Unocal Corpartion request for Variance from 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards for Property at 2930 Gibbon Road in Derita, NC (DEM Groundwater Incident Number 3751)

Upon receiving your recommendation, the Section will forward a recommendation
to the Director of the Division of Environmental Management.
If you need additional assistance or information please call me at 733-3221.
cc: Carl Bailey
Dr. Burrie Boshoff
David Hance
Mooresville Regional Office Groundwater Supervisor
2
(
';]
~
;7
j
J
J
J
~
J
J
]
J
J
]
J
]
]
l .
I .
'
NCDEH NA-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
bioremediation has resulted in reduction of the gasoline plume extent and magnitude by
over 95%, as indicated in Table 1 -Historical Groundwater Quality Data.
Both SVE and AS remediation systems have reached the practical limits of their use, as
most subsurface gasoline containing soil, groundwater or vapors have been removed and
continued remediation is not expected to significantly reduce the potential impact to public
health and the environment. Furthermore, intrinsic bioremediation is occurring such that
remaining low levels of dissolved hydrocarbons are expected to be naturally degraded
before reaching the nearest hydraulically downgradient receptor. The closest receptor
to the site is the active B&B Leather Company private well located 150 feet east-northeast
of the nearest Unocal site property line, (see Figure 4). The B&B Leather well has never
exhibited groundwater contamination, as indicated in Table 1. The second closest private
well is the former Gamble Pallet Co. well (inactive) located 375 feet west of the nearest
Unocal site property line. The Gamble Pallet Co. well has exhibited low levels (4.06 to
9.28 ug/L) of tetrachloroethene during four semi-annual sampling events, which is
unrelated to the Unocal gasoline release of 1987.
Considering (a) the current low dissolved gasoline levels ( < 1 ug/L BTEX), (b) no of-site
plume migration, and (c) that no drinking water supply wells have been impacted by the
Unocal gasoline release, continued remediation is not expected to significantly reduce the
potential impact to public health and the environment. Since the dissolved phase BTEX
is absent from all wells on-site or off-site, there is little risk of BTEX migration. S&ME
requests that no further remediation be required at this site an~ that a Variance be
granted for the surficial aquifer beneath the former Unocal-Derita site. Additionally,
laboratory (carbon tube) and organic vapor analyzer (OVA) results of vapor influent
samples collected during operation of the vapor extraction system indicate that total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) in the unsaturated soils have been reduced to 0.1 ppm
or less.
2
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call.
Very truly yours,
S&ME, INC.
Al Quarles, LG.
Senior Hydrogeologist
SMH\
Enclosures
cc: Wayne Holt -Unocal Corporation
Mohammad Ghandehari -Unocal Corporation
Rick Holshouser -S&ME, Inc.
Allen Schiff -NCDEHNR-MRO, Groundwater Section
K:\SHAREDIWP51DATA\ENVIRON\PROJECn1996\HINES\U811VAR.96
3
t ____________ _
C 3
_ ..............
3 -,~·
J
~--
~
J
]
]
~ J ..,..__ \
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No . 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
converted to either vacuum or air sparging wells (MW-3, RW-1 and RW-2) for additional
water quality data.
1.4 Groundwater Sampling Event of April 24, 1996
S&ME sampled groundwater fro~ MW-3, MW-10, RW-1, RW-2 and RW-4 for Method 601,
602 extended and 50!+.1 analyses on April 24, 1996. Groundwater from former
vacuum/sparge well RW-3 was not sampled, since groundwater from adjacent monitor
well MW-2 has always been "clean". This groundwater sampling event was performed in
response to the State's April 1, 1996 letter and to update groundwater quality data, as
part of this Variance Request. Groundwater levels were measured prior to sampling on
April 24, 1996 (Table 2). The groundwater samples were analyzed by Flowers Chemical
Laboratories, Inc. of Altamonte Springs, Fl (NC Certification #296). The laboratory results
are included in Appendix 1.
The April 24, 1996 analytical results revealed no measurable dissolved hydrocarbons in
groundwater from RW-2, RW-4 and MW-3. MTBE was only detected in MW-1 0 (83.2
ug/L) and RW-1 (24.1 ug/L).
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 initial plume configuration before remediation and after remediation. Figure
7 also illustrates the BTEX concentration map for groundwater on February 25 and 26,
1996. The February, 1996 sampling event was the last semi-annual groundwater
sampling event of all wells for Class I hydrocarbon parameters, as required by the State.
Groundwater sampling for Class II hydrocarbons is performed in August, 1995 as required
by the State. The February 1996 laboratory results indicate that all Class I and II
5
=--1 =-;
J
J
]
l
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
Air sparging initially volatilized the dissolved and adsorbed hydrocarbons in the phreatic
zone. After most of the volatilization had occurred, bioremediation became more
dominant in groundwater remediation due to the increase in dissolved oxygen from
. sparging. Gasoline degrader bacterial populations increased after sparging was initiated
and decreased with time as hydrocarbons (food source) were removed by volatilization
and consumption.
Dissolved hydrocarbons have also been reduced considerably by air sparging, as
indicated by the non-detect levels in the vacuum inlet air stream and the reduction of
dissolved hydrocarbons in the groundwater to below method detection limits and 2L
standards for BTEX. Therefore, we believe that the limits of remediation by best available
technologies (SVE and AS) have been achieved as economically and technologically
feasible.
Charts 2 through 9 illustrate BTEX, MTBE, and EPA Methods 601 and 625 compound
concentrations in groundwater with time. Chart 2 illustrates BTEX concentrations in
groundwater from wells initially e.xhibiting the greatest dissolved hydrocarbon
concentrations (i.e. inner plume wells). BTEX concentrations at MW-9, MW-10, MW-12
and MW-14 decreased from > 10,000 ug/L to < 1 ug/L during the 18 months of air
sparging and 14 months of soil vapor extraction. Chart 3 illustrates BTEX concentrations
in groundwater from wells initially exhibiting low dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations (i.e.
peripheral monitor wells). BTEX concentrations at MW-1, MW-2, MW-6, MW-11, MW-13,
MW-15, RW-3, and RW-4 decreased from >100 ug/L to <1 ug/L in the 18 months of
remediation. All BTEX concentrations in wells on-site and off-site · are currently
below . 1 ug/L. Chart 4 illustrates MTBE concentrations in groundwater from wells
exhibiting greatest dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations. MTBE concentrations at MW-3,
MW-9, MW-10, MW-12, MW-14 and RW-2 decreased from > 10000 ug/L to < 100 ug/L
as a result of remediation. Chart 5 illustrates MTBE concentrations in groundwater from
10
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
The existing air sparge system is presently switched off, as we are awaiting a response
from the NCDEHNR on this Variance Request.
2.4 Proposed Activities
The property is currently used for automobile repair. No other plans for the property have
yet been made by the Mr. Dwyer. Therefore, there are no known proposed activities or
planned operations that would result in later discharge of contaminants to the
groundwaters beneath the site.
13
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE AREA
The area covered by the variance request includes the entire Dwyer Auto Repair (former
Unocal) property boundary, as illustrated in Figure 2. The two nearest cross roads are
Nevin Road and Gibbon Road. Figure 2 also illustrates all on-site and off-site monitor
wells and the existing remediation system layout. Figure 3 is a City of Charlotte
Topographic map (4 pages) of the Unocal site and surrounding area. Figure 4 is a
Mecklenburg County Tax Map of the site with adjacent property owners (name, address
and tax parcel #). the direction of the adjacent properties relative to the Unocal site can
be interpreted from the map.
There are no adjacent properties with any reported sources of groundwater contamination
or on-going remediation, according to the NCDEHNR-Mooresville and Raleigh offices.
Figure 5 is a VISTA map of environmental risk sites within one mile of the site. A small
quantity generator is located approximately 0.25-mile from the site. No groundwater or
soil contamination or remediation is reported for this facility. A leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) site was identified along W. Sugar Creek Road approximately a.s-
mile from the former Unocal site. Both of these two sites are believed to be too distant
to impact the former Unocal site. The low levels of tetrachloroethene in the former
Gamble Pallet Co. well and low levels of methylene chloride and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
in off-site monitor well MW-6 may indicate off-site sources of groundwater contamination.
3.1 Potential for Groundwater Migration
The dominant mechanism of groundwater migration is advection or the natural flow of
groundwater under gravity or hydraulic gradient. Figure 7 illustrates that natural
groundwater flow was predominantly towards the south-southeast under a hydraulic
gradient of 0.01 on November 30, 1995. Generally the groundwater flow follows the slope
of topography. Previous groundwater flow maps indicate groundwater flow to fluctuate
14
~ J
'-~-;]
;J
5 ~
NCDEHNR-Groundwater Section
Unocal Derita-Variance Request
S&ME Project No. 1354-92-667
June 13, 1996
2-met-naph -2.69 ug/L @ RW-2
2-met-naph -2.69 ug/L a RW-2
2-met-naph -2.69 ug/L @ RW-2
Note:
1-met-naph = 1 methyl-naphthalene
2-met-naph = 2-methyl-naphthalene
Bis(2-e)-phth = Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
425 feet to Inactive Delta Unit Rebuilders Well r,NSW-5)
475 feet to Inactive Gamble Pallet Co. Well (GPW-1)
1075 feet to Closest Surface Water Body (Unnamed Creek)
19
35 years
40 years
90 years
DIVISICN OF ENVIRCH1ENI'AL MANAGEMENI'
Groundwater Section
MEMORANDUM
'IO:
FRCM:
Perry Nelson
earl Bailey C/>
SUBJECI': usr Public Ccmnent
Jmle 21, 1990
Attached is an addendum to the original sumnary of 15A OCAC 2N
public cannents. The Addendum covers all ccmnents received after
June 1 , 1990. As the Hearing record closed June 13, 1990, this
should be last substantial change to the Hearing record.
cc: Nargis Tc.ma
earl Bailey
Ted Bush
Bill Reid
Bob Cheek
ADDENDlN 'IO THE SUMVJARY OF CXM'-1ENl'S CN PROPOSED
UNDERGROOND S'IORAGE TANK RULES (15A N::AC 2N)
HEARING DATES: ASHEVILLE----------MAY 2, 1990
RALEIGH------------MAY 7, 1990
NEW BERN-----------MAY 10, 1990
NEW BERN-----------MAY 14, 1990
Written Crnments received after June 1 , 1990.
1 ) MJore and Van Allen, Attorneys at Law, representing Federated
Mutual Insurance C'.anpany
2) North carolina Farm Bureau Federation
3) Southeastem Geological
4) carolina Power and Light C'.anpany
5) Bridgeport Chemical Corporation
6) Arnold Janes Oil and Heating Co., Inc.
7) Ouida C. Kent
8) CrcMn Central Petroletnn Corporation
9) Law and C'.anpany, Consulting and Analytical Chemists
10) Robert Alan Cohen, Esq.
11 ) Seagroves Supply Co. , Inc.
12) North carolina Petroletnn Council
13) Southem Environmental Law Center/North carolina Environmental
Defense Fund.
14) 3T Corporation
15) Holt Oil Co., Inc.
16) Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
17) 'Iharrington, Smith and Hargrove, Attorneys at Iaw, representing
the North carolina Association of Convenience Stores.
18) Everett, Everett, Warren, and Harper, Attorneys at raw
19) Steven B. Lucas, Geologist
20) DAAOO, Inc. , Pump and Tank Ccntractors
21) J.M. Davis Industries, Inc.
22) Friendly Mart Inc.
23) Tri-County Petroletnn
24) A.T. Williams Oil C'.anpany
25) Neighbors Stores, Inc.
26) Colonel's Pantry
27) Sessans Properties, Inc.
28) LI'L 'Ihrift Fcx:rl Marts, Inc.
29) McCracken Oil C'.anpany
30) Quik Shop Gas Stop
31) Sav-Way, Best Hot Dogs in 'Ibwn
32) Open Pantry Fcx:rl Marts of the carolinas, Inc.
33) Majik Market
34) Quick Stop Fcx:rl Mart, Inc.
35) Fast Track Fcx:rls, Inc.
36) North carolina Fann Bureau Federation
37) Asheville Oil Corpany, Inc
38) 'Ihe Pantry
39) 134 letters received fran the general public in favor of
stronger regulation.
Page 2
SECI'ICN I ---GENERAL CXJ'4IIIENI'S RECEIVED FR(JIII THE PUBLIC:
1) General unrelated ccmnents made during the hearing s.
-a) Urge stricter usr design specifications, including secondary
contairunent.
-b) Suggest funding a program to identify and clean up older tanks.
-c) Suggest that the State develop guidelines which ~d require the
upgrade of existing tanks on a schedule faster that that approved by
EPA.
-d) Suggest that the Division give top priority to older tanks and
those tanks located in sensitive areas such as watersheds.
-e) North Carolina should m:we even nore rapidly than the federal
government to establish guidelines for the upgrading of tanks.
-f) Suggest that canpanies that install tanks or rronitoring devices
of any kind be registered with the Deparbnent.
Page 3
-g) Strcngly reccmnend that there be a clean and clear separaticn
between carpanies that do testing for tightness and those that
install tanks. Because the profit en installaticn is approximately
110x rrore than the profit on testing, custaners can find themselves
replacing sound tanks needlessly.
-h) Support North carolina's regulaticns being consistent with and
identical to the federal regulaticns whenever p:>Ssible.
-i) An effort shoold be made to cut down the anount of paperwork and
fonns.
-j) Although the costs of hiring a licensed geologist or professional
engineer is currently high, increased canpetitian will drive the
prices down to reascnable levels.
Page 4
SECI'ICN II ---PUBLIC CXM1ENl' REFEREOC:IN3 SPOCIFIC RULE CITATICNS
1) Rule .0101 (d } (Presence and location of USI's recorded an Title
Deeds ) received a number of ccmnents:
-a) Because the presence and location of USTs will be on the Title,
Lenders will want title insurance canpanies to insure them against
loss or damage due to USTs. Lenders may also want insurance that
there are no USTs are present an the property at all. Title
insurance canpanies are not able to provide this kind of insurance.
However, I.enders may not lend m:ney without it. '!he purpose of a
deed is to transfer title, not to say what is on, or in, the
property.
-b) Question with regard to .0101 (D): Is a landowner absolutely liable
to detennine the location of tanks an his land whether or not he is
aware of them? Given that he fails to detennine the location of
tanks on his property, what sort of penalties might occur?
-c) 'Ihe N:>rth Carolina Bar Association, and its Real Property Section,
are both in opposition to .0101(0).
-d) '!here is a State agency which is required to keep a record of the
tmderground. storage tanks and their respective locations. It is
suggested that the l:orden of disclosure fall on the State agency to
notify the county in which the tank is located. llle disciosure
notice would give the name of the property owner and the approximate
location of the tank. '!here could be a small diagram included at the
bottcm of the notice. '!he registrar of deeds could record the notice
and then place it in the Grantor index. 'Ibis \tOlld allCM a citizen
or an attorney to disc:over the existence of the UST during a routine
title search.
Page 5
-e) 'lhe purpose of a deed is not to serve as a notice of disclosure or
a instrument for OCD1?lying with regulaticns of various agencies. 'lhe
purpose of a deed is to merely transfer the ownership of property.
-f) Strc:ngly support the concept of a notice alerting prospective
purchasers of real property of the existence of undergrcx.inj storage
tanks.
--g) Support optioo. (d) above, but believe that legislaticn will be
required to implement it. We wcxtl.d like to see such legislation
drafted and endorsed by the Real Property Section before .0101(d)
is deleted fran the proposed 15A NC.AC 2N rules.
-h) It is not clear how landowners should record the presence and
locaticn of usr systems. Should metes and bounds fran property
bounds be utilized or could diagrams be attached?
-i) A unifonn procedure or fonn should be developed.
-j) '!he rule should provide a procedure whereby the presence of tanks
can be renoved fran a title.
-k) With regard to placing the presence of tanks an deeds, how are
previously abandoned tanks to be treated? 'lhe rule should be limited
to those usr systems that were required to be registered beginning in
Page 6
1986. Infonnatian regarding previously abandoned USTs may be
difficult or impossible to obtain.
-1) 'lhe UST regulations, both federal and state, appear to regulate
c:nly "owners and operators" of USTs and usr systems. It is not
unCCIITIDl for the landowner to be neither the "owner" nor the
"operator" of a usr an his or her land. At the very least, the tenn
"land owners" in Regulation .0101(d) should be revised to read
"owners and operators as defined in these regulations". A better
solution is to delete Subsection .0101(d) altogether, substituting a
request that the Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental
Managanent make available to the County Registers of Deeds its lists
or registered USTs.
-m) 'lhe proposed regulation is overlx>ard and the open-endedness of this
proposed regulation renders it susceptible to charges of vagueness as
well.
-n) 'lhe proposed regulation apparently imposes the following
obligations an "land owners":
1) 'lb visually survey property and detennine, with sane unspecified
degree of precision, the "presence and lcx::atian" of usrs an the
property;
2) 'lb "ensure", again by unspecified means, that "all" usr systems
on the property have been ascertained and lcx::ated;
3) In order to ccmply with the second requirement above, perform a
magnetaneter sw:vey or other procedure which will "ensure" that no
undiscovered tanks are on the property; and
4) Record this infonnation on a deed, which is a pennanent document
of title; and
5) Bear the risk of sane unspecified penalty or liability for
failure to ccmply.
The appropriate method for imposing such responsibility is
legislative enacbnent, not administrative ntl.emaking. '!his is
clearly in excess of the authority delegated by the General Assembly.
Page 7
-o) Suggest that survey maps are not required.
-p) Secticn will cloud all deed transfers because the requirement is
general with no prescribed methodology or fonn.
-q) Suggest the deleticn of this rule.
2) Rule .0104 (Identificaticn of Tanks )
-a) It appears burdensane and redundant to require the regulated
ccmnunity to obtain and keep a diagram of the facility onsite since
all the infonnation except location is or has been subnitted to the
deparbnent as part of the UST notificaticn process.
3) Rule .0203 (Definitions )
-a) 'lhe definiticn of "De Minimis Concentration" is unclear because the
tenn "significant degree" is not defined. Who, using what
methodology, will detennine what is a "significant degree"?
4) Suggest the creaticn of .0204 (Extensicn of Conpliance Deadlines ).
-a) Any deadline upan an owner or operator set within any Section of
this subchapter may be extended by the Divisicn's appropriate
regiooal office. such an extension must be requested fran the
Division in writing before the deadline expires. such extensions
shall be granted only upon request of the tank owner or operator to
the regional office with jurisdiction over the area in which the tank
is located and only upon a showing of good cause.
Page 8
5) Suggest the creation of .0205 (Administrative Agency Deadlines ).
-a) 'lhe Division shall be under a duty to provide any review or
approval of reports, plans or other su1:rni.ttals by tank CMners or
operators, in carpliance with this subchapter, within fifteen (15)
days of receiving such su1:rni. ttal fran the tank CMner or operator. If
such a deadline cannot be met, the Division must notify the tank
CMner or operator, in writing, prior to the expiration of this
deadline, of the approximate time in which a response can be
expected.
6) The public expressed concern over Rule .0301 and to its prooosed
alternative. The r egulations s pecify the maximum distance that a UST
can be installed to surface waters , public water supplies , and well
s ystems. It also specifies the r equirements for s ecxndary containment.
There were several obj ections to these rules as follows:
-a) Many individuals do not have property large enough to accarm:::rla.te
the regulation. As a result, those individuals are subjected to
unnecessary hardship.
-b) Objection to the requirement to install double wall or equivalent
secondary containment systems. Requiring operators to upgrade
current UST systems in accordance with this regulation is unfair arrl
beyond the financial means of nost operators. Many operators have
already upgraded their systems in accordance with Federal regulations
at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. 'lb require the
raroval. of the upgraded system, which meets Federal requirements, in
order to install additional equipnent is unwarranted.
-c) Secaldary containment is not needed. 'lhe other stringent
requirements within the rule will provide adequate protection.
-d) Object to alternative .0301 B & C because it is believed to be
unnecessary and/or a disaster financially.
Page 9
-e) Suggest the establishment of a variance procedure based on specific
site a::nditians in lieu of blanket limitations on UST installations
near surface waters, public water supplies, and wells.
-f) It is unclear in the proposed rules, whether tanks (new or
existing) may be within 50 feet of any private water well.
Rules .0301 (b) (1) and .0302(c) (1) appear to be in contradiction.
-g) E. P.A. technical standards of the Underground storage Tank
Regulations are totally adequate for storage tanks and piping because
they are based upon several years of investigation which included
experience surveys, input fran corrosion engineers and other national
institutions for safety and oonstruction standards. It is suggested
that the Division use the E.P.A. technical standards as their
standard for tanks and piping.
-h) Secondary containment or double walled tanks should be required
only for new petroleum USTs that are within certain distances
of water supplies.
-i) Require double walled tanks only in those locations where the
soil oonditions are corrosive to the point they warrant double walls.
-j) Support the requirement of secondary containment for all new UST
systems.
Page 10
-k) Existing tanks in envircnnentally sensitive areas should be
required to install secandary containment. '!his should be
inplemented on a reasaiable aggressive phase-in schedule.
-1) If all tanks are required to have secandary containment and
existing tanks in sensitive areas are subject to secaldary
containment requirements on a reascnable schedule, significant
regulatory control could be achieved without the need for requiring
all UST systems to meet the requirements of Rule .0503 (which
requires secondary containment for all tanks by December 22, 1998).
-m) 'Ihe distances fran wells and surface water systems for which UST
system bans have been proposed are arbitrary and do not take into
account site specific criteria.
-n) If Rule .0301(c) nrust be adopted, then the ban on tanks within
certain distances of surface waters, public water supply's etc,
should not apply to the existing systems or the replacement of those
systems.
-o) API Recarmended Practice 1615 recx:mnends that sea::>ndary containment
be installed within 300 feet of a public drinking water supply or
100 feet of a private drinking water supply.
-p) 'Ihe federal regulations governing this issue should be adopted.
-g) Section .0301(c)(3) provides the deparbnent with arbitrary
discretion for requiring secaldary containment in any situation. If
this subsection is maintained, it should be revised to include
Page 11
clearly defined criteria for requiring secondary ccntainment in order
to provide a technical basis for a decision.
-r) Rules .0301(b) Alteniative, .0301(c) Alteniative, and .0301(c)(3)
should be rejected.
-s) Believes that properly installed single-walled fiberglass tanks
offer rea.scnable and sufficient leak protection.
-t) Give the authority to perfonn site assessments, remediation, and
closure to the local fire marshal and or health departments.
-u) Alteniate to p:rop:>sed .0301 ccntains the same cx::ntradiction as is
found in .0301(b)(1) and .0301(c)(1). See ccmnent (j).
-v) Page 14, paragraph .0301, Alteniate to p:rop:>sed .0301
subparagraph (c) calls for leak detection requirements of Rule .0503
page (31). Rule .0503 is described on page 31 as the "Requirements
for Hazardous Substance UST Systems", and paragraph .0503 is follCMed
by paragraph .0503 Alteniative which states "that the requirements
shall also apply to petroleum UST systems as designated at Rule
.0301 (c). These references are not clear. 'Ibis indicates that
adoption of the Alteniative mandates the same requirements for
petroleum UST systems.
Page 12
-w) Believe the originally proposed 100 foot exclusion zoo.e is nore
appropriate.
-x) Support the proposed ban in .301 Alternate oo. the installatioo. of
an usr within 500 feet of a public water system, 50 feet of other
supply wells and within 500 feet of certain surface waters. Suggest
that the ban include state designated High Quality waters. '1he
implementatioo. of the ban should be exx>rdinated with the EM:'s
recently proposed regulations oo. watershed protectioo. to the extent
feasible.
-y) Opposed to the new tank performance standards applying to existing
tanks after December 22, 1998 (as is required).
-z) If an adjoining property a-mer decides to install a well after the
UST system is installed, is the Owner/Operator required to dig the
UST system up and replace it with tanks that are secondarily
tained? CCXI •
-aa) Suggests that Alternative Rule .0301(c) be rejected.
7) Rule • 0302 ( Upgrading of Existing UST Systems ) •
-a) '1he upgrading schedule is inadequate to address the threat of the
older tanks that are currently in the ground (ie: ten years is too
loo.g) • 'lhe regulations should require that the oldest tanks ( 20
years or older) undertake upgrading at the earliest date detennined
feasible by the El\C. '!he tanks in the next lower age classes,
e.g. 16-20 years and 11-15 years, should also be placed on an
accelerated upgrade schedule following the oldest tanks.
Page 13
-b) 'llle alternative rule .0503, dealing with the related problem of
release detectioo, would provide nore protectioo fran the older
tanks.
8) Rule .0303 (Notificatioo Requ irement )
-a) Apparently the Deparbnent must be notified in the event that a leak
detectioo device is installed oo the outernost wall of the tank and
piping. Notificatioo is not required for in-tank monitors or for
interstitial monitors. Why is ooe type of noni taring reported and
another is not.
9) Rule .0404 (Re pairs Allowed )
-a) Subnissioo. of data oo UST repair is appropriate and we support the
Division's decisioo to require this infonnatioo.
10) Rule .0405 (Reoorting and Recordkeeping)
-a) Establishment of reporting and recordkeeping procedures is
appropriate and we support the Divisicn's decision to require this
infonnatian.
-b) Strongly support Rule .0405. '!his rule is an important improvement
over the minimal federal rule.
11) Rule .0502 (Requ irements for Petroleum UST s ystems )
-a) Support .0502(b) alternative requiring petroleum USTs to c,arply
with the same release detectioo requirements as hazardous substance
USTs.
Page 14
-b) Do not support the alternative to .0502(b) because it seeks to
inplement the requirement in alternative regulatien .0301 that
petroleum USTs must be double-walled or have secondary contairunent.
-c) 'Ibis sectien \>DJ.ld require that usrs be treated as Hazardous Waste
Tanks. 'Ibis \>DJ.ld place the additicnal b.lrden of safety c:x:>urses,
safety suits, and health noni.toring en the petroleum irrlustry.
-d) 'Ibis Rule allows tanks (using rronthly inventory and minimal
upgrading requirements) to canply with release detectien requirenents
by simply oonducting a tank tightness test every 5 years until 1998,
or 10 years after the upgrade, whichever is latest. We strcngly
object to this Rule. We enc:x:>urage the ~ to amend the proposed
regulations and to avoid these inappropriately lengthy deferrals en
installation of release detection.
-e) 'Ibis sectien mandates secondary containment as the only fonn of
release detection far petroleum UST systems after 1998. Since
secondary containment cannot be retrofitted to existing tanks, it
mandates replacement of all existing UST systems before December,
1998. 'Ibis is an extreme and unnecessary burden on UST owners.
12) Alternative to Rule .0503 (Requirements for Hazardous Substance UST
Systems ).
-a) Suggest the alternative be rerroved fran further consideration.
-b) Do not feel that secondary contairunent should be required for all
regulated tanks after the effective date of the rules.
Page 15
13) Rule .0504 (Wells used for lblitoring )
-a) Require b::tnding for individuals experienced in site assessment,
closure, etc.
-b) '!he EM: is enoouraged to delete inventory control as a means of
release detection as proposed by this rule. EPA has sl'x:Mn that
inventory control is not a reliable means of release detecticn.
-c) EPA has detennined that thirty-day nonitoring is effective and we
are unaware of any data that would indicate that a fourteen day time
frame would significantly improve release nonitoring. '!his departure
fran the federal standards appears to be unwarranted and adds
additional burdens to the regulated camnmity for unknown if any
benefit.
-d) A geologist should be the only individual allowed t.o install wells
for leak detection. A geologist is nost qualified to detennine if
the soil is suitable for vapor migraticn and if the yearly water
table is within twenty feet.
14) Comtent was received concerning Rules .0504 (e ) and .0803 (a ) (2 ).
The rules state that site assessments , remediation , and closure shall be
conducted b y a licensed geol ogist or professional engineer. 'Ibis
r egulation produced a variety of c:x:mnents as follows:
-a) A licensed geologist or professional engineer may kncM very little
about UST installation and remediation. Such a professional may have
never installed or renoved a tank.
-b) '!he costs involved in hiring licensed geologists and professional
engineers for remediation, site assessment, and closure make this
course of action prohibitive.
Page 16
-c) Rules .0504(e) and .0803(a)(2) ignore other professiooals who are
as qualified to perfo:rm site assesS11B1ts and remediatian.
-d) Suggest that the State or sane other agency license (or bond)
contractors to perfo:rm the work.
-e) During closure, each UST site should be investigated an a case by
case basis. In the event contaminatian has occurred, a licensed
geologist or professiooal engineer should be called to the locatian.
'Ihere is no need for a licensed geologist or professiooal engineer
tmless a leak has occurred.
-f) Recx:mnend that no individual involved in the distribution of
petroleum prcxlucts be allowed to perfonn site assessments,
remediation, and closure. 'Ihe conflict of interest is too great.
-g) Set up a certification program. Degreed professionals wishing to
perfo:rm site assesS11B1ts, remediation, and closure ~d have to be
certified.
-h) Require bonding for individuals experienced in site assessment,
closure, etc.
-i) Believe it is necessary to have a geologist or engineer on site
during tank closures and assessments, but question the need for a
licensed or registered professiooal.
Page 17
-j) Suggest the wording of Rule .0803 be changed as follows:
(2) Site assessments shall be conducted under the supervision of or
reviewed by a licensed geologist or professional engineer.
-k) Given that the use of licensed geologists and professional
engineers if tmnecessary, the state regulations should simply state
that the person or carpany doing this WJrk must be qualified by
federal law to do so.
-1) Due to the financial costs of remediation and closure, an
abrosphere for unethical practices exists. 'Iherefore, the State
needs the type of control over the "disinterested third parties" that
it has over professionals through the professional licensing boards.
-m) Opposed to the requirement for licensed geologists and professional
engineers. Suggest that this requirement be deleted.
15) Rule .0601 (Suspected Releases )
-a) This section renoves the deparbnents ability to grant an extension
of alternative to time frames outlined in these sections on an across
the board basis requiring all requests for extensians to be handled
an a case by case basis.
16) Rule .0603 (Release Investigation and Confinnation Steps)
-a) Suggest the proposed rule be changed as follows:
'Ihe "Release Investigation and Confinnation Steps" provisions
contained in 40 CFR 280.52 (Subpart E) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
Page 18
17) Rule .0604 (Reoorting and Cleanup of Sp ills and Overfills )
-a) 'Ibis secticn renoves the deparbnents ability to grant an extensicn
of alternative to time frames outlined in these sections en an across
the board basis requiring all requests for extensicns to be handled
en a case by case basis.
18) Rule • 701 (b ) (Release Res ponse and Corrective Action )
-a) 'Ibis cleanup requirement does not allow the agency any flexibility
in detennining when a cleanup is canplete. '!he requirements of 1 SA
N:'.AC 2L .0106 are very stringent. If a site cannot be restored to
the groundwater standard, then cleanup will never be canplete.
-b) '!here is no flexibility for the Agency in extending deadlines for
canpliance.
19) Rule .0702 (Initial Re SJX111S e to Leaks )
-a) 'Ibis section renoves the deparbnents ability to grant an extension
of alternative to time frames outlined in these sections en an across
the board basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled
on a case by case basis.
20) Rule .0703 (Initial Abatement Measures and Site Check )
-a) 'Ihis section renoves the deparbnents ability to grant an extensicn
of alternative to time frames outlined in these sections on an across
the board basis requiring all requests for extensions to be handled
on a case by case basis.
Page 19
-b) Suggest the proposed ntle be changed as follows:
'lbe "Release Investigation and Ccnfi:r:.mation Steps" provisions
contained in 40 era 280.62 (SUbpart F) have been adopted by reference
in acoordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
21) Rule .0704 (Initial Site Olaracterization)
-a) Suggest the proposed ntle be changed as follows:
'lhe "Release Investigation and Ccnfi:r:.mation Steps" provisions
contained in 40 era 280.63 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference
in accordance with G.S. 150B-14(c).
22) Rule .0706 (Investigations for Soil and Groundwater Cleanup)
-a) This section indicates that an order must be issued prior to the
owner or operator proceeding with a site assessment or corrective
action. Since these activities are mandated by ntl.e, orders are
unnecessary and nost likely will be a stumbling block tcMards the
expeditious carpletion of these activities. 'lhe deparbnent should
establish by ntl.e the requirements for the carpletion of these
activities and minimize the anount of paperwcn:k and bureaucracy
required to carplete these tasks.
-b) Suggest that this section be rewritten as follows:
The provisions for "Investigations for Soil and Groundwater
Clean-up" oontained in 40 era 280.65 (Subpart F) have been adopted by
reference in aCCDrdance with G.S. 150B-14(c), except that 40 era
280.65(b) has been rewritten as follows: "OWners and operators llllSt
conduct the investigation and su1::mit the info:r:.maticn collected under
paragraph (a) of this Secticn in accordance with a special order,
cx:nsent special order, or due to the owner or operator's failure to
carply with the requirements of the Section voluntarily, or upon
agreement between the Division and the owner or operator that such is
necessary.
Page 20
-c) 'Ihe special order requirement is redundant as DEM already has the
authority to require such an order under OC G.S. 143-215.2.
-d) Suggest that DEM pursue the possibility of using a letter of
Agreement rather than a special order. 'Ibis would not involve the
legal personnel or carry the onus of legal requirements and would
serve DEMs purpose.
23) Rule .0707 (Corrective Action Plan )
-a) (this suggesticn is made because Rule .0701(b) specifies that any
corrective acticn taken nrust meet the specifications and requirements
of 15A NC'AC 2L .0106. Rule .0707 mirrors the federal language
requiring the subnissicn of a plan which provides for the p:rotection
of human health and the envircnnent, excluding 1 SA NC'AC 2L • 0106.
Rule .0707 standing alc:ne, coold potentially require that the tank
owner or operator perfonn a risk assessment to establish that its
plan is p:rotective of human health and the envircnnent) Suggest
deleting .0701(b) and changing the wording of rule .0707 to:
'lhe provisions for a "Corrective Action plan" cx:ntained in 40 CFR
280.66 (Subpart F) have been adopted by reference in accordance with
G.S. 150B-14(c), except that":
(1) 40 CFR 280.66(a) has been rewritten to read: "At any point
after reviewing the infonnation suhnitted in CXlllPliance with 40 CFR
280.61 through 40 CFR 280.63, the Division may require owners and
operators to subnit additional infonnation or to develop and subnit a
corrective action plan for responding to cx:ntarninated soils and
groundwater. If a plan is required, owners and operators nrust suhnit
the plan according to a reasonable schedule and fonnat established by
the Division. Owners and operators are respcnsible for subnitting a
plan that provides for adequate p:rotection of human health and the
environment in accordance with the guidelines set out in 15 NC'AC 2L
.0106 for affected groundwater and by N.C.G.S. 143.215.84(a) for
affected soils," and nrust m:xlify their plan as necessary to meet this
standard.
(2) In 40 CFR 280.66(c) the words "schedule and in a fonnat
established by the implementing agency.'' are replaced by the words
"special order, ccnsent special order, or similar document, if such
is detennined to be necessary by the Division, due to the failure of
the CMil.er or operator to CDTiply with the requirements of this
section voluntarily, or upon agreement between the Division and the
CMil.er or operator that such is necessary.
Page 21
-b) Proposed rule .0707 should be irrproved to clarify when corrective
action plans for responding to contaminated soils and groundwater
will be required. This is particularly important because only
releases requiring such plans trigger public participation and notice
under Rule .0708.
-c) 'Ibis section indicates that an order must be issued prior to the
owner or operator proceeding with a site assessment or corrective
action. Since these activities are mandated by rule, orders are
unnecessary and 11DSt likely will be a stumbling block towards the
expeditious canpletion of these activities. 'Ihe deparbnent should
establish by rule the requirements for the canpletion of these
activities and minimize the anount of papen,ork and bureaucracy
required to canplete these tasks.
-d) 'lhe special order requirement is redundant as DEM already has the
authority to require such an order l.lllder NC G.S. 143-215.2.
-e) Suggest that DEM pursue the possibility of using a Letter of
Agreement rather than a special order. 'Ibis would not involve the
legal personnel or carry the onus of legal requiranents and would
serve DEIVJs purpose.
-f) 'Ihe existing groundwater regulations at 1 SA NC'AC 2L • 0106 require a
cleanup plan whenever an activity results in a violaticn of a
groundwater standard. 'Ibis groundwater regulaticn should be referred
to in the UST regulations. Similarly, whenever extensive
contamination of soil has occurred, a plan should be required and
public participation invited.
Page 22