NCD980602163_19790522_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Re PCB Disposal Options-OCR

JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Division of Health Services
GOVERNOR HUGH H. TILSON, M.D.
Dll'IIECTOR
SARAH T. MORROW, M.D., M ,P,H.
St:CRS:TARY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
P. 0. Box 2091 Raleigh 27602
May 22, 1979
Mr. Herbert 1. Hyde
Secretary
N. C. Department of Crime Control
and Public Safety
Jerry C. Perkins, Head
Solid Waste & Vector Control Branch
Sanitary Engineering Section
PCB Disposal Options
Considering the treatment and/or disposal options available
for soil contaminated with PCB's, the list below represents
our choices in priority order:
1. Treatment in-place
2. Disposal at one site
3. No more than two disposal sites
Multiple landfills are not considered to be a viable alternative.
Reasons for reaching these conclusions are found in Attachments
I, II, and III regarding advantages ,and disadvantages of each
alternative.
JCP:bm
Attachments
Attachment I
TREATMENT IN-PLACE
ADVANTAGES
1. Migration of PCB minimized.
2. PCB available for biological degradation
3. PCB concentrations reduced
4. PCB not concentrated in any one place
DISADVANTAGES
1. Decomposition products not known
Attachment II
DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL (ONE SITE)
ADVANTAGES
1. Contained in an identifiable site
2. Little, if any, decomposition of PCB's because of containment
3. Intensive design and control plus more economical construction,
monitoring and maintena~ce than realized at several sites
4. All aspects of site management under state supervision
5. Easier to monitor
6. Less socio-economic impact involved than with several sites.
DISADVANTAGES
1. With infinite life of PCB, long-term storage is required
2. Greater impact on smaller geographic area
3. Contamination potential for transport of contaminated earth is
p~s~t
I
ATTACHMENT III
DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL (SEVERAL SITES)
ADVANTAGES
1. "None"
DISADVANTAGES
1. Compounds problems of siting design, construction, controls, moni-
toring, and maintenance.
2. Cannot assure sites meeting criteria available in all contaminated
counties .
3. Cooperation between counties not sufficient to support multiple
site concept.
4. Socio-Economic impact much greater in multiple sites.