Pending Variance Book 1

02/22/07 General Process to Begin and Complete a Proposed Variance Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 that are handled through the Division of Water Quality 1. The legal basis for variances to groundwater rules and standards are contained in NC General Statutes (NCGS) 143-215(3)(a), NCGS 143-215(3)(e), 143-215.4, and rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113. 2. As required by 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b), the variance request is sent by the responsible party or consultant to the Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and is addressed to the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission. Due to the fact the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is in a transitional period as a result of the 2007 reorganization of groundwater cleanup sites from DWO to the Division of Waste Management. public contacts for variances are made through the DWO for the time being. Contacts are made in this way with staff to enable proper technical review of a variance request by the appropriate Division under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 3. If the variance request is identified has a having a Division of Waste Management (DWM) number, it will be sent to them. One example of a variance request under the administration of the Division of Waste Management (DWM) is one that has a Groundwater Incident Number (i.e. "GW Incident XXXXXX"). If the variance request materials show an Underground Storage Tank Section (UST) number or the materials attached reference an underground storage tank release at a site, then this variance is fil1:0ther type of request under the Division of Waste Management. 4. If the variance request has a Division of Water Quality permit number (as in "WQXXX:XXX") the point of contact is the DWQ-Planning Section and these packages are also sent there. These variances are generally for locations that have non-discharge permits. If there is no number for a package received by the DWQ-Administration, staff at the appropriate Regional Office need to be contacted to discuss which agency will review and provide staff support for the particular variance request. If this occurs, the DWQ Administration may contact staff at the Division of Water Quality-Planning Section to assist in locating the Division and/or regional office under which this variance request should be reviewed. 5. For variance requests that are at groundwater incidents, underground storage tanks, and other Division of Waste Management sites, the DWM would conduct (a) all reviews necessary for a proposed variance pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113; (b) activities to support public hearing on a proposed variance request; and ( c) assistance to hearing officers to complete hearing officer's review for a request. Prior to completing its work 1
ENR -ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 04/01105
(B) by mailing to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Health and appropriate local health agency;
(C) by mailing to any other federal, state or local agency upon request;
(D) by mailing to the local governmental unit or units having jurisdiction over the
geographic area covered by the variance;
(E) by mailing to any property owner within the proposed area of the variance, as well
as any property owners adjacent to the site covered by the variance; and
(F) by mailing to any person or group upon request.
(2) The contents of public notice of any hearing shall include at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of agency holding the public hearing;
(B) mime and address of each applicant whose application will be considered at the
meeting;
(C) brief summary of the variance request;
(D) geographic description of a proposed area for which a variance is requested;
(E) brief description of activities or operations which have or will result in the
discharge of contaminants · to the groundwaters described in the variance
application;
(F) a brief reference to the public notice issued for each variance application;
(G) information regarding the time and location for the hearing;
(H) the purpose of the hearing;
(I) address and phone number of premises at which interested persons may obtain
further information, request a copy of each application, and inspect and copy
forms and related documents; and
(J) a brief description of the nature of the hearing including the rules and procedures
to be followed. The notice shall also state that additional information is on file
with the Director and may be inspected at any time during normal working hours.
Copies of the information on file will be made available upon request and
payment of cost or-reproduction.
(f) All comments received within 30 days following the date of the public hearing shall be made part of
the application file and shall be considered by the Commission prior to talcing final action on the
application.
(g) In determining whether to grant a variance, the Commission shall consider whether the applicant has
complied with any Special Order, or Special Order by Consent issued under G.S. 143-215 .2.
(h) If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable, the applicant may file a petition for a contested
case in accordance with Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. If the petition is not filed within 60 days,
the decision on the variance shall be final and binding.
(i) A variance shall not operate as a defense to an action at law based upon a public or private nuisance
theory or any other cause of action.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(l); 143-215.3(a)(3); 143-215.3(a)(4); 143-215.3(e);
143-215.4;
Eff August 1, 1989;
Amended Eff. October 1, 1993.
17
02/22/07
may ask for additional information from the Regional Office or from the person making
the request. If staff believes that a variance is complete, a hearing officer is selected from
the Division Staf£ Generally, a Regional DWQ APS Supervisor from outside of the
region for which the variance is requested will serve in this capacity. The DWQ-Aquifer
Protection Section (APS) Chief is given the opportunity to determine which of his
supervisors should serve as hearing officers.
11. The DWQ-Planning Section requests comments from the Division of Public Health
(DPH) in reviewing the health risk assessment for variance requests. The purpose of this
contact is to see if the DPH has any concerns about the risk assessment conducted by the
applicant, local drinking water supplies, or other concerns. If there is a need to involve
other sections in the DWQ, the Planning Section will also discuss the variance with these
persons.
12. A draft public notice is prepared for local newspaper publication and for mailing to the
rules list by the DWQ-Planning Section for the Directors signature.
13. Upon completing the activities under Number # 10 through Number # 12 above, the
variance request, staff recommendation, and public notice is sent to the Director of the
Division of Water Quality. The Director is required to review the variance request to
determine if the variance is complete pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d) prior to
bringing this it public notice and hearing.
14. Once the director deems that the application is complete according the rule, the Director
signs the public notice.
15. Upon completing the Director's review as required in 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d), the
Director, through the DWQ-Planning Section, gives public notice of this variance
pursuant to NCGS 143-215.4(b) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e). Notice must be circulated
at least thirty-days prior to public hearin g as s pecified in 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (e)(l) of
this rule ;
16. Hearing is held within the county where the release of substances has occurred or permit
condition is being considered for variance. At this hearing, oral statements and written
comments are accepted by the hearing officer. The Division of Water Quality provides its
own staff support for hearings held on proposed variances through that agency. Where a
hearing involves a site or permit under the Division of Water Quality, appropriate staff
from the Regional Office, DWQ Aquifer Protection Section and DWQ-Planning Section
may participate as support staff. The extent of staff support is determined by management
in the respective Sections;
17. The hearin g record remains open for thirty days after the hearing and all written
comments received durin g that time are made a part of the hearing record. The
3
02/22/07
Commission must consider these comments prior to taking final action on the variance as
required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(f);
18. The hearing officer completes the review of the variance request and comments from the
public in accordance with a schedule determined by the appropriate section supervisor. A
hearing officers report is completed with a recommendation to approve or deny the
proposed variance. For a typical variance request in the Division of Water Quality, a
hearing officer is given up to 90 days by the Director to complete the hearing officer
report;
19. The variance request is placed on the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
Groundwater Committee Agenda at a regularly scheduled meeting for review. The
appropriate Division submits a summary page that includes the agenda title, explanation,
and recommendation with the hearing officer's report and other supporting information
for the variance. The information is sent to the DWQ Planning Section's support staff in
the Division of Water Quality (David Hance @{919-733-5083 x. 587} ).
20. Assuming that the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) Groundwater
Committee (GWC) supports the findings of the hearing officer for a variance request, it is
forwarded to the full Environmental Management Commission at the next regularly
scheduled meeting for consideration. The Commission normally requires a waiting
period of at least thirty days after the Groundwater Committee recommends approval.
Unless otherwise announced, the Groundwater Committee . meets in Raleigh on
Wednesdays, six times per year, and every other month per a schedule that is published
on the Division of Water Quality Website (See http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/):
21. For variances from the Division of Water Quality, the appropriate DWQ-Planning
Section staff places the proposed variance on the Environmental Management
Commission's agenda at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The packet of information
to support a variance should include a hearing officer's recommendation. Supporting
information for the variance request is to be included in the Commissioners information
packets;
22. The Environmental Management Commission takes final action on the variance
application pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(f) and 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(g). Unless otherwise announced, the Environmental Management Commission
meets in Raleigh on Thursdays, six times per year, and every other month per a schedule
that is• published on the Division of Water Quality Website (See
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/);
23. If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable to the applicant, he may file a petition
for a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings as specified under 15A
NCAC 2L .Ol 13(h).
4
Section# 3:
Examples of Letters Related to Groundwater
Incident Variances
Also included with the variance reques~· lrisk assessment from the Division Public
Health, dated February 15, 2000. Global In at' GIS) mapping and data for this
variance are included in a compact disk (CD) tI ' c.". Information in this CD
. shows the locations of surface water bodies, public uh 1ti~~nes, water supply lines and
other features near this property and in Wadesboro. 'if Ii
The information submitted bY, the company's environmental consultant, Water Equipment
Services (WES) {now known under the corporate name of Nobis Engineering Incorporated} on
behalf of the Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation appears to meet the requirements of ISA
NCAC 2L .0113(c). Information to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c) is summarized
as follows:
Rule .Ol 13(c)(l): Resolution by the·county or governing Board:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has always been a privately owned
company. No resolution is necessary.
Rule .0113(c)(2): A description· of past, existing or proposed activities that would
result in a discharge of contaminants into groundwater:
The FlyntfvVansona Manufacturing Facility consists of 48.080 acres of land within the city
limits of Wadesboro, NC. The company has submitted a description of two areas at the site where
waste disposal practices resulted in localized releases of substances to groundwater and soils and for
which variance is requested. These areas are known in the variance request as "The Main Plant" and
the "Wul-Zenco Plant" and are include an 8.4-acre area. Substances from the Main Plant were
released into two former settling ponds that have been abandoned. Substances from the former \.Vul-
Zenco Plant were released into a former septic tank that was removed in 1974, although the
drainfield was left intact. Substances from textile operations were released from the "1950s" until
197 4, when liquid waste disposal into these two waste areas ceased.
Additional information on activities that have resulted in a discharge of contaminants can be
found in the following documents:
I. Page 2-1 of the report titled "Submittal of Variance Application for Flynt/Wansona
Facility, Wadesboro, Anson County. North Carolina. (NCDEHNR Incident No.
14009) {March 5, 1997}" -Discusses the former waste disposal areas used by the
company;
IL Appendix B of the report titled "Submittal of Variance Application for
Flynt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro. Anson County, North Carolina. (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5, 1997}" -Shows Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation as owner of the property under Deed Numbers 179..:0233 and 233-044B.
This appendix also shows property ownership in the area around the site; and
III. Appendix B of this same report also shows individuals, companies and persons who may
2
h. 1 'b·1· . Th(CG (Q)d [PS th . d h . ~ . ave c eanup respons1 1 1tles. e roun water ect1on as examine t e m1ormat1on
submitted and has identified 12 properties near the facility that may have or could have
cleanup responsibilities at this site. These persons included and variety of commercial and
industrial operations. Nearby public roadways, railroads and wastewater collection line.s
where waste or substances could be or could have been released were also considered.
Figure 2-2 of this March 5, 1997 report also ~hows the location of these two areas relative
to buildings, driveways, and other site features at One \.Vansona Way. The Flynt/Wansona
Manufacturing Corporation is located in an area that contains a mixture of industrial, commerdal
and residential development.
Rule .0113(c)(3): Description of the proposed area for which the variance is
requested. A detailed location map showing the orientation of the facility,
potential for groundwater contaminant migration, .... :
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation believes that it has adequately characterized
groundwater contamination and soil contamination for Groundwater Incident Number 14009 and
the events that ledto exceedences of the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards. The
information contained in the variance request and other reports shows that the waste disposal
systems (i.e. the former settling pond and the defunct septic tank and drainfield systems) are the sole
cause of exceedences of Groundwater Quality Standards under Groundwater Incident Number
14009. Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has verified that the systems have been rendered
in an inoperable state such that they can no longer be used in the manner that led to exceedences of
Groundwater Quality Standards.
The original variance request was contained in the report titled "Submittal of Variance
Apvlication for Flvnt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro. Anson Countv. North Carolina, (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5. 1997} ". This report discussed substances found in deep soils
samples extracted from within the boundaries of the former settling ponds site and the former septic
tank and drainfield system and provided laboratory results in Table 2-4 and in Table 2-5 of that
report. Groundwater monitoring data from March 1995 was also discussed in Table 2-6.
Due to the fact that the Groundwater Section in the Fayetteville Regional Office deemed this
report incomplete, additional information was requested on shallow soils within the waste disposal
areas, deep soils outside of the waste disposal areas, and groundwater downgraident from the former
septic tank/drainfield and the former settling ponds areas. The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation responded in July 1998 with a report titled "Corrective Action Variance Request
Addendum. Flynt/Wansona Inc. One Wansona Place. Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina.
NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009. 08 July 1998". Information contained in Table 1, Table 3, and
Table 5 of this report shows that concentrations of substances persist in surface soils, deep soils and
groundwater within the 8.4 acre area proposed for variance. Concentrations persist within the defined
8.4-acre area 28 years after waste disposal operations at the former settling ponds and inactive septic
system ceased. In addition, the Groundwater Section also required the company to submit
monitoring data on surface water quality in a drainageway that passes through the area of the site
3
P->/0:\~~ ~~u=v if
showed that when a subsurface vacuum was applied to soils at the former
settling ponds site, virtually no air movement occurred in soils. In addition, no
air movement could be detected in nearby monitoring wells (Monitoring Well
. MW-6 and Monitoring Well MW-6A).
C. Bioremediation -~age 4 of the February 10, 1999 letter discusses the
applicability ofbioremedial methods for Groundwater Incident Number -14009.
This document shows that low permeability of fine-grained soils would inhibit
microbial propagation and growth in soil and groundwater.
IL Soilexcavation and disposal could increase risks from the site -Page 3-12 of
the report titled "Submittal of Variance Application for Flynt/Wansona Facility,
Wadesboro, Anson County , North Carolina, CNCDEHNR Incident No.14009)
{March 5. 1997}" discusses the use of this technology. Renovation and excavation
of the site is not feasible because subsurface areas will be exposed for a period of
one month may enhance contaminant migration and potential risks to health and the
environment.
III. Costs of all technologies considered are not reasonable: The Best Available
Technologies (BAT) with estimated total costs are found on Page 3 and on Page 4
of the February 10, 1999 letter and are as follows:
A. Pump and Treat Cleanup -$ 799,500.00
B. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) -$240,000.00
C. Bioremediation -No estimate given by the company.
D. Soil Excavation - $ 750,000 to$ 800,000 for removal and disposal of 4,050
tons of soil. Costs could approach $1,000,000.00, if asphalt removal,
landscaping and oth~r site renovation operations are included.
Rule .0113(c)(6): Supporting information to establish that compliance would
produce serious financial hardship on the applicant:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has submitted information showing that
compliance with the rules will result in a serious financial hardship. Page 3-11 through 3-13 of the
report titled "Submittal of Variance App lication for Fl ynt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro , Anson
County, North Carolina. (NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009) {March 5 . 1997}" discusses financial
hardships associated with cleanup. Page 4 of the February 10, 1999 letter from the Flynt/Wansona
9
Manufacturing Corporation noted that if both soil vapor extraction and pump and treat cleanup were
applied at this site, the cost is estimated at$ 1,040,000.00. Page 20 of the report titled "Corrective
Action Variance Request Addendum. Flynt/Wansona Inc, One Wansona Place. Wadesboro, Anson
County, North Carolina.. NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009, 08 July 1998" states that " ... capping the
two areas with asphalt and development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan is
appropriate, as it would isolate contaminated soil and minimized leaching via infiltration ..... ". It
is no less effective a means of addressing residual concentrations of substances at this site than
implementation of a pump-and-treat system, soil vapor extraction system, bioremediation, or soil
excavation and disposal and is less expensive.
r:::--._ ,,-::::-,.. !"-;::::--,,'-:\ /'7' // ... -,. ( ... ~ -\\. i ~.-,.:} \>.: _ _.,/
Rule .Ol 13(c)(7): Supportfng.._ 1ilformafioni '.that compliance would produce
'-~ ..___.. ?,....• ,._
serious financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that the public would
not receive any benefit if the company were required to meet 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 for Groundwater Incident 14009. Page 3-13 of the report titled "Submittal of
Variance Application for Flynt/Wansona Facilitv. Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina,
(NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009) {March 5, 1997}" the Anson County Chamber of Commerce has
designated this county as "economically distressed". North Carolina Environmental Justice maps
at the Groundwater Section show that Anson County has persons who are identified as "minority/low
income" within its jurisdiction.
Rule .0113(c)(8): "A copy of anv Special Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site .
Rule .0113(c)(9): "A list of names and addresses of property owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are listed in Appendix B of the
report titled "Submittal of Variance Ap p lication for Flynt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro. Anson
County, North Carolina. (NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009)-{March 5 . 1997} ". Title 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(e)(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this variance be given to the owner or
owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing".
GROUNDWATER SECTION RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION
REQUESTED:
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject variance request to
Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) and Groundwater Quality Standards
contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 proceed to public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e) for groundwater and soils. On Febrnary 15, 2000, the Division of Public Health completed
their review of the risk assessment methodology for this site and recommended that this variance be
10
granted for Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing. This recommendation was made upon the condition that
monitoring be conducted to protect any " ... nearby or future water supplies in the area". Upon your
concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwat~r Section will proceed with the preparation
.of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L
.0113(d -f), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the Environmental Management
Commission Groundwater Committee, this request will proceed to the Environmental Management
Commission for final action in 15A,NCAC 2L .0113(g). If there are any questions regarding this
matter or if any additional information is needed, please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS:
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chief's
. Fayetteville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Dr. Luanne Williams
David Hance
'--i
11
Section# 4:
Examples of Letters Related to Permits Variances
PERMIT BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1990, Permit No. WQ0002829 was issued to Outer
Banks Beach Club, Inc. (OBBC) for the operation of a 500,000
GPD Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Rotary Distributor
Disposal System. This permit voided previous permits, Permit
No. 6979R3 and Permit No. 13195, issued May 20, 1985 and
December 7, 1987, respectively.
OBBC is currently operating a 200,000 GPD system and has an
additional available capacity of 300,000 GPD .for future usage.
The treatment system consists primarily of aeration basins,
aeration/clarification modules, sludge holding tanks, tertiary
filter units and chlorinator's discharging to six (6) rotary
distributors with an additional six (6) rotary distributors for
future expansion. No wastes are discharged to surface waters.
On June 27, 1991, Mr. Wayne Kinser, President, OBBC, requested
a variance from the compliance boundary rule at 15A NCAC 2L
.0107, in response to the sale of property (previously
allocated for waste disposal) to Virginia Electric Power
Company (VEPCO) for construction of a N.C. Power Company
sub-station (See Attachment I for variance request). The sale
of the property for the required easement and the subsequent
revision to the compliance boundary, restricts OBBC from
utilizing the property for waste disposal activities without
the likelihood of groundwater standard violations at the
revised compliance boundary location.
On August 27, 1991, VEPCO granted permission "to allow [the]
monitoring and/or remediation of groundwater resources within
the original compliance boundary area'' for the OBBC (See
Attachment II).
Because OBBC seeks a variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0107,
Compliance Boundary, 15A NCAC 2L .0113 Variance requires the
Director to give public notice of the application and to
schedule a public hearing in accordance with NCGS 143-215.4(b)
and 15A NCAC 2L .0ll3(e). The public hearing was scheduled and
Jay Zimmerman was designated as hearing officer May 13, 1992
(See Attachment III).
PUBLIC HEARING
A public notice was published in the News and Observer and in
the Coastland Times on May 17, 1992, notifying interested
parties that a public hearing was scheduled on June 18, 1992 to
consider public input with respect to a variance request by the
Outer Banks Beach Club, Inc., from the Compliance Boundary rule
at 15A NCAC 2L .0107 (See Attachment IV for the public notice
affidavit). Notification of the public hearing was also made
to local property owners and government officials. (Attachment
V provides copies of the notices).
The public hearing was conducted as scheduled. The Division
was represented by five (5) staff members as follows:
Jay Zimmerman
Jabk Floyd
David Hance
Willie Hardison
Guy Pearce
Hearing Officer
Permits and Compliance
Recorder
Washington Regional Office
Washington Regional Office
One member of the public registered at the door for the public
meeting but did not speak. No verbal comments were made at the
public hearing other than those made by Jay Zimmerman and Jack
Floyd. (See Attachment VI for a record of the Hearing Report
and the Public Hearing Registration Form signed by Mr. Arthur
Beckwith).
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
During the period that the hearing record remained open,
beginning June 18, 1992 through July 18, 1992, no written
comments were received. No verbal comments were made at the
public hearing held June 18, 1992.
The central issue before the Commission is whether or not a
variance should be granted to allow the modification of the
compliance boundary, such that it will occupy its former
position relative to the rotary distributors. This would place
the compliance boundary on property recently acquired by North
Carolina Power, Inc. (NCP) and necessitate the monitoring of
groundwater on their property.
On October 24, 1991, the Groundwater Section completed a staff
report summarizing the issues and addressing the factors which
must be considered in accordance with lSA NCAC 2L .0113 prior
to the issuance of a variance. The staff report and a copy of
the site map have been included as (Attachment VII for your
review).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
In it's current position, the compliance boundary would not
allow for the attenuation of wastewater constituents without
the possibility of groundwater standard violations. Modeling
contaminant transport supports this conclusion. In addition,
radial flow from the rotary units would likely cause
migration of contaminants towards the NCP property, thus
necessitating monitoring. Relocation of the rotary units to
the west to accommodate compliance boundary requirements "may
increase the migration of contaminants into the sound".
Water supplies are not developed in the immediate area and are,
therefore, not at risk. An adjacent property owned by Kill
Devil Hills is a proposed spray irrigation site.
NCP has granted permission to allow monitoring, and if
necessary remediation, on their property provided OBBC
activities do not interfere with or cause damage to company
facilities.
It is concluded that the best use of the property formerly
owned by OBBC, aside from construction of the sub-station, is
as a buffer adjacent to the rotary distributor. Relocation of
the compliance boundary to its former position would provide
room for attenuation of contaminants with no significant
impairment to NCP and little threat to groundwater resources.
Based upon the above issues and subsequent conclusions, it is
the recommendation of the hearing officer that the compliance
boundary be moved to the position occupied prior to sale of the
property to NCP and that the variance be granted by the
Commission. At such time that the Commission has made a
decision, draft language can be added to the permit (Permit No.
WQ0002829) to reflect their decision, as appropriate. I have
not taken the liberty to attempt draft language changes to the
permit or to assume the Commission's final decision. It is
also recommended that a revised map be constructed clearly
identifying the adjusted compliance and review boundary.
Should you·have any questions on this report or my
recommendations, please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
cc: Jim Mulligan
Perry Nelson
Attachment I
Attachment II
Attachment III
Attachment IV
Attachment V
Attachment VI
Attachment VII
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Variance Request From Peppertree
Resorts, LTD
Virginia Electric Power Company
Correspondence
Hearing Officer Designation
Affidavit's Of Public Notice For
Public Hearing
Public Hearing Notification to
Local Governments And Private
Property Owners
Public Hearing Report And
Proceedings
Staff Report And Maps
Attachment I Variance Request From Peppertree
Resorts, LTD
\
Enclosed herewith is a drawing showing VEPCO property with both present and
future structures. Please note that there is sufficient space between the
property boundary and the enclosure fence to locate wells as VEPCO property,
should they be required, without entering the enclosure. Enclosed also is a
.copy of the informal memo from VEPCO granting permission to place wells on the
property -if required.
In addition, we are enclosing a report from the engineering firm of Russnow,
Kane & Andrews, prepared by Edwin L. Andrews III, P.G., Consulting
Hydrogeologist stating that any remediation could be done at the compliance
boundaries surrounding the VEPCO NC Power Company sub-station tract.
In view of the above information, we respectfully request that the DEM staff
recommend the granting of a variance to the Environmental Management
Commission.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~
C. Wayne Ki
President
! ' ' i !I I \ 1, \ 11 1 \, 11' \ I: : ! \ ·····
'j" (I 1 t :i I ", 1 1 ~) I
Attachment II Virginia Electric Power Company
Correspondence
,
' -
PEPPERTREE
RESORTS, LTD.
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attention: Mr. Bob Cheek, Supervisor
Permits &-Compliance Unit
Dear Mr. Cheek:
October 9, 1991
2C5 (g 1 •
Construction Grants Prngram
Re: outer Bank Beach Club
Request for a variance from
Compliance Boundary Requirements
Permit No. w;j0002829
Dare County
I have received a copy of the letter dated August 29, 1991 from Virginia
Electric Power Company granting permission to place wells on their property.
This permission along with the easement to outer Banks Beach Club should
satisfy any doubts about the use of this property for underground wastewater
disposal.
. .
Since this is the only issue to be resolved on the renewing of Permit No.
~0002829 we would appreciate the issuance o~e renewal permit at this time.
.. ' . ' , .
August 29, 1991
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, ~.c. 21611
Attention: Mr. Bob Cheek, Supervisor
Permits & Compliance Unit
Dear Mr. Cheek:
Re: Outer Bank Beach Club
Request for a Variance from
Compliance Boundary Requirements
Permit No. WQ0002829
Dare County
By this letter, Vrrginia Electric Power Company grants permission to the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for the State of North Carolina
to allow m01:tltoring and/ or remediation of groundwater resources within the original
compliance boundary area for the Outer Banks Beach Club as shown on the attached map.
This will specifically authorize the construction of any monitoring or recovery wells within
the property boundary of Vrrginia Electric & Power Company provided that such
construction does not inte,rfere with or cause damage to facilities of the Company located
on the site.
It is our understanGlng, in granting this permission, that any monitoring or
recovery system located on our property would be a last resort only and that the
construction of such system would be closely coordinated with us as well as the Outer
Banlcs Beach Club.
Very sincerely yours,
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC POWER COMP ANY
Attachment III Hearing Officer Designation
Attachment IV Affidavit's Of Public Notice For
Public Hearing
REV 8-89 ---···--PAGE OF
DAH. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MO DAY
JNL DEPT/DIV
YR
I I I 4 10 4 31 DISBURSEMENTS ACCOUNTING CODE SHEET
C PURCHASE
FUND CONTROL AMOUNT R FRC OBJECT RCC DIST . ORDER _,.f ENCUMBRANCE ID ASSET NUMBER PERFERENCE
,t ... NUMBER t LIQUIDATION NUMBER
/6 9.< j 67)/) ii/-l5 '-1 8 kl. ":? "7 /(1 6 9.S-/ .LL9z,. :r:-
I t; -r-,s-'-I Ii l'7 rf (J ti I b £.c;-/ /?/} 9-:J.-
.. -·-· --....... -----· .... -·· .. --· ·-----
VENDOR NUMBER TAXPAYER I.D. NUMBER INVOICE NUMBER OR DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT
I I I I I I I I l I ~ I I lel~Jb[l1 le I l.!llaM-tl<Jet liJlrlD~-isl 1~azl 11z1 I I I !ib5-~I~l1LI
VENDOR NAME AND ADDRESS leli, lbl 11 ,Id ~la~bldd ~l~IJ.( IQI LldJ I I I I I I I 1st~ ulo!JI
llihl e1,, lul e1~Lsl
I I 1~~~1 1 rl~c~i 14-1~1~Q1~~1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I fd ltt.6Lsle M ~ J~ I I I I I I i
L conlln uet sl line ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IA~ifst ~ f;j'f I I I I I I I I I I I zip code I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
l&hl II Jilc;l/21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJcJ I I I I I I I k I iti I d.:i1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I RKS : ---------------· llil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~\;--·· I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,:,·
~f (~.:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I iir:·.-.
~L.d+~Q,--&/4:;;.J "7-•.
f~~:{ pr Prepared By I I 1-:-:·:· I I !__Li~ 1311I d!J -~?~.:-· CHECK TOTAL ►
-~il,lF--: Divi sion of Bu rlnP.I a nrf """"··• ··· ' " ~ '
,
Attachment V Public Hearing Notification to
Local Governments And Private
Property Owners
... •··:::;;:;;-;~ ... ~.
r; 2: \5 BJ
.... ~ /.-
~~~a•·
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street• Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
George T. Evereu, Ph.D
Director
Regional Offices
Asheville
704/251-6208
Fayetteville
919/486-1541
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Raleigh
919/571-4700
Washington
919 /946-6481
Wilmington
919/395~3900
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
Town of Kill Devil Hills
Mayor Lowell Perry
P.O. Box 1719
May 6, 1992
Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources has recieved a request for a variance from
the Compliance Boundary requirements of 1 SA NCAC 2L
.0107; (Groundwater Classifications and Standards}.
15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(1}(E) requires adequate notice be
given to area properties and adjacent property owners
prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the
variance hearing. Please refer to the enclosure
for additional information.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
//41&.tz_ol-~
M. Carl Bailey, Jr.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Pollution l'reven-tion Pays
P.O Rn, '1Q<;V, R·,f,,inh '-Jnrfh ... , ... 1 ... , .,,r...,,. """" ..,.._, '
s····:~srw:;:r,~'..·•.
:/ '-.-~
{:5 ;'-.
\ 8j
\ __ /
·•••""r.°':::.rsr• .. -··
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street• Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
George T. Evereu, Ph.D
Director
Regional Offices
Asheville
704/251-6208
Fayetteville
919/486-1541 .,
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Raleigh
919/571-4700
Washington
919/946-6481
Wilmington
919/395-3900
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
Town of Southern Shores
Administrator's Office
6 Skyline Rd.
Ki tty Hawk, ·Ne 27949
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
May 13, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources has received a request for a variance from the
Compliance Boundary requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0107;
( Groundwater Classifications and Standards) . 1 SA NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(1)(D) requires adequate notice be given to
governmental units having jurisdiction over the geographical
area covered by the· variance prior to hearing.
You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the
variance hearing. Please refer to the enclosure for
additional information.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
~~a~.
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
Pol/utiol! !'re rention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carnl111:1 2.7626-0535 TclePhcH1,· <)JQ.7~,.7r11,;
Attachment VI Public Hearing Report And
Proceedings
PROCEEDINGS OF OUTER BANKS BEACH CLUB HEARING
JUNE 18TH, 1992;
MANTEO, N.C.
Introduction
A public hearing was held in North Carolina by the
Division of Environmental Management to receive public
comment on the variance request by Mr. Wayne Kinser for
Permit No. WQ0002829; The Outer Banks Beach Club. The date
and location of this hearing was on June 18th, 1992; 7:00 pm
at the North Carolina Aquarium's Marine Resource Center.
This hearing was held according to procedures outlined in
15A NCAC 2L .0113.
Notice of these hearings was mailed to the public in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0113(e)(1)(A-F). Public notice
was published in the Raleig h News and Observer and the Dare
County Coastline Times on the 17th of May, 1992.
The hearing was chaired by Mr. Jay Zimmerman, Regional
Hydrogeologist with the Raleigh Regional o£fice.
Hearing Attendees
I) Members of the Public:
a) Arthur W. Beckwith; Wastewater Supervisor, Town of
Kill Devil Hills, 1719 Town Hall Dr., Kill Devil Hills,
N.C. 27948
II) Division of Environmental Management Attendees:
a) Mr. Jack Floyd; Environmental Engineer II
(Raleigh).
b) Mr. David Hance; Environmental Specialist II
(Raleigh).
c) Mr. Willie Hardison; Washington Regional Office,
Regional Groundwater Supervisor.
d) Mr. Guy Pearce; Washington Regional Office,
Hydrogeologist I.
NO COMMENT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD SPECIFIED
IN 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
DRAFT REVISION; 07/02/92 (dh)
HEARING REPORT
FOR
OUTER BANKS BEACH CLUB VARIANCE;
DIV!SION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT NO. WQ0002829
VARIANCE APPLICANI': Mr. Waype Kinser, P.O Box 6319, Asheville, N.C.
28816
HEARING DA'IE: Jtme 18th, 1992 at the N.C. Aquarium in Manteo, N.C. at
7:00 PM.
HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Jay Zirrmennan; Regional Groundwater Supervisor,
Raleigh Regional Office.
DIVISICN OF ENVIRCNw1ENI'AL STAFF IN . A'ITENDANCE:
GRCTJNI:mATER SECI'ICN STAFF IN ATI'ENDANCE:
1 ) Mr. Jack Floyd; ( Staff Presenter)
2) Mr. David Hance; (Recorder)
RmIOOAL GRO:JNI:mATER STAFF IN ATI'ENDANCE:
1 ) Mr. Willie Hardison; (Washington Regional Grotmdwater
Supervisor)
2) Mr. Guy Pearce; (Washington Regional Hydrogeolcgist)
I..O'.:AL OFFICIALS PRESENI':
1 ) Arthur W. Beckwith; Wastewater Supervisor, Town of Kill Devil
Hills, 1719 'Ibwn Hall Dr., Kill Devil Hills, N.C. 27948.
PUBLIC AT LARGE:
ID OIHER PEBSOOS ATlDIDED 'IHIS MEErJn;
OFFICIAL MINUI'ES OF MEEI'ING
TIME
(hrs)
19: 12
19: 16
19: 19
19:20
ACI'IVITY ~
Jay Zirrmennan called hearing to order and presented
staff speaker Jack Floyd.
Jack Floyd presented variance request for 'Ihe Outer
Banks Beach Club ( OBBC) •
Jay Zirrmennan requested a:::mrent fran those attending
the hearing; N) CXMYJENI' WAS VOUNIEERED.
Jay Zirrmennan closed the hearing for this variance
request.
TRANSCRIPT DATE; 08/10/92 (dh)
Attachment VII Staff Report And Maps
DIVISICN OF ENVIRCN1ENrAL MAN7>.GEMENI'
Gramdwater Secticn
Cx::tober 24, 1991
MEMORANDUM
'IQ:
FRCM:
SUBJECI':
George Everet~/
Perry Nelson f/
Request for Variance fron the Ccmpliance Pa.mdary
Requirements of 15A l:CAC 2L .0107
Outer Banks Beach Club, Inc.
Permit No. 1M2<}002829
Dare CO\mty
'Ihe Groundwater Section has been petitioned to make staff
recarmendations regarding the subject variance request. 'Ihe request by
Outer Banks Beach Club, Inc. {OBBC) consist of maintaining the
ccmpliance boundary at its location prior to the sale of property to
North carolina Power, Inc. (N::P) . 'Ihe attached map illustrates the
location of the ccrnpliance boundary before and after sale of the
property in question.
OB.BC made an application for pentli t renewal and arrendment on
September 1 3, 1990. 'Iheir amendrrent request consisted of relocating
rotary #10 fran the area ncM ooned by NCP to the northeast portion of
their property. All other rotary uni ts would remain in the sane
position as previously permitted :in 1986.
OBOC sold the property to NCP because N::P was planning to
construct an electrical substation. OB13C had little choice but to sell
the property or lose it through a:indemnation. '!hey elected to sell the
property and were able to get consent fran NCP to use the groundwater
resources beneath the site for wastewater attenuation purp::>ses.
With the sale of property to NCP the canpliance boundary was
relocated fifty feet fron the property boundary ll1 accordance with
subsection . 01 07 ( b) of subchapter 2L. By reloca.tIDg the conpliance
boundary as such, the a::mpliance boundary would intersect rotary unit
#11 and cane within fifty feet of rotary unit #12, neither of which has
yet been constructed.· M:deling mntaminant transp:)rt at the location
of these rotary uni ts conf inned the high likelihcxxl of exceedance of
groundwater quality standards at the o:mpliance toundary. Regardless
of the general direction of groundwater flCM, radial fla,.., fran the
rotary units is significant enough to show migration of contaminants
toward the NCP property boundary. It is for this reason the variance
request was made.
1 SA NCAC 2L . 0113 is very explicit with regards to the areas that
must be addressed when considering variance requests of this nature.
For simplicity, each question is asked and folla-1ed by an explanation.
1. Will a variance endanger public health and
safety, including health and envirc::nrrental effects fran
exposure to groundwater contaminates?
No. 'Ihere are no known drinking water supply wells
within a 1 /2 mile radius. 'Ihe primary m.micipal water ,
supply is located elsewhere. Furtherrrore, groundwater
flow is generally toward Roanoke Sound, 1000 feet to the
West. 'Ihe adjacent property is owned by · the tam of
Kill Devil Hills and is a p:i::q::osed site for a municipal
spray irrigation wastewater disp:>sal system.
2. If a variance is granted, can the groundwater quality
standards be achieved by providing the best available
treabnent technolcgy ea::incmically reasonable?
3.
Yes. 'Ihe pennittee currently provides tertiary·
treabnent of wastewater and has prop::,sed ultraviolet
disinfection to eliminate the generation of halogenated
hydrocarl:xJns.
If a variance is granted, would achieving conpliance at
the ccmpliance boundary prove to be a serious hardship
on the applicant without equal or greater p..iblic
benefit?
Not Necessarily. 'Ihe applicant has ample area to simply
relocate the unccostructed rotary units to cx:nfonn with
subsection . 0107 requirements, provided. a
hydro:Jeological investigations shcMs this is an
acceptable altemati ve. Hciwever, leaving the rotary
units as presently proposed would not result in greater
public benefit, since no groundwater supply will be
developed under an electrical substation or near the
adjacent proposed municipal wastewater treabnent
facility.
It is the policy of the Environmental Management Corrnission to
maintain and preserve the quality of the groundwaters of the state such
that public health and the environment are protected. In undertaking
this task the Division regulates all sources of potential degradation,
including the discharge of treated wastewater to the groundwaters.
'Ihese discharges are required to maintain a:mpliance with groundwater
quality standards at a prescribed canpliance l::xJundary. 'That toundary
is established pursuant to regulations and may change as property
1::oundaries may change over the life of the facility.
Establishment of the canpliance l:x:>undary pursuant to regulations
does not always coincide with the policy and intent of the Ccmnission
as is the case with Outer Banks Beach Club. With the canpliance
toundary lcx:ated at its original p::>Sition, maximum attenuation of
wastewater o::nstituents · and canpliance. with groundwater quality
standards should occur. 'Ihere is no ben.ef icial use obtained by
locating the cx:::mpliance l::xJundary pursuant to the regulatiCX1S. No water
supply will be developed in the area, ltu.lch less the N.C. Power
property. Furthenrore, relocating the rotary units westward to
accc:nm:::rlate subsection .0107 requirerrents may increase the migration of
contaminants into the sound. 'Iherefore, the Groundwater Section W'.Jt.lld
recx::n:mend that the ccmpliance b:Jundary remain as it was established
prior to the sale of property to N.C. Pc:Mer, Inc. and the subject
variance request be granted by the Connission.
Upcm your concurrence with ·our recarmendaticn, the Groundwater
Section will proceed with putting this item en the Groundwater
·Ccrrmittee' s January, 1992 agenda for ccosideration. With the
Ccrrmittee' s approval we will forward this item to the Enviralmental
Management Ccmnission for oonsideraticn. Contingent upcn their
decision the Section will set up a public hearing pursuant to 15A N:'AC
2L .0113{d & e).
Please let me know if there are any questions.
PN/JF: ja/Variance.
Attachments
cc: Ted Bush
:sob Cheek
Steve Tedder
D::ln Safrit
Central Files
Permit Files
Qi -z.i .,
'
(MANTEO/
ssss 1 ·vw
I :. ~ ., .,
\.
SCALE 1:24 000
'39
==c:====K=IL~O§;M~m~R=S===::::;;!'!"'"""'=-"======""""-''=='"'-==~J
METERS 1000 2000
... --====o~!""'=-""'=="""--"""""'===-""""""""''"==-""""'"'""'..,"""'""',,..,._.,"J MILES
L
-000 4000 5000 6000 7000 SOOD 9000 10 OOC --'='--==:;F;;;E:;;f:T:=:=:iiiio-==eeea•======~""""""'. , __ ,...____= .. .: ...--.,~-·--,
>NTOUR INTERVAL 2 METERS
.ENTARY CONTOUR INTERVAL l METER
•LEMENTARY CONTOURS ARE APPROXlll-tATE
L GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
EVATIONS SHOWN TO THE NEAREST 0.1 METER
40'
......
Ql.;,'\ORA:-IGLE LOCA no:-:
.. '1'(1110fl-GE0L0(
"42
ROAD
Primary highway,
hard surface
Secondary highway,
hard surlace
Trails
Interstate Route
I
In conclusion, our office does not object to granting
the requested variance provided the above concerns are
addressed. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this
matter, please contact me at any time. I can be reached at
[phone].
RJrICE OF \1ARIMCE APPLICATICN AND HFAR.Jx;
IEPARIMENr OF ENVIRCR-1ENI', HFAL'IH, AND NA'.IURAL REs:XlRCES
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be
held by the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources on behalf
of the Erwironrnental Management Ccmnission. 'Ihe Hearing concerns a request for
a variance fran the Conpliance Boundary requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0107 for
Permit No. -~002829; the Outer Banks Beach Club,Inc. (OBBC). 'Ihe variance appli-
cation was received for review by the Deparbnent on July 1, 1991 fron the pennittee,
Mr. Wayne Kinser, P.O. Box 6319 Asheville, NC! 28816. Mr. Kinser is the president of
Peppel:tree Resorts, L'ID.
'Ihe property location is as follows: At Kill Devil Hills, NC!; south of the Wright
Brothers Merrorial approximately 1000 feet. Take U.S. 158 bypass; proceed to · S.R.
1217;then turn left onto dirt path as the road curves.
The following variance is proposed with a background surnnary:
1 ) Olange the canpliance boundary to its former location
prior to pennit amendments resulting fran the purchase
of the property by North carolina PCMer, Inc. (NCP) •
On September 13, 1990 the OBBC requested an amendment with
their pennit renewal to relocate a rotary unit to the
northeast potj:icn of their property. 'Ibis request was the
result of the necessity to sell a portion of land to NCP.
'Ihis action was taken in lieu of certain condemnation
proceedings that would have resulted in OB13C forfeiting the
property. NCP planned to use the property for an electric
pcMer substation. In accordance with 15 A NCAC 2L • 0107b,
the canpliance boundary was adjusted fifty feet fran the
property boundary. 'Ihis relocation presently impacts two
proposed rotary units which ~d not meet distance
requirements of 1 SA NCAC 2L • 0107 (b) if constructed..
The variance, if granted, will also reduce the possibi-
lity of a noncanpliance with 1 SA NCAC 2L . 0202 at
the a:::rnpliance ooundary. This hearing will conform to
procedures in 15A NC'AC 2L .0113.
'Ihe hearing will be held as follows:
Manteo
June 18, 1992
7:00 P.M.
Marine Resource Center
North Carolina Aquarium
Variances Lists you wanted by phone call today
Subject: Variances Lists you wanted by phone call today
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:33:54 -0400
To: Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
Jeff,
Attached is two listings.
The first one is the list of variances approved by the Commission.
We have not been listing proposed variances. I have created a new listing called
"listofproposedvariance.doc" as a Draft Only for your to look at. It is divided into two lists -one being
what we are working on and the other as those where there has not been a whole lot of movement lately.
If you need more information or want to discuss -please talk with me at 919-733-5083 x. 587.
David Hance
04Comprhsv-incidentandpermitV ARLisT .doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
... -. -- -·-·---------------~
Content-Type: application/msword
listofproposedvariance.doc Content-Encoding: base64
nl"l"ll'lf\f\t:. "1.11'1 Dl\K
2~-
/ _,.
/"' ----···
~
.------·· . .
·-.
b) If in your opinion the application for a variance
request is complete the regional office is . to
generate a memo to the Director, thru the
Groundwater Section Chief, requesting that the
request for-a variance be sent to public no-tice.
The regional memo is to contain a br i ef
explanation on how the applicant complied with
each portion of .0113(c) (1)-(9).
4) Upon receipt of the comments from the regional office a
staff member of the Planning Branch will be responsible for
completing the public notice and public hearing process for
the variance request. A staff member from the regional
office will be expected to attend any public hearing that is
held.
This is a general outline on how I expect the variance requests
to be handled. If you have any questions on this matter please call
me.
cc: Ted Bush
Carl Bailey
Burrie Boshoff
Regional Supervisors
Z .TON STAR-NEWS, INC.
1003 sr '1 Street COPY
' Wilmingto,., .... c 28401 · •
A Ne es Company
CUSTOMER SERVICE PHONES
BOOKKEEPING;,-. 34 3-2308
TO PLACE AD :, [phone]
N.C. STATE WATS: 1-800-672-9085
( DATE \
PH# ( 919) 7337015 ADVERTISING STATEMENT LOCK BOX \07/02/95 ,/
IDENTIFICATION TIMES DESCRIPTION NUMBER SIZE PtJBL.lSHED RATE CLASS GROSS
-
VARIANCE FROM G 6U110050 432 1 1.02 145 440. 6 •1
PO#
7/2,1X
LEGAL
PLEASE PAY $440,64
PLEASE RETURN BOTTOM PORTION WITH PAYMENT,
For Correspondence
WILMINGTON STAR-NEWS, INC.
P.O. Box 3248
Wilmington, NC 28406-3248
PLEASE ENTER ACCOUNT# ON YOUR CHECK
PAST DUE NAME AITTA
07/17/9 ! NC DEHNR BUDGET OFFICE
'" r AMOU,NT ENCLOSE D ACCOUNT NUMBER
~ A New York nmes Company
'"
NC DEHNR BUDGET OFFICE
PO BOX 29535
RALEIGH NC 27626-0535
6U110050
MAIL REMITTANCE TO:
WILMINGTON STAR-NEWS, INC.
P.O. BOX 580139 .
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28258-0139
Use Enclosed Envelope
94206300101 □0500000440640044064000000091973370158
'
'
ZI
0
TON STAR-NEWS, INC. CUSTOMER SERVICE PHONES
1003 Si '1 Street COPY BOOKKEEPINGr 343-2308
Wilmingto, ... ~C 2840 1 TO PLACE AD:: [phone]
N.C . STATE WATS: 1-800-672-9085
ew ork es Company f DATE "'\
PH# ( 919 > 7337015 ADVERTISING STATEMENT LOCK BOX l□ 7 /02/95 _/
DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION ! SIZE NUMBER
VARIANCE FROM G 6U110050 432
PO#
7/2,1X
LEGAL
PLEASE PAY $440,64
TIMES RATE. CLASS GROSS PUBLISHED
1 1.02 145 440,b l\
1
PLEASE RETURN BOTTOM PORTION WITH PAYMENT,
For Correspondence
WILMINGTON STAR-NEWS, INC.
P.O. Box 3248
Wilmington, NC 28406-3248
PLEASE ENTER ACCOUNT # ON YOUR CHECK
PASTDUE NAME AFTER
07/17/9! NC DEHNR BUDGET OFFICE
\..
r AMOUNT ENCL.OSl;Q ACCOUNT NUMBER
~ A New York Times Company
\.
NC DEHNR BUDGET OFFICE
PO BOX 29535
RALEIGH NC 27626-0535
6U110050
MAIL REMITTANCE TO:
WILMINGTON ST AR-NEWS, INC.
P.O. BOX 580139 .
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28258-0139
Use Enclosed Envelope
9420630010100500000440640044064000000091973370158
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
.AVA
D E HNR
June 26, 1995
Diane Hinnant
Legal Advertising
Wilmington Star-News
P.O. Box 840
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Ms. Hinnant:
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be holding a
Public Hearing on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission to receive
public comment on a variance request for the Citgo Products Terminal in Wilmington,
North Carolina. You will find enclosed a Public Notice regarding the meeting. It is
requested that you publish the Public Notice in the July 2, 1995 issue.
Publication charges will be paid by this office upon receipt of your invoice,
affidavit, and proof of publication. Please send the invoice in triplicate and the
affidavit in duplicate to the undersigned.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
?.=!u.~
Assistant Chief for Planning
Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be held by the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources . on behalf of the Environmental
Management Commission. The hearing concerns a request for a variance from the Groundwater
Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and the Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC
2L .0106 (j) for the Citgo Products Terminal in Wilmington, North Carolina. The variance
application was received for review by the 0epartment on August 25, 1994 from the Amoco Oil
Company, 375 Northridge Road, Suite 350, Atlanta, Georgia, 30350-3296. Prior to April 30, 1993
the Amoco Oil Company was the owner of the tank terminal for which the variance is requested
and is responsible for cleanup of this release.
The property where the release of petrolewn product has occurred is located as follows: Enter the
City of Wilmington from Interstate 40 and take U.S. 17-74 toward the U.S.S. North Carolina
Battleship Memorial. Turn south onto U.S. 421 and turn west onto Shipyard Boulevard toward the
States Ports Authority and then turn south onto River Road. The Citgo Products Terminal is mile
on the left hand side of River Road at a distance of approximately one-half mile.
The Amoco Oil Company requests that the Environmental Management Commission grant
this variance so that it does the following:
(1) Allow concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes (BTEX),
Naphthalene, Fluorene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Phenanthrene, and Lead to
remain at levels above 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed on December 12,
1994. These concentrations wm be allowed to remain within an area consisting of
properties owned by the American Crane Corporation, the Citgo Products Terminal, and
the Koch Refining .company South Terminal. Right-of-ways exist within these properties
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation and CSX Transportation. The
Citgo Products Terminal, the area proposed for a variance, and all adjacent properties
are zoned by the City of Wilmington as "HM -Heavy Industrial District".
In 1951 Amoco Oil Company constructed an asphalt products terminal at this
location. Due to routine loading and storage activities releases of petroleum products
occurred at the terminal over a number of years. In July 1988 the company conducted
a site assessment of soils and· groundwater at the facility. In 1989 the Department
required that the Amoco Oil Company conduct a Comprehensive Site Assessment. The
Citgo Oil Company acquired this terminal from the Amoco Oil Company on April 30,
1993. Pursuant to investigative activities to complete a Comprehensive Site
Assessment, the Amoco Oil Company found petroleum hydrocarbons and lead in
groundwaters on adjacent properties to the west of the terminal on March 31, 1994. On
April 12, 1994 the Division of Environmental Management concurred with the Amoco
Oil Company that the source of groundwater contamination had been adequately
assessed and that the Comprehensive Site Assessment was complete. On August 25, 1994
the Amoco Oil Company requested this variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(a) and (b).
Analysis of groundwater samples from monitoring wells within the area of the
proposed variance have demonstrated a progressive decrease in BTEX concentrations
since August 19, 1994. No increases in groundwater concentrations for Anthracene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Fluorene, Lead, Naphthalene, and Phenanthrene have been reported
since that time. During the last semi-annual groundwater analysis one well showed
Benzene at approximately 0.010 milligrams/Liter and Ethylbenzene at 0.340
milligrams/Liter. The 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards allow a
maximum of 0.001 milligrams/liter for Benzene and 0.029 milligrams/liter for
Ethylbenzene. The company has conducted a health-risk assessment and have
demonstrated through environmental modeling and calculations that the risks to public
health and safety from granting a variance for this location are minimal. Computer
modeling does not indicate contaminant will exceed the 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Water
Quality Standards when migrating groundwaters discharge into the Class SC Tidal
Surface Water of the Cape Fear River.
Six water supply wells exist within a 1/2 mile radius of the Citgo Products
Terminal. Five of these water supply wells are used to provide industrial process water
and are not used for drinking. Only Atlantic Marine Incorporated uses a well for
drinking. This water supply well was constructed in the Castle Hayne Aquifer, is
approximately 700 feet from the area proposed for variance, and is located "cross-
gradient" from the direction of groundwater flow. The Amoco Oil Company does not
believe that this variance will effect the water supply well owned by Atlantic Marine
Incorporated. There are no other known public or private water supply wells within a 1/2
mile radius of this location. The City of Wilmington Engineering Department has
confirmed that underground water supply utility lines are set at a depth too shallow to
be impacted by granting this variance.
2) Allow for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions
in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The Amoco Oil Company has demonstrated
that requirements of the groundwater rules cannot be achieved by using best available
technology (BAT). Cleanup using best available technology would require pumping the
groundwaters from beneath the land, treating these groundwaters to remove
contaminants, and returning the treated water. Another kind of best available
technology relies on the introduction of air into the subsurface to stimulate the growth
of naturally occurring microorganisms that breakdown petroleum hydrocarbons. The
Amoco Oil Company believes that using technology that relies on pumping groundwaters
or the introduction of air will not effectively reduce concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons and lead due to the presence of adjacent plumes of contaminated
groundwater on nearby properties.
There is an area of groundwater contamination to the west of the Citgo
Products Terminal. This plume of contaminated ground~ater was identified as a release
of gasoline and lead from the Koch Refining Company South Terminal. Another area
approximately 100 feet to the south and east of this location has a separate plume of
groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. These unassociated areas of
groundwater contamination have much higher concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons
than the area of contamination from the Citgo Products Terminal. The company believes
that re-contamination of the groundwaters within the area of the proposed variance will
the Amoco Oil Company requested this variance in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(a) and (b).
Analysis of groundwater samples from monitoring wells within the area of the
proposed variance have demonstrated a progressive decrease in BTEX concentrations
since August 19, 1994. No increases in groundwater concentrations for Anthracene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Fluorene, Lead, Naphthalene, and Phenanthrene have been reported
since that time. During the last semi-annual groundwater analysis one well showed
Benzene at approximately 0.010 milligrams/Liter and Ethylbenzene at 0.340
milligrams/Liter. The 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards allow a
maximum of 0.001 milligrams/liter for Benzene and 0.029 milligrams/liter for
Ethylbenzene. The company has conducted a health-risk assessment and have
demonstrated through environmental modeling and calculations that the risks to public
health and safety from granting a variance for this location are minimal. Computer
modeling does not indicate contaminant will exceed the 15A NCAC 2B .0200 Water
Quality Standards when migrating groundwaters discharge into the Class SC Tidal
Surface Water of the Cape Fear River.
Six water supply wells exist within a 1/2 mile radius of the Citgo Products
Terminal. Five of these water supply wells are used to provide industrial process water
and are not used for drinking. Only Atlantic Marine Incorporated uses a well for
drinking. This water supply well was constructed in the Castle Hayne Aquifer, is
approximately 700 feet from the area proposed for variance, and is located "cross-
gradient" from the direction of groundwater flow. The Amoco Oil Company does not
believe that this variance will effect the water supply well owned by Atlantic Marine
Incorporated. There are no other known public or private water supply wells within a 1/2
mile radius of this location. The City of Wilmington Engineering Department has
confirmed that underground water supply utility lines are set at a depth too shallow to
be impacted by granting this variance.
2) Allow for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions
in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j). The Amoco Oil Company has demonstrated
that requirements of the groundwater rules cannot be achieved by using best available
technology (BAT). Cleanup using best available technology would require pumping the
groundwaters from beneath the land, treating these groundwaters to remove
contaminants, and returning the treated water. Another kind of best available
technology relies on the introduction of air into the subsurface to stimulate the growth
of naturally occurring microorganisms that breakdown petroleum hydrocarbons. The
Amoco Oil Company believes that using technology that relies on pumping groundwaters
or the introduction of air will not effectively reduce concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons and lead due to the presence of adjacent plumes of contaminated
groundwater on nearby properties.
There is an area of groundwater contamination to the west of the Citgo
Products Terminal. This plume of contaminated groundwater was identified as a release
of gasoline and lead from the Koch Refining Company South Terminal. Another area
approximately 100 feet to the south and east of this location has a separate plume of
groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. These unassociated areas of
groundwater contamination have much higher concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons
than the area of contamination from the Citgo Products Terminal. The company believes
that re-contamination of the groundwaters within the area of the proposed variance will
likely result if a best available technology is relied on as a cleanup option.
The Amoco Oil Company has estimated that the total · costs of implementing
best available technologies to cleanup this area ranges from $ 294,000 dollars to $
3,100,000. The company believes that if cleanup using best available technology is
implemented a serious financial impact would be incurred without equal or greater
public benefit.
Amoco Oil Company maintains that conditions exist within the area proposed
for a variance that will allow for the natural processes of dilution, filtration, chemical
transformation, and biodegradation to eventually reduce levels of these contaminants
below the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Groundwater
monitoring will continue to be required by the Division of Environmental Management
if this variance is granted. On February 6, 1995 the Wilmington Regional Office
confirmed that other known sources of groundwater contamination around the location
proposed for a variance have been assessed and are being remediated under separate
regulatory actions.
The hearing will be held as follows:
WILMINGTON
August 3, 1995
7:00 PM
Cape Fear Community College
411 North Front Street
Auditorium
Oral Comments may be made during the hearing, or written statements may be
submitted to the agency by September 4, 1995. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three
minutes are requested. Oral statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officers.
Please forward comments or information requests to:
David Hance
EHNR-DEM-Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the locations listed
below. Copies may be obtained at each location for a charge of ten cents per page.
'
~.fl)
A. Preston Howar~ J~E.
Director, Division of Environmental
Management
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Env. Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building, P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone]
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Env. Management
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC
[phone]
27609
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the locations listed
below. Copies may be obtained at each location for a charge of ten cents per page. ,
,,4Ad:/.2;
A. Preston Howar: J ✓.::.E.
Director, Division of Environmental
Management
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Env. Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building, P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone]
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Env. Management
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC
[phone]
27609
MAILWGWL.XLS
AKIN, CHARLES SERVICE DISTRIBUTING CO PO BOX310 ALBEMAA:L_E NC ~ --- ----
l GREENS@Ro
I
ALBRIGHT, CLYDE B ATTY CONE MILLS CORP 1201 MAPLE ST NC ,2'149!1 -----~
ALBURY, ROBERT clo RAY'S GROCERY ROUTE #2, BOX 191 CANTON~ NC .2871 113 ------- -------
ALEXANDER , HARLOLD 1627 WYCUFF COURT BURLINGTON NC :l771h
ALIX, JONATHAN -AW.AP.£ Es'V IRO NMENTAL 9305 MONROE RO SUITE J l cHARLOTTE [Ne I ,11:1,0 -----------
ALLEN, FRED R EXECUTIVE DIR NC AGGREGATES ASSOCIATION PO BOX30603 RALEIGH NC .ZIOZlc
ALSTON, SARAH GLAXO -\NELLCOME INC. S MOORE DRIVE
r TP
NC "27? .. -----
ANDERSON, GLEN CADMUS (IBE) GROUP INC 1920 HWY 54 SUITE 100 DURHAM NC 27713 ---t
APA COORDINATOR EHNR OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT 7 INTEROFFICE -1191 MEBANE BRIDGE ROAD ASBURY, DENNIS DIR OF UTIL PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPT EDEN
N;=r 27~8 --------- -------------
ASHLEY, JAN RUSTEAND I 5510 SIX FORKS RD
1
RALEIGH NC 27609 ---------
ASSEFA, HANNA EHNR / OS\/\IM -SUPERFUND SECTION INTEROFFICE -----·-_ ..... 11NTEROFFICE ASST SECRET ARY -EHNR ARCHDALE BLDG -----I INTEROFFICE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE -.!!II ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SEC 1293 ARCHDALE BUILDING -------
AUCOIN, LINDY BODE CON( M •LLS CORP 1201 MAPLE ST GREENSBCIRO NC 27410 --
]RALEiGH AUGBURGER, TOM -US f!Jl!.i~ ll')LDLIFE SERVICE PO BOX33726 NG 27637 -r ---~ ---
l RALEIGH AYCOCK, C RONALD EXEC DIR NC ASSOC OF CO COMMISSIONERS -PO BOX 1488 "" 27602 ---
BABB,GARY BABB & ASSOCIATES PO BOX37697 RALEIGH NC 27627 --·-
BAILEY, CLAYTON COOPER, ALDUS, ANO SCULLY FOUNDERS SQUARE, 900 JACKSON ST, SUITE 100 DALLAS TX 75202
BAILEY.JIM ATLANTIC DIV NAVAL FACILITY ENGINEERING COMMAND CODE 181 NORFOLK VA 23511 ----
BAKER, TL SUP ENVPROG TEXASGULF INC PO BOX48 AURORA NC 27806 - -~ ----
BALES, JIM PO BOX85 BUIES CREEK NC 27506 ·--
BANKS, SHELVA 614 FOREST PARK RD ELIZABETH CITY NC 27904 --
BANNON, GRETCHEN G HENRY VON OESEN & ASSOCS PO DRAWER 2087 WILMINGTON. NC 28402 ---
BARDIN, W EARL FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK PO BOX3008 RALEIGH NC 2160'l ---·-
BARNACASCEL, WILLIAM R QC MGR FISHE~:R NUT COMPANY PO BOX649 EDENTON NC 27932 --
BASSETT, SUSAN BASSETT CONSULTING INCORPORATED P.O. BOX 2185 LITTLETON co 80f6f ---------~ --BASNIGHT, JANE . --Ert.'11 ~ 719 ARCHDALE BLDG 7TH FLOOR INTEROFFICE -----
BASNIGHT, SYBIL FRIENDS OF ROANOKE ISLAND PO BOX 1750 MANTEO NC 2'1954
8£:ATY, D.C. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY j 1299 PENNSYLVAf:JIA AVE., NW, SUITE 1100 WASHINGTON BE 2l>ll04 --
BECK, KRISTIN (Env. Cord.) DUPONT COMPANY FIBERS P.O. BOX 2042 WILMINGTON. ·Ne 26402 ----
BENNETT, JAY 2320 BRlSBAYNE CIRCLE RALEIGH NC :;;are
--
BILLINGS, RANDALL L EXEC CIR PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GVT 2216 W MEADO\NVIEW RD SUITE 201 GREENSBORO_ NC 2,407
BILLINGSLEY, EVERETT ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHROITY ~ 0 BOX 366 CARRBORO roe: 2751 0 --
BISESI, PHIL P.O. BOX 12699 RTP NC. 2T:TC19 -
BLACK, BILL C OFFICE ENG US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PO BOX 144 MONCURE-NC. 21MI> I
BLACK, CHESTER ASSOC DIR NCSU-AGRICUL TUR AL EXT SERV 108 RICKS HALL 1•1TEROrf1c e; ---'
BLACKSON, BUD BLACKSON TANK SERVICE RT 2 BOX 300AB FUQUAY-VARINA< NC.: 21521! ~ __,__
BLACKWELL, CHARLES O PRESIDENT APPLIED WATER TECHNOLOGY INC 621 HUTTON STREET SUITE 107 RALEIGH NC 27506 i
BLANCH.ARD, STEVEN K DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION PO DRAWER 1089 FAYETTEVILLE NC. 28302 --
BLICK, CLIFFT DUPONT CO FIBER DEPT POBOX2042 WILMINGTON NC 28402
IP O BOX 472349
-
BOONE,JOHN NATIONWIDE TANK & ENV SERVIN CHARLOTTE NC. 28247 ·----~
BOONE, LARRY NATIONWIDE TANK & ENV S,ERVICE PO BOX 472349 CHARLOTTE NC 28247 -
BORDEN, ANN M S&ME PO BOX 58069 RALEIGH NC 27658 -
BORDEN, BOB PO BOX 7908 RALEIGH NC 27695 - -
BOSWELL,JT PH D DIR ENV CON LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP PO BOX 3107 CONROE TX 77305 ---- --·---
BOYER, KEVIN RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRAASTRU 5510 SIX FORKS RD RALEIGH NC 27609 ---
BOYLE, CHARLES G LAW ENGINEERING 2801 YORKMONT RD CHARLOTTE NC ,.,.,,.
BOYLE,KAY 8.0.C. GASSES P.O. BOX 12338 RTP NC 27709
BOYTER, JOHN RALEIGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POBOX2978 RALEIGH NC 27802
BRENNAN, DOUGLAS F AMP INC P O BOX 3608 (M.S. 21-20), 425 PRINCE STREET HARRISBURG PA 17105
Page 1
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O
C.E.O
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C.E.O.
C .E..0,_
CG MCB
CHADWICK, ASHLEY T
CHADWICK, THERESA M.
CHANDLER, DELORIS
CHANEY, JOHNNY
CHAPMAN, ANTHONY
CHEDSEY, GEORGE VP
CHERRY I DEBORAH
CHESSON, H.D~
~
CHIEF, DEM-WATER QUALITY SECTIO
CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONS
CHIEF, LAND QUALITY
CLARK, LARRY R ENV ENGINEER
CLARKE, WILLIAM
CLAYTON. NIEL
COAN.ANN
COKER, JERRY F AREA ENV MGR
COLE, C TIMOTHY
COLEY, ED
DR. MARIE COLEMAN
COLLIE, PEYTON
COLLINS, RS
COLSTON, NEWT
COLTRANE, KEITH
COMMANDING GENERAL
COPERHAVER, JIM
CORDER, JEFFERY W
CORNETTE, JIM
CORREALE, CHRIS
COVIL, STACY
COX, TED
CRANDALL, BOBBY
CARVENS, PAUL
CRAWFORD, THOMAS J PRIN ENG
CROSBY, VICTOR W.
CROUCH, MICHAEL S
CROWLE, DAVID A
RANDOLPH ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
ROANOKE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP
RUTHERFORD ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
SOUTH RIVER ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
SURRY YADKIN ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
TIDELAND ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
UNION ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
WAKE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP.
BLUE RIDGE MOUNTIAN ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP
BROAD RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
MECKLENBURG ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
TRI STATE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP
VITAFOAM INC.
OFC OF STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE
LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENT AL SVCS
USDA-NRCS
CHANDLER SOIL CONSULTANTS
CITY OF ASHEBORO
EATON CORPORATION ----+---
~EM EDI AT 10 N co
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
CHESSON MANAGEMENT INC.
EHNR-DEM
EHNR/OEM
EHNR/DIV OF LAND RESOURCES
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ------+----
ROBERTS STEVENS & COGBURN PA
_ _:______]Ne CITIZENS FOR BUSINESS-IND
NC FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
WEYERHAEUSER PAPER COMPANY
------;
UNIFI INC
WINTERVILLE MACHINE WORKS
HSWMR
NRECA
COLLINS ASSOCIATES INC
BLACK & VEATCH
--
OLGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, & STEWART
ATTN: SJA ADMIN SECTION
VEPCO
RICHARD CATLIN & ASSOC
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OHS-OHR
WINTERVILLE MACHINE WORKS
AOUATERRA INC., ----
INTERNDUKE ENGINEERING
CP&L
1469 TABOR ROAD -
DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL TAN
OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP
MAILWGWL.XLS
P.O. BOX 40
P.O. BOX 440
P.O. BOX 1569
P.O. BOX 931
P.O. BOX 159
P.O. BOX 130
P.O. BOX 5014
P.O.BOX 1229
]P.O.BOX 780
DRAWER 180
BOX 68
222 SURRAT DR.
ATTN CIVIL I.AW
1640 ANTIOCH PIKE
4405 BLAND ROAD, SUITE 205
600 SOUTH CHURTOS APT 97
P.O. BOX 1106
PO BOX 1728
PO BOX6217
400 WEST SUMMIT RD
2030 1-85 SERVICE RD., STE A-11
270 HANEY BUILDING
PO BOX7647
PO BOX 1001
P.O. BOX 27766
PO BOX 787
r
p O BOX 737
226 SOUTH MILL STREET
325 JOHN KNOX RD. SUITE 404 exc . ct
4301 WILSON BLVD.
18 HICKORY RIDGE CT
8604 CLIFF CAMERON DR STE 164
·I 1401 LAKE BOONE TRAIL, SUITE 511
MARINE CORPS BASE PSC BOX 2004
P.O. BOX 26666
102 CANDLEWICK RO
PO BOX 10279
PO BOX 1890
PO BOX27687
PO BOX520
4901 WATERS EDGE DRIVE
6850 AUSTIN CENTER BLVD., SUITE 300
PO BOX 1551
l s101 CARMEL RO SUITE 200
FIBERGLAS TOWER-T/11
Page 3
ASHEBORO NC
I
27203
RICH SQUARE NC 27869 ----
FOREST' CITY NC 2B043
l ouNN NC 2B334
DOBSON NC 27017
PANTEGO NC 27860 ---
!
DUDLEY 28333
MONROE NC 28110
WAKE FOREST NC 27587
YOUNG HARRIS GA 1 !GAFFNEY SC 29340
MOUNTAIN CITY TN 37683
t McCAYSVILLE ~= ~ HIG~POINT
CAMP LEJEUNE 28542
ANTIOCH 37013 ------2':'._ --
RALEIGH NC 27609
HILLSBORO NC 27278
ASHEBORO NC 27204
I
KINGS MOUNTAIN NC 28086
DENVER co 80206 --f-----
KNOXVILLE TN 37902 -
DURHAM Ne 27705
tNtEROFFIC:E
--=--.-=:.....=-INTEROFFICE ~
INTEROFFICE I
CHATTANOOGA TN 37401
ASHEVILLE NC 28802
RALEIGH (..., 27602
RALEIGH fuc 27611 -
PLYMOUTH ,NC 27962
MADISON NC 27025
WINTERVILLE NC 28590 ---
TALLAHASSEE FL 32303
ARLINGTON VA 22203
~
LAKE WYLIE SC 29710 -CHARLOTTE NC =• -+--f-----
RALEIGH NC 27608
CAMP LEJEUNE NC 28542
RICHMOND VA 23261 --
ABERDEEN NC 28315
WILMINGTON NC 28405
WILMINGTON NC 28402 -
lAALEJGfi NC I ~76 11
WINTERVILLE NC 28590
RALEIGH NC 27606
AUSTIN TX 78751
RALEIGH NC 27602 ------
HARMONY NC 28634
ic:HARlOTTI'-NC ,~e
TOLEDO OH 43659
MAILWGWL.XLS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE ALBEMARLE COMMISSION (REGION R) 512 S. CHURCH STREET, P.O. BOX 646 HERTFORD NC 27944
-------
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MID-EAST COMMISSION WASHINGTON COURIER 16-02-04 NC -----
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGION O COUNCIL OF GOVT'S EXECUTIVE ARTS BLDG FURMAN RO BOONE NC 28607 -
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PEE DEE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT 302 LEAK STREET ROCKINGHAM NC 28379 ----
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KERR-TAR COUNCIL OF GOVT I POBOX709 HENDERSON NC 27536
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEUSE RIVER COUNCIL OF GOVT NEWBERN COURIER01-34-30
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PLANNING & ECON DEV SW NC P O DRAWER 850 BRYSON CllY NC 28713 ------
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGION L COUNCIL OF GOVT ROCKY MOUNT COURIER07-60-07
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ISOTHERMAL PLAN & DEV COMM POBOX841 RUTHERFORDTON NC 28139 ---------
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVT 1 CHAROLOTTETOWN CNT. (box 35008 CHARLOTTE NC 28235
·-------------
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL 25 HERITAGE DRIVE ASHEVILLE NC 28806
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVT PO BOX 12276 RTP NC 27709 ---
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGION M COUNCIL OF GOVT FAYETTEVILLE COURIER04-06~26 --
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WESTERN PIEDMONT COUNCIL GOVT 30-3RD ST NW OLD CITY HALL BLD HICKORY NC 28601 -
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CLEAN WATER FUND OF NC PO BOX 1008 RALEIGH NC 27602 ---·---
FELD!, LISA A POYNER & SPRUILL PO BOX 10096 RALEIGH NC 27605 -
FERGUSON, LARRY 5129 MELBOURNE RD. RALEIGH NC 27606
FERRELL, GLORIA llS~ 3916 SUNSET ROAD f RALEl~ NC 2'UJ01 --
FINCH, HELEN THARRINGTON SMITH & HARGROVE PO BOX 1151 RALEIGH NC 27602 ---f---
FLINTON, GEORGE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION P. 0. BOX 703 !MATTHEWS NC 28106
I P O BOX 868710
--
FLOYD, J MICHAEL MCCALL BROTHERS INC CHARLOTTE NC 28266
FLYNN, LINDA S ENVIR SPEC OMNI PROFESSIONALS PO BOX 13404 RTP NC 27709
r~B24 PARKWAY
-
FORBES , BP B CH2M HILL, INC. PLAZA BLVD, SUITE 200 CHARLOTTE NC ?a.Ill ---
FORCE, GREG VIROGROUP 1445 PISGAH CHURCH RD. LEXINGTON SC 29072 -·~
FORTUNE, MAURICE R R DONNELLEY & SONS CO 750 WARRENVILLE ROAD LISLE IL 60532 --------
FOSTER, GARY CITY OF WILMINGTON· HOUSING AUTHORITY DRAWER 899 WILMINGTON NC 28402 ---
FOWLER, WILL B. 3797 H\NY 24 NEWPORT NC 28570
GABBARD, WILLIAM D PRESIDENT GABBARD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE 7611 HOPE FARM RO FORT WAYNE IN 46B15
GALLIHER, ESTHER -~ "'t309 CARL AUSTIN ROAD j STATESVILLE -_,;c _,.,,,., ---GANTT, L K 'MIKE' US FJSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PO BOX 33726 RALElOO N(; 2'78l6 ---I GARDNER, CHARLES H EHNR-DIVISION LAND RESOURCES -INTEROFFICE ---
GARNER, MARVIN E ASSOCIATE RIVERS & ASSOCIATES INC PO BOX929 GREENVILLE NC 27834 -------
Gel.BLUM, ~0 8 NC ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE i o1v OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE INTEROFFICE
GHEESLING, FRANK ERM -SOUTHEAST INC 300 CHASTAIN CNTR BLVD STE 375 KENNESAW GA 30144 -----------
GILBERT, NEIL 9416 BELMONT LANE MARVIN NC 28173
GILMORE, VOIT C, 605 LINDEN ROAD PINEHURST NC 28374 --- -
GILLESPIE, ARTHUR S ENV MGR LITHI.LIM CORP OF AMERICA PO BOX 795 BESSEMER CITY NC 28016 -
1545 STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING IFWEGH GIVENS, GEORGE F GENERAL COUNC NC GENERAL ASSEMBLY-ERG ,ic .27611 ,_ ~ --~
GLEN, SAMUEL 726 EVERETT ROAD PISGAH FOREST NC 28768 ----
[w1LSON
--
GODDARD, GREG WILSON COUNTY COMMISSION 1110 KINGSWOOD RD NC 27893
GOKEL, DEAN GEOCHEM INC 2500 GATEWAYCENTRE BLVD ST 300 MORRISVILLE NC 27560 -~ --
,~600-G WOODPARK BL~
--;
GOODMAN, TED A. HANOEX CHARLOTTE 'NO 2--~ -
GOODRICH, 0 A EHNR/DEMINPDES GROUP INTEROFFICE
GOODWIN,C L EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO PO BOX 1993 FANB-4 KINGSPORT TN 37662
~
GRADY, JOHN D JR PE r O BOX 762 GOLDSBORO NC 27533 --
GRANTSTAFF, JEANIE FROEHLING & ROBERTSON PO BOX27524 RICHMOND VA 23261 ---------
GRASER, LEE T. V. A. --~WT8C-K 400 SUMMIT HILL OR. KNOXVILLE TN 379 □2 ~-
GRAVES, DAVID M PH.D CHEMICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL TECH PO BOX 12298 RTP NC 27709
~
GRESHAM, ROBERT E SERVICE DISTRIBUTING CO INC POBOX310 ALBEMARLE NC 28001 --
GREY, KEN NDE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 8906 WALL ST., SUITE 306 AUSTIN TX 78754
GROVER, RACHEL DWM-HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION INTEROFFICE-OBERLIN ROAD
Page 5
GRUBBS, R HOWARD
GUINAN, JOHN F
GUSSMAN, ROBERT J DIR ENV AH !
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE&RICE
COAST AL REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
ECUSTA
HACKMAN, EDWARD B. (vp & gm)-=-=-~~---~--~=-:] HOECHST CELANESE CORP
HAGER, HAMP PETROLEUM WORLD INC
HALE, BETSY
HALLMAN, GLEN
HARDIN, CHRISTOPHER D.,
HARDIN, STEVE
HARRISON, PAT
HANKINSON, FRED C
HANSON, AF ENVIR CONTROL ENGR
HANSON, ML
HARRILL, FREDDIE
HARRIS, SUSAN
HARRIS, VERNON O JR PRESIDENT
HARSHMAN, BETH
HART, RON TERMINAL MANAGER
HARWOOD, JOE E
HASKINS, NATALIE
HAYWORTH, DANA R
HENSLEY, LON E.
HENSLEY, KEN
HICKS, TERESA
HILL, JOHN
HINSON, THOMAS H.
HITE, JESSE G.
HOLBROOK, TIMOTHY B ENGINEER
HOLLOWAY, LARRY
HOLMAN, WILLIAM E
-----
HOLTON, MARGARET NATURAL RESOUR
HOOD.ALVIN
HORTON, GERALD W PE
HOWARD, WILLIAM
HOWELL, THOMAS C Ill
HOWES, JONATHAN, SECRETARY
HUBBARD, MICHAEL W ATTORNEY
HUFFMAN, RENA ENV COORD
HUME, HALD
IWERKS, HARVEY M SH & E MGR
JACKSON, GLEN
JAIN, ASKOK K REG MGR
JANES, DEBORAH A.
JENNINGS, MARK -----
JERNIGAN, CONNIE H.
JERVEY, LILLIAN
KILPATRICK AND CODY
GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
U.S.G.S,
CSX TRANSPORTATION
PIN POINT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVI
OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO
BLUE RIDGE ENV SERVICES INC
GROUNDWATER PROFESSIONALS OF NC
COLONIAL ENGINEERING INC
PATTON BOGGS & BLOW
SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP
DUKE PO~R COMPANY
MANUFACTURERS & CHEMICAL IND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONS
WARRENS CREEK RD.
HENSLEY'S ~LL DRILLING
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CPEC
__ _,_JG_A_N_N_ETT FLEMING CORDDRY & CARPENTER, INC.
SECOR INTERNATIONAL
BFI
(s1ERRA CLUB/CONS COUNCIL
1 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NC
1POLYMASK
DSA DESIGN GROUP 7 ~ J REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO
RIVERS & ASSOCIATES
IEH NR
SMITH ANDERSON ET AL
KEMET ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
KAYSER ROTH HOSIERY INC
-;-
ICI AMERICAS INC
NCASI
U S EPA MAIL DROP 5
FOAM DESIGN INC.,
WILSON COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
WACHOVIA CORP ENV RISK MGR
-----i·---
JESNICK, CHARLOTTE
JOHLLARR't'
---· -------
JOHNSON, GIL
JONES, MICHELE
KALBERER, WILLIAM A
DIV. OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE
HOECHST CELENESE
CITY OF RALEIGH CONST MGMT
ELECTRO GALLERY
ST AR ENTERPRISE
MAILWGWL.XLS
DRAWER 84 1600 ONE TRIAD PK
223 BROAD ST
PO BOX200
4600 HYW 421N, l~O BOX 327
...\PO BOX 307
1100 PEACHTREE ST
\ 3177 HOLLYHILL CIRCL~---
[ 11704 REAMES ROAD __ ,___
t 3916 SUNSET RIDGE RD. __ __
1590 MARIETTA BOULEVARD, N.W.,
1293 HENDERSONVILLE RD SUITE 3
100 SEAHORSE DRIVE
13 04 PHILLIPS BLDG
406 BEAUMONDE AVE
P.O. BOX 28052
PO BOX97005
PO BOX 20004
1002 S FRONT ST
422 S CHURCH STREET PB05D
~ HILLSBOROUGH ST SUITE 445
9715 LITTLE RIVER COURT
15 COUNOTRY PLACE PARK --+-
RT 1 BOX62-G
PO BOX 26507
P.O. BOX 41087
5313 GROVEWOOD PLACE
301 S. McDOWELL STREET, SUITE 914
355 UNION BLVD., SUITE 200
8607 ROBERTS DR SUITE 100
1024 WASHINGTON ST
---
WINSTON-SALEM
NEWBERN
PISGAH FOREST
WILMINGTON
CLIFFSIDE
ATLANTA
VALDESE -! CHARLOTTE
IUlE,IGM
ATLANTA
ASHEVILLE
WAUKEGAN --
BARTLESVILLE
SHELBY --
RALEIGH
RALEIGH
GREENSBORO
WILMINGTON
CHARLOTTE
~
t ClA
NC
NC
NC
-·
GA
NC
IL
OK
NC
NC
I
NC
NC
I NC
I NC
-
RALEIGH ______ ,_NC __
MATTHEWS NC --
CHANDLER NC
CLARKSVILLE l
VA -
RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC
l cHARLOTTE -
----
INC
LAKEWOOD +---ca
JATLANTA G A
411 HOLLYlANE ---------------i-
JRALEIGH
CHAPEL HILL
]Ne
NC
5340 QUEENS CIRCLE ROAD
5511 CAPITAL CENTER DR S-P100
PO BOX 2959
PO BOX929
ARCHDALE BLDG
PO BOX2611
PO BOX242B
PO BOX 77077
PO BOX6JO
PO BOX 86
P O BOX 141020 ---
2425 S. ALSTON AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3027
PO BOX 3099 MAIL CODE NC31041
P.O. BOX 27687
PO BOX866
PO BOX590
24 HAYWARD DRIVE
PO BOX4582
Page 6
-
HICKORY I NC
RALEIGH NC
WINSTON-SALEM F
GREENVILLE NC
INTEROFFICE
RALEIGH -I NC -
SHELBY NC
GREENSBORO
FAYETTEVILLE
j"c
NC
TEACHEY
GAINESVILLE
RESEARCH TRI PK __.___
DURHAM r FL
NC
NC -
WILSON NC
WINSTON-SALEM NC
RALEIGH NC
MT HOLLY NC
RALEIGH
l5URRY
ATLANTA
I NC
NH
JGA
'710~
28560
28768
28402
28024 -
30309
28690
2~
21'.fi07 -
30316 ---
28803
60085
74004
28150
27611
27624
27470
28401
28242
27603
28105
28715
23927
27611
27629
27606
:t!l~'Oil
80228
30350
27605
27514
28602
27606
27835
27602
28150
27407
28302
28464
32614
27713
27895
27150
27611
28120
27602
3431
30302
KARLAWISH, KEITH
KELLY I JAMES E
KELLY,JIM
KETCHUM, MICHAEL L
KILPATRICK, JERRY O CHEMIST
KING, SUSAN R
KLIMEK, ALAN CHIEF
KNIGHT, JEFF
KNEIB, JAN A
KOSMIDIS, SOPHIA
KRUG.LISA
KUCHNIA, JOHN BLDG SYSTEMS ENG
KUNEFF, TERRY CIVIL ENGINEER
KUSZAJ, DR JAMES M
KWIATKOWSKI, DP
LABADORF, KATE
LAKE, ALANS
LAMB, ALLEN
LAND QUALITY REGIONAL ENGINEER
LAND QUALITY REGIONAL ENGINEER
LAND QUALITY REGIONAL ENGINEER
LAND QUALITY REGIONAL ENGINEER
LANO QUALITY Rf:GIONAL ENGINEER
LAND QUALITY REGIONAL ENGINEER
LAND QUALITY REGIONAL ENGINEER
LATOi:_l_,DON'
LAWRENCE, JAMES
LAYMON, LEE_
LAZZARA, LYNN
LAZZO, DAVID W
LAZO.CHADDERTON, MATTY
LEE, DENNIS
LEE, TOM
LEWIS, RONALD COUNTY MANAGER
LEWIS, TERESA R CPT (USAF)
LIEPE, DR. PAUL
LINVILLE, INEZ I.
LITTLE, J MACK
LITTLE, LINDA W
LITTMEN, NEAL VICE PRESIDENT
LIVELY, LAWRENCE
LLOYD, DA.VIC E
LOEB, CHRISTOPHER W
LONG, JOHN R
LOVDAHL, STACY
LOVEDRLL, CHRIS
LOWOER,WES
LOWER,RICH
LOWENKRON, LARRY
LUCAS, STEVE
LYNE, KATHRYNE LEAD ENGINEER
B B & T LOAN SERVICE
PETROLEUM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSU
OMNI PROFESSIONALS
MONSANTO COMPANY SUITE 200
EMERSON ELEC CO
~
NEUSE RIVER FOUNDATION
DEM-AIR QUALITY
El DUPONT CO
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORP
SPECIALIZED MARINE INC -----
DEPT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
HAYES SEAY MATTERN &MATTERN
1GLETREE LAW FIRM
□GERTON E~V SERVICE INC
GOEN ENVIRONMENTAL
OWENS CORNING
r--
LAMB INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS
EHNR
EHNR
EHNR
EHNR -+-
EHNR
EHNR
EHNR -+--
EHNR..QFFICE OF GEN COUNSEL
EMCO WHEATON INC.-RET/IIL DIV.
MID-ATLA.NTIC ASSOCIATES
SOIL SOLUTIONS
ENSCI ENVIRONMENTAL INC
NEWSOM, GRAHAM •..... ECETERA, ECETERA
UNION COUNTY
USAF
EDISON ELECTRICAL INSTITUTE (GHPC, INC)
ATTORNEY
LlriLE & LITTLE LANDSCAPE ARC
ENVIRO SERVE UTILITIES INC 7 SMITHFIELD FOODS INC
NEPTCO
J ROBINSON BRADSHAW&HINTON
I GRAHAM HEDRICK KENNON & CHEEK
GERAGHTY & MILLER
GERAGHTY & MILLER INC
(s&ME INC
-+DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL
NESTE RESINS
ARMOUR CAPE & POND INC
MAILWGWL.XLS
PO BOX 1847
fl'OBOX:26-4.13 -
P.O. BOX 13404
1515 JOHNSON FERRY RD
PO BOX 15451
ARCHDALE BLDG 8TH FLOOR
608 SUMMIT AVE, STE 103
PO BOX BOO
ONE CHAMPION PLAZA
837 SUNNYVALE OR
~
301 N WILMINGTON EDUCATION BLD
2300 W MEADOWVIEW DR SUITE 110
PO BOX 31608 -
2200 GATEWAY BLVD SUITE 205
~
9800 WEST KINCEY, SUITE 190
FIBERGLASS TOWER
PO BOX638
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
r
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
WINSTON SALEM REGIONAL O FFICE
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE ----
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
------
2300 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR
1310-H CORPORATION PARKWAY
1703 VARGRAVE ST -~
PO BOX 80275
223 TWIN OAKS PLACE
5221 FIELDSTONE DR.
P.O.BOX 51579
POBOX218
~
4MGJSGPB 1855 WRIGHT AVE SJAFB
701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
242 NORTH CHERRY STREET
PO BOX 1448
5000 HERMITAGE DRIVE
1811-204 AVENT RIDGE RD
PO BOX 447
PO BOX 2323 ·-
1900 INDEPENDENCE CENTER
PO BOX 51579
2846 PLAZA PLACE
2640 PLAZA PLACE SUITE 350
44 BUCK SHOALS RD UNIT 6-9
6701 CARMEL ROAD, SUITE 200 --
P OBOX270 -·
640 BELLMORROW DRIVE
2699 JOHNSON RD NE
Page 7
WILSON NC 27894
JcHARLOTTE INC 28221 -·------------
RTP NC 27709 -----~--
MARIETTA GA 30062 -·----·-----------·
MURPHY NC 28906
NEWBERN NC 28561 ·---
INTEROFFICE ----~--.-----·---
GREENSBORO NC 27405
KINSTON NC 28501
STAMFORD CT 6921 ---
WILMINGTON NC 28412
~ --
INTEROFFICE ----
GREENSBORO NC 27407
RALEIGH NC 27622 -------,-------+-
MORRISVILLE NC 27560
I HUNTE~SVILLE NC 28078
TOLEDO OH 43659
I
LUMBERTON NC 28359
COURIER01-74-29 --------4
COURIER04-16-33 • INTEROFFICE
COURIER 14-56-25
t
-·
COURIER09-27-46 ---
COURIER13-21-07 -I COURJEROB-78-46
INTEROFFICE -t--
WILSON NC 27893
RALEIGH NC 27610
WmTO~,IS.AU M NC 27107
RALEIGH NC 27623 -
CARY NC 27511
RALEIGH NC 27609 -------
DURHAM NC 27702
IMONROE NC 28111
S JOHNSON AFB NC 27531
WASHINGTON DC 20004
KERNERSVILLE ~ 27284
RALEIGH NC 27602
RALEIGH NC 27612 ------
RALEIGH NC 27606
SMITHFIELD VA 23430
PAWTUCKET RI 2861
CHARLOTTE ~~
DURHAM NC 27717
RALEIGH NC 27512
RALEIGH NC 27612 -------
ARDEN NC 28704 --
CHARLOTTE NC 28226
-
SPRINGFIELD
IOR
97477
___ ,CHARLOTTE 28214 NC
ATLANTA GA 30345
Re: Variances--reply
1 of I
Subject: Re: Variances--reply
From: David Hance <l)[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:13:23 -0500
To: Linda Culpepper <[e-mail]>
CC: Carl Bailey <Carl.Bailey@.neinail.net>
Linda,
To answer your first questicm. Yes, you can come over today and pick the materials on the Incident Variances that we
have from me. I am on the 6th Floor of the Archdale Building in Room 625aa. This is the office in the hallway directly
across from the copiers. I will box these up for you.
I will be here the rest of today past 5 PM. l
Note that I will not be here Monday, February 26th but I will be in on Tuesday.
You can call me at 733-5083 x. 587 ..
As for your question relatedto'the EMC Groundwater Committee and Environmental Management
Commission ........ The short am;wer is •·· you would need to wait for the next meeting.
This due to the EMC By-La>yyf that require a 30 Day waiting period between items that go to a Committee and those
that go to the Commission. (That is found on the DWQ Website under the EMC part of it). Note thatthe EMC and it's
Committees meet every other month and you can get the schedule at this same website.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
Environmental Specialist
Linda Culpepper wrote:
Hi there,
David -have you sent over the pending variances yet? If not, I'd like to pick them up later this afternoon.
I'd like to look at the package.s before our session next Weds.
Quick question on timing -when scheduling a variance to be heard at a GW Committee meeting,
do you schedule it for the full EMC that session in anticipation that it will be heard, or do you
have to wait for the next EMC session?
thanks.
linda
,
'.~rt~:·•
~-•a
2/23/2007 3:15 PM
DRAFT 12/27/06
FILE TRANSFER INSTRUMENT
RECORDED NAME OF SITE ___________________ _
GROUNDWATER INCIDENT # was this date -------------------
Transferred from the Division of Water Quality staff to the Director of the Division of Waste Management
(DWM), Mr. Dexter Matthews. The DWQ staff has examined the record for this variance and has found it
is for a groundwater . incident or site. Furthermore, there is no water quality permit, identified by
"WQXXXXXX'', related to this request. The basis for the transfer is indicated with an "X" below:
Variance request is still under review at the ____ regional office. The last known contact
person for this variance request at the Regional Office is _____________ at the
Division of ----------
Variance request has completed technical review at the regionaloffice level and is now ready other
Division of Waste Management (DWM) Central Office reviews or the Director's review for
completeness under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d), as deemed applicable by the DWM. The
recommendation from the regional office staff is as follows:
__ Approve the Variance as requested by the responsible party;
Approve the Variance Request under conditions outlined in ---------~
A public notice of hearing with a letter to the Director of the Division of Waste Management
describing the work done on this variance has been completed. The variance request has been
reviewed for DWQ Planning Staff and it is believed to be complete. If the DWM Director
c·oncurs, then the Division of Waste Management (DWM) will need to make the hearing
arrangements anµ public notice per the ISA NCAC 2L .0113 Rule in the city/county where the
variance is proposed.
1
DRAFT 12/27/06
__ fucludes binders and other items submitted by the Responsible Party and/or his consultant as
follows:
Mr. David Hance an Environmental Specialist II with the Division of Water Quality -Planning Section
completed this file transfer under the direction of Jeff Manning, Head, DWQ/Planning Section -
Classifications and Standards Unit.
cc: Linda Chavis
2
DRAFT 12/21/06
FILE TRANSFER INSTRUMENT
RECORDED NAME OF SITE ___________________ _
GROUNDWATER INCIDENT# ________ was this date ________ _
Transferred from the Division of Water Quality staff to the Director of the Division of Waste Management
(DWM), Mr. Dexter Matthews. The DWQ staff has examined the record for this variance and has found
no water quality permit, identified by "WQXXXXXX", related to this request. The basis for the transfer is
indicated with an "X" below:
Variance request is for a groundwater incident and is still under review at the ____ regional
office. The last known contact person for this variance request at the Regional Office is
_____________ at the Division of __________ _
Variance request has completed technical review at the regional office level and is now ready other
Division of Waste Management (DWM) Central Office reviews or the Director's review for
completeness under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d), as deemed applicable by the DWM. The
recommendation from the regional office staff is as follows:
__ Approve the Variance as requested by the responsible party;
__ Approve the Variance Request under conditions outlined in _______ _
A public notice of hearing with a letter to the Director of the Division of Waste Management
describing the work done on this variance has been completed. The variance request has been
reviewed for DWQ Planning Staff and it is believed to be complete. If the DWM Director
concurs, · then the Division of Waste Management (DWM) will need to make the hearing
arrangements and public notice per the 15A NCAC 2L .0113 Rule in the city/ool'irtty where the
variance is proposed.
t
Re: Ne~d for Hearing Officers for two upcoming hearings on Variance ...
3 of3
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section ,
DENR Division of Water Quality i
5/15/2006 9:43 AM
Please review the guidance and provide comments to David Hance in the DWQ-Planning
Section. Mr. Hance may be reached at the address below:
David Hance, DENR-DWQ-Planning Section,
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1636,
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone];
E-Mail Address; [e-mail]
If possible, the Planning Section would like to have your comments and any
recommended changes on or before Wednesday, August 18, 2004. This will give them time to
develop a final draft for the upcoming Aquifer Protection Section Supervisors meeting in late
August. If you wish to discuss this document with me, please feel free to call 919-715-6172.
cc: Carl Bailey Boyd Devane
2
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
Guidance on Information Required to Obtain a Variance
Under Title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c) (1-9)
The following is a discussion of the information needed to get a variance request to public notice
and hearing per 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d) and (e). This guidance is intended to assist the DWQ staff,
permittees and persons responsible for cleanup in understanding the types of information submittals that
have resulted in variances approved by the Environmental Management Commission.
The outline below divides the discussion of variance submittals into two parts. The first section
discusses variances from standards and cleanup requirements contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and
15A NCAC 2L .0106. The second section discusses variances that permittees may request to alter or
extend Compliance Boundaries for a Non-Discharge Permit. Each section quotes part of the rule
followed by the information needed. If permittees and persons responsible for cleanup submit the
information shown in this guidance for a particular site or facility, the requirements of the rule should be
met. Note that these information requirements apply to individual sites or facilities per the requirements
of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(l-9) since variances apply to site-specific activities.
Prior to doing any work on a particular variance request, the proper administrative review needs
to be determined in order to know which staff in the DWQ Regional and Central Offices should be
involved in developing the information and bringing the variance to public hearing. If a Groundwater
Incident site has UST identification numbers, this is to be referred to the UST Section, unless the
Aquifer Protection Section (APS) staff believes that there are circumstances that require their oversight.
Examples include sites where there are commingled AST and UST Plumes of contamination or
substances other than petroleum are present at the site. Sites and permits that fall under North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.3(e) are subject to the variance requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
Please provide the necessary information in the "Required Information" sections under each
subparagraph of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c) as requested to support the variance request.
·····················································································-
I. Incidents and Releases:
A. Subparagraph # 1: "Applications filed by counties or municipalities must include a
resolution of the County Board of Commissioners of the governing board ..... requesting
the variance. "
B.
Required Information for # 1: Unless the Responsible Party is a local
government, no resolution is required.
Subparagraph# 2: "A description of past, existing, or proposed activities or operations
that have or would result in a discharge of contaminants to the groundwaters".
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 1
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
Required Information for # 2: This shall include a discussion of activities
that resulted in a release of substances into the environment. This submittal
to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(2) must show:
• the Groundwater Incident Number for the release of substances for which variance
is requested;
• the county tax identification number and/or deed numbers for the property or
properties involved in the variance request;
• a description of the operations at the facility with a discussion of activities that
resulted in an exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards;
• a description of the substances found at the site from monitoring data;
• a description of substances from records of what was released, processed, and stored
at the site, as available;
• that if soil vapor recovery activities were conducted as a part of a corrective action
plan, an inventory of volatile and/or semi-volatile substances may be provided to
support the variance, if available. This information may be used to determine if Soil
Vapor Extraction (SVE) and other technologies used at the site are no longer
effective at cleaning up contaminated soils at the site. This can be obtained from
data used by the responsible party to monitor the effectiveness this type of
technology over time.
• that if pump and treat cleanup was required under a corrective action plan,
information showing that cleanup of groundwater is no longer effective will support
the variance request. This information may be obtained from recovery well samples
or other types of sampling showing the efficacy of cleanup operations over time;
• the amount of acreage of the facility or business;
• the amount of acreage for the land area proposed for variance;
• the history and use of the site;
• the reasons that a variance needs to be applied in lieu of Best Available Technology
under title 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j);
• the reasons a variance needs to be applied in lieu of a KLM Corrective Action Plan
(CAP);
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 2
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
• the conditions at the site that will result or have resulted in a exceedence of
Groundwater Quality Standards;
• the impact granting a variance may have an area of separate contamination at the
site under a different incident number and/or a permit granted by the Division
under title ISA NCAC 2L .0107 (if applicable); and
• any other land use features unique to these facilities.
Also include a brief discussion of the interactions between responsible party and the
Aquifer Protection Section with regard the need for variance.
In addition to information about the site, the variance request must include
information on other known sources of contamination that may impact the land area of the
proposed variance at the site. This may include other on-site and off-site sources of
groundwater contamination (such as leaking UST tanks, solvent spills, hazardous waste
sites, etc.). The impact of permitted operations such as CAFOs, landfarming operations,
non-discharge spray irrigation facilities should also be included in the discussion of
activities that have or may potentially impact the area proposed for variance. The variance
also should examine the impact of wastewater sewers lines, and lift stations, and other
nearby wastewater conveyances on the site where variance is requested. In reporting
information on sources of groundwater contamination at adjacent properties, please note
the local tax identification numbers or deed numbers for the properties where these
sources are located. This information can come from existing information in the Regional
Offices, responsible parties information, comprehensive site assessments, information
gathering services or other information sources that are currently available. GIS Data at
the Regional Office or from the APS Central Office may also be used.
C. Subparagraph# 3: "Description of the proposed area for which a variance is requested.
A detailed map, showing the orientation of the facility ...... must be included"
Required Information for # 3: Maps showing each of the facilities with important
features must be included with the variance request and the following are required:
• A general area map that shows nearby structures, roads, surface water bodies,
surface drainage features, and other important site features. A topographic map
shall be used for this and it's scale and quadrangle reference is to be shown;
• A site map showing buildings, the location of the area of land where the release
occurred, facility structures, major streams, wastewater piping and/or lift stations,
and water supply lines within area proposed for variance. If there are wastewater
treatment, disposal or storage systems at the site, these should also be noted.
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 3
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
• A site map showing the dimensions and shape of land area proposed for variance.
The dimensions of this area may be shown in square feet or in acres of land;
• A site map showing hydrogeolo gic contours through the site and the area for which
variance is requested and adjacent properties included. Groundwater monitoring
wells, drinking water supply wells, observation wells, recovery wells, process water
supply wells, and other types of wells shall be located on this map. Buildings and
other land use features shall be shown as well. The land area for the . proposed
variance needs to be noted on the map and the area where groundwater is known to
be contaminated should be shown as well. The map must show the direction of
groundwater flow through the site and through the area proposed for variance.
• A site map showing groundwater monitoring wells with the most recent
concentration levels of substances found at the site;
• A site map showing water well use within ½ mile of the site around the site.
This includes both private and public water supply wells;
• Site map(s) showing more details of utilities at the site. Wastewater treatment
systems, wastewater lines and water lines that run through the area of the variance
request must be located. This includes the areas where substances are expected to
migrate;
• A site map showing the location of properties immediately adjacent to the facility.
Please include ·the names of the property owners, addresses, and deed numbers of
these properties on the map, if possible;
• A map showing the horizontal boundaries of the area proposed for variance must be
submitted.
• A map showing the vertical extent of substances within the area of the proposed
variance may be used to support the variance request, if available. If the responsible
party has conducted modeling or other types of investigative work associated with a
cleanup of this site or as a part of a CSA/CAP under 15A NCAC 2L .0106, this
information may be provided to support a variance request. The scale of this
diagram will be shown and it will show the dimensions area proposed for variance.
If the information on the vertical extent of substances beneath the site does not exist
or is inadequate to show the extent of substances, it is up to the discretion of the
Division to require this information.
• Any other important site specific map or feature that the person requesting the
variance and/or the regional office deems necessary for the Commission to
adequately review the variance request.
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 4
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
All maps must show all features 360 degrees around the site and show the orientation of the
site in relation to "north" on a compass. Existing quadrangle maps, local government maps,
topographic maps or Arcview maps may be used. If placing all the information requested on
one map would make the map difficult to read, you may use individual maps to meet this
requirement. Detailed site and hydrogeologic maps must be to the same scale. If the variance
specifies that the area proposed for variance will extend the onto an adjacent landowner's
property, please note this as well on maps. These items shall be discussed in the variance
request narrative and they should be submitted in appendices or attachments with the request.
D. Subparagraph# 4: "Supporting information to establish that the variance will not
endanger the public health, ad safety, ................ from exposure to groundwater
contaminants".
Required Information for # 4: The narrative for each of the sites shall discuss the reasons
why granting a variance will not impact health and the environment. Included in this
discussion shall be information showing that private and public drinking water supplies would
not be impacted in or around the responsible party(s) property. The vertical and horizontal
extent of substances within the land area proposed for variance must be delineated and
described in the variance request. Groundwater monitoring data must demonstrate that (1)
primary pollution source(s) (i.e. surficial accumulations of free product, waste stockpiles, buried
waste, and/or non-aqueous phase liquids) from the release has been removed from the site
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0202(1); (2) substances are not at concentration levels that will
adversely impact private and public drinking water wells outside of area for variance; and (3)
substances will not migrate to off site drinking water supply wells at concentration levels above
applicable standards;
If there are public water supply wells:
• within the proposed area of the variance;
• downgraidient from the property such that migrating substances may be impacted
by substances;
• on the responsible party(s) property;
Then the following information is required:
The details of well construction must clearly demonstrate that the granting the variance
will not adversely impact water quality. Information submitted must show well depth,
depth to water, depth and type of casing, geologic information, lithologic information, well
screen and packing materials used must be submitted.
If there are private water supplies, well records showing construction details shall be
provided to support the variance. Readily available information on well depth, depth to
water, depth of casing, geologic information, lithologic information, well screen and
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 5
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
packing materials, grouting, shall be submitted in the variance. If feasible, simple
groundwater modeling may be conducted to show that the variance will not impact health.
Cross sectional diagrams showing well construction of both private and public
water supply wells with local subsurface soils, materials and rock types shall be submitted,
if they exist. This will assist in making the determination that substances will not impact or
migrate such that Groundwater Quality Standards will be exceeded outside the area
proposed for variance. If there is groundwater quality monitoring data from recovery wells
or other types of wells that will assist in determining if a variance shall be granted, this
data with the well identification information and laboratory results will also need to be
submitted. If the responsible party has conducted groundwater modeling, this may be used
as well. Water supply wells and other wells at the site should be noted and shown on a
scaled map or diagram. It is at the discretion of the Regional Office as to the efficacy of
modeling for a particular variance request.
If there are site-specific features that mitigate the impacts of substances at the site
these details need to be discussed in the request. Information such as well construction
details, subsurface soils and rock types, hydrogeology, the occurrence of natural
remediation or attenuation of substances within the area of the variance must be submitted
to support the variance request and to allow substances to remain in place without
treatment or remediation.
If there are soils impacted by substances within the proposed area of the variance,
the location of these soils and concentration levels shall be noted. If soils at the site have
been deemed a "secondary pollution source" under 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (f) and threaten
the quality of groundwater, these soils must be removed, treated or controlled pursuant to
the rule. Soils-to-groundwater risk based levels may be used as a comparison to determine
if substances in soils will not impact groundwater quality outside of the land area proposed
for variance and/or off site wells and receptors. The assessment of impact of contaminated
soils includes surface soils, deep soils, and unconsolidated materials within the area
proposed for variance. If site information reveals that substances located in this area will
degrade or attenuate such that there are no impacts to groundwater and drinking water
supplies, this information must be provided to support the request. If cleanup activities
have been conducted on contaminated soils, the information submitted must show that the
remediation activities met the requirements of the "Guidelines for the Investigation and
Remediation of Soil and Groundwater (July 2000)". If no action has occurred at the site
with respect to remediation or removal of contaminated soils, the responsible party must
demonstrate that residual levels of substances in the soils and subsurface materials will not
impact human health or degrade groundwater quality outside of the land area proposed
for variance.
If the responsible party(s) intends to conduct other activities to reduce the
infiltration of rainwater into soils and groundwater, such as capping the sites with concrete
or asphalt, this action needs to be noted in the variance request. Maps and cross sectional
diagrams of soil sampling points should be included in the attachments to the request.
The variance request must demonstrate that granting the variance will not impact
surface waters. This demonstration must show that the variance will not (1) pose a health
hazard or significantly degrade the quality of surface water supplies used for drinking; and
(2) pose health or environmental hazards with other "best uses" of surface waters (i.e.
drinking water supply, recreation, bathing, swimming, fishing, etc.). Documentation
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 6
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
submitted must demonstrate that Surface Water Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2B or
other guidance levels used by the DWQ will not be exceeded for the classification of surface
water bodies around the site. Surface water monitoring data must be included to support
the variance request. Note that impact to local wetlands should be included in the
assessment of surface water impacts since the Department considers these to be surface
waters.
The request shall also discuss the impact of granting a variance on sewer service
lines, building basements, telephone/cable television boxes, or other local utilities. These
types of structures may serve as a channel for contamination and the variance shall note
the depth of these utilities in relation to the depth of the substances and the expected
vertical and horizontal migration paths of these substances in groundwater. If there are
improperly abandoned wells at or near the site, the impacts of the variance on this type of
excavation needs to be discussed and, if there are impacts, efforts to mitigate these types of
wells need to discussed in the request.
Laboratory data to support the variance must show that the variance will not have
an adverse impact on health and the environment. With respect to any samples from
groundwater monitoring wells, surface water, drinking water wells, or soil sampling data
used to support this variance, laboratory information and sampling parameters must be
adequately assessed. The laboratory methods must be noted in the variance request for the
samples collected. Concentrations of the substances, the direction they will migrate, the
groundwater wells they have been found in, and the impact they have on groundwater
must be evaluated. This information may need a review of the toxicological and health
impacts by the Division of Public Health.
Health impacts information must show trends of what is occurring in groundwater.
Data in a tabular format shall be provided depicting the media monitored, identification
number of the sampling site, substance and concentration. The concentration of the
substances that are found using that particular analytical method must be shown in the
table with the current Groundwater Quality Standard either listed in a column or shown in
a legend. The trend analysis is to show the behavior of substances within the land area
proposed for variance and may be shown on line or bar graphs in an appendix. This
analysis shall also show what direction the concentrations are anticipated to go (that is,
concentrations increasing or decreasing) as a result of the variance. Monitoring shall also
demonstrate what is expected to happen within the land area proposed for variance, if
granted by the Commission. Risk-based calculations or risk based levels for substances
from previous guidance may be used as comparisons as well, if these risk-based levels are
established. Available permittee monitoring data or special sampling data requested by the
Division of Water Quality may be used to support this request. If graphic information is
available, this can be provided as well to support the request. If any risk based
concentrations are provided for comparison, these should also be in the same units.
For analysis of organics, semi-volatiles, metals, non-metal inorganics, petroleum
related substances and base/neutral extractables, the tabular format should show the
substances in these appropriate categories. The date the sample was taken and analysis
conducted should be shown in the table. The tabular data needs to clearly show if the
sample came from a monitoring well, recovery well, drinking water supply well, process
water supply well, or other type of well. The appropriate Groundwater Quality Standard
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 or interim maximum allowable concentration should be shown in
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 7
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
the table for comparison. It is optional to provide existing risk based calculations in a
separate column of the table to support the variance request. The well number and its
identifier as a certain type of well should be shown in the table (i.e. monitoring well,
recovery well, etc.). The concentration units for the substances in the table shall be in
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or in micrograms per liter (ug/L). Analytical methods used
shall conform to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0112 and other methods approved by
the Aquifer Protection Section.
If there are contaminated soils at the site, a separate table must show the data for
each numbered soil sampling point, the substances found, and concentrations. This table
must be similar to the table used for groundwater monitoring results and must clearly
show that these are soil samples. The depth beneath the surface for the soil sample taken
must also be noted and if multiple samples are extracted from one sampling point at
different depths, these must be clearly noted in the table and the narrative that describes it.
If soil contamination at the site comes from sources other than a petroleum underground
storage tank, analytical methods used to determine concentrations for the soil(s) must
conform to the requirements of "Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soil
and Groundwater (July 2000)". Calculations of "Soil-to-Groundwater concentrations"
from other DENR guidance may be provided as a guideline to assist staff and the
Commission in determining if residual concentrations in soils and subsurface materials will
have an impact on groundwater. "IndustriaVCommercial" concentration levels may also
be submitted, however, it must be noted that the Aquifer Protection Section does not have
the statutory authority to apply this kind of risk based level at sites under it's management.
Any data submitted will be provided to the hearing officer and commission but will not be
used as the basis to grant a variance request. Substances will be represented in milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg) or in parts per million (ppm) as reflected in the July 2000 guidance.
If the variance has the potential to impact a surface water body, the analytical data
must be shown in the same type of tabular format that is used for groundwater and/or soil
monitoring results. The tabular data must show the surface water sampling point from the
map submitted with the variance request and the substance found. The Surface Water
Quality Standard for substances found at the site or from other appropriate guidance must
also be shown in the table as well. Any additional notes may also be listed in the legend of
the table. The units for the concentration levels must correspond to what is required in 15A
NCAC 2B rules.
E. Subparagraph # 5: "Supporting information to establish the requirements of the Rule
cannot be achieved by providing the best available technology economically reasonable ....... "
Required Information f!)r # 5: The response must discuss the types of "best
available technology" applicable the site and the costs associated to comply with 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(j) and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Information may be obtained from the
owner/operator, consultants, industry sources, or other relevant sources. Reports, budgets,
memoranda, or othei: sources may be used to establish these estimates. Cost estimates for
use of a particular technology must be provided with a discussion of the reasons why it is
anticipated that use of that technology will be no more effective than variance. The
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 8
DRAFT_ 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
discussion of additional costs for the implementation of cleanup technology shall be
itemized as follows:
• Capital costs for installation of new construction, machinery, control technology,
remediation technology, recovery wells, and other types of wells;
• Operation and maintenance of new technology;
• Utility costs;
• Personnel costs to operate the new technology, if applicable; and
• Other secondary costs associated with the new technology (i.e. costs to asphalt or
cover the site, cost for new roads or relocated roads or driveways, cost for removal of
buildings or other site structures, purchase or rental of additional land; landscaping/
grading of property, the cost for additional spray fields/land farming (permits only);
etc).
The time frame for these costs must be noted as well and it is preferred that the
information be provided as a cost in dollars per year. A total cost for each alternative
technology needs to be noted in this response.
F. Subparagraph # 6: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship on the applicant. "
Required Information for # 6: The variance request must specify the type of
financial hardship the applicant will undergo and the effects of complying with 15A NCAC
2L .0106(j) and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Effects on facility including operations, proposed
expansion, employment, and other impacts may be noted. If possible, these costs should be
quantified.
G. Subparagraph# 7: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit. "
Required Information for # 7: The variance request must specify the financial
hardship of meeting 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202 in the context of
lack of any public benefit. A discussion of local economic, financial, and employment
conditions in the local jurisdiction may be included. If there are potential costs and budget
impacts to the company, proprietor, and/or owner by not granting a variance, these shall
be discussed in detail.
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 9
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
H. Sub paragraph # 8: A co py o f an y Special Order that was issued in connection with
contaminants in the pro posed area and supporting in fo rmation that the a pplicant has
com plied with the special order.
Required Information for# 8: The rule is self-explanatory.
I. Sub parag ra ph # 9: A list o{the names o fp r.o p erty owners ...... ".
Required Information for # 9: Include the deed number and/or local tax
identification number for each property within the area proposed for variance, adjacent
property and other impacted properties. The names and mailing addresses of these owners
must be included. If the property is a rental property, please include the name and address
of the current resident, if local records reveal this. This is to include all residential,
industrial and commercial properties immediately around the site. The names, addresses,
and deed numbers for well owners within ½ mile of the site must also be included. In
addition, contact persons for utilities (i.e. NCDOT, railroads, and other utilities) that
traverse the area of the variance or are downgraidient from the facility must be notified as
well. If the facility or consultant has conducted a well survey, this information may be used
as well. It is up to the judgment of the Aquifer Protection Section Regional Supervisor if a
survey submitted to support a variance is complete, if any survey is necessary, or if.an
additional survey should be required in order to meet requirements of the rule.
(NOTE: The above is basic information is common to most variance
requests where spills and releases have resulted or may result in
exceedences of 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards in groundwater. The
Division of Water Quality may require the submittal of more
information from the responsible party or less information based on
the impact of substances at the site and other site specific factors)
····················································································•-
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 10
DRAFT l SA NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
II. Non-Discharge Permits for Facilities that need Compliance Boundaries
Altered or Exceedences of Standards outside of those Boundaries require
Variance:
A. Subparagraph # 1: "Applications filed by counties or municipalities must include a
resolution of the County Board of Commissioners of the governing board ..... requesting
the variance. "
Required Information for # 1: Unless the Permittee is a local government, no
resolution is required.
B. Subparagraph #2: "A description of past, existing, or proposed activities or operations
that have or would result in a discharge of contaminants to the groundwaters".
Required Information for # 2: This shall include a discussion of activities that
involve a permit. This submittal to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(2)
must show:
• the individual permit number or numbers for the facility;
• a copy of the Notice of Violation, if issued by the Division, pertaining to substances
found outside of compliance boundaries as a means demonstrating the need for a
variance;
• the county tax identification number and/or deed numbers for the properties for
which variance is requested;
• a description of the operations at the facility that requires a permit;
• a description of the waste stream being treated at the site;
• a discussion of the design flow of these waste water treatment systems;
• the amount of acreage of the facility;
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 11
> •
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
• the amount of acreage for the land area proposed for variance;
• the history of the permitted site;
• the reasons for the permit;
• the description and land area of the permitted boundaries under 15A NCAC 2L (i.e.
waste, review and compliance);
• the conditions at the site that will result or have resulted in a exceedence of
Groundwater Quality Standards in title 15A NCAC 2L .0202 within the area
proposed for variance;
• the activities and circumstances outside the compliance boundary that require land
be designated as under variance by the Environmental Management Commission;
• a revised compliance boundary if the variance request specifies that this will change
as a result of granting the variance;
• a description of a public water supply well impacted by the variance !f the operation
of that existing well is in violation of 15A NCAC 2L .0107(d); and
• any other land use features unique to these facilities.
Also include a brief discussion of the interactions between the permittee and the
Aquifer Protection Section with regard the need for variance. In addition to information
about the site, the variance request must include information on other known sources of
contamination that may impact the land area of the proposed variance at the permitted
operation. This may include other on-site and off-site sources of groundwater
contamination (such as leaking UST tanks, solvent spills, etc.). If other permitted
operations are occurring on-site under a different permit number these must be discussed
as well. The impact of off-site permitted operations such as spray irrigation operations,
lagoons, CAFOs, and other non-discharge permitted operations must be included as well.
The variance request should also show the wastewater sewers lines, lift stations and other
wastewater treatment conveyances near the site. In reporting information on sources of
groundwater contamination at adjacent properties, please note the local tax identification
numbers or deed numbers for the properties where these sources are located. This
information can come from existing information in the Regional Office, the permit
application, the permitted facility, or other information sources that are currently
available. Existing reference information from GIS data may be included, if readily
accessible.
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 12
' .
DRAFT I SA NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
C. Sub paragraph# 3: "Description of the proposed area for which a variance is requested.
A detailed map, showing the orientation of the facility . . . . . . must be included"
Required Information for # 3: Maps showing each of the facilities with important
features must be included with the variance request and the following are required:
• A general area map that shows nearby structures, roads, surface water bodies,
surface drainage features, and other important site f ea tu res. A topographic map
shall be used for this and it's scale and quadrangle reference is to be shown;
• A site map showing buildings, waste treatment devices and structures, facility
structures, wells, major streams, waste disposal operations, wastewater piping
and/or lift stations, and water supply lines within area proposed for variance.
• A site map showing the dimensions and shape of land area proposed for variance.
The waste boundary, review boundary, and compliance boundary should also be
noted on the map. The dimensions of this area may be shown in square feet or in
acres of land;
• A site map showing hydrogeologic contours through the site and the area for which
variance is requested and adjacent properties included. Groundwater monitoring
wells, drinking water supply wells, process water supply wells, and other types of
wells shall be located on this map. Buildings and other land use features shall be
shown as well. The land area for the proposed variance in acres or square feet needs
to be noted on the map. All boundaries required in 15A NCAC 2L .0107 for
permitted facilities needs to be shown on the map with dimensions noted on the map
or in the narrative.
• The map must show the direction of groundwater flow through the site and through
the area for variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
• A site map showing groundwater monitoring wells with the most recent
concentration levels of substances found at the site;
• A site map showing water well use within½ mile of the site around the facility.
This includes both private and public water supply wells;
• A site map showing the location of an operating or operational public water supply
well, if that well is within a compliance boundary and it is in violation of 15A NCAC
2L .0107( d);
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 13
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
• Site map(s) showing more details of utilities at the site. Wastewater treatment
systems, wastewater lines and water lines that run through the area of the variance
request must be located. This includes the areas where substances are expected to
migrate;
• A site map showing the location of properties immediately adjacent to the facility.
Please include the names of the property owners, addresses, and deed numbers of
these properties on the map, if possible;
• A map showing the horizontal boundaries of the area proposed for variance must be
submitted. This map should show the waste boundary, review boundary,
compliance boundary and the area out side of the compliance boundary that is
proposed for variance.
• A map showing the vertical extent of substances within the area of the proposed
variance may be used to support the variance request, if available. If the permittee
has conducted modeling or other types of investigative work associated with a
permit or permit renewal for a facility this information may be provided to support
a variance request. The scale of this diagram will be shown and it will show the
dimensions of the waste boundary, review boundary, compliance boundary, and
area proposed for variance for each of the permits. It the information on the vertical
extent of substances outside of the compliance boundary does not exist or is
inadequate to show the extent of substances, it is up to the discretion of the Division
to require this information.
• the dimensions and shape of a new compliance boundary if the variance request
specifies a change in the size and/or shape of the current boundary; and
• any other important site specific feature that the Regional Office believes is
information the Commission will need to determine if a variance should be granted
for the facility.
All maps must show all features 360 degrees around the site and show the
orientation of the facility in relation to "north" on a compass. Existing quadrangle maps,
local government maps, topographic maps or Arcview maps may be used. If placing all the
information requested on one map would make the map difficult to read, you may use
individual maps to meet this requirement. Detailed site and hydrogeologic maps must be to
the same scale. If the variance specifies that the area proposed for variance will extend the
permitted operation onto an adjacent landowner's property, please note this as well on
maps. The adjacent area of the adjacent landowner's property included in this variance
must be noted with the parcel or tax identification number also noted on the map. If this
involves multiple adjacent properties, the map must show where the area of the proposed
variance extends onto their properties with the parcel or tax identification number of those
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 14
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
properties. These items shall be discussed in the variance request narrative and they should
be submitted in appendices or attachments with the request.
D. Sub paragraph# 4: "Supporting information to establish that the variance will not
endanger the public health, ad safety, ................ from exposure to groundwater
contaminants".
Required Information for # 4: The narrative for each of the sites shall discuss the
reasons why granting a variance will not impact health and the environment. Included in
this discussion shall be information showing that drinking water supplies would not be
impacted in or around the permitted operation. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of
substances within the land area proposed for variance must be delineated and described in
the variance request. The horizontal boundary of the compliance boundary shall also be
included in this discussion for reference. If a vertical boundary for the compliance
boundary is known to exist from permits monitoring or modeling efforts by the facilities,
this should be discussed as well.
Groundwater monitoring data must demonstrate that substances are (1) not at
concentration levels that will adversely impact private and public drinking water wells
outside of area for variance; and (2) will not migrate to off site drinking water supply wells
at concentration levels above applicable standards;
If there are public water supply wells:
• within the proposed area of the variance;
• downgraidient from the property such that migrating substances may be impacted
by substances; or
• on the utilities property;
Then the following information is required:
The details of well construction including information on well depth, depth to water,
depth and type of casing, geologic information, lithologic information, well screen and
packing materials must be submitted. If concentrations of substances are above
Groundwater Quality Standards within the subsurface area of the well(s) or well field's
influence (i.e. "cone of depression", well drawdown, or other well pumping related
phenomenon) then available construction details must be submitted demonstrating that
granting the variance will not impact water quality.
If there are private water supplies, existing well construction records showing
construction details shall be provided to support the variance. Readily available
information on well depth, depth to water, depth of casing, geologic information, lithologic
information, well screen and packing materials shall be submitted in the variance. If
Created on 7 /26/04 2:49 PM 15
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
county or state well construction inspections are known to have been done on these wells
verifying construction details, these may be used as well. Cross sectional diagrams showing
well construction of both private and public water supply wells with local subsurface soils,
materials and rock types shall be submitted, if they exist. This will assist in make the
determination that substances will not impact or migrate such that Groundwater Quality
Standards will be exceeded outside the compliance boundary and area proposed for
variance. If there is groundwater quality monitoring data from recovery wells or other
types of wells that will assist in determining if a variance shall be-·granted, this data with
the well identification information and laboratory results will also need to be submitted.
If there are site-specific features that mitigate the impacts of substances at the site
these details need to be discussed in the request. Information such as well construction
details, subsurface soils and rock types, hydrogeology, the . occurrence of natural
remediation or attenuation of substances within the area of the variance must be submitted
to support the variance request and to allow substances to remain in place without
treatment or remediation. If feasible, simple groundwater modeling may be conducted to
show that the variance will not impact health. If modeling has been done by the permittee,
this may be used as well. Water supply wells and other wells at the site should noted and
shown on a scaled map or diagram. It is at the discretion of the Regional Office as to the
efficacy of modeling for a particular variance request.
If soils are impacted by the waste treatment operation within the proposed area of
the variance these soils and/or subsurface materials shall be noted with concentration levels
discussed. If the permittee has conducted corrective action for soils pursuant to ISA NCAC
2L .0106 for substances outside of compliance boundaries defined in ISA NCAC 2L .0107,
this activity must be discussed in light of the requirements of the "Guidelines for the
Investigation and Remediation of Soil and Groundwater (July 2000)". Soils-to-
groundwater risk based levels may be used as a comparison to determine if substances in
soils will not impact the groundwaters outside of the compliance boundary, within the
proposed area of the variance, and off site. The assessment of impact of contaminated soils
includes surface soils, deep soils, and unconsolidated materials within the area proposed
for variance. If site information reveals that substances and wastes located in this area will
degrade or attenuate such that there are no impacts to groundwater and drinking water
supplies, this information must be provided to support the request. If the permittees plan
to conduct other activities to reduce the infiltration of rainwater into soils and
groundwater, such as capping the sites with concrete or asphalt, this action needs to be
noted in the variance request. Maps and cross sectional diagrams of soil sampling points
should be included in the attachments to the request.
The variance request must demonstrate that surface waters will not be impacted by
granting the variance such that it will not (1) pose a health hazard or significantly degrade
the quality of surface water supplies used for drinking; and (2) pose health or
environmental hazards with other "best uses" of surface waters (recreation, bathing,
swimming, fishing, etc.). Documentation submitted must demonstrate that Surface Water
Quality Standards in ISA NCAC 2B or other guidance levels used by the Division of Water
Quality will not be exceeded for the classification of surface water bodies around the site.
Surface water monitoring data must be included to support the variance request. If a
surface water body is used as a source of public water supply, that information must be
included in the variance an~ located on maps. Sampling points must be noted on the map
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 16
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
with appropriate designations. Note that impact to local wetlands should be included in the
assessment of surface water impacts since the Department considers these to be surface
waters.
The request shall also discuss the impact of granting a variance on sewer service
lines, building basements, telephone/cable television boxes, or other local utilities. These
types of structures may serve as a channel for contamination and the variance shall note
the depth of these utilities in relation to the depth of the substances and the expected
vertical and horizontal migration paths of these substances in groundwater.
Laboratory data to support the variance must show that the variance will not have
an adverse impact on health and the environment. With respect to any samples from
groundwater monitoring wells, surface water, drinking water wells, or soil sampling data
used to support this variance, laboratory information and sampling parameters must be
adequately assessed. The laboratory methods must be noted in the variance request for the
samples collected. If the permit specifies that certain metals, volatile organics, semi-volatile
organics, and other substances are in the waste stream and are under monitoring
requirements in the permit, the impact of these substances must be appropriately
evaluated. Concentrations of the substances, the direction they will migrate, the
groundwater wells they have been found in, and the impact they have on groundwater
must be evaluated. This information may need a review of the toxicological and health
impacts by the Division of Public Health.
Health impacts information must show trends of what is occurring in groundwater.
Data in a tabular format shall be provided depicting the media monitored, identification
number of the sampling site, substance and concentration. The concentration must be
shown in the table with the current Groundwater Quality Standard either listed in a
column or shown in a legend. The trend analysis is to show the behavior of substances
within the land area proposed for variance outside the compliance boundary. This analysis
shall also show what direction the concentrations are anticipated to go (that is increasing or
decreasing) as a result of the variance. Monitoring shall also demonstrate what is expected
to happen within the land area proposed for variance, if granted by the Commission. Risk-
based calculations or risk based levels for substances from previous guidance may be used
as comparisons as well, if these risk-based levels are established. Available permittee
monitoring data or special sampling data requested by the DWQ may be used to support
this request. If graphic information is available, this can be provided as well to support the
request. If any risk based concentrations are provided for comparison, these should also
be in the same units.
For analysis of substances that appear on a GW-59 Form the tabular format should
show the substances in these appropriate categories. The date the sample was taken and
analysis conducted should be shown in the table. The tabular data needs to clearly show if
the sample came from a monitoring well, recovery well, drinking water supply well, process
water supply well, or other type of well. The appropriate Groundwater Quality Standard
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 or interim maximum allowable concentration should be shown in
the table for comparison. It is optional to provide existing risk based calculations in a
separate column of the table to support the variance request. The well number and its
identifier as a certain type of well should be shown in the table (i.e. monitoring well,
recovery well, etc.). The concentration units for the substances in the table shall be in
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or in micrograms per liter (ug/L). Analytical methods used
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 17
. '
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
shall conform to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0112 and other methods approved by
the Aquifer Protection Section. If there are other substances such as organics, semi-
volatiles, metals, non-metal inorganics, petroleum related substances and base/neutral
extractables for which monitoring requirements have been established in the permit, the
laboratory data will conform to the tabular format used for data collected for substances in
aGW-59.
If the variance has the potential to impact a surface water body, the analytical data
must be shown in the same type of tabular format that is used for groundwater and/or soil
monitoring results. The tabular data must show the surface water sampling point from the
map submitted with the variance request and the substances found. The Surface Water
Quality Standard for substances found at the site or from other appropriate guidance must
also be shown in the table as well. Any additional notes may also be listed in the legend of
the table. The units for the concentration levels must correspond to what is required in 15A
NCAC 2B rules.
E. Subparagraph # 5: "Supporting information to establish the requirements of the Rule
cannot be achieved by providing the best available technology economically reasonable. ,,
Required Information for # 5: The response must discuss the types of "best
available technology" applicable to an individual facility and the costs to comply with 15A
NCAC 2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Information may be obtained from the
facility, industry sources, or other state agencies. Reports from local and/or state budgets,
memoranda from the permittee or other sources may be used to establish these estimates.
Cost estimates for use of a particular technology must be provided with a discussion of the
reasons why it is anticipated that use of that technology will be no more effective than
variance. The discussion of additional costs for the implementation of additional
treatment or cleanup technology shall be itemized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Capital costs for installation of new machinery, control technology,
treatment technology and construction;
Operation and maintenance of new technology;
Utility costs;
Personnel costs to operate the new technology, if applicable; and
Other secondary costs associated with the new technology (i.e. need for new
roads, purchase or rental of additional land; need for additional spray
fields/land farming; and landscaping/grading of property).
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 18
. ,
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
The time frame for these costs must be noted as well and it is preferred that the
information be provided as a cost in dollars per year. A total cost for each alternative
technology needs to be noted in this response.
F. Subparagraph # 6: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship on the applicant. "
Required Information for # 6: The variance request must specify the type of
financial hardship the applicant will undergo and the effects of complying with 15A NCAC
2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Effects on the facility including operations~ proposed
expansion, employment, and other impacts may be noted. If possible, these costs should be
quantified.
G. Subparagraph # 7: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit. "
Required Information for # 7: The variance request must specify the financial
hardship of meeting 15A NCAC 2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202 in the context of lack
of any public benefit. A discussion of local economic, rmancial, and employment conditions
in the local jurisdiction may be included. If there are potential budget impacts to the local
government entity by not granting a variance, these shall be discussed in detail.
H.
I.
Sub paragraph # 8: A com 1 o f an y Special Order that was issued in connection with
contaminants in the pro posed area and supporting in fo rmation that the a pp licant has
com p lied with the s pecial order.
Required Information for# 8: The rule is self-explanatory.
Sub parag ra ph# 9: A list o f the names o(p ro perty owners ...... ".
Required Information for # 9: Include the deed number and/or local tax
identification number for each property within the area proposed for variance, adjacent
property and other impacted properties. The names and mailing addresses of these owners
must be included. If the property is a rental property, please include the name and address
of the current resident, if local records reveal this. This is to include all residential,
industrial and commercial properties immediately around the site. The names, addresses,
and deed numbers for well owners within ½ mile of the site must also be included. In
addition, contact persons for utilities (i.e. NCDOT, railroads, and other utilities) that
traverse the area of the variance or are downgraidient from the facility must be notified as
Created on 7/26/04 2:49 PM 19
DRAFT 15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance Permits and Incident Variances
well. If the facility or other party has conducted a well survey, this information may be
used as well. It is up to the judgment of the Aquifer Protection Section Regional
Supervisor if a survey submitted to support a variance is complete, if any survey is
necessary, or if an additional survey should be required in order to meet requirements of
the rule.
(NOTE: The above is basic information is common to most variance
requests for permitted operations. The Division of Water Quality may
require the submittal of more information from the permittee or less
information based on the impact of substances outside of compliance
boundaries at the facilities and other site specific factors)
····················································································•-
Created on 7/26/04 2 :49 PM 20
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances •
Required Information for # 2: This shall include a discussion of activities
that resulted in a release of substances into the environment. This submittal
to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(2) must show:
• the Groundwater Incident Number for the release of substances for which variance
is requested;
• the county tax identification number and/or deed numbers for the property or
properties involved in the variance request;
• a description of the operations at the facility with a discussion of activities that
resulted in an exceedence of Groundwater Quality Standards;
• a description of the substances found at the site from monitoring data;
• a description of substances from records of what was released, processed, and stored
at the site, as available;
• that if soil vapor recovery activities were conducted as a part of a corrective action
plan, an inventory of volatile and/or semi-volatile substances may be provided to
support the variance, if available. This information may be used to determine if Soil
Vapor Extraction (SVE) and other technologies used at the site are no longer
effective at cleaning up contaminated soils at the site. This can be obtained from
data used by the responsible party to monitor the effectiveness this type of
technology over time.
• that if pump and treat cleanup was required under a corrective action plan,
information showing that cleanup of groundwater is no longer effective will support
the variance request. This information may be obtained from recovery well samples
or other types of sampling showing the efficacy of cleanup operations over time;
• the amount of acreage of the facility or business;
• the amount of acreage for the land area proposed for variance;
• the history and use of the site;
• the reasons that a variance needs to be applied in lieu of Best Available Technology
under title 15A NCAC 2L .01060);
• the reasons a variance needs to be applied in lieu of a KLM Corrective Action Plan
(CAP);
Version# 3 2
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
• the conditions at the site that will result or have resulted in a exceedence of
Groundwater Quality Standards;
• the impact granting a variance may have an area of separate contamination at the
site under a different incident number and/or a permit granted by the Division
under title 15A NCAC 2L .0107 (if applicable); and
• any other land use features unique to these facilities.
Also include a brief discussion of the interactions between responsible party and the
Aquifer Protection Section with regard the need for variance.
In addition to information about the site, the variance request must include
information on other known sources of contamination that may impact the land area of the
proposed variance at the site. This may include other on-site and off-site sources of
groundwater contamination (such as leaking UST tanks, solvent spills, hazardous waste
sites, etc.). The impact of permitted operations such as CAFOs, landfarming operations,
non-discharge spray irrigation facilities should also be included in the discussion of
activities that have or may potentially impact the area proposed for variance. The variance
also should examine the impact of wastewater sewers lines, and lift stations, and other
nearby wastewater conveyances on the site where variance is requested. In reporting
information on sources of groundwater contamination at adjacent properties, please note
the local tax identification numbers or deed numbers for the properties where these
sources are located. This information can come from existing information in the Regional
Offices, responsible parties information, comprehensive site assessments, information
gathering services or other information sources that are currently available. GIS Data at
the Regional Office or from the APS Central Office may also be used.
C. Subparagraph# 3: "Description of the proposed area for which a variance is requested.
A·detailed map, showing the orientation of the facility ...... must be included"
Required Information for # 3: Maps showing each of the facilities with important
features must be included with the variance request and the following are required:
• A general area map that shows nearby structures, roads, surface water bodies,
surface drainage features, and other important site features. A topographic map
shall be used for this and it's scale and quadrangle reference is to be shown;
• A site map showing buildings, the location of the area of land where the release
occurred, facility structures, major streams, wastewater piping and/or lift stations,
and water supply lines within area proposed for variance. If there are wastewater
treatment, disposal or storage systems at the site, these should also be noted.
Version# 3 3
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
'
• A site map showing the dimensions and shape of land area proposed for variance.
The dimensions of this area may be shown in square feet or in acres of land;
• A site map showing hydrogeologic contours through the site and the area for which
variance is requested and adjacent properties included. Groundwater monitoring
wells, drinking water supply wells, observation wells, recovery wells, process water
supply wells, and other types of wells shall be located on this map. Buildings and
other land use features shall be shown as well. The land area for the proposed
variance needs to be noted on the map and the area where groundwater is known to
be contaminated should be shown as well. The map must show the direction of
groundwater flow through the site and through the area proposed for variance.
• A site map showing groundwater monitoring wells with the most recent
concentration levels of substances found at the site;
• A site map showing water well use within ½ mile of the site around the site.
This includes both private and public water supply wells;
• Site map(s) showing more details of utilities at the site. Wastewater treatment
systems, wastewater lines and water lines that run through the area of the variance
request must be located. This includes the areas where substances are expected to
migrate;
• A site map showing the location of properties immediately adjacent to the facility.
Please include the names of the property owners, addresses, and deed numbers of
these properties on the map, if possible;
• A map showing the horizontal boundaries of the area proposed for variance must be
submitted.
• A map showing the vertical extent of substances within the area of the proposed
variance may be used to support the variance request, if available. If the responsible
party has conducted modeling or other types of investigative work associated with a
cleanup of this site or as a part of a CSA/CAP under 15A NCAC 2L .0106, this
information may be provided to support a variance request. The scale of this
diagram will be shown and it will show the dimensions area proposed for variance.
If the information on the vertical extent of substances beneath the site does not exist
or is inadequate to show the extent of substances, it is up to the discretion of the
Division to require this information.
• Any other important site specific map or feature that the person requesting the
variance and/or the regional office deems necessary for the Commission to
adequately review the variance request.
Version# 3 4
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Penni ts and Incident Variances
'
All maps must show all features 360 degrees around the site and show the orientation of the
site in relation to "north" on a compass. Existing quadrangle maps, local government maps,
topographic maps or Arcview maps may be used. If placing all the information requested on
one map would make the map difficult to read, you may use individual maps to meet this
requirement. Detailed site and hydrogeologic maps must be to the same scale. If the variance
specifies that the area proposed for variance will extend the onto an adjacent landowner's
property, please note this as well on maps. These items shall be discussed in the variance
request narrative and they should be submitted in appendices or attachments with the request
D. Subparagraph # 4: "Supporting information to establish that the variance will not
endanger the public health, ad safety, ................ from exposure to groundwater
contaminants ".
Required Information for # 4: The narrative for each of the sites shall discuss the reasons
why granting a variance will not impact health and the environment. Included in this
discussion shall be information showing that private and public drinking water supplies would
not be impacted in or around the responsible party(s) property. The vertical and horizontal
extent of substances within the land area proposed for variance must be delineated and
described in the variance request. Groundwater monitoring data must demonstrate that (1)
primary pollution source(s) (i.e. surficial accumulations of free product, waste stockpiles, buried
waste, and/or non-aqueous phase liquids) from the release has been removed from the site
pursuant to ISA NCAC 2L .0202(f); (2) substances are not at concentration levels that will
adversely impact private and public drinking water wells outside of area for variance; and (3)
substances will not migrate to off site drinking water supply wells at concentration levels above
applicable standards;
If there are public water supply wells:
• within the proposed area of the variance;
• downgraidient from the property such that migrating substances may be impacted
by substances;
• on the responsible party(s) property;
Then the following information is required:
The details of well construction must clearly demonstrate that the granting the variance
will not adversely impact water quality. Information submitted must show well depth,
depth to water, depth and type of casing, geologic information, lithologic information, well
screen and packing materials used must be submitted.
If there are private water supplies, well records showing construction details shall be
provided to support the variance. Readily available information on well depth, depth to
water, depth of casing, geologic information, lithologic information, well screen and
Version# 3 5
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
) I
packing materials, grouting, shall be submitted in the variance. If feasible, simple
groundwater modeling may be conducted to show that the variance will not impact health.
Cross sectional diagrams showing well construction of both private and public
water supply wells with local subsurface soils, materials and rock types shall be submitted,
if they exist. This will assist in making the determination that substances will not impact or
migrate such that Groundwater Quality Standards will be exceeded outside the area
proposed for variance. If there is groundwater quality monitoring data from recovery wells
or other types of wells that will assist in determining if a variance shall be granted, this
data with the well identification information and laboratory results will also need to be
submitted. If the responsible party has conducted groundwater modeling, this may be used
as well. Water supply wells and other wells at the site should be noted and shown on a
scaled map or diagram. It is at the discretion of the Regional Office as to the efficacy of
modeling for a particular variance request.
If there are site-specific features that mitigate the impacts of substances at the site
these details need to be discussed in the request. Information such as well construction
details, subsurface soils and rock types, hydrogeology, the occurrence of natural
remediation or attenuation of substances within the area of the variance must be submitted
to support the variance request and to allow substances to remain in place without
treatment or remediation.
If ther_e.t!J re soils impacted by substances within the proposed area of the variance,
the location ~these soils and concentration levels shall be noted. If soils at the site have
been deemed a "secondary pollution source" under 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (f) and threaten
the quality of groundwater, these soils must be removed, treated or controlled pursuant to
the rule. Soils-to-groundwater risk based levels may be used as a comparison to determine
if substances in soils will not impact groundwater quality outside of the land area proposed
for variance and/or off site wells and receptors. The assessment of impact of contaminated
soils includes surface soils, deep soils, and unconsolidated materials within the area
proposed for variance. If site information reveals that substances located in this area will
degrade or attenuate such that there are no impacts to groundwater and drinking water
supplies, this information must be provided to support the request. If cleanup activities
have been conducted on contaminated soils, the information submitted must show that the
remediation activities met the requirements of the "Guidelines for the Investigation and
Remediation of Soil and Groundwater (July 2000 )". If no action has occurred at the site
with respect to remediation or removal of contaminated soils, the responsible party must
demonstrate that residual levels of substances in the soils and subsurface materials will not
impact human health or degrade groundwater quality outside of the land area proposed
for variance.
If the responsible party(s) intends to conduct other activities to reduce the
infiltration of rainwater into soils and groundwater, such as capping the sites with concrete
or asphalt, this action needs to be noted in the variance request. Maps and cross sectional
diagrams of soil sampling points should be included in the attachments to the request.
The variance request must demonstrate that granting the variance will not impact
surface waters. This demonstration must show that the variance will not (1) pose a health
hazard or significantly degrade the quality of surface water supplies used for drinking; and
(2) pose health or environmental hazards with other "best uses" of surface waters (i.e.
drinking water supply, recreation, bathing, swimming, fishing, etc.). Documentation
Version# 3 6
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
' '
submitted must demonstrate that Surface Water Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2B or
other guidance levels used by the DWQ will not be exceeded for the classification of surface
water bodies around the site. Surface water monitoring data must be included to support
the variance request. Note that impact to local wetlands should be included in the
assessment of surface water impacts since the Department considers these to be surface
waters.
The request shall also discuss the impact of granting a variance on sewer service
lines, building basements, telephone/cable television boxes, or other local utilities. These
types of structures may serve as a channel for contamination and the variance shall note
the depth of these utilities in relation to the depth of the substances and the expected
vertical and horizontal migration paths of these substances in groundwater. If there are
improperly abandoned wells at or near the site, the impacts of the variance on this type of
excavation needs to be discussed and, if there are impacts, efforts to mitigate these types of
wells need to discussed in the request.
Laboratory data to support the variance must show that the variance will not have
an adverse impact on health and the environment. With respect to any samples from
groundwater monitoring wells, surface water, drinking water wells, or soil sampling data
used to support this variance, laboratory information and sampling parameters must be
adequately assessed. The laboratory methods must be noted in the variance request for the
samples collected. Concentrations of the substances, the direction they will migrate, the
groundwater wells they have been found in, and the impact they have on groundwater
must be evaluated. This information may need a review of the toxicological and health
impacts by the Division of Public Health.
Health impacts information must show trends of what is occurring in groundwater.
Data in a tabular format shall be provided depicting the media monitored, identification
number of the sampling site, substance and concentration. The concentration of the
substances that are found using that particular analytical method must be shown in the
table with the current Groundwater Quality Standard either listed in a column or shown in
a legend. The trend analysis is to show the behavior of substances within the land area
proposed for variance and may be shown on line or bar graphs in an appendix. This
analysis shall also show what direction the concentrations are anticipated to go (that is,
concentrations increasing or decreasing) as a result of the variance. Monitoring shall also
demonstrate what is expected to happen within the land area proposed for variance, if
granted by the Commission. Risk-based calculations or risk based levels for substances
from previous guidance may be used as comparisons as well, if these risk-based levels are
established. Available permittee monitoring data or special sampling data requested by the
Division of Water Quality may be used to support this request. If graphic information is
available, this can be provided as well to support the request. If any risk based
concentrations are provided for comparison, these should also be in the same units.
For analysis of organics, semi-volatiles, metals, non-metal inorganics, petroleum
related substances and base/neutral extractables, the tabular format should show the
substances in these appropriate categories. The date the sample was taken and analysis
conducted should be shown in the table. The tabular data needs to clearly show if the
sample came from a monitoring well, recovery well, drinking water supply well, process
water supply well, or other type of well. The appropriate Groundwater Quality Standard
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 or interim maximum allowable concentration should be shown in
Version# 3 7
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
\ ,
the table for comparison. It is optional to provide existing risk based calculations in a
separate column of the table to support the variance request. The well number and its
identifier as a certain type of well should be shown in the table (i.e. monitoring well,
recovery well, etc.). The concentration units for the substances in the table shall be in
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or in micrograms per liter (ug/L). Analytical methods used
shall conform to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0112 and other methods approved by
the Aquifer Protection Section.
If there are contaminated soils at the site, a separate table must show the data for
each numbered soil sampling point, the substances found, and concentrations. This table
must be similar to the table used for groundwater monitoring results and must clearly
show that these are soil samples. The depth beneath the surface for the soil sample taken
must also be noted and if multiple samples are extracted from one sampling point at
different depths, these must be clearly noted in the table and the narrative that describes it.
If soil contamination at the site comes from sources other than a petroleum underground
storage tank, analytical methods used to determine concentrations for the soil(s) must
conform to the requirements of "Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soil
and Groundwater (July 2000)". Calculations of "Soil-to-Groundwater concentrations"
from other DENR guidance may be provided as a guideline to assist staff and the
Commission in determining if residual concentrations in soils and subsurface materials will
have an impact on groundwater. "Industrial/Commercial" concentration levels may also
be submitted, however, it must be noted that the Aquifer Protection Section does not have
the statutory authority to apply this kind of risk based level at sites under it's management.
Any data submitted will be provided to the hearing officer and commission but will not be
used as the basis to grant a variance request. Substances will be represented in milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg) or in parts per million (ppm) as reflected in the July 2000 guidance.
If the variance has the potential to impact a surface water body, the analytical data
must be shown in the same type of tabular format that is used for groundwater and/or soil
monitoring results. The tabular data must show the surface water sampling point from the
map submitted with the variance request and the substance found. The Surface Water
Quality Standard for substances found at the site or from other appropriate guidance must
also be shown in the table as well. Any additional notes may also be listed in the legend of
the table. The units for the concentration levels must correspond to what is required in 15A
NCAC 2B rules.
E. Subparagraph# 5: "Supporting information to establish the requirements of the Rule
cannot be achieved by providing the best available technology economically reasonable. . ..... "
Required Information for # 5: The response must discuss the types of "best
available technology" applicable the site and the costs associated to comply with 15A
NCAC 2L .01060) and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Information may be obtained from the
owner/operator, consultants, industry sources, or other relevant sources. Reports, budgets,
memoranda, or other sources may be used to establish these estimates. Cost estimates for
use of a particular technology must be provided with a discussion of the reasons why it is
anticipated that use of that technology will be no more effective than variance. The
Version# 3 8
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances ' . .
discussion of additional costs for the implementation of cleanup technology shall be
itemized as follows:
• Capital costs for installation of new construction, machinery, control technology,
remediation technology, recovery wells, and other types of wells;
• Operation and maintenance of new technology;
• Utility costs;
• Personnel costs to operate the new technology, if applicable; and
• Other secondary costs associated with the new technology (i.e. costs to asphalt or
cover the site, cost for new roads or relocated roads or driveways, cost for removal of
buildings or other site structures, purchase or rental of additional land; landscaping/
grading of property, the cost for additional spray fields/1,andfarming (permits only);
etc).
The time frame for these costs must be noted as well and it is preferred that the
information be provided as a cost in dollars per year. A total cost for each alternative
technology needs to be noted in this response.
F. Subparagraph# 6: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship on the applicant. ,,
Required Information for # 6: The variance request must specify the type of
financial hardship the applicant will undergo and the effects of complying with 15A NCAC
2L .0106G) and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Effects on facility including operations, proposed
expansion, employment, and other impacts may be noted. If possible, these costs should be
quantified.
G. Subparagraph# 7: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit. ,,
Required Information for # 7: The variance request must specify the financial
hardship of meeting 15A NCAC 2L .0106G) and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202 in the context of
lack of any public benefit. A discussion of local economic, financial, and employment
conditions in the local jurisdiction may be included. If there are potential costs and budget
impacts to the company, proprietor, and/or owner by not granting a variance, these shall
be discussed in detail.
Version# 3 9
ISA NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances , '
H. Subparagraph# 8: A com, of an y Special Order that was issued in connection with
contaminants in the proposed area and supporting information that the applicant has
complied with the s pecial order.
Required Information for# 8: The rule is self-explanatory.
I. Subparagraph # 9: A list o f the names ofpropertv owners ...... ".
Required Information for # 9: Include the deed number and/or local tax
identification number for each property within the area proposed for variance, adjacent
property and other impacted properties. The names and mailing addresses of these owners
must be included. If the property is a rental property, please include the name and address
of the current resident, if local records reveal this. This is to include all residential,
industrial and commercial properties immediately around the site. The names, addresses,
and deed numbers for well owners within ½ mile of the site must also be included. In
addition, contact persons for utilities (i.e. NCDOT, railroads, and other utilities) that
traverse the area of the variance or are downgraidient from the facility must be notified as
well. If the facility or consultant has conducted a well survey, this information may be used
as well. It is up to the judgment of the Aquifer Protection Section Regional Supervisor if a
survey submitted to support a variance is complete, if any survey is necessary, or if an
additional survey should be required in order to meet requirements of the rule.
{NOTE: The above is basic information is common to most variance
requests where spills and releases have resulted or may result in
exceedences of lSA NCAC 2L .0202 standards in groundwater. The
Division of Water Quality may require the submittal of more
information from the responsible party or less information based on
the impact of substances at the site and other site specific factors)
···················································································•·-
Version# 3
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
II. Non-Discharge Permits for Facilities that need Compliance Boundaries
Altered or Exceedences of Standards outside of those Boundaries require
Variance:
A. Sub paragra ph # 1: "Applications filed by counties or municipalities must include a
resolution of the County Board of Commissioners of the governing board ..... requesting
the variance. "
Required Information for # 1: Unless the Permittee is a local government, no
resolution is required.
B. Subparagraph# 2: "A description of past, existing, or proposed activities or operations
that have or would result in a discharge of contaminants to the groundwaters".
Required Information for # 2: This shall include a discussion of activities that
involve a permit. This submittal to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(2)
must show:
• the individual permit number or numbers for the facility;
• a copy of the Notice of Violation, if issued by the Division, pertaining to substances
found outside of compliance boundaries as a means demonstrating the need for a
variance;
• the county tax identification number and/or deed numbers for the properties for
which variance is requested;
• a description of the operations at the facility that requires a permit;
• a description of the waste stream being treated at the site;
• a discussion of the design flow of these waste water treatment systems;
• the amount of acreage of the facility;
Version# 3 11
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Penni ts and Incident Variances
'
• the amount of acreage for the land area proposed for variance;
• the history of the permitted site;
• the reasons for the permit;
• the description and land area of the permitted boundaries under lSA NCAC 2L (i.e.
waste, review and compliance);
• the conditions at the site that will result or have resulted in a exceedence of
Groundwater Quality Standards in title lSA NCAC 2L .0202 within the area
proposed for variance;
• the activities and circumstances outside the compliance boundary that require land
be designated as under variance by the Environmental Management Commission;
• a revised compliance boundary if the variance request specifies that this will change
as a result of granting the variance;
• a description of a public water supply well impacted by the variance !f the operation
of that existing well is in violation of 15A NCAC 2L .0107( d); and
• any other land use features unique to these facilities.
Also include a brief discussion of the interactions between the permittee and the
Aquifer Protection Section with regard the need for variance. In addition to information
about the site, the variance request must include information on other known sources of
contamination that may impact the land area of the proposed variance at the permitted
operation. This may include other on-site and off-site sources of groundwater
contamination (such as leaking UST tanks, solvent spills, etc.). If other permitted
operations are occurring on-site under a different permit number these must be discussed
as well. The impact of off-site permitted operations such as spray irrigation operations,
lagoons, CAFOs, and other non-discharge permitted operations must be included as well.
The variance request should also show the wastewater sewers lines, lift stations and other
wastewater treatment conveyances near the site. In reporting information on sources of
groundwater contamination at adjacent properties, please note the local tax identification
numbers or deed numbers for the properties where these sources are located. This
information can come from existing information in the Regional Office, the permit
application, the permitted facility, or other information sources that are currently
available. Existing reference information from GIS data may be included, if readily
accessible.
Version# 3 12
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
C. Subparagraph# 3: "Description of the proposed area for which a variance is requested.
A detailed map, showing the orientation of the facility ...... must be included"
Required Information for # 3: Maps showing each of the facilities with important
f ea tu res must be included with the variance request and the following are required:
• A general area map that shows nearby structures, roads, surface water bodies,
surface drainage features, and other important site features. A topographic map
shall be used for this and it's scale and quadrangle reference is to be shown;
• A site map showing buildings, waste treatment devices and structures, facility
structures, wells, major streams, waste disposal operations, wastewater piping
and/or lift stations, and water supply lines within area proposed for variance.
• A site map showing the dimensions and shape of land area proposed for variance.
The waste boundary, review boundary, and• compliance boundary should also be
noted on the map. The dimensions of this area may be shown in square feet or in
acres of land;
• A site map showing hydrogeologic contours through the site and the area for which
variance is requested and adjacent properties included. Groundwater monitoring
wells, drinking water supply wells, process water supply wells, and other types of
wells shall be located on this map. Buildings and other land use features shall be
shown as well. The land area for the proposed variance in acres or square feet needs
to be noted on the map. All boundaries required in 15A NCAC 2L .0107 for
permitted facilities needs to be shown on the map with dimensions noted on the map
or in the narrative.
• The map must show the direction of groundwater flow through the site and through
the area for variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
• A site map showing groundwater monitoring wells with the most recent
concentration levels of substances found at the site;
• A site map showing water well use within ½ mile of the site around the facility.
This includes both private and public water supply wells;
• A site map showing the location of an operating or operational public water supply
well, if that well is within a compliance boundary and it is in violation of 15A NCAC
2L .0107(d);
Version# 3 13
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
' '
• Site map(s) showing more details of utilities at the site. Wastewater treatment
systems, wastewater lines and water lines that run through the area of the variance
request must be located. This includes the areas where substances are expected to
migrate;
• A site map showing the location of properties immediately adjacent to the facility.
Please include the names of the property owners, addresses, and deed numbers of
these properties on the map, if possible;
• A map showing the horizontal boundaries of the area proposed for variance must be
submitted. This map should show the waste boundary, review boundary,
compliance boundary and the area out side of the compliance boundary that is
proposed for variance.
• A map showing the vertical extent of substances within the area of the proposed
variance may be used to support the variance request, if available. If the permittee
has conducted modeling or other types of investigative work associated with a
permit or permit renewal for a facility this information may be provided to support
a variance request. The scale of this diagram will be shown and it will show the
dimensions of the waste boundary, review boundary, compliance boundary, and
area proposed for variance for each of the permits. It the information on the vertical
extent of substances outside of the compliance boundary does not exist or is
inadequate to show the extent of substances, it is up to the discretion of the Division
to require this information.
• the dimensions and shape of a new compliance boundary if the variance request
specifies a change in the size and/or shape of the current boundary; and
• any other important site specific feature that the Regional Office believes is
information the Commission will need to determine if a variance should be granted
for the facility.
All maps must show all features 360 degrees around the site and show the
orientation of the facility in relation to "north" on a compass. Existing quadrangle maps,
local government maps, topographic maps or Arcview maps may be used. If placing all the
information requested on one map would make the map difficult to read, you may use
individual maps to meet this requirement. Detailed site and hydrogeologic maps must be to
the same scale. If the variance specifies that the area proposed for variance will extend the
permitted operation onto an adjacent landowner's property, please note this as well on
maps. The adjacent area of the adjacent landowner's property included in this variance
must be noted with the parcel or tax identification number also noted on the map. If this
involves multiple adjacent properties, the map must show where the area of the proposed
variance extends onto their properties with the parcel or tax identification number of those
Version# 3 14
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
properties. These items shall be discussed in the variance request narrative and they should
be submitted in appendices or attachments with the request.
D. Subparagraph# 4: "Supporting information to establish that the variance will not
endanger the public health, ad safety, ................ from exposure to groundwater
contaminants ".
Required Information for # 4: The narrative for each of the sites shall discuss the
reasons why granting a variance will not impact health and the environment. Included in
this discussion shall be information showing that drinking water supplies would not be
impacted in or around the permitted operation. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of
substances within the land area proposed for variance must be delineated and described in
the variance request. The horizontal boundary of the compliance boundary shall also be
included in this discussion for reference. If a vertical boundary for the compliance
boundary is known to exist from permits monitoring or modeling efforts by the facilities,
this should be discussed as well.
Groundwater monitoring data must demonstrate that substances are (1) not at
concentration levels that will adversely impact private and public drinking water wells
outside of area for variance; and (2) will not migrate to off site drinking water supply wells
at concentration levels above applicable standards;
If there are public water supply wells:
• within the proposed area of the variance;
• downgraidient from the property such that migrating substances may be impacted
by substances; or
• on the utilities property;
Then the following information is required:
The details of well construction including information on well depth, depth to water,
depth and type of casing, geologic information, lithologic information, well screen and
packing materials must be submitted. If concentrations of substances are above
Groundwater Quality Standards within the subsurface area of the well(s) or well field's
influence (i.e. "cone of depression", well drawdown, or other well pumping related
phenomenon) then available construction details must be submitted demonstrating that
granting the variance will not impact water quality.
If there are private water supplies, existing well construction records showing
construction details shall be provided to support the variance. Readily available
information on well depth, depth to water, depth of casing, geologic information, lithologic
information, well screen and packing materials shall be submitted in the variance. If
Version# 3 15
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
' .
county or state well construction inspections are known to have been done on these wells
verifying construction details, these may be used as well. Cross sectional diagrams showing
well construction of both private and public water supply wells with local subsurface soils,
materials and rock types shall be submitted, if they exist. This will assist in make the
determination that substances will not impact or migrate such that Groundwater Quality
Standards will be exceeded outside the compliance boundary and area proposed for
variance. If there is groundwater quality monitoring data from recovery wells or other
types of wells that will assist in determining if a variance shall be granted, this data with
the well identification information and laboratory results will also need to be submitted.
If there are site-specific features that mitigate the impacts of substances at the site
these details need to be discussed in the request. Information such as well construction
details, subsurface soils and rock types, hydrogeology, the occurrence of natural
remediation or attenuation of substances within the area of the variance must be submitted
to support the variance request and to allow substances to remain in place without
treatment or remediation. If feasible, simple groundwater modeling may be conducted to
show that the variance will not impact health. If modeling has been done by the permittee,
this may be used as well. Water supply wells and other wells at the site should noted and
shown on a scaled map or diagram. It is at the discretion of the Regional Office as to the
efficacy of modeling for a particular variance request.
If soils are impacted by the waste treatment operation within the proposed area of
the variance these soils and/or subsurface materials shall be noted with concentration levels
discussed. If the permittee has conducted corrective action for soils pursuant to 15A NCAC
2L .0106 for substances outside of compliance boundaries defined in 15A NCAC 2L .0107,
this activity must be discussed in light of the requirements of the "Guidelines for the
Investigation and Remediation of Soil and Groundwater (July 2000 )". Soils-to-
groundwater risk based levels may be used as a comparison to determine if substances in
soils will not impact the groundwaters outside of the compliance boundary, within the
proposed area of the variance, and off site. The assessment of impact of contaminated soils
includes surface soils, deep soils, and unconsolidated materials within the area proposed
for variance. If site information reveals that substances and wastes located in this area will
degrade or attenuate such · that there are no impacts to groundwater and drinking water
supplies, this information must be provided to support the request. If the permittees plan
to conduct other activities to reduce the infiltration of rainwater into soils and
groundwater, such as capping the sites with concrete or asphalt, this action needs to be
noted in the variance request. Maps and cross sectional diagrams of soil sampling points
should be included in the attachments to the request.
The variance request must demonstrate that surface waters will not be impacted by
granting the variance such that it will not (1) pose a health hazard or significantly degrade
the quality of surface water supplies used for drinking; and (2) pose health or
environmental hazards with other "best uses" of surface waters (recreation, bathing,
swimming, fishing, etc.). Documentation submitted must demonstrate that Surface Water
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2B or other guidance levels used by the Division of Water
Quality will not be exceeded for the classification of surface water bodies around the site.
Surface water monitoring data must be included to support the variance request. If a
surface water body is used as a source of public water supply, that information must be
included in the variance and located on maps. Sampling points must be noted on the map
Version# 3 16
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances ..
with appropriate designations. Note that impact to local wetlands should be included in the
assessment of surface water impacts since the Department considers these to be surface
waters.
The request shall also discuss the impact of granting a variance on sewer service
lines, building basements, telephone/cable television boxes, or other local utilities. These
types of structures may serve as a channel for contamination and the variance shall note
the depth of these utilities in relation to the depth of the substances and the expected
vertical and horizontal migration paths of these substances in groundwater.
Laboratory data to support the variance must show that the variance will not have
an adverse impact on health and the environment. With respect to any samples from
groundwater monitoring wells, surface water, drinking water wells, or soil sampling data
used to support this variance, laboratory information and sampling parameters must be
adequately assessed. The laboratory methods must be noted in the variance request for the
samples collected. If the permit specifies that certain metals, volatile organics, semi-volatile
organics, and other substances are in the waste stream and are under monitoring
requirements in the permit, the impact of these substances must be appropriately
evaluated. Concentrations of the substances, the direction they will migrate, the
groundwater wells they have been found in, and the impact they have on groundwater
must be evaluated. This information may need a review of the toxicological and health
impacts by the Division of Public Health.
Health impacts information must show trends of what is occurring in groundwater.
Data in a tabular format shall be provided depicting the media monitored, identification
number of the sampling site, substance and concentration. The concentration must be
shown in the table with the current Groundwater Quality Standard either listed in a
column or shown in a legend. The trend analysis is to show the behavior of substances
within the land area proposed for variance outside the compliance boundary. This analysis
shall also show what direction the concentrations are anticipated to go (that is increasing or
decreasing) as a result of the variance. Monitoring shall also demonstrate what is expected
to happen within the land area proposed for variance, if granted by the Commission. Risk-
based calculations or risk based levels for substances from previous guidance may be used
as comparisons as well, if these risk-based levels are established. Available permittee
monitoring data or special sampling data requested by the DWQ may be used to support
this request. If graphic information is available, this can be provided as well to support the
request. If any risk based concentrations are provided for comparison, these should also
be in the same units.
For analysis of substances that appear on a GW-59 Form the tabular format should
show the substances in these appropriate categories. The date the sample was taken and
analysis conducted should be shown in the table. The tabular data needs to clearly show if
the sample came from a monitoring well, recovery well, drinking water supply well, process
water supply well, or other type of well. The appropriate Groundwater Quality Standard
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 or interim maximum allowable concentration should be shown in
the table for comparison. It is optional to provide existing risk based calculations in a
separate column of the table to support the variance request. The well number and its
identifier as a certain type of well should be shown in the table (i.e. monitoring well,
recovery well, etc.). The concentration units for the substances in the table shall be in
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or in micrograms per liter (ug/L). Analytical methods used
Version# 3 17
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances ,
shall conform to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0112 and other methods approved by
the Aquifer Protection Section. If there are other substances such as organics, semi-
volatiles, metals, non-metal inorganics, petroleum related substances and base/neutral
extractables for which monitoring requirements have been established in the permit, the
laboratory data will conform to the tabular format used for data collected for substances in
aGW-59.
If the variance has the potential to impact a surface water body, the analytical data
must be shown in the same type of tabular format that is used for groundwater and/or soil
monitoring results. The tabular data must show the surface water sampling point from the
map submitted with the variance request and the substances found. The Surface Water
Quality Standard for substances found at the site or from other appropriate guidance must
also be shown in the table as well. Any additional notes may also be listed in the legend of
the table. The units for the concentration levels must correspond to what is required in 15A
NCAC 2B rules.
E. Subparagraph# 5: "Supporting information to establish the requirements of the Rule
cannot be achieved by providing the best available technology economically reasonable. ,,
Required Information for # 5: The response must discuss the types of "best
available technology" applicable to an individual facility and the costs to comply with 15A
NCAC 2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Information may be obtained from the
facility, industry sources, or other state agencies. Reports from local and/or state budgets,
memoranda from the permittee or other sources may be used to establish these estimates.
Cost estimates for use of a particular technology must be provided with a discussion of the
reasons why it is anticipated that use of that technology will be no more effective than
variance. The discussion of additional costs for the implementation of additional
treatment or cleanup technology shall be itemized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Capital costs for installation of new machinery, control technology,
treatment technology and construction;
Operation and maintenance of new technology;
Utility costs;
Personnel costs to operate the new technology, if applicable; and
Other secondary costs associated with the new technology (i.e. need for new
roads, purchase or rental of additional land,· need for additional spray
fields/1,and farming; and landscaping/grading of property).
Version# 3 18
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
The time frame for these costs must be noted as well and it is preferred that the
information be provided as a cost in dollars per year. A total cost for each alternative
technology needs to be noted in this response.
F. Subparagraph# 6: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship on the applicant. "
Required Information for # 6: The variance request must specify the type of
financial hardship the applicant will undergo and the effects of complying with 15A NCAC
2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Effects on the facility including operations, proposed
expansion, employment, and other impacts may be noted. If possible, these costs should be
quantified.
G . Subparagraph # 7: "Supporting information to establish that compliance would produce
serious financial hardship without equal or greater public benefit. "
Required Information for # 7: The variance request must specify the financial
hardship of meeting 15A NCAC 2L .0107 and/or 15A NCAC 2L .0202 in the context of lack
of any public benefit. A discussion of local economic, financial, and employment conditions
in the local jurisdiction may be included. If there are potential budget impacts to the local
government entity by not granting a variance, these shall be discussed in detail.
H.
I.
Subparagraph# 8: A copy o f an y Sp ecial Order that was issued in connection with
contaminants in the pro posed area and supp orting in fo rmation that the applicant has
com plied with the sp ecial order.
Required Information for# 8: The rule is self-explanatory.
Subparagraph # 9: A list o(the names o f pro perty owners ...... ".
Required Information for # 9: Include the deed number and/or local tax
identification number for each property within the area proposed for variance, adjacent
property and other impacted properties. The names and mailing addresses of these owners
must be included. If the property is a rental property, please include the name and address
of the current resident, if local records reveal this. This is to include all residential,
industrial and commercial properties immediately around the site. The names, addresses,
and deed numbers for well owners within ½ mile of the site must also be included. In
addition, contact persons for utilities (i.e. NCDOT, railroads, and other utilities) that
traverse the area of the variance or are downgraidient from the facility must be notified as
Version# 3 19
15A NCAC 2L Variance Guidance 07/26/04 Permits and Incident Variances
well. If the facility or other party has conducted a well survey, this information may be
used as well. It is up to the judgment of the Aquifer Protection Section Regional
Supervisor if a survey submitted to support a variance is complete, if any survey is
necessary, or if an additional survey should be required in order to meet requirements of
the rule.
(NOTE: The above is basic information is common to most variance
requests for permitted operations. The Division of Water Quality may
require the submittal of more information from the permittee or less
information based on the impact of substances outside of compliance
boundaries at the facilities and other site specific factors)
l ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m••••■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■••~
Version# 3 20
..
Please review the guidance and provide comments to David Hance in the DWQ-Planning
Section. Mr. Hance may be reached at the address below:
David Hance, DENR-DWQ-Planning Section,
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1636,
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone];
E-Mail Address; [e-mail]
If possible, the Planning Section would like to have your comments and any
recommended changes on or before Wednesday, August 18, 2004. This will give them time to
develop a final draft for the upcoming Aquifer Protection Section Supervisors meeting in late
August. If you wish to discuss this document with me, please feel free to call 919-715-6172.
cc: Carl Bailey Boyd Devane
2
re: Mystery about a Grotmdwater Va ... Request in the WSRO/help requested
1 of 1
Subject: re: Mystery about a Groundwater Variance Request in the WSRO/help requested
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:59:32 -0400
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
To: Pam Whitley <[e-mail]>
Pam,
CC: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, Sherri Knight <[e-mail]>,
Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>, Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Sherri Knight, the Regional Hydrogeologist Supervisor, in the Winston Salem Regional Office has
contacted me concerning a copy of a variance request they discovered in their offices.
I have never heard of it and it never cross my desk or anyone else's in the Groundwater Section (now
Aquifer Protection Section) here at the PL Building.
It is from Motiva Enterprises and was submitted in 2002. Does the log at D WQ have an y record of a
Variance Request f rom this comp any ? Please let me know.
david hance
DWQ-Planning -Classifications and Standards
7/1/04 4:59 PM
Re: Variance request -reply
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Variance request-reply
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:50:18 -0400
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
To: Sherri Knight <[e-mail]>
CC: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>,
Tom Reeder <[e-mail]> ·
Sherri,
1. Pine State Knitwear Variance Re quest: I have a copy of the original submittal dated October 24,
2003 (DWQ Papeiwork Log Number 32390). Do y ou need this p acket to complete the WSRO review on
this variance?
If so --I can send it to you via 3 Day Post Office package (safer than courier and cheaper than Fedex).
2. Motiva Enterprise: I have never heard of this variance and I have no record of this ever coming to
our shop. I would not assume it made it to the Directors Office. I will call Pam Whitley at the DWQ to
see if they have any record. If not then we can start the clock. I would assume that your region may want
updated monitoring and other data to support this variance since it is two years old. If Pam does not have
a record --I will let you know. Your staff can contact the company and ask for the additional
information before you send it forward. That way everything is up to date.
davidhance
******************************************************************
Sherri Knight wrote:
I have received a variance request from Motiva Enterprise in Guilford
County. Evidently this was submitted in 2002, but we have found no
record of it. I am foiwarding the package to you for tracking as I
understand that this should have been submitted to the Director's office
initially.
In addition, I have received a copy of the additional information
requested from the Pine State Knitwear variance requested last year. I
assume the original submitted to the EMC will make it's way to you
soon. If you need the package I have, please let me know. I'm not sure
when I will start the review. Thanks, Sherri
Sherri V. Knight
Groundwater Section Supervisor
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Voice: [phone] ext. 322 Fax: [phone]
7/1/04 4 :51 PM
Re: 2L Va:riances--reply
)
1 of2
Subject: Re: 2L Variances--reply
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15 :24:22 -0500
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
To: Peter Doom <[e-mail]>
CC: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>,
"Arthur Mouberry, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Peter:
Attached is a listing of approved variances under 15A NCAC 2L .0113. It
is in word for windows.
We have two variances approved at WQ permitted sites in the early 1990's
and these were for Compliance Boundary issues under 15A NCAC 2L .0107 .
You will note that most of the incidents or releases that have EMC
approved variances had approval occur between 1997 and 1998. These were for
underground storage tank sites where pump and treat cleanup had been
conducted and this technology plus other BATs were no longer deemed
effective and existing alternatives would cost prohibitive. Many of these
incident sites had a variance underway prior to the implementation of Risk
Based Rules (RBCA) for USTs and the 1997 reorganization that sent the UST
program into the DWM. Since the implementation of RBCA rules, the UST
Section has not implemented any variances to my knowledge and no variances
have gone to the EMC Groundwater Committee from that program for action per
15A NCAC 2L .0113.
We also have had variances approved at a paint factory (Carolina
Coatings) and for a Textile Mill (Flynt Wansona).
Substances for which variances have been approved include metals, other
inorganics, organic, chlorinated solvents, BTEX and other types of
substances.
When we consider if a site is appropriate for a variance, the first
question that is asked ........... is
1. "Does this site fall under NCGS 143-215.4 and the EMC?" (See 15A NCAC
2L . 0113 (a))
Of course, any site where the EMC has statutory authority for a variance
also must meet the criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
I would recommend that if this question revolves around a particular
site .... contact Arthur Mouberry (715-6170) before you proceed in any
particular direction.
If you need to speak to me in more detail about the approved variances
on the list contact me at 715-6189. If you wish to view the files please
call and we will arrange you to see these. I am in the Parker Lincoln Bldg.
in Room lc-223.
david hance
EspII
GWS
Peter Doorn wrote:
> David
>
> I am interested in finding out about 2L variances approved by the
> Groundwater Section. Occasionally one of our Superfund sites asks about
> the variances issued and I would like to be able to provide some
3/16/04 3:24 PM
Re: 2L Variances--reply
2 of2
> accurate information. Specifically, I'd like to know how many have been
> approved and when, who received them, and what were the circumstances.
>
> Perhaps you can direct me to a web site or database that has this info .
> Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated .
>
> -Pete
>
> --
> ==========================
> Peter L. Doorn, Hydrogeologist
> NC Superfund Section
> NC DENR/Division of Waste Management
> ph: 919.733.2801 x297
> fx: 919.733.4811
I r-Name: 04Comprhsv-incidentandpermitV ARLisT.
004Comprhsv-incidentandp ermitV ARLisT.doc . Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
'Encoding: base64 ~----· ---'
3/16/04 3:24 PM
04Comprhsv-incidentandpermitV ARLisT.doc
List of Variances Approved by the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) for GW
Incidents & Permits
lnddent or WQ Name of Facility Regional Office Date Approved by
Permit Number EMC
WQ0002829 Outer Banlcs Beach Club Washington 9/10/92
3588 Amoco T-Mart Raleigh 3/10/94
WQ0005790 Town ofYaupon Beach Wilmington 12/9/94
8094 Goodwill Industries of the Mooresville 3/13/97
Southern Piedmont
3633 Unocal -Park Road Mooresville 3/8/97
5484 Consolidated Freightways Mooresville 2/12/98
(James Farm)
3751 Unocal -Derita Mooresville 3/12/98
8949 Carolina Coatings Inc. Mooresville 12/9/99
14009 Flynt/W ansona Fayetteville 5/8/03
Manufacturing Inc.
Created by Mr. David Hance
re: Variances for GW lncidents/appro ... and Proposed variances for incidents
1 ofl
Subject: re: Variances for GW Incidents/approved by the EMC and Proposed
variances for incidents
, Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:39:25 -0500
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Organization: Groundwater Section
To: CARL BAILEY <[e-mail]>
Carl,
Attached are the listings for Variances in word for windows 97.
These are in two separate tables in the document.
They show you all variances approved by the Commission and those we are working on.
All other variance requests that were sent to us since 1992 were:
1. Approved by the Commission for changes to permitting requirements for ND Permits
(such as spray fields changes, changes in compliance boundaries ,etc).
2. Denied by the Commission and dealt with through litigation (Citgo Products Terminal -
Wilmington) ·
.3. Withdrawn by the RP due to
• another action being taken such 'as cleanup_ or KLM Cap under the GW Section rules
(15A NCAC 2L .0202); or
• another action being taken under the UST RBCA Rules 15A NCAC 2L .0115.
4. Never pursued because the Regional Office recommended another action be taken other
than a variance. This either occured as a result of the RO technical review. It also occured as
a result of the RO changing it's previous recommendation to proceed with a variance based
on new information about the ·site (i.e .. free product found, newly found wells, disputes
between multiple RPs, other violations, and other site information);
5. Never acted upon becau.se·the RP never completed the work necessary to meet the
criteria for a variance, as outlined in·co and RO letters, and. has not actively pursued work
at respective sites.
David Hance
.. ... . . [ . . . .. .•• ... • •. . .. .... . . . . •. . .1.
l , . . .,. . · 1 Name: in~identVARLisT.doc . . _ , j I Drn.c1dentv ARL1sT.docl _ T~_pe: Microsoft Word Document (apphcation/rnsword) !
;_ ... · ............ _ ........ . . i1Encod1ng: base64 . . .. _ . . . I
10/28/2002 2:39 PM
P rocess to B egin and C omplete a Variance
Request under 15A N CA C 2 L .0113
1. As required by ISA NCAC 2L .0113(b), the variance request is sent by the responsible
party or consultant to the Director of the Division of Water Quality and is addressed to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission;
2. The Division of Water Quality places a log number on the request and sends copies to
the appropriate agency for technical review and review to meet the requirements of ISA
NCAC 2L .0I 13(d). If the variance has a Division of Waste Management -UST Section
Site Number, it will be sent to them. If it has a Groundwater Incident Number, the
request will be sent to the Groundwater Section.
3 . The appropriate Section will conduct technical review of the request and a review to
determine if the request meets all the requirements under ISA NCAC 2L .0113(c). The
UST Section may request comments from the Groundwater Section with respect to the
protection of groundwater quality and protection of water supplies. The Groundwater
Section may request comments from the UST Section if there is a UST present on the
site and information is needed about it's condition or status. Both Division staffs may
also request a risk assessment from the Division of Public Health for their respective
variance requests;
4. Upon completing the review under Number # 3, the variance request and
recommendation is sent to the Director of the Division of Water Quality to determine if
the variance is complete pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d). A memoranda detailing
items 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(l-9) greatly expedites Director's review of the request;
5. Upon completing the Director's review as required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d), the
Director gives public notice of this variance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.4(b) and 15 A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). The Section staff responsible for the variance usually develops
these notices for the public. Notice must be circulated at least thirty-days prior to public
hearing as specified in Subparagraph (1) of this rule;
6. The appropriate Section appoints a hearing officer from the Environmental Management
Commission or from its own staff outside of the Regional Office from which the
variance originated to preside over the hearing;
7 . Hearing is held within the county where the release of substances has occurred. At this
hearing, oral statements and written comments are accepted at hearing by the hearing
officer. Appropriate staff from the Regional Office and Raleigh Central Office may
participate as support staff, as deemed necessary by management in the UST Section or
t~e GW Section;
1
8. The hearing record remains open for thirty days after the hearing and all written
comments received during that time are made a part of the hearing record. The
Commission must consider these comments prior to taking final action on the variance
as required under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(f);
9. The hearing officer completes the review of the variance request and comments from the
public in accordance with a schedule determined by the appropriate section supervisor.
A hearing officers report is completed with a recommendation to approve or deny the
d . , propose vanance;
10. The variance request is placed on the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
Groundwater Committee Agenda at a regularly scheduled meeting for review. The
appropriate section submits a summary page that includes the agenda title, explanation,
and recommendation with the hearing officer's report and other supporting information
for the variance. The information is sent to the Groundwater Committee's support staff
in the Division of Water Quality Groundwater Section (David Hance{919-715-6189} );
11. Assuming that the EMC Groundwater Committee approves the variance request, it is
forwarded to the full Environmental Management Commission at the next regularly
scheduled meeting for consideration. The Commission normally requires a waiting
period of at least thirty days after the Groundwater Committee recommends approval;
12. The Division of Water Quality in Raleigh is contacted to place the proposed variance,
with the hearing officer's recommendation, on the Environmental Management
Commission agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The appropriate section
staff contacts Jennie Odette at the Division of Water Quality (919-733-7015) to get this
item on the Commission's agenda. Supporting information for the variance request is
also sent to the Division for the Commissioners information packets;
13. Environmental Management Commission takes final action on the variance application
pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(f) and 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g);
14. If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable to the applicant, he may file a
petition for a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings as specified
under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(h).
2
. ~
... 1--· ,,.:...· ---=-----=sa;a;;a~~--~~-~====---~--==~~-==--~
Section# 1:
Variance P rocess G uidance
..
Process to Begin and Complete a Variance
Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113
1. As required by 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b), the variance request is sent by the responsible
party or consultant to the Director of the Division of Water Quality and is addressed to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission;
2. The Division of Water Quality places a log number on the request and sends copies to
the appropriate agency for technical review and review to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0l 13(d). If the variance has a Division of Waste Management -UST Section
Site Number, it will be sent to them. If.it has a Groundwater Incident Number, the
request will be sent to the Groundwater Section.
3. The appropriate Section will conduct technical review of the request and a review to
determine if the request meets all the requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). The
UST Section may request comments from the Groundwater Section with respect to the
protection of groundwater quality and protection of water supplies. The Groundwater
Section may request comments from the UST Section if there is a UST present on the
site and information is needed about it's condition or status. Both Division staffs may
also request a risk assessment from the Division of Public Health for their respective
variance requests;
4. Upon completing the review under Number # 3, the variance request and
recommendation is sent to the Director of the Division of Water Quality to determine if
the variance is complete pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d). A memoranda detailing
items 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(l-9) greatly expedites Director's review of the request;
5. Upon completing the Director's review as required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d), the
Director gives public notice of this variance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.4(b) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). The Section staff responsible for the variance usually develops
these notices for the public. Notice must be circulated at least thirty-days prior to public
hearing as specified in Subparagraph (1) of this rule; ·
6. The appropriate Section appoints a hearing officer from the Environmental Management
Commission or from its own staff outside of the Regional Office from which the
variance originated to preside over the hearing;
7. Hearing is held within the county where the release of substances has occurred. At this
hearing, oral statements and written comments are accepted at hearing by the hearing
officer. Appropriate staff from the Regional Office and Raleigh Central Office may
participate as support staff, as deemed necessary by management in the UST Section or
the GW Section;
1
.,
8. The hearing record remains open for thirty days after the hearing and all written
comments received during that time are made a part of the hearing record. The
Commission must consider these comments prior to taking final action on the variance
as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(f);
9. The hearing officer completes the review of the variance request and comments from the
public in accordance with a schedule determined by the appropriate section supervisor.
A hearing officers report is completed with a recommendation to approve or deny the
proposed variance;
10. The variance request is placed on the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
Groundwater Committee Agenda at a regularly scheduled meeting for review. The
appropriate section submits a summary page that includes the agenda title, explanation,
and recommendation with the hearing officer's report and other supporting information
for the variance. The information is sent to the Groundwater Committee's support staff
in the Division of Water Quality Groundwater $ection (David Hance{919-715-6189});
11. Assuming that the EMC Groundwater Committee approves the variance request, it is
forwarded to the full Environmental Management Commission at the next regularly
scheduled meeting for consideration. The Commission normally requires a waiting
period of at least thirty days after the Groundwater Committee recommends approval;
12. The Division of Water Quality in Raleigh is contacted to place the proposed variance,
with the hearing officer's recommendation, on the Environmental Management
Commission agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The appropriate section
staff contacts Jennie Odette at the Division of Water Quality (919-733-7015) to get this
item on the Commission's agenda. Supporting information for the variance request is
also sent to the Division for the Commissioners information packets;
13. Environmental Management Commission takes final action on the variance application
pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(f) and 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g);
14. If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable to the applicant, he may file a
petition for a contested case with the Office of Administrative -Hearings as specified
under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(h) .
...
2
•
Section# 3:
E xamp les of L etters Related to Variances
Also included with the variance reques~· 1· 1 risk assessment fro1:1 the Division Publ~c
Health, dated February 15, 2000. Global In at GIS) mappmg and data for this
variance are included in a compact disk (CD) t ' c.". Information in this CD
shows the locations of surface water bodies, public ul! 1ti~f tes, water supply lines and
other features near this property and in Wadesboro.
The information submitted by the company's environmental consultant, Water Equipment
Services (WES) {now known under the corporate name of Nobis Engineering Incorporated) on
behalf of the Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation appears to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c). Information to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c) is summarized
as follows:
Rule .0113(c)O ): Resolution by the Countv or g overnin~ Board:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has always been a privately owned
company. No resolution is necessary.
Rule .0113 (c )(2): A description of past, existing or proposed activities that would
result in a discharg e of contaminants into g roundwater:
The Flynt/W ansona Manufacturing Facility consists of 48.080 acres of land within the city
limits of Wadesboro, NC. The company has submitted a description of two areas at the site where
waste disposal practices resulted in localized releases of substances to groundwater and soils and for
which variance is requested. These areas are known in the variance request as "The Main Plant" and
the "Wul-Zenco Plant" and are include an 8.4-acre area. Substances from the Main Plant were
released into two former settling ponds that have been abandoned. Substances from the former Wul-
Zenco Plant were released into a former septic tank that was removed in 1974, although the
drainfield was left intact. Substances from textile operations were released from the "1950s" until
1974, when liquid waste disposal into these two waste areas ceased.
Additional information on activities that have resulted in a discharge of contaminants can be
found in the following documents:
I. Page 2-1 .ofthe report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Flyn t/Wansona
Facility, Wadesboro , Anson County, North Carolina, (N CDEHNR Incident No.
14009) {March 5 , 1997}" -Discusses the former waste disposal areas used by the
company;
II. Appendix B of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for
Flynt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro , Anson County, North Carolina, <N CDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5. 1997}" -Shows Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation as owner of the property under Deed Numbers 179-0233 and 233-044B.
This appendix also shows property ownership in the area around the site; and
III. Appendix B of this same report also shows individuals, companies and persons who may
2
...
have cleanup responsibilities. Th~~!?:r has examined the information
submitted and has identified 12 properties near the facility that may have or could have
cleanup responsibilities at this site. These persons included and variety of commercial and
industrial operations. Nearby public roadways, railroads and wastewater collection lines
where waste or substances could be or could have been released were also considered.
Figure 2-2 of this March 5, 1997 report also shows the location of these two areas relative
to buildings, driveways, and other site features at One Wansona Way. The Flynt/Wansona
Manufacturing Corporation is located in an area that contains a mixture of industrial, commercial
and residential development.
Rule .0113 (c)(3 ): Description of the pro posed area for which the variance is
requested. A detailed location ma p showin g the orientation of the facilit v,
p otential for groundwater contaminant mi 2ration , .... :
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation believes that it has adequately characterized
groundwater contamination and soil contamination for Groundwater Incident Number 14009 and
the events that led to exceedences of the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards. The
information contained in the variance request and other reports shows that the waste disposal
systems (i.e. the former settling pond and the defunct septic tank and drainfield systems) are the sole
cause of exceedences of Groundwater Quality Standards under Groundwater Incident Number
14009. Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has verified that the systems have been rendered
in an inoperable state such that they can no longer be used in the manner that led to exceedences of
Groundwater Quality Standards.
The original variance request was contained in the report titled "Submittal of Variance
A pp lication for Fl yn t/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro . Anson County, North Carolina, CNCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5 . 1997}". This report discussed substances found in deep soils
samples extracted from within the boundaries of the former settling ponds site and the former septic
tank and drainfield system and provided laboratory results in Table 2-4 and in Table 2-5 of that
report. Groundwater monitoring data from March 1995 was also discussed in Table 2-6.
Due to the fact that the Groundwater Section in the Fayetteville Regional Office deemed this
report incomplete, additional information was requested on shallow soils within the waste disposal
areas, deep soils outside of the waste disposal areas, and groundwater downgraident from the former
septic tank/drainfield and the former settling ponds areas. The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation responded in July 1998 with a report titled "Corrective Action Variance Request
Addendum , Flyn t/Wansona Inc , One WansonaPlace, Wadesboro . Anson County, North Carolina,
NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009 , 08 July 1998". Information contained in Table 1, Table 3, and
Table 5 of this report shows that concentrations of substances persist in surface soils, deep soils and
groundwater within the 8.4 acre area proposed for variance. Concentrations persist within the defined
8.4-acre area 28 years after waste disposal operations at the former settling ponds and inactive septic
system ceased. In addition, the Groundwater Section also required the company to submit
monitoring data on surface water quality in a drainageway that passes through the area of the site
3
..
Ill 41 ,.
Manufacturing Coiporation noted that if both soil vapor extraction and pump and treat cleanup were
applied at this site, the cost is estimated at$ 1,040,000.00. Page 20 of the report titled "Corrective
Action Variance Request Addendum, Fl yn t/Wansona Inc, One Wansona Place. Wadesboro , Anson
County, North Carolina. NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009 , 08 Jul y 1998" states that " ... capping the
two areas with asphalt and development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan is
appropriate, as it would isolate contaminated soil and minimized leaching via infiltration ..... ". It
is no less effective a means of addressing residual concentrations of substances at this site than
implementation of a pump-and-treat system, soil vapor extraction system, bioremediation, or soil
excavation and disposal and is less expensive.
/(~ I~(.--.\, f f~D ~\1~7
t .. \ f ,. ______ , .,-.... ,'
Rule .0113 (c)(7): Su pp ort,i'n g,infotmat1on '. ithat comp liance would p roduce c;:::::.,... -..._,_~•• t_r .....
serious financial hardship without eq ual or g reater public benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that the public would
not receive any benefit if the company were required to meet 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 for Groundwater Incident 14009. Page 3-13 of the report titled "Submittal of
Variance A pplication for Flynt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro , Anson County. North Carolina,
[NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009) {March 5 , 1997}" the Anson County Chamber of Commerce has
designated this county as "economically distressed". North Carolina Environmental Justice maps
at the Groundwater Section show that Anson County has persons who are identified as "minority/low
income" within its jurisdiction.
Rule .0113 (c)(8): "A copy of an v Sp ecial Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site.
Rule .0113 (c)(9): "A list of names and addresses of p ro p erty owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are listed in Appendix B of the
report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Flyn t/Wansona Facili ty, Wadesboro , Anson
County, North Carolina, [NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009} {March 5, 1997}". Title 15A NCAC 2L
.0113( e )(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this variance be given to the owner or
owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing".
GROUNDWATER SECTION RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION
RE QUESTED:
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject variance request to
Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106G) and Groundwater Quality Standards
contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 proceed to public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(e) for groundwater and soils. On February 15, 2000, the Division of Public Health completed
their review of the risk assessment methodology for this site and recommended that this variance be
. . ' •
granted for Flynt/W ansona Manufacturing. This recommendation was made upon the condition that
monitoring be conducted to protect any " ... nearby or future water supplies in the area ". Upon your
concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the preparation
of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(d -f), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the Environmental Management
Commission Groundwater Committee, this request will proceed to the Environmental Management
Commission for final action in 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g). If there are any questions regarding this
matter or if any additional information is needed, please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS: (/~·.<~:\\ !"~
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs \::::.:\ (_ ,:-1_:' / (;}_) '\'\.//
Fayetteville Regional Groundwater Supervisor ··-··· 1'._/ } /
Dr. Luanne Williams ~-
David Hance
11
...
,
Sectio n# 1:
V ariance P r ocess G uidance
Process to Begin and Complete a Variance
Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113
1. As required by 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b), the variance request is sent by the responsible
party or consultant to the Director of the Division of Water Quality and is addressed to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission;
2. The Division of Water Quality places a log number on the request and sends copies to
the appropriate agency for technical review and review to meet the requirements of l SA
NCAC 2L .0l 13(d). If the variance has a Division of Waste Management -UST Section
Site Number, it will be sent to them. ILit has a Groundwater Incident Number, the
request will be sent to the Groundwater Section.
3. The appropriate Section will conduct technical review of the request and a review to
determine if the request meets all the requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). The
UST Section may request comments from the Groundwater Section with respect to the
protection of groundwater quality and protection of water supplies. The Groundwater
Section may request comments from the UST Section if there is a UST present on the
site and information is needed about it's condition or status. Both Division staffs may
also request a risk assessment from the Division of Public Health for their respective
variance requests;
4. Upon completing the review under Number # 3, the variance request and
recommendation is sent to the Director of the Division of Water Quality to detennine if
the variance is complete pursuant to ISA NCAC 2L .0113(d). A memoranda detailing
items ISA NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(l-9) greatly expedites Director's review of the request;
5. Upon completing the Director's review as required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d), the
Director gives public notice of this variance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.4(b) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0l 13(e). The Section staff responsible for the variance usually develops
these notices for the public. Notice must be circulated at least thirty-days prior to public
hearing as specified in Subparagraph (1) of this rule; ·
6. The appropriate Section appoints a hearing officer from the Environmental Management
Commission or from its own staff outside of the Regional Office from which the
variance originated to preside over the hearing;
7. Hearing is held within the county where the release of substances has occurred. At this
hearing, oral statements and writte~ comments are accepted at hearing by the hearing
officer. Appropriate staff from the Regional Office and Raleigh Central Office may
participate as support staff, as deemed necessary by management in the UST Section or
the GW Section;
1
8. The hearing record remains open for thirty days after the hearing and all written
comments received during that time are made a part of the he~ring record. The
Commission must consider these comments prior to taking final action on the variance
as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(f);
9. The hearing officer completes the review of the variance request and comments from the
public in accordance with a schedule determined by the appropriate section supervisor.
A hearing officers report is completed with a recommendation to approve or deny the
proposed variance;
10. The variance request is placed on the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
Groundwater Committee Agenda at a regularly scheduled meeting for review. The
appropriate section submits a summary page that includes the agenda title, explanation,
and recommendation with the hearing officer's report and other supporting information
for the variance. The information is sent to the Groundwater Committee's support staff
in the Division of Water Quality Groundwater ~ection (David Hance{919-715-6189} );
11. Assuming that the EMC · Groundwater Committee approves the variance request, it is
forwarded to the full Environmental Management Commission at the next regularly
scheduled meeting for consideration. The Commission normally requires a waiting
period of at least thirty days after the Groundwater Committee recommends approval;
12. The Division of Water Quality in Raleigh is contacted to place the proposed variance,
with the hearing officer's recommendation,. on the Environmental Management
Commission agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The appropriate section
staff contacts Jennie Odette at the Division of Water Quality (919-733-7015) to get this
item on the Commission's agenda. Supporting information for the variance request is
also sent to the Division for the Commissioners information packets;
13. Environmental Management Commission takes final action on the variance application
pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(f) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113(g);
14. If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable to the applicant, he may file a
petition for a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings as specified
under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(h).
2
Section# 2:
R u l e that Go verns G r oundwater Section
V ariances
ISA NCAC 2L .011 3
Section# 3:
L etters Instructing Regio nal Offi ce Staff
as t o t he Preparation of a V ariance
~
1 of 2
Subject: re: Variances-new shell documents for regional use
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:04:09 -0400
,. From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Organization: Groundwater Section
To: ART BARNHARDT <[e-mail]>,
CHARLES STEHMAN <[e-mail]>,
Lyn Hardison <[e-mail]>,
JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>,
Matt Heller < [e-mail]>,
Sherri Knight <Sherri. [e-mail]>,
Landon Davidson <[e-mail]>
CC: Arthur Mouberry <[e-mail]>,
CARL BAILEY <CARL. [e-mail]>,
DAVID HANCE <[e-mail]>,
de bra watts <debra. [e-mail]>,
TED BUSH <[e-mail]>
Hello GW Supervisors:
In our continuing effort to evaluate procedures that we use, we have identified the
need to create some new shell documents for variances.
Attached are copies of two variance shells in word for windows 97.
Over the last 8 years a number of variances have been approved by the
Environmental Management Commission after it was demonstrated that the request
met the requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0113. Other variances have been either
disapproved by the Commission, have been withdrawn by the responsible party, the
responsible party has decided to pursue a CAP under 15A NCAC 2L .0106, more
extensive information was needed in CSA, other actions than a variance have been
recommended by staff and they are working with the RP on this, or the site was
repermitted (if a permit was involved). At several sites where variances have been
requested the RP withdrew the request when risk based rules went into effect for
petroleum USTS or the site has been transferred to the UST Section as a result of the
reorganization. The proposed variances at COE sites are now no longer being pursued
since the GW Incident Numbers are closed by the UST Section.
Recently, two of the regions had variances were the GWS Regional Offices have
recommended that the variance not be allowed to go forward to the Commission. The
reasons that the staff cannot support these variances are that information to support
the variance is incomplete and these sites are not appropriate for a variance. Other
actions such as cleanup of some kind have been recommended by these regions ..
In reviewing our procedures and the rule, it is apparent that the EMC is the sole
entity in state government that can deny a variance. There is no delegation to the
Director of DWQ. Therefore, it is important that our correspondence that we have
with RPs reflect this.
8/15/2001 5 :05 PM
The "1 Varshell.doc" is for the situation where there are deficiencies in the variance
-:::·"" request and the region has identified problems with the information submitted or the
' site such that a variance cannot go forward--that is ---if taken to the Commission it
would be with a recommendation to deny it. This can be used where the site is more
appropriate for gw cleanup, soils cleanup, a KLM Cap, or something else . . ,
2. of 2
The "2varshell.doc" is for the circumstance where the region can support a variance
provided more information needs to be submitted to meet the criteria in 15A NCAC
2L .0113.
Both of these documents give the RP the option to withdraw the variance and pursue
some other action. They are informed that they can pursue a variance at a later date
when the circumstances at the site have changed.
You are encouraged to let staff know about this and give them access to these shells
in the event a variance is needed at a site in your' respective region.
If you need to speak to me I am at 919-715-6189.
dh
02varshell.doc
D 1 varshell.doc
Name: 2varshell.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: 1 varshell.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
8/15/2001 5:05 PM
Certified Mail Number: (
(Responsible Parties Name)
(Address)
(Date and Year)
Regarding: Variance Request for Property at (Street) in (Town or City), (County), North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident Number ____ ..,,
Dear Mr.1.1\.fs (Last Name);
Over the past (months) your company has been in the process of pursuing a variance from
Groundwater Quality Standards for property located at (Street Address of Site and Town Name),
North Carolina. On (date), the (DENR Regional Office N,ime) Regional Office contacted you
concerning this variance. You were informed that the regiopal office could not support a variance
request for this property due to (state briefly a summary of reasons stating that it is not appropriate
for a variance to proceed any further in the process outlined in 15A NCAC 2L .0113. Site specific
conditions that may lead a region to this conclusion include factors such the presence of
receptors, groundwater contaminant levels, soil contamination, geologic/or hydrogeologic
conditions or any other factor that the regional office may con~ider important, pursuant to 15A
NCAC 2L and other guidance. If the region deems, in lieu of a variance, that other action(s) are
more appropriate in addressing substances at a site the letter should state these reasons. The letter
shall inform the responsible party of the activities that need to be implemented prior to the
consideration of a variance as follows:
1. Completion of a comprehensive site assessment under paragraph 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(g);
2. A corrective action plan relying on best available technology in 15A NCAC 2L
.01060);
3. A corrective action plan relying on cleanup under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k),(l)
and/or (m);
4. A corrective action plan that specifies an action other than cleanup (i.e.
groundwater monitoring);
5. Soil cleanup pursuant to "Guidelines for the Investigation of Soil and
Groundwater-Volume II"; and/or
6. Cleanup requirements of another agency in state government that are in addition
to those in 15A NCAC 2L [i.e. Division of Waste Management-UST Section Risk
Based Cleanup, Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Fund Program, or other program].
as a result of a formal referral of a site from the Division of Water Quality to
another.
If there are any memoranda, notes or correspondence you wish to attach that
discusses the reasons why a variance should not proceed, please note these as attachments
to this letter)
1
If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact (Groundwater
Regional Supervisor) or (Lead Groundwater Regional Staff Person) in the (DENR Regional
Office Name) Regional Office at (Regional Office Phone Number including A,-ea Code).
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
(Regional Groundwater Supervisor)
(Lead Regional Groundwater Section Staff Person)
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
(Other appropriate Regional Office Staff [UST, Super/ und, et~.])
Dr. Ken Rudo ·
David Hance
(Responsible Parties Environmental Consultant)
3
Also included with the variance reques~· ,. l risk assessment from the Division Public
Health, dated February 15, 2000. Global In af GIS} mapping and data for this
variance are included in a compact disk (CD) t1 c.". Information in this CD
shows the locations of surface water bodies, public ull 1ti~~es, water supply lines and
other features near this property and in Wadesboro. if Ii
The information submitted by the company's environmental consultant, Water Equipment
Services (WES) {now known under the corporate name of Nobis Engineering Incorporated} on
behalf of the Flynt/W ansona Manufacturing Corporation appears to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(c). Information to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c) is summarized
as follows:
Rule .0113 (c)(l): Resolution b y the County or g overning Board:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has always been a privately owned
company. No resolution is necessary.
Rule .0113 (c)(2 ): A description of past, existin g or pro posed activities that would
result in a discharg e of contaminants into groundwater:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Facility consists of 48.080 acres ofland within the city
limits of Wadesboro, NC. The company has submitted a description of two areas at the site where
waste disposal practices resulted in localized releases of substances to groundwater and soils and for
which variance is requested. These areas are known in the variance request as "The Main Plant" and
the "Wul-Zenco Plant" and are include an 8.4-acre area. Substances from the Main Plant were
released into two former settling ponds that have been abandoned. Substances from the former Wul-
Zenco Plant were released into a former septic tank that was removed in 197 4, although the
drainfield was left intact. Substances from textile operations were released from the "1950s" until
197 4, when liquid waste disposal into these two waste areas ceased.
Additional information on activities that have resulted in a discharge of contaminants can be
found in the following documents:
I. Page 2-1 of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Flynt/Wansona
Facility, Wadesboro , Anson Countv . North Carolina, CN CDEHNR Incident No.
14009) {March 5 , 1997}" -Discusses the former waste disposal areas used by the
company;
IL Appendix B of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for
Flynt/W ansona Facility, Wadesboro , Anson County. North Carolina, (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5 , 1997}" -Shows Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation as owner of the property under Deed Numbers 179-0233 and 233-044B.
This appendix also shows property ownership in the area around the site; and
III. Appendix B of this same report also shows individuals, companies and persons who may
2
have cleanup responsibilities. Th«:~J!::r ms examined the information
submitted and has identified 12 properties near the facility that may have or could have
cleanup responsibilities at this site. These persons included and variety of commercial and
industrial operations. Nearby public roadways, railroads and wastewater collection lines
where waste or substances could be or could have been released were also considered.
Figure 2-2 of this March 5, 1997 report also shows the location of these two areas relative
to buildings, driveways, and other site features at One Wansona Way. The Flynt/Wansona
Manufacturing Corporation is located in an area that contains a mixture of industrial, commercial
and residential development.
Rule .0113 (c)(3 ): Descri ption of the pro posed area for which the variance is
re quested. A detailed location ma p showin g the orientation of the facili tv,
potential for 2roundwater contaminant mi i:ration , .... :
The Flynt/W ansona Manufacturing Corporation believes that it has adequately characterized
groundwater contamination and soil contamination for Groundwater Incident Number 14009 and
the events that led to exceedences of the ISA NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards. The
information contained in the variance request and other reports shows that the waste disposal
systems (i.e. the former settling pond and the defunct septic tank and drainfield systems) are the sole
cause of exceedences of Groundwater Quality Standards under Groundwater Incident Number
14009. Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has verified that the systems have been rendered
in an inoperable state such that they can no longer be used in the manner that led to exceedences of
Groundwater Quality Standards.
The original variance request was contained in the report titled "Submittal of Variance
A pplication for Flynt/Wansona Facility. Wadesboro , Anson County, North Carolina, (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5, 1997}". This report discussed substances found in deep soils
samples extracted from within the boundaries of the former settling ponds site and the former septic
tank and drainfield system and provided laboratory results in Table 2-4 and in Table 2-5 of that
report. Groundwater monitoring data from March 1995 was also discussed in Table 2-6.
Due to the fact that the Groundwater Section in the Fayetteville Regional Office deemed this
report incomplete, additional information was requested on shallow soils within the waste disposal
areas, deep soils outside of the waste disposal areas, and groundwater downgraident from the former
septic tank/drainfield and the former settling ponds areas. The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation responded in July 1998 with a report titled "Corrective Action Variance Request
Addendum, Flyn t/Wansona Inc , One Wansona Place, Wadesboro , Anson County, North Carolina,
NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009. 08 July 1998". Information contained in Table 1, Table 3, and
Table 5 of this report shows that concentrations of substances persist in surface soils, deep soils and
groundwater within the 8.4 acre area proposed for variance. Concentrations persist within the defined
8.4-acre area 28 years after waste disposal operations at the former settling ponds and inactive septic
system ceased. In addition, the Groundwater Section also required the company to submit
monitoring data on surface water quality in a drainageway that passes through the area of the site
3
(G(Q)lr'u'
located a significant distance north and east from the area proposed for variance as
shown in Figure 2 of the report titled "Corrective Action Variance Req uest
Addendum, Flynt/W ansona Inc. One Wansona Place, Wadesboro, Anson County,
North Carolina, NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009, 08 July 1998."
VII. No impacts to public water supply wells or water supply lines within 2,500 feet
of this site: Page 2-5 of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pplication for
Flynt/Wansona Facility , Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina, (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5 , 1997}" states that the company examined the
presence of public water supplies within 2,500 feet of the site. No public water
supplies will be impacted by a variance for Groundwater Incident Number 14009.
The nearest public water supply is the City of Wadesboro water supply at the City
Pond and is approximately 3 miles south of the site and is in separate watershed from
the property at One Wansona Way. It is highly improbable that public water supply
lines will be impacted by this variance. Discussions with the Town of Wadesboro
Public Works Department revealed that water and sewer lines in this area generally
run 2 feet to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. These utilities are too shallow to be
impacted by substances located at this site.
VIII. No private water supply wells are known to exist within 2,500 feet of this site:
An October 14, 1998 letter from Flynt/W ansona indicated the possibility that off-site
private water supply wells may exist north and northwest of this property. The
Groundwater Section in the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO) has conducted an
extensive survey of adjacent properties around the Flynt/Wansona property using
Global Positioning Satellites and Global Information Systems mapping software.
This information was used to identify various features around the Flynt/W ansona
property, including an attempt to find private water supply wells. The Fayetteville
Regional Office has not identified any private water supply wells within 2,500 feet
of the area for which variance is requested in any direction relative to the site. This
information is stored on a Compact Disk titled "Flynt Wansona Inc."
IX. No significant impacts to surface waters near this site (Class C Freshwaters)-
Figure 2 of the report titled "Corrective Action Variance Req uest Addendum,
Flynt/Wansona Inc , One Wansona Place. Wadesboro . Anson County, North Carolina,
NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009, 08 July 1998" shows a drainage way transects the
area for which variance is requested. This drainage way is located between the former
settling ponds and the former septic tank and drainfield. This figures also shows that
the watercourse in this drainage way travels southeast and continues off site. The
Groundwater Section staff in the Fayetteville Regional Office was concerned that
runoff from precipitation events may cause concentrations of substances in surface
soils to migrate from these two former waste areas into local surface water supplies.
The company provided staff with the results of surface water monitoring data from
an August 23, 1998 surface water-sampling event with an updated map of the site
and drainage way. This information is found in Table 1 attached to the October 14,
7
granted for Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing. This recommendation was made upon the condition that
monitoring be conducted to protect any " ... nearby or future water supplies in the area ". Upon your
concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the preparation
of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(d -f), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the Environmental Management
Commission Groundwater Committee, this request will proceed to the Environmental Management
Commission for final action in 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g). Ifthere are any questions regarding this
matter or if any additional information is needed, please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS: ~
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs ~ 0 fi::Ji
Fayetteville Regional Groundwater Supervisor fF
Dr. Luanne Williams
David Hance
11
1 of 2
·-·· --·-·· ----···-··--·-· . -:,•-··--· ---
Subject: re? Variances-new shell documents for regional use
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 200117:04:09 -0400
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Organization: Groundwater Section
To: ART BARNHARDT <[e-mail]>'
CHARLES STEHMAN <[e-mail]>,
Lyn Hardison <[e-mail]>,
JAY ZIMMERMAN <[e-mail]>,
Matt Heller < [e-mail]>,
Sherri Knight <[e-mail]>,
Landon Davidson <[e-mail]>
CC: Arthur Mouberry <[e-mail]>,
CARL BAILEY <[e-mail]>,
DAVID HANCE <[e-mail]>,
debra watts <[e-mail]>,
TED BUSH <[e-mail]>
Hello GW Supervisors :
In our continuing effort to evaluate procedures that we use, we have identified the
need to create some new shell documents for variances.
Attached are copies of two variance shells in word for windows 97.
Over the last 8 years a number of variances have been approved by the
Environmental Management Commission after it was demonstrated that the request
met the requirements of 15A NCAC 21 .0113. Other variances have been either
disapproved by the Commission, have been withdrawn by the responsible party, the
responsible party has decided to pursue a CAP under 15A NCAC 2L .0106, more
extensive information was needed in CSA, other actions than a variance have been
recommended by staff and they are working with the RP on this, or the site was
repermitted (if a permit was involved). At several sites .where variances have been
requested the RP withdrew the request when risk based rules went into effect for
petroleum USTS or the site has been transferred to the UST Section as a result of the
reorganization. The proposed variances at CDE sites are now no longer being pursued
since the GW I .ncident Numbers are closed by the UST Section.
Recently, two of the regions had variances were the GWS Regional Offices have
recommended that the variance not be allowed to go forward to the Commission. The
reasons that the staff cannot support these variances are that information to support
the variance is incomplete and these sites are not appropriate for a variance. Other
actions such as cleanup of some kind have been recommended by these regions ..
In reviewing our procedures and the rule, it is apparent that the EMC is the sole
entity in state government that can deny a variance. There is no delegation to the
Director of DWQ. Therefore, it is important that our correspondence that we have
with RPs reflect this.
8/15/2001 5:05 PM
2 of 2
The "1 VarsheiLdoc'• is for the situation where there are deficiencies in the variance
request and the region has identified problems with the information submitted or the
site such that a variance cannot go forward--that is ---if taken to the Commission it
would be with a recommendation to deny it. This can be used where the site is more
appropriate for gw cleanup, soils cleanup, a KLM Cap, or something else.
The "2varshell.doc" is for the circumstance where the region can support a variance
provided more information needs to be submitted to meet the criteria in 15A NCAC
2L .0113.
Both of these documents give the RP the option to withdraw the variance and pursue
some other action. They are informed that they can pursue a variance at a later date
when the circumstances at the site have changed.
You are encouraged to let staff know about this and give them access to these shells
in the event a variance is needed at a site in your respective region.
If you need to speak to me I am at 919-715-6189.
dh
02varshell.doc
D 1 varshell.doc
Name: 2varshell.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: 1 varshell.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
8/15/2001 5:05 PM
Variance withdrawal -other actioas needed. w/request for additional information
Certified Mail Number: (
(Responsible Parties Name)
(Address)
(Date and Year)
J
Regarding: Variance Request for Property at (Street) in (Town or City), (County), North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident Number ____ _,
Dear Mr./Ms (Last Name);
Over the past (months) your company has been in the process of pursuing a variance from
Groundwater Quality Standards for property located at (Street Address of Site and Town Name),
North Carolina. On (date), the (DENR Regional Office Name) Regional Office contacted you
concerning this variance. You were informed that the regional office could not support a variance
request for this property due to (state briefly a summary of reasons stating that it is not appropriate
for a variance to proceed any further in the process outlined in 15A NCAC 2L .0113. Site specific
conditions that may lead a region to this conclusion include factors such the presence of
receptors, groundwater contaminant levels, soil contamination, geologic/or hydrogeologic
conditions or any other factor that the regional office may consider important, pursuant to 15A
NCAC 2L and other guidance. If the region deems, in lieu of a variance, that other action(s) are
more appropriate in addressing substances at a site the letter should state these reasons. The letter
shall inform the responsible party of the activities that need to be implemented prior to the
consideration of a variance as follows:
1. Completion of a comprehensive site assessment under paragraph 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(g),·
2. A corrective action plan relying on best available technology in 15A NCAC 2L
.0106(j),·
3. A corrective action plan relying on cleanup under 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k),(l)
and/or (m);
4. A corrective action plan that specifies an action other than cleanup (i.e.
groundwater monitoring);
5. Soil cleanup pursuant to "Guidelines for the Investigation of Soil and
Groundwater -Volume II"; and/or
6. Cleanup requirements of another agency in state government that are in addition
to those in ISA NCAC 2L {i.e. Division of Waste Management-UST Section Risk
Based Cleanup, Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Fund Program, or other program].
as a result of a formal referral of a site from the Division of Water Quality to
another.
If there are any memoranda, notes or correspondence you wish to attach that
discusses the reasons why a variance should not proceed, please note these as attachments
to this letter)
1
Variance withdrawal -other actions needed w/request for additional infe-:rmation
In addition, the (DENR Regional Office Name) Regional Office has identified a number of
deficiencies in the variance request as follows: (if the regional office deems that the variance
request is incomplete with respect to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(l-8),please note
these in this letter by number in the rule).
Based on site specific information and what has been provided in the variance request,
the regional office does not believe that a variance is appropriate for this site. Please note that if
this request were to proceed to the Environmental Management with the information that has
been submitted thus far, the Groundwater Section will recommend denial based on the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L.
If you chose you may withdraw this variance request and pursue the alternatives
recommended by the (DENR Regional Office Name) Regional Office in this letter and other
correspondence on file. You may submit a new variance request with supporting information at a
later date when conditions at the site meet the criteria contained in title 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
You may pursue the alternatives outlined by the Regional Office or you may submit additional
supporting information for this variance sufficent to address the Groundwater Section's concerns.
Please feel free to contact the (DENR Regional Office Name) Regional Office staff if you need
more detailed information or discussion in arriving at a decision.
If you decided to withdraw this variance request, please submit a letter stating that the
request is withdrawn. The Groundwater Section would gr eatl y appreciate getting this letter from
y ou on or before (date that is 30 da vs a ft er the date at the to p o f this letter) so that we may
u pdate our files on this site. It is reguested that a withdrawal letter be sent to the followin g
address:
David Hance
DENR-DWQ-Groundwater Section
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
If you do not respond to this letter within thirty-days after receipt of this letter, the
Groundwater Section will forward the application for variance for Groundwater Incident Number
(XXXXX) to the Director of the Division of Water Quality with related correspondence. The
Groundwater Section will recommend to the Director that the variance be sent to the Environmental
Management Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. If the Director agrees with the Section
on this matter, then staff is prepared to recommend to the Commission that this request be denied
on the basis that the information provided does not meet the criteria of 15A NCAC 2L .0113
(and/or) this site is more appropriate for Corrective Action under 15A NCAC 2L .0106. If a
meeting of the Environmental Management Commission and/or its Groundwater Committee is
scheduled to discuss this variance request, you will be notified by certified letter of the date, time
and place of that meeting.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter. Please note that once you have
completed all activities outlined in this correspondence, any previous correspondence, and any other
activities consistent with the 15A NCAC 2L rules to the satisfaction of the (DENR Regional Office
Name) Regional Office, you may apply for new variance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
2
Variance withdrawal -other actions needed w/request for additional information
If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact (Groundwater
Regional Supervisor) or (Lead Groundwater Regional Staff Person) in the (DENR Regional
Office Name) Regional Office at (Regional Office Phone Number including Area Code).
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
(Regional Groundwater Supervisor)
(Lead Regional Groundwater Section Staff Person)
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Mouberry, P .E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
(Other appropriate Regional Office Staff [UST, Superfund, etc.])
Dr. Ken Rudo
David Hance
(Responsible Parties Environmental Consultant)
3
Variance withdrawal -request for additional information to COD1flete a variance
request
If you intend to pursue a corrective action plan under 15A NCAC 2L .0106 in lieu of
variance, please prepare a letter stating your intent to withdraw this variance. Please forward this
letter to David Hance, DWQ-Groundwater Section DENR-DWQ-Groundwater Section
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636, Phone: [phone]; Fax: (919) 715-
0588. It is requested that you contact the (DENR Regional Office Name) Groundwater Section
Regional Supervisor prior to this decision.
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
(Groundwater Regional Supervisor)
(Lead Groundwater Section Staff Person)
Dr. Ken Rudo
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Mouberry, P .E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
(Other appropriate Regional Office Staff [UST, Superfund, etc.])
David Hance
(RPs Environmental Consultant)
2
Process to Begin and Complete a Variance
Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113
1. As required by 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b), the variance request is sent by the responsible
party or consultant to the Director of the Division of Water Quality and is addressed to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission;
2. The Division of Water Quality places a log number on the request and sends copies to
the appropriate agency for technical review and review to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0l 13(d). If the variance has a Division of Waste Management -UST Section
Site Number, it will be sent to them. If it has a Groundwater Incident Number, the
request will be sent to the Groundwater Section.
3. The appropriate Section will conduct technical review of the request and a review to
determine if the request meets all the requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c). The
UST Section may request comments from the Groundwater Section with respect to the
protection of groundwater quality and protection of water supplies. The Groundwater
Section may request comments from the UST Section if there is a UST present on the
site and information is needed about it's condition or status. Both Division staffs may
also request a risk assessment from the Division of Public Health for their respective
variance requests;
4. Upon completing the review under Number # 3, the variance request and
recommendation is sent to the Director of the Division of Water Quality to determine if
the variance is complete pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(d). A memoranda detailing
items 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c)(l-9) greatly expedites Director's review of the request;
5. Upon completing the Director's review as required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d), the
Director gives public notice of this variance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.4(b) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(e). The Section staff responsible for the variance usually develops
these notices for the public. Notice must be circulated at least thirty-days prior to public
hearing as specified in Subparagraph (1) of this rule; ·
6. The appropriate Section appoints a hearing officer from the Environmental Management
Commission or from its own staff outside of the Regional Office from which the
variance originated to preside over the hearing;
7. Hearing is held within the county where the release of substances has occurred. At this
hearing, oral statements and written comments are accepted at hearing by the hearing
officer. Appropriate staff from the Regional Office and Raleigh Central Office may
participate as support staff, as deemed necessary by management in the UST Section or
the GW Section;
1
8. The hearing record remains open for thirty days after the hearing and all written
comments received during that time are made a part of the hearing record. The
Commission must consider these comments prior to taking final action on the variance
as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(f);
9. The hearing officer completes the review of the variance request and comments from the
public in accordance with a schedule determined by the appropriate section supervisor.
A hearing officers report is completed with a recommendation to approve or deny the
proposed variance;
10. The variance request is placed on the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
Groundwater Committee Agenda at a regularly scheduled meeting for review. The
appropriate section submits a summary page that includes the agenda title, explanation,
and recommendation with the hearing officer's report and other supporting information
for the variance. The information is sent to the Groundwater Committee's support staff
in the Division of Water Quality Groundwater Section (David Hance{919-715-6189});
11. Assuming that the EMC Groundwater Committee approves the variance request, it is
forwarded to the full Environmental Management Commission at the next regularly
scheduled meeting for consideration. The Commission normally requires a waiting
period of at least thirty days after the Groundwater Committee recommends approval;
12. The Division of Water Quality in Raleigh is contacted to place the proposed variance,
with the hearing officer's recommendation, on the Environmental Management
Commission agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The appropriate section
staff contacts Jennie Odette at the Division of Water Quality (919-733-7015) to get this
item on the Commission's agenda. Supporting information for the variance request is
also sent to the Division for the Commissioners information packets;
13. Environmental Management Commission takes final action on the variance application
pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(f) and 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(g);
14. If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable to the applicant, he may file a
petition for a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings as specified
under 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(h).
2
1 of 2
. Subject: re·-, letters for variances with a procedure/ust and gws
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:25: 10 -0500
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Organization: Groundwater Section
Hello Cindy,
To: Cindy Rintoul <[e-mail]>
CC: Don Geddes <[e-mail]>,
Sherri Knight <[e-mail]>,
Arthur Mou berry <[e-mail]>,
CARL BAILEY <CARL. [e-mail]>,
DAVID HANCE <[e-mail]>,
Burrie Boshoff < Burrie. [e-mail]>
Attached are the shell letters the GW Section uses when we have variance requests. I
hope this helps the UST folks in your region with that site you told me about.
I also have enclosed a document know as "processVAR" that explains the variance
process in 15A NCAC 2L .0113 and what is invoiyed.
Note that since the breakup of the old GW Section, the UST Section and the GW
Section are responsible for their own variance r·equests at their respective sites. In
the processVAR document regional offices staff in the UST Section may request
comments from regional counter parts in the GW Section and visa versa as shown in
Number 3. The Groundwater Section also gets most involved in UST variances when
variances are ready to go to the EMC Groundwater Committee as shown in Number
10.
David Hance
GW Section-CO
D 2varshel I .doc
D 1 varshell.doc
,1
Name: 2varshe'll.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64 ,, ..
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: lvarshell.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
12/21/2001 3:26 PM
0ProcessVAR.doc
2 of 2
Name: ProcessVAR.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document
( appl ication/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
12/21/2001 3:26 PM
. fi~ •,::'r.··-• ~--.
/V ... -\i,c
✓" _..--/ .,../····,
/-/ ~ -·" ..
b) If in your opinion the application for a variance
request is complete the regional office is . to
generate a memo to the Director, thru the
Groundwater Section · Chief, requesting that the
request for-a variance be sent to public notice.
The regional memo is to contain a brief
explanation on how the applicant complied with
each portion of . 011 3 ( c) ( 1 ) - ( 9 ) .
4) Upon receipt of the comments from the regional off ice a
staff member of the Planning Branch will be responsible for
completing the public notice and public hearing process for
the variance request. A staff member from the regional
office will be expected to attend any public hearing that is
held.
This is a general outline on how I expect the variance requests
to be handled. If you have any questions on this matter please call
me.
cc: Tea Bush
Carl Bailey·
Burrie Boshoff
Regional Supervisors
AGENDA ITEM:
940013
EXPLANATION:
l l
Request to A pp rove a Variance from the Requirements of 15A NCAC
2L .0106 (f ) and 15A NCAC 2L .0202 for the Amoco T-Mart in Benson ,
North Carolina.
.I
The Amoco T-Mart was constructed in 1982 and four
underground storage tanks (USTs) were installed. On January 20,
1988, a routine inventory of the petroleum fuel tank contents at the
Benson T -Mart indicated the total volume in an underground storage
tank containing premium gasoline was 2,000 gallons lower than the
volume shown on sales records. An investigation by the responsible
party (RP) discovered a leak in the plumbing of the distribution
system which was repaired. Initial recovery efforts retrieved 1,400
gallons of gasoline which was removed and treated. A substantial
volume of contaminated soil was also removed from the site and
applied to land in accordance with the state's soil remediation
guidelines. A pump and treat groundwater remediation system was
installed at the Amoco T-Mart late 1988. From January 1988 through
February 1990 the pump-and-treat system removed free-product
gasoline and contaminated · groundwater. During this period
approximately 100 gallons of liquid phase gasoline was recovered from
the tank--basin. An estimated 200,000 gallons of contaminated
groundwater -was recovered and treated. A soil venting system was
installed at the remediation system sump to remove gasoline in the
soil above the water table and operated till February 1990.
In February 1990, the responsible party decided to replace and
upgrade underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Amoco T-Mart to
meet the technical standards found in 15A NCAC 2N in accordance
required deadlines. Deteriorating pavement was an additional factor
that compelled this activity. To gain access to the UST basin, the RP
removed the overlying and adjacent remedial equipment, including the
soil venting and the pump-and-treat system. During the upgrading
process, more than 500 tons of contaminated soil and more than 2,000
gallons of groundwater was removed and treated. This contamination
had accumulated in the excavation pit as work progressed to upgrade
the USTs at this site.
On January 20, 1993, a variance request for this site was
submitted to the Division of Environmental Management and a
memorandum from the Raleigh Regional Office stating that the
request contained adequate supporting information to meet the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(d). Upon receiving approval from
the Commission, a public hearing was announced for November 29,
1993. Six citizens registered their attendance at the public hearing.
..
12
Only one verbal comment was made at the hearing. One written
comment was received before the hearing record closed on Decem-
ber 29, 1993.
_j
If the EMC grants approval of this variance to groundwater
standards and corrective action requirements it would allow the
cessation of active remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater
in the subsurface beneath the property boundaries of the Amoco T-
Mart. Contaminants found in the tank basin and in on-site monitoring
wells would be allowed at levels previously found so that natural
remedial processes could act to degrade these contaminants below the
standards found in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Groundwater monitoring, as
specified in the hearing officer's report, should be required to ensure
that both the anticipated movement of the groundwater and the
predicted natural degradation/remediation of petroleum contaminants
is confirmed.
It is believed that further corrective actions using best
available technology (BAT), as described in 15A NCAC 2L .0106, to
remediate the Amoco T-Mart will not prove effective at reducing the
remaining contaminant levels. The information supplied by the
responsible party indicates that the soil within the area of the
variance is very impermeable and effectively retards the movement
of groundwater and contaminants. The downgradient groundwater
movement has been estimated to travel 4 to 5 feet per year. It must
be noted that the RP has vigorously and continually acted to reduce
contaminant levels at this site since the leak was first discovered.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Environmental Management
Commission approve the variance to Corrective Actions in 15A NCAC
2L .0106(f) and Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202
for the Amoco T-Mart in accordance with the conditions and
recommendations of the Hearing Officer.
14
INCIDENT BACKGROUND
On January 20, 1988, an inventory performed of the pefroleum fuel tank contents
at the Benson T-Mart indicated a total volume of premium gallons which was 2,000
gallons lower than shown on sales records. An investigation discovered a leak in the
plumbing of the distribution system which was repaired. Initial recovery efforts
retrieved 1,400 gallons of gasoline which was hauled away and treated. A substantial
volume of contaminated soil was also hauled away from the site and land-applied. A
Corrective Action Plan adhering to 15A NCAC 2L .0106 and to Division of
Environmental Management guidance documents was submitted; and after receiving
Division of Environmental Management approval, the pump and haul operation was
changed to pump and treat remediation on-site in late 1988.
The remediation system consisted of a slotted 24-inch pipe emplaced below the
water table in a trench adjacent to the tank pit, and a sump pump to remove the
contaminated groundwater from the pipe. The trench was backfilled with clean sand.
The recovered fluids were hauled away for treatment from late January 1988 until late
1988. The Division of Environmental Management approved the Corrective Action Plan
in late 1988, and the treatment system was modified as approved to treat groundwater
on-site. In February 1989, after removing all liquid-phase petroleum products floating
on the groundwater, a soil venting system was emplaced to remediate contaminated soil
above the water table.
In February 1990, the Responsible Party (RP) made several physical changes on
site. New regulations had been promulgated detailing schedule deadlines for the
required upgrading of all USTs. Because the facility pavement was badly deteriorated,
the RP elected to replace the USTs early and repave the site after upgrading the tanks.
To gain access to the UST basin, the RP removed the overlying and adjacent remedial
equipment, including the soil venting and the pump-and-treat system. During the
upgrading process, more than 500 tons of contaminated soil was found, removed and
treated; and more than 2,000 gallons of groundwater was removed , which had
'--.
accumulated in the excavation pit as work progressed.
A report was submitted to the Division of Environmental Management in April
1990 detailing activities involved with the March 1990 tank replacement. The report
also included i:ecommendations fo~ the monitoring only of groundwater prior to
reinstallation of remediation equipll].ent. No response was received from the Division of
Environment~! Management; therefore, the RP continued with monitoring activities
only, reporting quarterly on groundwater analyses and water levels.
On January 20, 1993, a variance request for this site was submitted to the Division
of Environmental Management, and a memorandum from the Raleigh Regional Office
favoring the request and containing adequate supporting documents was sent to the
Director on April 2, 1993. On October 24, 1993, the date of the public hearing was
announced.
....
' '
16
A greater percentage of the known quantity of petroleum released at this site has
been recovered relative to other contaminated underground storage tank incidences in
North Carolina. This efficient removal may be attributed to the aggressive corrective
actions taken by the responsible party in remediating ti"!~ site. The removal of
additional contaminated soil found when the RP excavated the UST remediation system
after announcement of the regulatory deadlines to upgrade tanks contributed to a
further reduction of contaminated sources. This removal efficiency . may also be
attributable to the tightness of the soil since the soil permeability at the Amoco T-Mart
is quite low. Groundwater is predicted to be moving at an estimated rate of 4 to 5 feet
per year.
Based on data from the quarterly waterlevel maps the current configuration of
monitor wells on site does not monitor the groundwater in · the downgradient direction
from the tank pit. An additional monitoring well located in the immediate vicinity
downgradient from the tank pit should furnish . this data. Contamination is now found
only near the tank pit; elsewhere at the site, Groundwater Standards' violations have
not been indicated. Analyses utilizing EPA Method 602 on water from Monitor Wells #
1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 (see map in Attachment Number 7) have never shown BTEX
contamination. Out of ten sampling events, monitor well No. 3 had only one sample
which indicated some BTEX contamination, but that was not a violation of 15A NCAC
2L .0202 Groundwater Standards. Only Monitor Well No. 4 and the two monitor wells
located within the tank basin (TB-1 and TB-2) have shown contaminate levels which
violate Groundwater Standards. The groundwater contamination levels shown near the
pit since March 1990 have generally decreased, with fluctuations occurring semi-
annually. These fluctuations appear to correlate with the wet and dry seasons (see
Attachment Number 7). The general pattern of fluctuating groundwater contamination
levels shows seasonal highs in summer months and lower levels in winter.
The chemical methods used by the RP to analyze groundwater did not have the
capability to test for naphthalene and associated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
compounds. Utilizing a different analysis method could eliminate the question of
presence or absence of other potential contaminants in the groundwater at this site.
Standard Method 62100 will detect those substances indicated by EPA Method_ 602, and
can detect many other petroleum hydrocarbon constituents potentially present. ·
'• ..
fl I I ALHl•ltl'l I f I
H3
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, .HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Notice is hereby given of a variance appiication and public
hearing to be held by the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management
Commission-. The hearing concerns a request for a variance from
Groundwater Quality Standards of 1 SA NCAC 2L · . 0202 and the
Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (f) for the
Amoco T-Mart gasoline station in Benson, North Carolina;
( Groundwater Incident No.# 3588) . The variance application was
received -for review by the Department on April 30, 1993 from the
Lee-Moore Oil •Company, P.O. Drawer# 9, Sanford, NC 27330. The Lee-
Moore Oil .Company owns the underground storage tank (UST) for which
the variance is requ~sted.
The property where the underground storage tank .is located is as
follows: Inside the City Limits of Benson, NC; Enter Benson from
Interstate-95 and go to the Amoco T-Mart at 606 East Main Street.
The Lee-Moore Oil Company requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant this variance so that it does the
following:
1) Allow concentrations of Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) to remain at levels
above 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed on March
19, 1993 within the property boundaries of the Amoco T-
Mart.
On January 20, 1988 an estimated 1,500 to 2,000
gallons of unleaded gasoline was lost due to a leaking
gasket in the distribution system. Free-product gasoline
and contaminated sqils were subsequently removed. A pump-
and-:treat groundwater remediation system was instct:lled to
meet corrective action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106.
From January 1988 through February 1990 the remediation
system recovered 100 gallons of liquid phase gasoline and
over 200,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater.
Approximately $200,000 dollars has been exp.ended by Lee-
Moore Oil Company to remediate contaminated groundwater
and soil. In March 1990 the requirement to meet technical
standards of 1 SA NCAC 2N and eroding pavement
necessitated replacing underground storage tanks and
removal 6f the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation
system at the site.
Analysis of groundwater samples from all monitoring
wells for this site have demonstrated BTEX concentrations
progressively decreasing since corrective actions were
initiated in 1988. Only one monitoring well directly in
19
the tank basin has consistently , shown elevated
concentrations of BTEX above the 15A NCAC 2L .202
groundwater standards. During the _1last semi-annual
groundwater analysis one well outside the tank basin
showed Benzene at 0.003 mg/1. The 15A NCAC 2L .0202
groundwater quality standards allow a maximum of 0.001
mg/1 for Benzene. No contaminant listed in 15A NCAC 2L
. 0202 has been found outside the property boundary of the
Amoco T-Mart. Computer modeling of these groundwater
contaminants has indicated that BTEX concentrations will
remain above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards within the
confines of the property boundaries of the Amoco T-Mart.
It has been estimated that it will take eight years for
the edge of this contaminated groundwater to migrate
through the subsurface and reach the property line.
Calculations have shown that by the time these
contaminants migrate and reach the property boundary
natural remedial ,processes will degrade them below the
lev~ls listed in 15A NCAC 2L. 0202. There are no krtown
private or public water supply wells within 1/2 mile of
this location.
2) Discontinue remedial actions in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(f). Due to the apparent isolation of the
remaining contamination and lack of local groundwater use
the Lee-Moore Oil Company believes that this site poses
no threat to human health or the environment. Any
further remedial actions will not significantly reduce
concentrations of contaminants and reductions will result
from the natural processes of attenuation, biodegradation
and degradation of the contaminants. Groundwater
monitoring will continue to be required by the Division
of Environmental Management if this variance is granted.
The hearing will be held as follows:
BENSON
November 29, 1993
7:00 PM
Municipal Building
303 East Church Street
Second Floor-District Courtroom
Oral Comments may be made during the hearing, or written
statements may be submitted to the agency prior to December 29,
1993. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes
are requested. Oral statements may be limited at the discretion of
the hearing officers.
ATTACHMENT #3
L .E. Brown,
Benson, NC
22
.I
Attendees
Amoco T-Mart Variance Hearing
November 29, 1993
Staff Writer,
27504
The Benson Review, P.O. Box 9,
Calvin Edgerton, Staff Writer, The Smithfield Herald, P.O. Box
1417, Smithfield, NC 27377.
Linda Harris, Director Of Marketing, Lee-Moore Oil Company,
P.O. Drawer 9, Sanford, NC 27330.
Tim H. Holloman, Building Inspector, Town of Benson, P.O. Box
67, Benson, NC 27504.
Graylon McLarnb, 941 Raynor Road, Benson, NC
representing the estate of Redding McLarnb **)
27504 (**
Rick Powell, Project Geologist, . Delta Environmental
Consultants, Inc., 6701 Carmel Road, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC
28226.
ATTACHMENT #3
9
I
23
ATTACHMENT #4
Public Hearing-Variance Request ./
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(f)
Amoco T-Mart (GW Incident No.# 3588)
Benson, North Carolina
November 29, 1993 (7:00 PM)
Hearing officer: Jim Bales (Fayetteville Regional Office)
Staff Presenter: Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office)
GROUNDWATER SECTION RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF PRESENTATION FOR 15A NCAC 2L VARIANCE
AMOCO T-MART , BENSON , NC
GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JAY ZIMMERMAN. I AM THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT-GROUNDWATER SECTION REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL
SUPERVISOR IN THE RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
THE AMOCO T-MART OWNS AND OPERATES A GASOLINE STATION WITHIN THE
TOWN LIMITS OF BENSON, NC. THIS STATION WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1982 AND
FOUR PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WERE INSTALLED. IN JANUARY 20,
1988 THE LEE-MOORE OIL COMPANY PERFORMED AN INVENTORY OF GASOLINES SOLD
BY THIS STATION. THE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM UNLEADED GASOLINE IN THE
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK WAS LOWER THAN THE SALES RECORDS INDICATED.
FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED A LEAK OCCURRED AT A GASKET ;rn THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NORTH OF ONE TANK. THE LEAK WAS IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED
AND LIQUID PHASE HYDROCARBONS WERE REMOVED BY INSTALLING A TRENCH AT THE
---
SOUTHERN END OF THE TANK BASIN. INVENTORY RECORDS REVEALED 2000 GALLONS
HAD BEEN RELEASED. 1400 GALLONS OF GASOLINE WERE RECOVERED WITHIN THE
FIRST FEW WEEKS FOLLOWING THE LEAK. CONTAMINATED SOIL WAS REMOVED AND
TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GROUNDWATER SECTION SOIL REMEDIATION
GUIDELINES. SINCE THE WATER TABLE IS WITHI~ FIVE (5) TO SEVEN (7) FEET
ATTACHMENT #4
/0
24
FROM THE SURFACE THE GROUNDWATER BENEATH THE AMOCO T-MART BECAME
CONTAMINATED. A GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
INSTALLED WHICH REVEALED GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CONTAMINATION WAS LIMITED
TO THE TANK BASIN. A PUMP-AND-TREAT GROUNDWATER RECOVERY SYSTEM WAS
INSTALLED IN LATE 1 988 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
DEVELOPED UNDER RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0106 AND STATE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS.
FROM JANUARY 1988 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1990 THE PUMP-AND-TREAT SYSTEM
REMOVED FREE-PRODUCT GASOLINE AND CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER. DURING THIS
TWO YEAR PERIOD APPROXIMATELY 100 GALLONS OF LIQUID PHASE GASOLINE WAS
RECOVERED FROM THE TANK BASIN. OVER 200, 000 GALLONS . OF CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER WAS RECOVERED AND TREATED. BY OCTOBER 1989 NO LIQUID PHASE
GASOLINE REMAINED IN THE TRENCH OR RECOVERY SUMP. A SOIL VENTING SYSTEM
WAS INSTALLED AT THE REMEDIATION SYSTEM SUMP TO REMOVE GASOLINE IN THE
SOIL ABOVE THE WATER TABLE. THIS SYSTEM OPERATED TILL FEBRUARY 1990.
IN MARCH 1990 THE REQUIREMENT TO MEET TECHNICAL STANDARDS OF 15A
NCAC 2N UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RULES AND TO REPAIR DEGRADING PAVEMENT
NECESSITATED REMOVAL OF THE PUMP-AND-TREAT GROUNDWATER CLEANUP SYSTEM.
AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTIVITY AN ADDITIONAL 500 TONS OF SOIL LADENED WITH
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER WAS REMOVED AND TREATED OFF-SITE. AS PART OF
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS, THE LEE-MOORE OIL COMPANY HAS
BEEN CONDUCTING QUARTERLY MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER AT THE AMOCO T-MART
SINCE FEBRUARY 1988. THE LAST SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED IN
MARCH OF 1992.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO 15A NCAC 2L .0202 WOULD ALLOW EXISTING
CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE, AND XYLENES (BTEX) TO
REMAIN WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF THE AMOCO T-MART. THE LEE-MOORE
OIL COMPANY BELIEVES THAT CONTINUED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WILL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE CONTAMINATES BELOW THE 15A NCAC 2L .0202
GROUNDWATER STANDARDS AND THAT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WILL NOT BE
IMPACTED BY THESE REMAINING LEVELS WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. THEY
PROPOSE THAT THESE REMAINING CONCENTRATIONS BE ALLOWED TO DEGRADE
THROUGH NATURAL PROCESSES AND THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS OF 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(f) NOT BE APPLIED TO THIS LOCATION. THE COMPANY ASSERTS
THAT EXCEEDENCE OF THE 15A NCAC 2L .0202 GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS
WILL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF THE AMOCO T-MART.
THE LEE-MOORE OIL COMPANY SENT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ON JANUARY 20, 1993. THE DIVISION
HAS REVIEWED SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND
BELIEVES THAT.IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (a-c). ·~HERE
IS· NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH FROM THIS SITE.
ACCORDING TO THE TOWN . OF BENSON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE NO
KNOWN PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELLS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF THIS PROPERTY. THE
WATER SUPPLY FOR THE TOWN OF BENSON IS FROM A DEEP WELL LOCATED ONE MILE
UPGRADIENT FROM THE AMOCO T-MART. A MONITORING WELL WITHIN THE TANK
BASIN HAS SHOWN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION PROGRESSIVELY DEC~EASING WITH
TIME. A MONITORING WELL UPGRADIENT FROM THE TANK BASIN HAS SHOWN
EXISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE AT 0.003 MG/L. THE 15A NCAC 2L. 0202
GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 0.001 MG/L. NO
DOWNGRADIENT MONITORING WELLS HAVE SHOWN ANY BTEX CONTAMINATION ABOVE
THE 15A NCAC 2L STANDARDS. THE DOWNGRADIENT EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATED
PLUME IS APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
GROUNDWATER MODELING USING THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SPREAD MODEL HAS
INDICATED THAT IT WILL TAKE EIGHT YEARS FOR THE EDGE OF THIS
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER PLUME TO REACH THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. BY THAT
TIME IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT NATURAL REMEDIAL PROCESSES IN THE SUBSURFACE ·
WILL REDUCE CONCENTRATIONS BELOW 0 15A NCAC 2L .0202 STANDARDS. NINETY
ATTACHMENT #4
I J
25
PERCENT OF THIS PROPERTY IS COVERED BY PAVEMENT SO RAINFALL EVENTS WILL
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE MOVEMENT OF SUBSURFACE CONTAMINANTS. STORM
WATER IS ROUTED THROUGH STORM SEWERS TO A TRIBUTARY OF HANNAH CREEK
APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE.
APPLYING BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES WOULD-1SERVE TO PRODUCE A
SERIOUS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY EQUAL
OR GREATER BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC. THE COMPANY HAS SPENT APPROXIMATELY
$ 200,000 DOLLARS TO REMEDIATE THIS SITE. ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES SUCH
AS BIOREMEDIATION OR AIR SPARGING ARE NOT CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE
ALTERNATIVES.
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION GRANTS THIS VARIANCE
REQUEST, GROUNDWATER MONITORING WILL BE REQUIRED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT
THE 15A NCAC 2L .0202 GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE MET.
r::: ATTACHMENT #4
26
ATTACHMENT #5
COMMENT SUMMARY FOR THE AMOCO T-~ART VARIANCE
BENSON, NORTH CAROLINA
(GROUNDWATER INCIDENT# 3588)
Individua l(s ) makin g comment at the November 29 , 1993 public hearin g:
Graylon Mclamb, 941 Raynor Road, Benson, NC 27504
(*representing the Redding Mclamb estate*)
Individua l(s ) makin g · written comment to the pro posed variance:
Rick Powell, Project Geologist, Delta Environmental Consultants, Irie.,
670r°Carmel Road, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28226 (* representing the Lee-Moore
Oil Company**)
COMMENT #1: I am concerned that if this variance to the groundwater rules is granted
the gasoline contamination on the Amoco T-Mart property may have an adverse impact on
the adjacent property owned by my father Mr. Redding Mclamb. What assurances are there
that his property rights will be protected? Will this property need to have a monitoring well
installed?
RESPONSE -TO COMMENT #1: The data provided in support of this -variance
request indicates that the contaminants are moving in an easterly direction away
from Mr. McLamb's property on South Dunn Street. In addition, based on the data
provided it is projected that the contaminants found on the site Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene and Xylenes (BTEX) will not exceed groundwater: standards in 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 outside the property boundaries of the Amoco T-Mart. In the event
that the data presented by the responsible party is incorrect and contamination
moves off the Amoco T-Mart property, the loss of value or use of a person's
property due to the migration of petroleum contaminants may be redressed through
civil action. 15A NCAC 2L .0113(i)°clearly states that a variance.does not operate
as a defense to an action at law.
COMMENT #1 MADE BY:
ATTACHMENT #5 1
..
. -•
27
ATTACHMENT #6
.I
COMMENT #2: I propose that the frequency of groundwater monitoring at the Amoco
T-Mart be reduced from a quarterly basis to annual monitoring. Groundwa.ter monitoring
data has shown that the contamination is steadily decreasing with time. ·The owner of the
Amoco T-Mart has spent over $ 200,000 dollars to remediate this site. Cost projections
show that continued quarterly monitoring will cost approximately$ 100,000 over the next
ten years assuming the 15A NCAC 2L .0200 groundwater standards are not achieved during
that time frame. An annual monitoring schedule will reduce this projected cost to$ 25,000.
The data to support this variance request indicates that this site poses no hazards to the
environment, health or safety.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT #2: This recommendation will be forwarded with the
other materiais in the variance request for the Director's consideration.
15A NCAC 2L .0110 (c) states that monitoring shall be conducted in a manner
specified by the Director or his designee.
COMMENT #2 MADE BY:
Rick Powell, Project Geologist, Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
6701 Carmel Road, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28226 (* representing the Lee-Moore
Oil Company**)
ATTACHMENT #6 2
'
.!!Qill.l
1t =
=
28
TABLE 1
GROJND VATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE-MOORE OIL Co-lPAMY
T-MART AMOCO
BENSON, NORTH CAROLINA
DELTA !10. 50-88-049
MO!I ITOR I !IG VELL: M\.1-1
ETHYL
DATE UIHTS BENZENE TOLUENE BE!IZE!IE
02/16/88 ug/L <1 <1 +
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/L .,, .,,
08/15/90 ug/L .,, .,, .,,
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/27/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/19/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L ,. .,, .,,
09/15/92 ug/L .. .. .,,
10/21/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/L ... .. ..
05/06/93 ug/L ... .. ..
09/09/93 ug/L .,, . .,,
MOMITORIMG \/ELL: Mll-2
EiHYL
DATE UM ITS BE!IZEME TOLUE~E SE!IZ!::NE
02/16/88 Ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/l . ,. *
08/15/90 Ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/L .,, * ...
06/27/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/19/91 1;19/L <1 <1 <1
03/19/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L .. • ..
09/15/92 ug/L .. ,. ...
10/21/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/L * .. ..
05/06/93 ug/L * * .,,
09/09/93 ug/L ,. • .,,
MONITORIHG \/ELL MOT SAMPLED
MCMITCRIIIG \./ELLS II/STALLED MARCH 1990
PARAMETER NOT ANALYZED
.1
XYLE!IES MTBE
<1 +
<1 +
<1 + .,, + . +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 + .,, + .. +
<1 <1 .. .,,
.,, .. .. ,.
XYLE!IES MTBE
<1 +
<1 ...
<1 + .. +
<1 +
<1 + .. +
<1 ..
<1 +
<1 ..
<1 +
* ... .. +
<1 <1 .,, • .,, * ,. .,,
.... -::-·:":-/,'·
=
29
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
GROJND ~ATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE-MOORE OIL Ca-iPANY
T·MART AMOCO
BENSON, HORTH CAROLINA
DELTA HO. 50-88-049
1'10NITCR!NG ~ELL: M~-3
ETHYL
DATE UNITS BENZENE TOLUENE BEHZEHE
02/16/88 ug/L <1 <1 +
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/L * * ,.
08/15/90 ug/l <1 <1 <1
12/11/90 ug/l <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/L <1 4 <1
06/27/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/l 3 <1
03/19/92 ug/l <1 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L • * ,.
09/15/92 ug/L * ..
10/21/92 ug/l <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/l * .. *
05/06/93 ug/l * .. ..
09/09/93 Ug/L * " ..
MO>IITORING \JELL: M'w-4
EiHYL
DATE UN!iS BEIIZ:1/E TOLUE.'IE BE .'IZ:1/E
02/16/88 ug/L 352 1350 53
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/L .. .. ..
08/15/90 ug/L * .. .,
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/l <1 6 <1
06/27 /91 ug/l 7 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L 2 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/L s <1 <1
03/19/92 Ug/l 3 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L 4 <1 <1
'09/15/92 Ug/l 2 <1 <1
10/2i/92 .~g/L <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/l 3 <1 <1
05/06/93 ug/L 11 <1 <1
09/09/93 ug/l 3 <1 <1
MONITORING \JELL NOT SAMPLED
HON[TOR[NG VELLS INSTALLED MARCH 1990
D\O!~c-=~ unT ~ua1v7:~
.I
XYLEHES HTBE
<1 ·+
3 +
<1 + . +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
12 +
<1 + .. + .. +
<1 <1 .. * .. * .. *
XYLE!lES MTBE
2!!0 +
<1 +
<1 + . + .. +
<1 +
<1 +
7 +
<1 +
3 +
<1 +
3 +
<1 +
<1 <1
2 <1
9 3
2 2
.,
_<-:.
...
l!QI..lli
=
=
+ =
30 ..
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
G~OOND \/ATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE-MOORE OIL CCI-IPANY
T·MART AMCCO
BENSON, NCRTH CAROLINA
DELTA MO. 50-88·049
MOH I TOR lllG \/ELL: ),l',1-7
DATE UNITS BENZENE
05/26/88 ug/L <1
09/12/89 ug/L ..
05/30/90 ug/L
08/15/90 ug/L ..
12/11/90 ug/L ..
03/20/91 ug/L ...
06/27/91 ug/L ..
09/05/91 ug/L ..
12/19/91 ug/L ..
03/19/92 ug/L ...
06/03/92 ug/L ..
09/15/92 ug/L ..
10/21/92 ug/L <1
03/09/93 Ug/L ..
05/06/93 ug/L ..
09/09/93 ug/L ...
HCN I TOR ING \iEL!..: TB·l
DATE UNITS BEHZ!:NE
09/12/89 ug/L
05/30/90 ug/L 67
08/15/90 ug/L 160
12/11/90 ug/L 100
03/20/91 ug/L 33
06/27/91 Ug/L 260
09/05/91 ug/L 91
12/19/91 ug/L 45
03/19/92 Ug/L 40
06/03/92 ug/L sa
09/15/92 ug/L 74
10/21/92 Ug/L 30
03/09/93 ug/L 35
05/06/93 ug/L 88
09/09/93 ug/L 65
HCNiTGRIHG \iELL NOT SAMPLED
MONITORING \/ELLS INSTALLED MARCH 1990
PARAMETER NOT ANALYZED
ETHYL
iOLU::HE BE!IZE!IE
<1 + .. ... .. .. ..
... .. ..
* .. ... .. ..
.. .. ..
<1 <1 .. .. ..
...
ETHYL
TCLUENE BENZENE
1500 <20
1700 280
1200 200
31.0 7S
550 3100
390 7S
390 100
550 81.
400 91
630 140
270 83
3t.O 99
890 210
180 95
_j
XYLEHcS IHSE
<1 +
* +
+ .. + .. + ... + ... +
+ ... +
* +
• +
• +
<1
• ..
... ...
... .,
XYLENES 11TSE
2iCO +
12~0 +
600 +
370 +
2800 +
320 +
t.20
450 +
340 +
560 +
260 7
400 <10
910 <10
330 29
. '
<;7.,.
)
'··
' ·.
•;.
.t!Qiili
= t.· .. =
31
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
GRCUHD \/ATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE-MOORE OIL C0'1PANY
T·MART AMOCO
BENSON, NORTH CAROLINA
DELTA NO. 50-88-049
MON I TOR DIG \/ELL: TB-2
ETHYL
DATE UHITS BEHZ!:HE TOLUEHE
09/12/89 ug/L
05/30/90 ug/L 17
08/15/90 ug/L *
12/11/90 ug/L *
03/20/91 ug/L *
06/27/91 ug/L ..
09/05/91 ug/L ..
12/19/91 ug/L *
03/19/92 ug/L ..
06/03/92 ug/L ..
09/15/92 ug/L 4
10/21/92 ug/L
03/09/93 ug/L 6
05/06/93 ug/L (.
09/09/93 ug/L 5
MOM!TORIHG \/ELL HOT SAMPLED
MOMITORIHG \JELLS INSTALLED MARCH 1990
PARAMETER HOT AHALTZED
420 ..
*
*
* .. .. .,,
*
22 ...
<1
2
7
BENZEllE
22 . ..
*
* .. .. ..
* .
18
*
<1
<1
21
.1
XYLEHES MTBE
400 + .,, *
* * .. * .. *
* ..
... * .. ..
"
53 + .. ..
5 <1
6 11
25 6
....
'l' ·• ,.
~
=
+
32
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
GRO.JNO WATER ANALYTICAL RESULiS
LEE-MOORE OIL C~PANY
T-HART AMOCO
BENSCH, HCRTH CAROLINA
DELTA HO. 50-88-049
MOHITORIHG WELL: M',,'-5
ETHYL
DATE UNITS BEHZE'IE TOLUEHE BE'IZEHE
05/26/88 ug/L <1 <1 +
09/12/89 ug/L ..
05/30/90 ug/L ... * * 08/15/90 ug/L .. .. ..
12/11/90 ug/L * * *
03/20/91 ug/l ... ... ..
06/27/91 ug/L * ... *
09/05/91 ug/l * * *
12/19/91 ug/l .. .. ..
03/19/92 ug/L * ..
06/03/92 ~g/l .. .. ..
09/15/92 ug/L .. .. ..
10/21/92 ug/l <~ <1 <1
05/06/93 ug/l .. ..
09/09/93 ug/L *
HCHITORIMG WELL: M',,'-6
ETHYL
DATE UH!iS BE!IZE'IE TOLUENE SE!IZE'IE
05/26/88 ug/l <1 <1 +
09/12/89 ug/l .. ..
05/30/90 ug/l .. ..
08/15/90 ug/L .. .. ..
12/11/90 ug/l * ..
03/20/91 ug/L * .. ..
06/27/91 ug/L * .. * 09/05/91 ug/L * ..
12/19/91 ug/L
03/19/92 ug/l .. ..
06/03/92 ug/L * .. ..
09/15/92 ug/L .. * *
10/21/92 ug/L .. * ..
03/09/93 ug/L .. .. ..
05/06/93 ug/L .. .. ..
09/09/93 ug/L ... ..
MOHITORIHG WELL HOT SAMPLED
HOH!TORIHG WELLS INSTALLED MARCH 1990
PARAMETER NOT ANALYZED
.J
XYLEHES MTBE
<1 + ... +
* +
* +
* + .. +
* +
* +
* + .. + .. .. .. +
<1 <1
* ..
* *
XYLE!IES )H3E
<1 + .. .. .. ..
...
.. .. .. ..
* * ... ..
* ..
* ..
* ..
* * .. ..
5. Fluorene
6. Naphthalene
7. Phenanthrene
8. Phenol
0.28 milligrams/Liter
0.021 milligrams/Liter
0.21 milligrams/Liter
0.30 milligrams/Liter
.J
Mr. Howard said the Commission's rules specify that once interim standards have
been established, the Director shall initiate actions to consider formal adoption. He said
the eight (8) interim standards had been reviewed by the Commission's Groundwater ·
Committee in February, and the Committee recommended that the amendments to the
Commission's Groundwater Standards be presented to the full Commission in March. He
said it is requested that the Commission authorize staff to proceed with notice and public
.hearing on the eight (8) recommended standards.
Chairman Moreau called for discussion or questions from the Commission
members.
. . Ms. Deerhake informed the Commission members that the Santicizer 711 is
·· computed on a structural similarity to another compound which EPA has not formally
approved, but that there are secondary sources of information on the health affect. She
~=--said this is not an EPA approved number. '.
Mr. Andrews commented that the standards for Phthalates is a sensitive issue
because of the monitoring well construction that routinely occurs. He said that it may
result in false readings and staff should be aware of this.
A motion was made by Mr. Andrews to proceed to public hearing. Dr. Farabow
seconded the motion.
Chairman Moreau called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried.
2. 940013 Request to Approve a Variance from the Requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(0 and lSA NCAC 2L. 0202 for the Amoco T-Mart in
Benson, North Carolina,
Mr. Jim Bales, Hydro Regional Supervisor, in the Fayetteville Regional Officer
presented this agenda item. Mr. Bales said he served as the hearing officer for the.public
hearing held on November 29, 1993 in Benson, North Carolina. (Summary and
background information on page 14 of the Explanation of Agenda Items)
, Mr. Bales presented a slide presentation. He said that on January 20, 1988,
Benson T-Mart personnel discovered a discrepancy of 2000 gallons between the ·
measured volume of premium gasoline and the sales records for that premium tank.
said maintenance personnel investigated and found the problem was a leak in the
premium gas distribution line, just outside the tank.
He
Mr. Bales said the initial recovery efforts removed about 1400 gallons of gas and
a large volume of contaminated soil. He said the clean-up system devised and installed at
T-Mart consisted of a large slot pipe with a sump pump inside the pipe; all this was ·
buried below the water table just outside the tank pit. He said in February 1989, after all
free product floating on the water table was removed, a soil vent system was added to
further enhance decontamination of the soil. He said in March 1990, the pavement over
the tank pit was deteriorating badly, so T-Mart elected to up-grade their tanks and then
repave the pit area. He said as the tanks were removed, additional contaminated soil was
discovered and removed. He said before completing the tank up-grade, they had removed
. .
3
an additional 500 tons of contaminated soil, and more than 2000 gallons of water that had
accumulated in the pit as the work progressed.
Mr. Bales said the contamination of groundwater is now -found only around the
tank pit, in MW-rand the two tank pit wells. He said no B1EX contamination -benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene or xylenes -have been found in MW"'s #1, 2, 5, 6, or 7.
Mr. Bales said there is no monitor well located directly downgrading from the
tank pit, and that he would recommend an additional monitor well be placed to monitor
the groundwater flowing from the contaminated area. He said the groundwater
contamination levels seem to fluctuate with the seasonal water level changes. He said the
contamination levels are generally higher in summer and lower in winter. He said that he
would recommend that the groundwater be sampled at six month intervals to coincide
with the seasonal contaminate level fluctuations.
Mr. Bales said the methods utilized to analyze water samples to date have been
EPA Methods 601 and 602. He said to detennine whether other potential petroleum
constituents may be present he would recommend changing the analysis to utilize
Standard Method 6210D. He said this method would allow detection of BTEX and
MTBE O Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether -at levels well below the groundwater standards,
and it would also .detect other petroleum constituents, if present.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Bales recommended approval of the variance
with the following conditions: The responsible party must
1) Install the proposed monitor well at the indicated location;
2) Obtain additional background data by utilizing Standard Method 6210D to
analyze samples from all monitor wells plus the proposed well after
development of that proposed well has been completed;
3) Utilizing Method 6210D, analyze samples from three selected monitoring
wells -MW-4, TB-1 ·and the proposed monitor well-every six months for two
years;
4) Measure water levels in all monitor wells on this site during each sampling
event, and
5) Construct a water table contour map each six months.
Mr. Bales said. that at the end of the two year period, He recommended that the
Division evaluate the submitted data and suggest changes to these conditions as
appropriate. (Attachment No. 4)
Chairman Moreau called for discussion or questions from the Commission
members.
A discussion followed on the variance request and the cost of the clean-up by
Amoco T-Mart.
A motion was made by Mr. Andrews to approve the variance. Mr. Loflin
seconded the motion.
4
Mr. Epting declared a potential conflict of interest and did not participate in this
agenda item.
Dr. Peterson asked for clarification on granting the variance,·
.J
Mr. Mouberry, Chief of the Groundwater Section, responded by saying if the
variance is granted today, to the responsible party, it would allow him to have a
groundwater standard on his property that is higher than the groundwater standard listed
in the 2L. Regulation. He said the Benzene standard is one part per billion and Amoco T-
Mart has 14 parts per billion in the tank pit. He said there is no offsite contamination of
any joining property based on this spill. He said if the monitoring, with the existing wells
or proposed wells, show at any time there is potential for moving off site of the property,
the Director has the ability to go back in and require Amoco T-Mart to initiate active
remediation again. ·
Chairman Moreau called for further discussion or questions from the Commission
members. He then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried.
3. 940014 Request to Approve the Recommendation of the Groundwater
Committee Concerning a Petition for Rulemaking to Amend 15A NCAC
. , . 2P .0407(b) from Mr. Paul Washington of Southern Pines, North Carolina
Mr. Mouberry presented this agenda item. He then reviewed the information ·< concerning the petition for rulemaking to amend 15A NCAC 2P .0407(b). He said the
petition formally requests that the Commission amend the rule to give the Commission
;,-final agency decision authority in contested cases under N.C.G.S. ·is0B-23. In
•;. • concluding his presentation, Vu. Mouberry said it is the recommendation of the
· Groundwater Committee that the Commission deny the Petition for Rulemaking to amend
15A NCAC 2P .0407(b). He said the denial is based on the lack of necessity for the
Commission to engage in final decisions outlined in 15A NCAC 2P .0407(b).
1 Chairman Moreau called for discussion or questions from the Commission
members.·
A n:iotiori was made by Mr. Fowler to accept the recommendation of the
• Groundwat~r Committee. Mr. Baker seconded the .motion.
Chairman Moreau called for further discussion or questions from the Commission
members. He then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried.
4. 940015 Request Approval of Eleven Municipal Government Water Supply
Watershed Protection Ordinances in Compliance with the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Act (NCGS 143-214.S) ·
Ms. Lisa Martin of the Water Quality Planning Branch presented this agenda ·
item. She said the Towns of Biscoe, Candor and Ellerbe had submitted ordinances, maps
and management plans in compliance with the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act.
She said that DEM staff had reviewed and determined that they meet the state's minimum
water supply watershed management requirements delineated in the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Rules.
Ms. Martin said the Cities of Lincolnton, Lumberton, Mount Airy, Oxford and
· Winston-Salem, and the Town of Southern Pines submitted watershed protection
ordinances, maps and management plans in compliance with th~ Water Supply •
5
,,-~
': :·\
_j
.. -.....
•·
AGENDA ITEM:
940082
EXPLANATION:
23
Request to App rove the Variance from Com pliance Bounda ry
Requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0107 for the Town of Yaupon Beach
(Permit Number WO0005790 )
A variance application was received for review by the Director on
December 22, 1993 from the Town of Yaupon Beach. The proposed
variance will change the compliance boundary to allow the expansion
of the town's wastewater treatment facility. The Town of Yaupon
Beach presently operates a High Rate Infiltration Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal System (HRIWTDS) with a treatment capacity
of 400,000 gallons per day. The effluent is discharged into a 125,000
square foot infiltration lagoon. The town has proposed to increase the
wastewater treatment capacity of this HRIWTDS by 100,000 gallons
per day which would increase the total capacity to 500,000 gallons per
day. In order to expand the capacity of this facility, the Town has
proposed the addition of a new wastewater treatment facility and the
expansion of the infiltration lagoon by an additional 70,000 square
feet. The Town of Yaupon Beach has proposed this expansion area for
the infiltration lagoon be within the property boundaries of the
HRIWTDS facility and towards the southeust. There is no other
suitable location on this property for the expansion of this infiltration
lagoon.
Because the expansion area is to adjacent CP&L property, this
facility will not meet the distance requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0107(b) if the infiltration lagoon is upgraded and expanded as
proposed. The Town of Yaupon Beach has secured an easement
agreement with CP&L to allow access to the property adjacent to the
infiltration lagoon expansion area. This perpetual easement runs with
the land, prohibits the construction and operation of water supply
wells, prohibits land disturbing activities, and is recorded with the
register of deeds in Brunswick County. In addition, the easement
allows for groundwater monitoring and remediation by the State and
the utility. This proposed variance will establish the Compliance
Boundary on 12.662 acres of land owned by CP&L. This expansion of
the treatment facility would place the Compliance Boundary within
50 feet of the high water mark for Dutchman's Creek. Unless the
variance is granted the wastewater treatment facility cannot be
expanded as proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Environmental Management Commission
approve this variance for the Town of Yaupon Beach.
24
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Through:
Through:
From:
Date:
Subject:
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Managi·· e~i
Harlan Britt, Deputy Director w~
Division of Environmental Manag ment
Arthur Mouberry, P.E., Chief ~/
Groundwater Section (!J,,1/'
Willie ~on, Regional Groundwater
Washington Regional Office
August 12, 1994
Supervisor
Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendation Variance
Request From the Compliance Boundary Requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L. 0107
Town of Ya.upon Beach (Permit No. WQ0005790)
Ya.upon Beach, North Carolina -Brunswick County ~ ~:::,
'----.:-r, :-rl G"> ···n -2r--, . -=< In accordance with your memo dated June 1, 1994, a publiC::in
hearing was held on Thursday, June 23, 1994, at 7: 00 pm in -:.:the;~
Fellowship Hall of the Ocean View United Methodist Church, =-60~:::-}
Yaupon Drive, in Yaupon Beach, North Carolina. I served as ':theS;~
Hearing Officer for the meeting and a summary of the Public Hear-ing:"
which includes my recommendations is attached for your review ~nd~~
consideration. ·
The issue concerns whether the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) should approve or deny a request for a variance
from the Compliance Boundary Requirements as specified in 15A North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2L.0l07(b). In accordance with
15A NCAC 2L. 0113 (a) and North Carolina General Statute 143-
215. 3 (e), The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) has the
authority to approve or deny a request for variance from the
Compliance Boundary requirements contained in 15A NCAC 2L. 0107.
All rules governing variances to the Subchapter 2L rules are found
in 15A NCAC 2L. 0113 and have been met by the permittee requesting
the variance and the Groundwater Section.
Attached for your review and consideration is a report which
summarizes: (1) the background history of the facility, (2) the
results of the Public Hearing held on June 23 and (3) my conclusion
and recommendation. Also attached are documents considered
relevant to this variance request.
Should you have any question regarding this report or my
recommendation, please don't hesitate to call me.
WAH/ksf
26
Page 2
place within the-property of the wastewater treatment facility.
On February 9, 1994 the Groundwater Section informed the Town
of Yaupon Beach that, due to the proximity of the expansion area to
the adjacent property owned by Carolina Power and Light Company
(CP&L), the proposed expansion and upgrade of this wastewater
treatment facility will not meet the distance requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L • 0107 (b) • Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L • 0107, Compliance
Boundaries are to be located within 250 feet from the waste source
or 50 feet within the property line, whichever distance is closer.
Without a variance, the present compliance boundary at this
facility would intersect the treatment lagoon. The town was
instructed that an application for a variance, meeting the criteria
contained in 15A NCAC 2L. 0113(a) through (d), was needed so that
the facility would accol'!lIDodate the expansion of the infiltration
lagoon and meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L (SEE ATTACHMENT
# 1)
On April 18, 1994 the Town of Yaupon Beach sent information .._
supporting the request for a variance to the compliance boundary
requirements. A joint resolution from the Ya upon Beach Town
Commissioners adopted March 14, 1994 was included with this
information to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(l)
(SEE ATTACHMENT# 2). In addition, the town also sent a copy of
the easement agr~ement sealed November 22, 1994_ with the adjacent
property owner, Carolina Power and Light Company (SEE ATTACHMENT
# 3).
27
Page 3
This variance request, with the recommendation of the
Wilmington Regional Office and the recommendation of groundwater
-;
staff favoring the request and containing adequate supporting
documents, was sent to the Director of the Division of
Environmental Management on May 4, . 1994. On May 9, 1994 the
Director approved this variance request to proceed to public notice .
and hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L. 0ll3(e). The Public
Hearing was scheduled for June 23, 1994 and Willie Hardison was
designated as He~ring Officer.
Public Hearing Notification:
Notices of the public hearing were published in the May 22,
1994 edition of the Wilmington Star-News, the May 25, 1994 edition
of The State Port Pilot, and the May 26, 1994 edition of the
Brunswick Beacon to meet requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0ll3(e) (A).
. '
In addition, approximately 375 notices of this variance request
were sent to persons listed in the "Groundwater Varia~e and
Regulatory Actions Mailing List" to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L. 0113 (e)(l)(F). The notice advised interested parties
that a public hearing was scheduled on June 23, 1994
(SEE ATTACHMENT# 4). The hearing was intended to ascertain the
concerns of citizens pertaining·to the proposed variance for the
Town of Yaupon Beach. Notice of the public hearing was also given
to local property owners, local government officials and the county
health director in accordance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e) (SEE ATTACHMENT# 5)
•
28
.Page 4
Public Bearing Summary:
The Public Hearing was conducted as scheduled. The Division
was represented by four (4) staff members:
Willie Hardison
Jack Floyd
Bruce Reed
David Hance
Hearing Officer
Permits and Compliance Unit
Wilmington Regional Office
Recorder
Fourteen (14) citizens registered for the Public Hearing of
which two (2) requested to make verbal comments (refer to
ATTACHMENT# 6 -Attendance List). At 7:05 pm the Public Hearing
was called to order. Opening remarks were given by the Hearing
Officer, (SEE ATTACHMENT# 7) followed by the staff presentation
concerning the variance request, which was given by Mr. Jack Floyd.
Verbal comments were given by Mr. Mark Farrell and Ms. Elizabeth
Sell. In general, Mr. Farrell expressed his approval and was in
favor of granting the variance. Ms. Elizabeth Sell's comment was
more of a question relevant to the chlorination of wastewater
......
treatment effluent. Ms. Sell was informed that she may want to
contact the Water Quality Section in the Wilmington Regional Office
to have her question answered (ATTACHMENT # 8) • Following Ms.
Sell's remarks, more time was allowed for additional public
comments. Since no other persons indicated a desire to speak, the
hearing was closed at approximately 7:40 pm. However, the citizens
were informed that the hearing record would remain open until 12:00
am (midnight) on July 25, 1994, and any person wishing to submit
written comments may do so until that date.
29
Page 5
During the period that the hearing record remained open, only
one written comment was received. The written comment was
submitted by Ms. Elizabeth Sell ( SEE ATTACHMENT I 9) . In summary,
Ms. Sell was inquirin~ for information regarding regulation and
standards applicable to the facility. Ms. Sell also requested
assurance that all agencies involved in protecting the public and
the environment will enforce the regulations that are current at
the time of construction. Mr. David Adkins, Water Quality
Supervisor in the Wilmington Regional Office, was requested to
respond to Ms. Sell's letter (ATTACHMENT# 10).
Discussion:
The central issue before the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC} is whether or not to grant a variance from the
Compliance Boundary Requirements of 15A NCAC 2L. 0107, which if
granted would allow the Town of Ya upon Beach to expand their
wastewater treatment and disposal system. The Town of Yaupon Beach
.....
proposes to increase the wastewater treatment _capacity of the
facility to 500,000 gpd. In order to increase the wastewater
treatment capacity, the Town proposes to expand the infiltration
lagoon by 70,000 square feet.
Due to the location of the expansion area to adjacent property
owned by Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L), the wastewater
treatment facility will not meet the Compliance Boundary
30
Page 6
Requirements of lSA NCAC 2L.0107(b). There is sufficient
information showing the lack of suitable on-site property to locate
wastewater treat~ent facilities. This makes the proposed expansion
the most cost effective option for the town (SEE ATTACHMENT# 11-
lle FOR MAPS). Few options exist for expansion of these facilities .
. to other areas within the Town of Yaupon Beach. Facilities that
require NPDES permits or other Non-Discharge permits would be
costly alternatives.
The town had proposed this variance to establish the
Compliance Boundary on 12.662 acres of land owned by CP&L. This
expansion will occur on the southeast side of the treatment
facility. This would place the Compliance Boundary within 50 feet
of the high water mark for Dutchman's Creek. The buffer easement
is for land owned entirely by Carolina Power and Light Company.
This perpetual easement runs with the land, prohibits the
construction and operation of water supply wells, prohibi~s land .....
disturbing activities, and is recorded with the register of deeds
in . Brunswick County. In addition, the easement allows for
groundwater monitoring and remediation by the State and the
utility. The expansion of the infiltration lagoon facility will be
located within the waste treatment facility property owned by the
Town of Yaupon Beach. The compliance boundary associated with the
existing · facility and a portion of the expanded facility will
remain the same (SEE ATTACHMENT# ll[d]). All other adjacent
31
Page 7
properties are owned by the Town of Yaupon Beach except for land
owned by the Standard Products Company. 'This adjacent property
owner has expressed support for this variance.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
For the purpose of establishing whether or not to grant or
deny the Town of Yaupon Beach request for a variance, the following
issues were considered:
1. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.4{b).
2. Public Hearing was held as scheduled in accordance with
the Notice of Hearing issued by the Environmental
Management Commission.
3. During the hearing, no comment expressing opposition to
granting the variance was given.
4. During the period that the hearing record remained open,
no written comments were received opposing the variance
request.
5. There are no known water supply wells (private or public)
within the area of the proposed variance request or
within 1000 feet of the Yaupon Beach property, according
to the Town and their consultant.
6. The Town of Yaupon Beach has been granted an easement by
CP&L for the purpose of wastewater treatment that has
been recorded with the Brunswick County Register of Deeds
Office (for items 5 and 6 refer to memorandum dated May
32
Page 8
27, 1994, from Mouberry to Marion Deerhake, Commissioner
EMC, ATTACHMENT# 12).
7. The recommendation of the Wilmington Regional Office.
8. The recommendation of the Groundwater Section Permitting
and Compliance Unit.
Based on the above issues, and subsequent discussions with
staff and after considering the Public Record, it is my
recommendation that the Environmental Management Commission
consider granting the Town of Yaupon Beach request for a variance.
I
.-.. n • • nw111·1~11 J 'ff' I
~. State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, 33
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Jomes 8. Hunt. Jr .• Govemor
Jonathon S. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr., P.E., Director
The Honorable May Moore
Mayor, Town of Yaupon Beach
518 Yaupon Drive
Yaupon Beach, NC 28465
GROUNDWATER SECTION
February 9, 1994
Subject: Expansion of Yaupon Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant
Permit No. WQ0005790
Request for Variance from 15A NCAC 2L.010i(b)
Brunswick County
Dear Mayor Moore:
This is in reference to your application for a permit to expand the subject
wastewater treatment facility received December 22, 1993.
The subject permit amendment application contained a request to locate the
compliance boundary along Dutchman Creek. Regulations promulgated by the
Environmental Management Commission and codified as 15A NCAC 2L.0107(b),
stipulate the location of · the compliance boundary as 250 feet from the waste-.boundary
or 50 feet within the property boundary, whichever is closer to the source. Location of
a compliance boundary that does not conform to this rule can only be granted by
approval of a variance to the rule in accordance with procedures described in rule
2L.Ol 13. I have attached a copy of the applicable rules for your convenience.
Rule 2L.0113 makes certain requirements of both the permittee and the Division.
The permittee must provide certain informational items in the application for variance.
In addition to the ·application ma.terial that has already been submitted, several other
items are still needed to make your application complete. These additional items are
listed in rule 2L .0113(c) and summarized below:
. . . . .
I. A description of the exact variance that is b~ing f~quested and a
resolution by the Town Board requesting the variance,
2. A description of the area for which the variance is requested, including a
detailed map of the area,
P.O . Box 29535, Raleigh. Nor.h Ccrclino 27626-05~: 7elephone 91i;·-7Z3-.;221 FAX 919-i15-0.Se8
~ recyc!ec:/ +~ .:cst-cens..mer ec;::er
""""~",,.'"""r"I.IT ~1
34
the effluent into a 125,000 square foot infiltration lagoon. A proposed expansion
of the facility by 100,000 GPO would require an additional 70,000 square feet of
infiltration lagoon. This expansion would encroach an area that borders property
by CP&L. Per rule 2L .0107 the compliance boundary would be located 50 feet
within that property line and would intersect the infiltration lagoon.
3. Description of the area for which the variance is requested: The area within the
proposed compliance boundary is completely located on CP&L property. This
area is part of the banks for the CP&L discharge canal along Dutchman Creek.
Again please ref er to the attached map.
4. Su pp ortin g information to establish that the variance will not endan ger the public
health and safety ... : The area in question does not presently contain nor will it
ever contain any public water supply (groundwater wells or surface water
reservoir) due to the nature of the CP&L discharge c~nal and federal rules
prohibiting use of the canal zone for such purposes. Furthermore, access to the
area is restricted by both CP&L and the Town of Yaupon Beach.
· 5. Su pp ortin g information to establish that requirements of the rule cannot be
achieved bv providin g best available technolo gy economicall y reasonable: Due to
acreage limitations, the Town has few alternatives regarding expansion of the
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. The expansion proposal and nature
of the variance request does not necessarily require the use of best available
technologies. By establishing the compliance boundary pursuant to 2L .0107 the
compliance boundary would intersect the infiltration lagoon, requiring the
effluent to be in compliance with 2L .0202 prior to discharge into the lagoon.
6. Su pp ortin g information to establish that compliance would produce serious
financial hardshi p on the a pp licant: The existing wastewater treatment facility
does not have sufficient capacity for the continued growth and develqpment of
the area. Few options are available for expansion into areas other ·than the
proposed area. Additional expenditures would be required to develop an
alternative to the proposed wastewater treatment faciHty. The proposed
expansion is the least costly alternative.
7. Su pp ortin g information that comp liance would produce serious financial hardshi p
without e qual or greater public benefit: There is no public benefit by denying the
variance request. No water supply can be developed on the CP&L property and
access to the area is restricted. The cost that would be incurred due to
development of alternative wastewater disposal options would not be justifiable,
given tJ?e proposed wastewater di~posal request.
8. A copy of any SOC ... : No Special Order by Consent has been issued for ~e
subject wastewater disposal facility.
9. A list of names and addresses of property owners ... : CP&L is the only property
ATTACHMENT #1
' ., ATTACHMENT #1
35
owner affected by the subject variance request. All other property is owned by
the Town of Yaupon Beach. CP&L has been notified as evidenced by their
consent agreement with the Town.
If there are any questions regarding this matter or if any additional inf onnation
is needed, please let me know.
cc: Ted Bush
c:yaupon
ATTACHMENT #1
G961 ,. 2 4 9 n1 lr,\.'lll"ILl11 ff'~
38
Power & Light Company, dated: (a) September 25, 1970, and :recorded in Book 246,
page 404; and (bl Septembe:::-13, 1.971, and recorded in Book 260, page 147; and (2)
Carolina Power & Light Company to North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency
dated: (a) April 21, 1962, and recorded in Book 497, page 121; (b) August 31,
19B2, a.nd :recorded in 3ook 507, page 853; Cc) October 15, 19B2, and recorded in
Book Sll, page 6i3; (d) November 30, 1982, and recorded in Book 515, page 185;
and (e) April 29, l.983, and recorded.in Book 527, page 730, all Brunswick County
Registry, for the sole pu:-pose of establishing a buffer zone easement area in
cor .. ""lection with the waste ,,_ater treatment facilities of the TOWN on its adjoining
property, wi;h said easement area being more particularly described as follows:
Lyin; and being in Smithville Township, Brunswick Cou."'l.ty,
North Carolina:
:::::G::1'.~ING at a point being located at the southeastern cor:ier
of that 12.662-acre tract of land described in a deed from Carolina
?ewer & Light Company to the Town of Yaupon Beach, dated October 22,
1992, and recorded in =ook .907, page 576, ~runswick Cour.ty Registry,
said point also being located at the approximate mean high wate:r
line of the west ba::-.k of Dutchman's Creek; and runs thence along and
with the easter:. property line of said 12.662-acre trac: of land the
following courses ar.d distances: No:rth 02 degrees Ol minute 16
seconds West l77.65 feet to an iron pipe and a cu....-ve to the :right
for arc distance of ap;ro:xin-.ately 350 feet, said cu:-v-e ha,·i:lg a
radius o! 3635.97 feet, to a point being located at the approximate
mean hio~ water li..~e of said Dutchman's Creek; and the..~ce along and
with said mean high water line the following courses and distances:
southeastwardly a?pro:ximately 350 feet to a point and
southwestwardly approximately 250 feet to the point of BEGINNING,
encom~assino l .ere , mere or less, as shown on Carolina Power &
l.ight. Company Drawing No. ~-D-8762 (dated September 30 '· 1992,
revised B-31-g3) , which D:rawin= is i:1co:rporated he:-ei_n by reference
and made a part hereof.
This USZ.MZh"T will be for a buffer zone only, and will be utilized
pu:::-s.;ant to the =-ules a:-.c re5"~lctions of North Carolina Division of Environmental
Manasement 2s follows:
l.
2.
3.
That this u.S:E:MD."T shall r1.!..""l with the land -.nd shall be
...~~urtena;.t to the waste water treatment facilitv of the TOWN
identified as ?ermit # WQ0005790 as issued by the Division of
Environmental Management of the State of North Carolina, P. O.
Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535, and phone number of (919)
733-50B3.
That the cor.st:ruction er operation of water supply wells
within said easement area is prohibited.
That the State of No:::-th Cs.rolina, CP&L, and NCEMPA reserve.the
rigr.t to enter ~pen said easement area as desc:-ibed in this
USEME..X'T for ~:-o\!..---.c. wate:-moni torin5: and remediat:::.on p~rposes •
2
ATTACHMENT #3
' I NOTICE OF HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, A1'1D
NATURAL RESOURCES
•II •, l""'I II ILl1 I lJ"a,,
4-1
DMSION OF ENVIROmIBNTAL MANAGEMENT
Notice is hereby given of a public bearing to be held by the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management
Commission. The bearing concerns a request for a variance from the Compliance Boundary
requirements of 15ANCAC 2L .0107 for Permit Numb~r WQ0005790; the Town ofYaupon
Beach. The variance application was received for review by the Department on December
22, 1993 from the Town of Yaupon Beach. On March 14, 1994 the Town of Yaupon Beach
made a resolution requesting a variance to meet the application requirements for public
bodies m 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(l). .
The property location Is as follows: Approximately 1/2 mile on the east side of State Road
1101 (Fish Factory Road); approximately 100 feet west of the Carolina Power and I.ig~t
discharge canal and Dutchmans Creek. Take NC 133-87 SOtmi into Southport, North
Carolina and get onto NC 133-211; foilow NC 133 SOlITH (Long Beach Road) when it
branches left; go approximately 2.0 miles and tum left onto State Road 1101. The facility
. is located on the left side of the road.
The following variance is proposed with a background summary:
1) Change the compliance boundary to allow the expansion of the town's
wastewater treatment facility. The Town ofYaupon Beach presently operates
a High Rate Infiltration Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System
• (HRIWTDS) with a treatment capacity of 400,000 gallons per day. The
effluent is discharged into a 125,000 square foot infiltration lagoon. The To\VIl
1'.as proposed to increase the wastewater treatment capacitj of this HRIWIDS
by 100,000 gallons per day increasing the total capacity to 500,000 gallons per .
day. In order to expand this facility, the Town has proposed th~ addition-of
a new. wastewater treatment facility and the expansion of th~ -infiltration-
Jagoon by an additional 70,000 square feet. The Town of Ya upon Beach has
proposed that the expansion area for the infiltration lagoon be within the
property boundaries of the HRIWTDS and towards the southeast due to a
Jack of on-site property suitable for locating wastewater treatment facilities.
This expansion will encroach on adjacent property owned by the Carolina
Power and Light Company (CP&L). The adjacent property is situated on the
ban~ of the CP&L discharge canal adjacent to Dutchman's Creek. Due to
the proximity of the expansion area to this adjacent CP&L property, the
Town's HRI\VTDS facility wiJI not meet the distance requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0l07(b) if the infiltration lagoon is upgraded and expanded as
proposed. The Town of Ya upon Beach bas secured an casement agreement
with CP&L to allow access to the property adjacent to the infiltration lagoon
expansion area.
ATTACHMENT #4
43
ATTACHMENT #5
PROCEEDINGS OF HEARING FOR THE TOWN OF YAUPON BEACH VARIANCE
INTRODUCTTON;
A public hearing was held by the Department of Environme~t,
Heal th and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental
Management Commission to receive public comment on a request for a
variance from Compliance Boundary requirements of 1 SA NCAC 2L. 0107
for the Town of Yaupon Beach, North Carolina (DEM Permit Number
WQ000S790). A public hearing was held on June 23, 1994 at 7:00 PM
in the Fellowship Hall of the Ocean View United Methodist Church.
A total of thirteen registered persons attended the hearing, with
one presenting oral comments. One written comment was received by
the Division concerning this issue. ·
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d) and (e), public notice of
this variance was sent to adjacent property owners, the Brunswick
County Health Director, the Clerk/Town Manager for the Town of
Ya upon Beach, and the Mayor of Yaupon Beach. Notice of this
hearing· was also published in the May 22, 1994 edition of . the
Wilmington Star-News, the May 25, 1994 edition of The State Port
Pilot, and the May 26, 1994 edition of the Brunswick Beacon .to meet
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L ..• 0113(e)(1)(A). In addition,
approximately 375 notices of this variance request were~sent to
persons listed in the "Groundwater Variance and Regulatory Actions
Mailing List" to· meet the requirements of · 1 SA 'NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(1)(F).
This hearing was chaired by Mr. Willie Hardison, the Regional
Hydrogeologic Supervisor for the Washington Regional Office.
ATTACHMENT#S
44
ATTACHMENT #6
Attendees
Town of Yaupon Beach Variance Hearing
June 23, 1994
George Alexander, Homeowner, P.O. Box 632,-Long Beach, NC
28465
Mack Aman, Town of Yaupon Beach Commissioner, 411 Trott
Street, Yaupon Beach, NC 28465
Connie Barnes, Consultant, Shucker's Inc., 6220 East Oak
Island Drive, Long Beach, NC 28465
J. Finley Boney, Engineer, Boney and Associates, Inc., 309
North Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603 ·
Ann Calloway, Owner,
Drive, Long Beach, NC
Shucker's Inc. ,
28465
6220 East Oak Island
James Dowling, 4415 Fish Factory Road, S.E., Southport, NC
28461
Mrs. James Dowling, 4415 Fish Factory Road, S.E., Southport,
NC 28461
Mark E. Farrell, Standard Products of North Carolina, 1004
Bonner Bussells North, Southport, NC 28461
Dot Kelly, Mayor Pro-Tern, Town of Yaupon Beach, ·51 Augusta
Drive, Yaupon Beach, NC 28461
i.....
Clare S. Rees, Housewife, 2 Oak Island Drive, Yaupon Beach, NC
28465
Elizabeth Sell, School Instructor/Brunswick County Board Of
Education, 4446 Fish Factory Road, S.E., Southport, NC 28461
Jacqueline L. Slockett, Town of Yaupon Beach Commissioner, 37
Oak Island Drive, Yaupon Beach, NC 28465
William S. Smith, Town of Ya upon Beach Commissioner, 200
Yaupon Drive, Yaupon Beach, NC 28465
Nancy Wilson, Yaupon Beach Town Clerk, 518 Yaupon Drive,
Yaupon Beach, NC 28465
ATTACHMENT #6
I'\ I I M~nMt.J'i I ff/
46
PAGE 2
BEACri HAS PROPOSED TO INCREASE THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPAC!TY OF
THIS FACILITY TO 500; 000 GALLONS PER DAY. IN ORDER TO EXPAND THIS
FACILITY, THE TOWN RAS PROPOSED THE ~.DDlTION OF A NEW WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT AND EXP1.NSlON OF THE INFILTRATION LAGOON BY 70,000
SQUARE FEET. THE ,EXF~.NSION OF TP..IS LAGOON WILL TAKE PLACE WITrlIN
THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF TF.E HRIWTDS FACILITY.
DUE TO THE. PROXIMITY OF THE '.E;.."PJ..NSION }_lU:A TO ADJACENT
PROPERTY Ow'"NED BY CAROLINA POWER AND LIGh""T COMPJo.NY (CP&L), THIS
WASTEWATER TREA~..ENT FACILITY WILL NOT MEET THE DISTANCE
REQUIREMENTS OF 15A NCAC 2L • 0107 (b), IF TF.E INF!LTRATION LAGOON IS
UPGRADED AND EXPANDED AS PROPOSED. THE TOWN OF YAu"'PON BEACM HAS
PROPOSED THIS EXPANSION DUE TO A LACK OF SUITABLE ON-SITE PROPERTY
FOR LOCATING WASTEWAT°ER TREATMENT FACILITlES •
.......
THIS VAA!JI..NCE ENCOMPASSES TEE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY REQUIR.t."""MENTS
OF 15A NCAC 2L. 0107. !F TEE DIVISION D.ETE?J1IN.E:S THJi.T ·vl>...RIJI.NCES TO
.....
15A l~CAC 2H • 02 00 (PROCEDURES FOR P:ER..'1ITS: ~.PPROV~!.,S-WASTE NOT
DISCEJ...RGED TO SURFACE WATERS) RULES }.P-E NECESSARY THZ DIVIS!ON'S
WATER QUP.LITY SECTION WILL ADDRESS THIS ACTIVITY.
TF.IS HEJ>.RI.NG WILL CONFORM TO PROCEDURES IN 15A NCAC .2L • 011:3.
ADDI'I·IONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION ANO HEARING
ARE LOCATED IN THIS ROOM AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBL!C REVIEW.
-
ATTACHMENT #7
49
Page 2
Attachment 8
RESPONSE 'l'O COMMENT: 'l'he Environmental Management Commission
grants variances to groundwater rules pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 143-215. 3 (e), 15A NCAC 2L • 0113
(Variances), and the recommendation of the hearing officer.
The effective date of a variance is on the day the Commission
grants approval.
All disposal systems are required in 15A NCAC 2L .0108,
to have a review boundary midway between the . permitted
disposal area and the compliance boundary. When the
concentration of any substance equals or exceeds the
groundwater quality standards at the review boundary, as
determined by monitoring, the permittee is required to take
immediate corrective action. If this variance is granted, the
review boundary will be adjusted accordingly. The Groundwater
Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L • 0202 apply at the compliance
boundary •
. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0202(f) all groundwater
standards must undergo biennial review. Any additional
toxicological, epidemiological and health effects information
will be examined in accordance with references and methods
contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202(c) through (e). This review
will incorporate health information from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The next review is scheduled
for October 1995. Upon completion of the rule making process
contained in the North Carolina General statutes lSOB, any
charges to groundwater standards based new health effects
information will go into effect.
l.
51
Attachment #8
COMMENT S'OMMARY FOR THE VARIANCE
FOR THE TOWN OF YAOPON BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
(DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PERMIT NUMBER WQOOOS790)
I ndividual <s > making comment a t the June 2 3 , 199• p ublic hearing :
Mark Farrell,· Standard Products of North Carolina, 1004 Bonner
Brussels North, Southport, North Carolina 28461
(*representing the Standard Products of North Carolina*)
COMMENT: on behalf of Standard Products of North Carolina, I
am please to inform you that this adjacent property
owner has no objection to the Commission grant~ng
the variance to the compliance boundary
requirements. We urge prompt approval of this
variance application.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT: The variance will reduce the possibility
of a non-compliance with 15A NCAC 2L • 0202 (Groundwater
Quality Standards) at the compliance boundary and will allow
the expansion of the town's wastewater treatment facility.
Individual Cs ) making written comment to the p rop osed variance:
Mark Farrell, standard Products of North Carolina, 1004 Bonner
Brussels North, Southport, NC 28461
(*representing the Standard Products of North Carolina*)
COMMENT: Mark Farrell, Standard Products of North Carolina,
1004 Bonner Brussells North, Southport, NC 28461
(*representing the Standard Products of North
Carolina*) {comment was made in writing and at the
public hearing}
Elizabeth Sell, 4446 Fish Factory Road, S.E. Southport, NC
28461
COMMENT: Will the changes of the compliance boundary result
at the time of variance is granted or when the
facility is expanded? What standards will be
applied to this site? Will the state enforce all
current standards at the -time of construction of
the wastewater treatment plant expansion? I am a
naturalist and concerned about the impact of this
variance and treatment plant expansion will have on
the environment.
Attachment 8
52
E;AR:!NG OFFICER.: THANK YOU {LAST SPEAKER)~ ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I WILL DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEA!UNG WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL 12:00 AM
(MIDNIGHT) ON ~y 25, 1994. ANYONE WISHING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN
COMMENTS MAY DO SO UNTIL THAT DATE. AFTER WHICH TIME, THE COMMENTS
WILL BE MADE PART OF THE Pu9BLIC ttCORO AND WE SHALL MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE El-."'VIRONMJ:.-iffAL MANAGEM.c.~T COMMISSION. IT IS
THE DESIRE OF 'I'HE COMMlSSlON TO ALWAYS ACT IN 'l'HE BEST POSSIBLE
!l~'I'EREST OF THE Pu"BLIC. THEREFORE, Pu"'BLIC PARTICIPATION :IS A ·V'£F..Y
IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS. WE WOULD LIKE TO 'I'HANl<
..
YOU 'FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING AND OFFERING YOUR COMM..~S.
ATTACHMENT #7
... 53
20 July 1994
Mr. Willie A. Hardison. Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Deportment of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
~.C~4 ·0:irolir.o ·A~.anue · · ·
Washington. NC 27889
Dear Mr. Hardison.
'rr• ., ,.. ~ ~--.,
~ .. ~ .. ( ~ i..,·:-
. -.. -_ ..... ------------
This letter concerns the 23 June Variance Hearing regarding the Yaupon Beach Wastewater
Treatment Plant located in Brunswick County. I should like information regarding the standards
that will be used If permission is granted for expansion of the plant's capacity. Will the regulations
and standards in place at the time of the actual expansion be used or will the regulations and
standards revert ~o the time of the issuance of the variance or permit to expand?.
As technology advances and research continues, some methods of sewage treatment that
" were originally innovative, scientific methods have been proven detrimental to humans and their
environment. The Environmental Protection Agency hos recommended examining chlorine's
impact on health and the environment. A possible goal may include banning or restricting its
use.
;-What I need is the assurance that all agencies involved in sof eguording the protection of
humans end the environment will be enforcing regulations thct are current ct the time ,of
construction. ..._ -
Being a naturalist ct heart and living in the environmentally sensitive area near the plant arouse
my concerns relative to these issues. I should appreciate o response ct your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely.
-
Elizebeth Sell
4446 Fish. Factory Road, SE
Southport, NC 28461
cc: Mr. David Adkins, Water Quality, NCDEHNR, Wilmington
Mrs. James B. Moore, Mayor, Youpon Beach
ATTACHMENT 9
f
!
I
t. Mrs. Elizabeth Sell
August 4, 1994
Page Two
ATTACHMENT 10
55
I would like to thank you for taking the time to attend the
hearing and for participating in the hearing process. The efforts
of concerns citizens such as yourself help make our programs.
effective. I trust this response will satisfactorily address your
concerns. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss
your concerns further; please contact me at 910/395-3900.
cc: Mr. Willie A. Hardison
Dr. Charles Stehman, P.G.
Mr. John R. Blowe, P.E.
Wilmington Regional Files
Central Files
Sincerely,
Dave Adkins
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
.....
=
.-,,,
D ...
·o
a ...
" 0 ...
• '' ( \
,,
.I
i
C:8
'
Ii._ ./Al ()F YA vr"AI t3t4C H
8Rv.,4/SWICI< CovA.lry
60
c.,..,,;,l'I: _.,, e 'Bov,.)11,,,,,'::)
If t ll 1 '--' ik-.1,, J t'.r ':)
~
\
I
t
ATTACHMENT 11(d)_
"
\
\
\
..
(2) Please evaluate the status of the septic system to determine if it contains any residual waste water.
Analytical documentation of the tank(s) contents should be provided along with the method of disposal of
any residuals.
(3) The contaminated soil referred to in the former reports was obviously caused by the filling of the waste
water ponds which contained residuals from the waste stream (sludge). This method of abandonment is
not currently acceptable. In your variance-request you propose to leave the material as is due to the site
specific geologic conditions and the lack of benefit gained from removal. The estimated cost of excavating
the pond area was addressed in the variance request. However no cost was given for the vapor extraction
system proposed in the CAP. Please provide the results of the pilot testing (if conducted)and the estimated
cost of this technology as well.
If during response to this request for information you decide to change your request to a . 0106 corrective
action, please notify me of your decision in writing on or before July 30, 1997.
Should you elect to continue to seek the variance, please provide the information required under 15A
.0113 c,3 ( .. detailed location map showing ... potential for groundwater contamination migration, ... area
covered by the variance request). Additionally information required under .0113 c,4, requires a map
showing all wells within a half mile radius. Please refer to the administrative code for additional
details.
I have included a memo from the Department's Environmental Epidemiology Division. Several
questions were raised which will also need to be addressed before the variance request can be given
additional consideration.
If you have any questions you may contact me by telephone at [phone].
SABI
Enclosure
cc: Vic Spooner w/eJJC.
Clifford Case w/ttl(;.
Harold Bynum w/enc.
Luanne Williams
Arthur Mouberry
Preston Howard w/enc.
David Hance w/enc.
Jon Wullschleger w/enc.
S~y, i Pi. lJ
~~C.L.G.
Groun, ~-t.er Section Supervisor
'---
Arthur Mouberry
Flynt/W ansona Facility
May 27, 1997
Page Two · 1
3.
According to the report, the company has proposed to leave the contamination in soil and
groundwater and to pave with asphalt over the former settling ponds and septic
tank/drainfield system. It may not be necessary to pave these areas. If the constituent
concentrations at the surface (i.e., one to twelve inches) are similar to the concentrations
at greater than two feet, then paving would not be necessary because there would be no
significant health risk associated with exposure.
On page 3-8 of the report, it stated that "Surface water from City Pond is used to provide
the water supply for the City of Wadesboro; the Flynt-Wansona facility and City Pond
are located in separate watersheds. According to SM&E 1994a, no private/municipal
supply wells are located downgradient and/or within 2,500 feet of the facility." It is
recommended to confirm the absence of private or mwiicpal water supplies within 2,500
feet of the facility because the groundwater sampling did reveal contaminant
concentrations well in exceedance of the North Carolina groundwater quality standards.
Drinking, cooking, or bathing with the groundwater, at the concentrations reported,
would pose a significant health risk. The contaminated groundwater should not be used
for any purpose because of the associated health risk.
4. According to the report, Flynt-Wansona facility utilizes eight supply wells which is used
in processing in the dye house, and samples from these wells were analyzed in March
1995 for volatile organic/semivolatile organics and inorganics. According to the report,
no organics were detected and inorganics were below the groundwater quality standards.
Unfortunately, these results were not provided. Please provide these sampling results for
review because these is evidence of groundwater contamination at this site, and there
could be exposure to the groundwater from these eight supply wells.
lfyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 715-6429.
LKW:lp
cc: Mr. Art Barnhart, Fayetteville_ Regional Office GrounQwater Section
Mr. Gene Jackson, Fayetteville Regional Office Groundwater Section
Dr. Kenneth Rudo
._.;.·
, •'"" -E I,.,\ -c~ ' . ·--I
:)
-J
June 28, 1996 -.
' -. ;--3 . . -
Mr. Arthur Mouberry, P.E.
Groundwater Section Chief
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: RATIONALE FOR VARIANCE REQUEST VERSUS (k) OR (I) CAPs
Goodwill Industries -Incident No. 8094
Unocal -Derita (Unocal No. 9342-811) -Incident No. 3751
Unocal -Park Road -Incident No. 3633
Consolidated Freightways -Incident No. 5484
Dear Mr. Mouberry:
··:,
;.)
S&ME, Inc., (S&ME) submits this letter summarizing our rationale for submitting variance
requests, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b) through (d), rather than 15A NCAC
2L .0106 (k) or (I) CAPs, for the above referenced sites.
1) Based on the December 23, 1993 "Summa ry of Groundwater Staff Q uestions on
15A NCAC 2L Rule .0103 Policy ." Question/Answer #27 suggests that either a
variance or a (k)/(I)/(m) CAP is valid and acceptable by the state, provided the
conditions for either are met.
2) The Answer #27 also indicates that the CAPs may be expensive. We agree with
this comment in that the preparation of these types of CAPs requires 1) additional
site-specific data, and 2) a higher level of characterization of groundwater and
contaminant migration. The CAPs also require long-term groundwater monitoring,
which is not required for a variance. Thus the cost to the State Trust Fund and/or
the owner is expected to be greater for a CAP than for a variance.
1
S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273, [phone], Fax [phone]
Mailing addres.s: P.O. Box 7668, Charlotte, North Carolina 28241-7668
Lr wu: v anam.:;es oc lilt: n1v1 ~ J
Subject: [Fwd: Variances & the EMC]
From: "Ted L. Bush, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:41:19-0400
To: jeff manning <j [e-mail]>
CC: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>, debra watts <[e-mail]>
Jeff,
I think David Hance already has materials together on the variance process for groundwater issues. With
your concurrence, I'd like to have his input so APS folks can address this request. If you don't have any
concerns, I will ask Debra Watts and her staff to begin the process of working with David to generate a
response.
Thanks,
Ted
--------Original Message --------
Subject: Variances & the EMC
Date:Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:23:08 -0400
From:Coleen Sullins <coleen.sullins @ncmail.net>
To:Matt Matthews <Matt.Matthewsta)ncmail.net>, "tom.reeder>> Tom.reeder"
<[e-mail]>, Paul Rawls <paul.rawls @ncmail.net>, Ted Bush
<[e-mail]>, Kim Colson <Kim.Colson@ ncmail.net>,jeffmanning
<ieff.manning @ncmail.net>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
CC:Alan Klimek <alan.klimek(a),ncmail.net>
Dr . Moreau is going to hold a Steering Committee Meeting in September to
discuss variance processes for 2B .0226 (in followup to our meeting
today on the Kinnakeet Mine/Wetland issue). What we need to do is pull
together a summary of the different variance procedures to share with
the EMC. You are all on this email because your programs deal with
variances and we need you to summarize your procedures, including where
they are codified (NC statutes, federal regulations, administrative code).
Matt -you have NPDES
Tom -you have WS, buffers (not sure if there are "stormwater" separated
out like the others)
Ted -groundwater
Kim -nondischarge
Jeff -in addition to WQ standards, you get the added pleasure of being
appointed the organizer of this document (thank you and sorry about
that). Also, Alan K is sending something to Keith, John, Dexter and Jim
to have their programs develop documentation on variance processes that
they have that may involve the EMC.
To all, the alternative design mechanism is not captured as a variance,
but you should make a note where you have rules that allow for the
director's approval on an alternative design (I know that is in
stormwater, wetlands, nondischarge).
1 of2 8/9/2006 2:55 PM
[Fwd: Variances & the EMC]
2 of2
The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that we get direction from the
EMC as to what steps they want us to take. We need prepare a
recommendation (modify the rules in 2B .0226 to establish procedures for
variances granted under that rule). We don't need to have the rule
language at the September meeting, just a general recommendation at that
point.
Jeff -you have the timelines for the EMC and are left with the bulk of
the work to pull this together, so please let everyone know when you
need their information (most likely midweek next week). Thanks Coleen
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
DENR Division of Water Quality
8/9/2006 2:55 PM
........... '< ................................ J ..... 1.1.---frV\.Ll.lUYY"l.'-'.I .lU.111;,.:) Va.LJall\.iCi \I\..C:_l.JlJ UH Vi:lrli:lll ..•
I of3
Subject: Re: Question for you---groundwater rules variance (Reply on Variance Process Questions)
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:03:18 -0400
To: Mark E Hollis <[e-mail]>
CC: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Mark,
With respect to the rule, I believe your reading of 15A NCAC 2L .0113( c )(2) is correct in that the rule shows that
variances apply to sites where activities are ongoing or proposed such that they would result in ' ... a discharge of
contaminants to the groundwaters. '
Note that variances for groundwater contamination are granted by the EMC " .... pursuant to a request under G.S.
132-215.J(e)." It is important to know if a particular site or permitted facility falls under this statute. Some sites in the
DWM fall under a different set of statutes from their Commission and I am uncertain if they have variance requirement
in their statutes. A while back they did not.
Variances that Mav Meet the Criteria You Discuss in Your Email:
I am not sure if these variances discussed below applies exactly to your situation. You are a better judge of that.
There are two variances that come to mind for sites with ongoing and changing activities.
One is for the "Outer Banks Beach Club" in Dare County. This one was granted by the Commission for a compliance
boundary issue that arose at a permitted site. The other is for the "Town ofYaupon Beach" in Brunswick County. This
was for a permitted high rate infiltration system. To my recollection, both of these variances had been recently
permitted under a set of conditions. During the permitting period, a change had occurred in the treatment processes
and/or review boundary monitoring and modeling had demonstrated the need to change the shape and configuration of
compliance boundaries. I believe that Yaupon Beach variance request had a change in treatment process that would
result in the need to expand compliance boundaries that was a factor in requesting a variance. One of the factors that
also came into play to cause these utilities to pursue a variance was the fact that repermitting was a off in the distant
future and, to operate legally, these public entities felt a variance was the option to pursue in the interim.
The Use of Modeling in Variances:
Modeling has been submitted for variances as a component of the supporting information to " .... establish that a
variance will not endanger the public health and safety, including health and environmental effects from exposure to
groundwater contaminants. " The major focus of modeling along with other types of information that is submitted to
support a variance request is to demonstrate that exposure pathways, usually private and public water supply wells, are
not impacted above the 15A NCAC 2L Groundwater Quality Standards. Surface water may also be considered with
respect to impacts to fish and if the surface water may be used as a water supply or may be classified as such. Only one
variance request (Flynt Fabrics Incorporated) required extensive work with respect to surface waters. The rest did not
have the surface water pathway as a part of the analysis of exposure pathways and the DWQ only required noting the
location and distances of streams and water bodies relative to the site per requirements of the rule.
Other information that has been submitted and weighs heavily in staff support of a variance requests includes applicable
soil monitoring data, groundwater monitoring data, recovery well data, and other site specific environmental sampling
data .. Modeling data includes the vertical and lateral modeling of contaminant concentrations and hydrogeologic
information to support that a variance will not impact public health. Monitoring well information showing the depths of
wells, well construction information, and lithographic information has been used by applicants to support variances.
Soil-to-groundwater risk based levels and been submitted and reviewed by the DWQ as a supporting parameter for a
variance. Note that due to the fact that North Carolina is not authorized to conduct risk based cleanup, comparisons to
Industrial/Commercial" levels are not one of the important factors that are examined by hearing officers or by the
Commission in the review of a variance requests, even when submitted by responsible parties.
8/26/2005 3:04 PM
Re: Question for you---groundwater rules variance (Reply on Varian ...
2 of3
Variances that the Commission has Approved Over the Years:
Attached to tlzis email is a listing o[tlze variances tlzat the EMC approved. Most of the ones that you see in the 1990s
were for UST Sites. Since risk based rules went into effect, the demand for variance from these sites has diminished.
More recent variances have occurred at industrial facilities. This includes the names of companies, permit or GW
Incident Numbers and their locations. Many of these sites may be closed by now or no longer permitted.
Other Things of Note with Respect to Variances and the Commission's Last Word on these:
Like Carl said last time we all spoke, the key is potential exposure of the public to contaminants in groundwater. A
good example of that is that a variance is proposed in a area where a private well or public water supply well (I) is
impacted above Groundwater Quality Standards or (2) is in the path of migrating contaminants such that standards
would be exceeded. This circumstance would most certainly make for a situation where the DWQ Staff would be
un-supportive of a variance request. Based on past experience, staff would likely advise other alternatives or want
significantly more information in support of the request. The Commission would not want to entertain such liability
upon itself.
Another situation that has arisen is where some other significant requirement needs to be met in 15A NCAC 2L .0202,
such as for example, free product from the applicants operations discovered in the proposed area of the variance after
submittal by the applicant.
The Starting Point for Variances:
If Duke Power decides to pursue the Variance option, the best starting place to start the discussions is with the DWQ
Aquifer Protection Section -Regional Office in the region where the site exists. We can provide you with information
from here on the process.
I hope this helps you out. If you need more let me know.
david hance
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Mark E Hollis wrote:
David;
As you will recall, at the end of the last groundwater stakeholder group
meeting, I spoke with you, Carl, and Luanne about the variance option in
the NC groundwater rules ( 2L .0113).
I am interested in the following information:
Whether one or more companies have applied for a variance based on"
proposed activities" that may result in an exceedence of one or more
groundwater constituents. The rule addresses proposed activities in 2L
.0113 (c) (2). I read this to mean a situation where modeling shows that
a certain proposed project/activity (e.g. construction of a landfill)
could result in an exceedence of one or more groundwater constituent
standards.
Names of several companies----and contact phone numbers/emails---that
have sucessfully obtained a variance and a brief description of each of
their variance request.
Could you provide me with an answer to the first question and provide me
the information that I asked for in item# 2 above? Please call me to
discuss this request. Thank you.
Mark Hollis
Director, EHS Coordination and Integration
8/26/2005 3:04 PM
•--• "'<..,._._..,_._...,_..__._ ,._..., ... J ...,..,. b"''-',.....,..,,.,..,,,.-1,1,1,"".1, J. \.I.J.V~ YU.I.J.UJ..l'-''-' \..l'-'-',l-'-'] Vll V CLl.1QlJ •••
3 of3
Duke Power Environmental and Public Policy
mehollis@duke-ene~
980-373-3726 (office)
704-408-9810 (mobile)
; Content-Type: application/msword -1 ----::]
04Comprhsv-incidentandpermitV ARLisT .doc
Content-Encoding: base64 .
8/26/2005 3:04 PM
1 ofl
Subject: Correction to my last email on Variances
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:57:24 -0400
To: Mark E Hollis <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>, Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>
Mark,
In my last email where I discussed the statutory authority for the EMC to grant
variances I quoted the wrong statute.
The correct statute is North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3 (e).
David Hance
8/26/2005 3:58 PM
Materials you wanted on variances to GW Standards under 15A NC ...
l of 1
Subject: Materials you wanted on variances to GW Standards under 15A NCAC 2L .0113
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:09:26 -0400
To: "Bachl, Carolyn" <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Carolyn,
I received a call from Emily at your office.
I gave her the information she needed over the phone.
As for what I will mail you, I looked at my guidance for the public and found that
it needed a lot more than cosmetic changes since the reorganization .
Therefore, I am sending you a new copy of the rule and a copy of a letter
concerning a variance. This way you will get a good feel for what is needed to get
a variance.
This is going out in the mail today.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section
8/11/2005 2:09 PM
, I I i_ , ~
Section# 3:
Examp les of L etters Related to Variances
..
Also included with the variance reques~· i risk assessment from the Division Public
Health, dated February 15, 2000. Global In at' GIS) mapping and data for this
variance are included in a compact disk (CD) ti ' c.". Information in this CD
. shows the locations of surface water bodies, public uu 1ti~~ines, water supply lines and
other features near this property and in Wadesboro. ,jf Ii
The information submitted by the company's environmental consultant, Water Equipment
Services (WES) {now known under the corporate name of Nobis Engineering Incorporated} on
behalf of the Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation appears to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0l 13(c). Information to meet the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c) is summarized
as follows:
Rule .0113 (c)(l ): Resolution by the·countv or governin g Board:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has always been a privately owned
company. No resolution is necessary.
Rule .0113 (c)(2): A descri ption of p ast , existin g or p ro posed activities that would
result in a discharg e of contaminants into g roundwater:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Facility consists of 48.080 acres of land within the city
limits of Wadesboro, NC. The company has submitted a description of two areas at the site where
waste disposal practices resulted in localized releases of substances to groundwater and soils and for
which variance is requested. These areas are known in the variance request as "The Main Plant" and
the "Wul-Zenco Plant" and are include an 8.4-acre area. Substances from the Main Plant were
released into two former settling ponds that have been abandoned . Substances from the former Wul-
Zenco Plant were released into a former septic tank that was removed in 1974, although the
drainfield was left intact. Substances from textile operations were released from the "1950s" until
197 4, when liquid waste disposal into these two waste areas ceased.
Additional information on activities that have resulted in a discharge of contaminants can be
found in the following documents:
I. Page 2 -1 of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Fl yn t/Wansona
Facility, Wadesboro , Anson County, North Carolina, (N CDEHNR Incident No.
14009) {March 5 , 1997}" -Discusses the former waste disposal areas used by the
company;
II. Appendix B of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for
FlyntlWansona Facility, Wadesboro , Anson Count y, North Carolina, <N CDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5 , 1997}" -Shows Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation as owner of the property under Deed Numbers 179-'0233 and 233-044B.
This appendix also shows property ownership in the area around the site; and
III. Appendix B of this same report also shows individuals, companies and persons who may
2
..
have cleanup responsibilities. T~~!!::.rhas examined the infonnation
submitted and has identified 12 properties near the facility that may have or could have
cleanup responsibilities at this site. These persons included and variety of commercial and
industrial operations. Nearby public roadways, railroads and wastewater collection lines
where waste or substances could be or could have been released were also considered.
Figure 2-2 of this March 5, 1997 report also shows the location of these two areas relative
to buildings, driveways, and other site features at One "\Vansona ',Vay. The Flynt/Wansona
Manufacturing Corporation is located in an area that contains a mixture of industrial, commercial
and residential development.
Rule .0113(c)(3): Description of the proposed area for which the variance is
requested. A detailed location map showing the orientation of the facilitv,
potential for groundwater contaminant migration, .... :
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation believes that it has adequately characterized
groundwater contamination and soil contamination for Groundwater Incident Number 14009 and
the events that led to exceedences of the 1 SA NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards. The
information contained in the variance request and other reports shows that the waste disposal
systems (i.e. the former settling pond and the defunct septic tank and drainfield systems) are the sole
cause of exceedences of Groundwater Quality Standards under Groundwater Incident Number
14009. Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has verified that the systems have been rendered
in an inoperable state such that they can no longer be used in the manner that led to exceedences of
Groundwater Quality Standards.
The original variance request was contained in the report titled "Submittal of Variance
Application for Flynt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina, (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5, 1997} ". This report discussed substances found in deep soils
samples extracted from within the boundaries of the former settling ponds site and the former septic
tank and drainfield system and provided laboratory results in Table 2-4 and in Table 2-5 of that
report. Groundwater monitoring data from March 1995 was also discussed in Table 2-6.
Due to the fact that the Groundwater Section in the Fayetteville Regional Office deemed this
report incomplete, additional information was requested on shallow soils within the waste disposal
areas, deep soils outside of the waste disposal areas, and groundwater downgraident from the former
septic tank/drainfield and the former settling ponds areas. The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation responded in July 1998 with a report titled "Corrective Action Variance Request
Addendum, Flynt/Wansona Inc. One Wansona Place, Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina.
NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009, 08 Julv 1998". Information contained in Table 1, Table 3, and
Table 5 of this report shows that concentrations of substances persist in surface soils, deep soils and
groundwater within the 8.4 acre area proposed for variance. Concentrations persist within the defined
8.4-acre area 28 years after waste disposal operations at the former settling ponds and inactive septic
system ceased. In addition, the Groundwater Section also required the company to submit
monitoring data on surface water quality in a drainageway that passes through the area of the site
3
Manufacturing Corporation noted that if both soil vapor extraction and pump and treat cleanup were
applied at this site, the cost is estimated at$ 1,040,000.00. Page 20 of the report titled "Corrective
Action Variance Request Addendum, Fl vn t/Wansona Inc , One vVansona Place , Wadesboro , Anson
County. North Carolina, NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009 , 08 Julv 1998" states that " ... capping the
two areas with asphalt and development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan is
appropriate, as it would isolate contaminated soil and minimized leaching via infiltration ..... ". It
is no less effective a means of addressing residual concentrations of substances at this site than
implementation of a pump-and-treat system, soil vapor extraction system, bioremediation, or soil
excavation and disposal and is less expensive .
.... -:::::--, ,,-,:::--,.. :~•·°"·\ /? //' ... ,. {/' \\·! ~._ .. :l "· . .'".:'
Rule .Ol 13 (c)(7 ): Su pp orfin 2 .Jrtforrhatfon i '.that com pliance would p roduce ' _,,. '-•" ~ ... serious financial hardship wifliout eq ual or g reater public benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that the public would
not receive any benefit if the company were required to meet 15A NCAC 2L .01060) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 for Groundwater Incident 14009. Page 3-13 of the report titled "Submittal of
Variance A po lication for Fl yn t/Wansona Facility. vVadesboro . Anson County, North Carolina ,
(N CDEHNR Incident No. 14009) {March 5 , 1997}" the Anson County Chamber of Commerce has
designated this county as "economically distressed". North Carolina Environmental Justice maps
at the Groundwater Section show that Anson County has persons who are identified as "minority/low
income" within its jurisdiction.
Rule .Ol 13 (c)(8): "A co py of anv S p ecial Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site.
Rule .0113 (c)(9): "A list of names and addresses of p ro p erty owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are listed in Appendix B of the
report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Fl vn t/Wansona Facilitv, Wadesboro , Anson
County, North Carolina, [NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009} {March 5. 1997} ". Title 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this variance be given to the owner or
owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing".
GROUNDWATER SECTION RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION
RE QUESTED:
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject variance request to
Corrective Action requirements of I SA NCAC 2L .0106(j) and Groundwater Quality Standards
contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 proceed to public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(e) for groundwater and soils. On February 15, 2000, the Division of Public Health completed
their review of the risk assessment methodology for this site and recommended that this variance be
10
I I ~ . ·, ' ' f
granted for Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing. This recommendation was made upon the condition that
monitoring be conducted to protect any " ... nearby or future water supplies in the area". Upon your
concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the preparation
of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.Ol 13(d -f), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the Environmental Management
Commission Groundwater Committee, this request will proceed to the Environmental Management
Commission for final action in 15A.NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g). If there are any questions regarding this
matter or if any additional information is needed, please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS: .,,,:~.
cc: ~;;:~:~:~!;~!::i ~:~!~;~~;t~pervis}~: -· (\ ;;) l;:~
!
Dr. Luanne Williams -·
David Hance
11
. ______ _. __ ...., ...... ____ .... , .. -.:• ·--
Subject: Variance information request
From: "Joe Muehleck" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:22:54 -0800
To: <[e-mail]>
Dear Mr. Hance -
Thank you for returning my call. Do you have the guidance information
you mentioned electronically? If so, please send to this email address.
Otherwise, here is my info:
Joe Muehleck
ETIC Engineering
1333 Broadway, Suite 1015
Oakland, CA 94612
510-208-1600, ext 23
[e-mail]
I'm sure I will have questions once I look over the information. I look
forward to hearing from you. Thanks again.
Joe Muehleck
--
If one of your clients as a responsible party chooses to pursue a variance at a site,
please submit the request to the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission
care of the Director of the Division of Water Quality in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(b ). In addition, a copy of 15A NCAC 2L (Groundwater Classification and Standards)
is attached for your review. If you need to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me
at [phone].
Attachment
cc: Carl Bailey
Page 2
· Sincerely yours,
~
David Hance
Environmental Specialist II
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Groundwater Variance
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:27:31 -0500
To: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
Yes, I spoke with Ted Bush.
dh
Alan Klimek wrote:
David, let Ted and I handle this.
alan
Linda Culpepper wrote:
David,
I just spoke with the ETIC Engineering representative, who has been working
with DWQ on a groundwater variance for the Kaiser Fluid Technology site at
530 E. Sugar Creek Rd in Charlotte (GW Incident #85906). As I understand it
the Regional Office and Ken Rudo have given their approval on the variance
and that package is in your hands.
ETIC indicated that you were not working on the project, the project was
being held to
transfer to DWM as soon as the MOA between the divisions was signed, and
you advised
them to call Dexter.
I am not clear on why a decision was made to put this project on hold. I
did apologize to ETIC that the project has apparently been delayed.
I want to know why the project was being held, and how many more
variances are being held
(site name and incident number) for transfer to DWM when the MOA is
signed. I'll be back in
the office Mon. morning -you are welcome to call me or email the
information.
thank you.
linda
Linda Culpepper
Deputy Director
NC Div. of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Rd., Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
email: linda.culpe p per@ncmail .net
2/2/2007 6:27 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Groundwater Variance
From: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:25:08 -0500
To: DAVID HANCE <[e-mail]>, TED BUSH <[e-mail]>
David, let Ted and I handle this.
alan
Linda Culpepper wrote:
David,
I just spoke with the ETIC Engineering representative, who has been working
with DWQ on a groundwater variance for the Kaiser Fluid Technology site at 530
E. Sugar Creek Rd in Charlotte (GW Incident #85906). As I understand it the
Regional Office and Ken Rudo have given their approval on the variance and that
package is in your hands.
ETIC indicated that you were not working on the project, the project was
being held to
transfer to DWM as soon as the MOA between the divisions was signed, and
you advised
them to call Dexter.
I am not clear on why a decision was made to put this project on hold. I did
apologize to ETIC that the project has apparently been delayed.
I want to know why the project was being held, and how many more variances
are being held
(site name and incident number) for transfer to DWM when the MOA is
signed. I'll be back in
the office Mon. morning -you are welcome to call me or email the
information.
thank you.
linda
Linda Culpepper
Deputy Director
NC Div. of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Rd., Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
email: linda.culp e po [e-mail]
2/2/2007 6:27 PM
L.a. yy~. y,.,..._.._.,......_..,..,..,, ~ ... ..,,..,_._...,, ... ..., ...... J_ ... J ...
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: Variances Discussion] --fyi
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:24:20 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Short Sub ject: GW Incident Variances and Making Pro per Statements
FYI for you Jeff:
There has been some discussion this afternoon about the incident variances between one of the
consultants (Joe Mulick) and Linda Culpepper at the Division of Waste Management. As background, I
gave an update to Joe Mulick this morning as a result of an email request for information on where the
reorganization and his package (Kaiser Fluid Variance Request) stands.
I think what Joe focused on was a single sentence in my email that discussed the transfer of the
vanances.
I said that we would " .... no longer be involved in these types of variances ... " but that was stated in the
context of a completed reorganization.
Of course the reorganization is not complete and these variances are still in our shop. I think Joe got the
idea that this work was on hold.
Ted emphasized to me that at this point .... we need to be careful with the statements we make to outside
contacts for these incident variances.
I understand from Ted Bush that he has had a conversation with Alan Klimek this evening.
Alan will make a response to Linda Culpepper to address the concerns. So we don't need to res pond
to Linda's email on this matter.
If you get any p hone calls or emails on this variance or any of the other incident variances ---the
res ponses below are correct.
Ted has this now as reference in case he gets more calls.
dh
Subject: Variances Discussion
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:53:39 -0500
To: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Ted,
Based on our phone conversation and the email from Linda Culpepper. I hope this email clears things
up.
2/2/2007 6:26 PM
L .t'WO: V anances UlSCUSSlOll J --:ryt
2 of2
• Home Concrete Variance Request (GW Incident 85039): All DWQ reviews have been
completed for this variance request including the staff review here at the DWQ Planning Section
to assure that the information is complete and that this is ready to proceed to the process contained
in 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
• Kaiser Fluid Technologies Variance Request (GW Incident 85906) and Unocal-Orr Road
(GW Incident 12329): The information in my files shows that the materials to support these
variances (including reports and staff recommendations) are under review at the DWQ Planning
Section for completeness per 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
• Pine State Knitwear and Motiva Enterprises Variances: These two variances are still under
technical review at the Winston-Salem Regional Office, DWQ-APS.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
I
1I
. . . :•• .. ··. Content-Type: message/rfc822 I Variances D1scuss1on E . 7b. Content-ncodmg: 1t
1-·-· -------....... .. .. ·····-......... .......... ........... ---... . ...... .
2/2/2007 6:26 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Variances Discussion
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:53:39 -0500
To: Ted Bush <[e-mail]>
Ted,
Based on our phone conversation and the email from Linda Culpepper. I hope this email clears things
up.
• Home Concrete Variance Request (GW Incident 85039): All DWQ reviews have been
completed for this variance request including the staff review here at the DWQ Planning Section
to assure that the information is complete and that this is ready to proceed to the process contained
in 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
• Kaiser Fluid Technologies Variance Request (GW Incident 85906) and Unocal-Orr Road
(GW Incident 12329): The information in my files shows that the materials to support these
variances (including reports and staff recommendations) are under review at the DWQ Planning
Section for completeness per 15A NCAC 2L .0113.
• Pine State Knitwear and Motiva Enterprises Variances: These two variances are still under
technical review at the Winston-Salem Regional Office, DWQ-APS.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
919-733-5083 X. 587
2/2/2007 6:28 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Groundwater Variance
From: Linda Culpepper <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:57:24 -0500
To: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
CC: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, "DEXTER.MATTHEWS"
<[e-mail]>
David,
I just spoke with the ETIC Engineering representative, who has been working with DWQ on a
groundwater variance for the Kaiser Fluid Technology site at 530 E. Sugar Creek Rd in Charlotte (GW
Incident #85906). As I understand it the Regional Office and Ken Rudo have given their approval on the
variance and that package is in your hands.
ETIC indicated that you were not working on the project, the project was being held to
transfer to DWM as soon as the MOA between the divisions was signed, and you advised
them to call Dexter.
I am not clear on why a decision was made to put this project on hold. I did apologize to ETIC that the
project has apparently been delayed.
I want to know why the project was being held, and how many more variances are being held
(site name and incident number) for transfer to DWM when the MOA is signed. I'll be back in
the office Mon. morning -you are welcome to call me or email the information.
thank you.
linda
Linda Culpepper
Deputy Director
NC Div. of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Rd., Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
2/2/2007 6:26 PM
,
1 of 1
· ::;ubject: Reorganization: Variance for Home Concrete and Supply/ update
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:57:58 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
The director sent the packet back to me.
He decided not to sign the transfer letter but said in a note that we are to just
send the summary and the packets on to Dexter Matthews .
dh
1/31/2007 4:58 PM
Home Concrete and Supply Company is entirely responsible for cleanup for Groundwater Incident
Number 85039. The company has requested variance for approximately 3.6 acres of land impacted by
the releases and the substances specified for variance in this request include Benzene and Naphthalene.
Based on the presence of Benzene, Naphthalene, and Methyl-Tert Butyl Ether found in
groundwater at this site, the company conducted a comprehensive site assessment and implemented
corrective action starting in December 1999. As a result of groundwater monitoring and analysis the
last seven years, the company sent a formal request for variance from the title 15A NCAC 02L rules to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission on March 31, 2005. The variance
request proposes to do two separate things. This first is to allow concentrations of organic chemicals to
exist at the site at levels above 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards as analyzed in
monitoring wells as of March 16, 2006. These concentrations will be required to remain within the
3.6-acre area of the property located at 400 North Long Street. Second, a variance at this site will allow
for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions in accordance with 15A NCAC
02L .0106(j).
The background information for this site is discussed on Page 1 through Page 10 of the March
31, 2005 report titled Variance Request, Former Home Concrete and Supply Company Facility, 400
North Long Street, Salisbury Rowan Countv, North Carolina. For the sake of this discussion, this
report will be referred to as the "March 31, 2005 Variance Request" for Groundwater Incident Number
85039. In addition, the most recent annual groundwater monitoring event occurred on March 16, 2006
and is contained in the "June 30, 2006 Annual Ground w "ater Monitoring Report". Other submittals
include the September 2, 2005 technical review of the variance request by the DWQ Aquifer
Protection Section (APS) in the Mooresville Regional Office, comments on the risk assessment from
Dr. Ken Rudo at the Division of Public Health dated March 28, 2006, and staff email correspondence.
The DWQ APS in Mooresville recommends that the Environmental Management Commission
approve the proposed variance for the Home Concrete and Supply Company.
Attached to this memorandum is a docmment labeled "Summary" that discusses the materials
recommendations, and staff comments the Division of Water Quality has related to this variance
request. The supporting information for the variance is discussed in light of the requirements of 15A
NCAC 02L .0113(c) for each of the criteria listed. It is the opinion of the Division of Water Quality
that this variance request is ready to proceed to public notice and hearing pursuant to title 15A NCAC
2L .0113(d). If you concur, please arrange for public notice and hearing for this proposed variance.
We have provided you with a draft public notice template that you can use to provide public notice for
the variance request, which is the last of the items in this packet. If you have questions on these
materials, please contact David Hance in the DWQ-Planning Section at 733-5083 at extension# 587.
cc: Alan Clark
Jeff Manning
David Hance
Attachments:
1. Summary: Summary and Discussion of the Information Provided to Support a Proposed
Variance for Home Concrete and Supply Company under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for
Groundwater Incident Number 85039.
2. Variance Request. Former Home Concrete and Supply Company Facility, 400 North Long
Street. Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina (March 31. 2005) { Also known as the March
31, 2005 Variance Request in the discussion}.
3. September 2, 2005 Memorandum from Andrew H. Pitner of the Division of Water Quality-
2
A quifer Protection Section/Mooresville Re gi onal Office providing technical review of the
variance re quest.
4. Januarv 4 , 2006 email corres pondence from Andrew H. Pitner to address DWO-Planning
Section q uestions related to other incidents at adjacent pro p erties and a discussion of water
table depths at the site.
5. The March 28 , 2006 review of the risk assessment and g roundwater monitoring data from Dr.
Ken Rudo at the Division of Public Health.
6. The "June 30 , 2006 Annual Ground Water Monitoring Re port" for the Home Concrete and
Supp l y Company showing the anal yt ical results from the March 16. 2006 groundwater
monitoring event.
7. A July 11, 2006 email from Andrew H. Pitner discussing the laboratory results contained in the
"June 30, 2006 Annual Ground Water Monitorin g Report".
8. Draft Public Notice Template for the Home Concrete and Supp l y Company Variance Request.
3
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Reorganization: Variance for Home Concrete and Supply/ update
From: jeff manning <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:03:11 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
OK, just hold onto it til we here from Ted about the reorg. Thanks.
David Hance wrote:
The director sent the packet back to me .
He decided not to sign the transfer letter but said in a note that we are to just
send the summary and the packets on to Dexter Matthews.
dh
2/2/2007 4:40 PM
:uthor: David Hance at NRGWS0lP
Date: 5/23/97 3:59 PM
Priority: Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: Arthur Mouberry
CC: Carl Bailey
CC: David Hance
Subject: RE: S& ME VARIANCES
------------------------------------Message Contents------------------------------------
ARTHUR,
HERE IS AN UPDATE ON VARIANCES FROM STEWART HINES OF S&ME INC.;
(1) CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS -STILL ON MY DESK - I NEED TO COMPLETE
THE MEMORANDA TO PRESTON HOWARD.
(2) UNOCAL-DERITA -NEXT AFTER CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS
(3) UNOCAL -MONROE ROAD -A FOLLOW-UP ITEM WAS SENT TO DR. RUDO FOR
REVIEW: THIS IS DUE BACK FROM HIM ON 5/26/97.
(4) EMRO -NORTH TRYON STREET -THIS IS THE ONE THAT BARBARA
CHRISTIAN AND LUANNE WILLIAMS HAD A MEETING ON YESTERDAY. IF THE
DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY'S CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED BY THAT DISCUSSION
I AM EXPECTING A MEMO ANY DAY NOW TELLING US THAT THEY HAVE NO
PROBLEMS, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
(5) EMRO -KANNAPOLIS KAREN CONNELL SENT ME SOMETHING ON THIS
BACK ON APRIL 4, 1997 TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PCB STAFF. I
WILL GET THIS WITH A MEMO TO EXPLAIN IT TO BURRIE'S PEOPLE SOON.
AS YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN PREPARING THE INFORMATION FOR THE RISK
BASED RULES FOR THE DIRECTOR AND THE EMC MEMBERS. I HAVE ONE MORE THING
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE - A LISTING OF THE MAJOR COMMENTS FOR THE EMC PACKET.
ONCE THAT IS DONE MY PLAN IS TO GET BACK ONTO CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS,
BARRING ANY OTHER RULES WORK THAT I NEED TO DO. IF THERE IS ANY NEED TO DO
SOMETHING DIFFERENT LET ME KNOW.
STEWART CALLED ME ON MONDAY 5/19/97 ....... I HAVE BEEN GONE FOR 1 AND 1/2
DAYS DUE TO MY PLUMBER AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET BACK WITH HIM.
DH
DBAfl'
variance pursuant to 15A NCAC 21 .0113 at Class CDE sites.
The staff review of this site shows that it has a priority ranking of "E " according to information
that the Groundwater Section has on file. It is important to note that Senate Bill 1317 specifically
includes cleanups at sites where petroleum has been discharged or released from undergi;ound st.;:,~~ .
C C"" .. ~~ .. ~ ,n / fJ,._ ~-i--.. ~ ..... ~ i-;.:;, i0'1 •-::,---
tanks. Lfhere is no menti6n ot this law impacting variance;j ThAs~dauis t.Aat"ta@ ewnroxuu ental
~nt Commission: ftlUS t meet i n--oIQ@I to g.tatrt variances is found in North Carolina General
Statute (NCGS) 143-215.3(e). Senate Bill 1317 does not mention this statute nor does it effect any
actions taken by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to NCGS 143-215-.3(e).
In light of these facts, there are three courses of action that the Goodwill Industries of the
Southern Piedmont can take that will result in a corrective action plan that will satisfy the requirements
of 15A NCAC 21, which are shown as follows:
1) Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont could withdraw the variance for ,J;,, .-;:_, ~ ... ~
Groundwater Incident # 8094 and ~until a risk assessment rule has been
established. Senate Bill 1317 requires that by October 1, 1997 the Environmental
Management Commission adopt a rule to implement the requirements of NCGS
143-215.94V(b). Please note that the deferment of cleanup requirements is a
temporary, not a permanent deferment. It is not known at this time what
requirements will be included in a new risk assessment rule. It must be further
noted that if a risk assessment were conducted at this site and it showed that
conditions are such that the site posses a higher risk than that of a site ranked
Class CDE, this may result in a re-ranking to Class AB status. A higher ranking
at a site may result in the reinstatement of active groundwater remediation. A
risk assessment may also result in the necessity for expanded monitoring
requirements. After a risk assessment rule has been adopted, a new variance may
also be requested only if a new risk based rule allows responsible parties to obtain
variances for releases from petroleum underground storage tanks.
2) Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont could withdraw the variance for
Groundwater Incident # 8094 and cleanup the site pursuant to the requirements
2
...
concerning this variance is unacceptable, then Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont may file a
petition for a contested case pursuant to ISA NCAC 2L .0113(h).
The Groundwater Section would like to know in writing if Goodwill Industries of the Southern
Piedmont desires to continue pursuing a variance for Groundwater Incident Number 8094 at this time.
The hearing officer for this variance, Ms. Sherri Knight, is in the process of completing the review the
Goodwill Industries request. She has been examining the groundwater monitoring data from April 4,
1996. Upon the completion of the hearing officers report and recommendation, this variance will be sent
to the Environmental Management Commission for review and final action. If possible, we would like
to receive the response to this letter by September 20, 1996. Please send your response to Mr. David
Hance, P.O. Box 29578, Raleigh, NC 27626-0578 {phone: [phone]; fax [phone]}. If you
have any questions concerning this letter, please feel free to contact myself at [phone] or Mr.
Hance.
AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Allen Schiff
Sherri Knight
David Hance
Gary Barrett (Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont)
Sincerely,
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
4
DR FT
installed at this site and sampling and analysis of wells be placed as conditions for approval of this
variance. On July 24, 1996 Mr . James Ponder of S&ME Incorporated requested that the Groundwater
Section review the necessity for recommending monitoring requirements as conditions for approval of this
variance in light of the enactment of Senate Bill 1317. Mr. Ponder expressed the view that this law extends
to monitoring requirements on variances under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 as well as monitoring requirements in
corrective action plans established by the pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0106.
It is important to note that Senate Bill 1317 specifically includes cleanups at sites where petroleum
has been discharged or released from underground storage tanks. There is no mention of this law~·
impacting variances. The standards that the Environmental Management Commission must meet in order "'-~
to grant variances are found in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) l 43-2 l 5.3(e). Senate Bill 1317 does
not mention this statute nor does it effect any actions taken by the Environmental Management Commission
pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3(e).
In addition to reviewing this issue for the Goodwill Industries of the Southern Peidmont, the
Groundwater Section has also examined other variances to determine if they are "Class CDE pursuant to
Senate Bill 1317. The only site that we have identified as being impacted by the legislation is the Unocal
Corporation site at 4336 Park Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident Number 3633).
Groundwater Section staff have identified three courses of action that the Unocal Corporation can take that
will result in a corrective action plan that will satisfy the requirements the 15A NCAC 2L rules. These options
are shown as follows:
1) The Unocal Corporation could withdraw the variance for Groundwater Incident#
3633 and wait until a risk assessment rule has been established. Senate Bill 1317
requires that by October 1, 1997 the Environmental Management Commission
adopt a rule to implement the requirements of NCGS l 43-2 l 5.94V(b). Please note
that the deferment of cleanup requirements is a temporary, not a permanent
deferment. It is not known at this time what requirements will be included in a new
risk based rule. It must be further noted that if a risk assessment were conducted
at this site and it showed that conditions are such that the site posses a higher risk
than that of a site ranked Class CDE, this may result in a re-ranking to Class AB
status. A higher ranking at a site may result in the reinstatement of active
groundwater and/ or soil remediation. A risk assessment may also result in the
necessity for expanded groundwater and soil monitoring requirements. After a risk
2
DRAn-
these three scenarios, it must be in accordance with a new rule approved by the Environmental
Management Commission. The most recent site information will need to be submitted in accordance to the
requirements of the rule. At this time no risk assessment rule has been p rop osed by the Division of Water
Quality.
The Groundwater Section staff has been in the process of completing the activities necessary to
bring this variance to public notice and hearing. The Groundwater Section would like to know in writing if
the Unocal Corporation desires to continue pursuing a variance for Groundwater Incident Number 3633 at
this time so that we can arrange a public hearing and send notices pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113. If
possible, we would like to receive your response by September 20, 1996. Upon the completion of the
hearing officers report and recommendation, this variance will be sent to the Environmental Management
Commission for review and final action. Please send your response to Mr. David Hance, P.O. Box 29578,
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578 {phone: [phone]; fax [phone]}.
Information from the Mooresville Regional Office shows that all other sites for which variances have
been requested through S& ME Incorporated, are "Class AB" in accordance with the legislation and are
not impacted by legislative changes made during the 1996 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Staff are reviewing the information submitted for these variance requests. li you have any new information
that will change the priority ranking of any of these sites to Class C, D, or E, or have questions concerning
this letter, please feel free to contact myself at [phone] or Mr. Hance.
AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Allen Schiff
David Hance
A. Wayne Holt (Unocal Corporation)
Sincerely,
Arthur Mouberry, P.E.,
Chief, Groundwater
Section
4
. .. If regional office Groundwater Section staff modify or
rescind a soil remediation (SR) type Non-Discharge
permit, the change in permit status will be noted on
DWQ's permit compliance database.
If you feel that the proposed procedures need modification,
or that we need to discuss this matter, please advise.
cc: Harlan Britt
Arthur Mouberry
Steve Tedder
Ted Bush
Burrie Boshoff
\SB-1317.WQS
-
, I
...
Tennessee's right to be heard on certain aspects of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit was substantially impaired, was sufficient under_ lS0B-43 to qualify
petitioner as an "aggrieved person" for purposes of appeal of issuance of Commission's consent
special order with corporation. In addition, where the consent special order contained provisions
substantially identical to provisions which petitioner opposed in the proposed NPDES permit,
which affected the property rights of the petitioner in the'Pigeon River, these allegations also
established petitioner's "aggrieved person" status. State ex rel. Tenn. Dep't of Health & Env't v.
Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 78 N.C. App. 763, 338 S.E.2d 781 (1986).
Case challenging a consent special order entered into by Commission and a corporation, which
order was alleged to intrude upon the NPDES permit process (which process requires a hearing),
was "contested" for the purposes of_ 150B-43. State ex rel. Tenn. Dep't of Health & Env't v.
Environmental Mgt. Comm'n, 78 N.C. App. 763,.338 S.E.2d 781 (1986).
Quoted in Scarborough v. Adams, 264 N.C. 631, 142 S.E.2d 608 (1965).
§ 143-215.3. General powers of Commission and Department; auxiliary powers.
(a) Additional Powers. -In addition to the specific powers prescribed elsewhere in this
Article, and for the purpose of carrying out its duties, the Commission shall have the power:
(1) To make rules implementing Articles 21, 21A, 21B, or 38 of this Chapter.
(la) To charge fees for the following:
a. Processing of applications for permits or registrations issued under Articles 21, 21A,
21B, and 38 of this Chapter;
b. Administering permits or registrations issued under Articles 21, 21A, 21B, or 38 of this
Chapter including monitoring compliance with the terms of those permits; and
c. Reviewing, processing, and publicizing applications for construction gra!}t awards under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. ·
No fee may be charged under this provision, however, to a farmer who submits an
application that pertains to his farming operations.
(lb) The fee to be charged pursuant to G.S. 143-215.J(a)(la) for processing of an application
for a permit under G.S. 143-215.1 of Article 21 and G.S. 143-215.108 and G.S. 143-
215.109 of Article 21B of this Chapter may not exceed four hundred dollars ($400.00). The
fee to be charged pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(la) for processing a registration under Part
2A of this Article or Article 38 of this Chapter may not exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) for
any single registration. An additional fee of twenty percent (20%) of the registration
processing fee may be assessed for a late registration under Article 38 of this Chapter. The
fee for administering and compliance monitoring under G.S. 143-215.1 of Article 21 and
G.S. 143-215.108 and G.S. 143-215.109 of Article 21B shall be charged on an annual basis
for each year of the permit term and may not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,500) per year. Fees for processing all permits under Article 21A and all other sections
of Articles 21 and 21B shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for any single
permit. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, the total payment for fees
required for all permits under this subsection for any single facility shall not exceed seven
thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per year, which amount shall include all application
fees and fees for administration and compliance monitoring. A single facility is defined to
be any contiguous area under one ownership and in which permitted activities occur. For
all permits issued under these Articles where a fee schedule is not specified in the statutes,
the Commission, or other commission specified by statute shall adopt a fee schedule in a
rule following the procedures established by the Administrative Procedure Act. Such fee
schedules shall be established to reflect the size of the emission or discharge, the potential
impact on the environment, the staff costs involved, relative costs of the issuance of new
permits and the reissuance of existing permits, and shall include adequate safeguards to
prevent unusual fee assessments which would result in serious economic burden on an
individual applicant. A system shall be considered to allow consolidated annual payments
...
for persons with multiple permits. In its rulemaking to establish fee schedules, the
Commission is also directed to consider a method of rewarding facilities which achieve full
compliance with administrative and self-monitoring reporting requirements, and to
consider, in those cases where the cost of renewal or amendment of a permit is less than
for the original permit, a lower fee for such renewal or amendment.
(le) Moneys collected pursuant· to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(la) shall be used to:
a. Eliminate, insofar as possible, backlogs of permit applications awaiting agency action;
b. Improve the quality of permits issued;
c. Improve the rate of compliance of permitted activities with environmental standards;
and
d. Decrease the length of the processing period for permit applications.
(ld) The Commission may adopt and implement a graduated fee schedule sufficient to cover
all direct and indirect costs required for the State to develop and administer a permit
program which meets the requirements of Title V. The provisions of subdivision (lb) of
this subsection do not apply to the adoption of a fee schedule under this subdivision. In
adopting and implementing a fee schedule, the Commission shall require that the owner or
operator of all air contaminant sources subject to the requirement to obtain a permit under
Title V to pay an annual fee, or the equivalent over some other period, sufficient to cover
costs as provided in section 502(b)(3)(A) of Title V. The fee schedule shall be adopted
according to the pro~edures set out in Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.
a. The total amount of fees collected under the fee schedule adopted· pursuant to this
subdivision shall conform to the requirements of section 502(b)(3)(B) of Title V. No
fee shall be collected for more than 4,000 tons per year of any individual regulated
pollutant, as defined in section 502(b)(3)(B)(ii) of Title V, emitted by any source. Fees
collected pursuant to this -subdivision shall be credited to the Title V Account.
b. The Commission may reduce any permit fee required under this section to take into
account the financial resources of small business stationary sources as defined under
Title V and regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
c. When funds in the Title V Account exceed the total amount necessary to cover the cost
of the Title V program for the next fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the amount
billed for the next fiscal year so that the excess funds are used to supplement the cost
of administering the Title V permit program in that fiscal year.
(2) To direct that such investigation be conducted as it may reasonably deem necessary to
carry out its duties as prescribed by this Article or Article 21B of this Chapter, and for
this purpose to enter at reasonable times upon any property, public or private, for the
purpose of investigating the condition of any waters and the discharge therein of any
sewage, industrial waste or other waste or for the purpose of investigating the condition of
the air, air pollution, air contaminant sources, emissions or the installation and operation
of any air-cleaning devices, and to require written statements or the filing of reports
under oath, with respect to pertinent questions relating to the opera,tion of any air-
cleaning device, sewer system, disposal system or treatment works: Provided that any
records, reports or information obtained under Articles 21, 21A and 21B (i) shall, in the
case of effluent or emission data, be related to any applicable effluent or emission
limitations, toxic, pretreatment or new source performance standards, and (ii) shall be
available to the public except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Commission by any
person that records, reports or information or particular part thereof (other than effluent
or emission data or information necessary to determine compliance with standards adopted
pursuant to Article 21B of this Chapter), to which the Commission has access under these
Articles, if made public would divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as trade
secrets pursuant to G.S. 132-1.2, the Commission shall consider such record, report or
information, or particular portion thereof confidential, except that such record or
information may be disclosed to any officer, employee, or authorized representative of any
federal or state agency if disclosure is necessary to carry out a proper function of the
Department or other agency, or when relevant in any proceeding under this Article or
Article 21A or Article 21B of this Chapter. The Commission shall provide for adequate
notice to the party submitting the information of any decision that such information is not
entitled to confidential treatment and of any decision to release information which the
submitting party contends is entitled to confidential treatment. No person shall refuse
entry or access to any authorized representative of the Commission or Department who
requests entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor
shall any person obstruct; hamper or interfere with any such representative while in the
process of carrying out his official duties.
(3) To conduct public hearings and to delegate the power to conduct public hearings in
accordance with the procedures prescribed by this Article or by Article 21B of this
Chapter.
(4) To delegate such of the powers of the Commission as the Commission deems necessary to
one or more of its members, to the Secretary or any other qualified employee of the
Department; provided, that the provisions of any such delegation of power shall be set
forth in the rules of the Commission; and provided further that the Commission shall not
delegate to persons other than its own members and the designated employees of the
Department the power to conduct hearings with respect to the classification of waters, the
assignment of classifications, air quality standards, air contaminant source classifications,
emission control standards, or the issuance of any special order except in the case of an
emergency under subdivision (12) of this subsection for the abatement of existing water or
air pollution. Any employee of the Department to whom a delegation of power is made to
conduct a hearing shall report the hearing with its evidence and record to the Commission.
(5) To institute such actions in the superior court of any county in which a violation of this
Article, Article 21B of this Chapter, or the rules of the Commission has occurred, or, in
the discretion of the Commission, in the superior court of the county in w~ich any
defendant resides, or has his or its principal place of business, as the Commission may
deem necessary for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Article, Article 21B of
this Chapter, or of any official action of the Commission, including proceedings to enforce
subpoenas or for the punishment of contempt of the Commission.
(6) To agree upon or enter into any settlements or compromises of any actions and to
prosecute any appeals or other proceedings.
(7) To direct the investigation of any killing of fish and wildlife which, in the opinion of the
Commission, is of sufficient magnitude to justify investigation and is known or believed to
have resulted from the pollution of the waters or air as defjned in this Article, and
whenever any person, whether or not he shall have been issued a certificate of approval,
permit or other document of approval authorized by this or any other State law, has
negligently, or carelessly or unlawfully, or willfully and· unlawfully, caused pollution of
the waters or air as defined in this Article, in such quantity, concentration or manner that
fish or wildlife are killed as the result thereof, the Commission, may recover, in the name
of the State, damages from such person. The measure of damages shall be the amount
determined by the Department and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
whichever has jurisdiction over the fish and wildlife destroyed to be the replacement cost
thereof plus the cost of all reasonable and necessary investigations made or caused to be
made by the State in connection therewith. Upon receipt of the estimate of damages
caused, the Department shall notify the persons responsible for the destruction of the fish
or wildlife in question and may effect such settlement as the Commission may deem
proper and reasonable, and if no settlement is reached within a reasonable time, the
Commission shall bring a civil action to recover such damages in the superior court in the
county in which the discharge took place. Upon such action being brought the superior
court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues or questions of law or fact,
arising on the pleadings, including issues of liability and the amount of damages. On such
hearing, the estimate of the replacement costs of the fish or wildlife destroyed shall be
prima facie evidence of the actual replacement costs of such fish or wildlife. In arriving at
such estimate, any reasonably accurate method may be used and it shall not be necessary
forany agent of the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department to collect, handle or
weigh numerous specimens of dead fish or wildlife.
The State of North Carolina shall be deemed the owner of the fish or wildlife killed and
all actions for recovery shall be brought by the Commission on behalf of the State as the
owner of the fish or wildlife. The fact that the person or persons alleged to be responsible
for the pollution which killed the fish or wildlife holds or has held a certificate of
approval, permit or other document of approval authorized by this Article or any other
law of the State shall not bar any such action. The proceeds of any recovery, less the cost
of investigation, shall be used to replace, insofar as and as promptly as possible, the fish
and-wildlife killed, or in cases where replacement is not practicable, the proceeds shall be
used in whatever manner the responsible agency deems proper for improving the fish and
wildlife habitat in question. Any such funds received are hereby appropriated for these
designated purposes. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed in any way to limit or
prevent any other action which is now authorized by this Article.
(8) After issuance of an appropriate order, to withhold the granting of any permit or permits
pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1 or G.S. 143-215.108 for the construction or operation of any
new or additional disposal system or systems or air-cleaning device or devices in any area
of the State. Such order may be issued only upon determination by the Commission, after
public hearing, that the permitting of any new or additional source or sources of water or
air pollution will result in a generalized condition of water or air pollution within the area
contrary to the public interest, detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and
contrary to the policy and intent declared in this Article or Article 21B of this Chapter.
The Commission may make reasonable distinctions among the various sources of water and
air pollution and may direct that its order shall apply only to those sources which it
determines will result in a generalized condition of water or air pollution ..
The determination of the Commission shall be supported by detailed findings of fact and
conclusions set forth in the order and based upon competent evidence of record. The order
shall describe the geographical area of the State affected thereby with particularity and
shall prohibit the issuance of permits pending a determination by the Commission that the
generalized condition of water or air pollution has ceased.
Notice of hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 15013-21.2.
A person aggrieved by an order of the Commission under this subdivision may seek
judicial review of the order under Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes
without first commencing a contested case. An order may not be stayed while it is being
reviewed.
(9) If an investigation conducted pursuant to this Article or Article 21B of this Chapter
reveals a violation of any rules, standards, or limitations adopted by the Commission
pursuant to this Article or Article 21B of this Chapter, or a violation of any terms or
conditions of any permit issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1 or 143-215.108, or special
order or other document issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.2 or G.S. 143-215.110, the
Commission may assess the reasonable costs of any investigation, inspection or monitoring
survey which revealed the violation against the person responsible therefor. If the violation
resulted in an unauthorized discharge to the waters or atmosphere of the State, the
Commission may also assess the person responsible for the violation for any actual and
necessary costs incurred by the State in removing, correcting or abating any adverse
effects upon the water or air resulting from the unauthorized discharge. If the person _
responsible for the violation refuses or fails within a reasonable time to pay any sums
assessed, the Commission may institute a civil action in the superior court of the county in
which the violation occurred or, in the Commission's discretion, in the superior court of
the county in which such person resides or has his or its principal place of business, to
recover such sums.
(10) To require a laboratory facility that performs any tests, analyses, measurements, or
monitoring required under this Article or Article 21B of this Chapter to be certified
annually by the Department, to establish standards that a laboratory facility and its
employees must meet and maintain in order for the laboratory facility to be certified, and
to charge a laboratory facility a fee for certification. Fees collected under this subdivision
shall be credited to the Water and Air Account and used to administer this subdivision.
These fees shall be applied to the cost of certifying commercial, industrial, and municipal
laboratory facilities.
(11) Repealed by Session Laws 1983, c. 296, s. 6.
(12) To declare an emergency when it finds that a generalized condition of water or air .
pollution which is causing imminent danger to the health or safety of the public.
Regardless of any other provisions of law, if the Department finds that such a condition of
water or air pollution exists and that it creates an emergency requiring immediate action to
protect the public health and safety or to protect fish and wildlife, the Secretary of the
Department with the concurrence of the Governor, shall order persons causing or
contributing to the water or air pollution in question to reduce or discontinue immediately
the emission of air contaminants or the discharge of wastes. Immediately after the issuance
of such order, the chairman of the Commission shall fix a place and time for a hearing
before the Commission to be held within 24 hours after issuance of such order, and within
24 hours after the commencement of such hearing, and without adjournment thereof, the
Commission shall either affirm, modify or set aside the order.
In the absence of a generalized condition of air or water pollution of the type referred to
above, if the Secretary finds that the emissions from one or more air contaminant sources
or the discharge of wastes from one or more sources of water pollution is causing
imminent danger to human health and safety or to fish and wildlife, he may with the
concurrence of the Governor order the person or persons responsible for the operation or
operations in question to immediately reduce or discontinue the emissions of air
contaminants or the discharge of wastes or to take such other measures as are, in his
judgment, necessary, without regard to any other provisions of this Article or Article 21B
of this Chapter. In such event, the requirements for hearing and affirmance, modification
or setting aside of such orders set forth in the preceding paragraph of this subdivision shall
apply.
(13) Repealed by Session Laws 1983, c. 296, s. 6.
(14) To certify and approve, by appropriate delegations and conditions in permits required by
G.S. 143-215.1, requests by publicly owned treatment works to implement, administer and
enforce a pretreatment program for the control of pollutants which pass through or
interfere with treatment processes in such treatment works; and to require such programs
to be developed where necessary to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including the addition of conditions
and compliance schedules in permits required by G.S. 143-215.1. Pretreatment programs
submitted by publicly owned treatment works shall include, at a minimum, the adoption of
pretreatment standards, a permit or equally effective system for the control of pollutants
contributed to the treatment works, and the ability to effectively enforce compliance with
the program.
(15) To adopt rules for the prevention of pollution from underground tanks containing
petroleum, petroleum products, or hazardous substances. Rules adopted under this section
may incorporate standards and restrictions which exceed and are more comprehensive than
comparable federal regulations.
(16) To adopt rules limiting the manufacture, storage, sale, distribution or use of cleaning
agents containing phosphorus pursuant to G.S. 143-214.4(e), and to. adopt rules limiting the
manufacture, storage, sale, distribution or use of cleaning agents containing nitrilotriacetic
acid.
(17) To adopt rules to implement Part 2A of Article 21A of Chapter 143.
(b) Research Functions. -The Department shall have the power to conduct scientific
experiments, research, and investigations to discover economical and practical corrective methods
for air pollution and waste disposal problems. To this end, the Department may cooperate with
any public or private agency or agencies in the coi:iduct of such experiments, research, and
investigations, and may, when funds permit, establish research studies in any North Carolina
educational institution, with the consent of such institution. In addition, the Department shall
have the power to cooperate and enter into contracts with technical divisions of State agencies,
institutions and with municipalities, industries, and other persons in the execution of such
surveys, studies, and research as it may deem necessary in fulfilling its functions under this
Article or Article 21B of this Chapter. All State departments shall advise with and cooperate with
the Department on matters of mutual interest.
(c) Relation with the Federal Government. -The Commission as official water and air
pollution control agency for the State is delegated to act in local administration of all matters
covered by any existing federal statutes and future legislation by Congress relating to water and
air quality controj. In order for the State of North Carolina to effectively participate in programs
administered by federal agencies for the regulation and abatement of water and air pollution, the
Department is authorized to accept and administer funds provided by federal agencies for water
and air pollution programs and to enter into contracts with federal agencies regarding the use of
such funds.
(d) Relations with Other States. -The Commission or the Department may, with the approval
of the Governor, consult with qualified representatives of adjoining states relative to the
establishment of regulations for the protection of waters and. air of mutual interest, but the
approval of the General Assembly shall be required to make any regulations binding.
(e) Variances. -Any person subject to the provisions of G.S. 143-c215.1 or 143-215.108 may
apply to the Commission for a variance from rules, standards, or limitations established pursuant
to G.S. 143-214.l, 143-215, or 143-215.107. The Commission may grant such variance, for fixed
or indefinite periods after public hearing on due notice, or where it is found that circumstances so
require, for a period not to exceed 90 days without prior hearing and notice. Prior to granting a
variance hereunder, the Commission shall find that:
(1) The discharge of waste or the emission of aiq:ontaminants occurring or proposed to occur
do not endanger human health or safety; and
(2) Compliance with the rules, standards, or limitations from which variance is sought cannot
be achieved by application of best available technology found to be economically
reasonable at the time of application for such variances, and would produce serious
hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public, provided that such variances shall
be consistent with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended or
the Clean Air Act as amended; and provided further, that any person who would otherwise
be entitled to a variance or modification under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended or the Clean Air Act as amended shall also be entitled to the same variance from
or modification in rules, standards, or limitations established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1,
143-215, and 143-215.107, respectively.
(1951, c. 606; .1957, c. 1267, s. 3; 1959, c. 779, s. 8; 1963, c. 1086; 1967, c. 892, s. 1; 1969, c. 538;
1971, c. 1167, ss. 7, 8; 1973, c. 698, ss. 1-7, 9, 17; c. 712, s. 1; c. 1262, ss. 23, 86; c. 1331, s. 3;
1975, c. 583, ss. 5, 6; c. 655, s. 3; 1977, c. 771, s. 4; 1979, c. 633, ss. 6-8; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1158,
ss. 1, 3, 4; 1983, c. 296, ss. 5-8; 1985, c. 551, s. 2; 1987, c. 111, s. 2; c. 767~ s. 1; c. 827, ss. 1, 154,
161, 266; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1035, s. 2; 1989, c. 500, s. 122; c. 652, s. l; 1991, c. 552, ss. 2,
11; c. 712, s. 2; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 890, s. 16; c. 1039, ss. 14, 20.1; 1993, c. 344, s. 2; c. 400,
ss. l(c), 2, 3, 15; c. 496, s. 4.)
Cross References. -As to powers and duties of the Environmental Management Commission
under the North Carolina Well Construction Act, see§§ 87-83 to 87-96.
As to powers and duties of the commission with regard to water resources, see§ 143-354.
Editor's Note. -Session Laws 1989, c. 652, which amended this section, ins. 15 repealed Session
Laws 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1035, s. 4, which provided that the provisions of the act as they
related to any discharge or release of petroleum from an underground storage tank would apply
1 of 1
Subject: Variance -Mid 2007 Town of Woodland Update/ Did we ever get the Town to withdraw the variance request
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:45:23 -0400
To: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Martin,
Below you will observe some email traffic between you and me back in November 2006. As you know, variance for a well and compliance boundary issue
is no longer being pursued by the Town of Woodland. They need to get us a memo to withdraw the variance request. I know you have had many
conversations with the staff there on this. Once we get a memorandum from them, stating that they are no longer pursing a variance, we can close out our
files here in the Planning Section.
Question: Any progress on this matter?
Call me if you have questions on this email or need to be re-oriented about this. It has been a while.
David Hance
Env. Spec.
DWQ -Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
*********************************************************************••······••**********************************************
*********************************~•································································
Martin Richmond wrote:
David -just wanted to Jet you know I'm heading up to Woodland tomorrow for an annual inspection .. .I'll get this taken care of promptly. Martin
David Hance wrote:
Martin :
Here is something that my help you in getting what you need from the town.
See the attached file in word. Note that the information shown in bold and italic type is to be inserted by the person writing the Jetter. It is a
template for a person who wants to withdraw a variance request. The Name of the Facility is "Town of Woodland".
Call me at 919-733-5083 x . 587 if you have any questions.
david hance
planning section
7/6/2007 3:46 PM
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Variance: Town of Woodland/Something that may move the withdrawal of that variance
along
From: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:57:06 -0500
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
David -just wanted to let you know I'm heading up to Woodland tomorrow for an annual
inspection ... I'll get this taken care of promptly. Martin
David Hance wrote:
Martin:
Here is something that my help you in getting what you need from the town.
See the attached file in word. Note that the information shown in bold and italic
type is to be inserted by the person writing the letter. It is a template for a
person who wants to withdraw a variance request. The Name of the Facility is "Town
of Woodland".
Call me at 919-733-5083 x. 587 if you have any questions.
david hance
planning section
Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality
Hn/2006 9:55 AM
vanance: Town 01 wooaianw.::>omecrnng mm may move me wunuraw ...
1 of 1
Subject: Variance: Town of Woodland/Something that may move the withdrawal of that variance along
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:09:59 -0400
To: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
CC: J [e-mail]
Martin:
Here is something that my help you in getting what you need from ·the town.
See the attached file in word. Note that the information shown in bold and italic
type is to be inserted by the person writing the letter. It is a template for a
person who wants to withdraw a variance request. The Name of the Facility is "Town of
Woodland".
Call me at 919-733-5083 x. 587 if you have any questions.
david hance
planning section I . =_==========_===;1=c=o=n=te=n=t~-T-y_p_e_:-=a=p=p=li=c=at=io~w-m-sw-o~r1~
i',,,. MockVananceWithdrawal-company&perm1ttee.doc1 . b 6 I Content-Encodmg: ase 4
j ···-·····--
10/2/2006 5:10 PM
.l'i..C::; V dlldlll:C:: .:)ldlU:S: 1 UWU Ul VY UUUli:lHU
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Variance Status: Town of Woodland
From: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:09:19 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
David,
I thought they sent something ... I'll check our files and check with them. I remember
talking to the attorney about replacing the well i.e. 2L vs. 2H and adjacent property
purchase and drilling and all that ... and I remember talking about withdrawing the
variance request. I'll have update soon ... Martin
David Hance wrote:
Martin:
What is the status of this variance? Last I remember the regional office was going
to get a memo from the City attorney to withdrawl this request.
dh
Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality
9/25/2006 1:18 PM
Mock Variance Withdrawal Letter
(Company or Permittee Letterhead)
David Hance
Environmental Specialist II
NCDENR -DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(Date and Year)
Regarding: Withdrawal of Request for Variance: (Name of Site)
Incident Number or Permit Number(s))
(Street address of site and/or facility)
(Town or City, County), North Carolina,
Dear Mr. Hance:
(Responsible Party or Permittee) requests that the (Date of Variance Request Sent to the
D WQ Director) 'Request for Variance under 15A NCAC 2L .0113' submitted for the referenced site
be withdrawn. (D WQ Aquifer Protection Section Supervisor's name) indicated in (correspondence
and/or discussions) dated on (date) that a variance was not as appropriate as (briefly discuss other
actions that are to be taken at the site or permitted operation to address the condition in lieu of
going with a variance). We concur with this view and do not believe that a variance is in the best
interest of the State or (Responsible Party or Permittee) to follow through with variance procedures.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at your convenience.
cc: (Responsible Party orPermittee Supervisor)
(DWQ-APS Regional Supervisor)
(Lead D WQ-APS Section Staff Person)
Ted Bush
(Other Appropriate State Staff)
Sincerely yours,
(Responsible Party or Permittee
Project Manager)
1
I of 1
Subject: town of woodland
From: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:11:30 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Hey David,
I got your voice mail from two weeks (!) ago ... sorry to be late getting back with
you. I checked with the Town of Woodland (i.e. the town attorney) and asked if
they had sent you anything about un-requesting the variance. He said 'I thought
you were doing that'.
I haven't dealt with them much since the issue was up a few months ago ... a tribute
to the Town and their well-run operation. We've got plenty of desk time now (with
no travel allowed), so I'm on it ...
I'll try and check back with you next week and make sure everything is on the way.
Sorry for the delay. Call with questions 791-4243
Thanks,
Martin
Martin Richmond <martin.richmond @ncmail.net>
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality
9/15/2005 2:30 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: regarding: Town of Woodland Variance Request -reply to your 5/16/05 email
From: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:29:47 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
David,
I want to touch base about the Town of Woodland Variance request.
twice and talked with the Town Attorney, one Mr. Charles Vaughn.
Right now they are trying to purchase some additional land at the
enough for them to install a WSW outside the compliance boundary.
nothing easy involved with this process. I asked the attorney to
letter saying the variance is no longer desired.
I've met with the ORC
front of the facility,
Needless to say, there's
go ahead and send us a
Like a good attorney, he said 'send everything you just told me in writing, and I'll
respond appropriately'. I'm going back to Northampton County next week and plan on
dropping off some info. I think you can expect a letter from them in the next few weeks
withdrawing their request for a variance.
Let me know if you need anything, or have any comments ...
Thanks,
Martin,
David Hance wrote:
Martin,
I would be good for the Division to have a withdrawai letter. Back in 1998, a previous
applicant with a substandard variance proposal tried to tie up the Division in court
over a request that they claimed we had not acted on. We had the letter and mailing
record that they had received something from us stating the the variance request did not
meet the criteria of Rule .0113. That was the leverage the attorneys at the AGO needed
to resolve this quickly.
So it helps to have a withdrawal letter formally stating that they are no longer seeking
a variance request. Note that the submission of a withdrawal letter does not keep them
from applying for a new variance at that location or another location in the future .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
*****************************************************************************************
Martin Richmond wrote:
David,
I did an inspection at the Town of Woodland back
with Robbie Collier about the water supply well.
that getting the information together to support
complicated and too costly, especially with much
open -ended) .
on April 27, and talked at length
I think the Town has decided a
the variance would be too
of the proposed cost unknown {or
They have contacted the estate of the neighboring property owner and have begun
trying to make purchase of the adjacent property. However, in discussing this with
Robbie Collier, it became apparent they were trying to comply with the Permit, which
states there must be a 100-foot buffer between wetted areas and water supply wells.
*There is no mention of the 2L Standard requirement that no wells may be located in
the Compliance Boundary.* I had to explain (even this far into the process) that we
were dealing with two different regulations here ... the 2H regs {with the 100 foot
boundary} and the 2L regs {which prohibit WSW in the CB).
They were about to contract and purchase property which would give them over 100 feet
from the spray area, but still would have left them within the CB. I'm going back up
this week to review the survey plat with them, and make sure they understand the
6/23/2005 2:36 PM
2 of2
difference between a buffer and a Compliance Boundary. They are going to incorporate
the Compliance Boundary requirement into their plans to purchase ...
So I guess the answer is: they are pretty much abandoning the variance request.
Here's a question: do they need to formally withdraw the variance request? ...
Thanks,
Martin
David Hance wrote:
Hello Martin,
Back on April 11th you reported to me that the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO) Aquifer Protection Section (APS) would be doing field work in Northhampton
County in late April 2005 and that this work would also involve follow up on a
variance request by the Town of Woodland.
Could you provide me a status update of that variance request? Is the town
still interested in a variance or have they decided to take some other action? Has
any correspondence be sent/received by the RRO -APS since our last email?
Please let me know.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
Martin Richmond <martin.richmond(iljncmail.net>
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality
6/23/2005 2:36 PM
1'..C. 1c;;g<1.1uu1g. 1 UWH Ul YV UUU1<1.11U V auam.c J.'\.\;;'lU"'"· -1,;;p1y •v JUUI •••
I of2
• Subject: Re: regarding: Town of Woodland Variance Request -reply to your 5/16/05 email
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
•Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:02:27 -0400
To: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Martin,
I would be good for the Division to have a withdrawal letter. Back in 1998, a previous
applicant with a substandard variance proposal tried to tie up the Division in court
over a request that they claimed we had not acted on. We had the letter and mailing
record that they had received something from us stating the the variance request did not
meet the criteria of Rule .0113. That was the leverage the attorneys at the AGO needed
to resolve this quickly.
So it helps to have a withdrawal letter formally stating that they are no longer seeking
a variance request. Note that the submission of a withdrawal letter does not keep them
from applying for a new variance at that location or another location in the future.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning
733-5083 x. 587
******************************************************************************************
Martin Richmond wrote:
David, •
I did an inspection at the Town of Woodland back on April 27, and talked at length
with Robbie Collier about the water supply well. I think the Town has decided a that
getting the information together to support the variance would be too complicated and
too costly, especially with much of the proposed cost unknown (or open-ended).
They have contacted the estate of the neighboring property owner and have begun trying
to make purchase of the adjacent property. However, in discussing this with Robbie
Collier, it became apparent they were trying to comply with the Permit, which states
there must be a 100-foot buffer between wetted areas and water supply wells. *There
is no mention of the 2L Standard requirement that no wells may be located in the
Compliance Boundary.* I had to explain (even this far into the process) that we were
dealing with two different regulations here ... the 2H regs (with the 100 foot boundary)
and the 2L regs (which prohibit WSW in the CB).
They were about to contract and purchase property which would give them over 100 feet
from the spray area, but still would have left them within the CB. I'm going back up
this week to review the survey plat with them, and make sure they understand the
difference between a buffer and a Compliance Boundary. They are going to incorporate
the Compliance Boundary requirement into their plans to purchase ...
So I guess the answer is: they are pretty much abandoning the variance request.
Here's a question: do they need to formally withdraw the variance request? ...
Thanks,
Martin
David Hance wrote:
Hello Martin,
Back on April 11th you reported to me that the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office (RRO)
Aquifer Protection Section (APS) would be doing field work in Northhampton County
in late April 2005 and that this work would also involve follow up on a variance
request by the Town of Woodland.
Could you provide me a status update of that variance request? Is the town still
interested in a variance or have they decided to take some other action? Has any
5/16/2005 1:03 PM
Ke: regaramg: 1 own or w oomana v anance Kequest -rep1y to your ...
2 of2
correspondence be sent/received by the RRO -APS since our last email?
Please let me know.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
5/16/2005 1 :03 PM
Ke: regarumg: 1uwn or vvuumanu vanarn,;e KequesL -upuate 10r m ...
2 of2
Martin Richmond <[e-mail]> ,
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality
5/16/2005 12:50 PM
1 of2
Subject: Re: regarding: Town of Woodland Variance Request -Update for the DWQ Planning
Section
"From: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:23:56 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: J [e-mail], Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
David,
I did an inspection at the Town of Woodland back
with Robbie Collier about the water supply well.
that getting the information together to support
complicated and too costly, especially with much
open -ended) .
on April 27, and talked at length
I think the Town has decided a
the variance would be too
of the proposed cost unknown (or
They have contacted the estate of the neighboring property owner and have begun
trying to make purchase of the adjacent property. However, in discussing this with
Robbie Collier, it became apparent they were trying to comply with the Permit,
which states there must be a 100-foot buffer between wetted areas and water supply
wells. *There is no mention of the 2L Standard requirement that no wells may be
located in the Compliance Boundary.* I had to explain (even this far into the
process) that we were dealing with two different regulations here ... the 2H regs
(with the 100 foot boundary) and the 2L regs (which prohibit WSW in the CB).
They were about to contract and purchase property which would give them over 100
feet from the spray area, but still would have left them within the CB. I'm going
back up this week to review the survey plat with them, and make sure they
understand the difference between a buffer and a Compliance Boundary. They are
going to incorporate the Compliance Boundary requirement into their plans to
purchase ...
So I guess the answer is: they are pretty much abandoning the variance request .
Here's a question: do they need to formally withdraw the variance request? ...
Thanks,
Martin
David Hance wrote:
Hello Martin,
Back on April 11th you reported to me that the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
(RRO) Aquifer Protection Section (APS) would be doing field work in Northhampton
County in late April 2005 and that this work would also involve follow up on a
variance request by the Town of Woodland.
Could you provide me a status update of that variance request? Is the town
still interested in a variance or have they decided to take some other action?
Has any correspondence be sent/received by the RRO -APS since our last email?
Please let me know.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 X. 587
5/16/2005 I :02 PM
.I.'-"-"• J."-"E,UJ.Ull.l,0• J.Vl'Y.l.l V.1. Y'f VVUJ.UJ..IU l' U.11Ul.l"-""-" .l.'-"-"'1U'-'~" -"--'puu.1,.""" .LV.1. u..1. •••
2 of2
Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality
5/16/2005 1:02 PM
regarmng: 1 own or w oomanu v ,man1;1:: ~t:4ut:M -upumt: iur mt: ...
I of I
Subject: regarding: Town of Woodland Variance Request -Update for the DWQ Planning Section
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11: 13 :35 -0400
To: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
CC: J [e-mail], Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
Hello Martin,
Back on April 11th you reported to me that the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office (RRO)
Aquifer Protection Section (APS) would be doing field work in Northhampton County
in late April 2005 and that this work would also involve follow up on a variance
request by the Town of Woodland.
Could you provide me a status update of that variance request? Is the town still
interested in a variance or have they decided to take some other action? Has any
correspondence be sent/received by the RRO -APS since our last email?
Please let me know.
David Hance
Env. Spec. II
DWQ-Planning Section
733-5083 x. 587
5/13/2005 11:13 AM
J.'-.~. LI-' WU. V aJlWl\.,'I;;,. upuaL~ .l'-~'iu~.:,l.\,.,U V.l.l .1. VVV.l.l U.1. VY UUU.IUHUJ
1 of 1
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland]
From: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:40:23 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
I •ve seen this well. It I s located between the waste lagoons and the spray field ( ! ) ...
I'm scheduling a Northampton County inspection run for later this month, and will probably start with, Woodland. we•ll have an update on your
questions shortly ....
Martin
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Martin:
Fram now on I will keep in touch with Martin Richmond on this and 'cc' you Jay on any emails/correspondence.
I will check back in early July 2005 if: (1) I do not hear of anything new from the RRO; (2) the company does not withdraw the request; or
(2) no new information on the variance request comes available between now and then.
david hance
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( (
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
Martin
can you follow up on this for me. Rick had taken the lead initially but has had limited time to followup. The Town has a water supply
well inside the CB and the permit required abandonment. The petition for a variance from the rule at 2L .0107 (d) prohibiting the well
and we sent a letter back asking for more info. See me if any ques.tions. They either need to pursue the variance or abandon the well
as required by the permit.
Jay - ----- - - - - ----------- - - - - - - - - ------------- - - ---------------- - -----------
Subject:
Variance: Update Requested on Town of woodland
From:
David Hance <[e-mail]:>
Date:
Fri. 08 Apr 2005 11: so= 40 -0400
To:
Jay Zimmerman <j a )r . zimmerman@ncmai l ~
To:
Jay Zitmnerman :;j a y [e-mail]>
cc,
Jeff Manning <j eff.manning @ncmail.net>
Jay,
It has been sometime since we talked about this. I have not seen any response from the Town with regards to your letter on the variance
from July 2004 or any copies of additional correspondence from the Region on this. Here are some questions:
1. Has the Raleigh Regional Office received anything new?
2. Will this variance go forward?
3. Does the town intend to withdraw the variance and pursue another avenue?
Last time we spoke, Rick Bolich with the RRO was your lead staff on this - i think.
If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 and I am in the Archdale Bldg. in Room 625k.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section CSU
Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Qualily
4/11/2005 9:54 AM
Lrwu : variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland]
I of I
Subject: [Fwd: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:10:20 -0400
To: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Martin
Can you follow up on this for me. Rick had taken the lead initially but has had
limited time to followup. The Town has a water supply well inside the CB and the
permit required abandonment. The petition for a variance from the rule at 2L .0107
(d) prohibiting the well and we sent a letter back asking for more info . See me if
any questions. They either need to pursue the variance or abandon the well as
required by the permit.
Jay
Subject: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11 :50:40 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Jay,
It has been sometime since we talked about this . I have not seen any response from
the Town with regards to your letter on the variance from July 2004 or any copies
of additional correspondence from the Region on this. Here are some questions :
1 . Has the Raleigh Regional Office received anything new?
2. Will this variance go forward?
3. Does the town intend to withdraw the variance and pursue another avenue?
Last time we spoke, Rick Bolich with the RRO was your lead staff on this -i think.
If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 and I am in
the Archdale Bldg. in Room 625k.
David Hance
DWQ-:Planning Section CSU
' Content-Type: message/rfc822
Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland! . b"
i Content-Encodmg: 7 1t
'-===-=================--==-=
4/8/2005 1:56 PM
[Fwd: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland]
1 of I
Subject: [Fwd: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland]
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:10:20 -0400
To: Martin Richmond <[e-mail]>
CC: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Martin
Can you follow up on this for me. Rick had taken the lead initially but has had
limited time to followup. The Town has a water supply well inside the CB and the
permit required abandonment. The petition for a variance from the rule at 2L .0107
(d) prohibiting the well and we sent a letter back asking for more info. See me if
any questions. They either need to pursue the variance or abandon the well as
required by the permit.
Jay
Subject: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11 :50:40 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
Jay,
It has been sometime since we talked about this . I have not seen any response from
the Town with regards to your letter on the variance from July 2004 or any copies
of additional correspondence from the Region on this. Here are some questions:
1. Has the Raleigh Regional Office received anything new?
2. Will this variance go forward?
3. Does the town intend to withdraw the variance and pursue another avenue?
Last time we spoke, Rick Bolich with the RRO was your lead staff on this - i think.
If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 and I am in
the Archdale Bldg. in Room 625k .
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section CSU
Content-Type:
Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland Content-Encoding: 7bit
message/rfc822
4/8 /2005 1 :56 PM
Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
1 of 1
Subject: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11 :50:40 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
Jay,
It has been sometime since we talked about this. I have not seen any response from
the Town with regards to your letter on the variance from July 2004 or any copies
of additional correspondence from the Region on this. Here are some questions:
1. Has the Raleigh Regional Office received anything new?
2. Will this variance go forward?
3. Does the town intend to withdraw the variance and pursue another avenue?
Last time we spoke, Rick Bolich with the RRO was your lead staff on this -i think.
If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 and I am in
the Archdale Bldg. in Room 625k.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section CSU
4/8/200S ll:50 AM
Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
1 of 1
Subject: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11 :50:40 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <j ef£[e-mail]>
Jay,
It has been sometime since we talked about this. I have not seen any response from
the Town with regards to your letter on the variance from July 2004 or any copies
of additional correspondence from the Region on this. Here are some questions:
1. Has the Raleigh Regional Office received anything new?
2. Will this variance go forward?
3. Does the town intend to withdraw the variance and pursue another avenue?
Last time we spoke, Rick Bolich with the RRO was your lead staff on this - i think.
If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 and I am in
the Archdale Bldg. in Room 625k.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section CSU
4/8/2005 11:55 AM
Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
1 ofl
Subject: Variance: Update Requested on Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11 :50:40 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <j [e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Manning <j [e-mail]>
Jay,
It has been sometime since we talked about this. I have not seen any response from
the Town with regards to your letter on the variance from July 2004 or any copies
of additional correspondence from the Region on this. Here are some questions:
1. Has the Raleigh Regional Office received anything new?
2. Will this variance go forward?
3. Does the town intend to withdraw the variance and pursue another avenue?
Last time we spoke, Rick Bolich with the RRO was your lead staff on this - i think.
If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 733-5083 x. 587 and I am in
the Archdale Bldg. in Room 625k.
David Hance
DWQ-Planning Section CSU
A./R/?OO, 11 ·,O AM
Re: 2L Groundwater Variance: Status Update Requested/Town ofWo ...
1 of 1
Subject: Re: 2L Groundwater Variance: Status Update Requested/Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:05:37 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay,
I think you sent your letter to them in late June or early July '04 according my records .
That makes it approximately three months since you last contacted them.
I see this as up to the APS RRO Regional Supervisor and APS Chief how to pursue dealing with
these people.
My view is field staff are closer to that action and should be the lead on this .
Here are some suggestions of my own.
A phone call would be appropriate to determine:
1. If they actually got the letter;
2. Do they understand the work that they will need to do noted in your letter in order to meet
the requirements of a variance under Rule .0113; and
3. Are they are still interested in pursuing a variance or are they willing to pursue some
other course to address the issues with this permit.
If they do not want a variance ask them to send a letter to you stating that the request is
withdrawn. I would like to be copied on that.
If they still want to pursue a variance under Rule .0113 they must do the work required in that
letter and that they need discuss the scope of that activity with the RRO (Rick Bolich and you).
You may also want to note in your discussions that for the Town of Woodland to go the direction
of a variance ... it may be more costly and time consuming as opposed to doing other things with
this permit and that you are willing to discuss those options.
This is just my 2 Cents. Ted Bush may have other ideas.
David Hance (9-733-5083; x. 587)
*************************************************************************************************
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
we sent an letter and they have not responded. Advice?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
This is my routine check on what is going on with outstanding variance requests under the
15A NCAC 2L .0113 rule.
You will recall that we have a variance request from the Town of Woodland at a permitted
facility in the RRO.
What is the status of this? The last time we spoke earlier in the year a letter had gone
out from your office outlining deficiencies to the the permittee ------------but I have
not received any new information on this since mid summer.
Please respond by email.
David Hance
919-733-5083 ext. 587
10/19/2004 10:13 AM
Re: 2L Groundwater Variance: Status Update Requested/Town ofWo ...
1 of 1
Subject: Re: 2L Groundwater Variance: Status Update Requested/Town of Woodland
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:26:57 -0400
To: David Hance <[e-mail]>
we sent an letter and they have not responded. Advice?
Jay
David Hance wrote:
Jay,
This is my routine check on what is going on with outstanding variance requests
under the 15A NCAC 2L .0113 rule.
You will recall that we have a variance request from the Town of Woodland at a
permitted facility in the RRO.
What is the status of this? The last time we spoke earlier in the year a letter
had gone out from your office outlining deficiencies to the the permittee
------------but I have not received any new information on this since mid summer.
Please respond by email.
David Hance
919-733-5083 ext. 587
10/19/2004 9:46 AM
2L Groundwater Variance: Status Update Requested/Town of Woodland
1 of 1
Subject: 2L Groundwater Variance: Status Update Requested/Town of Woodland
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:57:12 -0400
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay,
This is my routine check on what is going on with outstanding variance requests under
the 15A NCAC 2L .0113 rule.
You will recall that we have a variance request from the Town of Woodland at a
permitted facility in the RRO.
What is the status of this? The last time we spoke earlier in the year a letter had
gone out from your office outlining deficiencies to the the permittee ------------
but I have not received any new information on this since mid summer.
Please respond by email.
David Hance
919-733-5083 ext. 587
10/15/2004 2:57 PM
Re: Ground Water Variance: Town of...e DWQ-GWS(APS)Section for my files
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Ground Water Variance: Town of Woodland/ 15A NCAC 2L .0113 / Copy of
Letter from the DWQ-GWS(APS)Section for my files
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:10:46 -0400
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
To: david hance <[e-mail]>
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
I'll check on the status and get back to you.
Rick,
Can you tell me where we are on this issue? If we haven't responded to
the Town's request we need to since it is a formal request for a
variance. Let's discuss ...
Thanks,
Jay
david hance wrote:
>Hello Jay,
>
>Looking through my records on GW variances. Back in April '04 you told
>me that Rick Bolich would send a letter to the permittee concerning this
>request.
>
>I never got a cc copy of that letter. Could you send that to me?
>
>dh
>
>
>
6/29/04 1 :54 PM
Ground Water Variance: Town ofWoo ... e DWQ-GWS(APS)Section for my files
1 of 1
Subject: Ground Water Variance: Town of Woodland/ lSA NCAC 2L .0113 I Copy of Letter
from the DWQ-GWS(APS)Section for my files
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:33:27 -0400
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>, Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>,
Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Hello Jay,
Looking through my records on GW variances. Back in April '04 you told
me that Rick Bolich would send a letter to the permittee concerning this
request.
I never got a cc copy of that letter. Could you send that to me?
dh
6/29/04 12:33 PM
re: Update requested-status of a V ... nd Requirements -Town of Woodland
1 of 1
Subject: re: Update requested-status of a Variance to Groundwater Standards and
Requirements -Town of Woodland
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:52:35 -0400
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Hi Jay,
Just requesting some more information about this variance. Last
information I have is an email from me to you on the status of that
variance.
You will remember that we spoke about this variance at the last GW
Supervisors Meeting in Winston-Salem back in February 2004. You told me
the RRO cannot support the variance for this site and does not
anticipate that decision changing. You also said that you would discuss
this with the permittee to determine if they want to continue to pursue
a variance or do they
want to take some other action in lieu of a variance.
You told me you would get a letter out to the company outlining this
----based on the template I sent the regions a while back.
If they have informed you that they continue to want a variance I would
like the correspondence on that and what other work /if any is needed.
If they are now no longer interested in a variance - I would like a
withdrawal letter from the company explaining this.
Note that if the Town withdraws a variance now it does not preclude them
from applying for a new separate variance for that facility or any
others at a later date.
Please let me know what is up with this via email response .
david hance
4/15/04 3:52 PM
re: Town of Woodland Variance request-a mystery?
1 of 1
Subject: re: Town of Woodland Variance request-a mystery?
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:00:22 -0500
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: Carl Bailey <[e-mail]>,
"Arthur Mouberry, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Here is what going on at my end.
I do not have (1) a copy of the variance request with the technical information supporting the variance
from the Town's consultant; (2) any written recommendation from the RRO other than what you
communicated between me, you and Rick Bolich over last summer in emails; and (3) any
correspondence from the RP/Permittee more recent than April 16, 2003.
Did you send this material to the Director of the Division? I just spoke with Arthur on this and he has
seen nothing on it either.
I will follow this email up with a phone call.
David Hance
1/29/04 4:00 PM
Re: Variance request= Town of Woodland -update
1 of 1
Subject: Re: Variance request= Town of Woodland -update
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:30:10 -0500
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
To: david hance <[e-mail]>
Not sure as I think we are not sure who needs to do what. The Town requested the variance and we
conducted an initial review which you then responded to .......... can you give me your thoughts w/r/t
where you recall it was in the process? Give me a call ifit would be easier or we can talk about it in Feb.
Are we required to respond to a variance request within a specified time?
Jay
david hance wrote:
I have not heard of anything or received anything regarding the Town of
Woodland Variance. What is the status of this?
dh
Regional Supervisor
DWQ -Groundwater Section
Raleigh Regional Office
1/29/04 3:45 PM
Re: [Fwd: town of woodland variance (my 9/9/03 response)
1 of4
,Subject: Re: [Fwd: town of woodland variance (my 9/9/03 response)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:24:56 -0400
From: david hance <[e-mail]>
Jay,
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
CC: "Arthur Mouberry, P.E." <[e-mail]>,
CARL BAILEY <[e-mail]>
Applications for variance must meet all the criteria of the rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113. The only thing I
have in my variance file is a letter requesting a variance. The application for a variance must address all
the items under 15A NCAC 2L .0l 13(c). I have not received any technical information to support the
variance from the RP/Permittee. The RP is responsible for doing this work. If they have not submitted
the supporting information for the variance they need to do that first. If in your judgment and in light of
the information you have from me, that the material submitted by the company is incomplete, note that
you have copies of shell letters from me to help you with this.
The rule 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (b) requires that a variance be addressed and sent to the Chairman of
the EMC in care of the Director of the Division of Water Quality. If you have the supporting information
and they have already addressed that to you, then the best way to deal with this .... is ..... to have the
consultant or facility owner to issue a cover letter that meets the requirements of Paragraph (b) of the
rule. It should also specify what is being requested for variance (i.e. relief from GW Standards, extension
of the Compliance Boundaries, relief from Cleanup requirements in Rule .0106, etc.). The
RP/Permittee can send it on to you and then you can forward this to the Director with a note to
send this to send this to Arthur Mooberry. It will then to me.
If you have already reviewed information for this request and are satisfied that:
a) it meets the requirements of Rule .0113; and
b) t_hat other options (i.e. KLM CAP or repermitting) are infeasable, inappropriate, or are no better than
a vanance.
Go ahead and send a letter with the variance request stating your approval and the grounds for this.
If you have not gotten into that level of detail with this variance ... Don't Worry! I will send a memo
requesting that you do that.
lfthere are any more questions----go ahead and call me at work 715-6189.
Hope this helps,
david hance
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
Can you let me know where you think we are on this issue and who "has
the ball"? Rick and I are of the opinion we complied with what is
expected of us. Can you let me know your thoughts? The request for a
variance came to me. Does it have to go directly tot he Director or EMC
9/9/03 2:25 PM
Re: [Fwd: town of woodland variance (my 9/9/03 response)
2 of4
Chairman or can I act as a "receiver" on their behalf? I'd hate to send
it back and tell them to send it toon of the above, who will then
forward it through you and back to me ............ sounds beaurocratic .
Jay
Subject: Re: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall ....
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:56:51 -0400
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
To: Jay Zimmerman <j [e-mail]>
eferences: <3F0049C 1.3E4 l [e-mail]> <3F0050CO. l [e-mail]> <3F0058B5 .A3
Jay;
These are the two pieces of correspondance related to this request that i sent out. After reviewing the
"Process to Begin and Complete a Variance Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113" sent by David, i
can't see where we did anything inconsistent or inappropriate. I'm at a los_s here ..... .
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Attached is a copy of the variance process in word for windows 97 so that you can explain this to the
person making this request. I also have a full information hardcopy packet for the GW Section Staff
and a second packet for the public.
A while back in September 2001 ---I sent you and the other ROs some draft shell letters to deal with
j ust this kind of situation. If you are not satisfied with what the RP or Permittee has sent, you should
rely the shell letters I sent. If you need another copy of these I can forward that to you. Let me know.
Note that .... in order for them to have an "official variance" in the works, they need to send the
materials to the Chairman of the EMC through the Director of the DWQ (Alan Klimek). All I have
in m y file is a letter related to this and no variance request or other materials. There is no
indication of a formal re quest from the RP and at this time it is just being discussed at the RO
level.
One question to also .ask is: Does this site really need a variance?
1 If some other action is appropriate, the RP or permittee needs to know that it may be easier and less
expensive to go another route. All materials submitted to support a variance request must be able to
meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 and the RP or permittee must make that showing in
the materials sent.
david hance
715-6189
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
We sent the request to you to process. I am not sure of the "process", however, I recall Rick
9/9/03 2:25 PM
Re: [Fwd: town of woodland variance (my 9/9/03 response)
3 of4
reviewed the information they submitted and found it lacking. Do we need toaddress this prior
to, or as part of, the variance process? What are the next steps? Please give us some guidance.
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
> Sorry Rick -made a mistake in the email the first time.
>
> See the message with questions below.
>
>dh
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Delivery Status Notification
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28: 17 -0400
> From: Mail Delivery Service <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
>
> -These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
> rick:/[e-mail]; Failed; 5 .1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
>
> Remote MTA 127.0.0.1: SMTP diagnostic: 550 RCPT TO:<rick:/bolich@n cmail.net> User
unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; scc075.its.state.nc.us
> Received-from-MTA: dns; ncmail.net (204.211.90.160)
> Arrival-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:16 -0400
>
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; rick/[e-mail]
> Action: Failed
> Status: 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
> Remote-MTA: dns; 127.0.0.1
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 RCPT TO:<rick:/[e-mail]> User unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: re: Town of Woodland Variance request?
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:16 -0400
> From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
> To: rick/bolich@ ncmail.net
> CC: earl bailey <[e-mail]>,
> Jay Zimmerman <jay [e-mail]>
>
> Rick:
>
> You will recall that on April 23rd 2003 we received a letter regarding a
> variance for the Town of Woodland.
>
> Do you know the status of this variance? Any news?
>
> david hance
> 715-6189
9/9/03 2:25 PM
[Fwd: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall .... ]
1 of3
...
",ubject: [Fwd: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall .... ]
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 11 :21 :33 -0400
From: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
To: DAVID HANCE <DA [e-mail]>
CC: "Arthur Mouberry, P.E." <[e-mail]>,
CARL BAILEY <[e-mail]>
David,
Can you let me know where you think we are on this issue and who "has
the ball"? Rick and I are of the opinion we complied with what is
expected of us. Can you let me know your thoughts? The request for a
variance came to me. Does it have to go directly tot he Director or EMC
Chairman or can I act as a "receiver" on their behalf? I'd hate to send
it back and tell them to send it toon of the above, who will then
forward it through you and back to me ............ sounds beaurocratic .
Jay
Subject: Re: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall ....
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:56:51 -0400
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
Jay;
These are the two pieces of correspondance related to this request that i sent out. After reviewing the
"Process to Begin and Complete a Variance Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113" sent by David, i can't
see where we did anything inconsistent or inappropriate. I'm at a loss here ..... .
David Hance wrote:
Jay and Rick,
Attached is a copy of the variance process in word for windows 97 so that you can explain this to the
person making this request. I also have a full information hardcopy packet for the GW Section Staff
and a second packet for the public.
A while back in September 2001 ---I sent you and the other ROs some draft shell letters to deal with
j ust this kind of situation. If you are not satisfied with what the RP or Permittee has sent, you should
rely the shell letters I sent. If you need another copy of these I can forward that to you. Let me know.
Note that .... in order for them to have an "official variance" in the works, they need to send the
materials to the Chairman of the EMC through the Director of the DWQ (Alan Klimek). All I have in
m y file is a letter related to this and no variance req uest or other materials. There is no
indication of a formal re quest from the RP and at this time it is j ust bein g discussed at the RO
level.
One question to also ask is: Does this site really need a variance?
If some other action is appropriate, the RP or permittee needs to know that it may be easier and less
expensive to go another route. All materials submitted to support a variance request must be able to
meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 and the RP or permittee must make that showing in the
materials sent.
9/9/03 1 :59 PM
[Fwd: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall .... ]
2 of3
.;favid hance
715-6189
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
We sent the request to you to process. I am not sure of the "process", however, I recall Rick
reviewed the information they submitted and found it lacking. Do we need toaddress this prior
to, or as part of, the variance process? What are the next steps? Please give us some guidance.
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
> Sorry Rick -made a mistake in the email the first time.
>
> See the message with questions below.
>
>dh
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Delivery Status Notification
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:17 -0400
> From: Mail Delivery Service <p [e-mail]>
> To: david.hance @ncmail.net
>
> -These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
> rick/[e-mail]; Failed; 5 .1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
>
> Remote MTA 127.0.0.1: SMTP diagnostic: 550 RCPT TO:<rick/[e-mail]> User
unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; scc075.its.state.nc.us
> Received-from-MTA: dns; ncmail.net (204.211.90.160)
> Arrival-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:16 -0400
>
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; rick/[e-mail]
> Action: Failed
> Status: 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
> Remote-MTA: dns; 127.0.0.1
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 RCPT TO:<rick/[e-mail]> User unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: re: Town of Woodland Variance request?
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:16-0400
> From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
> To: rick/[e-mail]
> CC: earl bailey <CarLBailey@ ncmail.net>,
> Jay Zimmerman <jay [e-mail]>
>
> Rick:
9/9/03 1 :59 PM
[Fwd: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall .... ]
3 of3
l. >
I > You will recall that on April 23rd 2003 we received a letter regarding a
> variance for the Town of Woodland.
>
> Do you know the status of this variance? Any news?
>
> david hance
> 715-6189
Name: WoodlandV arianceRequest.doc
OW dl dV · R t d Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) 00 an anance eques · oc Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: WoodlandVarianceRequestMemo.doc l
DWoodlandVarianceRequestMemo.doc T~pe: WINWORD File (application/msword)I
Regional Supervisor
DWQ -Groundwater Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Encodmg: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message I
9/9/03 1 :59 PM
Re: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall ....
i
1 of3
Subject: Re: town of woodland variance >>>>>> you will recall ....
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:35:18 -0400
From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
To: Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>, Rick bolich <[e-mail]>
CC: earl bailey <[e-mail]>
Jay and Rick,
Attached is a copy of the variance process in word for windows 97 so that you can explain this to the
person making this request. I also have a full information hardcopy packet for the GW Section Staff and a
second packet for the public.
A while back in September 2001 ---I sent you and the other ROs some draft shell letters to deal with just
this kind of situation. If you are not satisfied with what the RP or Permittee has sent, you should rely the
shell letters I sent. If you need another copy of these I can forward that to you. Let me know.
Note that .... in order for them to have an "official variance" in the works, they need to send the materials to
the Chairman of the EMC through the Director of the DWQ (Alan Klimek). All I have in m file is a
letter related to this and no variance req uest or other materials. There is no indication of a formal
re q uest from the RP and at this time it is just beine discussed at the RO level.
One question to also ask is: Does this site really need a variance?
If some other action is appropriate, the RP or permittee needs to know that it may be easier and less
expensive to go another route. All materials submitted to support a variance request must be able to meet
the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 and the RP or permittee must make that showing in the materials
sent.
david hance
715-6189
Jay Zimmerman wrote:
David,
We sent the request to you to process. I am not sure of the "process", however, I recall Rick
reviewed the information they submitted and found it lacking. Do we need toaddress this prior
to, or as part of, the variance process? What are the next steps? Please give us some guidance.
Thanks,
Jay
David Hance wrote:
> Sorry Rick -made a mistake in the email the first time.
>
> See the message with questions below.
6/30/2003 11 :35 Mvf
Re: town of woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall ....
2 of3
>
>dh
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Delivery Status Notification
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:17 -0400
> From: Mail Delivery Service <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
>
> -These recipients of your message have beeri processed by the mail server:
> rick/[e-mail]; Failed; 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
>
> Remote MTA 127.0.0.1: SMTP diagnostic: 550 RCPT TO:<rick/[e-mail]> User
unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; scc075.its.state.nc.us
> Received-from-MTA: dns; ncmail.net (204.211.90.160)
> Arrival-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:16 -0400
>
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; rick/[e-mail]
> Action: Failed
> Status: 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)
> Remote-MTA: dns; 127.0.0.1
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 RCPT TO:<rick/[e-mail]> User unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: re: Town of Woodland Variance request?
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:28:16 -0400
> From: David Hance <[e-mail]>
> To: rick/[e-mail]
> CC: earl bailey <[e-mail]>,
> Jay Zimmerman <[e-mail]>
>
> Rick:
>
> You will recall that on April 23rd 2003 we received a letter regarding a
> variance for the Town of Woodland.
>
> Do you know the status of this variance? Any news?
>
> david hance
> 715-6189
I Name: ProcessVAR.doc
j 0ProcessV AR.doc ! Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)·
;E~~,~~!~_g: base64 . . .. J
6/30/2003 11:35 AM
Re: town cf woodland variance>>>>>> you will recall ....
3 of3 6/30/2003 11 :35 AM
Section# 1:
Variance P rocess G uidance
•·
.,
Process to Begin and C omplete a Variance
Request under 15A NCAC 2L .0113
1. As required by 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b), the variance request is sent by the responsible
party or consultant to the Director of the Division of \Yater Quality and is addressed to
the Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission;
2. The Division of Water Quality places a log number on the request and sends copies to
the appropriate agency for technical review and review to meet the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2L .0113(d). If the variance has a Division of \Yaste Management -UST Sec.tion
Site Number, it will be sent to them. If .it has a Groundwater Incident Number, the
request will be sent to the Groundwater Section.
3. The appropriate Section will conduct technical review of the request and a review to
determine if the request meets all the requirements under 15A NCAC 2L .Ol 13(c). The
UST Section may request comments from the Groundwater Section with respect to the
protection of groundwater quality and protection of water supplies. The Groundwater
Section may request comments from the UST Section if there is a UST present on the
site and infom1ation is needed about it's condition or status. Both Division staffs may
also request a risk assessment from the Division of Public Health for their respective
variance requests;
4 . Upor. completing the review under Number # 3, the variance request and
recommendation is sent to the Director of the Division of \Yater Quality to determine if
the variance is complete pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d). A memoranda detailing
items 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(l-9) greatly expedites Director's review of the request;
5. Upon completing the Director's review as required in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d), the
Director gives public notice of this variance pursuant to NCGS 143:-215.4(6) and 15A
NCAC 2L .Ol 13(e). The Section staff responsible for the variance usually develops
these notices for the public. Notice must be circulated at least thirty-days prior to public
hearing as specified in Subparagraph (1) of this rnle;
6. The appropriate Section appoints a hearing officer from the Environmental Management
Commission or from its own staff outside of the ~egional Office from which ths
variance originated to preside over the hearing;
7. Hearing is held within the county where the release of substances has occurred. At this
hearing, oral statements and written comments are accepted at hearing by the hearing
officer. Appropriate staff from the Regional Office and Raleigh Central Office ma:f
participate as support staff, as deemed necessary by management in the UST Section or
the G\Y Section;
..
,j
8. The hearing record remains open for thirty days after the hearing and all written
comments received during that time are made a part of the hearing record. The
Commission must consider these comments prior to taking final action on the variance
as required under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(£);
9. The hearing officer corr,ipletes the review of the variance request and comments from the
public in accordance with a schedule determined by the appropriate section supervisor.
A hearing officers report is completed with a recommendation to approve or deny the
proposed variance;
10. The variance request is placed.on the Environmental Management Commission's (EMC)
Groundwater Committee Agenda at a regularly scheduled meeting for review . The
appropriate section submits a summary page that includes the agenda title, explanation,
and recommendation with the hearing officer's report and other supporting information
for the variance. The information is sent to the Groundwater Committee's support staff
in the Division of"Water Quality Groundwater Section (David Hance {919-715-6189} );
11. Assuming that the EMC Groundwater Committee approves the variance request, it is
forwarded to the full Environmental Management Commission at the next regularly
scheduled meeting for consideration. The Commission normally requires a waiting
period of at least thirty days after the Groundwater Committee recommends approval;
12. The Division of \Valer Quality in Raleigh is contacted to place the proposed variance,
v-.rith the hearing officer's recommendation, on the Environmental Management
Commission agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. The appropriate section
staff contacts Jennie Odette at the Division of Water Quality (919-733-7015) to get this
item on the Commission's agenda. Supporting information for the variance request is
also sent to the Division for the Commissioners information packets;
13. Environmental Management Commission takes final action on the variance application
pursuant to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(£) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113(g);
14. If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable to the applicant, he may file a
petition for a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings as specified
under 15A NCAC 2L .0113(h).
• • f I,:.. l' I j ,.. · ,' .-.... , ,.1;. •· i°j l
J.
: .! :fl :._'J!;f]: fl •
•.
,J _r • ••1.1,i ~ Jr ;r) _ t: .r<: ~d x-·
·ir., ;· ·· ··~~;~i inni o' .. )
2
ENR -ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TISA: 02L .0100
additional information if necessary. When the application is complete, the Director shall give public
notice of the application and schedule the matter for a public hearing in accordance with G.S.
143-215.4(b) and the procedures set out in Paragraph (e) of this Rule.
(e) Notice of Public Hearing:
(1) Notice of public hearing on any variance application shall be circulated in the geographical
areas of the proposed variance by the Director at least 30 days prior to the date of the
hearing:
(A) by publishing the nofice one time in a newspaper having general circulation in said
county;
(B) by mailing to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Di vision of Environmental Health and appropriate local health agency;
(C) by mailing to any other federal, state or local agency upon request;
(D) by mailing to the local governmental unit or units having jurisdiction over the geographic
area covered by the variance;
(E) by mailing to any property owner within the proposed area of the variance, as \Vell as any
property owners adjacent to the site covered by the variance; and
(F) by mailing to any person or group upon request.
(2) The contents of public notice of any hearing shall include at least the following:
(A) name, address, and phone number of agency holding the public hearing;
(B) name and address of each applicant whose application will be considered at the meeting;
(C) brief summary of the variance request;
(D) geographic description of a proposed area for which a variance is requested;
(E) brief description of activities or operations which have or will result in the discharge of
contaminants to the groundwaters described in the variance application;
(F) a brief reference to the public notice issued for each variance application;
(G) information regarding the time and location for the hearing;
(H) the purpose of the hearing;
(I) address and phone number of premises at which interested persons may obtain further
information, request a copy of each application, and inspect and copy forms and related
documents; and
(J) a brief description of the nature of the hearing including the rules and procedures to be
followed. The notice shall also state that additional infonnation is on file with the
Director and may be inspected at any time during normal working hours . Copies of the
information on file will be made available upon request and payment of cost or
reproduction.
(f) All comments received within 30 days following the date of the public hearing shall be made
part of the application file and shall be considered by the Conunission prior to taking final action on
the applfoation.
(g) In determining whether to grant a variance, the Commission shall consider whether the
applicant has complied with any Special Order, or Special Order by Consent issued under G.S.
143-215 .2. .
(h) If the Commission's final decision is unacceptable, the applicant may file a petition for a
contested case in accordance with Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. If the petition is not filed
within 60 days, the decision on the variance shall be final and binding.
(i) A variance shall not operate as a defense to an action at law based upon a public or private
nuisance theory or any other cause of action.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(l); 143-215.3(a)(3); 143-215.3(a)(4); 143-215.3(e);
143-215.4;
Elf. August 1, 1989; •.
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 11/20/98 Page 1.J
Also included with the variance reques~· 11 risk assessment from the Division Public
Health, dated February 15, 2000. Global In at" GIS) mapping and data for this
variance are included in a compact disk (CD) h ' . c.". Information in this· CD
shows the locations of surface water bodies, public ut1 1ti~~nes, water supply lines and
other features near this property and in Wadesboro.
1/f Ii
The information submitted by the company's environmental consultant, Water Equipment
Services (WES) {now known under the corporate name of Nobis Engineering Incorporated} on
behalf of the Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation appears to meet the requirements o·f 15A
NCAC 2L .0113( c ). lnfo1mation to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113( c) is summarized
as follows:
Rule .0113 (c )(l ): Resolution b y the· Countv or governine-Board:
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has always been a privately owned
company. No resolution is necessary.
Rule .0113 (c)(2): A descri ption of p ast, existin g or pro posed activities that would
result in a discharg e of contaminants into g roundwater:
The FlyntAYansona Manufacturing Facility consists of 48 .080 acres of land within the city
limits of Wadesboro, NC. The company has submitted a·descripti·on of two areas at the site where
waste disposal practices resulted in localized releases of substances to groundwater and soils and for
which variance is requested. These areas are known in the variance request as "The Main Plant" and
the "Wul-Zenco Plant" and are include an 8.4-acre area. Substances from the Main Plant were
released into hvo former settling ponds that have been abandoned . Substances from the former \Vul-
Zenco Plant were released into a former septic tank that was removed in 1974, although the
drainfield was left intact. Substances from textile operations were released from the "1950s" until
1974, when liquid waste disposal into these two waste areas ceased.
Additional information on activities that have resulted in a discharge of contaminants can be
found in the following documents :
I. Page 2-1 of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Fl yn t/Wansona
Facility. Wadesboro . Anson County, North Carolina , (N CDEHNR Incident No.
14009) {March 5 . 1997}" -Discusses the former waste disposal areas used by the
company;
II. Appendix B of the report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for .
Fl vnt/Wansona Facility. Wadesboro , Anson Count y. North Carolina;'[NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009 ) {March 5 , 1997}" -Shows Flynt/Wansona Man:'t{facturing
Corporation:..:as owner of the property under Deed Numbers 179-'0233 and 233~044B.
This appendix also shows property ownership in the area aro_und_ the site; and
III. Appendix B of this same report also shows individuals, companies and persons who may
2
have cleanup responsibilities. Th~~!f ::r,has examined the information
submitted and has identified 12 properties near the facility that may have or could have
cleanup responsibilities at this site. These persons included and variety of commerciai and
industrial operations. Nearby public roadways, railroads and wastewater collection lines
where waste or substances could be or could have been released were also considered.
Figure 2-2 of this March 5, 1997 report also shows the location of these two areas relative
to buildings, driveways, and other site features at One \,Vansona \Vay. The Flynt/Wansona
Manufacturing Corporation is located in an area that contains a mixture of industrial, commercial
and residential development.
Rule .0113(c)(3): Description of the proposed area for which the variance is
requested. A detailed location map showing the orientation of the facilitv,
potential for groundwater contaminant migration ..... :
The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation believes that it has adequately characterized
groundwater contamination and soil contamination for Groundwater Incident Number 14009 and
the events that led to exceedences of the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards. The
information contained in the variance request and other reports shows that the waste disposal
systems (i.e. the former settling pond and the defunct septic tank and drainfield systems) are the sole
cause of exceedences of Groundwater Quality Standards under Groundwater Incident Number
14009. Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has verified that the systems have been rendered
in an inoperable state such that they can no longer be used in the manner that led to exceedences of
Groundwater Quality Standards.
The original variance request was contained in the report titled "Submittal of Variance
Application for Flvnt/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro, Anson Countv, North Carolina. (NCDEHNR
Incident No. 14009) {March 5, 1997}". This report discussed substances found in deep soils
samples extracted from within the boundaries of the former settling ponds site and the former septic
tank and drainfield system and provided laboratory results in Table 2-4 and in Table 2-5 of that
report. Groundwater monitoring data from March 1995 was also discussed in Table 2-6.
Due to the fact that the Groundwater Section in the Fayetteville Regional Office deemed this
report incomplete, additional information was requested on shallow soils within the waste disposal
areas, deep soils outside of the waste disposal areas, and groundwater downgraident from the former
septic tank/drainfield and the former settling ponds areas. The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing
Corporation responded in July 1998 with a report titled "CorrecHve Action Variance Request
Addendum, Flynt/Wansona Inc. One Wansona Place, Wadesboro. Anson County, North Carolina,
NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009, 08 July 1998". Information contained in Table 1, Table 3, and
· Table 5 of this report shows that concentrations of substances persist in surface soils, deep soils and
groundwater within the 8.4 acre area proposed for variance. Concentrations persist within the defined
'8.4-acre area 28 years after waste disposal operations at the former settling ponds and inactive septic
system ceased. In addition, the Groundwater Section also required the company to submit
'monitoring data on surface water quality in a drainageway that passes through the area of the site
3
•·
0 rF\1 rg\1'" ~~u-u
showed that when a subsurface vacuum was applied to soils at the former
settling ponds site, virtually no air movement occurred in soils. In addition,. no
air movement could be detected in nearby monitoring wells (Monitoring Well
MW-6 and Monitoring Well MW-6A).
C. Bioremediation -}?age 4 of the Febmary 10, 1999 letter discusses the
applicability ofbioremedial methods for Groundwater Incident Number 14009.
This document shows that low permeability of fine-grained soils would inhibit
microbial propagation and growth in soil and groundwater.
II. Soil excavation and disposal could increase risks from the site -Page 3-12 of
the report titled "Submittal of Variance Application for Flynt/Wansona Facilitv,
·wadesboro, Anson Countv, North Carolina, (NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009)
{March 5, 1997}" discusses the use of this technology. Renovation and excavation
of the site is not feasible because subsurface areas will be exposed for a period of
one month may enhance contaminant migration and potential risks to health and the
environment.
III. Costs of all technologies considered are not reasonable: The Best Available
Technologies (BAT) with estimated total costs are found on Page 3 and on Page 4
of the Febmary 10, 1999 letter and are as follows:
A. Pump and Treat Cleanup -$ 799,500.00
B. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) -$ 240,000.00
C. Bioremediation-No estimate given by the company.
D. Soil Excavation -$ 750,000 to $ 800,000 for removal and disposal of 4,050
tons of soil. Costs could approach $1,000,000.00, if asphalt removal,
landscaping and other site renovation operations are included.
Rule .0113 (c)(6): Su pp orting information to establish that com p liance would
p roduce serious financial hardship on the a pplicant:
_ The Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing Corporation has submitted information showing that
·' compliance with the mies will result in a serious financial hardship. Page 3-11 through 3-13 of the
report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Fl yn t/Wansona Facility, Wadesboro , Anson
.·-county, North Carolina . (NCDEHNR Incident No. 14009) {March 5 , 1997}" discusses financial
• • •
1hardships associated with cleanup. Page 4 of the February 10, 1999 letter from the Flynt/Wansona
9
Manufacturing Corporation noted that if both soil vapor extraction and pwnp and treat cleanup were
applied at this site, the cost is estimated at$ 1,040,000.00. Page 20 of the report titled "Corrective
Action Variance Req uest Addendum , Fl vn t/Wansona Inc , One \Vansona Place. Wadesboro . Anson
County, North Carolina. NC DEHNR Incident No. 14009 . 08 Jul v 1998" states that" ... capping the
two areas with asphalt and development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan is
appropriate, as it would isolate contaminated soil and minimized leaching via infiltration ..... ". It
is no less effective a means of addressing residual concentrations of substances at this site than
implementation of a pump-and-treat system, soil vapor extraction system, bioremediation, or soil
excavation and disposal and is less expensive .
.... -::::---, ,,--:::--,_ ~S\ /? l(-'-· { ,I \\. I ~ ... ·) ',>/
Rule .0113 (c)(7): Sup p ortin g.._ 1111formalioni '.that com p liance would p roduce < .... · ..___,. I,...• ....
serious financial hardship without eq ual or greater p ublic benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that the public would
not receive any benefit if the company were required to meet 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) and 15A
NCAC 2L .0202 for Groundwater Incident 14009. Page 3-13 of the report titled "Submittal of
Variance A pp lication for Flvn t/Wansona Facility, \Vadesboro. Anson County. North Carolina.
(N CDEHNR Incident No. 14009 ) {March 5 , 1997}" the Anson County Chamber of Commerce has
designated this county as "economically distressed". North Carolina Environmental Justice maps
at the Groundwater Section show that Anson County has persons who are identified as "minority/low
income" within its jurisdiction.
Rule .0113 (c)(8): "A co py of anv S pecial Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site.
Rule .0113 (c)(9): "A list of names and addresses of p ro p erty owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are listed in Appendix B of the
report titled "Submittal of Variance A pp lication for Fl ynt/Wansona Facilitv, Wadesboro , Anson
Count y, North Carolina, CN CDEHNR Incident No.14009} {March 5, 1997}". Title 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this variance be given to the owner or
owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing".
GROUNDWATER SECTION RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION
RE Q UESTED:
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject ·variance request to
Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(j) and Groundwater Quality Standards
contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 proceed to public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e) for groundwater and soils. On Febrnary 15, 2000, the Division of Public Health completed
their review of the risk assessment methodology for this site and recommended that this variance be
granted for Flynt/Wansona Manufacturing. This recommendation was made upon the condition that
monitoring be conducted to protect any " ... nearby or future water supplies in the area". Upon your
concurrence with our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the preparation
_of the required public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(d -f), with a recommendation to grant this variance from the Environmental Management
Commission Groundwater Committee1 this request will proceed to the Environmental Management
Commission for final action in 15A_NCAC 2L .Ol 13(g). If there are any questions regarding this
matter or if any additional information is needed, please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS:
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
Fayetteville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Dr. Luanne Williams
David Hance
11
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
February 18, 1998
:iji~I~:J:ijjjg CERTIFIED ,MAIL NUMBER, P 177 381 048
. , -·-••-,·--·· ... ·.; ,.~•-,•· Mr. Robert Clark : ;-... ··:·i:::-£~_.:;:: 1 !~ ··-,,.t:·~ .;.";-.;f tr-~i, •;:)~,;?t :'./-,.\k~i{i~~@fi' Consolidated Freightways Corporation Inc .
A:J:'~.e:~-f~N;Ho_\'ff~,P:1t I 0?0 M h Ro d S 't 200 ·, ·.-····•--.:;,,.,:. -:,:5~~.rs,c;~-~',,'' -ars a , Ul e
JR., _P._E. '· ,·., -;.:·: ... ·"'.'.C:,'"'··--·'';1 1 k ····· ::~··••:•"·•.,·. -~:---.-e,,t:_;,.,,•1 Men ow Par, CA 94025
·-;-::'.:·.;""·:--;\i .. ·tf~~-~~:~;
·.:.· ...
'; ·.:• .:.:
. ·•. -:: -~
:.~··•:.:/~i
. ··· ·••·•
.... ; ... ·.-:
.. 40•1'·-·:--1
Subject: Request for Variance from Groundwater
Quality Standards in I SA NCAC 2L
.0202 and Co1Tective Action in 15A
NCAC 2L .01060) for a Consolidated
Freightways site at the Fom1er N .C.
James Farm property at State Road 2173
in Statesville, North Carolina
{Groundwater Incident# 5484} .
· ·.~ · _/· {! This is to inform you that the Environmental Management Commission, at their
February 12, I 998 meeting, approved the variance request by Consolidated Freightways
Corporation Incorporated for a site at State Road 2173 in Statesville, North Carolina. The
Commission granted this variance in accordance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L
.0113 based on the condition that Consolidated Freightways Corporation Incorporated
continues to monitor the contamination plume on an annual basis un.til such time as it can be
determined that contamination levels are no longer increasing and/or natural attenuation is
occurring as anticipated. When it is determined that the farm pond identified in the variance
request as the closest dm,vngradient receptor located approximately 500 feet away is not at
risk, a "no further action" letter may be issued by the Groundv-later Section Staff.
GROUNDWATER SECTION
P.O Box 29,?78, RALEICH, NC 27626-057B • 272B CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC, 27604
PHONE 919-733·3221 FAX 919-71 s -osaa
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EM Pl.OYER. 50o/o RECYCLE0/1 0o/o POST·CON SUM ER PAPER
'' 't AGENDA ITEM: 9sooo 9 32
EXPLANATION:
Hearing Officer's Report and Re quest for Variance for a Consolidated
Frei ghtwavs Incom orated Site at State Road 2173 in Statesville, North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident Number 5484 ).
From 1947 through 1990 Mr. N.C. James operated a dairy farm on this property
located at State Road 2173 near Interstate 77 in Iredell County. During this period Mr.
James stored petroleum products on this property for use in farm machinery and vehicles.
Four 1,000 gallon underground storage tanks containing gasoline and one 550 gallon
underground storage tank containing diesel fuel were kept on this site. In 1990, Mr.
James sold this property to Consolidated Freightways Incorporated. In purchasing the
property Consolidated Freightways Incorporated accepted the responsibility to cleanup
this site. Consolidated Freightways is the sole responsible party for the release
identified as Groundwater Incident Number 5484. The former N.C. James Farm,
presently owned by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated consists of 94.492 acres of
land. The total land area on this property · for which this variance is requested is
approximately 2. 75 acres of land.
The comprehensive site assessment revealed a groundwater plume from a small
area of free product contamination at Tank Pit # 1 where the four gasoline underground
storage tanks had been removed. The area of free product was in the shape of an ellipse
and was approximately 22,500 square feet (0.52 acres) in diameter with it's longitudinal
axis in a southwesterly direction. Site assessment information on file in the Mooresville
Regional Office shows that the vertical extent of this plume to be approximately 46.5
feet below the ground surface. It is not believed that this plume contaminated the bedrock
aquifer beneath this site. Based on core samples from wells the company believes the
rock beneath the surface is unfractured up to a depth of 49 feet. Groundwater cleanup
was conducted at this site in an area known as Tank Pit # 1 from October 28, 1991
through December 17, 1993. Soil contamination was also found at Tank Pit# i where
a 550 gallon diesel fuel tank has been kept at this site. The soils were removed and
treated at the site. Monitoring well sampling data has revealed no groundwater
contamination at Tank Pit # 2.
From October 28, 1991 through December 17, 1993 a total of2,448,750 gallons
of groundwater has been treated via pump-and-treat technology. The cleanup system
used by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated consisted of a combination of pump-and-
treatwith air-stripping via carbon filter to remove contaminants from the site. The treated
discharge was sent to an upgraident infiltration gallery. An infiltration gallery is a
closed-loop conveyance that allows water and other fluids, discharged through an air
stripping device, to be sent back into the subsurface where they recirculated into the
cleanup system for continual treatment. An infiltration gallery may also serve to enhance
intrinsic biodegradation of contaminants by introducing dissolved oxygen in the
subsurface which may stimulate biologic decomposition of some dissolved petroleum
hydrocarbons. A recovery trench was excavated in the area of the former Tank Pit # 1
as a collection point for migrating liquids beneath the surface of the ground. Non-
Discharge Permit WQ0005069 was issued on September 13, 1991 for the infiltration
gallery. On August 12, 1996 the Mooresville Regional Office reported that this
infiltration gallery as not currently in use and will not be used if the variance is granted.
Since discovery of the release in 1990, Consolidated Freightways Incorporated
has disposed of 4,100 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil via land application
and all soil cleanup has been completed for this site. The company has treated
33
approximately 2,448,750 gallons of groundwater to comply with the clear>.un
requirements of the Corrective Action Plan implemented on October 28, 1991. A total
of$ 286,000 has been expended to conduct the site assessment, reimburs -~ claim<;,
conduct monitoring, and cleanup this site .. Information from the Groundwater Section
shows that as of June 10, 1997 that $ 16S,564.69 of this cost has been reimbursed
through the Non-Commercial Leaking Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Since Consolidated Freightways Incorporated conducted cleanup from October
28, 1991 through December 17, 1993, levels of contaminants in groundwater have been
significantly reduced in all but two on-site wells. On September 1, 1994 Benzene,
Toluene, and Xylene were detected in the well in the recovery trench (RT-1) above
Groundwater Quality Standards and Benzene was found slightly above the I SA NCAC
2L .0202 standard in recovery well BMW-1/R W 4. It must be noted that substances were
not detected in most of the remaining monitoring and recovery wells during this sampling
event. The April 23, 1996 monitoring event showed no detectable concentrations of
substances in monitoring wells and recovery wells, with the exception of the well
identified as R T-1. It must be noted that significant reductions in the concentrations of
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene have not been observed in recovery well
RT-1 since March 7, 1994.
Using site assessment information from the Mooresville Regional Office, the
company has calculated the time it would take for residual contaminants to impact the
nearest down-gradient on-site pond that discharges into Fourth Creek, a tributary of the
Yadkin River. Consolidated Freightways Incorporated asserts that substances in the
plume of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons will enter the three .farm ponds at
concentration levels exceeding I SA NCAC 2L .0202 standards for Benzene, Ethylene
Dibromide, and Isopropyl Ether between 30 and 62 years. This estimated range assumes
no dilution or attenuation of the plume occurs. The company has submitted information
showing that conditions at the site are such that substances in the groundwater will likely
biodegrade due to the presence of indigenous microorganisms in the subsurface. The
company asserts that these natural conditions are such that the entire plume of substances
is expected to degrade to the extent that concentrations will be below the Groundwater
Quality Standards in ISA NCAC 2L. 0202 before the plume reaches downgradient
ponds. Consolidated Freightways has calculated that biodegradation is most likely to
occur within 30 years.
There are no water wells or surface water supplies that are located in the
downgraident direction from the site and known to be in use as sources of drinking
within a 1/2 mile radius of this Consolidated Freightways Incorporated property. There
are six water supply wells located cross-gradient from the area for which the variance has
been requested. These residential wells are located to the north and northwest of the site
on James Farm Road. One residence has a water supply well but obtains drinking water
supply from the county (Private Water Well # 4 in Attachment# S of the Hearing
Officer's report) . The remaining five wells are used as the sole water supply for seven
residences. Two of these residences share the same well. Three wells are located on
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated property and have been abandoned. Pursuant to
the requirements ofNon-Discharge Permit Number WQ000S069 these wells were closed
by grouting on October 23, 1991.
No large capacity drinking water supply wells located within a 1/2 mile radius
of the site. Drinking water in the area is obtained from the City of Statesville Light and
Water Department or the Iredell Water Corporation. The water supplied by the City of
Statesville Light and Water Department comes from a surface water intake located five
miles from the site. Water from the Iredell Water Corporation is from two water supply
wells located 8/10 of a mile from Consolidated Freightways property. These two wells
are six inches diameter and are located approximately 400 feet deep in bedrock. The
yield from these wells ranges from 16,000 to 40,000 gallons per day. Consolidated
Freightways does not believe pumping from these wells has an influence on groundwater
RECOMMENDATION:
34
flow at the site. No wellhead protection area, as defined in 42 USC 300h-7(e), has been
designated for these county water supply wells. Water supply lines in the general area
are located at a depth of three to six feet beneath land surface. Consolidated Freightways
has estimated that the depth to groundwater, where substances have been reported in
excess ·of the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards, is 25 to 35 feet
beneath land surface. It is highly unlikely that substances in groundwater at the site
owned by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated will have an adverse impact on these
water supply lines. There are no drinking water supplies that rely on surface water
intakes within a½ mile radius of the site.
On August 12, 1996 the Mooresville Regional Office recommended that this
variance request be granted. On October 9, 1996 the Division of Epidemiology
concurred with the recommendation of the Mooresville Regional Office. On April 29,
1997 the Groundwater Section Chief requested additional information be provided to
complete the review of this variance pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113. Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated provided the requested information in April 30, 1997. The
review of this additional information was completed in June 1997 and the request was
sent to the Director's office to determine if the variance application was completed
pursuant to ISA NCAC 2L .0113 (d); On June 27, 1997 the Director of the Division of
Water Quality gave approval for this variance to proceed to public notice and hearing ..
Pursuant to ISA NCAC 2L .0113(d) and (e), public notice of this variance was
sent to adjacent property owners, well owners, the. Iredell County Health Director, the
City Manager for the City of Statesville, and the Mayor of Statesville on July 23, 1997.
Notice of this hearing was also published in the July 27, 1997 edition of the Statesville
Record and Landmark to meet requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(A). In
addition, approximately 150 notices of this variance request were sent to persons listed
in the "Groundwater Variance and Regulatory Actions Mailing List" to meet the
requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113(e)(l)(F).
A public hearing was held on August 26, 1997 in Statesville, North Carolina.
This hearing was attended by four persons. One individual from .S & ME Incorporated,
representing the Consolidated Freightways Incorporated spoke in favor of granting the
variance request. No other persons that attended this hearing made any comments. Only
. one . written comment was received from Consolidated Freightways environmental
consultant concerning monitoring at this site prior to the close of the hearing record on
September 26, 1997.
It is recommended that the Environmental Management Commission grant
the variance request for the Consolidated Freightways Incorporated site at State Road
2173 in Statesville, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident Number #5484) pursuant to
the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113 and North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.3(e). It is also recommended that the variance be approved based on the
condition that Consolidated Freightways continues to monitor the
" ..... contamination plume on an annual basis until such time as it can be
determined that contamination levels are no longer increasing and/or natural
attenuation is occurring as anticipated. ". When it is determined that the farm
pond is not at risk, a "no further action" letter may be issued by the Groundwater
Section Staff.
. . . 36
PUBLIC HEARING
A public notice was published advising interested parties that a public hearing was
scheduled on August 26, 1996 (Attachment 1). The public hearing was conducted as scheduled.
The Division was represented by three staff members:
Larry D. Coble
Paul R. Dahlen
David Hance
Hearing Officer
Moore.sville Regional Office
Recorder
The hearing was attended by four citizens, one of these, Mr. Stewart M. Hines, Senior
Hydrogeolog_ist for S&ME, consultants, for the Company made a brief statement in support of the
variance request. No other comments were presented. Opening remarks were given by the
Hearing Officer, followed by the staff presentation by Paul Dahlen (Attachment 3). No written
comments were received during the hearing and only one comment was received prior to the
closing of the hearing record on September 26, 1997. That comment was from Consolidated
Freightways environmental consultant (Attachment 8).
DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION
The two issues before the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) are whether.
to grant a varianc~ from the Groundwater quality standards for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, and ethylene dibromide as found in NCAC 2L .0202; and a variance · from the
requirement to continue to implement a corrective action plan using the best available technology
as required by NCAC 2L .0106 G). .
This property consisted of approximately 94 acres and was previously owned by Mr. N. C.
fames. It was operated as a dairy farm from 1947 until· 1990, when it -..vas purchased by
Consolidated Freightways. Upon purchase, the Company removed 5 underground storage tanks
that were used to supply fuel for farm equipment. Contamination was found at this time. The
Company bought this property with the intent of using it for Company operations. Since that time
the Company has decided to place the property on the market for sale. The proposed variance will
apply only to about 3 acres of the 94 acre tract of land.
A total of $286,000 has been expended on clean-up of this site so far, as of June 10, 1997,
$165,564.69 h_as been reimbursed from the State Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. This
clean-up included contaminated soil removal to the extent practicable and groundwater extraction
and treatment. · Consolidated Freightways, Inc. has submitted supporting information
demonstrating that continued operation of best available technology will not result in significant
long term remediation of the site to the groundwater quality standards in 15 A NCAC 21 .0202.
The Company contends that continued operation of the existing system will be a serious financial
burden for them and the Trust Fund without significant public benefit.
38
Attachment 1
(Public N otice)
39
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARI1'IG
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND N=A-T-:URA.L
, I ,.;_1 _ _.-___ : ~ ,.-.-•• _J
RESOURCES ·f.\J c': r~.--..,,;. :: . ...,. · •
.t•'I,•'-"· ::...,;;:;_..,.~. c1 =dr~Ft
II rL 1.~ C -:OQ7 ,,, \,.; ...., ..... _,
'-Min~ .. r•-r•-: .... ~:, L 1~;•._.1; :--.2)<:,!!~m
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Notice is hereby given of a variance application and public hearing to be helfh~h)?~bihiAf~fif:of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission. The
hearing concerns a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202
and the Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 G) for a site at State Road 2173 (James Fann
Road) in Statesville, North Carolina. The Division of Water Quality refers to this site identified in the variance
request as Groundwater Incident# 5484. This property, previously ovmed by Mr. N.C. James of Statesville,
North Carolina, is now owned by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated. The Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated is entirely responsible for cleanup for Groundwater Incident# 5484. This variance application
from Consolidated Freightways was received for review by the Department on May 16, 1996.
The property where the release of petroleum product has occurred is located as foIJows:
In Iredell County near the Interstate 40 and Interstate 77 interchange. Take US 40 west to Statesville, North
Carolina and continue on past Interstate 77 approximately one and one-half miles. Take the US 21 Exit north
for one-half mile and tum right (east) onto James Farm Road (State Road 2173). Turn onto the dirt road
when State Road 2173 abruptly angles north. The site is at the abandoned farm that was previously operated
by Mr. N.C. James on this dirt road. This property is listed in the Iredell County Tax Records as Parcel
Number 111 OBOOOOA043.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated requests that the Environmental Management Commission
grant the following variance to its rules under the authority of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 so that it does the
following:
(1) · Allo\V concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (-o,-m, and p), and Ethylene
Dibromide to remain at levels above 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed on April 22, 1996.
These concentrations will be required to remain within the property boundaries of Parcel Number
111 OBOOOA043. . ..
The property at James Farm Road, for which the Consolidated Freightways I_ncorporated has
cleanup responsibilities under Groundwater Incident Number 5484, consists of approximately 94.492
acres of land. The total land area covered in this variance request consists _ of 2. 7 5 acres of this land
(120,000 square feet) and is roughly in the shape of a rectangl~. From 194_7 through 1990 Mr. N .C.
James operated a dairy on this property. During this period Mr. James stored petroleum products on
this land for use in fann machinery and vehicles. Four 1,000 gallon underground storage tanks
containing ·gasoline and one 550 gallon underground storage tank containing diesel fuel were kept on
this site. In 1990, Mr. James sold this property to Consolidated Freightways Incorporated. In
purchasing the property Consolidated Freightv.ays Incorporated accepted the responsib_ility to cleanup
this site. Tbis property is located in an area with a mixture of commercial, industrial, and residential
development.
1
. ' • r
.., u
Pursuant to the transfer of property to Consolidated Freightways Incorporated, the company
removed four 1, 000 gal10n underground storage tanks for gasoline at an area known as "Tank Pit#
i" and one 550 gallon tank that was once used to store diesel fuel from part of the property identified
as "Tank Pit# 2" in November 1989.During tank removal it was discovered that unknown quantities
of diesel fuel and gasoline had been released over the time this property had been operated as a farm.
All potential sources of groundwater contamination were identified at this property by the company.
The site assessment was submitted on November 26, 1990. The corrective action plan for this site was
submitted on January 23, 1991. Additional reports concerning the progress of cleanup at this site were
submitted between November 1991 and June 1994. These plans and reports were approved by the
Division and are on file at the Mooresville Regional Office.
All contaminated soils from Tank Pit# l and Tank Pit# 2 were excavated and treated at the site
· and there are no remaining soils impacted by this release. Pursuant to approval by the Mooresville
Regional Office, these soils were land applied over a 12 acre area of the farm. After eight weeks of
land application, four composite soil samples were collected and revealed less than 5 parts per million
ofBTEX and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). This concentration is below the level found in
the "Groundwater Section Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Soil and Groundwater
(March 17, 1997) ". Pennits to remediate soils via application to the land surface are no longer needed
and have ·either expired or have been rescinded.
The comprehensive site assessment revealed a groundwater plume from a small area of free
product contamination at Tank Pit # 1 where the four gasoline underground storage tanks had been
removed. The area of free product was in the shape of an ellipse and was approximately 22,500
square feet (0.52 acres) in diameter with it's longitudinal axis in a southwesterly direction. Site
assessment information on file in the Mooresville Regional Office shows that the vertical extent of
this plume to be approximately 46.5 feet below the ground surface. It is not believed that this plume
contaminated the bedrock aquifer beneath this site. Groundwater cleanup was initiated at this site in
an area known as Tank Pit # 1 on October 28, 1991. The cleanup system used by Consolidated
Freightways focorporated consisted of a combination of pump-and-treat with air-stripping via carbon
filter to remove contaminants from groundwater. The treated discharge was sent to an upgraident
infiltration gallery. An infiltration gallery is a closed-loop conveyance that allows water and other
fluids, discharged through an air stripping device, to be sent back into the subsurface where they
recirculated into the cleanup system for continual treatment. An infiltration gallery may also serve
to enhance intrinsic biodegradation of contaminants by introducing dissolved oxygen in the subsurface
which may stimulate biologic decomposition of some dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons. A recovery
trench was excavated in the area of the fonner Tank Pit# 1 as a collection point for migrating liquids
beneath the surface of the ground. On December 2, 1993 the Division of Water Quality recommended
the pump-and-treat system be turned off and monitoring be conducted and cleanup operations ceased
on December 1 7, 1993. In order to maintain operational status of the pump-and-treat cleanup system
the company reactivated the cleanup system for a brief period of time from June 1, 1994 through
September 1, 1994. Groundwater cleanup was not necessary at Taruc Pit# 2 since monitoring well
sampling data has revealed no groundwater contamination at this area of the property.
The Division of Water Quality required Consolidated Freightways Incorporated to perform
groundwater monitoring to detennine the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. Since April 23,
1990 monitoring has been conducted at six on-site wells located at State Road 2 i 73. · Benzene was
found in one of the six on site monitoring wells on July 29, 1990. The highest concentration of
Benzene found in a monitoring well, prior to implementation of groundwater cleanup, was 0.341
milligrams per liter found in Monitoring Well # 7 during the July 29, 1990 sampling event. The
2
... .L
Groundwater Quality Standard for Benzene in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is 0.00 I milligrams per li~er.
Concentrations of Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and Xylene were also found in Monitoring Well,# 7
significantly above the Groundwater Quality Standards in Title 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Monitoring
Well # 7 is located within the area of the proposed variance approximately 30 feet west of Tarik Pit
# 1. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted on four different occasions over the last seven years.
Since July 29, 1990 no substances have appeared in Monitoring Well # 7. From April 23, 1990
through April 22, 1996 no substances have been detected in the remaining monitoring wells.
The Division also required Consolidated Freightways Incorporated to evaluate the effectiveness
of groundwater cleanup efforts by examining concentrations of substances in recovery wells beginning
February 26, 1992. Recovery wells at Consolidated Freightways site on State Road 2173 site are used
as sumps to collect groundwater, free product, and dissolved hydrocarbons from the site for treatment.
This monitoring effort was necessary to understand the effect pump-and-treat cleanup had on
concentrations of substances at the site. Samples were obtained from the four recovery wells located
near Tank Pit # 1. The highest concentration of Benzene found in a recovery well, since groundwater
cleanup was implemented in October 1991; was 15.0 milligrams per liter found in Recovery Well#
BMW-1/RW-4 during the February 26, 1992 sampling event. The Groundwater Quality Standard for
Benzene in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 is 0.001 milligrams per liter. Concentrations of Ethylbenzene,
Toluene, and Xylene were also found in Recovery Well# BMW-1/RW-4 significantly above the
Groundwater Quality Standards in Title 15A NCAC 2L .0202. This recovery well is located in an
west-southwest direction from the infiltration gallery and pump-and-treat cleanup system. It must be
noted that Recovery Well# BMW-1/RW-4 was a monitoring well at the time the February 26, 1992
sample was obtained. Shonly after the February 1992 semi-annual monitoring event, this well was
converted to a recovery well. Since that time no substances have appeared in Recovery Well #
BMW-l/RW-4.
Except for Recovery Well R :T'-1, concentrations of substances in recovery wells have been
reduced such that no substances were detected during the April 22, 1996 monitoring event. Benzene
was initially _found in recovery well RT-1 at a concentration of 1.730 milligrams per liter on February
7, 1992. The Groundwater Quality Standard for Benzene is 0.001 milligram per liter.
Concentrations of Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and Xylene were also ·found in this recovery well
significantly above the Groundwater Quality Standards in Title 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Since
February 1992 the company has monitored the groundwater quality at this well on six different
occasions. Reductions in concentration levels in recovery well RT-1 have been foliowed by upward
"rebounding" of concentrations, above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
The April 22, 1996 monitoring event revealed that concentrations of substances at recovery well RT-1
still remained above the standards. Benzene found in this recovery well R T-1 was at a concentration
of0.860 milligrams per liter on February 7, 1992. Ethylbenzene was also found in this recovery well
at a concentration above the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. As indicated
by monitoring at Recovery Well# RT-1, insignificant reductions in Benzene and other substances
have occurred near the recovery trench as a result of using pump-and-treat with carbon air stripping
technologies. No significant increase in concentrations of substances was observed as a result of the
cessation of pump-and-treat cleanup operation.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has submitted supporting information showing that the
variance will not endanger public health, safety, or the environment. There are no water wells or
surface water supplies that are located in the downgraident direction from the site and known to be
in use as sources of drinking within a ½ mile radius of Consolidated Freightways Incorporated
property kno~'Il as Parcel Number l l 10B000OA043. The requirements for variance applications in
3
.,
42
15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4) specify that locations of drinking water wells and other water supply
sources that are within one-half mile of the site must be shown on a map. There are six water supply
' wells located cross-gradient from the area for which the variance has been requested. These residential
wells are located to the north and northwest of the site on James Farm Road. The infonnation
submitted by the company shows that the Mark White Residence at 187 James Fann Road, also
identified in the variance request as "Private Water Well # 4", has a water well but obtains water
supply from the county. The remaining five wells are used as the sole water supply for seven
residences . Two of these residences share the same well. Three wells are located on Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated property and have been abandoned and were closed by the introduction of
grout in these wells on October 23, 1991. The company does not believe these on-site wells will serve
as a channel for substances to migrate off-site. There are no large capacity drinking water supply
wells or drinking water supply intakes at surface water bodies located within a½ mile radius of the
site. Drinking water in the area is obtained from the City of Statesville Light and Water Department
or the Iredell Water Corporation. The water supplied by the City of Statesville Light and Water
Department comes from a surface water intake located five miles from the site owned by Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated. Water from the Iredell Water Corporation is from two water supply wells
located 8/10 of a mile from the site. These two wells • are six inch diameter and are located
approximately 400 feet deep in bedrock. The yield from these ~ells ranges from 16,000 to 40,000
gallons per day. Consolidated Freightways does not believe pumping from these wells has an
influence on groundwater flow anhe site.
Based on groundwater flow information obtained durin_g the Comprehensive Site Assessment,
it is believed that the contaminant plume is moving to the west-southwest. Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated has calculated the time it will take. Benzene and other substances found at the site to
impact three down-gradient on-site ponds that discharge into Fourth Creek, a tributary of the Yadkin
River. The company asserts that substances in the plume of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons will
enter the three farm ponds at concentration levels exceeding 15A NCAC 21 .0202 standards for
Benzene, Eth:¥lene Dibromide, and Isopropyl Ether between 30 and 62 years. This estimated range
assumes that no dilution or attenuation of the plume occurs.
An Iredeli Water Corpo~ation water supply line passes through the area for which the variance
has been requested. The Iredell Water Corporation has reported to the Groundwater Section staff that
water supply lines are generally -located at a ·depth of three to six feet beneath land surface.
Consolidated Freightways has estimated that the depth to groundwater, where substances have been
reported in excess of the 15A NCAC 21 .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards, is 25 to 35 feet
beneath land surface. It is highly unlikely that substances in groundwater at the site owned by
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated will have an adverse impact on this water supply line .
2) Allow for the restoration of groundwater without requiring remedial actions in accordance with
15A NCAC 21 .01060). Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has submitted supporting
information demonstrating that the continued application of best available technology will not result
in significant long term remediation of the site to the Groundwater Quality Standards contained in
ISA NCAC 21 .0202. This is due to the high probability that continued remediation ·activities at the
site will not significantly reduce contaminant levels below Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A
NCAC 21 .0202. Consolidated Freightways Incorporated reports that 4100 cubic yards of diesel and
gasoline contaminated soils were removed, stockpiled, and remediated at this site. A total of2,448,750
gallons of groundwater has been treated using this technology. A total of$ 286,000 has been
4
43
expended to conduct the site assessment, reimburse claims, conduct monitoring, and cl,eanup ,this
site. Information from the Groundwater Section shows that as of June 10, 1997, $ 165,564.69 of this
cost has been reimbursed through the Non-Commercial Leaking Petroleum Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has shown that no significant increases in the
concentration of any substance above groundwater standards was observed in monitoring wells as a
result of the cessation of pump-and-treat cleanup at this site. It must be noted that fluctuations in the
concentrations of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene in recovery well RT-1 have occurred
and no significant reductions have been observed since March 7, 1994. The company believes that the
continued presence of substances in the recovery trench of the former Tank Pit # I, demonstrates that
continued implementation of pump and treat will not result in a significant reduction in contaminant
concentrations at this site.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated does not believe the use of in-situ or enhanced
bioremediation is best available technology for this site. In-situ or enhanced bioremediation relies on
the introduction of nutrients and oxygen to groundwater to assist in supporting the development of
a population of microorganisms capable of breaking down substances into harmless chemicals such
that con~entrations of substances are reduced below the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality
Standards. The company has submitted information demonstrating that conditions at this site are
such that the life and growth of indigenous populations of microbes that may exist in the subsurface
will be sustained. Consolidated Freightways Incorporated believes that "intrinsic bioremediation"
is already occurring at this site. In-situ or enhanced bioremediation will require the company to
expend additional funds to meet the permining requirements for injection wells in 15A NCAC 2C
.0200 to introduce nutrients and oxygen irito the subsurface. Consolidated Freightways does not
believe it is cost effective· to use in-situ bioremediation at a site where natural conditions in the
subsurface are capable of supporting viable microbial populations.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has considered the use of air sparging as an alternate
technology to the present pump-and-treat system. The company does not believe that the use of this
technology is practical to meet the requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5). Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated estimates the yearly costs to operate and maintain an air sparging system
would be approximately $ 18,000 based on a monthly projected .monthly cost of$ 1,500. Additional
costs for air sparging system design, well construction, and equipment would need to be calculated
before this cleanup technology could be used at the site. The company estimates that it may take at
least two years for air sparging to reduce remaining contaminant levels below the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202, if these standards can be met at all. Consolidated
Freightways believes that the low residual concentrations of substances in groundwater at the site and
the lack of any human receptors does not warrant the additional expense of implementing air sparging.
The hearing will be held as follows:
STATESVILLE
Tuesday, August 26, 1997
7:00 PM
Iredell County Hall of Justice
Second Floor, Courtroom# 1
221 Water Street
5
44
' ' .
I
' Oral Comments may be made during the hearing, or written statements may be submitted to the
agency by September 26, 1997. Written copies of oral statements exceeding three minutes are requested.
Oral statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officers.
Please forward comments or "information requests to:
David Hance
EHl\TR.-DWQ-Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Internet E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
This proposed variance request is available for public inspection at the locations listed below. Copies
may be obtained at each location for a charge of ten cents per page.
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director, Division of Water Quality
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29578
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh,. NC 27626-0578
[phone]
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
6
45
Attachment 2
(Registration List)
. '
I
48
Attachment 3
(Hearing Officer's Speech)
50
The written comment period for this variance will close at 12:00 PM (midnight) on
September 26, 1997. I am requiring you to complete the hearing officers report and
the recommendation to the Environmental Management Commission· Groundwater
Committee by December 26, 1997. This period of time is ninety (90) days after the closing
date for written public comment and allows Division staff adequate time to review your
recommendation. Unless significant new site information becomes available after the public
hearing or other extraordinary circumstances occur that dictate a longer review period by the
hearing officer, the earliest date that this variance may be considered by the Groundwater
Committee is October 9, 1997. If your review of the variance shows that there is a need for
a longer evaluation period, please contact Arthur Mouberr,y at [phone].
I appreciate your taking the time to conduct _this hearing. The staff will be glad to
assist you through the proceedings. If you have any questions, feel free to call Carl Bailey at
[phone].
Attachments ..
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
David Hance
2
Public Hearing-Variance Request
Tuesday, August 26, 1997
7:00 P.M.
51
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106G)
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated Property at State Road 2173 (James Farm
Road) in Statesville, North Carolina
(Groundwater Incident Number 5484)
HEARlNG LOCATED AT:
Iredell County Hall of Justice -(at 7 :00 PM)
Second Floor, Courtroom Number 1
221 Water Street, Statesville, NC
Contact in Raleigh -David Hance (919) 'iiS-6189
Mooresville Regional Office Staff Speaker -Paul Dahlen [phone]
Contact.at the Courthouse -Lynn Brennan (i04) 878-4213 {before 4:30 PM)
HEARING OFFICER:
HEARI,'\G OFFICER'S SPEECH
Larry Coble, Divi~ion of Water Quality, Regional Supervisor
(Winston-Salem Regional Office)
HEARING OFFICER: GOOD EVE).lNG, I '\-VOl"I.,D LIKE TO CALL THIS
PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER. l'vIY ~.'\!\IE IS LARRY COBLE, A..1\/-n I AM ·
THE DIVISION OF '\-YATER Ql~ALITY REGIO>.~ S'l-:PERVISOR IN THE
WINSTON-SALEl\1 REG I OK Al omcE. I -HA VE BEEN DESIGNATED
HEARThrG OFFICER FOR T0;-..1:GHT'S PROCEEDL"'iGS.
TIDS HEARING IS BEL',:G HELD PCRSUA.\""T TO NORTH CAROLINA
GE~"ERAL STATUTE 150B-21..2. L, .ACCORDA."CE \YITH THE GENERAL
STATUT:J3:S, A PUBLIC NOTICE OF nns HEARING ,VAS PUBLISHED IN
1
53
UPON REMOVAL OF TANKS LOCATED AT THIS FARl\1 BY
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS RELEASES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT
WERE DISCOVERED CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTW AYS
HAS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLEANUP AT THIS SITE.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH THE
INTENT OF USING IT FOR COl\1PANY OPERATIONS. SINCE THAT TII\1E
THE COMP ANY HAS DECIDED TO PLACE THIS PROPERTY ON THE
MARKET FOR SALE PE:N"DING FINAL ACTION ON THIS VARIAN CE
REQUEST. THIS PROPOSED VARIAN CE FOR CONSOLIDATED
:2>-:
FREIGHTWAYS WILL APPLY ONLY T0-'1ACRES OF THE..., 94
AND 1/2 ACRE TRACT OF LAl'\1)
3
• I ' I
54
THE APPLICAI\T'f PROPOSES TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION ON
CONCENTRATIONS OF -BENZENE, TOLUEl\TE, ETHYLBENZENE,
XYLEI"-i~S, ETHYLEI\TE DIBROl\.1IDE FOUND DURJNG THE APRIL 22, 1996
GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS, AS LONG AS CONCENTRATIONS REMAIN
2>.
WITIDN THE BOUNDARIES OF TffiS .. ACRE AREA OF THIS
PROPERTY.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS ALSO PROPOSES THAT CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS REQUIRING THE APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE
TECHN'OLOGY IN 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (j) NO!f BE APPLIED TO THE AREA
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES "OF THE PROPOSED VARIAN CE.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS HAS REPORTED THAT---.. So S:-4 ;.-
.
$ 286,000 HAS BEEN EXPENDED TO CLEANUP THIS SITE. INFOR.l\1ATION
FRO:M: THE GROUNDWATER SECTION SHOWS THAT AS OF JUNE 10,
1997, CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS HAS BEEN REil\IBURSED
$ 165,564.69 FROM THE NON-COMMERCIAL
UNDERGROUND STOR.\.GE TA.:~"K TRUST FUND FOR TffiS SITE.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS HAS SUBMITTED SUPPORTING
INFORMATION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE CONTINUED APPLICATION
4
55
ENVIRON1\1ENTAL 1\LL\... 'l\lAGEI\1ENT COM:MISSION CONSIDERS THE
WRITTEN RECORD, THE . RECOMlvIENDATION OF THE HEARING
.. .
OFFICER, THE RECOMJ\1EI\1DATIONS OF DIVISION STAFF, AND THE
.
CONCERNS OF ITS l\1EMBERS. THE COMMISSION MUST ALSO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH 15A NCAC
2L .0113(g).
AT ;1'ffiS Til\IE I lVOULD. LIKE TO RECOG\1ZE (names or local and state
officials) • .<\ND TH...\1\"X YOU FOR ATTE~"DING '!'IDS HEARING. I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO RECOGI\1IZE THE FOLLO\VTh.G PEOPLE FROM THE
DMSION OF WATER QUALITY (DWQ central office and DWQ regional office personnel).
\ r D h ! e. i,"I. p~ (.>.
lVlR.(staff speaker) OF THE DMSION OF "\YATER QUALITY-
GROUt\'TI.WATER SECTION :\IOORESVILLE REGION.AL OFFICE WILL
6
• t 56
OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT RESULT IN
SIGNIFICANT LONG TERM RE:MEDIATION OF THE SITE
· THE
COMPANY BELIEVES THAT APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY AT TIIlS LOCATION IS A SERIOUS FINANCIAL IMPACT
~~~~+
WITHOUTRRB PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THIS HEARING WILL CONFORl\1 TO PROCEDURES IN 15A NCAC 2L
J~
.0113. it,'JI.. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE NOTICE OF VARIANCE
.DA.-~Uc...
APPLICATION Al'H) HEARING
FOR PUBLIC REVIEW .
.
· A ,vruTTEN RECORD OF THIS HEARING WILL BE PREPARED WHICH
WILL INCLUDE ALL THE RELEVANT CO1\1l'v.1ENTS, QUESTIONS, AI\TD
DISCUSSIONS. FOR THIS REASON, THE HEARING IS BEING TAPE
~.ll. ~, ~ ~ ~~ o.--t
RECORDED:l'WRITTEN COMl\1ENTS RECEIVED THROUGH SEPTEMBER ~
26, 1997 'WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. BASED ON THESE
PUBLIC COl\.1MENTS AND ON ANALYSIS BY THE GROUNDWATER STAFF,
I WILL MAKE A RECOl\iil\.1ENDATION TO THE ENVIRONl\1ENTAL
•.
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION .. IN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, THE
5
58
[speakers ... ]
(the hearing officer, referring to THE REGISTRATION CARDS, calls each speaker to the
microphone in turn )
HEARIN G OFFICER: THA..~K YOU [last speaker]. ARE THERE ANY MORE
COMI\.1ENTS? SINCE THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I DECLARE
THE HEARING CLOSED. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN
UNTIL 12:00 PM (MIDNIGHT) ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1997. .ANYONE
' WISHING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMl\ffiNTS l\1AY DO SO UNTIL THAT
DATE. AFTER WHICH TllvIE, THE COMMENTS ,,TJLL BE MADE PART OF
THE PUBLIC RECORD A..'/\TD I SHALL MAKE RECOM.rv[ENDATIONS TO
THE ENVIRONMEXTAL .MA1'\1AGEMENT C01\1MISSI0N. WRITTEN
COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED TO DAVID HA.NCE AT THE DIVISION
OF 'WATER QUALITY GROU!'\TD\VATER SECTION. THE ADDRESS
WRITTEN C01\1MENTS I'm.ED TO BE SENT TO IS SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC
NOTICE AND IS AS FOLLOWS:
David Hance
EIThTR-DWQ-Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
8
59
A FACSIJ\-IILE COPY OF \VRITTEN COl'vD\1ENTS MAY BE SENT TO MR.
HANCE BY DIALL'\iG [phone]. HIS TELEPHO>:'"E NUMBER IN
RALEIGH IS [phone].
IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COM.MISSION TO AL vVA YS ACT IN THE
BEST POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IS A VERY L\1PORTA.1\T PART OF THE RULE-MAKL~G
PROCESS. I \VOULD LIKE TO THA ... ~K YOU FOR ATTENDING THE
HEARL"iG A.!"iD OFFERING YOUR CO:\IIVIENTS.
9
. ' .
60
Attachment 4
(Directions to Hearing)
61
DIRECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
V ARJANCE REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTW A YS
IN CORPORA TED (GW INCIDENT# 5484)
FROM R~LEIGH:
Take Interstate 40 west and get on Interstate 40-85 west; take Interstate 40 at Greensboro, North
Carolina and proceed to Statesville. Take Exit 150 south onto North Center Street in Statesville.
Continue on North Center Street and turn left onto Water Street. Cross Tradd Street and look for
the Iredell County Hall of Justice on the left hand side of the road.
FROM \v1NSTON-SALEM:
'
Take Interstate 40 out of Winton-Salem, North Carolina and proceed west to Statesville.· Take
Exit 150 south onto North Center Street in Statesville. Continue on North Center Street and turn
left onto \Vater Street. Cross Tradd Street and look for the Iredell County Hall of Justice on the
left hand side of the road.
FROM MOORESVILLE:
Take Interstate 77 north and take Interstate 40 west to Statesville. Take Exir 150 south onto ·
North Center Street in Statesville. Continue on North Center Street and turn left onto \Vater
Street. Cross Tradd Street and look for the Iredell County Hall of Justice on the left hand side of
the road _.
(SEE ATTACHED MAPS)
..
. .
62
Attachment 5
{June 20, 1997 Memorandum)
63
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GROUNDWATER SECTION
June 20, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Preston Howard
Arthur Mouberry #
Request for Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106G)
for a Site Owned by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated of Statesville, North
Carolina (Iredell County) {also bzown as the Former NC. James Farm Site;
Groundwater Incident Number 5484; Priority Ranking 55/B}.
From 1947 through 1990 Mr. N.C. James operated a dairy from on this property located
at State Road 2173 near Interstate 77 in Iredell County. During this period Mr. James stored
petroleUII?-products on this property for use in farm machinery and vehicles. Four 1 ;000 gallon
underground storage tanks containing gasoline and one 550 gallon underground storage tank
containing diesel fuel were kept on this site. In 1990, Mr. James sold this property to
Consolidated Freightv.:ays Incorporated. In purchasing the property Consolidated Freighm·ays
Incorporated accepted the responsibility to cleanup this site.
Pursuant to title 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c) variance applications are required to contain
specific information in order to adequately review a request. The Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated variance request is contained in a report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 5484
Consolidated Frei2:htwavs. Inc. Former James Fann Site. Statesville , North Carolina S&ME
Proiect No. 1354-96-368 (Mav 1996)". Additional information concerning the area for which th:
variance is requested is found in a letter from Consolidated Freightways consultant dated April
30, 1997. In addition, the Groundwater Section requested that Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated provide a justification for a variance in lieu of submitting a corrective action plan
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(k), (I) and (m). This information is shown a letter from
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated' s environmental consultant titled "Rationale for Variance
Reauest Versus (k) or (I) CAPs" dated June 28, 1996. Toe comprehensive site assessment,
corrective action plans for soil and groundwater cleanup were submitted by the company and
approved by the Mooresville Regional Office. From November 1991 through June 1994
Consolidated Freightways submitted numerous reports on the progress of cleanup activities for
this site.
1
64
The information submitted by S&ME Incorporated on behalf of Consolidated
Freightv-:ays Incorporated appears to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0113 (c) and is
summarized as follows:
Rule .0113(cV]): Resolution bv the Countv or QoverninQ Board:
The Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has always been a privately
owned company. No resolution is necessary.
_Rule .0113( c )(2): A descrintion of past. existing or nronosed activities that would result in a
discharQ'e of contaminants into ~oundwater:
. The property owned by Consolidated Frightvrays Incorporated (formerly
o,vn~d by J\.fr. N.C. James), is located in Iredell County at the Interstate 40 (I-40)
and Interstate 77 (I-77) interchange. The site is approximately one mile northeast
from the City of Statesville, North Carolina. The property is located on a gravel
driveway off of State Road 2173, also known as "James Farm Road", and is Parcel
Number 1110B0000A043. The report titled "Variance Reguest Incident No. 5484
Consolidated Freightwavs. inc. Former James Farm Site. Statesville. North
Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368 (1\,fav 1996)" contains the relevant
information about this site. A road map and areal photograph of this site are shown
in Figure 2 and Figure 4, respectively. The Consolidated Freightways Incorporated,
site consi:;ts of approximately 94.492 acres of land. In ~ovember 1989 Consolidated
FreighnYays Incorporated remoYed four 1, 000 gallon underground storage tanks
for gasoline at an area known as "Tank Pit# 1". One 550 gallon tank that was once
used to store diesel fuel was remo-ved from part of the property designated as "Tank
Pit# 2 ". During tank remoYal it was discovered that unknow-n quantities of diesel
fuel and gasoline had been released over the time t?-is property had been operated as
a farm .. .ul potential sources of groundwater contamination were identified at this
property by the company. The Consolidated Freightways Incorporated property at
James Farm Road and all adjacent properties are in an area with a mixture of
commercial, industrial, and residential development
A land application and data report was sent to the Division on July 31, 1990.
The site assessment was submitted on November 26, 1990. The corrective action
plan for this site was submitted on January 23, 1991. Additional reports concerning
the progress of cleanup at this site were submitted between November 1991 and
June 1994. The variance request shows that of these plans and reports were
appro,;ed by the Division and are on file at the Moorertille Regional Office.
On September 14, 1990 ?\on-Discharge Permit \VQ0003980 was issued for
2
65
land disposal of contaminated soils. Soil Remediation Permit SR0300109 was also
issued for this site. Consolidated Freightways Incorporated reports that 4100 cubic
yards of diesel and gasoline contaminated soils were removed and stockpiled at this
site. Pursuant to approval by the Mooresville Regional Office, these soils were land
applied over a 12 acre area of the farm. After eight weeks of land application, four
composite soil samples were collected and revealed less than 5 parts per million of
BTEX and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). All contaminated soils from
Tank Pit# 1 and Tank Pit# 2 were excavated and treated at the site and there are
no remaining soils impacted by this release. The non-discharge permit for soils
expired on February 18, 1994 and the soil remediation permit for land application
·was rescinded on May 20, 1996.
The comprehensive site assessment revealed a groundwater plume from a
small area of free product contamination at Tank Pit# 1 where the four gasoline
underground storage tanks had been removed. The area of free product was in the
shape of an ellipse and was approximately 22,500 square feet (0.52 acres) in
diameter with it's longitudinal axis in a southwesterly direction. Site assessment
information on file in the Mooresville Regional Office shows that the vertical extent
of this plume to be ·approximately 46.5 feet below the ground surface. It is not
believed that this plume contaminated the bedrock aquifer beneath this site. Based
on core samples of wells the company believes the rock beneath surface is
unfractured up to a depth of 49 feet. Groundwater cleanup was conducted at this
site in an area known as Tank Pit# 1 from October 28, 1991 through December 17,
19~3. On December 2, 1993 the Division of Water Quality recommended the pump-
and-treat system be turned off and monitoring be conducted to determine if residual·
contaminants in the soils and subsurface would recontaminate the groundwater, if
no treatment system were operating. This recommendation "'as made on the
condition that Consolidated Freightways Incorporated would maintain this cleanup
system in "operational status" for a period of one year. In order meet this
requirement the company re-activated the pump-and-treat cleanup system from
June 1, 1994 through September 1, 1994. By October 1994 the company's budget
for this site had been expended and the cleanup system was turned off again.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated did not authorize additional cleanup funds
for this site. Monitoring well sampling data has revealed no groundwater
contamination at Tank Pit# 2.
From October 28, 1991 through December 17, 1993 a total of2,448,750
gallons of groundwater has been treated via pump-and-treat technology. The
cleanup system used by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated consisted of a
combination of pump-and-treat with air-stripping via carbon filter to remove
contaminants from the site. The treated discharge was sent to an upgraident
infiltration gallery. An infiltration gallery is a closed-loop conveyance that allows
water ~.nd other fluids, discharged through an air stripping device, to be sent back
into the subsurface where they recirculated into the cleanup system for continual
treatment~ An infiltration gallery may also serve to enhance intrinsic
3
66
biodegradation of contaminants by introducing dissolved o:,..")'gen in the subsurface
,vhich may stimulate biologic decomposition of some dissolved petroleum
hydrocarbons. A recovery trench was excava.ted in the _area of the former Tank Pit
# 1 as a colledion point for migrating liquids beneath the surface of the ground.
Non-Discharge Permit WQ0005069 was issued on September 13, 1991 for the
infiltration gallery. On August 12, 1996 the MooresvilJe Regional Office reported
that this infiltration gallery is not currently in use and will not be used if the
Yariance is granted.
The Division of W_ater Quality required Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated to perform groundwater monitoring to determine the vertical and
lateral extent of contamination at the site. From April 23, 1990 through April 22,
1996 the company conducted periodic groundwater sampling at six on-site
monitoring wells. The deepest of these monitoring wens is Monitoring Well# 8
which is 32.83 feet deep below the land surface. Groundwater samples were
analyzed using US Environmental Protection (USEPA) Method 601 for dissolved
substances and USEP A Method 602 for BTEX, MTBE, and Isopropyl Ether. The
high~st concentrations of substances that ever appeared in monitoring wells at this
site occurred on July 29, 1990 in Monitoring Well# 7. Concentrations of substances
found during this monitoring event were in exceedence of the 15A NCAC 2L .0202
Groundwater Quality Standards. The concentrations of substances that appeared in
Monitoring Well# 7 during this sampling period are as follows:
CONCE!Y"TRA TIQ?'-J" CQNC:E1'1TR...~ TIQN GRQUNDW A TEB.
SJ.TB STA NCE (in mi&;rQQ"ram ~ (in Mjlligrams QUALITY
p er liter {ug/U) per liter {mg/L}) STANDARD fmg /L}
Benzene 341 0.341 0.001
Toluene 1020 1.020 1.000
Etbylbenzene 157 0.157 0.029
Xylene 1181 1.181 0.530
No substances appeared above detection limits in Monitoring Well# 7 after
July 29, 1990. Monitoring Well# 7 is located downgraident from the former Tank
Pit# 1 in a westerly direction from the infiltration gallery and pump-and-treat
cleanup system. No substances were found above detection limits in any of the other
monitoring wells between April 23, 1990 through April 22, 1996. Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated has also monitored BTEX levels in the six monitoring
wells. The highest BTEX concentration that ever appeared in a monitoring well at
this site was 2.715 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 2,715 micrograms per liter in
Monitor~ng Well# 7 during the July 29, 1990 sampling event. The state has no
Groundwater Quality Standard for BTEX. Subsequent semi-annual monitoring
4
67
since that time has revealed that the BTEX concentration has declined below
detectable limits. BTEX has not been found in any of the other moni_toring well
since July 29, 1990.
The Division also required the Consolidated Freighrn·ays Incorporated to
evaluate the effectiveness of groundwater cleanup efforts by examining
concentrations of substances in recovery wells used as sumps to collect free product
and dissolved hydrocarbons from the site. This monitoring effort was necessary to
understand the effect pump-and-treat cleanup has had on concentrations of
constituents at the site. Samples were obtained from four recovery wells February
26, 1992 through April 22 ,1996. These wells are located around the area which
formerly consisted of Tank Pit# 1. The highest concentrations of substances that
ever appeared in recovery wells at this site occurred during a semi-annual
monitoring event on February 26, 1992 in Recovery WelI BMW-1/RW-4. All
concentrations reported were in exceedence of the 15ANCAC 2L .0202
Groundwater Quality Standards. The concentrations of substances that appeared in
Recovery ·well# BMW-t/R,V-4 during this sampling period are as follows:
CQNCENTRA TIQN CQNCENTRA TION GROUNDW A TEB.
SUBSTANCE (in micrograms (in Milligrams QUALITY
per liter {ug-/L}) per liter {mg/L}) STANDARD (mg/L)
Benzene 15,000 15.0 0.001
Toluene 51,000 51.0 1.000
Ethylbenzene 3,900 3.9 0.029
Xylene 25,000 25.0 0.530
Since this semi-annual monitoring event, concentrations of substances in this
welI have decreased to the extent that they no longer exceed the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 21 .0202. This recovery well is located in an west-
southwest direction from the infiltration gallery and pump-and-treat cleanup
system. It must be noted that Recovery Well# BMW-1/RW-4 was a monitoring
well at the time the February 26, 1992 sample was obtained. Shortly after the
February 1992 semi-annual monitoring event, this well was converted to a recovery
well. In addition, concentrations of substances in samples taken from Recovery
Well# RT-1 between February 7, 1992 and April 22, 1996 have been and are
presently above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards. Recovery Well# RT-1 is
located directly in the recovery trench which was the former "Tank Pit# 1 " where
the four underground storage tanks had been located at this site. Neither of the
remaining recovery wells have had exeedences of the Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A NCAC 21 .0202. .
68
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has also monitored BTEX levels in
the four recovery wells at this site to evaluate the effectiveness of the cleanup system.
As shown on the map in Figure 4 of Appendix II, the highest ·BTEX concentration
that ever appeared in a recovery well at this site was 94.947 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) or 94,947 micrograms per liter (ug/L) in Recovery Well# BMW-1 during the
February 26, 1992 sampling event. The state has no Groundwater Quality Standard
for BTEX. Analysis of a groundwater sample taken on October 27, 1992 from this
well shows that this concentration was reduced to 0.072 milligrams per liter or 72
micrograms per liter. In addition, BTEX has also been detected at Recovery Well
# RT-1. The highest concentration of BTEX in this recovery well was 5.303
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 5,305 micrograms per liter (ug/L) analyzed from the
sample taken during the February 7, 1992. On August 12, 1996 the Mooresville
Regional Office reported that the BTEX concentration in the sample taken on April
22, 1996 from Recovery \Veil# RT-1 has decreased to L215 milligrams per liter or
1,215 micrograms per liter (ug/L). No other recovery wells have shown BTEX
conc,entrations above detectable levels during the six years that monitoring has been
conducted at this site.
Since Consolidated Freightways Incorporated conducted cleanup from
October 28, 1991 through December 17, 1993, levels of contaminants in
groundwater have been significantly reduced in monitoring wells and recovery wells
as shown in Table# 1, Figure# 11, and Appendix II of the report titled "Variance
Req uest Incident No. 5484 Consolidated Freightwavs. Inc. Former James Farm Site,
Statesville. North Carolina S&-:\fE Proiect No. 1354-96-368 [Mav 1996)". On April
22, 1996 Consolidated Freightways Incorporated conducted routine sampling of
monitoring wells and recovery wells at this site. None of the monitoring wells
showed concentration level abo-ve the 15~;. NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality
Standards. Except for Benzene, Ethylbenzene and Isopropyl Ether found in the
sample from the well in the recovery trench (Recovery \Vell # RT-1), laboratory
results from all other recovery wells showed substances below quantitation limits.
B-ased on the results of the April 1996 monitoring, Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated requested a variance for this site on May 16, 1996. As shown on Page
# 1 of the report, the company bas utilized the best available technology for this site
and has aggressively pursued clean-up such that it has resulted in a '~ .... reduction of
the plume extent and magnitude by over 90%". They have specifically requested a
variance for the "surficial aquifer' beneath the site.
Potential sources of groundwater contamination in the area are shown on
maps located in Figure# 2 and Appendi:t IV ofthe report titled "Variance Reauest
Incident No. 5484 Consolidated Frei~htwavs. Inc. Former James Farm Site.
Statesville. North Carolina S&?\IB Proiect No. 1354-96-368 r,\fav 1996)" and
inclu~_es the following:
6
69
1) Property mvned by the Clark Equipment Company located to the
south of this site on 93 acres and built in 1978. There is a building on
this property which consists of approximately 413,840 square feet;
2) Twenty acres of land owned by Frame Plastics Incorporated located
to the north and identified as "vacant" on May 1, 1996;
3) A separate property owned by Mr. N.C. James under the corporate
title of'1James Farms Incorporated" on 86.3 acres of located east of
the site and east of Interstate 77;
4) Property owned by the John S. Barnes Corporation located to the
southwest of the site ori approximately 41.7 acres ofland. A building
is on this site with a total square footage equal to 74,210 square feet.
The present use of this property is not known;
5) The well in the recovery trench identified as RT-1 where dissolved
petroleum hydrocarbons have been found as shown in the ·variance
request;
6) Three inactive drinking water wells located on the property. The
location of these wells relative to the recovery trench are as follows:
one well located directly north 150 feet away, a second well located
200-250 feet to the northwest, and a third well located 550 feet to the
southwest {see Figure 9 of Appendix II and Figure 14 of Appendix Ill}; .
7) A septic tank located 150-200 feet south of the recovery trench;
8) An Iredell County water supply line crossing the property from the
north to south and veering southwest {~ee Figure 14 of Appendix III};
9) State Road 2171 (a public roadway);
10) Interstate 77 (a public roadway);
Figure# 4 of the report titled "Variance Req uest Incident No. 5484
Consoiidated Freightwavs. Inc. Former James Farm Site. Statesville. North
Carolina S&ME Pro j ect No. 1354-96-368 [M av 1996)" is a copy of an areal
7
70
photograph of this property and other adjacent properties with the names and
, addresses of the owners.
Rule .0113(c)(3): Description of the proposed area for which the variance is reauested:
Maps of the area are sho,,.·n in the report titled "Variance Reouest Incident
No. 5484 Consolidated Freightwavs. Inc. Former James Farm Site. Statesville.
North Carolina S&ME Proiect No. 1354-96-368 fMav 1996)". Pursuant to a
request for additional information by the Groundwater Section, Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated sent a letter with attachments on April 30, 1997 showing
the area on the property for which the ,·ariance was requested. The total land area
for this ·variance consists of 2.75 acres ofland or 120,000 square feet in the request.
This ~rea is roughly in the shape of a rectangle and includes the former Tank Pit#
1, the recovery trench, the infiltration gallery, two upgraident "closed" water wells,
and an abandoned trailer. The variance is requested for the area impacted by the
release from Tank Pit# 1 and the portion of the property _for which it is anticipated
that substances will migrate. All underground storage tanks, pumps, and
appurences have been removed from the property by the present owner.
No adjacent properties are included in this variance request. If at any time
monitoring reyeals that concentrations of substances exceed the Groundwater
Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202 on adjacent.properties and it can be
determined that Consolidated Freightways Incorporated is responsible for the
contamination, the Division could still require the company to bring these
concentration levels in compliance with the standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. A
varianc.e granted by the Environmental Management Commission does not exempt
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated from being held responsible for cleanup.
The concentration of contaminants in groundwater is primarily influenced
by the direction and rate of groundwater flow. Th~ estimated groundwater flow
rate is contained in the site assessment report submitted by Consolidated
Freightways Incorporated to the Mooresville Regional Office. Based on this
information the company asserts that groundwater in the area flows toward three
"farm ponds". One of these ponds is located at what is believed to be the center line
of the direction of groundwater flow. This pond is 900 feet to the west-southwest
(See Figure # 7). The closest downgraident pond that could potentially be impacted
by substances at this site is 550 feet away to the north-northwest. The furthest pond
is to the southwest and is 1,120 feet away from the site. These ponds discharge into
an unidentified branch that empties into Fourth Creek. Fourth Creek eventually
drains .into the Yadkin River. Consolidated Freightways has submitted calculations
and other information demonstrating that these ponds and adjacent downgraident
8
71
properties will not b~ impacted by the release identified as Groundwater Incident
Number 5484.
Rule .0113(cV4): Supportin!! infonnation to establish that the variance will not endanger the
-oubljc health and safetv ... :
This part of the variance concerns Groundwater Quality Standards shown in
15A NCAC 2L. 0202 and has been requested for Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene,
Xylenes (-o,-m, and p), and Ethyl Dibromide. In order to assess health impacts,
monitoring wells were sampled at or near this site to assess the extent of
contamination and concentration levels of substances. Concentrations of substances
in recovery wells were also examined to determine the effectiveness of the pump-
and-treat/air stripping system at removing these chemicals. Groundwater
monitoring data from Consolidated Freightways Incorporated indicates that
substances released from previous farming operations at this site do not pose a
hazard to the public. Sampling and analysis of on-site wells at this property have
been co -nducted since April 23, 1990 at monitoring wells and is being continued at
the present time. A total of eight different sampling events occurred from 1990
through 1996 at seven monitoring wells located at the site. As previously stated the
highest concentrations of substances that appeared in a monitoring well occurred at
Monitoring Well# 7 on July 29, 1990. Since that time concentrations of substances
have not been observed in this well above quantitation limits. Concentrations of
substances from groundwater samples taken from the remaining monitoring wells
on April 22, 1996 did not exceed quantitation limits. USEP A Method 601 and 602
were used to determine concentration levels in samples collected from these
monitoring wells. ·
The company also conducted monitoring at the four recovery wells located at
this site. USEP A Method 601 and 602 were used to determine concentration levels
in samples collected from these recovery wells. As-previously stated the recovery
well where the highest concentrations of substances was found was at Recovery Well
Bl\f\V-1/R\V-4 on February 26, 1992. Since that time gradual reductions in the
concentrations of Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylenes (-o,-m, and p) have
occurred. Monitoring from the April 22, 1996 semi-annual event revealed that none
of these substances were detected in this well. Ethyl Dibromide was detected in a
sample from this well taken on October 27, 1992 at 9.40 x 10·3 milligrams per liter or
9.40 micrograms per liter. The Groundwater Quality Standard for Ethyl Dibromide
is 4 x 10-7 milligrams per liter or 4 x 10-4 micrograms per liter. Since that time Ethyl
Dibromide has not been detected at Recovery Well BMW-1/RW-4.
C~mcentrations of substances in recovery well RW-2 and recovery well RW-3
have not been observed above detectable levels. The highest concentration of
72 substances found in this well occurred during the February 7, 1992 semiannual
monitoring event. Benzene found in recovery well RT-1 was at a concentration of
1. 730 milligrams per liter or 17.30 micrograms per liter on February 7, 1992. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for Benzene is 0.001 milligram per liter or 1.0
microgram per liter. In addition, Toluene was reported at 1.470 milligrams per liter
or 1470 micrograms per liter. The Groundwater Quality Standard for Toluene is
1.0 milligram per liter or 1,000 microgram per liter. Ethylbenzene was reported at
0.208 milligrams per liter or 208 micrograms per liter. The G~oundwater Quality
Standard for Ethylbenzene is 2.90 x 10·2 milligrams per liter or 29.0 micrograms per
liter. During this monitoring event Xylene was discovered at a concentration of
1.181 milligrams per liter or 1,181 micrograms per liter. The Groundwater Quality
Standard for Xylene is 0.530 milligrams per liter or 530 micrograms per liter. Since
February 1992 the company has monitored the groundwater quality at this well on
six different occasions. Reductions in concentration levels in recovery well RT-1
have been followed by upward "rebounding" of concentrations, above the
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. The April 22, 1996
monitoring event revealed that concentrations of substances at recovery well RT-1
still rema1ned above the standards. Benzene found in this recovery well RT-1 was at
a concentration of 0.860 milligrams per liter or 860 microgr.ims per liter on
February 7, 1992.· The Groundwater Quality Standard for Benzene is 0.001
milligram per liter or 1.0 microgram per liter. Ethylbenzene was reported at a
concentration of 8.30 x 10·2 milligrams per liter or 83.0 micrograms per liter. The
Groundwater Quality Standard for Ethylbenzene is 2.90 x 10-? milligrams per liter
or 29.0 micrograms per liter. Concentrations of Toluene and Xylenes did not appear
above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards during the April
22, 1996 monitoring event.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has attempted to defme the vertical
extent of groundwater contamination beneath the site. The deepest well Monitoring
Well# 8 (MW# 8) and it is 32.83 feet below the ground surface .. Groundwater
sampling and analysis, conducted for approximately a six year period using USEPA
Method 601 and Method 602 have consistently shown concentrations of substances
below detectable limits.
· Using site assessment information at the Mooresville Regional Office, the
company has calculated the time it would take for residual contaminants to impact
the nearest down-gradient ~n-site pond that discharges into Fourth Creek, a
tributary of the Yadkin River. Based on an average hydraulic gradient of 0.02
foot per foot, a hydraulic conductivity or (K) of 0.80 feet per day, and an effective
soil porosity of 0.35 for silty saturated soils, the estimated groundwater flow velocity
in the subsurface at this site is approximately 18 feet/year. The company used
measured hydraulic conductivities for the screened aquifer at monitoring wells
·Monitoring Well# 3, Monitoring Well# 4, and Monitoring Well# 7 in calculating
the Yalue for (K) as· a means to predict the rate of movement of contaminants from
the site. Consolidated·Freightways Incorporated asserts that substances in the
10
73
plume of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons will enter the three farm ponds at
concentration levels exceeding15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards 'for Benzene, Ethylene
Dibromide, and Isopropyl Ether between 30 and 62 years. This estimated range
assumes no dilution or attenuation of the plume occurs. Pages 13 though 14, Figure
12, and Table# 3 of the report titled "Variance Reguest Incident No. 5484
Consolidated Freightwavs. Inc. Former James Farm Site, Statesville, North
Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368 (Mav 1996)" demonstrates that
conditions at the site are such that substances in the groundwater will likely
biodegrade due to the presence of indigenous microorganisms in the subsurface.
The company asserts that these natural conditions are such that the entire plume of
substances is expected to degrade to the extent that concentrations will be below the
Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L. 0202 before the plu~e reaches
downgradient ponds. Consolidated Freightways has calculated that biodegradation
is most likely to occur within 30 years. The last observed concentration levels of
Benzene, Ethylbenzene, and Isopropyl Ether from routine sampling on April 26,
1996 were used to determine the projected times of travel to the on-site farm ponds
as shown on Page 12 and Table# 1 of the report. It must be noted that Isopropyl
Ether has never been reported at this site above the Interim Maximum Allowable
Concentration of 0.070 milligrams per liter or 70 micrograms per liter.
There _are no water wells or surface water supplies that are located in the
downgraident direction from the site and known to be in use as sources of drinking
within a 1/2 mile radius of Consolidated Freightways Incorporated property known
as Parcel Number 1110B0000A043. The requirements for variance applications in
15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(4) specify that locations of drinking water wells and other
·water supply sources that are within one-half mile of the site must be shown· on a
map. Page 9, the map in Figure 8, and Appendix 5 shows groundwater use in the
area near the site. There are six water supply wells located cross-gradient from the
area for which the variance has been requested. These residential wells nre located
to the north and northwest of the site on James Farm Road. Figure# 8 shows that
the Mark White Residence has a residential water well (Private Water Well # 4)
and obtains water supply from the county. The remaining five wells are used as the
sole water supply for seven residences. Two of these residences share the same well.
Three wells are located on Consolidated Freightways Incorporated property and
have been abandoned. Pursuant to the requirements of Non-Discharge Permit
Number WQ0005069 these wells were closed by grouting on October 23, 1991.
Page 10 of the report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 5484
Consolidated Freightwavs, Inc. Former James Fann Site, Statesville. North
Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368 (Mav 1996)" states that there are no large
capacity drinking water supply wells or drinking water supply intakes at surface
water bodies located within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. Drinking water in the area
is obtained from the City of Statesville Light and Water Department or the Iredell
Water <;orporation (formerly known as Iredell County Water Corporation in the
variance request). The water supplied by the City of Statesville Light and Water
11
74
Department comes from a surface water intake located five miles from the site
owned by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated. Water from the Iredell Water
Corporation is from nvo water supply wells located 8/10 of a mile from the site.
These two wells are six inch diameter and are located approximately 400 feet deep
in bedrock. The yield from these wells ranges from 16,000 to 40,000 gallons per day.
Consolidated Freightways does not believe pumping from these wells has an
influence on groundwater flow at the site. No wellhead protection area, as defined
in 42 USC 300h-7(e), has been designated for these county water supply wells.
Figure 14 of Appendix II shows that an Iredell Water Corporation water supply line
passes through the area for which the variance has been requested. The Iredell
Water Corporation has reported to the Groundwater Section staff that water supply
lines are located at a depth of three to six feet beneath land surface. Consolidated
Freightways has estimated that the depth to groundwater, where substances have
been reported in excess of the 15A NCAC 2L .0:202 Groundwater Quality
Standards, is 25 to 35 feet beneath land surface. It is highly unlikely that substances
in groundwater at the site o·wned by Consolidated Freightn·ays Incorporated will
have an adverse impact on these water supply lines.
Rule .0113(cV5): SuooortinQ' information to establish that reauirernents of the rule cannot be
achieved bv providing best available technolo£V economicallv reasonable:
The part of the request that concerns variance to Corrective Action in 15A
NCAC 2L .01060) will allow Consolidated Freightways Incorporated to discontinue
Correctiv~ Action at this site. The company has submitted supporting information
in the report and other documents demonstrating that the continued application of
BAT will not result in significant long term remediation of the site to the
Groundwater Quality Standards contained in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. The is due to
the high probability that continued cleanup activities at the site will not significantly
reduce contaminant levels below Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0202. Since discovery of the release in 1990, Consoiidated Freightways .
Incorporated has disposed of 4,100 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil via
land application and all soil cleanup lias been completed for this site. The company
has treated approximately 2,448,750 gallons of groundwater to comply with the
cleanup requirements of the CorrectiYe Action Plan that implemented on October
28, 1991. Page 19 of the report titled "Variance Reouest Incident No. 5484
Consolidated Freightwavs, Inc. Former James Farm Site. Statesville. North
Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368 <Mav 1996)" states that a total of$
286,000 has been expended to conduct the site assessment, reimburse claims,
conduct monitoring, and cleanup this site. The amount.of money that has been spent
by Consolidated Freightways Incorporated at this site is summarized as follows:
12
76
substances were not detected. in niost of the remaining monitoring and recovery
wells during this sampling event. Since that time, semi-annual groundwater
monitoring conducted on April 23, 1996 showed no detectable concentrations of
substances in monitoring wells and recovery wells, with the exception of the
recovery well in RT-1. No substances were detected in recovery well BMW-1\RW-4
during this monitoring event. It must be noted that significant reductions in the
concentrations ofBenzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene have not been
observed in recovery well RT-1 since March 7, 1994.
In order to demonstrate that the requirements of the rule cannot be achieved
using best available technology, title 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5) requires that specific
technology considered be identified, the costs of implementing the technology be
shown, and the impacts of the costs on the applicant be provided. On Page 17 of
the report titled "Variance Request Incident No. 5484 Consolidated Freightwavs,
Inc. Former James Farm Site. Statesville. North Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-
96-368 (J\1av 1996)" shows the cost of continuing to operate the present cleanup
system. Consolidated Freightways Incorporated does not believe the continued use
of the current puinp and treat cleanup system with air stripping is the best available
technology ro·r conditions that currently exist at this site. Pump and treat cleanup
technologies are most effective when contaminant concentrations are high and the
area impacted by the release or discharge of petroleum product is relatively small.
As pump and treat technology reduces concentration levels such that they are near
asymptotic levels, the benefits of this technology decreases significantly. The
company believes that concentrations of substances have been reduced to the
maximum extent possible by the application of pump-and-treat technol_ogy and that
further application is no longer cost effective.
·consolidated Freight;vays Incorporated does n~t believe the use of in-situ or
enhanced bioremediation is best available technology for this site. In-situ or ·
enhanced bioremediation relies on the introduction of nutrients and 0:1.-ygen to
ground·water to assist in supporting the development of a population of
microorganisms capable of breaking down substances into harmless chemicals such
that concentrations of substances are reduced below the 15A NCAC 2L .0202
Ground·water Quality Standards. The company has submitted information on
Pages 13 through 16, Figure 12, Table 3 and in Appendix IV demonstrating that
conditions at this site are such that the life and growth of indigenous populations of
microbes that may etist in the subsurface will be sustained. Consolidated
Freighrn•ays Incorporated believes that "intrinsic bioremediation" is already
occurring at this site. In-situ or enhanced bioremediation will require the company
to expend additional funds to meet the permitting requirements for injection wells
in 15A NCAC 2C .0200 to introduce nutrients and oxygen into the subsurface.
Consolidated Freightways does not believe it is cost effective to use in-situ
bioremediation at a site where natural conditions in the subsurface are capable of
supporting viable microbial populations.
' Consolidated Freightways Incorporated bas considered the use of air
14
77
sparging as an alternate technology to the present pump-and-treat system. The
company does not believe that the use of this technology is practical to meet the
requirements of ISA NCAC 2L .0113(c)(5). The company estimates the yearly costs
to operate and maintain an air sparging system would be approximately $ 18,000
based on a monthly projected monthly cost of$ 1,S0O. Additional costs for air
sparging system design, well construction, and equipment would need to be
calculated before this cleanup technology could be used at the site. The company
estimates that it may take at least two years for air sparging to reduce remaining
contaminant levels below the Groundwater Quality Standards in ISA NCAC 2L
.0202, if these standards can be met at all. Consolidated Freightways believes that
the low residual concentrations of substances in groundwater at the site and the lack
of any human receptors does not warrant the additional expense of implementing
air sparging.
On August 12, 1996 the Mooresville Regional Office provided comments
concerning the applicability of cleanup technology for this site. The regional office
believes that soil vapor extraction could reduce remaining concentrations of
substances near recovery well RT-1 that have remained above the Groundwater
Quality Standards. However, the Mooresville Regional Office cannot determine if
the extent of this reduction in contaminant levels will be any more effective at
reducing concentrations than a variance. In addition, if soil vapor extraction is
required for this site, Consolidated Freightways Incorporated will need to conduct
more extensive site assessments to implement this type of technology. Additional
cleanup costs would need to be expended by the company, some portion of which
may be eligible for Trust Fund Reimbursement since this site is Class AB under the
priority ranking system used by the Division of Water Quality.
Rule .Ol 13(c)(6): Supportimz information to establish that compliance would produce serious
financial hardshio on the applicant:
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated has submitted information showing
that compliance with the rules will result in a serious fmancial hardship. Page 17
through 19 of the report shows that the company has demonstrated that the
.continued application of pump-and-treat or other alternative technologies to this
location would be unnecessarily expensive methods of remediating groundwater
contamination. The report states on page 19 that Consolidated Freightways
Incorporated plans to sell the property. It further states that "The property was
initia{ly purchased by CF (Consolidated Freightways Incorporated) to build a new
trucking terminal". The company decided not to construct this terminal.
Consolidated Freighrn•ays Incorporated has had this property on the market for
three years and, according to Page 19 of the variance request, has not been able to
15
78
sell it ": ... due to the potential liability and stigma associated with owners/zip of a
contaminated site". The company has thus far spent$ 286,000 to cleanup this site of
,,•hich only S 165,564.69 has been reimbursed through the Non-Commercial Leaking
Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. The remaining$ 120,435.31 of
cleanup costs is incurred on Consolidated Freightways Incorporated at property
where the company has never conducted normal business operations or benefited
from it's use.
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated believes that there is immense
uncertainty that best available technology will remediate the groundwaters at this
site to applicable standards within a foreseeable period of time. Allowing the
persistence of low levels of contaminants in groundwaters that, after approximately
two years and three months of applying best available technologies, have
asymptotically approached the Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L
.0106 through a variance is a prudent means of addressing the company's release at
this site. It is no less effective a means of addressing residual concentrations of
substances at this site than continuing the use of pump-and-treat with carbon
filtra_!Jon, the implementation of in-situ or enhanced bioremediation technology, air
sparging technology, or soil vapor extraction and is less expensive than any of the
alternatives discussed in the variance request. The company believes that "intrinsic
bioremediation" is occurring at this site and will, with adequate time, reduce the
remaining contaminant concentrations below the Groundwater Quality Standards
in 15A NCAC 2L .0202.
Rule .0113(c)(7): Supoorting jnfonnation that corno liance wou1d uroduce serious financial
hardshi p v.jthout eaual or greater public benefit:
The company has submitted information in the request demonstrating that
the environment, safety and public health would not be impacted by this variance.
The Groundwater Section believes that the public will not benefit from compelling
Consolidated Freight-ways Incorporated to continue remediating this site using
pump-and-treat technology or other alternatives discussed.
Rule .0113(c)(8): "A co ov of anv Sp ecial Order ... ":
No Special Order by Consent has been issued for this site.
16
79
Rule .0113(c)(9): "A list of names and addresses ofpropertv owners ... ":
The property owners within the proposed area of the variance are shown in
on Figure 4 (Latest Tax and Aerial Map) and are listed in Appendix IV of the.report
titled "Variance Reguest Incident No. 5484 Consolidated Freightwa·vs. Inc.
Former James Farm Site. Statesville. North Carolina S&ME Project No. 1354-96-
368 (Mav 1996)". The company has identified 22 property owners within the
general area of the Yariance request. This listing includes the following adjacent
property owners; James Farms Incorporated, the Clark Equipment Company,
John S. Barnes Corporation, Raymond Jr. and Jean Cornett, William and Rebecca
Cornett, Renforth and Carolyn Wilhelm, Burns McGree and Mary Wilhelm, James
and Norgen Waugh, and Fame Plastics Incorporated. Title 15A NCAC 2L
.0113(e)(E) requires that notification of a public hearing on this variance be given to
the owner or owners of these adjacent properties "at least 30 days prior to the date
of the hearing".
It is the recommendation of the Groundwater Section that the subject variance request to
Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 21.0106G) and Groundwater Quality Standards
contained in 15A NCAC 21 .0202 proceed to p~blic notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 21
.0113(e). On August 12, 1996 the Mooresville Regional Office sent a recommendation that this
variance be granted by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant ta 15A NCAC 21
.0113. On October 9, 1996 the Division of Epidemiology completed their review of the risk
assessment methodology for this site and recommended conditional approval of this variance for
Consolidated Freighm·ays Incorporated for this property at State Road 2173 (Parcel Number
111 0B0000A043) in Statesville, North Carolina. The Division of Epidemiology recommended
that monitoring be conducted at this site for "at least two to three years to ensure oversight in
the remaining areas of contamination". Attached are copies of the recommendation from the
Mooresville Regional Office and the Division of Epidemiology. Upon your concurrence with
our recommendation, the Groundwater Section will proceed with the preparation of the required
public notice and hearing. Upon completing of the requireme~ts of 15A NCAC 2L .0113(d -f),
v..rith a recommendation to grant this variance from the Environmental Management Commission
Groundwater Committee, this request 'Nill proceed to the Environmental Management
Commission for final action in 15A NCAC 2L .0113(g). If there are any questions regarding this
matter or if any additional information is needed, please let me know.
ATTACHMENTS:
cc: Groundwater Section Assistant Chiefs
Moor~sville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
Dr. Ken Rudo
David Hance
17
80
Attachment 6
(June 27, 1997 Memorandum)
. . .
82
Attachment 7
(Variance Request}
83
May 16, -1996
Chc.irman of the Commission in care of the Director
Division of Environmental Mcnagement
P.O. Box 29535
Ralaigh, NC 27626-0535
Attention: Mr. Preston Howard
Direct or -·---
Reference:-VARIANGE REQUEST
INCIDENT NO. 5484
Consolidated Freightways, Inc.
Former James Farm, Stctesville, NC
S&ME Project No . 1354-96-368
Dear Mr. Howard:
-,
. -
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME), on behc.lf of Consolidated Freightways Inc. (OF), submits this
variance request in accordance with 15A NCAC 2L .0113(b) through (d). The site is
known as the 1ormar James Farm site, Stc.te Incident #5484, which was opened by the
State in 1989. Consolidated Freight-Nays, Inc. (CF) pure.he.sad the contaminated property
from N.C. James in 1990 and has aggrassiveiy acted to rsduce hydrocarbon levels at this
site between 1990 and 1995. The site is under the Non-Commercial Trust Fund
Reimbursement Program.
S&,'-1£. Inc. 9751 Sourilem Pine Boulevcrd , 01c.-iorre. Norm Coroiino 2827.3. (704) 52~<1726. Fax [phone]
lv\aiiing oddrei:: P.O. oox 7668. G-ioriorre. Norrh Carolina 2e241-7c6o
NCDEHNR-Groundwarer Section
Var iance Request
1 INTRODUCTION
85
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-:368
May 16, 1996
CF received a soil closure letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)-Mooresville Regional Office (MRO) in 1991 for
remediation of all soils on-site containing gasoline and diesel (4100 cubic yards) by land
application over a 12-acre crea on-site. No additional contaminated soils are believed to
exist on-site .
. . ·.· . --·------·--'!"'-_.-......... ---·-------------
CF operat~d a groundw_ater remediation system nearly continuously fr_om October 28,
1991 through Dec:ember 17, 1993. A total of 2,4-18,750 gallons of groundwater were
treated by air stripping and carbon and discharged to an upgradient infiltiation gallery, as
a closed loop system. This resulted in reduction of the plume extent and magnitude by
over 90%, 2.s indicated in Table 1 -Historical Groundwater Quality Data.
The existing inactive pump .and treat system h2s raached the limits of its use and
continued groundwater remedistion is not expec:ted to significantly reduce the potential
impact to public health and the environment. Furthermore, intrins ic bioremediation is
naturally occurring in the groundwater plume , such that the plume it should be naturally
degraded before it reaches the nearest hydraulically downgradient rec:eptors (three
unnamed ponds located 550 to 1120 feet southwest of former tank pit # 1, See Figure 7).
1.1 Reports Submitted to State
.:
The following reports have been prepared for the site and all were approved by the .. .. .
Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Re:;ources (NCDEHNR), Mooresville Regional Office: (1) a Land Application Plan
and Data Report (Dated July 31, 1990), (2) a Comprehensive Site Assessment (Dated
September 13, 1990), and CSA Addendum (Dated November 26, 1990), (3) a Corrective
1
NCDEHNR-Groundwcter Section
Variance Request
86
S&ME: Proje:::t No. 1354-96-368
May 16, 1996
Action Plan (Dated January 23, 1991), and (4) 24 monthly effluent (treatment system)
analyses reports, four quarterly and three annual progress reports for the groundwater
pump and treat system submitted between November 1991 and June 3, 1994.
1.2 Permits Issued by the State
The following permits were issued to CF for the site: (1) A Non-Discharge Permit
_ _;__·----#W000039a □-~--fssLi°~ct: ori"-se·pterr16er""·· 1 l;-re9o ··· f □r-tne -operati6h·,~of lanct"ciisp::.ofal . .c.:.. ·•• -· -·----·
\ .
(application) of 4100 cubic yards of petroleum (gasoline and diesel) contaminated soils
over 12-acres of inactive farm Jand on-site. (2) A Non-Discharge Permit #WO0005069
issued on September 13, 1991 for construction and operation of a groundwater collection,
treatment, and disposal (hydraulically upgr2.dient infiltration gallery) system. Permit
#WO0003980 has since expired, as closure of the land appiied soils w-a.s obtained from
the NCDEHNR-MRO. Permit #WO0005069 should be extended, as C~ requested an
extension in March 1996.
1.3 Most Recent State Correspondence Concerning Remediation System
The most recent correspondence from the NCDEHNR-MRO was on December 2, 1993,
and stated that "the MRO agrees that the system _should be turned off at this time. The
system must remain in an operational status for a period of at least one year, during
which time the groundwater will be monitored by Qollecting quarterly samples from BMW-
1 /RW-4 and RT-1." After three quarters of groundwater monitoring, slight increases in
benzene and total xylene concentrations (above the. 2L standards) were measured in
these tvvo·wells. Tne system was re-activated from June 1, 1994 through September 1,
1994. In October 1994, S&ME stopped war~ on this project as the budget was expended
and no additional work was authorized by CF. The operational readiness of the system
2
NCDEHNR-Groundwa!er Section
Variance Request
87
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16, 1996
was evaluated on January 27, 1995 and found to be in good shape, but needing air
compressor service.
In April 1996, CF authorized S&ME to prepare this Variance request for the site. The
existing remediation system is currently off, but is in good operational shape (tested on
April 22, 1996).
1.4 Groundwater Sampling Event of_April 22, 1996
----___ ....c._ ___ _ . . .... -· ----..... ·-..•. ·--·-·------·-·-·------· -----------.:· .... :·:;~-:---, .
S&ME sampled grnundwater from six monitor we!!s (MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, ·MW-6, MW-7,
and MW-8) and tour recovery wells (RT-1, RW-2, RW-3, BMW-1/RW-4) around former
tank pit area #1 (former -release arna) on April 22, 1996. This groundw2.ter sampling
event was perfmrned to update groundwater quaiity data, as part of this Variance
Request. Groundwater levels were measured prior to sampling on April 22, _ 1996 (Table
2). The groundw2.ter samples·were analyzed by lndustria_l Environmantal Anclysts (IEA)
of Cary, NC (NG Certjfication #333) for BTEX, MTBE and IPE by EPA Method 602, and
for purgeable halocarbons by EPA Method 601. The laborctory results ere included in
Appendix 1.
1.5 Historical Groundwater Quality Data
Historical groundwater quality data indicates that the dissolved hydrocarbon plume has ·
decreased progressively in size and severity. Appendix 2-includes all benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and total xylene (BTEX) plume isoconcentration maps to date for the site,
which illustrate initlal plume configuration before remediat1on and after remediation. Figure
10 ilfustrates··natural groundwater flow is toward the west-southwest under a hydraulic
gradient of 0.02. Appendix 3 includes all potentiom_etric maps for the site to date during
3
-----------
' . NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Variance Request
88
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16, 1996
·•·
natural and pumping conditions. During operation of the groundwater pump and treat
system, the entire groundwater plume was captured by the recovery well system, as
indicated in some of these maps in Appendix 3.
Figure 11 illustrates the BTEX isoconcentration map in groundwater on April 22, 1886.
The laboratory results indicate that all Method 601 and 602 analytes were below
qu::::.ntitation limits in groundwater from all wells, except recovery trench well RT-1. This
. . well is installed in the center of the release area (Former Tank Pit #1 ). Three 2L
--·----~roun~~a;~~ ·s;;~~~rd-~i~i~ti~n·~: wer~ ·defecteci_;for "this"-we11 ·-(Benzen~86G"-\jg/L~,-"-e· ;_,-.. _._·
Ethylbenzene -83 ug/L, and IPE -25 ug/L). The 2L standards for these compounds are
1 ug/L (Benzsne), 29 ug/L (Ethylbenzene) and the method detection limit (1 ug/L) for
IP:=.. Although contaminant concentiations increased in RT-1 since previous sampiing
events in 1994, the groundwater outside of the former tank pit #1 is "clsan". The
dissolved hydrocarbons in groundwater appear to be confined to the recovery trench area
and are not like!y to migrate beyond MW-5. Table 1 indicates that the downgradient most
monitor well MW-5 has remained "clean" to date. MW-5 is located 100 faet southwest
(hydri?ulica!ly downgradient) from RT-1. In addition, the three nearest downgradient wells
(RW-4, MW-7,-and RW-2) located 30 to 40 feet from RT-1 are "clean".
Tne vertical extent of the groundwater plume was defined at 46.5 feet below ground
surface in the bedrock at MW-8. Historically, groundwater sampled from the deep (Type
Ill) bedrock well (MW-8) has been and is currently "clean" for Class l Hydrocarbon
parameters, as indicated in Table 1. Bedro~k (ur:ifractured granitic gneiss) was
encountered at 46 feet below ground surface at MW-8. A 5-foot rock core from MW-8
indicated that the bedrock was unfractured to 49 feet below ground surface. Dissolved
hydrocarbons in groundwater were detected in a deep (Type Ill) monitor well (MW-7)
which is scr$ened from 43.5 feet to 46 feet (top of bedrock). The April 22, 1996
4
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Variance Request
89
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16, 1996
groundwater quality results indicate that the bedrock aquifer at MW-8 and the lower
portion of the surficial aquifer at MW-7 are still "clean".
Considering current dissolved hydrocarbon levels and that no drinking water supply wells
are located downgradient within 0.5-mile of the site, continued remediation is not expected
to significantly reduce the potential impact to public health and the environment. The
groundwater plume does not appear to be migrating outside of the more permeable
recoveiy trench area, as evidenced by the April 22, 1996 groundwater quality results.
1he-refore·;--S&M E"7"equests-that -no-further-rerhediation--occur-at-this -site-and-that-a_-_-.----...;__ __
~ . t
Variance be granted for the surficial aquifer benesth the CF site.
5
l
J
J
J
J
]
l
.2
]
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Variance Request
91
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16; 1996
initially. This condition is documented in the Site Assessment Report of September 13,
1990 .
. 2.3 Existing Activities
The site has been an undeveloped, vacant farm for the last six years. No development
has occurred on-site in the past six years S&ME has been the environmental consultant
tor CF. There are currently no sources of hydrocarbons on-site, as all UST systems and
co-~~~~i~~t~d-~~ii•~ _:h~~~ be~n -r~~ove"a.i3r.:6ondwater-containing-low -cpricentr-ati0ns-0f---..c..··-· --
dissolved gasoline and diesel exists in the immediate area of Tank pit #1 on-site, See
Figure 8. No other present or potential sources of groundwater c_ontamination are known
on:site or at any of the adjacent properties. There are no proposed activities or planned
operations for the CF site that would result in further discharge of contaminants to the
groundwaters beneath the site. The existing small groundwater plame of re!atively low
hydrocarbon concentrations is naturally degrading by intrinsic bioremadiation, as
demonstrated later in this report.
2.4 Proposed Activities
The property is currently for sale by CF. No plans for the property have yet been made.
Therefore, there are no proposed activities or planned operations that would result in later
discharge of contaminants to the groundwaters beneath the site.
7
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Variance . Request
96
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16, 1996
No downgradient otf-site monitor wells were found during our 0.5-mile well survey. The
nearest downgradient property line to the groundwater plume is approximately 900 feet
to the west-southwest, as illustrated in Figure 2. · Based on (a) the groundwater flow
velocity range of i8 feet/year, (b) distance from on-site monitor well(s) with groundwater
2L violations to nearest downgradient property line, and (c) a 0% (very conservative)
degradation (dilution or attenuation) rate, the projected time(s) for the contaminants to
reach the nearest downgradient property line (P.L.) in concentrations that exceed the
_____ groundwater q_~alio/ stan,~_ar~~-.co~~~ine~-in. i 5A N~AC 2L ·?.202 an.d t~ ~each either the j
nearest downgrad1ent sunace water boa1es (S.W.8.) wouTd be asrolrows:, ----.:... --:..-.., ~'--! ·•
Contaminant above 2l Standard
Benzene -860 ug/L@ RT-i
Benzene -860 ug/L@ RT-i
Benzene -860 ug/L @ RT-i
Distance to Prot~c~e~ T:ave! Time
900 feet to P. L. 50 years
550 feet to S.W.B. 30.5 years
900 feet to S.W.B . 50 years
Benzene -860 ug/L@ RT-1 1120 faet to S.W .B. 62 years
Ethylbenzene -83 ug/L@ RT-1 900 feet to P.L. 50 years
Ethylbenzene -~3 ug/L@ RT-1 550 feet to S.W.B. 30.5 years
Ethylbenzene -83 ug/L@ RT-1 900 feet to S.W.B. 50 years
Ethylbenzene -83, ug/L@ RT-1 1120 feet to S.W.B. 62 years
!PE -25 ug/L@ RT-1 900 feet to P.L. 50 years
IPE ·-25 ug/L @ RT-i
-
IPE -25 ug/L @ RT-1
!PE -25 ug/L @ RT-1
550 feet to S.W.B .. 30.5 years
900 feet to S.W.B. 50 years
1120 faet to S.W.B. 62 years
12
97
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section.
Variance Request
S&M~ Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16 , 1996
4.1 Measured Intrinsic Bioremediation in On-site Groundwater
It is now understood that a wide variety of hydrocarbons dissolved in groundwater will
biodegrade, without artificial enhancement, due to the presence of indigenous microbes.
The demonstration of "intrinsic bioremediation requires multiple supporting lines of
evidence, including contaminant losses and evidence that bioremediation is occurring in
the field (Chevron, 1995). Evidence of intrinsic bioremediation can be measured in the
field using the indicator parameters listed below, recommended in the March 1995
---·---•••--• • • •• :.· •.• .• • •. r • • • _ __. .• . • • ~~
Chevron Research and Technology Company's Health, Environmant, ana Safety Group
paper "Protocol for Monitoring Intrinsic Bioremedia:ion in Groundwater".
parameters and field results ara:
Field Measurements on Mav 8. 100'"' '"'._.,o
Well ID DO Temp pH Ccnd Fe'" Alkaiin ity a-,, n.. N :••-t.a 1..i c: .... Sulfat~
(m;;ll.) ,•;:i (uS/c:n) (mg/l.) (mg/l.) (r.w) (m;;/L) (r.:;/L)
MW-3 e.2 i2.S i.79 1·· ,~ 0.4 34 213 >: ~25
MW-4 6 66.1 8 .11 209 0.4 34 200 >5 50
MW-5 5.5 74 S.30 290 0 .5 51 234 so
MW-6 5.2 74 .1 5 .19 110 0.4 51 273 >= 100
MW-7 1.5 67 .1 E.21 199 0 .2 sa 164 >5 25
MW-a s.s 64 6 .26 236 0 es 1i6 0 i5
ill . .u: ~ ~ ill ~ lli :.lli Q Q
RW-2 0.8 68.7 5 .26 164 3 .6 107 -30 0.1 12:
RW-3 0.8 71.7 5.52 216 4 .9 119 -49 0 i5
.;
BMW-1/RW-4 69.1 5 .:9 125 4 .6 119 87 0 100
Notes:
DO= Dissolved Oxygen
Temp = Temperat1.1re
Cond = Conduc!ivi:y
ORP = Oxidation-Reduc:ion Potential
Fe 2" = Ferrous Iron
BOL = Below Quanti:aticn Limits
MW-3, MW-4. MW-5 . MW-6. MW-7 & MW-8 = Outside of plume wells
13
Thesa
E,:,(,4225
(u;.'L}
BCL •
cCL
BQL
EQL
SOL
BQL
1lli
6QL
SClL
BCL
.
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
, Variance Request
102
S&M= Project No. 1354-96-368
May 16, 1996
conjunction with soil vapor extraction to prevent the spread of fugitive vapors. This would
not be necessary a.t the James Farm site becau$e there are no remaining contaminated
soils and because air sparging alone would not contravene any ambient air emission
standards. Pilot tests would be necessary to determine system designs, i.e., number of
wells and type of equipment. Air sparging at this time would not be cost effective and
may only result in a request for variance rather than clean closure.
S&ME estimated the capitol cost to install an air sparging and vapor extraction system
-~s~d 0~ ;~111~diati~~ -~yste~ .inst·~-ilations ~t ~imilar sit~s in Cf1ar[otte-. Consepfi.lallr,-tli~;------'----
system may include one air spcrge well installed to a depth of 45 feet and a·5-Hp oil-less
air compressor. Estimated implementation costs could be ($15-20K) and O&M costs
could .be approximately $1500/month, which the state would not likely reimburse given
the near insolvency of the Trust Fund . Operation of an air sparge system may require
two or more years to achieve a "clean" closure. The implementation action of this
conceptual system is not considered reasonable compared to the benefits the public
· would receive.
Based on the historical groundw2.tar quality data (Table 1.) and infiuent (water) quality data
(Graph 1), we believe that the pump and treat remediation system h2.s rsached the limits
of effectiveness in terms of further rsmediating this site in an economically reasonable
manner. Intrinsic bioremsdiation is presently occurring and will continue to degrade the
plume and impede its migration.
18
-----·--··-
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Variance Request
6 FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
103
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-3~8
May 16, 1996
CF's goal is to sell the property, which they have never used over the last six years of
ownership. The property was initially purchased by CF to build a new trucking terminal.
To date, CF h2.s spent approximately $286,000 on compliance with state regulatory
requirements for this site in assessment ($43,000), remediation of 4100 cubic yards of
petroleum contaminated soils on-site ($50,000), remediation of groundwater ($1_58,000),
monitoring ($25,000) and reimbursement claim (S10,000) costs. CF has been unable to
~~11-the .. p~-pp~rty--□~er· t.heiasitnree· ye"'ars'"it-tias-beeri-of)-the marke~-hi~ iS-likely-.dueJ:o~~~---.·_. _
the potential liability and stigma associated with ownership of a contaminated site.
Closure of this site by a Variance would likely enhance the marketability of this property.
This site has been a financial hardship to CF, and further active remediation would only
exacerbate this hardship.
~
19
TABLE 3: I
INTRINSIC BIOREMEDIATION .l=VALUATION DATA
PROJECT NAME: CF INDUSTRIES
PROJECT NUMBER: 1354-96-368 ---------SAMPLE DATE: MAY 8, 1996 ----'-------SAMPLERS: l<EN JOURNIGI\N
!PARAMETER UNITS
MW-3
Distance from rlume cenler (It) -90
Direction from rlume cenler ll~
!Well cocle -
lolal BElX l'~t/L 0
roIa1 voes pgtl 0
Tem~eralure "F 72.5
Conduclivilt pS/cm 174
pH Standard 7.79
nectox Polenlial rnV 213
Relalive 0.70
Dissolved Ox~gen _____!!!gll 6.2
Relalive 0.95
l\lkalinilt m9/L 3'1
Helalive 0.17
Ferrous Iron m9/L 0.4
Helalive 0.0'1
Milrale -.!!!D~ 6
Helalive 1.00
Sullale __!!!gll 125
Relalive 1.00
RT-1 RW-4
0 30
cenler clown
+ 0
1215 0
1290 0
69.8 69.1
323 195
6.14 5.59
-106 87
-0.39 0.32
2.0 1
0.'13 0.15
20'1 119
1.00 0.50
11 4.6
1.00 0.42
0 0
0.00 0.00
0 100
0.00 o.no
NOTES: DL:TX -Benzene, elhylllenzenc, lohmne, xylcnes
VOCs -Volalile Organic Compounds
SVOCs -Semi-Volalile Organic Compounds
mV-Millivolls
rng/L -Milligrams per liter
pS/cm -Microsiemens per cenlirneler
MW-7
36
down
0
0
o
67.1
199
6.21
164
O.GO
1 ,. .:J
0.23
GO
0.33
0.2
002
G
1 .00
25
0.20
Wl:I.L IIJ
nw-21
37
down
0
0
0
60.7
16'1
5.26
-30
-0.11
00 ..
0.12
107
0 .52
3.6
0.33
0.1
0.02
125
1 ()()
I
I
I
I
j
I
I ,. I
j
I
RW-3
44
down
0
I
I
b
I
0
I
71i7
216
5.52
-49
-0.18
0.8
0.~2
1!19
0]58
~ 9
o;45
I o
d.oo
'I 15
I
-I
0.60
i
I
i
I
I
I
MW-4 MW-OI MW-5 --MW-G
67 81 98
side down down
---
0 o 0
0 0 0
66.1 64 7,1
209 236 290
8.11 6.26 5.30
200 176 234
0.73 0.6'1 0 .86
6 6.5 5.5
0.92 1.00 0 .85
34 05 51
0.17 0.42 0.25
011 0 0.6
0.04 0.00 0.05
6 0 1
1.00 0.00 0.17
50 75 50
0.'10 0.60 0.,10
k: \sha red\qprodala\e nviron\projecl\cf-bio. wb 2
Well codes relative lo plume:
+: lnlernal
- : Exlernal
o : Peripheral
100
side
-
0
0
7,11
110
6.19
273
1.00
5 .2
0.80
51
0.25
OA
0.0'1
6
I 00
100
·ooo
/
c..,,. ...
April 30, 1997
Mr. David Hance
NCDEHNR-Groundwatar Section
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
119
\
RE: Addendum to May 16, 1996 Variance Request Report,
Per State Letter of April 29, 1997
=:~<
~;;;ri ..... u 1~
Incident #5484 .
Consolidated Freightways, Inc. (Former James Farm) Site
State Road 2173, Statesville, NC
S&Mf Project No. 1354-96-368
Dear Mr. Hance:
0
-.J
r.,=-:: ::0:5"
C •"'J
:-:-;
r.
Pursuant to your April 29, 1997 letter (attached) S&ME, Inc., on behalf of Consolidated
Freightvvays, Inc. (CF) hereby informs the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natura! Resources, Division of Water Quality that the proposed area for the
variance should .only include the area indicated in Figure 1 (attached). This proposed
variance area is the existing plume area around former Tank Pit #1 and the area that the
remaining groundwater plume could migrate to . This proposed area is 400 feet by 300 feet
or 120,000 square feet or 2.75 acres of land. Please disregard 01.Jr previous request for the
entire CF property to be covered by the Variance. We were unaware of the Statute 143-
215.3 prohibiting the Commission from granting such a variance. This should now
accurately define the variance arsa requested, and meet 15A NCAC 2L.0113(c )(3) criteria.
S&ME. Inc. 9751 Southern Pine !3oulevord, Charlorre. Norm Carolina 28273. [phone]. Fox (704) 525-395-3
Mailing oddres.s: P.O. !3ox 7668. Chariorre . North Carolina 28241-7668
/
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Addendum to Variance Request ..
120
S&ME Project No. 1354-96-368
April 30, 1997
All information requested by the State on Page 2 of the April 29, 1997 letter is shown in
Figure 1. Figure 2 shows an enlarged view of the monitor well netv.;ork, remediation system
and former Tank Pit #1. Please proceed with finalizing the review of the Variance Request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 704-523-4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
~ y/46/o/7
Stewart Hines, L. G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
cc: Bob Clark-Consolidated Freigr,tways, Inc.
K:1 .•. 11 !!Si'\HANCE:Si .dee
2
__ -· ·---· _,,.,,_.,1,,,......,,1,,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan 8. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
123
CERTIFIED MAIL P 281 578 510
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Stewart M. Hines
S&ME Incorporated
9751 Southern Pines Blvd.,
Charlotte·, NC 28273
April 29, 1997
.-.~~ ,__ ---ti; )Y. .a JG a ,,.;,,_.. ___ __
DEHNR
Subject: Additional Information Needed to Complete the Review of the
Request for Variance Under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for the
Consolidated Freightways Incorporated Site at State Road 2173 in
Statesville, North Carolina (Groundwater Incident# 5484)
Dear Mr. Hines :
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the information submitted in the variance
request received on May 16, 1996. The information contained in your request does not meet the
requirements for a variance application filed under 15A NCAC 2L .0113 for the following reason:
1) Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2L .0113(a) and 15A NCAC 2L .0113(c)(3) the
description of the proposed area for which the variance was requested is
incomplete. The Environmental Management Commission may grant variances
pursuant to a "request filed under G.S. 143-215.3(e) ". This law requires that
variances requests be for areas where "Compliance with the rules, standards, or
limitations from which the variance is sought cannot be achieved iJy application of
best available technology ..... ". You will recall that on April 18, 1997 you had a
discussion with Groundwater Section staff concerning this site. From maps and
J.
Voice 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
'.
Groundwater Section. N~J'1
P.O. Box 29578. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0578 ,..,.. \..J
2728 Capitol Blvd .• Raleigh. North Carolina 27604 f@G(b'j&i"fl
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Emplcysr
50% recycles/le)% post-consumer paper
125
Item #1. Attached is a copy of 15A NCAC 2L and a copy of North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.3(e). The Groundwater Section staff have not identified any other issues that need to bt!
addressed to complete this variance request at this time. If you have any questions concerning this
letter, please contact Mr. David Hance in the Groundwater Section at [phone].
APH/AM/dah
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Carl Bailey
Burrie Boshoff
Sincerely,
~,7-3/c,,_7
Arthur Mouberry, P .E.,
Chief, Groundwater Section
Mooresville Regional Groundwater Supervisor
David Hance
3
126
-Attachment 8
(Public Comment)
127
August 7, 1997
l-,,fr David Hance
North Carolina Department ofEnvironrnem,
Health and Natural Resources-Groundwa:e::-Section
P.O. Box 29578
R2..leigh, NC 27626-0578
RE: Proposed Groundwater Sampling and Analyses Schedule
After Variance Approval (If Required by State)
Incident #5484
Consolidated Fre:ghnvays, Inc. (Former James Farm Site)
State Road 2li3, Statesville, Iredell County, NC
S&!,,fE.-:Project No. 1354-89-413A
Dear :Mr. Ha.rice:
-.....
P...s per our phone conYe:-sation on August 7, 1997, ii the Staie requi:es g:round\vater morJtaf.1.1.""lg after
the Variance Request of May 16, 1996 is 2.pproved, then S&?v1E, Inc., on behalf of Cor..solidated
Freightways, L-ic. (CF), recommends the follo\ving one year sa.-::pli--ig a.rid analyses scl:edule.
However, we do not ·be~eve that additional groundwater monitor.:.ng 2---id associated t7.!s. fund expense
is necessary or cost effe:tive, based on the previo_us s2.:-npbg results, a.id the es'ci.-nated t~-ne (30 to 62
ye:.rs) for pote::itial_ m.:gration of low levels of compounds inm the three do\vng:r2.ciie:1! ponds.
Furthennore, we believe that the low residuc.l conce:::::.ra.:io::s of si..1bs:a."1ces in the g:roi.md·i::ater at the
site, and the absence of huma.ri recepwrs of groundwater do nm w2..L--rant the additional expense
(es:i..111ate S5000iyear) for semi-annual sa.TTipling, a.-ialyses and reportiz,g.
Tne State's July, 1997 Notice of Varia.-ice Application and He::i.:.ng requires the hydrocarbon
compounds above the 2L groundwater standards to remain v,ithin the subject Consolidated
Freightways, Inc. prope:iy boundanes. Our proposed monitorfo.g (if required by the State) would
further evaluate ground..,vater compliance \\•ithi.11 the Variance boundary area at selected on-site monitor
and former recovery v.,e!Js (BNIW-l/RW-4, :tvfW-3, :tvf\V-4, rvfW-5, :\fW-6, rvr-.V-7, ~I\V-8, 2.i1d RT-
1 ). If required by the State, S&l.\1E, Inc. proposes to S2..'11ple ground,.-:.:ater from t.1ese eight wells on a
S&/v\£. Inc. 9751 Soumern Pine Boulevard. Cnarlorre. Norm Carolina 2827.3. (7CL) 52J-ci726. Fax (70.i) 525-J95J
Maiiing addre35: P.O. Box 7665. G,arlorre. Norm Caroline 28241-7668
I•
12
Only one verbal comment was made at the hearing. One written
comment was received before the hearing record closed on Decem-
ber 29, 1993.
.J
If the EMC grants approval of this variance to groundwater
standards and corrective action requirements it would allow the
cessation of active remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater
in the subsurface beneath the property boundaries of the Amoco T-
Mart. Contaminants found in the tank basin and in on-site monitoring
wells would be allowed at levels previously found so that natural
remedial processes could act to degrade these contaminants below the
standards found in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Groundwater monitoring, as
specified in the hearing officer's report, should be required to ensure
that both the anticipated movement of the groundwater and the
predicted natural degradation/remediation of petroleum contaminants
is confirmed. ·
It is believed that further corrective actions using best
available technology (BAT), as described in 15A NCAC 2L .0106, to
remediate the Amoco T-Mart will not prove effective at reducing the
remaining contaminant levels. The information supplied by the
responsible party indicates that the soil within the area of the
variance is very impermeable and effectively retards the movement
of groundwater and contaminants. The downgradient groundwater
movement has been estimated to .travel 4 to 5 feet per year. It must
be noted that the RP has vigorously and continually acted to reduce
contaminant levels at this site since the leak was first discovered.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Environmental Management
Commission approve the variance to Corrective Actions in 15A NCAC
2L .0106(f) and Groundwater Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 2L .0202
for the Amoco T-Mart in accordance with the conditions and
recommendations of the Hearing Officer:
13
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEME~T
January 27, 1994
TO: Preston Howard
Director
THROUGH: Harlan Britt ,\ Jcp
Deputy Direct~\
Arthur Mouberry, Chief M
Groundwater ection {.!Y
FROM:· Jim Bales l
Hydro Reg· al Supervisor
I Fayettevi1 e Regional Office
SUBJECT: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
Variance Request From 15A NCAC 2L
Groundwater Quality Standards and Corrective Action Requirements
Amoco T-Mart, Groundwater Incident No: 3588
Benson, Johnston County
In accordance with your memo dated October 20, 1993, a Public Hearing was
held on Monday, November 29, 1993, at 7 p.m. in the District Courtroom of the
Municipal Building in Benson, North Carolina. I served as the Hearing
Officer, and a summary of the public hearing and my recommendations condi-
tionally favoring the request are attached for your consideration.
The issue concerns whether the.Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
should approve or deny a request for a variance from the Groundwater Quality
Standards in 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2L .0200 and from
the Corrective Action requirements in 15A NCAC 2L .0106(f). Such a variance·
may be granted by the EMC under the authority of North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.3(e). The procedures for application and for public
notification of a variance are found in 1 SA NCAC 2L . 0113, and have been
followed for this request.
r
Attached also are those documents considered pertinent and a summary of
background information concerning this variance request.
Attachments
14
INCIDENT BACKGROUND
On January 20, 1988, an inventory performed of the pe{roleum fuel tank contents
at the Benson T-Mart jndicated a total volume of premium gallons which was 2,000
gallons lower than shown on sales records. An investigation discovered a leak in the
plumbing of the distribution system which was repaired. Initial recovery efforts
retrieved 1,400 gallons of gasoline which was hauled away ahd treated. A substantial
volume of contaminated .soil was also hauled away from the site and land-applied. A
Corrective Action Plan adhering to 15A NCAC 2L .0106 and to Division of
Environmental Management guidance documents was submitted; and after receiving
Division of Environmental Management approval, the pump and haul operation was
changed to pump and treat remediation on-site in late 1988.
The remediation system consisted of a slotted 24-inch pipe emplaced below the
water table in a trench adjacent to the tank pit, and a sump pump to remove the
contaminated groundwater from the pipe. The trench was backfilled with clean sand.
The recovered fluids were hauled away for treatment from late January 1988 until late
1988. The J;)ivision of Environmental Management approved the Corrective Action Plan
in late 1988, and the treatment system was modified as approved to treat groundwater
on-site. In February 1989, after removing all liquid-phase petroleum products floating
on the groundwater, a soil venting system was emplaced to remediate contaminated soil
above the water table.
In February 1990, the Responsible Party (RP) made several physical changes on
site. New regulations had been promulgated detailing schedule deadlines for the
required upgrading of all USTs. Because the facility pavement was badly deteriorated,
the RP elected to replace the USTs early and repave the site after upgrading the tanks.
To gain access to the UST basin, the RP removed the overlying and adjacent remedial
equipment, including the soil venting and the pump-and-treat system. During the
upgrading process, more than 500 tons of contaminated soil was found, removed and
treated; and more than 2,000 gallons of groundwater was removed . which had
~ •.
accumulated in the excavation pit as work progressed.
A report was submitted to the Division of Environmental Management in April
1990 detailing activities involved with the March 1990 tank replacement. The report
also included recommendations for the monitoring only of groundwater prior to
reinstallation of r .emediation equipII].ent. No response was received from the Division of
Environment~! Management; therefore, the RP continued with monitoring activities
only, reporting quarterly on groundwater analyses and water levels.
On January 20, 1993, a variance request for this site was submitted to the Division
of Environmental Management, and a memorandum from the Raleigh Regional Office
favoring ttie request and containing adequate supporting documents was sent to the
Director on April 2, 1993. On October 24, 1993, the date of the public hearing was
announced.
15
PUBLIC HEARING
.I
A public notice was published in the Raleigh News & Observer on October 24,
1993, and in the Benson Review on October 27, 1993, advising interested parties that a
public hearing was scheduled on November 29, 1993 (see Attachment Number 1). The
hearing would conside_!"_ input by concerned citizens pertaining to a variance from
Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and the Corrective Action
requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106(f) for the Amoco T-Mart gasoline station in
Benson, North Carolina, requested by Lee-Moore Oil Company (see Attachments
Number 1 and 2). Notice of the public hearing was also given to local property owners
and local government officials (Attachment 2).
The public hearing was conducted as scheduled. The Division was represented by
five staff members:
Jim Bales
Arthur Mouberry
Jay Zimmerman
Tom Arrington
David Hance
Hearing Officer
Groundwater Section Chief
Raleigh Regional Office
Raleigh Regional Office
Recorder
Six citizens registered for the public hearing, but only one requested to make
verbal comments (see Attachment Number 3). Opening remarks were given by the
hearing officer, followed by the staff presentation concerning the variance request
which was given by Jay Zimmerman (see Attachment Number 4). Verbal comments
were given by Mr. Graylon McLamb (see Attachment Number 5). In general, Mr.
McLamb was concerned that contaminated groundwater might move beneath the
McLamb family property. It was pointed out that the groundwater flow direction was
away from the McLamb property. · No written comments were received at the· hearing,
and only one was received before the closing of the hearing record on December 29,
1993 (see Attachment Number 6). In general, the written comment, submitted by Mr.
Rick Powell, a geologist with Delta Environmental Consultants, requested to monitor
the wells on-site annually for contamination.
DISCUSSION
The Environmental Management Commission must decide whether or not to grant
a variance to allow the cessation of active remediation of contaminated soil and
groundwater beneath the site. If approved, monitoring of the groundwater should be
required to· ensure that both the predicted movement of the groundwater and the
·predicted natural degradation/remediation of the groundwater do occur.
.,....,
,---
t1?f\;·I
·:-.,,
l 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon a review of the reports and other data generated by investigations at
the site, testimony presented at the public hearing, field in~~ection and the applicable
rules and regulations, I recommend approval of the variance in accordance with . the
following conditions:
1. An additional monitor well will be constructed approximately 40 feet
from the edge of the tank pit, inside the Amoco T-Mart property boundaries
and downgradient from the tank pit relative to groundwater flow direction.
The propos-ed monitoring well position will be generally located 40 feet
· southeast from . the south corner of the tank · pit, about midway between
Monitoring Well #1 and Monitoring Well # 2.
2. The mo_nitoring well proposed · in Item 1, and all existing monitoring wells will be . sampled immediately following well development of the proposed
monitoring well in accordance with applicable rules.
3. Monitoring Wells MW _ #4, TB-1, and the proposed well will be monitored on
6-month interval which coincides with the seasonal high and low of the
water table. Water levels will be measured for each of the nine monitoring
wells at each sampling event and a water level contour map will
constructed. The analysis and map will be submitted to the Division within
one month after data collection.
4. · Water samples collected in Items 2 and 3, above, will be analyzed utilizing
Method 6210D, modified to include MTBE, with all peaks identified.
5. After monitoring as stated in Item 3 has been conducted for 2 years,
the Division will evaluate the chemical and water level data, and recommend
changes to the above conditions as appropriate.
.r~-:-: .. , '.·. •.
16
A greater percentage of the known quantity of petroleum released at this site has
been recovered relative to other contaminated underground storage tank incidences in
North Carolina. This efficient removal may be attributed to the aggressive corrective
actions taken by the responsible party in remedfating t~~ site. The removal of
additional contaminated soil found when the RP excavated the UST remediation system
after announcement of the regulatory deadlines to upgrade tanks contributed to a
further reduction of contaminated sources. This removal efficiency may also be
attributable to the tightness of the soil since the soil permeability at the Amoco T-Mart
is quite low. Groundwater is predicted to be moving at an estimated rate of 4 to 5 feet
per year.
Based on data from the quarterly waterlevel maps the current configuration of
monitor wells on site does not monitor the groundwater in the downgradient direction
from the tank pit. An additional monitoring well located in the immediate vicinity
downgradient from the tank pit should furnish this data. Contamination is now found
only near the tank pit; elsewhere at the site, Groundwater Standards' violations have
not been indicated. Analyses utilizing EPA Method 602 on water from Monitor Wells #
1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 (see map in Attachment Number 7) have never shown BTEX
contamination. Out of ten sampling events, monitor well No. 3 had only one sample
which indicated some BTEX contamination, but that was not a violation of 15A NCAC
2L .0202 Groundwater Standards. Only Monitor Well No. 4 and the two monitor wells
located within the tank basin (TB-1 and TB-2) have shown contaminate levels which
violate Groundwater Standards. The groundwater contamination levels shown near the
pit since March 1990 have generally decreased, with fluctuations occurring semi-
annually. These fluctuations appear to correlate with the wet and dry seasons (see
Attachment Number 7). The general pattern of fluctuating groundwater contamination
levels shows seasonal highs in summer months and lower levels in winter.
The chemical methods used by the RP to analyze groundwater did not have the
capability to test for naphthalene and associated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
compounds. Utilizing a different analysis method could eliminate the question of
presence or absence of other potential contaminants in the groundwater at this site.
Standard Method 6210D will detect those substances indicated by EPA Method 602, and
can detect many other petroleum hydrocarbon constituents potentially present. ·
ATTACl-tUIT #1
18
NOTICE OF VARIANCE APPLICATION AND HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, .HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Notice is hereby given of a variance appiication and public
hearing to be held by the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural_ Resources on behalf of the Environmental Management
Commission-. The . hearing concerns a request for a variance from
Groundwater Quality Standards of 15A NCAC 2L· .0202 and the
Corrective Action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106 (f) for the
Amoco ·T-Mart gasoline station in Benson, North Carolina;
( Groundwater · Inciaent No.# 3588). The variance application was
received -fo~ review .by the Department on April 30, 1993 from the
Lee-Moore Oil Company, ~.O. Drawer# 9, Sanford, NC 27330. The Lee-
Moore Oil.Company owns the underground storage tank (UST) for which
the variance is requested.
The property where the underground storage tank .is located is as
follows: Inside the City Limits of Benson, NC; Enter Benson from
Interstate-95 and go to the Amoco T-Mart at 606 East Main Street.
The Lee-Moore Oil Company requests that the Environmental
Management Commission grant this variance so that it does the
following:
1) Allow concentrations of Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) to remain at levels
above 15A NCAC 2L .0202 standards as analyzed on March
19, 1993 within the property boundaries of the Amoco T-
Mart.
On January 20, 1988 an estimated 1,500 to 2,000
gallons of unleaded gasoline was lost due to a leaking
gasket in the distribution system. Free-product gasoline
and contaminated sqils were subsequently removed. A pump-
and~treat groundwater remeciiation system was instct:lled to
meet corrective action requirements of 15A NCAC 2L .0106.
From January 1988 through February 1990 the remediation
system recovered 100 gallons of liquid phase gasoline and
over 200,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater.
Approximately $200,000 dollars has been expended by Lee-
Moore Oil Company to remediate contaminated groundwater
and soil. In March 1990 the requirement to meet technical
standards of 1 SA NCAC 2N and eroding pavement
necessitated replacing underground storage tanks and
removal 6f the pump-and-treat groundwater remediation
system at the site.
Analysis of groundwater samples from all monitoring
wells for this site have demonstrated BTEX concentrations
progressively decreasing since corrective actions were
initiated in 1988. Only one monitoring well directly in
, .. ~: .
ATTACHMENT #3
L.E. Brown,
Benson, NC
22
.J
Attendees
Amoco T-Mart Variance Hearing
November 29, 1993
Staff Writer,
27504
The Benson Review, P.O. Box 9,
Calvin Edgerton, Staff Writer, The Smithfield Herald, P.O. Box
1417, Smithfield, NC 27377.
Linda Harris, Director Of Marketing, Lee-Moore Oil Company,
P.O. Drawer 9, Sanford, NC 27330.
Tim H. Holloman, Building Inspector, Town of Benson, P.O. Box
67, Benson, NC 27504.
Graylon McLamb, 941 Raynor Road, Benson, NC
representing the estate of Redding McLamb **)
27504 ( **
Rick Powell, Project Geologist, . Delta Environmental
Consultants, Inc., 6701 Carmel Road, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC
28226.
l ..
i
\ ~ __ \, ATTACHMENT #3
9
I
23
ATTACHMENT #4
Public Hearing-Variance Request ./
Variance to 15A NCAC 2L .0202 and 15A NCAC 2L .0106(f)
Amoco T-Mart (GW Incident No.# 3588)
Benson, North Carolina
November 29, 1993 (7:00 PM}
Hearing officer: Jim Bales (Fayetteville Regional Office)
Staff Presenter: Jay Zimmerman (Raleigh Regional Office)
GROUNDWATER SECTION RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF PRESENTATION FOR 15A NCAC 2L VARIANCE
AMOCO T-MART, BENSON, NC
GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JAY ZIMMERMAN. I AM THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT-GROUNDWATER SECTION REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL
SUPERVISOR IN THE RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
THE AMOCO T-MART OWNS AND OPERATES A GASOLINE STATION WITHIN THE
TOWN LIMITS OF BENSON, NC. THIS STATION WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1982 AND
FOUR PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WERE INSTALLED. IN JANUARY 20,
1988 THE LEE-MOORE OIL COMPANY PERFORMED AN INVENTORY OF GASOLINES SOLD
BY THIS STATION. THE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM UNLEADED GASOLINE IN THE
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK WAS LOWER THAN THE SALES RECORDS INDICATED.
FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED A LEAK OCCURRED AT A GASKET IN THE
. ••.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NORTH OF ONE TANK. THE LEAK WAS IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED
AND LIQUID PHASE HYDROCARBONS WERE REMOVED BY INSTALLING A TRENCH AT THE
..
SOUTHERN END OF THE TANK BASIN. INVENTORY RECORDS REVEALED 2000 GALLONS
HAD BEEN RELEASED. 1400 GALLONS OF GASOLINE WERE RECOVERED WITHIN THE
FIRST FEW WEEKS FOLLOWING THE LEAK. CONTAMINATED SOIL WAS REMOVED AND
TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GROUNDWATER SECTION SOIL REMEDIATION
GUIDELINES. SINCE THE WATER TABLE IS WITHI~ FIVE {5) TO SEVEN (7) FEET
ATTACHMENT #4
/0
24
FROM THE SURFACE THE GROUNDWATER BENEATH THE AMOCO T-MART BECAME
CONTAMINATED. A GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
INSTALLED WHICH REVEALED GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CONTAMINATION WAS LIMITED
TO. THE TANK BASIN. A PUMP-AND-TREAT GROUNDWATER RECOVERY SYSTEM WAS
INSTALLED IN LATE 1988 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
DEVELOPED UNDER RULE 15A NCAC 2L .0106 AND STATE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS.
FROM JANUARY 1988 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1990 THE PUMP-AND-TREAT SYSTEM
REMOVED FREE-PRODUCT GASOLINE AND CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER. DURING THIS
TWO YEAR PERIOD .APPROXIMATELY 100 GALLONS OF LIQUID PHASE GASOLINE WAS
RECOVERED FROM THE TANK BASIN. OVER 200,000 GALLONS . OF CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER WAS .RECOVERED AND TREATED. BY OCTOBER 1989 NO LIQUID PHASE
GASOLINE REMAINED IN THE TRENCH OR RECOVERY SUMP. A SOIL VENTING SYSTEM
WAS INSTALLED AT THE REMEDIATION SYSTEM SUMP TO REMOVE GASOLINE IN THE
SOIL ABOVE THE WATER TABLE. THIS SYSTEM OPERATED TILL FEBRUARY 1990.
IN MARCH 1990 THE REQUIREMENT TO MEET TECHNICAL STANDARDS OF 15A
NCAC 2N UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RULES AND TO REPAIR DEGRADING PAVEMENT
NECESSITATED REMOVAL OF THE PUMP-AND-TREAT GROUNDWATER CLEANUP SYSTEM.
AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTIVITY AN ADDITIONAL 500 TONS OF SOIL LADENED WITH
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER WAS REMOVED ANO TREATED OFF-SITE. AS PART OF
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS, THE LEE-MOORE OIL COMPANY HAS
BEEN CONDUCTING QUARTERLY MONITORING .OF GROUNDWATER AT THE AMOCO T-MART
SINCE ·FEBRUARY 1988. THE LAST SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED IN
MARCH OF 1992.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO 1 SA NCAC 2L . 0202 WOULD ALLOW EXISTING
CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE, AND XYLENES {BTEX) TO
REMAIN WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF THE AMOCO T-MART. THE LEE-MOORE
OIL COMPANY BELIEVES THAT CONTINUED CORRECTIVE. ACTIONS WILL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE CONTAMINATES BELOW THE 15A NCAC 2L . 0202
GROUNDWATER STANDARDS AND THAT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WILL NOT BE
IMPACTED BY THESE REMAINING LEVELS WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. THEY
PROPOSE THAT THESE REMAINING . CONCENTRATIONS BE ALLOWED TO DEGRADE
THROUGH NATURAL PROCESSES AND THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS OF 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(f) NOT BE APPLIED TO THIS LOCATION. THE COMPANY ASSERTS
THAT EXCEEDENCE OF THE 15A NCAC 2L .0202 GRQUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS
WILL NOT OCCUR OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF THE AMOCO T-MART.
THE LEE-MOORE OIL COMPANY SENT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ON ·JANUARY 20, 1993. THE DIVISION
HAS REVIEWED SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND
BELIEVES THAT .IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF 15A NCAC 2L .0113 {a-c). ~THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH FROM THIS SITE.
ACCOROING TO THE TOWN . OF BENSON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE NO
KNOWN PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELLS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF THIS PROPERTY. THE
WATER SUPPLY FOR THE TO~ OF BENSON IS FROM A DEEP WELL LOCATED ONE MILE
UPGRADIENT FROM THE AMOCO T-MART. A MONITORING WELL WITHIN THE TANK
BASIN HAS SHOWN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION PROGRESSIVELY DEC~EASING WITH
TIME. A MONITORING WELL UPGRADIENT FROM THE TANK BASIN HAS SHOWN
EXISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE AT 0.003 MG/L. THE 15A NCAC 2L. 0202
GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 0.001 MG/L. NO
DOWNGRADIENT MONITORING WELLS HAVE SHOWN ANY BTEX CONTAMINATION ABOVE
THE 15A NCAC 2L STANDARDS. THE DOWNGRADIENT EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATED
PLUME IS APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
GROUNDWATER MODELING USING THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SPREAD MODEL HAS
INDICATED THAT IT WILL TAKE EIGHT YEARS FOR THE EDGE OF THIS
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER PLUME TO REACH THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. BY THAT
TIME IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT NATURAL REMEDIAL PROCESSES IN THE SUBSURFACE·
WILL REDUCE CONCENTRATIONS BELOW ' 1 SA NCAC 2L . 0202 STANDARDS. NINETY
ATTACHMENT #4
I J
2,5
PERCENT OF THIS PROPERTY IS COVERED BY PAVEMENT SO RAINFALL EVENTS WILL
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE MOVEMENT OF SUBSURFACE CONTAMINANTS. STORM
WATER IS ROUTED THROUGH STORM SEWERS TO A TRIBUTARY OF HANNAH CREEK
APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE.
APPLYING BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES WOULo·1sERVE TO PRODUCE A
SERIOUS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY EQUAL
OR GREATER BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC. THE COMPANY HAS SPENT APPROXIMATELY
$ 200,000 DOLLARS TO REMEDIATE THIS SITE. ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES SUCH
AS BIOREMEDIATION OR AIR SPARGING ARE NOT CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE
ALTERNATIVES .
. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION GRANTS THIS VARIANCE
REQUEST, · GROUNDWATER MONITORING WILL BE REQUIRED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT
THE 15A NCAC 2L .0202 GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE MET .
... : .. ·; ATTACHMENT #4
27
ATTACHMENT #6
.J
COMMENT #2: I propose that the frequency of groundwater monitoring at the Amoco
T-Mart be reduced from a quarterly basis to annual monitoring. Ground_wa_ter monitoring
data has shown that the contamination is steadily decreasing with time. The owner of the
Amoco T-Mart has spent over $ 200,000 dollars to remediate this site. Cost projections
show that-continued quarterly monitoring will cost approximately $ 100,000 over the next
ten years assuming the 15A NCAC 2L .0200 groundwater standards are not achieved during
that time frame. An annual monitoring schedule will reduce this projected cost to$ 25,000.
The data to support this variance request indicates that this site poses rio hazards to the
environment, health or safety.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT #2: This recommendation will be forwarded with the
other materiais in the variance request for the Director's consideration.
15A NCAC 2L .0110 (c) states that monitoring shall be conducted in a manner
specified by the Director or his designee.
COMMENT #2 MADE BY:
Rick Powell, Project Geologist, Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
6701 Carmel Road, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28226 (* representing the Lee-Moore
Oil Company**)
ATTACHMENT #6 2
:~-.: .
:.
NOTES:
=
=
+ •
28
TABLE 1
GRCXJND ~ATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE·MOORE OIL Cet'.PANY
T·HART AHOC:l
BESSON, NORTH CAROLINA
DELTA NO. 50·8<!·049
HON !TOR I HG \JELL: H',i-1
ETHYL
DATE UNITS BENZE!IE TOLUENE BE!IZE!IE
02/16/ea'-ug/L <1 <1 +
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/12/89 . ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/L .. ,. ..
08/15/90 ug/L * .. *
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/27/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/19/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L ... .. ...
09/15/92 ug/L * * *
10/21/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/L .. .. ..
05/06/93 ug/L * .. ..
09/09/93 ug/L .. .. ..
HOMITORIMG '>IELL: M',/·2
EiHYL
DATE UNITS BENZENE · TOLUE!IE BE!IZE!IE
02/16/88 ug/L <1 <1 <I
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/L .. ,. ..
08/15/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/L .. * *
06/27/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/19/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L .. .. ..
09/15/92 ug/L .. ..
10/21/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/L .. .. * 05/06/93 ug/L * .. *
09/09/93 ug/L * ..
HONITCRl!IG \JELL NOT SAMPLED
HCNITCRING \JELLS INSTALLED MARCH 1990
PARAMETER NOT ANALYZED
ATTACft'lENT #7
.1
XYLE!IES MTSE
<1 +
<1 +
<1 + .. + ... +
<1 +
~ .. ,·
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 + ,·
... + .. ,
'.l
* +
<1 <1
* ..
* .. .. ,.
; ; \
XYLE!IES HTSE
<1 +
<1 ...
<1 + .. +
<1 ...
<1 +
• +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
* ... .. +
<1 <1 .. *
* *
* *
..... : .. · . .i .,
_.·-=. ~ ·"
b'.Qilli
=
=
29
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
GRO.JNO YATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE-MOORE OIL CCMPAMY
T·HART AMOCO
BENSON, HORTH CARCLIIIA
DELTA NO. 50-88-049
HONITCR!NG ',,'ELL: MV-3
EiHYL
DATE UNITS BENZENE TOLUENE BEHZE!IE
02/16/88 us/L <1 <1 ..
06/02/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/l <1 <.1 <1
05/30/90 --ug/L • .
08/15/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 us/L <1 4 <1
06/27/91 us/L <1 <1 <I
09/05/91 ug/L <1 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/L 3 <1
03/i9/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
06/03/92 ug/L •
09/15/92 ug/L * . .
10/21/92 ug/L <I <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/L . .. ..
05/06/93 ug/L * • •
09/09/93 ug/L • • "
MON!TORl!IG I/ELL: ,......4
EiHYL
DATE Ull[iS BENZ!::-IE TOL 1JENE BE)lZEHE
02/16/88 ug/L 352 1350 53
06/02/89 ' ug/l . <1 <1
09/12/89 ug/L <1 <1 <1
05/30/90 ug/L :· • * ..
08/15/90 .. us/L * * ...
12/11/90 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/20/91 ug/L <1 6 <1
06/27 /91 ug/L · 7 <1 <1
09/05/91 ug/L ·"' 2 <1 <1
12/19/91 ug/L S·
03/19/92 ug/L 3
D6/03/92 ug/L _4
"09/15/92 ug/L 2
10/2~/92 _r.:g/L <1
03/09/93 ug/L .3
05/06/93 ug/L 11
09/09/93 ug/L 3
MONITORING VELL NOT SAMPLED
HONITORING VELLS IIISTALLEO MARCH 1990
0\~1uc-=~ ~nT 1v41v7:~
<1 <1
<1 <1
<1 <1
<1 <1
<1< <1
<1 <1
<1 <1
<1 <1
ATTACHMWT #7
.J
XYLEHES MTBE
<1 ·+
3 +
<1 + . +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
<1 +
12 +
<1 +
+ ..
<1 <1
* • .. . •
XYLENES MTBE
280 +
<1 +
<1 +
* +
* +
<1 +
<1 +
7 +
<1 +.
3 +
<1 +
3 +
<1 +
<1 <1
2 <1
9 3
2 2
---· ..... '..... . ....
.· .. :;:;.,~-
/· 'l .•.
',
(. ::.~
Wil:.
=
=
l = \, .. , .
30 ..
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
G;;OOND \/ATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LEE·MOORE OIL. CCf-lPANY
T·HARi AMCCO
SENSCN, NORTH CAROLINA
DELTA NO. S0·e.3·049
MONITORING \JELL: 11\J-7
ETHYL
DATE UNITS BE!IZ:HE i0LU:HE SE!IZEHE
0S/2~/88 ug/L <1 <1 +
09/12/89 ug/L .. .. ...
05/30/90 ug/L· .. ... * 08/15/90-ug/L .. ..
12/11 /90 ug/L ... * *
03/20/91 ug/L ... ...
06/27 /91 ug/t. .. ,.
09/05/91 ug/L * .. * 12/19/91 ug/L .. * *
03/19/92 ug/L * ..
06/03/92 ug/L * .. " 09/15/92 ug/L * . * 10/21/92 ug/L <1 <1 <1
03/09/93 ug/L .. "' ,.
05/06/93 ug/L * " 09/09/93 ug/L * *
HCNITOR!NG wELL: Ta• 1
ETHYL
DATE UNITS BENZ!::SE TCLWENE BENZEHE
09/12/89 ug/l
05/30/90 ug/L 67 1500 <20
08/15/90 ug/L 160 1700 2ao
12/11/90 us/L 100 1200 200
03/20/91 ug/L 33 340 75
06/27/91 ug/l 260 550 3100 ,
09/05/91 ug/L .> 91 390 75 ' 12/19/91 ug/L 45 •. 390 100
03/19/92 ug/L 40 550 84
06/03/92 i.!<;/l sa:, 400 91
09/15/92 ug/L 74 ;, 630 14Q
10/21/92 ug/L 30 270 83
03/09/93 ug/L 35 ' 3'-0 99
05/06/93 ug/L aa ac;o 210
09/09/93 ug/L 65 180 95
HCNliCRING \JELL NOT SAMPLED
MONITORING \JELLS INSTALLED HARCa 1990
PARAMETER NOT ANALYZED
.J
XYLENES
<1 ..
" ...
...
,.
..
*
* •
<1
*
* ..
XYLENES
21co.
.:·, 1Z'J0
6co·
370
2800
320
1.20
450
340
560
260
400
910
330
H.T5E
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
,.
*
*·
HT~E
f,
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
7
<10
<10
29
ATTAC!tlENT #?
,.,
I
I
\
NOTES:
=
♦
32
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
GKOJNO \JATER ANALYTICAL RESULiS
LEE·MOORE OIL CD4PAHY
T·MART AMOCO
BE)ISCII, NCRTH CArtCLIIIA
DELTA NO. 50·88•049
HOIIITORIIIG VELL: "4\J· 5
ETHYL
DATE Ull!TS BEIIZE!IE TOLUENE 6EIIZEIIE
05/26./88 ug/L <1 <1 +
09/12/89 ug/L .,, ..
05/30/90 Ug/L * .,, .,,
08ti5/90 ug/L .,, .. ..
12/11/90·-ug/L .. .. * 03/20/91 ug/L * ., * 06/27/91 Ug/L * * ..
09/05/91 ug/L * * .,,
12/19/91 ug/L ,. .. ,.
03/19/92 ug/L ,. ..
06/03/92 l:g/L * .. .,
09/15/92 ug/L ,. * •
10/21/92 ug/L <~ <1 <1
05/06/93 ug/L ., ..
09/09/93 ug/L . .. *
MCIHTORIIIG \JELL: H\J·6
ETHYL
DATE UNITS BE11Z:I/E · TOLUE!IE SE!IZE!IE
05/26/88 ug/L <t <1 ♦
09/12/89 ug/L * .
05/30/90 ug/L . •
08/i5/90 ug/L .. •
12/11/90 ug/L .. .
03/20/91 ug/L • • ..
06/27 /91 ug/L .. * * 09/05/91 ug/L * *
12/19/91 Ug/L .
03/19/92 ug/L *
06/03/92 ug/L ,. .. * 09/15/92 ug/L .. * .,,
10/21/92 ug/L .,, .. .,,
03/09/93 ug/L .. .. ..
05/06/93 ug/L .,, * *
09/09/93 ug/L .. ..
MOIIITCRIIIG \JELL HOT SAMPLED
MOlllTCRIIIG \JELLS INSTALLED MARCH 1990
PARAMETER HOT AIIALYZEO
ATTACI-MENT #7
.J
XYLEIIES Mi'6E
<1 ♦ .,, ♦
* ♦
* ♦ ., ♦
* ♦
* +
* ♦
* ♦
* ♦
* + .. +
<1 <1 ,. ..
• ,.
XYLESES )H3E
<1 +
• ..
• * ,. ..
• .. .
* ..
* * .. * ..
* * ... .,,
.,, * .,
* .. ,. .,
\
:S. Fluorene 0.28 milligrams/Liter
;_.,,fl -~ 6: Naphthalene 0 1021,milligrams/Liter
7. Phenanthrene o~iH milligrams/Liter
8. Phenol 0.30 milligrams/Liter
1 ~-rr ·,..: .J
. Y , er Mr. H.0ward said the Commission's rules specify that once interim standards have
been established; the -Director shall initiate actions to consider formal adoption. He said
the eight (8) interim standards had been reviewed by the Commission's Groundwater
Comn:litteein:_Februa,ry, and the Committee recommended that the amendments to the
CommissiorosfirOll!l;ndwater Standards be presented to the full Commission in March. He
said it is reques,ted:dm:t~th!e.:Commission authorize staff to proceed with notice and puqlic '
bearing omthe:eightr(8}iecommended standards .
~-:l t · ri · 1: ... :2 ~-t1 ~~_if : -1: ·_· · _, ... ·1 · "-·: ~:.:·-· .. :.
~-;Qnairman Moreau called for,di'scussion or questions from the Commission
members. ·· ,.
r: ·:·~1 .. Ms,.,IDeerh®.infor:med the. Conimissioiunembers that the Santicizer 711 is
: computod,on.a.stmllatw:ai; similarity. to: another, comp(!)un..d,which.EPA has not formally
approved;· out;that there.are se~ondary source.&of:infotmatioo on the-health affect. She . "d .i.:.~ . '.-;.it..,_.., ·en.A.. . ed ,..., . b . . I . . . . --r· ., ~,-· sai u~Ll.S.1'J.!..1. LaJll JI;,Ci.,n: approy .,~am .er. .. . ,r ,. ; : .1:,, .'. · . , 1 'i , , •;
;
/_,:/'l·J;f)J"G,;; .l ":J 1 ""·•, .. ~j ; .. ~_,)'T •:_, •~ (I_\ ,I• i .i.. f r. · ',, '., ~ .'.) 1 :.:~ f,r;lJ ~ ,J_~·., , ; !·,,.r ,i~ d:' •..: ·, :••
Mr. Andrews coriunentedrthatthe standa:rdS1fot Phtllalat~s is :a:S:icm.1liti~!issue . ·· 1
because of the monitoring well construction that routinely occurs. He said that it may
re.sult'in.:.faise reatlings1tµld)s,taff .sho.uJ.d-be :a"':'aretof,this,. ·"-· · ~\
··:~. ~,.-·; '.: 1..~..i ·.. .;, _ _..,·. ~-~ ·?t~ ·L . : u : . .:1
A motion was made by Mr. Andrews to proceed to public hearing. Dr. Farabow
seconded the motio~, 1iJ;;; .r .. ·,j .<t -n .. ,: J .. ; 1 ,_ .,, ·) :, .• ·u:, '!. ·.0
;_ .
, : r{i;}liainuan MareAU 1_~alle1i;for. ai vote _bn t;hei m0tiqn}. :The m.otion catried.
'j~}r.J . r ·}ll t>, ~_v:,···-... ... r_,:-:1 :;i.-~ ~,r~·-1·: uj·i ._, 0 J .. :._ ·~ ;> .. • l,l~"::.··
2. 940013 Reque5Uo .A;pproye ~{YatiaNcefrP.m th,e.Requi;rements,of 15A
NCAC 2L .0106(f) and 15A NCAC 2L. 0202 for the Amoco T-Mart in
'.,,.Bens.on,Nor.th£ar-oiina.:---,, ·, ~ · ·._'.::: ,.T;;~·o 'J.i'.:> . n i:.::r, i'
C /r :10~-·:1~i :J , ·· · ". i_!· ',if·,:-, t;·.::-,·-:-_1{·}': :1 0.: 1.--"J~; _,.'··::.'' J'..'.;
Mr. Jim Bales, Hydro Regional Supervisor, in the Fayetteville R~nal Officer
presented this agenda item. Mr. Bales said he served as the hearing officer for the.public
heaJ4ng :heJ.d: <m; iN ovember 2.9" 19.9£3 ,in _ aenson, ,N~ ~lin.~ ·: (Summary-and , ~
background information on page 14 of the Explanation of Agenda It~s), .·-:
Mr. Bales presented -~ sijqe preseIJ,tation;. ~-sa.1Q:tltat Ci)Jl J~;u~ io, 1:288,
Benson T-Mart personnel discovered a discrepancy of 2000 gallons between the ·
measuredtv.olume ofp~um gasQline f!Jld ·the~s.ales rec_ords fo:i:itluttw,-~~l!m tank.
said maintenance pers0n11el investi~ted &id {01i1nd ~.prohl~m -~ iideruc ·in th~ r ··
premium gas distribution line, just outside the tank. :, p. .r}< J~;.:;.··d:~ :I.'• '.l"f ·
He
Mr. Bales said the ini,tial recovery effo~s ~movAd)&b.~ut.l.400igal-l<:>~s of:»35 and
a large volume of contaminated soil. He said the clean-up system devised and ins.wled at
T-Mart consisted of a large slot pipe with a sump pump inside the pipe; all this was
buried.below the water table just outside the ~pit Jtle ,said.-•F.ebru~ 198~ .after all
free product floating on the water table was removed, a soil vent system was, .adcred to i
funher enhance decontamination of the soil. He said in March 1990, the pavement over
·the tank pit was deteriorating badly, so T-Mart elected to up;g:md.e their tanks.and then
repave the pit area. He said as the tanks were removed, additional contilminatcd:.SOil was
discovered and removed. He said before completing the tank up-grade, they had rem~ved
3
.......
; ~ ~1 ,·,h .t:
an additional 500 tons of contamitlated soil, and more than 2000 gallons of 'o/atedhat had
accumulated in the pit as the work:,piogressed. , · . _:, •r: .
'I..:; .. -! • ir I '1 . r.
Mr. Bales said the contamination of groundwater is now-found only around the
tank pit, in MW-rand the twoaank pit wells. He said no BTEX contaminatroft .-lb'enzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene or xylenes -have been found in MW's #1, 2, .5;,6~ i:5r'7i[.\,i:'.'! 1 ,, .• : <
· . .u-.~:·-.;·r!t-('.··; td.::: :.~ · · .. ~
Mr. Bales said there is no monitor well located directly downgmidingrfrom:tlie1 .)')
tank pit, and that he would recommend an additional monitor welt be1>laced . t<!> monitor :~ .
thti!ground\Yater flowing from the contaminated area. He said the1g:ro11ndwater.·· -:i i :·:£.•.
containinatibn levels seem to fluctuate with the seasonal: water lev~l ¢h3.!_Iges.tlie ~&thri
contamination levels are generally higher in summer and lower in winter. He said that he
would recommend that the groundwater be samplediatsix:month.inteivals-,toromcide
with the seasonal contaminate level fluctuations. . ·,· .. :iu, . .:.
Mr. Bales said the methods ,utiliizerl •.tO'ailalyze-water .sample~o:date-liave:heen
EPA Methods 601 and 602. 'He sa.id ,ro;metermine whether other potentiali:peuroleutm c:!c.:.
constituents may be pr.esenv hei w.ould!recommend ,cnan'ging the analyrsis to1util:ize ::;· ry ::q ..'.l.L
Standard Method 6210D. He said this method wo01d;allo:w ~det~tic.nfhf81IBX~.', J-.~:.?
MTBE ·o Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether -at levels well below the groundwater standards,
and it'wo~d ~~· <&erect 01m!f;p~f:ibl~lllai-cd11:5ti.tueritSit,if1presentn ,~:;_, ~:; ,.-,·Jj, .. i:._ -:~;✓: •
' . jJ. ·, :'.',(,.:_I .,--·.:··Y' . ..; ':J :n-i ,'.;jiJ . · .. '[."[1:;r,.. I'.• .. ".•,j1 '(-:JL ~.d:r >:, ;···J;,.:x::!
In concluding his presentatiiori,.1Mr:.Balesiddominended,app,:_9VM°:of .the,itarlance ·,:
with the following conditioris: The responsible party must
·•.1 ~--111 t1.T L-··i· .... ,.11 .. 1 '° t ? .. ·.·:::l _l_L ·_~;_, ·i ~.;h.:-r.:: .. : ~~.,·~~ ~!<.:~Jcr·.cr. P.~
1) Install the proposed monitor well at the indicated location;n -,:-.to c, ;:!.1 ':, h~,,: · ::
2) Obtain addftiona1 'b1acle.grb3nd:·d.1tacbti uti1izirrigi.Scir.i:dm--d ·Method 6i110l!:> to
analyze samples from· all monitor wells plus the proposed well after
. development of! thatipropt5500.iwelf ha:s'been: ;crunp1e.tt¢': 1 ';: 'J ) c..i no ~ {
;,i .1: .... ·iu:., .:1 -·•t ,1;·~::f'~il.,.i ~: i/,·_··.',1i .. · .. l!::-·fl;L;/1J h:·);,:}~
3) Utilizing Method 6210D, analyze samples fronvihee::seleoted :i;nO'Bitofing
wells -MW-4, TB-1 · and the proposed monitor well -every six months for two
") d •b•: •'f •· ,·1··i.' ,~.,•f:: ;1·· r; r· ! ... ; ...... ';} r·r:• 1-,• .a( •. .._.l~. ~~-·"" ,t rJ (;t ,-f.f, JY~,ac-:>.., : -. ~ .-o., :·• :-_-· ·. .1. ·" • • • ,--••• ,;,. .' • · ... .,. . • . ~-·.. , ., .. J. -,_, •• -:
it ··_."=;, ... r. ;~' u. .. ;,,..;. ::, .. t·,:: 1.. r . .'G ·-~ Si.··_.' !~ji;t.~ ' .~;1 :: •.. ~~t :.:1. .J ... -... dT~.-~,2~) ':_~
4) Measure water levels:-m' all ~m6nitbr :wells ·onc)hls site during. eacltl sa!m.iiUng,:r. ~ -
event:~·~ .d .. ::i~./: 'i 1 ·,;;_1 .. t.1,:c• .:·, ;;~, "j,: ,t ··::, .. ,~-r -' •~ .. ,J .,--_'::i b,TJ ._; \::; ··
5) ~bnshitcw~warrt f!oJ<f t'cjht~irr -tna~~h:.1six months_:L.: :i '=· '. -t ~~_..r , ~ :
. ·d·. }.:v · •'? ~,-~-.. ,,!l.!]~~ C~l.J · .. :~ t ,~, ~-'n.:cr· r.~i<.1-:)~ l",e•--~, , 1·.t .~~:):'f.i~·..-J ·r :j ,. _
: Mr. Balts~:~aidltltahlt tti-e·otid offffie' t\Vb~ar·j,criod, H6~Qiilmended,that tJte .G,
Division ev.altfaic:the Wbmitt~d•data<andr1utg.cst thanges to ·these-·conditions.as . · .. : ··
appropriate. (Attachment No. 4) ....; :i:1 . __ ·~ '..f · .-, ·r -~-,
'-':'i .;€hairm~:·~reau;otmoct.ftn'·di~ussion or questions from the Comn:ussi,ort
membtts . i'L. t~;,,-,J ,-~~:,'-'i! :r c''.:_2 _·,_,L . ,r;,-1 :;;9_,lr
• ;>~··1 L>·· : ... :· .. · i -,/'f ~·::: ; ...... ·:1q r1:···. . )~-~·~rt ~·r >:i
~;: A &sct.1s~li.fofi'owdd.I~ri:)ffie variaace request and the cost of the clean~uv-ib'y . :!':
Amoco ·~.:M"~ ,., .. ',:;•jrr•· i,,, ,. v ,·.-._ -·--.r ,---.,.,._ l:al • all, L. · 4 -' · •-" { ~ . ..,. -• ..._ J V ._ . , • \., • ..,
,·, l ,-, '. 'c1·l? )l"'?t f' ,.:· : f ''. ·, •r2 · -., '.1 ,. • _',or·•. J-~ J "" ~ • - -. . .~. . . .,1~ •• L -. •-..
; i\i'mouon 'Waitmad.C,iby,Mr. Andrews to approve the variance. Mr.,Loflin <11. · :1 ri.
secondecftheairowm.': :,'!/ ·,:ii1f,~ ,.f:) ··, ;U::: ';y'. · ::Jl 1 , :; ; ·tn·:, r
:·{ ... ·_-~ I 1 •. {~:.::f :.~ .. ·· ~ ·l j .,{: •. , ~•{ i i.:.~-" .. ,., ~ 1.-•• •· ......• :·. -~ '~1~:-~ ]:
4
Mr. Epting declared a potential conflict of interest and did not participate in this
agenda item.
Dr. Peterson asked for clarification on granting the variance,
.I
Mr. Mouberry, Chief of the Groundwater Section, responded by saying if the
variance is granted today, to the responsible party, it would allow him to have a
groundwater standard pn his property that is higher than the groundwater standard listed
in the 2L. Regulation. He said the Benzene standard is one part per billion and Amoco T-
Mart has 14 parts per billion in the tank pit. He said there is no offsite contamination of
any joining property based on this spill. He said if the monitoring, with the existing wells
or proposed wells, show-at any time there is potential for moving off site of the property,
the Director has the. ability to go back in and require Amoco T-Mart to initiate active
remediation again. ·
Chairman Moreau called for further discussion or questions from the Commission
members. He then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried.
3. 940014 Request to Approve the Recommendation of the Groundwater
Committee Concerning a Petition for Rulemaking to Amend 15A NCAC
2P .0407(b) from Mt. Paul Washington of Southern Pines, North Carolina
Mr. Mouberry presented this agenda item. He then reviewed the information
·,: concerning the petition for rulemak:ing to amend 15A NCAC 2P .0407(b). He said the
petition formally requests that the Commission amend the rule to give the Commission
;.-final agency decision authority in contested cases under N.C.G.S. ·1s0B-23. In
• .. concluding his presentation, ¥.u. Mouberry said it is the recommendation of the
Groundwater Committee that the Commission deny the Petition for Rulemaking to amend
15A NCAC 2P .0407(b). He said the denial is based on the lack of necessity for the
Commission to engage in final decisions outlined in 15A NCAC 2P .0407(b).
Chainnah Moreau called for discussion or questions from the Commission
members.
A motimi was made by Mr. ·Fowler to accept the recommendation of the
Groundwater Committee. Mr. Baker seconded the motion.
Chairman Moreau called for further discussion or questions from the Commission
members. He then called for a vote on the motion. The motion canied.
4." 940015 Request Approval of Eleven Municipal Government Water Supply
Watershed Protection Ordinance$ in Compliance with the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Act (NCGS 143 .. 214.5) ·
Ms. Lisa Martin ofthe Water Quality Planning Branch presented. this agenda
item. She said the Towns of Biscoe, Candor and Ellerbe had submitted ordinances, maps
and management plans in compliance with the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act.
She said that DEM staff had reviewed and determined that they meet the state's minimum
water supply watershed managerlient requirements delineated in the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Rules.
· Ms. Martin said the Cities of Lincolnton, Lumberton. Mount Airy, Oxford and
· W~ston-Salem, and the Town of Southern Pines submitted watershed protection
ordinances, maps and management plarfs in compliance with th~ Watet Supply .
5 -'
.-:--:-,
..!)