample. In contrast, an equivalent-sized volume of fractured rock could be all rock or mostly
fracture opening, depending on where the sample was taken. The volume of fractured rock
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 25
containing all of the representative properties of the larger rock mass could be hundreds or
thousands of feet in each dimension, or it might not exist at all (Domenico and Schwartz,
1990).
This variation in parameters presumably gets smaller (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990) as the
volume of the fractured rock sample gets larger until finally one has a representative
elementary volume (Bear, 1972). However, there is some question among researchers
whether a representative volume of fractured rock can ever be obtained. That is, the scale
of heterogeneity increases along with the increase in sample size (Domenico and Schwartz,
1990). Certainly, as the sample size gets large enough to include the edge of the individual
geologic formation, or expand beyond the end of a stratigraphic facies (unit of rock having
the same physical character throughout, such as a medium-grained, clean sandstone) or
include the edge of diabase dikes or expand into the location of a different tectonic element,
the degree of heterogeneity increases once again.
This phenomenon creates serious problems in designing aquifer tests and in groundwater
modeling in fractured Triassic rock. That is, the model is only as good at prediction as the
data is of representing the actual field situation.
Research indicates that the individual geometry of a fracture has much to do with the type
and volume of flow along the fracture. Also, the attitude and direction of discrete fractures
is of extreme importance to the safety of an LLR W repository. It is not the average flow
velocity derived from modeling that is critical to siting on a fractured rock site, but the
maximum velocity and path of radionuclides along any one individual fracture conne_cted to
the biosphere.
Because the attitude, geometry, and path of individual fractures cannot be determined
without completely trenching and/or excavating (destroying) the site, it is tempting to use
"reasonable" values. Davis (1984) states " ... The calculation of travel time, unfortunately, is
commonly accomplished only by assuming 'reasonable' values for a number of critical factors.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 26
Using different assumptions, hydrogeologists can calculate travel times for waste from the
same repository that may vary from one another by an order of magnitude or more. This is
particularly true of irregularly fractured [as at the Wake/Chatham site] metamorphic and
plutonic igneous rocks."
Said another way, although the modified Darcy equation:
Where: K = hydraulic conductivity
I = hydraulic gradient, and
8 = fracture porosity
v= KI/8
has been used to compute average velocities in fractured media, it provides no indication of
the velocities in individual fractures (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Therefore, the transport
velocity of groundwater contaminants along the "critical fracture" cannot be adequately
predicted. These two researchers further state that "It can be expected that the dispersion
of solutes during transport through many types of fractured rock cannot be described by the
equations developed for the homogeneous granular materials .... The scale at which this
(mathematical analysis of dispersion in granular materials) approach becomes valid in the
analysis of field situations is not known."
Attempts to correlate secondary mineralization along fracture faces in fractured crystalline
rock to the chemical nature of the contaminants from a hazardous waste site in North
Carolina have been completed by Headd and Nelson (1992, Written Communication). This
research has centered around attempts to predict the vertical distribution of contaminants due
to deep circulation in the fractured rocks. Correlation with water quality data from zones in
the same fractured rock matrix has been inconclusive. Based on this data, it appears that
contaminants in fractured rocks do not move as a contiguous plume or slug but along
randomly interconnected fractures in the fracture matrix.
Anderson (1984) notes that the " ... application of dispersion analysis to contaminant transport
in fractured rock is in its infancy ... ". She further notes that diffusion into the rock matrix can
retard the movement of contaminants and that dispersion along a fracture can " ... significantly
accelerate the arrival of contaminants at a discharge point ( even) when velocities in the
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 27
fractures are low." Thus, because of the many physical and chemical variables, and the
infancy of the science, even the best data may not impart much certainty or confidence to
predictions of contaminant travel time.
Experiments by Witherspoon (1980) indicate that the size of the fracture aperture and
fracture roughness are important fracture parameters with which his "Cubic Law" can be used
to estimate the velocity of flow. It is important to remember that both roughness and
aperture constantly vary along and between fracture sets and cannot be measured beyond the
surface outcrop or the well bore.
Gale (1982-A) summarizes the problem quite aptly:
It is now becoming quite clear that to obtain a greater insight into flow through
fractured rocks one must have a firm understanding and careful description of the
characteristics of the rock system. Without such description and a clearer
understanding of the role of fracture interconnection very little real progress can be
made in determining the velocity distribution of fractured rocks and hence the
dispersion and diffusion of a contaminant and the pathways it follows in moving
through fractured rock masses.
Hence, NRC guidance documents advise avoidance of fractured rock sites.
THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN MODELING FRACTURED ROCKS
The modeling of groundwater flow through fractured rock has been approached by recent
researchers in at least two principal ways: (1) modeling of the flow by accounting for the flow
through individual fractures or sets of fractures and (2) by treating the intersecting joints and
fractures as a continuum which can be represented mathematically as an equivalent porous
medium (EPM) (DeMarsily, 1986; and Domenico and Schwartz, 1990).
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 28
According to Domenico and Schwartz, modeling of flow through individual fractures or sets
of fractures gives rise to several problems. First, data is needed on the orientation, fracture
density, degree ofinterconnection, aperture size, roughness of fracture walls, etc. Second,
flow may be turbulent or laminar depending on size of the fracture. If turbulent, Darcy's Law
no longer applies. Third, the hydraulic conductivity of the fractures will vary with changes
in the rock stress field and the fluid pressure. For example, the size, width, and shape of the
fracture changes with depth because of the weight of the overlying rocks.
A major impediment to testing fracture flow models is the difficulty of obtaining field data
that accurately describe the hydrogeologic characteristics of the insitu (in place) fractured
rock (Anderson, 1984).
The hydrogeologic and hydraulic characteristics of a water bearing strata required for model
development are usually determined from actual field testing such as slug or pump tests
and/or dye tracer studies. Detailed pump tests in fractured rock aquifers (including Triassic
sedimentary rocks) have been conducted by Nelson (1986, 1987, and 1990). These tests
clearly indicate extreme variation in the hydraulic properties between individual fractures and
fracture systems. Due to these variations, predictions of contaminant flow have been
unreliable when correlated with water quality test data. Additionally, attempts to correlate
known extent of contaminants in the groundwater system with predicted migration distances
from velocity data, collected during the field hydraulic tests, showed wide variations in both
rate and predicted pathway migration directions.
The second approach (No. 2, above) assumes that extensive fracturing exists which, at a large
scale, may be represented by a mathematical continuum. Because large volumes of fracture
rock are necessary to have some semblance of a sample having uniform characteristics, the
testing program must be large scale. There is, of course, the problem of whether these
conditions of equivalence are ever achieved in the real world. Domenico and Schwartz (1990)
state that " ... the conditions for a continuum approach to fluid flow in intergranular porous
media are seldom, if ever, challenged. Such is not the case for fractured rocks."
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 29
If the intervening blocks have any effective porosity then we have a "double porosity" model
in which the behavior of the system in both cases will be different according to whether the
system is under steady or transient hydraulic stress. That is, in the transient case, two
different pressures exist; one in the fractures and one in the intervening blocks of rock. As
a result, the transmission of pressure change (and flow) within the fractures is much faster
than in the matrix of the rock blocks. (DeMarisly, 1986).
Schmelling and Ross (1989) described the state of the art of modeling fractured rock in the
following terms:
"The development of predictive models for groundwater flow and contaminant
transport in fractured rock systems is an active area of research, but field-validated
models that are directly applicable to the remediation of contaminated sites are not
yet available. Nonetheless, when used with appropriate site characterization data, the
available models can be helpful in developing a qualitative (rather than quantitative
as required by NRC guidelines) understanding of the behavior of the fractured rock
system and the interactions of contaminants with the system.
Because of the heterogeneous and anisotropic (having different physical properties
in different directions) nature of fractures in the subsurface, the data requirements
for modeling the movement of water and ce-ntami-nants in fractured media are
somewhat different than the requirements for modeling more homogeneous
unconsolidated porous media. The development of techniques to characterize the
hydro geologic properties of fractured rock systems has proceeded in parallel with the
development of models. These techniques are often more complex and more difficult
to interpret than analogous techniques used in unconsolidated media.
There are at least four categories of models to describe flow and transport in fractured
rock systems: (1) Models developed for use in unconsolidated porous media have been
successfully applied to certain fractured rock systems. These models consider the
fractured rock system as an equivalent porous medium (EPM). EPM models are more
likely to accurately predict ground-water flux ( overall rate of movement through the
rock mass) than to correctly predict solute transport (Endo et al., 1984 with emphasis
added). (2) A second category of fractured rock models explicitly considers discrete
fractures. The extensive data required by discrete fracture models for fracture system
characterization limit their use to small sites with a relatively low number of well-
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page JO
defined fractures. (3) A third category of models represents the fractured system by
a set of matrix blocks of well-defined geometry. Such models are largely research
tools that are useful for enhancing our conceptual understanding of pollutant
transport in fractured rock. ( 4) A fourth category of models uses a stochastic
approach to describe the fracture distribution. At the present time these are research
models. It is important to note again that the choice· of an appropriate model depends
on the conditions present at the site, and on the decision to be reached by using the
model..
Development of models to enhance understanding of and to predict contaminant
transport in fractured rock systems continues to be an active area of research.
Reliable, field-validated models that can be used to predict the results of clean-up
scenarios at contaminated sites are not yet available ( emphasis added)."
Thus, Schmelling and Ross are saying that there are four principal ways to do modeling in
fractured rock. The first was developed for homogenous and isotropic rocks (aquifers). (The
Triassic rocks of this site are neither). The third and fourth methods are still research
methods useful for conceptual (not actual) understanding of the flow of water in fractured
rocks. We are left with the second method; the EPM approach.
The EPM (only "simple" mathematical model for fractured rock systems) method uses a
mathematical surrogate (the equivalent porous media) to represent a unit volume of rock
containing all of the physical variables of the hydrologic unit being tested. The problems of
defining and testing the unit volume of representative fractured rock and approximating its
overall characteristics in terms of porus media flow characteristics have been previously
discussed. The EPM method is most valid when the density and interconnectivity of the
fractures are great in comparison to the size of the unit rock mass being modeled. The EPM
model should, under these ideal circumstances, predict the mean response of the aquifer. It
cannot and is not designed to predict the velocity or direction of flow along discrete fractures.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 31
DEGREE TO WIIlCH THE WAKE/CHATHAM SITE MEETS REQUIREMENTS FOR
WASTE ISOLATION
Capable of Being Characterized
The Wake/Chatham potential site is neither geologically nor hydrologically simple (as
preferred by Regulatory Guide 4.19). The strata change both rapidly vertically and
horizontally. The Triassic basin in which this site is located has been tilted, faulted in several
directions, and invaded by several episodes of diabase intrusion. See discussion in Bain and
Harvey, 1977 and the section on Regional Triassic Geology contained herein.
Fractured bedrock is the most difficult of all geological terranes (group or suite of rocks) to
characterize hydrologically. The present development of the science of hydrogeological
modelling is not sufficiently advanced to accurately predict the location and/or rate of
groundwater movement and to identify which are the most critical fracture(s) along which
radionuclide bearing groundwater may first enter the biosphere. Similarly, the fracture
complexity of the site may be such that monitoring programs are ineffective in promptly
indicating whether a leak has occurred.
Natural Resources
The site area contains economic deposits of weathered rock and clay which are used locally
in brick manufacture. Deposits of coal, oil and gas, present in a nearby basin, may also occur
on site.
Site Drainage
This site contains soils of low permeability, has low drainage gradients, and is bordered on
one side by an artificial lake for the Shearon Harris nuclear facility . Consequently, there are
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 32
numerous wet and poorly drained areas that have fostered the growth of wetland vegetation
and which demonstrate how poorly the site is drained.
Depth to Water Table
Being in a low lying area, underlain with poorly permeable rocks, and now having an
artificially higher groundwater discharge level (into Harris Lake), this site has a shallow water
table which may be readily impacted by breaches in the engineered containment.
Groundwater Discharge
The necessary data are not yet available to determine groundwater discharge points (springs
and seeps),--including seasonal positions of the water table, the reaches of the site streams
maintained perennially vs. seasonally, or the age of groundwater present in on site streams.
However, the shallowness of the water table, the extent to which drainages penetrate into the
center of the site, and evidence from infrared photography indicate that groundwater may
discharge on site.
Tectonic and Geomorphic Processes
This site is not in a tectonically active area as determined in the FSAR (Final Safety Analysis
Report) for the nearby Shearon Harris nuclear plant. However, tectonic activity and the
intrusion of diabase dikes in the geologic past has caused extensive fracturing of the
underlying sedimentary rocks. The existing dike and fracture systems may significantly affect
the ability of the site to be accurately modeled and/or monitored. As stated by Bedinger,
(1989) in his study of the performance problems of U.S. LLRW sites: "Consolidated
sedimentary ... rocks are not considered suitable host media because of the likelihood of
fractured or channel-like flow paths."
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 33
CASE HISTORIES OF LLR W STORAGE IN TIIE U.S.A.
Until 1962 storage of LLRW was at Federal facilities (Savannah River Plant, South Carolina;
Pallas Forest Preserve, Illinois; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee; and the Nevada
Test Site). Since 1962, six commercial sites have been established at Maxey Flats, Kentucky;
West Valley, New York; Richland, Washington; Sheffield, Illinois; Beatty, Nevada; and
Barnwell, South Carolina. All of these _sites used shallow land burial technology. Details
regarding these sites are summarized in Berlinger (1989), Barron (1989), Ryan (1988), Healey
et al (1985), and McDonald (1984).
Most of these sites have already failed; far short of the 300-to 500-year req:uirement for waste
isolation. A notable exception is the Beatty, Nevada, site where the depth to groundwater
ranges from 279 to 377 ft. below the land surface and the annual rainfall is 4.48 inches. By
contrast, annual rainfall at the Wake/Chatham site is approximately 46.5 inches, and the water
table is less than 25 ft. deep.
Early technol9gy utilized trenches excavated in fine-grained, low permeability materials which
were capped with fine-grained low permeability clays to exclude water. The object was to
contain the waste in a medium that would not allow transport of the radionuclides away from
the site in the groundwater. However, because of differential settlement and desiccation and
cracking of the clay cap, the caps leaked. This caused the trenches to fill up like a bathtub,
permitting saturation and leaching of the waste.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, disposal cells were sited over both limestone
and shale. Considerable evidence has accumulated that radionuclides have been transported
by groundwater to nearby streams via rock joints and fractures.
Trenches at the Maxey Flats, Kentucky, site were excavated in the weathered regolith above
fractured shale and sandstone (similar in many respects to the Triassic basin in which the
Wake/Chatham site is located). Radionuclides have migrated from the site through the
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 34
fractured sandstone and overland through surface water transport. Tritium has been detected
in the major drainageway on site and in offsite streams.
The West Valley, New York site is located on low-permeability glacial clay and till. Although
groundwater travel time to the nearest creek was estimated to be 800 to 2800 years, failure
of the cap caused saturation of the waste and subsequent leakage to the surface.
The Sheffield, Illinois, site is underlain by glacial outwash deposits. Although cap failure has
caused leaching of the waste, the trenches have not filled up, as in other cases, because of
the higher permeability of the underlying sediments. Instead, Tritium has migrated at a rate
of at least 7.6 meters (25 ft.) per year and has been detected in a nearby strip mine lake.
The Barnwell, South Carolina site is located on the eastern edge of the Savannah River Plant.
Trenches have been constructed in the bottom part of the unconsolidated Hawthorn
Formation. Tritium has migrated from the trench and has been detected above background
as far as 75 meters away. Tritium has been estimated to take a minimum of 50 years to
migrate the 350 feet distance to Marys Branch and is to be near background levels at that
time because of radioactive decay, dispersion, and dilution. It is important to note that this
is not a fractured rock site; the future will document the accuracy of the estimates of time
of breakout and concentration.
LLRW has been buried at Beatty, Nevada, since 1962 with no known problems. Principally,
this is because evapotranspiration (loss of groundwater through transpiration by plants and
evaporation from the soil) greatly exceeds precipitation, resulting in no infiltration of water
and, therefore no means of groundwater transport.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 35
Lessons Learned
Thirty years of experience with leaking LLR W disposal sites has caused scientists to
reevaluate the hydrologic principles governing the long-term isolation and monitoring of
radionuclides and has led to a stricter set of codified siting and licensing procedures.
Climate has come to be recognized as the single most "important factor affecting the potential
safe performance of an LLRW site. Ideally, all U.S. LLRW sites should be in the arid
Southwest. However, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act passed by Congress in
1980 made each State responsible for its generated waste. Since then, most states have
formed regional compacts similar to the Southeast Compact of which North Carolina is a
member.
Siting an LLRW facility in the humid East means that there will be short-travel'-time
transport of the radionuclides to a shallow water table, that the threat of excess infiltration
will be a constant problem, and that potential flooding and erosion are always of concern.
The unanticipated failure of past LLR W sites and the unpredicted rapid travel of
radionuclides away from existing LLRW cells sited on or above fractured rock leads to at
least three critical observations. First, siting on fractured rock may be an invitation to
disaster because of the difficulty of characterizing and modeling geologically and
hydrologically complex sites and because of the consequent inability to predict groundwater
velocities along fractures with any precision. Second, it confirms an often stated observation
in the literature that the science of fractured rock hydrology is in its infancy. Thirdly, that
failures have occurred at LLR W sites, which computer modeling did not predict, brings into
serious question our ability to do predictive modeling.
Obviously, an extension of these observations is that at sites underlain by fractured rocks it
is not the average groundwater velocity predicted from modeling that is the critical design
velocity. Rather, it is the velocity along that one single fracture or fracture system at an
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 36
LLR W cell which has the greatest combination of water pressure, shortness of flowpath to
the biosphere, and permeability ( ease of flow).
Also, we must recognize that the geologic sciences do not have a giant CAT scan suitable for
accurately locating and characterizing that one critical fracture. In fact, one cannot accurately
characterize those few critical fracture pathways without completely excavating ( and thereby
destroying)-the site to expose the pertinent fractures.
We have also learned that the siting of LLRW sites m fine-grained materials of low
permeability (such as the Triassic) and capping them with clay are procedures that must be
used with extreme caution. Although fine-grained, low-permeability materials retard the
movement of radionuclides, excavations in such materials have historically more frequently
functioned as a "bath tub" that fills up with water, leaches the waste, and spills over at the
land surface.
Clay caps were also found not to be the perfect solution for preventing infiltration, as once
thought --a lesson still being learned by the municipal landfill industry. The combination of
differential settlement of the stored LLRW and the desiccation of the clay cap has, in several
instances, caused rather than prevented increased infiltration and subsequent leakage.
Basically, these past experiences in LLR W storage have taught that a successful site in the
humid East must have a geologically suitable host terrane. The "ideal" safe site should be
permeable enough to drain water away from the cell faster than it accumulates but in a
geologic medium which drains leachate slowly enough through a sufficiently large mass that
radionuclides do not reach the biosphere before 500 years of radioactive decay have taken
place.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 37
LOCAL .TRIASSIC HAZARDOUS WASTE INCIDENTS
The Triassic rocks of the Durham Basin underlie numerous industrial sites. So~e of these
facilities have experienced releases of toxic and hazardous materials which have contaminated
local groundwater supplies. In some of these instances contaminants have moved great
distances, seemingly against the local gradient and in unpredicted directions. The following
examples illustrate the problems of predicting, monitoring, aild controlling the movement of
contaminants in fractured Triassic rocks of the Durham Basin as well as those of the
Wake/Chatham site.
IBM Site
The IBM facility, in the Research Triangle Park, has been the location of several hazardous
waste releases. Two 5000-gal. tanks containing trichloroethane (TCE) leaked prior to 1981.
A barrel of perchloroethylene was spilled in 1988, and three waste lagoons may have leaked.
In 1989, seven of the 25 peripheral site monitoring wells were reported to be contaminated.
The IBM site is underlain by sedimentary rock,s of Late Triassic age which are intruded by
diabase dikes of Jurassic age. Several diabase dikes have been mapped on this property by
consultants making an assessment of the extent of the TCE contaminant release from this
facility.
TCE contamination has been found in a private well located about 2500 ft. or more from the
spill location at the IBM facility. Subsequent pump tests of wells drilled on IBM property
as part of that assessment demonstrated the existence of high permeability paths between
wells located next to diabase dikes. The pump test results did not prove or disprove that
contamination at the private well came from the IBM TCE spill.
The pump tests did demonstrate that high permeability paths exist between wells near
separate diabase dikes where no dike interconnection has been mapped. Pump tests and well
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 38
drilling affected at least one well where no diabase was noted in the well bore. Significant
drawdown influence was noted between wells that ranged from about 540 to 1010 ft. apart.
Observations by consultants at the IBM facility have-noted that significant drawdowns of
groundwater occur rapidly in other wells at great distances from the pumped wells. Cyclic
water levels recorded in one site well (M-10-300) demonstrate that at least this well is in the
drawdown cone of influence of some, as yet, unidentified well. · Because cyclic fluctu~tions
can not be identified as being caused by any well on the IBM facility, IBM believes the source
of the cyclic fluctuations is some distant well offsite.
The above tests demonstrate: (1) that drawdowns occur over great distances in the Triassic
rocks and (2) that high permeability paths in the Triassic rocks exist, not only along diabase
dikes, but also in the sui::rounding Triassic sedimentary rocks.
Koppers Co. Superfund Site
This site, consisting of about 52 acres, is located about one mile northwest of Morrisville near
the Raleigh-Durham airport in a populated area of Cedar Fork Township, Wake County. The
Koppers Co. wood treating plant was designated a potential hazardous waste site in 1980.
This site is currently on the NPL list.
During the 1960's and 1970's chemicals such as Pentachlorophenol (PCP), isopropyl ether
(IPE), and others w_ere used to treat wood. Commercial grade PCP and IPE used at this site
also contained small amounts of dioxins and furans.
Fish kills have been found in on site holding ponds. Both PCP and IPE have been detected
in offsite domestic wells, particularly to the northwest and north of the site.
This site is underlain by fractured Triassic rocks similar to those of the Wake/Chatham LLR W
site. The topography ranges from nearly flat bottomland to gently sloping upland. Soils
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 39
consist of a thin veneer of silty clay; clayey silt; and minor amounts of fine sand, gravel and
rock fragments. Bedrock is not usually deeper than 25 ft. and similar to the Chatham LLR W
site, the average depth to the water table is less than 30 ft.
Surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 found 29 contaminated area wells. Local residents are
now being supplied with bottled drinking water. By 1990, hazardous chemicals were being
reported in wells up to 1.4 miles from the site in directions opposite to the initial direction
shown for groundwater flow and opposite to the direction of surface water flow.
The rapid and widespread contamination of some area wells but not all area wells
demonstrates that contaminants are traveling along fracture systems or other high
permeability paths which intersect some wells but not others.
This site exemplifies the unpredictable nature of contaminant travel and has special
significance for those who would attempt to model contaminant transport in the fractured
Triassic sedimentary rocks.
General Timber Company
General Timber is a wood preserving facility located in a very rural section of Chatham
County near Gulf, North Carolina. The site lies in the Sanford Triassic Basin as described
by Reinemund (1955). The plant is now under the jurisdiction of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (R~RA) as an operating hazardous waste disposal site. Over the past
thirty years, wastewaters and sludges from wood treating with creosote and inorganic salts
have been placed in shallow, unlined surface impoundments and land applied.
Hydrogeological investigations conducted over the past 10 years have confirmed widespread
migration of contaminants in the groundwater beneath the 100-acre site. The area is wholly
underlain by fractured Triassic sandstones, shales and coal seams. Movement of the
contaminants have not correlated well with mappable fracture and joint patterns in the
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 40
vicinity of the plant. Rates of pollutant transport and horizontal distribution of contaminants
greatly exceed those based on known gradients, predicted velocities, and measured
permeabilities.
Complicating the predicted directional flow pathways and rates are "traps" caused by large
variations in regolith depth over short distances which have retarded movement of
contaminants in some locations. Additionally, strong directional transmissivity along some
fracture sets results in "preferred" migration pathways that are independent of local and
regional strike and dip (direction and inclination of strata) of the underlying bedrock.
The physical and chemical nature of creosote contaminants result in three-phase contaminant
migration. Each phase exhibits different characteristics resulting in a wide variation in
vertical and horizontal distribution of contaminants in the regolith and fractured rock aquifer
system. This variation in transport behavior can also be anticipated at LLRW sites because
multiple radionuclide types will be disposed of. Each of these will also have independent
migration characteristics.
This complexity of geology, hydrology and contaminant transport in the fractured Triassic
rock at the General Timber Company has resulted in only limited success in predicting
preferred travel pathways and rates of contaminant emission from the site in spite of
continuous, long-term assessment of the site.
These three examples demonstrate that the rate and direction of movement of contaminants
in the local Triassic rocks is unpredictable and occurs in fractures not necessarily related to
diabase dikes.
CONCLUSIONS
The hydrogeologic complexity of existing fractures and discontinuities, including those
associated with diabase dikes, is such that it is not feasible to determine their location and
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 41
distribution accurately prior to construction. In addition, the limitations of the state of the
art of modeling of flow through fractured rock are such that mathematical modeling cannot
accurately predict the pathway or rate of contaminant transport. Further, the fracture
complexity of the rock medium may be such that monitoring programs are ineffectual in
promptly indicating whether a breach of the engineered containment has occurred.
Therefore, the existing dike and fracture systems will likely seriously compromise the ability
of the site to be accurately modeled and subsequently monitored.
Based on review of the available data, technical literature, and applicable guidelines and
regulations; it is concluded that the Wake/Chatham County site is a complex site from a
hydrogeological standpoint, fails to meet the requirements of some NRC and State guidelines,
may not be modelable or monitorable with the precision and confidence needed for accurate
prediction of the long-term fate of radionuclide contamination and, therefore, is likely an
unsafe and unlicensable site.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 42
REFERENCES
Ackerman, H.D., Bain, G.L., and Zohdy, A.AR., 1976, Deep exploration of an East-Coast
Triassic basin using electrical resistivity: Geology, v. 4, no. 4, p. 137-140.
Allen, R.T., 1908, The Triassic rocks of the Wadesboro Area [M.S. Thesis]: University of
. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Anderson, E.M., 1951, The dynamics of faulting and dyke formation, with applications to
Britain, 2nd ed.: Oliver and Boyd, 206 p.
Anderson, M.P., 1984, Movement of contaminants in groundwater; Groundwater transport-
advection and dispersion; Groundwater contamination, National Academy Press
Washington, D.C., p. 37-45.
Asfari, A., and Witherspoon, P.A., 1973, Numerical simulation of naturally fractured
reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Paper No. SPE 4290.
Atobrah, Kabina, 1988, On the relationships of flow in crystalline rock aquifers a solution to
the fracture problem: Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Syosset, N.Y., pp. 612-620.
Atobrah, K., 1988, On the relationships of flow in crystalline rock aquifers: Absolution to
the fracture problem hydrogeology of rocks of low permeability; memoirs, V XVII,
Part 2 proceedings: International Assoc. of Hydrogeologists, Tucson, AZ Congress;
pp. 612-621.
Bain, G.L.and Brown, C.E., 1980, Evaluation of the Durham Triassic Basin of North Carolina
and techniques used to characterize its waste-storage potential: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report, 80-1295, 133 p.
Bain, G.L., 1977, Wrench-fault tectonic origin of East Coast Tdassic basins (abs.):
Geological Society of America Abs. with programs, Southeastern section, v. 9, No. 2.
Bain, G.L., Allen, E.P., Wilson, W.F., and Butler, J.R., 1964, Road log of the Chatham,
Randolph, and Orange County areas, North Carolina: Carolina Geological Society
Field Trip Guidebook, 23 p.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 43
Bain, G.L., and Bizdorf, R.J., 1977, Structural reinterpretation of the Durham-Wadesboro
basin, North Carolina (abs.): Geological Society of America Abs. with Programs,
Southeastern section, v. 9, no. 2.
Bain, G.L., and Hansen, P., 1981, Geologic and hydrologic implications of hazardous waste
management rules on siting in North Carolina; Bulletin Association of Engineering
Geologist, V. XVIII, No. 3, pp. 267-275.
Bain, G.L., and Harvey, B. W., 1977, Field guide to the geology of the Durham Triassic basin:
Carolina Geological Society fieldtrip guidebook, North Carolina Division of Mineral
Resources, 83 p.
Bain, G.L., and Thomas, J.D., 1966, Geology and ground-water in the Durham area, North
Carolina: N.C. Dept. Water Resources, Ground-Water Bull. 7, 147 p.
Brown, C.B., 1932, A new Triassic area in North Carolina: American Journal of Science, v.
223, pp. 525-528.
Ballard, James Alan: The geology of the Mery Oaks Section of the Durham Triassic Basin
of North Carolina.
Barron, A.M., 1989, Geologic and hydrologic characteristics of existing low-level radioactive
waste disposal sites in the eastern United States -implications for North Carolina:
Gove~nors Waste Management Board, Raleigh, N.C., 67 p.
Bear, J., 1972, Dynamics of fluids in porous media, American Elsevier Co., New York, NY.
Bedinger, M.S., 1989, Geohydrologic aspects for siting and design of low-level radioactive
waste disposal; U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1034, 36 p.
Bell, Henry III, Butter, J.R., Howell, D.E., Whallen, W.H., 1974, Geology of the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain near Pageland, South Carolina and Wadesboro, North Carolina:
S.S. State Devel. Board, Div. of Geel., (Carolina Geol. Soc. Field-Trip Guidebook),
23 p.
Berg, R.C., Wehrmann, H.A., and Shafer, J.M., 1989, Geological and hydrological factors for
siting hazardous or low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities; Illinois State
Geological Survey Circular 546, 61 p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 44
Boonstra, J., and Boehmer, W.K., 1986, Analysis of data from aquifer well tests in intrusive
dikes, 317 p.
Boonstra, J., and Boehmer, W.K., 1986, Analysis of data from aquifer and well tests in
intrusive dikes; Journal of Hydrology, V. 88, p. 301-317.
Boulton, N.S., and Streltsova-Adams, T.D., 1978, Unsteady flow to a pumped well in an
unconfined fissured aquifer; Journal of Hydrology, V. 37, p. 349-363.
Boulton, W.S., 1970, Analysis of data from pumping tests in unconfined anisotropic
aquifers; Journal of Hydrology, V. 10, p. 369-378.
Bowerman, J.N., 1990, Geology and groundwater suitability of Chatham/Wake site area for
a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility: Chatham County Advisory Committee
on LLR W disposal, Pittsboro, N.C., 14 p.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and Papadopulos, LS., 1965, Rates of vertical groundwater movement
estimated from the earth's thermal profile; Water Resources Research, V. 1, No. 2,
p. 325-328.
Brown, Z.A., Aruscavage, P.J., Brown, F.W., Mei, L., Hearn, P.P., and Philpotts, J.A.,
1985, Some compositional aspects of Mesozoic diabase sheets from the Durham area,
North Carolina, in Robinson G.R., Jr., and Froelich, A.J., editors, Proceedings of the
Second U.S. Geological Survey Workshop on the Early Mesozoic basins of the eastern
United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 946, p. 103-106.
Burt, E.R., Carpenter, P.A., III, McDaniell, R.D., and Wilson, W.F., 1978, Diabase dikes
of the eastern Piedmont of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological Survey Section
Information Circular 23, 12 p.
Burt, E.R., 1981, Geologic Map. of Region H: North Carolina Geological Survey Section,
Open-File Report 81-4.
Cahill, J.M., 1982, Hydrology of the low-level radioactive-solid-waste burial site and
vicinity near Barnwell: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 82-863, Columbia,
s.c., 101 p.
Campbell, M.R., and Kinball, K.W., 1923, The Deep River coal field of North Carolina:
North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey Bull. 33, p. 25-28, 64-79.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 45
Chance, H.M., 1885, Report on North Carolina coal fields to the Department of Agriculture,
Raleigh, p. 23.
Charles, William Curtis, 1959, The east border of the Durham Triassic Basin of N.C.,
(M.S. Thesis]: North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Chatham County Board of Commissioners, 1990, Comments of the Chatham County Board
of Commissioners, The Chatham County Low-Level Radioactive Waste Advisory
Committee and Central Carolina Residents Against Dump Sites (CC RADS) to the
North Carolina Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority on the
Wake/Chatham County Pre-Characterization Report.
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Incorporated, 1991, Site characterization plan for the Wake/Chatham
County potentially suitable site, North Carolina low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility, version 1; Raleigh, North Carolina, Chem-Nuclear Systems, Incorporated,
submitted to Division of Radiation Protection, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Cherry, J.A., Grisak, G.E., and Jackson, R.E., 1974, Hydrogeological factors in shallow
subsurface radioactive waste management in Canada. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Land for Waste Management, Ortawa, Canada, October
1-3, 1973: National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 131-146.
Chinnery, M.A., 1966, Secondary Faulting: Canadian Journal of Earth Science, v. 3, p.
163-190.
Conley, J.F., 1962, Geology and mineral resources of Moore County, North Carolina: North
Carolina Division Mineral Resources Bull. 76, 40 p.
Cook, J.T., 1968, The geology of the Oxford Area, Granville and Vance Counties, North
Carolina; (M.S. Thesis); Raleigh, North Carolina State University, 117 p.
Cornet, Bruce, 1975, Geological history of the Newark super group in capsule form: Unpub.
paper, Pennsylvania State University, 3 p.
Cornet, Bruce, 1977, The palynostratigraphy and age of the Newark super group:
Pennsylvania State Univiversity, PhD dissertation, 508 p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 46
Cornet, W.B., and Traverse, A.A., 1975, Palynological contributions to the chronology and
stratigraphy of the Hartford basin in Connecticut and Massachusetts: GeoScience and
Man, v. 11, p. 1-33.
Cullen, J.J. and Robertson, C.G., 1988, Review and analysis of groundwater data, m-area
investigation: IBM Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
Groundwater Sciences Corporation, Harrisburg, Pa, 11 p.
Custer, R.L.P., 1966, Paleocurrents of the Triassic Durham basin North Carolina: A thesis
submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina Univ. at Raleigh, 34 p.
Custer, R.L.P., 1967, Occurrence of limestones in the Durham Triassic basin (abs.): Elisha
Mitchell Scientific Society Journal, v. 84, no. 3, p. 175,
Dagan, G., 1967, A method of determining the permeability and effective porosity of
unconfined anisotropic aquifers; Water Resources Research, V. 3, No. 4, p. 1059-1071.
Daniel, E.J., 1954, Fractured reservoirs of Middle East; Bulletin of American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, V. 38, No. 5, p. 774-815.
Davis, S.N., and De Wiest, R.J.M., 1966, Hydrogeology: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 463 p.
Davis, S.N. 1984, Deep burial of toxic wastes; in studies in Geophysics-Groundwater
Contamination; National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 78-89.
deBoer, Jelle, 1960, Paleomagnetic-tectonic study of Mesozoic dike swarms in the
Appalachians: Journal Geophysical Research, v. 72, p. 2237-2250.
Delevoryas, T., and Hope R.C., 1971, A new Triassic Cycad and its phyletic implications:
Postilla, no. 150, 21 p.
DeMarsily, G., 1986, Quantitative Hydrogeology, Groundwater Hydrology for Engineers:
Academic Press Inc., Orlando, Florida, 440 p.
Dennison, J.M., and Wheeler, W.H., 1975, Stratigraphy of Precambrian through Cretaceous
strata of probable fluvial origin in Southeastern United States and their potential as
uranium host rocks: Southeastern Geology, Spec. Pub., no. 5, 210 p.
Dittmar, E.I., 1979, Environmental interpretation of paleocurrents in the Triassic Durham
basin, [M.S. thesis]: Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 91 p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 47
Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W., 1990, Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology: John Willey
E. Sons Inc. New York, 824 p.
Doucette, W.H., and Lovdahl, S., 1990, Technical Review of groundwater hydrology,
geophysics and geochemistry components of site characterization plans for the
Richmond County and Wake/Chatham Counties potentially suitable sites, North
Carolina low-level radioactive waste disposal facility: Prepared for North Carolina
Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources by Geraghty and Miller,
Inc. Environmental Services.
Ebasco Services, Inc., 1975, Fault investigation-Shearon Harris nuclear power plant for
Carolina Power and Light Co.: Ebasco Services, Inc., New York, N.Y., v. 1 and 2,
620 p.
Ebasco Services, Inc., 1984, Relationship of seismicity to ancient rifts, Mesozoic designs and
transverse fracture zones in the eastern U.S.: Ebasco Services, Inc., New York, N.Y.,
v. 1 and 2, 620 p.
Emmons, Ebenezer, 1852, Report of Professor Emmons on his geological survey of North
Carolina: Ex. Doc no. 13, Seaton Gales, Raleigh, N.C., 181 p.
Endo, H.K., et. al., 1984, A model for investigating transport in fracture networks, Water
Resources Research, v. 20, pp. 1390-1400.
Fetter, C.W., 1980, Applied Hydrogeology (2nd ed), Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, 592 p.
Fleisher, Penrod Jay1 1963, Structural control of the igneous intrusions of the Durham
Triassic Basin, N.C. [M.S. Thesis]: North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 604 p.
Froelich, A.J., and Olsen, P.E., 1985, Newark Supergroup, a revision of the Newark Group
in eastern North America, in Robinson, G.R., Jr. and Froelich, A.J., editors,
Proceedings of the Second ?? U.S. Geological Survey Circular 946, p. 1-3.
Froelich, A.J., and Olsen, P.E., 1984, Newark Supergroup, a revision of the Newark Group
in eastern North America: U.S. Geological survey Bulletin 1737-A, pp. A55-A-58.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 48
Gale, J.E., 1982-A, Assessing the permeability characteristics of fractured rock: Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Geological
Society of America Special Paper 189.
Gale, J.E., 1982-B, Fundamental hydraulic characteristics of fractures from field and
laboratory investigations: A WRC 1982 Conference -Groundwater in Fractured Rock,
Australian Water Resources Council, Conference Series No. 5, pp. 79-95.
Geddes, W.H., and Thayer, P.A., 1971, Gravity investigation of the pan River Triassic basin
of North Carolina [abstract]: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs,
v. 3, pp. 312-313.
Glaeser, J.D., 1966, Provenance, dispersal and deposition environments of Triassic sediments
in the Newark-Gettysburg basin: Pennsylvania Geological Survey Report G-43, 168
p.
Glover, R.E., and Moody, W.T., 1976, Drawdown due to pumping in an anisotropic aquifer;
Water Resources Bulletin, V. 12, No. 5, pp. 941-950.
Gore, P.J.W., 1986, Depositional framework of a Triassic basin: the Durham and Sanford
subbasins of the Deep River basin, North Carolina, in Textoris, D.A., editor, Society
of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Field Guidebook, Third Annual Mid-
year Meeting, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 53-115.
Hafner, W., 1951, Stress distributions and faulting: Geological Society of America Bull.,
v. 62, pp. 272-398.
Handman, E.H., 1983, Hydrologic and geologic aspects of waste management disposal: A
bibliography of publications by U.S. Geological Survey Authors, 1950-81; Geological
Survey Circular, 907, 39 p.
Hanshaw, B.B., 1972, Natural membrane phenomena and subsurface waste disposal. In Cook,
T.D. (editor), Underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 18, pp. 308-317.
Hantush, M.S., 1966, Wells in homogenous anisotropic aquifers: Water Resources Research,
V. 2, No. 2, pp. 273-279.
Hantush, M.S., and Thomas, R.G., 1966, A method for analyzing a drawdown test in
anisotropic aquifers: Water Resources Research, v.2, no. 2, pp. 281-285.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 49
Harrington, J.W., 1951, Structural analysis of the west border of the Triassic basin:
Geological Society of America Bull., v. 62, no. 2, p. 149-158.
Harrington, J. W., 1948, The west border of the Durham Triassic basin [Ph.D. dissertation]:
Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 106 p.
Healy, R.W., deVries, M.P., and Striegl, R.G., 1985, Concepts and data-collection techniques
used in a study of the unsaturated zone at a low-level radioactive-waste disposal site
near Sheffield, Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report
85-4228, 37 p.
Hodgson, R.A., 1961, Regional study of jointing in Comb Ridge-Navajo Mountain Area,
Arizona and Utah: Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists, V. 45,
no. 1, pp. ·1-38.
Hoffman, C.W., and Gallagher, P.E., 1989, Geology of the Southeast Durham and Southwest
Durham 7.5 minute Quadrangles, North Carolina: North Carolina Geological Survey
Bulletin No. 92; 34 p.
Holland, William Thompson, 1930, A geophysical and geological survey of the Deep River
Triassic Basin, [M.S. Thesis]: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Hooks, W.G., and Ingram, R.L., 1955, The clay minerals and the iron oxide minerals of the
Triassic red beds of the Durham basin, N.C., Am. Jour. Sci., v. 253, pp. 19-25.
Hope, R.C., and Patterson, O.F., 1969, Triassic flora from the Deep River basin, North
Carolina: North Carolina Division Mineral Resources Spec. Pub. 2, 12 p.
Hubbert, M.K., 1951, Mechanical basis for certain familiar geologic structures: Geological
Society America Bull., v. 62, pp. 355-372.
Huskey, W.L., and Crawford P.B., 1967, Performance of petroleum reservoirs containing
vertical fractures in the matrix: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, V. 7, pp.
221-228.
Huyakorn, P.S. and Pinder, G.F., 1983, Computational methods in subsurface flow: Academic
Press Inc., Orlando, Florida.
Feasibility -LLRW Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 50
Idris, E.O., 1980, Geophysical investigation of diabase dikes in the Durham Triassic Basin
and their hydrogeological significance (M.S. Thesis): Raleigh, North Carolina State
University, 48 p.
Justus, Philip Stanley, 1966, Modal and textural zonation of diabase dikes Deep River Basin,
North Carolina, [M.S. Thesis]: North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Keys, W.S., Eggers, D.E., and Taylor, T.A., 1979, Borehole geophysics as applied to the
management of radioactive waste--site selection and monitoring, in Carter, M. W., and
others, eds., Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Elmsford, New York
Pergamon Press, Inc., W. 2, pp. 955-982.
King, P.B., 1961, Systematic pattern of Triassic dikes in the Appalachian region: U.S. Geo!.
Survey Prof. Paper 424-B, pp. 93-95.
Klein, G., deV., 1969, Deposition of Triassic sedimentary rocks in separate basins, eastern
North America: Geological Society America Bull., v. 80, pp. 1825-1832.
Krynine, P.D., 1950, Petrology, stratigraphy and origin of the Triassic sedimentary rocks of
Connecticut: Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey Bull., v. 73, 247 p.
Lester, J.G., and Allen, A.T., 1950, Diabase of the Georgia Piedmont: Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America, V. 61, pp. 1217-1224.
Lloyd, O.B., Larson, J.D., and Davis R. W., 1985, Summary of Northern Atlantic coastal plain
hydrology and its relation to disposal of high level radioactive waste in buried
crystalline rock - a preliminary appraisal: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 85-4146, 80 p.
Mahtab, M.A., Bolstad, D.D., Allredge, J.R., and Shanley, R.J., 1972, Analysis of fracture
orientations for input to structural models of discontinuous rock: U.S. Department
of the Interior, Report of Investigations, No. 7669, 76 p.
Manspeizer, Warren, and Cousminer, H.L., 1988, Late Triassic-Early Jurassic synrift basins
of the U.S. Atlantic margin, in Sheridan, R.E., and Grow, J.A., editors, The Geology
of North America, Volume I-2, The Atlantic Continental Margin, U.S.: Geological
Society of America, pp. 197-216.
Mann, V.I., and Zablocki, F.S., 1961, Gravity features of the Deep River-Wadesboro Triassic
basin of North Carolina: Southeastern Geology, v. 2, pp. 191-216.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
WakeiChatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 51
Marine, I. W., and Siple, G.E., 1974, Buried Triassic basin in the central Savannah River area,
South Carolina and Georgia: Geological Society America Bulletin, v. 85, pp. 311-320.
May, P.R., 1971, Pattern of Triassic-Jurassic diabase dikes around the northern Atlantic in
the context of predrift position of the continents: Geol. Soc. America Bull., V. 82, pp.
1285-1292.
May, V.J. and Thomas, J.D., 1968, Geology and ground water resources in the Raleigh
area,· North Carolina, North Carolina Division of Ground Water, Ground Water
Bulletin 15: North Carolina Department of Water Resources, Raleigh, N.C., 135 p.
McCray, J.G., and Nowatzki, AE., 1985, Site characterization field manual for near surface
geological disposal of low-level radioactive waste: Tucson, Arizona, University of
Arizona, U.S. Department of Energy document DE FG07 841D 12514, 313 p.
McDonald, B.E., 1984, General description of the geohydrology and burial trenches of the
low.:level radioactive waste burial facility near Barnwell, South Carolina: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 84-806, 23 p.
McGeevy, L.J., and Sloto, R.A., 1980, Development of a digital model of groundwater flow
in deeply weathered crystalline rock, Chester County, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological
Survey Water Resources Investigations 80-2, 42 p.
McKee, E.D., 1959, Paleotectonic map of the Triassic system: U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Geological Investigations Map 1-300, 33 p., 9 pls.
McK.instry, H.E., 1953, Shears of the second order: American Journal of Science, v. 251, pp.
401-414.
Mercurio, W.F., and Bain, G.L., 1981, Groundwater .drainage system -Analysis of system
performance: Tenth International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 453-456.
Moody, J.D. and Hill, J.J., 1956, Wrench-fault tectonics: Geological Society America
Bulletin, v. 67, no. 9, pp. 1207-1246.
Moore, David W., 1972, Geomorphology of the Deep River Drainage Basin and Carthage
Area North Carolina [M.S. Thesis]: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 52
Nelson, A.B., 1990, Mineral Research and Development Flow Net Investigation: Engineering
Tectonics, P.A, Winston-Salem, N.C. Consultants Report.
Nelson, A.B. and Binkley, Timothy P., 1991, Pump Test Analysis, Holcomb Creosote
Company: Engineering Tectonics, P.A., Winston-Salem, N.C. Consultants Report.
Nelson, A.B. and Mason, Steven E., 1987, RCRA Part B Permit, General Timber Company:
Engineering Tectonics, P.A., Winston-Salem, N.C. Consultants Report.
Nelson, A.B., 1986, RCRA Part B, Mineral Research and Development Company:
Engineering Tectonics, P.A., Winston-Salem, N.C. Consultants Report.
Nelson, A.B. and Headd, Kevin R., 1992, Internal Memo, RCRA Facility Investigation,
Mineral Research and Development Company: Bain, Palmer & Associates, Inc.,
Greensboro, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Justice, 1989, General statutes of North Carolina, Chapter
104G, North Carolina low-level radioactive waste management authority Act of 1987:
North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., 22 p.
North Carolina Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority, 1988, Procedures and
criteria for selecting a site for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility: North
Carolina Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority, Raleigh, N.C., 21 p.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1988, Preliminary explanatory text' for 1985 geologic map
of North Carolina, (Appendices): Contractual Report 88-1, pp. 164-186 .
. O'Brien, E.L., and Buol, S.W., 1984, Physical transformations in a vertical soil-saprolite
sequence: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 48, pp. 354-357.
Olmstead, D., 1825, Report on the Geology of North Carolina conducted under the Board
of Agriculture: Board of Agriculture Report, Part II, 44 p.
Olsen, P .E., Remington, C.L., Cornet, Bruce, and Thomson, K.S., 1978, Cyclic change in Late
Triassic lacustrine communities: Science, v. 201, p. 729-733.
Paillet, F.L., and Hess, A.E., 1986, Geophysical well-log analysis of fractured crystalline rocks
at East Bull Lake, Ontario, Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 86-4052~ 37 p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 53
Papadopulos, S.S. and Winograd, I.J., 1974, Storage of low-level radioactive wastes in
ground: hydrogeologic and hydrochemical factors: United States Geological Survey
Open File Report 74-344, 49 p.
Parizek, R.R., and Siddiqui, S.H., 1971, Determining the sustained yields of wells in
carbonate and fractured aquifers: Ground Water, v. 8, No. 5, p. 12-20.
Parker, J.M., III, 1979, Geology and mineral resources of Wake County: North Carolina
Geological Survey Section Bulletin 86, 123 p.
Patterson, O.F., III, 1969, The depositional environment and paleoecology of Pekin formation
(Upper Triassic) of the Sanford Triassic basin, North Carolina, [M.S. Thesis]: North
Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina, 104 p.
Pavich, M.J., Leo, G.W., Obermeier, S.F., and Estabrook, J.R., 1989, Investigations of the
characteristics, origin and residence time of the upland residual mantle of the
Piedmont of Fairfax County, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1352, 58 p.
Payne, R.A., 1984, Groundwater resource potential of diabase dikes in the Durham Triassic
Basin, (M.S. Theses): North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., 87 p.
Pickett, Thomas Ernest, 1962, Stratigraphy of the Dan River Triassic Basin in North
Carolina, [M.S. Thesis]: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Prouty, W.F., 1931, Triassic deposits of the Durham basin and their relation to other Triassic
basins of Eastern United States: American Journal of Science, 5th ser., v. 21, p. 473-
490.
Prouty, W.F., 1926, The Triassic of the Durham basin [abstract]: Elisha Mitchell Scientific
Society Journal, v. 42, p. 22-24.
Ragland, P.C., Hatcher, R.D., Jr., and Whittington, David, 1983, Juxtaposed Mesozoic diabase
dike sets from the Carolinas: a preliminary assessment: Geology, v. 11, p. 394-399.
Randazzo, A.G., and Copeland, R.E., 1975, The geology of the northern portion of the
Wadesboro Triassic Basin, North Carolina: Southeastern Geology, v. 17, no. 3, p. 115-
138.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 54
Randazzo, A.F., 1965, The stratigraphy of the Wadesboro Triassic Basin in North and South
Carolina [M.S. Thesis]: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Randazzo, A.F., Swe, W., and Wheeler, W.H., 1970, A study of the tectonic influence in
Triassicsedimentation--the Wadesboro basin, Central Piedmont: Journal Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 40, no. 3, pp. 998-1006.
Reinemund, John A., 1955, Geology of the Deep River Coal Field North Carolina: U.S.
Geol. Survey Professional Paper 246, 159 p.
Robbins, E.I., 1982, Fossil Lake Danville: the paleocology of a Late Triassic ecosystem on
the North Carolina-Virginia border [Ph.D. dissertation]: University Park,
Pennsylvania State University, 464 p.
Robertson,· J.B., 1984, Geologic problems at low-level radioactive waste disposal sites in
Groundwater Contamination Studies in Geophysics, p. 105-108, National Academy
Press., Washington D.C.
Russell, I.C., 1892, The Newark system: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 85, 344 p., 13 pls.,
4 figs.
Ryan, B.J., 1989, Results of hydrologic research at a low-level radioactive-waste disposal site
near Sheffield, Ill.: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-318.
Sanders, J.E., 1963, Late Triassic tectonic history of northeastern United States: American
JournalScience,v.261, pp. 501-52~
Schmelling, S.G., and Ross R.R., 1989, Contaminant transport-in fractured media: Models
for decision makers: E.P.A. Superfund Issue Paper, EPN540/4-89/004, Aug. 1989 in
Groundwater V. 28, No. 2, pp. 272-279.
Segovia, A.V., 1983, Thickness of weathered mantle in Piedmont: variability and survey
techniques: Transportation Research Re~ord, v. 919, pp. 16-20.
Shearer, R.D., 1927, A cross section through the Triassic basin, [Unpub. Master's Thesis]:
University North Carolina at Chapel Hill, N.C., 23 p.
Singh, Harinder, 1964, Diabase intrusions of a portion of the Durham Triassic Basin, North
Carolina, [M.S. Thesis]: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 55
Steel, Warren George, 1949, Dikes of the Durham Triassic Basin near Chapel Hill; North
Carolina, [M.S. Thesis}: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Steele, Kenneth Franklin, 1971, Chemical variations parallel and perpendicular to strike
in two Mesozoic dolerite dikes, North Carolina and South Carolina, [Ph.D.
Dissertation]: North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Sternberg, Y.M., 1968, Nonsteady two-layer radial flow to wells: International Union of
Goodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) International Association of Scientific Hydrology
(IASH) General Assembly of Bern, Sept 25-Oct 7, 1967, Groundwater Reports and
Discussion Publication No. 77; p. 329-342 Gentbrugge (Belique) 1968.
Stoddard, E.F., Delorey, C.M., McDaniel, R.D., Dooley, R.E., Ressetar, Robert, and Fullagar,
P.D., 1986, A new suite of post-orogenic dikes in the eastern North Carolina
Piedmont: Part I. Occurrence, petrography, paleomagnetics and Rb/Sr
geochronology: Southeastern Geology, v. 27, p. 1-12.
Stoddard, E.F., Horton, J.W.k, Jr., Wylie, A.S., Jr., and Blake, D.E., 1986, The western edge
of the Raleigh belt near Adam Mountain, Wake County, North Carolina, in Neathery,
T.L., editor, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Geological
Society of America Centennial Field Guide, v. 6, 457 p.
Streltsova, T;D., 1982, Well hydraulics in vertically heterogeneous formations: Journal of
the Hydraulics Division, Procee...,dings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, V.
108, No. HYll, pp. 1311-1327.
Streltsova, T.D., 1976, Hydrodynamics of groundwater flow in a fractured formation: Water
Resources Research, V. 12, No. 3, pp. 405-414.
Sumner, J.R., 1977, Geophysical investigation of the structural framework of the Newark-
Gettysburg Triassic basin, Pennsylvania: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.
88, pp. 935-942.
Swain, F.M., an Brown, P.M., 1972, Lower Cretaceous Jurassic (?) and Triassic Ostracoda
from the Atlantic Coastal region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 795, 55
p., 9 pls.
Swe, Win, 1963, Structural and stratigraphic relationships along the northwestern border of
the Wadesboro basin of North Carolina [M.S. thesis]: Chapel Hill, University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 64 p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 56
Thayer, P.A., 1967, Geology of the Dan River and Davie County Triassic basins, North
Carolina [Ph.D dissertation]: University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 195 p.
Trainer, F.W., 1987, Plutonic and Metamorphic Rocks, in Back, W. Rosenshein, J.S., and
Seaber, P.R. eds., Hydrogeology: Boulder Colorado, Geological Society of America,
The Geology of North America, v. 0-2.
Traverse, Alfred, 1986, Palynology of the Deep River basin, North Carolina, in Textoris,
D.A., editor, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Field Guidebook,
Third Annual Mid-year Meeting, Raleigh, North Carolina, p. 66-71.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1970, Chatham County North
Carolina, Moncure-Merry Oaks Area soil survey with interpretations: U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, N.C., 35 p.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 88-318, 1988, Results of hydrologic research at
a low level radioactive waste disposal site near Sheffield, Illinois: U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 88-318, Ryan B.J. (Ed).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982, 10 CFR part 61-Licensing requirements for land
disposal of radioactive waste: Federal Register, v. 47, no. 248, p. 57446-57482.
U.S. Regulatory Commission, 1982, Site suitability, selection and characterization: NUREG-
0902.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987a, Standard format and content of a license
application for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility: NUREG-1199.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987, Standard review plan for the review of a license
application for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility: NUREG 1200.
United States House of Representatives, 1979, Waste disposal site survey report, United
States House of Representatives, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session, Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee Print 96-IFC-33: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 487
p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 57
' 1
Van Houten, F.B., 1977, Triassic-Liassic deposits of Morocco and eastern North America -
comparison: American Association Petroleum Geologist Bulletin, v. 61, no. 1, p. 79-
99.
Vecchioli, J., 1967, Directional hydraulic behavior of a fractured-shale aquifer in New Jersey:
International Assoc. of Scientific Hydrology N73; p. 318-326.
Vilbrant, F.C., 1927, Oil-bearing shales of the Deep River valley: North Carolina Division
Mineral Resources Bulletin, Economic Paper 59, 23 p.
Walton, W.C., 1991, Principles of Groundwater Engineering: Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea,
Michigan.
Warren, J.E., and Root P.J., 1963, The Behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs; Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal, V. 3, p. 245-255.
Weigand, Peter Woolson, 1970, Major and trace element geochemistry of the Mesozoic
dolerite dikes from eastern North America, [Ph.D Dissertation]: University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Whitehead, J.W., · 1962, The petrology of the Sanford basin Triassic sediments, North
Carolina: A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Missouri
University, 174 p.
Wilson, W.F., and Carpenter, P.A., III, 1981, Region J geology: A guide for North Carolina
mineral resource development and land use planning: North Carolina Mineral
Resources Section, Regional Geology Series I, revised edition, 45 p.
Wilson, K.A., 1962, North Carolina wetlands-their distribution and management: North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC, 169 p.
Witherspoon, P.A., et. al., 1989, New approaches to problems of fluid flow in fractured rock
masses, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., 20 p.
Wood, W.W. and Fernandez, L.A., 1988, Volcanic rocks in Back, W. Rosenshein, J.S., and
Seaber, P.R. eds., Hydrogeology: Boulder Colorado, Geological Society of America,
The Geology of North America, v. 0-2.
Woodworth, J.B., 1902, The atlantic coast Triassic coal fields: U.S. Geological Survey 22nd
Annual Report, pt. 3, p. 25-53.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Co.
Page 58
Wyrick, G.G., and Borchers, J.W., 1981, Hydrologic effects of stress-relief fracturing in an
Appalachian Valley: Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, No. 2177, 51 p.
Zablocki, F.S., 1959, A gravity study of the Deep River Wadesboro Triassic basin of North
Carolina, [Unpub. Master's Thesis): University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.,
44 p.
Feasibility -LLR W Storage
Wake/Chatham Site
Chatham Cq.
Page 59
APPENDIX I
GEORGE L. BAIN, P.G.
Principal and Senior Geologist
Professional Ex periences/Summary
Mr. Bain .is a resident of Randolph County and is a principal in the firm of Bain, Palmer &
Associates, Inc. located in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Mr. Bain has 32 years of professional .experience. He has prepared numerous site assessments
for various facilities including over 25 landfill expansions, 2 county-wide searches, 13 landfill
closures, and 2 remedial plans. He is skilled in the application of hydro geological, topographical,
land-use, historical/archaeological, and regulatory criteria to the selection of potential landfill
sites. He routinely represents the firm at public information meetings and at citizen site-
selection committee working sessions.
S pecializations
Application of geology, hydrology, and geophysics to the siting, design, and remediation of
engineered facilities.
Em plo yment Histo ry
Bain, Palmer & Associates, Inc.
Hatcher Inc.
EBASCO Services, Inc~
U.S. Geological Survey
Education
1987 -Present
1984 -1987
1979 -1984
1960 -1979
West Virginia University -BS Geology, 1958
West Virginia University -MS Geology, 1959
University of Arizona -Certificate, Hydrology, 1963
N.C. State University -Geophysical Studies, 1978
Professional Affiliations Re gistrations
Geological Society of America
Association of Engineering Geologists
Carolina Geological Society -Past President
Registered Geologist -California -No. 3712
Registered Geologist -Georgia -No. 670
Registered Geologist -North Carolina -No. 5
American Institute of Professional Geologists
-Past Section President
N.C. Geologist Licensing Board
\ .'
DETAILED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Since 1987, Mr. Bain has been a principal in the environmental consulting firm of Bain,
Palmer & Associates, Inc. His duties include: principal responsibility for management of all
solid waste site assessments; planning and supervising installation of monitoring well networks
at waste sites; managing, planning, and supervising environmental audits, ground water
investigations, and other geologic work; and responsibility for day-to-day management of _the
firm's long-range planning, staffing and business development.
From 1984 through 1987 Mr. Ba"in was employed by Hatcher Incorporated as a geo-
hydrologist. His responsibilities included: supervising installation of post-closure monitoring
facilities, remedial wells, and drainage galleries at RCRA and CERCLA (Superfund) sites;
designing, reviewing, and interpreting geophysical and geohydrologic surveys of industrial real
estate for environmental liability; and helping develop staff, clientele, and equipment for
entry into the environmental investigative and remediation market.
From 1978 through 1984 Mr. Bain was employed by Ebasco Services, Inc. as a Project
Manager, Lead Hydrologist/Geologist, team member of nuclear/fossil fuel power plant siting
investigations and Final Safety Analysis Report reviews. He was also responsible for
equipping and managing of their nuclear borehole logging capability.
From 1960 through 1978 Mr. Bain was employed by .the U.S. Geologi~al Survey. His positions
included: (1) Project Chief of East Coast Triassic Waste Disposal Feasibility Study; (b) Chief
of Morgantown, West Virginia Subdistrict Office; ( c) Project Chief of Little Kanawah River,
West Virginia, Basin Study; ( d) Project Chief of New Hanover County, North Carolina Water
Resources Study; (e) Project Chief of Durham, North Carolina Area, Geologic and Water
Resources Reconnaissance Study; and (f) Reviewer -Geologic Names Review Staff.
Mr. Bain has worked as a geologist and hydrogeologist in the State of North Carolina for 24
of his 32 years of professional experience. Seven of those years were related to one U;S.
Geological Survey project concerned with determining the suitability of the East Coast
Triassic rocks for waste storage. Most of that investigation centered on the Durham Triassic
sub-basin of North Carolina.
He began his career in North Carolina with a reconnaissance study of the groundwater
resources of Chatham, Durham, Randolph, Orange, and Person Counties and also completed
a geohydrologic study of New Hanover County.
While employed with Ebasco in the 1980's in Greensboro, North Carolina, he was the senior
consulting hydrogeologist there. At the Greensboro office of Ebasco he was involved,
principally, with siting studies for nuclear and fossil fueled power plants and the preparation
and review of Final Safety Analysis Reports ("FSAR") in the United States and foreign
countries.
Mr. Bain's Master's thesis project consisted of a mapping and petrographic examination of
the dikes and sills of the Triassic of the Nokesville, Virginia 7-1/2' quadrangle.
He worked at Ebasco Services, Inc. at the time the Shearon-Harris FSAR was being prepared
and participated in some of the investigations of the local Triassic rocks.
Mr. Bain has led several field trips for his colleagues wherein the geologic sites of the
Piedmont and Triassic rocks of Chatham and or Wake County were visited. He has visited
and examined all exposed Triassic basins in the eastern United States.
His work in Durham Basin included:
a. seismic reflection profiling for basin depth and structure;
b. resistivity/electrical sounding and profiling for basin depth and structure;
c. surface reconnaissance mapping to determine basin stratigraphy, structure and
degree of faulting;
d. constructio~ of a deep stratigraphic test at New Hill (Shearon-Harris site
vicinity);
e. conducting numerous packer tests in the New Hill deep test well;
f. conducting numerous sophisticated borehole logging and geophysical tests to
determine the subsurface character of the sedimentary pile in the Durham
basin;
g. making over 2000 gravity measurements to aid in determining the structure of
the Durham basin;