NCD980602163_19810812_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Crime Control & Public Safety - PCB Waste Disposal Site-OCR

,,
G. H. ANDREWS
C. L. CUTTING
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
E. M. DOUGHERTY
ELI LEMCOE I CONSULTING ENGINEERS·
C. N. LETELLIER '
W. LITTLEFIELD
C.M.METCALF
W. H. RIVERS
G.E.ROSENKOETTER
B. R. SMITH. JR.
2211 WEST MEADOWVIEW ROAD SUITE 114
OREENSBORO1 NORTH CAROLINA 2T40T
I. R. VERON
R. C. WEST
August 12, 1981
North Carolina Department of
Crime Control & Public Safety
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attention: Mr. David E. Kelly
Assistant Secretary of Public Safety
Gentlemen:
Subject: Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County, North Carolina
Code 14900 -Item 1111-1990
JOHN I. PARCEL 192-8-196!5
L. J. SVERDRUP 15128-1976
9 I 9/8!5!5-9260
We are pleased to submit herewith the working drawings and specifications
for review for the above subject project.
We have also enclosed a copy of the various comments on the previous sub~
mittal which were discussed in our meeting on April 23rd at your office.
In this meeting, additional comments were received from Mr. Charles Gardner
of the Soils & Hazardous Waste Management Branch and we have enclosed our
disposition for his comments.
A copy of the revised estimated construction cost is also enclosed , You will
note that this estimated cost has reduced considerably from our preliminary
estimate, This is due primarily to the changes made to the top slope which
considerably reduced the required area of soil cover. Computation for land~
fill volume and storm water runoff are also enclosed,
We are enclosing our invoice No, 2 for this project in accordance with our
contract requirements.
Mr. David E. Kelly
August 12, 1981
Page II
By copies of this letter, we are also submitting the plans and attachments
to the Department of Administration, Department of Transportation and
Hazardous Waste Management Branch.
Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact the
writer.
Very truly yours,
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
J-~a.R~.
Frank B. Rainey, Jf?;YE
Manager
cc: Mr. M. C. Adams
Mr. Bill Meyer
NC Department of Administration
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
SHEET NO. __ / _OF-L ---
DATE a -lo -.,..,e,__,1c___ ____ _
co1111PuTAT10Ns FOR Vo'-uMtE. c: f-' L ~El L<--
l.ct,s'x.100' ·=-J4So
-z.xY2."' 11-,5.x.-+3,S ~ lo"31
2"-. 1/z_ X 9. %A13,S' = 87S
2',~~Cl'
.Jo 32.o N
"2 7 -7. S: I 9, S"
I '7. S;<.. 7 o .:::
1/'2.X If, S°;<-3 x JS,, 5 ~.
ll'v< '2.o_.S~.J X 2\,S :. _
+
I~ L.S.
.S l."3
4,:, 0
81S _
~T~ l:N{) AIZ~R D0.0 t3 LE f:lie~A
lo31'l o">-3oes
lo"3'2..o .. 3 3S 3 > (o~J9
loo "3'5" 2..~ 5"~ / Z~'Sv 9; ~,z C,
x ·
.x.
;X
0 I ST'7n)~E:" Doi, l'dLE VDL.,
-S-tt I 9ct 5'9i I
2..85' I 1€> o <D/.1 r '5
·7 E "'2..t-~ ,18 8
22-zzoco l \ -;. $°-4 ; 411 l 4 g Cy
I
I -·
I
I ...
r--· --·
i
I r-l _____ .
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
SHEET NO. __ / ___ QF ___ ./ ____ _
COMPUTATIONS FOR _//qe,,p /N b_BA!"-"'----'=i>'-------
DATE 2•eP____:i?;,~-----
BY _g~.z-CHKD _____//.LfX
IC)() YR
I I -I
I _, .
I
'
I
! t
'
' ' •-----·--· ' ' ' '
'. I
-------. ----'
-l -I
·1 ---1
! --I
I r-
. ' I I
l i T T : -. I
I I ! .
--4 --· -; ..
i
-I -i
i +--:-!
+--
_(pd e /JI --~v,u'e.~r_ __ Seo/,-,en f '
C.0-,rn./ ~') ; G,,,.tf. vcfitl"? .f;-r'e l /r} /(_)' C
--t '
i I.
I
----i----
-j -----
-+
. t
--l
'· I
I
' I ·-...a. --~--' -. I
-·-1
I
t;d I ..... -.J U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 11-4· TENNESSEE 36 7 JS I OEOROIA 34 TP-40 IM' UIDA·SCl-fC•T WOUM, tll. 1110 ----------------NORTH CAROLINA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 83" 82" Bl 0 eo· 79• 78" 77· 76" 6 6.5 ~~,,;-' •St-~( "'· c..,.., 6 5 ~ ,.... ~,,. -VIRGINIA 7.5 8 9 ' -~ --r -,----r.: -o;;---.--;---,. I I , 4&.,• -....;.:.7"◄,w / • GAUS ........... LL PERSON ~ I <, I WARR(til • ,.,o,,,. \,, ' I :.,.~ :.,.t l. , .. [RHO _:_ }\ .. ~-·•··· (\.;\ -. __ _J_·-;-·I / ' ~-} HALIFAX \ '-· AOKIH • fORS'f'TM I ... , "/ J ,c., ,_. , ,.. --( --\ .-• GUILF. 0 ' ~/·' .l'. : ½,-. (" <UN/ 7·\.. (' .. . 36' , .. , ('w• ,-f ' 83' 82' / 0..,, ;-~ __ }.-' jo / g ,J \... ;' •ASH~· '{' \ .... . l I· -:.---,· •la• ) _,,,,... [OG[COMI~ ... .. HOOi.• ' ' • • '-(; ,r'" 7.5 H I ...... / . ' .., / WILSON ""1"' ' '\_ ' • ·r--.... /. ·...,_ • ....,/'\. .. ·-·--.-· • --.-·-·/"" ., --JOHNSTON/ I ..... .,/ o,. l t J ;· \ ' GAU \ • ST.I.Ht _( >% WOOR • • t-4AJIN(TT '\ ,/ WAYNE '_...,,_,, • I ~~. l . "--"" ( ':-I_ -· .• ,.,\ • •-'o,/ . • ,LE ---~' . _::r .,.+-, "-·---/ \ ~" . I '""" ~ .... I SON 1.:~. HOK[ \ e,'l . SAM•SON .../ ~c.oJ_/··\--~ ,/ IIOHSON / I ' 8 SOUTO CAROLINA " 9 10 Salo In Mlln 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ RAINFALL DATA MAP 1_00-YEAR I DAY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 81' eo· 79' nr ~\Y' ~~ 11 oc-tfl'-t-6-70 4-L-29542-11 77' 76' Rev. 6-70 4-L-23940-5 JS 34' C/l tTl ::r' :>< (I) ::r' (I) I-'• rt c-l-'• °' rt 0 N t-h I w °'
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM QUANTI'IY UNIT PRICE COST
1. Clearing and Grubbing L.S. $ 3,000
2. 2S Sand 6,500 CY $ 10.00/CY 65,000
3. MIRAFI 140 100,000 SF 0.20/SF 20,000
4. 30-mil PVC Liner 137,700 SF 0.30/SF 41,310
5. 10-mil PVC Liner 130,000 SF 0.20/SF 26,000
6. Fencing 1,670 LF 9. 00/LF 15,030
7 . Monitoring Wells 4 EA 500.00/EA 2,000
8. Excavation and Backfil l 55,000 CY 2.50 137 ,500
9. Seeding and Erosion 20 AC 2000.00/AC 40,000
Control
10. Filter System and L.S. 10,000
Leachate Pipes
11. P la cement of 30 Days 500.00/Day 15,000
(Contractor) PCB (6 Week Period)
Material
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $374,840
North Carolina Department of
Crime Control .I~
& Public Safety_
P.O. Box 27687 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh 27611 [phone]
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor April 13, 1981 Burley B. Mitchell,Jr., Secretary
Sverdrup & Parcel
Consulting Engineers
2211 West Meadowview Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27407
Attention: Mr. Frank B. Rainey, Jr., P.E.
Subject: Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County, NC
Code 14900 -Item 1111-1990
Dear Mr. Rainey:
Attached you will find review comments from the following:
1. Region IV, US Environmental Protection Agency
2. Division of Highways, NC Department of Transportation
3. Solid & Hazardous Waste Man_agement Branch, NC Department
of Human Resources
4. Division of Environmental Management, NC Department of
Natural Resources & Conmunity Development
As you will note, the co11111ents from the US EPA were only recently
received causing a delay on our part in submitting these to you.
Please advise estimated completion date of working drawings.
DEK:jj
Enc.
cc: Secretary Mitchell
Mr. Gene Roberts
Mr. Bil 1 Raney
Sincerely, ,..••·•·•••.....,_.t.~~•.-,.•,.-.-.. •·••••••t
o~•·--.......i1~ ~-l~ ~\ RC 1CEIVE.D \ Oa vi d E. Ke 11 y j ~ 1
Assistant Secretary for • s,ERDRUP & PARca 1
Public Safety I
Mr. M.C. Adams
Mr. Bi 11 Myer
Mr. Page Benton
Mr. James Scarbrough
APR 1 6 1001
..
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
MAR 3 1 1981
REF: 4AH-RM
Mr. O.W. Strickland
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Deparbrent of Ht.nnan Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Strickland:
..
)
EPA has received and reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications
for the Warren County PCB Disposal Site, prepared by Sverdrup and Parcel
Consulting Engineers. A copy of the comrEnts is enclosed.
·-· ..
We must have a copy of the facility post-closure care program. It should
include details on ground water monitoring, and the collection and
management of leachate.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Emilio Gonzalez or Don Hunter at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
, .
ATI'ACf-MENI'
The preliminary plans and specifications for the Warren County Disposal
Site has been reviewed as requested. The following are our ccmrents:
(a) The pipe used for rerroval of leachate from the leachate detection
system sump should be buried in the compacted aggregate layer, and
not placed on top. The drawings and the specifications for landfill
ex>nstruction do not seem to agree. RESPONSE: IS SHOWN IN SUMP AND
LEACHATE COLLECTION PIPE DETAIL SH.8.
(b) The clay liner permeability must be 1 X 10-7 cm/sec or less. The
specifications does not make reference to this. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE IN SPECIFICATIONS AND SAMPLES OF MATERIAL WILL BE LABORATORY TESTED.
(c) We suggest a minimum 2% slope for the bottom grade of the disposal
pit. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE PLANS TO 2% SLOPE.
(d) Vandal protection should be provided for the gas vent and the
leachate collection pipes. l'bne is provided as shown on drawing
number eight. RESPONSE: ENTIRE LANDFILL INCLUDING GAS VENT AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION PIPES ARE WITHIN AN AREA SECURED BY A 7 FOOT HIGH FENCE.
(e) Section 5.6 reads, "If contaminated water is found in the silt porrl,
the sedinents in the bottom of the pond will also be placed the
landfill prior to pit close out." 'n!e sediment should be analyzed
too, not the water only. RESPONSE: (SEE BELOW)*
(f) Based on bore hole log data, it appears that less than favorable
permeability conditions exits in the proposed holding pond area,
therefore, the holding pond should be lined to prevent any
contamination of the ground water. RESPONSE: A 1-FOOT CLAY LINER .WILL BE
PROVIDED AT THE POND . AND BUILT TO THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS AS THE LANDFILL CLAY
(g) Ground Water Monitoring -There has not been a detailed ground water LINER.
study at this site. Three borings intercept the water table and are
not adequate, in them.selves to thoroughly characterize the
configuration of the water table below the site.· Well number one
probably can serve as the upgradient monitoring well. The problem is
adequately nonitoring all downgradient ground water zones. While -·
wells number two and three rronitor ground water zones that are in
fact downgradient from the disposal area as required, it appears that
another downgradient zone is left unrronitored. This situation is
defined in the following manner. Well number one is located on a
narrow east-west trerrling divide which terminates in a blunt
north-south trending face facing west. It is within this feature
that the disposal area is located. The indications are that there is
definitely ground water flow north from the divide (rronitored by well
mnroer two) and west from the face terminating the ridge (monitored
by well number three). There is also the strong indication, based on
*AMEND SENTENCE TO READ: "IF CONTAMINATED WATER IS FOUND IN THE SILT POND,
THE SEDIMENTS AND CLAY LINER WILL BE PLACED IN THE LANDFILL PRIOR TO PIT
CLOSEOUT.11
-2-
topographic evidence that there is probably ground water flow south
from the disposal area. Unless it can be shown conclusively that
there is no ground water flow to the south beneath the disposal area,
a well to monitor any southward flow would be highly advisable. Its
location should be approximately 50 feet from the fence and near the
centerline of the landfill. RESPONSE: A FOURTH MONITORING ~WELL WILL
BE INSTALLED.
(h) The specifications call for only two feet of cement grout in the
annular space. EPA would like to see five feet of grout to anchor
the well more securely and to provide more isolation from the
surface. We would also like to see each well screened so that a
minimum of ten feet of the upper ground water zone can be sarrpled at
anytime {ten feet below seasonal low water table evaluation). RESPONSE: A 5 FOOT CEMENT GROUT IN THE ANNULAR SPACE WILL BE USED.
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH 27611
.l.~•H:S B. HUNT.JR.
!";OV!:RNOR March 2, 1981 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
THOMAS W. BRADSHAW. JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Dave Kell~
M. C. Adams f FROM:
SUBJECT: PCB Waste Disposal Site
Enclosed herewith please find comments on the subject
plans and specifications which have been submitted to me by
our Department of Transportation Construction Unit.
I submit these for consideration by the Consultant.
In addition to the comments made by the Construction Unit,
I offer the following:
(1) I specifically would like to point. out the importance
of the .Construction Unit's comments concerning density.
I would strongly suggest the provisions require that
each density test pass a required 1007. maximum density.
RESPONSE: 100% DENSITY WILL BE USED.
(2) In further reference to densities, due to the extreme
sensitivity of this project, I suggest the provi~ions
go into further detail with regard to control of
moisture content. This should include a description
of moisture density curves to be developed for all
soils to be included as a part of the clay liner
and, also, a requirement that in the event optimum
moisture is not present at the time a density test
is made, the soil will either be manipulated by
harrows, etc. for drying purposes, or moisture will
be carefully added and blended in with the soil material.
RESPONSE: .THE SPECIFICATlONS WILL BE EXPANOED TO MORE FULLY COVER MOISTURE CONTROL.
(3) I continue to question the backdumping of the
) ,/ contaminated material over the side slopes of the pit.
This will cause a great deal of manipulation within
the pit area and could cause dusting and spillage
problems. :··
RESPONSE: THE SOUTH END OF THE LANDFILL Will BE CHANGED TO A 5:1 SIDE SLOPE SO
TRUCKS CAN BACK INTO THE LANDFILL TO DUMP CONTAMINATED SOIL.
Mr .. Dave Kelly
March 2, 1981
Page 2
(4) I seriously question a contractor's ability to obtain
100% density on a 3:1 slope, particularly using a
vibratory roller. I suggest we investigate the
possibility of 5 or 6:1 slopes with vibratory rollers,
or the use of a sheepsfoot roller if steeper slopes
are required. RESPONSE: WIDTH OF HORIZONTAL LAYER BEING COMPACTED
IS .W g~ -SUFFICIENT FOR PROPER OPTIMUM COMPACTION.
(5) In view of the COIIllllents made by the Construction Unit
and considering the sensitivity of the project,
coordination required with DOT hauling operations,
and the need for absolute control by the Engineer,
I suggest we consider the possibility of a negotiated,
cost plus fixed fee type contract.
RESPONSE: WE AGREE WITH~IN ITS ENTIREJY .. If I can provide any additional information, please let .
me know.
MCA/pw
Attachment
cc: Secretary Thomas W. Bradshaw, Jr.
Mr. Billy Rose
Mr. Don Overman
Mr. Luther Berrier
Mr. Bill Ra)(ney
'Sh9uld not a Date of Availability and a Contract Completion ·
-'. Date be specified. It would also appear that some form of liquidnted damage might be warranted. Some type of
t .ime exten~ion provision should be included since to some
extent the Contractor's progress on a portion of the w6rk
is dependent upon the actions of others, i.e., the Department
of Transportation. RESPONSE: WE WOULD LIKE A NEGOTIATED, COST PLUS
FIXED FEE CONTRACT. In Section 4.3 on Page lA-3, the portion of the prov1sion
concerning the Engineer making recommendations on request
by the Contractor is an internal mechanism and should not
be included in a contract. RESPONSE: THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF
SECTION 4.3 WILL BE DELETED.
In Section 8 on Page lA-4, the provisions provide for
lump sum payme~ts and per diem unit prices. We would
suggest consideration be given to utilizing unit bid items
for the work involved with appropriate measurement and
payment provision for each bid item. This might result
in increased engineering costs to administer, but should
reduce contingency bidding by the Contractor since the way
the contract is drafted will require the Contractor to
protect himself by bidding overruns, plan alterations, etc.
RESPONSE: SECTION 8 PAYMENT WILL BE REVISED IF CONTRACT IS COST PLUS FIXED FEE.
It appears many of the provisions in this contract are vague
and general in nature and I would expect a prudent Contractor
would protect himself and minimize his risks by including
contingency monies in his bids to an extent greater than you
would normally expect. (SEE ABOVE.)
Section 2A -Clearing and Grubbing
Subsection 2.1.2,Page 2A-l -Do not understand the
provision as written. Is start of the contract the
date of award, the date of beginning construction, etc?
Contractor could not dispose of timber prior to taking
possession ·of the site. Believe intent is to have
timber removed prior to commencement of grading ·operations.
RESPONSE: WILL AMEND TO READ DATE OF AWARD OF CONTRACT.
_--'Subsection 2.1.4 and 3.2 and· 6, Page 2A-l, 2A-2 and 2B·_:4 -
Is material to be disposed of to be buried, covered, and
site seeded or just left out in open? Hard for Contractor
to bid this item the way it is written. RESPONSE: UNBURNED MATERIAL
WILL BE BURIED ON A SITE AWAY FROM THE LANDFILL, GRADED, AND SEEDED. ALL
Section 2B -Earthwork SECTIONS WILL REFLECT THIS CHANGE.
/ :._;Subsection 4. 3, Page 2B-2 -Recommend a minimum requirement
of density for each test,not an average.
RESPONSE: WILL REQUIRE All TESTS TO PASS 100% COMPACTION.
/Subsection 4.4, Page 2B-3 ~ A proof roller is not defined.
Is the intent to proof roll the slopes? What constitutes
a soft spot? It would appear difficult for a Contractor
to bid this work. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SPECS TO READ THAT EXCAVATED
AREAS WILL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED.
/S~bsection 4.5 and 4.5.1, Page 2B-3 -These two provisions
are vague and would appear to be difficult for a Contractor
to bid with a realistic estimate of h~s costs. RESPONSE: THE
STOCKPILING SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO .IDENTIFY SOIL TYPES, WHERE,
AND HOW THEY WILL BE STOCKPILED.
1H~Vt~lNlllUN OF CLAY MATERIAL WILL BE ELABORAT~D ON (SEE OTHER COMMENTS).
subsection 4.7, Page 28-3 -We question the value and
'the feasibility of requiring a roller to operate on
. the sand layer on the excavated slopes. RESPONSE: . WILL NO LONGER
·/SPECIFY EQUIPMENT, JUST PERFORMANCE.
Section 2C -Landfill Construction
. ·$ubsection 2.1.2, Page 2C-l -Subgrade is not defined nor v . . delineated on plans. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SYB6AAOE TO READ
-EXCAVATED ·AREA. . ..
,~ubsection 2.2.1, Page 2C-2 -Need to indicate 1978 Edition
' of Standard Specifications. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SPECIFICATIONS.
)fobsection 2.2.2, Page 2C-2 -Refer to comment on Subsection
L 4.7. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SPECIFICATIONS AS PER SUBSECTION 4.7 .
. ,/Subsection 2.6.4, Page 2C-3 -Do not understand what the
-ten foot cells are or will be used for. This may be an
obvious thing to those that normally do landfill construction. RESPONSE: FROM E.I.S. .
,_Subsection 2.7.4, Page 2C-4 -The word "slope" should
be inserted after the word "percent" in the 1st line
in order to be clear as to intent. RESPONSE: WILL ADD SLOPE.
Section 2D -Ground Water Monitoring Wells
✓-· _,,,,6ubsection 2.5, Page 2D-1 ·-We could not find a plan
· detail indicating the grouting of the to2-two feet of
annular space. RESPONSE: GROUTING WILL BE TO TOP 5 FEET AND WILL
BE ,,.NOTED ON PLANS.
~bsection 2.6, Page 2D-1 -Is the information submitted
· for approval or for informational purposes only? Could
make a difference in thE: way it was bid. RESPONSE: INFORMATIONAL
· ~POSES TO MAKE SURE THE WELL WILL WORK. ,_,.,,..subsection 2.10, Page 2D-2 -Can satisfactory be better
defined for the bidder? RESPONSE: WILL AMEND PARAGRAPH TO DEFINE
.SATISFACTORY MORE THOROUGHLY.
1 ?.ection 2E -Chain Link Fence
/.
Subsection 3.2.2, Page 2E-l and 3.2.4, Page 2E-2 ~ Th~-~ype
of material (steel) is not specified as it is in Subsection
3.2.3. Need to be consistent. Suggest posts length of
each type of posts be indicated. RESPONSE: TYPE OF MATERIAL
WILL BE NOTED IN THESE SUBSECTIONS: POST LENGTH IS DELINEATED BY FENCE HEIGHT.
Section 2F -Landfill Liners
··.,
/2'J~e~tion 2. 5. 4, Page 2F-3 -·Insert the words "by the .
; Contractor" after the word "available" in the 1st line
to clearly indicate who must make the arrangement for
the -re·presentati ve to be present. RESPONSE: WILL AMEND
SPECIFICATION.
_Subsection 2.5.6, Page 2F-4 -Appears to be an unfinished
,,.-sentence in this paragraph. __ RESPONSE: TYPO WILL BE CORRECTED.
SUBSECTION 2.4.3, PAGE 2C-2 WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THIS SUBSECTION.
·s~ction 2H -Soil ~ro~ion Control
Subsection 2.2, P~ge 2H-1 -If water must be reprocessed
·through the carbon filter, who ·does it, how is it done,
and who pays for it? RESPONSE: CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE PERSONNEL
UNDER ENGINEER'S SUPERVISION. PLANS WILL BE ELABORATED ON HOW TO OPERATE SYSTEM.
Section 21 -Seeding
_Subsection 2.2, Page 21-1 -Last sentence should refer
to the current edition of Specifications which is the
1978 Edition of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. RESPONSE: WILL MAKE CHANGE.
: ~ubsection 4.3.2, Page 21-3 -Our experience with results
---from using wood cellulose as a mulch has not been very
good except in early Spring and late Fall when no mulch
might be just as productive. Suggest straw. RESPONSE:
WILL CHANGE TO STRAW.
: SGbsection 5, Page 21-3 -Requiring a guaranteed stand of
/grass is expensive. Might want to consider some other
approach. RESPONSE: A GRASS STAND IS NEEPED FOR EROSION CONTROL.
Section 15A -Carbon Filter System
Subsection 3.1, Page lSA-1 -Pump not shown on plans
that we can find. Suggest more details on pump . . RESPONSE: THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE A RENTED TRASH PUMP.
Plan Comments:
Sheet No. 5
Our Utility Section of Design Units does not feel the
design of the relief pipe with gate valve· shown going
through the earth dam will work as designed~ They
believe relief valve will blow off when water level
in holding pond is significant. Connection of P.V.C.
pipe to riser pipe is questionable. Suggested desiqn ·
be rechecked. RESPONSE: THE VAb.VE WILL BE SECURED TO THE PIPE AND .•
THERE IS ONLY 15 FEET± HEAD. THE PIPE CONNECTION IS FOR A TEMPORARY
Sheet No. 7 DRAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF DAM.
Manhole covers referred to in Section A-A should be more
clearly defined as to what is required. Note refers to
pipe penetration through walls being sealed but does not
indicate what with. RESPONSE: COVER WILL BE MORE CLEARLY DEFINED
ON DRAWING. PIPE PENETRATION DETAIL WILL BE ELABORATED ON.
Sheet No. 8
Gas Vent Detail -How many l" holes should be provided in
bottom 5 feet of pipe? RESPONSE: 12 111 DIA. HOLES.
Cannot find where Specifications are given for type of
concrete intended to be used with details on this sheet. RESPONSE: WILL MAKE NOTE FOR 2500 PSI CONCRETE. -
Sump and Leachate Collection Pipe Detail~ How far across
excavation does sump run? RESPONSE: SUMP. IS JUST FOR PIPES IN
NORTHEAST CORNERS ONLY. WILL NOTE ON PLANS.
~ugges~ a plan view oe snown that shows .more detail and
• the .location of some of the items listed on this sheit.
'< RESPONSE: NOT REALLY NECESSARY.
We . have not attempted to list every typographical errorr
misspelling, etc. that we have faun~ nor attempted to list
every specification wording that we believe could be written
more clearly. Suggest the Consultant look back over the
specifications. Some of the design concepts that inyolved
the sump and leachate system, gas vent, we are not competent
to offer opinions upon.·
RESPONSE: THESE WERE PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS.
. ..
., .,
.IAMIES ■. HUNT. JII.
GOYK•NOII
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Division of Health Services
HUGH H. TILSON. M .D .
Dlfll'.CTOfl
SAIIAH T. MORROW, M.D .• M.~.H .
Sl:CACTAIIY
P. 0. Box 2091 Raleigh 27602
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. David Kelly
Assistant Secretary
Public Safety
March 30, 1981
FROM: Mr. Bill Meyer, Environmental Engineer
Department of Human Resources
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
SUBJECT: Comments on Sverdrup & Parcel Proposal For PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County
1-Page lA-3 Add Department of Human Resources to Sentence l, 5.3
Define Contractor, Engineer and Owner. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE.
2-Page lA-1 2. Coordination of Work. Add:
The State of N.C. will have a qualified engineer on site during
.all construction activity to assist in coordination of work. _RESPONSE· WILL INCLUBE . . . 3-Pagel~-( Sutim1ttals ur1nT Construction Add to 7.1:
The engineer shall submit copy of contractor submittals to the
State of N.C. for review.
Note: Required submittals should be outlined in contractor ...
specifications. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE
4-Page 28-1 Earth Work
(a) There are no specifications for selection of fills and backfills
except all fill material shall be subject to the acceptance of th~
engineer.
There should be specifications on selection and excavation of
liner materials; placement in stockpile areas, preparation of stock-
pile areas, moisture control and sampling for laboratory of field -
testing. The specifications should include standards established for
clayey materials suitable for soil liners on PCB landfills. (40 CFR
cltd·fR\Jrdu~1totM\~r%~gh v) RESPONSE: SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED
(b) Page 28-2, 4.1 AiHSO T-180 Method O or ASTM D 1557 Method D should
be evaluated for comp~ction standard. This would afford a safety
factor for engineering judgements on soil suitability for liner
construction. RESPONSE: AASHO T-99 OR ASTM D 698 IS SUFFICIENT . .
(c) Page 28-3 Specifications for stockpile areas (preparation methods
for ~tockpiling) How are selected excavated mate~ials selected?
RESPONSE: SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED {SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS}.
(d) Page 28-3, ~0~.l The surficial soils on site a~e eroded and the
surface foot maY be suitable for final grading. It is suggested that
the surface 611 or excavation to the minimum depth to exclude plant
roots and other organic material to be stockpiled for final grade.
It was noted during site evaluation that the highest soil clay content
was immed·iately below the soil root zone. RESPONSE : WILL CHANGE TO 611
~i~If1J-!~e0~lff,T~ .\0. fXf.b-MPfi fL~~Jcf~~t~t ions on materi a 1 s, methods and
tests for selection excavation, stockpile and protection (ie. moisture
content) of clay liner materials. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
(f) Page 28-3, 4.8 Specify compaction test. The credibility of entire
project is based upon the clay liner and more specifically the per-
meability of the clay liner. It is essential that a combination of
field/lab tests to determine density, moisture and permeability be
implemented.
It is suggested that AASHO T 147-54 Method A or B; or ASTM D-2167,
1556 & 1557 be utilized on a 2000 ft2 basis· in addition to the lab
compaction tests on 10,000 ft2 intervals per 6 inch lift.
*This point should be fully discussed and a decision made on the method
of testing a number of tests and lab selection as soon as possible. 2 RESPONSEl· ASTM D-2937 OR ASTM D 1556 IS ACCEPTABLE. WE RECOMMEND ON A 10000 FT BASIS. 5-Page 2C-, 2.1. l Specify stockpile of materials on plans, (methods
and materials) RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
6-Page 2C-l, 2C-2, 2C-3 An evaluation should be made of the alternative
of installating a gravity leachate removal system(s) as to the proposed
system. RESPONSE: SEE E.I.S.
7-Page 2C-2, 2.3.l Specifications for compacted · bridging fill on top of
artifical liner and liner protection materials. Depth of liner protection
layer should be a minimum of l foot. RESPONSE: SEE SHEET 8.
8-Page 2C-2, 2.4.l Specify liner soils from 40 CFR 761.4l(b) (1) i thru v.
Consider modified proctor for compaction standard.RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
9-Specify method of liner construction, i.e. constructed flat, 3:1 slop~,
etc. Evaluate alternatives for proposed construction on .3 to l slope,
i.e., excavate l :l construct 3:1, 4:1. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
10-State testing for moisture/density, compaction in liner construction
11-
12-
13-
section. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
P. 2C-3, 2.6-Specify method and degree of compaction of PCB soil mixture.
2_6_2 RESPONSE: SUGGEST PNEUMATIC ROLLER ON 2-3' LIFTS, BUT NO TESTS.
Should be modified to include construction of ramp into excavation to
prevent damage to side wall from dumping and placing PCB waste. A N-S
ramp (long axis of landfill) to allow dumping in the bottom excavation
should be considered. Ramp construction should be based on truck capability.
Ramp should bP. excavated for removal as the bottom 10-foot lift of waste is
placed insite. A second ramp should be constructed for the upper 10-foot .
lift. This assumes that the waste _will be placed into the site in 2-10 foot
lifts (lifts should be compacted on 2-3 foot sublifts). RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS. . . Sequence of construction on covering the landfill. Evaluate proposed
sequence: bridging layer - 2 foot clay layer -PVC liner -protective
layer - l foot topsoil; versus: bridging layer -·pvc liner - l foot PVC
liner protection layer -2 foot clay liner - l foot topsoil. They ·may offer
better protection for PVC liner. Evaluate 10 mil versus 30 mil PVC liner
for landfill cover. RESPONSE: SEE EIS, A 30 MIL COVER IS NOT THAT MUCH MORE
14-~!~~N~t~~ 1~1.f t.°vaMrJ-af~Vf~creasing depth of final cover to 3,~4, or 5 feet
utilizing excavated spoil. Evaluate increasing final slope to 3-5% in east
to west direction to reduce contact time for infiltration. RESPONSE: SEE EIS
AND WE SUGGEST A 10% FINAL SLOPE DUE TO DRAINAGE AN9 SETTLFMFNT 15-Evaluate eliminating gas vent ana ut1liz1ng upper eachaL~·~errroval system
f.!>r .9.~s venting__ (Predicted gas generation, diffusion pressure, etc.). RESPUNSE: SEE "'EIS. . . 16-2F-3 PVC Liner -Specify distances of over lap and adhesives for all Jo1nts
of PVC liner. RESPONSE: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
17-S_ne~jfifj3,tions (calculations) for sizin~ sediment basin (holding pond).RESPONSE: CALCULA lONS WIL_l BE ~UBMITT~D TO THE .ST TE BUT.( WON'T BE IN THI WORKING DRAWINGS. 18-21-2, 3.1 Cons1der increasing topsoil epth see comment 14T ..
19-21-2 Planting -If the site is completed in mid-sulllller a temporary vegetative
cover of a drought resistant grass (millet, milo, sudian, sudex) should be
considered, with permanent seeding to follow at optimum seeding season for
fescue and sericea. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE.
20-Section 15A
Specify size of internal landfill sump, maximum anticipated or predicted
rainfall event, size and type of carbon for filtering PCB contaminated
water, rate of treatment capacility (what happens if 2 or 3 major rainfall
events occur). RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE MINIMUM VOLUME FOR HOLDING POND.
Should the septic tanks be plastered or coated with sealant to ensure
water proofing. RESPONSE: SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STATIC TEST .
The design should consider a gravity system for leachate collection
(lower leachate and upper leachate removal pipes extended through side wall
of landfill) and be tied (separately) to the sand and carbon filter system(s).
Valves (external} would control leachate flow to the sand and carbon system(s).
RESPONSE: NO, POTENTIAL PROBLEMS HERE.
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
Sheet No. 2
Borrow area proposed has not been tested for soil engineering propert1es.
What type of borrow materials will be obtained from this area. Areas to the
N and S of the proposed landfill location has been evaluated for soil engineer-
ing properties. RESPONSE: BORROW AREA WAS NOT FOR CLAY LINER -WILL ELABORATE.
Sheet No. 3
Are the concrete monuments identified as permanent bench marks; if so, where
are they located (specifically located)? RESPONSE: MONUMENTS ARE PERMANENT
BE~CH MARKS FOR THIS SITE ONLY (ASSUMED ELEVATIONS).
Sheet No. 4
Should include sections E-W & N-S to locate source and volumes of materials
to be excavated and stockpiled for various purposes, especially clay liner,
PVC liner protection, final covers, etc. RESPONSE: NOT NECESSARY.
Sheet No. 5'
Calculations for sizing holding pond possibly sections since dam sections are
included here. RESPONSE: NOT PART OF CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE . . .
,• r
, ,.
I
Sheet No. 6
Should the final grading plan be modified to provide 3-5% grade along center-
line of landfill and establish several (2-4) control points (piped slope drains)
to reduce flow over 5:1 side slopes? RESPONSE: WE RECOMMEND A 10% GRADE BUT DO
NOT RECOMMEND CONCENTRATING THE FLOW. "-Sheet No. 7
Note in detail -should the tranks be plastered or further water-proofed,
siz~ type and volume of sand and carbon stated; sealing of pipe through side
walls (specs), at 125 gpm flow and the reduced volume for free board and sand
or carbon, there should be a control mechanism for liquid level to prevent
overflow. There should be a detail for containing the carbon below the inlet
pipe, as it will tend to float in the tank (e.g. removable screen).
RESPONSE: SEE PLANS; THE SYSTEM WILL BE HAND OPERATED; AND A SCREEN (FILTER FABRIC)
Sheet No. 8 WILL BE PLACED OVER THE CARBON.
See comments concerning gravity leachate removal, sequence of top cover,
gas venting, top PVC liner thickness.
Evaluate all seal procedures, should the seal be 1 1 or 21 and should the
seal extend up the sides of the PVC pipe. RESPONSE: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
Sheet No. 9
Cross section should include ramp section to allow placing PCB in bottom of
excavated areas. RESPONSE:. SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
' . . ·-
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM ----------
TO: David Kelly, Assistant Secretary
Crime Control & Public Safety
FROM: L. P. Benton, Jr., Chief
Environmental Operations
SUBJECT: Review of Comments on PCB EIS
Warren County
As instructed, this Division has reviewed the comments on the above
EIS relative to groundwater levels at the proposed disposal site, with
special attention being given to the comments from Warren County.
In conducting this review staff again visited the proposed disposal
site. The Division measures water level fluctuations at a monitoring well
located approximately two and one-half miles from the proposed site in
similar terrain. Records of water level fluctuations at this well showed
a range of four feet. The recently drawn set of preliminary grading plans
showing the exact location of the proposed storage pit was also reviewed.
Finally, four Department groundwater hydrologists were shown all of the
data and opinions received.
Based on the review of previously recorded facts, evaluation of the
preliminary grading plans for the disposal site, and consultation among
hydrologists with general knowledge of the area groundwater, staff con-
cluded that their review uncovered no additional information which would
refute the groundwater-water level part of the hydrology-topography
section in the final environmental impact statement.
cc: Ted Mew
Stan Taylor
:-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Bill Meyer
Charles Gardner
April 14, 1981 ·
SUBJECT: Review of Plans and Specifications -Warren Co. Proposed
PCB Disposal Site
As requested, we have reviewed the plans and specifications prepared
by Sverdrup and Parcel for the proposed PCB waste disposal site in
Warren County. The plans are dated 1/30/81 and were received by us from
your office on 3/3/81.
I have some concern that a seasonally high ground water table could
be at or above the proposed pit bottom. According to the data presented
on the plans, the measured groundwater levels are roughly 10 feet below
the proposed pit bottom; the date of the ground water readings is not
noted. The normal range in seasonal variation for upland Piedmont
ground water levels is 5 to 10 feet, and variations as much as 25 feet
have been observed. I understand that there is an observation well over
one mile away that shows historical variations of only a very few feet;
in the Piedmont, projection from that distance is questionable. In the
absence of long term site specific ground water data, you may want to
consider installing a covered drain trench and collection/monitoring
point extending from the northwest corner of the pit bottom to about the
308-310 foot ground surface contour as a safety measure. According to
the site topography shown on the plans, this trench would be about 400
feet long. Alternatively, a short "dea<l-end" trench could be extended
about 50 feet out from the northwest corner of the pit and could be
extended later if monitoring wells indicate a ground water level problem
is developing.
I am attaching some hand written comments from Bill Weldon, our Chief
Engineer at the time of this review. These comments apply mostly to
erosion and sediment control considerations. It is emphasized that
additional details on erosion and sediment control will be needed prior
to construction. The more detailed plans should be forwarded to John Holley,
Land Quality Regional Engineer, at least 30 days prior to beginning
construction. Mr. Holley would be glad to meet with you or your engineers
to discuss the details, at your request.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
CHG:gf
cc: Steve Conrad
Harlan Britt
John Holley
/
p,w~oJerl Pc~:S d,J~•~
c?t"a e / ,,.,, /,,),:9 r,,.e,, Co ...,,.,"Y}-e?-?d 4o1ve.. r--'e_ r //on,, '"7 Co,,,..,4,~,;~ (I •
G'tJne ra/ /.-s, ..... e ,I ,j a
c5Tr(Z. /r16H-7 />?Ut;,h J/D:a 3/ dera;/_s
J ~ e c ~ t!!il,, ~ A-~" , e. "'/' a .-? 6',,. ,,-.,-;,-. "41!!..
~ d.? ; JI-• c;9,';tY C7# Jet'; ?77d ~ ,y'
o/4, c, j/-c'.3/f /?o
CA ,, ~ e, /
~ ~ o ·/! c • ,'-; " ;., ,.
O~r//,1~ d CJ/'/
d;;7,,1d a J./~
¢,.,,' a,,' ;v#I/ 11/z..,,<I,
..f,,f eor /.)t::7, ~ • ~
?"'>-'-, -r-<i' -,L; .......,/v~~ ?n/lcT T",,. ~/,,,.,z/ ,6.r,, e,_ c;,.,,,rr,-~e.~-D;,,, .f~7.,,.n C.Ja d&,J) -.,/4"",
/. /Nq r'7... d,-.-w. ~f 1
J,.,c/.~,.,, ~ ~,.; C,,,/4/ PAN. p _,, Al 41 J w NJ. u r.1: / ~/ /h'4Cn;_•.J,,. ,.;_ C•r~
CP-?? ,,,00 ): r, ,:, ✓ a
J.'/~ r•,1e.e. Prx::/ .,~
"y/-': c.:z../ J,/✓ C,i.eo;.. d~
/ ,.. de>'" "' , /t:,C,.)'4p~ .JI Jc,,.. l.) -)A.C'r':•~J
/
/
4,
.J:z
7r-r✓, y~r.-
r; ~~G
~1-i"
7-/ ~.j
~Or
~, #/d
J,~.,,
/') , 'I e. j /)(J ,va v.Zr
-r, .5~ c/, _;,,._, .,t--C• ,,-/,-,/ ~H
~-·, ''1/
~~ c-/c .... f;, ~ f
/"~ I> f ~ ,:, 1-
:~o.,&.,,~ or1 ..5e,ecl,7 ,.i
A L;J,,f/~,, ~r,rJ-r:J"'•
t711d , ~
.,, t
t.
RESPONSE TO CHARLES GARDNER'S COMMENTS
Re: Installing a covered drain trench to relieve an abnormally high water
table that may occur.
Sverdrup & Parcel feels that there is no need for constructing the trench
for the following reasons.
1. Based on the EIS and soil borings the highest predicted water
table elevation is 31 feet below the land surface. Maximum
excavation shown on the plans is 24 feet, leaving a separation
of 7 feet. There is an additional 7 feet of clay liner and fill
separating the PCB contaminated soil from the ground water
giving a total separation of 14 feet. We feel confident this
design has a sufficient safety factor. In addition, it is
highly unlikely that the water will rise at all because the
landfill is located on top of a small hill. It is sealed at
the top and sufficient drainage is provided to get any rainfall
off the top of the hill.
2. If the water table did rise, the four monitoring wells could be
used to drop the water table by using pumps. Conversely, a new
well could be drilled near the northwest corner, a drain trench
could be constructed to tie into this well providing the ground
water relief. We feel that if the ground water did rise, either
of the above courses of remedial action would be adequate and
more cost effective than constructing the trench now.
...
PCB WATER DISPOSAL SITE -WARREN COUNTY, NC
SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
The site is relatively flat, final slopes will be 5:1 or flatter,
therefore silt fences will be employed. There will also be no
channelization of runoff. While the landfill pit is open, rain-
fall will be filtered through sand to remove silt and then
through the activated charcoal filter to remove potential PCB
contamination. The water released from the filter will be re-
tained in a holding pond for final testing for contamination
prior to release. It is very important to keep the potential
amount of contaminated water to a minimum, therefore all runoff
from outside the landfill will be directed from the holding pond.
Since there will be no channelization of runoff all storm water
flow will be sheet flow. Therefore, no permanent erosion con-
trol measures or structure or any additional holding ponds will
be needed. Silt fences should be adequate due to the very small
area of runoff. Constructing additional facilities would pro-
bably be more detrimental than using silt fences. Stockpile and
borrow areas ·will also be protected by silt fences. Access and
haul roads will be the responsibility of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation which will be hauling the contam-
inated soil.
Slopes, stockpiles and ground left exposed more than sixty days
will be seeded.
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
JoB -ZZ/9 NC 0€PT: C£1M£ ca~-
coMPUTAT1ONs FOR Vo,c. uMt;. a I-' LBNDFIL"---
l"'t,5' X. Io c' ·: J..(\-So
-z xY1."' l1-,'5x"'l-~,s ~ fo"3 t
Z..:.. 1/z. x 9. :,S;t. q .3, S = B 7 5
Z<o+Z8 ::..--z..7
'Z,.
/() 3Zo. N __
·---z. 7-7. S: 19. S' ---
17,S.;<.."10::
1/-i.x I 'ij'. ~ ;C3 x l $>, 5 ::. .
ti' 2. x _ '2c • ,St< 1 X 2. \ , S . _:. -· -
+-
I ':>.~ s --------.. ---
_5_l '3
<c:, 0
815
SHEET NO. / OF _ _/_ __ _
DATE___B_:_Lua~-~8.L.L.J ____ _
BY £df/2
~T~ 1:tv{) Ate~R Do-,f3LE Aie~A 0 I<:. T/7 ll)~ ~ Doc., 18LE VD&..,
1031q_ _t:) >.· 3083' >< 45"~ I cict 5"q7
lo3'2.o _.33S3 > I
lo'3 J 9 X: Z..8S' I 1ta,O~,lJ I '5
loo "3$" 2,q 5'~ / Z ~Su ·· ,;,< ?8 "2..l '5' 17 8 8 9j~'Z 0
2..2-zzuoO 1 ) -f 5'.q; 41i l4B c. Y
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
COMPUTATIONS FOR _____#o<,}:)/N/;-:z
I-,-, yQ,Y
·· · -,----·•··-r-· -1 ·
I
.!
: 2-:so -~rcx::, -~
SHEET NO. -~L~--OF I __ _
_ _j_ J. __
= /2-S-JOOC) f-l 2
J -;--i--J. ___ J_J_ _ _[ -i.
::.8 '' __ ,._ ____ ipd Ts/J' (jv11le -kJr Seo/,~e,,,f
Cc,,-1ru/ c--,, G,,.1.--l,,l(mt/J .1;0.1 ,,,..., /(_).(. -
//v /4,;YJ(' ~ J ,nre .I · '$ l.J mp -----
j,.
-i
! ... ,. i
-' '
--··1 --+------
1 I , ..--t·•·· • -~ !
l ' -------+· ·------
I --r
I
~---~-+ ... J._ -_;.
i
. -·------
1
.. ,
I
I I .1
I
+
! .. ,
I I
1 -I
! l
I
1-
--·-t --
' ! _ _j_ ------+--: ---··· t-i , I I I ·-i
I
' --. .L. I.
' I
-----··-··---L----
_L_ .!
I
I L.
! r !
i
,]
-l --;
I
I ' ···--1-,
I
-~ _;
t::d I I-" ....., U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 8-4' TENNESSEE 36 7 35 GEORGIA 34 TP-40 8-4' MID4·1Cl•IOU •olf14. HI. 1110 ----1 NORTH CAROLINA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 63' 82' 81' 80' 79' 78' 77' 76' ~ 6.5 6 -, ~ VIRGINIA 7.5 8 ., .. 1· --.l-r-1----r.::----Ul ,c11soN ,._,, "'' o~, / ..,----, ' .;-<, w••••• --..; ~, I 6.5-, w ,-. \ " -..... . o••• , •o• , __ _j_ __ I l \.l I l' "'•,0~, ·.._ G,ns \· S,,.,H ' • ~ ' • • ... ,. _1 · I Gull, O ""' "I J ·" ~-r ./ ""'"" \. '/ O ·\,,,.._•---· . I .., . ~" i L. . ...,.., 1. ,., ........ ,./ Io"• . ; ' . ' ' "''" / ·-; · '\ . -. . I O J ' . . "\.. .. ,. ( BEA I· ,--.... / NASH ~ V • HOOl.,H ' - • • -,-• ·•i.h •'\, /' tDG(COMI~ 4,\...,.. 36' r~. ,-f' 63' 82' -. I '"""~ -·• ,,,.,-,✓-_,,. .. • --r .L , . • \ WOl SON \_./ ••••• I • --~--•r:;• ,,...___ / , /· UV_ o"' l .v -.\JOMHSTO• /.....,_._. \. " ·J / "• •oo• / "'"'" • • I'"" 7.5 8 • STA,,.L )'. , .. -· _.\ ~.\ { \ .) ...... ·--.. . ~t_, ---·1{'·--" ( SOH \ .. c. r/. -r ..,,../'i ·-.._l . ..__, 'LE • , MOK[ \ ~• , \ /'".;, , s,w,SON ' 1 seer.I , ...._ eJ "";-· ',--~ '' IIOHSON / I SOUTH CAROLINA " 9 10 Scale In Mlln 0 25 50 75 100 RAINFALL DATA MAP I 00-YEAR I DAY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 81" 80' 79' 1r ~\Y' ~\)P' 35"' 11 ot,P,+ 34' 6-70 4-L-29542-11 77• 76" Rev. 6-70 4-L-23940-5 C/.l tri ::r' ~ !1) ::r' !1) t-'• rt o' t-'• O"I rt 0 N Hl I w °'
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
1. Clearing and Grubbing L.S. $ 3,000
2. 2S Sand 6,500 CY $ 10 .00/CY 65,000
3. MIRAFI 140 100,000 SF 0.20/SF 20,000
4. 30-mil PVC Ll.ner 137,700 SF 0.30/SF 41,310
5. 10-mil PVC Ll.ner 130,000 SF 0.20/SF 26,000
6. Fencing 1,670 LF 9.00/LF 15,030
7 • Monitoring Wells 4 EA 500.00/EA 2,000
8. Excavation and Backfill 55,000 CY 2.50 137 ,500
9. Seeding and Erosion 20 AC 2000.00/AC 40,000
Control
10. Filter System and L.S. 10,000
Leachate Pipes
11. Placement of 30 Days 500.00/Day 15,000
(Contractor) PCB (6 Week Period)
Material
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $374,840
North Carolina Department of
Crime Cqntrol .,,,,,~
& Public Safety_
PO. Box 27687 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh 27611 [phone]
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Sverdrup & Parcel
Consulting Engineers
2211 West Meadowview Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27407
April 13, 1981
Attention: Mr. Frank B. Rainey, Jr., P.E.
Subject: Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County, NC
Code 14900 -Item llll-1990
Dear Mr. Rainey:
Burley B. Mitchell,Jr.,Secretary
Attached you will find review comments from the following:
1. Region IV, US Environmental Protection Agency
2. Division of Highways, NC Department of Transportation
3. Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch, NC Department
of Human Resources ·
4. Division of Environmental Management, NC Department of
Natural Resources & Community Development
As you will note, the comments from the US EPA were only recently
received causing a delay on our part in submitting these to you.
Please advise estimated completion date of working drawings.
DEK:jj
Enc.
cc: Secretary Mitchell
Mr. Gene Roberts
Mr. Bil 1 Raney
Sincerely,
_0,;.'"'-"-"'~ ~. l~
David E. Ke 11 y
Assistant Secretary for
Pub 1 ic Safety
Mr. M.C. Adams
Mr. Bi 11 Myer
Mr. Page Benton
Mr. James Scarbrough
. ~ __._.,.Al"'Jlll!'t'Jfft•~ .. ,.. .. ,,. .. ,. ...... -• ..., • ..... _ .... _.. ..
; i Ii •4
\. RECEIVE.D •\._
IV[RDRUP & PARCFi
APR 1 6 ~
\
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
MAR 3 1 1981
REF: 4AH-.RM
Mr. O.W. Strickland
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Departrrent of HLUnan Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Strickland: ,r
EPA has received and reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications
for the Warren County PCB Disposal Site, prepared by Sverdrup and Parcel
Consulting Engineers. A copy of the coITITEnts is enclosed.
We must have a copy of the facility post-closure care program. It should
include details on ground water monitoring, and the collection and
managerrent of leachate.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Emilio Gonzalez or Don Hunter at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
, .
A'ITAai1ENI'
The preliminary plans and specifications for the Warren County Disposal
Site has been reviewed as requ~sted. The following are our carrrents:
(a) The pipe used for rerroval of leachate from the leachate detection
system sump should be buried in the compacted aggregate layer, and
not placed on top. The drawings and the specifications for landfill
construction do not seem to agree. RESPONSE: IS SHOWN IN SUMP AND
LEACHATE COLLECTION PIPE DETAIL SH.8.
(b) The clay liner permeability must be 1 X 10-7 cm/sec or less. The
specifications does not make reference to this. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE IN SPECIFICATIONS AND SAMPLES OF MATERIAL WILL BE LABORATORY TESTED.
(c) We suggest a minimum 2% slope for the bottom grade of the disposal
pit. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE PLANS TO 2% SLOPE.
(d) Vandal protection should be provided for the gas vent and the
leachate collection pipes. 1-bne is provided as shown on drawing
number eight. RESPONSE: ENTIRE LANDFILL INCLUDING GAS VENT AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION PIPES ARE WITHIN AN AREA SECURED BY A 7 FOOT HIGH FENCE.
(e) Section 5.6 reads, "If contaminated water is found in the silt porrl,
the sediments in the bottom of the pond will also be placed the
landfill prior to pit close out." 'l}le sediment should be analyzed
too, not the water only. RESPONSE: (SEE BELOW)*
(f) Based on bore hole log data, it appears that less than favorable
permeability conditions exits in the proposed holding pond area,
therefore, the holding pond should be lined to prevent any
contamination of the ground water. RESPONSE: A 1-FOOT CLAY LINER WILL BE
PROVIDED AT THE POND .AND BUILT TO THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS AS THE LANDFILL CLAY
(g) Ground Water Monitoring -There has not been a detailed ground water LINER.
study at this site. Three borings intercept the water table and are
not adequate, in them.selves to thoroughly characterize the
configuration of the water table below the site. Well nunt>er one
probably can serve as the upgradient monitoring well. The problem is
adequately rnonitoring all downgradient ground water zones. While··
wells number two and three rronitor ground water zones that are in
fact downgradient from the disposal area as required, it appears that
another downgradient zone is left ururonitored. This situation is
defined in the following manner. Well number one is located on a
narrow east-west trending divide which terminates in a blunt
north-south trending face facing west. It is within this feature
that the disposal area is located. The indications are that there is
definitely ground water flow north from the divide (monitored by well
nurroer two) and west from the face terminating the ridge (monitored
by well number three). There is also the strong indication, based on
*AMEND SENTENCE TO READ: "IF CONTAMINATED WATER IS FOUND IN THE SILT POND,
THE SEDIMENTS AND CLAY LINER WILL BE PLACED IN THE LANDFILL PRIOR TO PIT
CLOSEOUT."
(h)
-2-
topographic evidence that there is probably ground water flow south
from the disposal area. Unless it can be shown conclusively that
there is no ground water flow to the south beneath the disposal area,
a well to monitor any southward flow would be highly advisable. Its
location should be approximately 50 feet from the fence and near the
centerline of the landfill. RESPONSE: A FOURTH MONITORING ~WELL WILL
BE INSTALLED.
The specifications call for only two feet of cement grout in the
annular space. EPA would like to see five feet of grout to anchor
the well more securely and to provide more isolation from the
surface. We would also like to see each well screened so that a
minimum of ten feet of the upper ground water zone can be sampled at
anytime (ten feet below seasonal low water table evaluation).
RESPONSE: A 5 FOOT CEMENT GROUT IN THE ANNULAR SPACE WILL BE USED.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH 27611
J _e.•,Es 8. HUNT.JR.
r':OV!:RNOR March 2, 1981 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
THOMAS W. BRADSHAW. JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Dave Kell:A
M. C. Adams °(t{Cf' FROM:
SUBJECT: PCB Waste Disposal Site
Enclosed herewith please find comments on the subject
plans and specifications which have been submitted to me by
our Department of Transportation Construction Unit.
I submit these for consideration by the Consultant.
In addition to the comments made by the Construction Unit,
I off er the following:
(1) I specifically would like to point out the importance
of the .Construction Unit's comments concerning density.
I would strongly suggest the provisions require that
each density test pass a required 1007. maximum density.
RESPONSE: 100% DENSITY Will BE USED.
(2) In further reference to densities, due to the extreme
sensitivity of this project, I suggest the provi~ions
go into further detail with regard to control of
moisture content. This should include a description
of moisture density curves to be developed for all
soils to be included as a part of the clay liner
and, also, a requirement that in the event optimum
moisture is not present at the t4ne a density test
is made, the soil will either be manipulated by
harrows, etc. for drying purposes, or moisture will ·
be carefully added and blended in with the soil material.
RESPONSE: .THE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED TO MORE FULLY COVER MOISTURE CONTROL.
(3) I continue to question the backdumping of the
) _,/ contaminated material over the side slopes of the pit.
This will cause a great deal of manipulation within
the pit area and could cause dusting and spillage
problems. ·.
RESPONSE: THE SOUTH END OF THE LANDFILL Will BE CHANGED TO A 5:1 SIDE SLOPE SO
TRUCKS CAN BACK INTO THE LANDFILL TO DUMP C0NTAMINATED SOIL.
Mr .. Dave Kelly
March 2, 1981
Page 2
(4) I seriously question a contractor's ability to obtain
100% density on a 3:1 slope, particularly using a
vibratory roller. I suggest we investigate the
possibility of 5 or 6:1 slopes with vibratory rollers,
or the use of a sheepsfoot roller if steeper slopes
are required. RESPONSE: WIDTH OF HORIZONTAL LAYER BEING COMPACTED
IS a l~ -SUFFICIENT FOR PROPER OPTIMUM COMPACTION.
(5) In view of the connnents made by the Construction Unit
and considering the sensitivity of the project,
coordination required with DOT hauling operations,
and the need for absolute control by the Engineer,
I suggest we consider the possibility of a negotiated,
cost plus fixed fee type contract.
RESPONSE: WE AGREE WITH !JIN I.TS ENTIREJY-. If I can provide any additional information, please let.
me know.
MCA/pw
Attachment
cc: Secretary Thomas W. Bradshaw, Jr.
Mr. Billy Rose
Mr. Don Overman
Mr. Luther Berrier
Mr. Bill Ra)(ney
'Should not a Date of Availability and a Contract Completion·
'·_,.Date be specified. It would also appear that some form
of l~quidated damage might be warranted. Some type of
~ime exten~ion provision should be included since to some
extent the Contractor's progress on a portion of the work
is dependent upon the actions of others, i.e., the Department
of Transportation. RESPONSE: WE WOULD LIKE A NEGOTIATED, COST PLUS
FIXED FEE CONTRACT.
In Section 4.3 on Page lA-3, the portion of the provlsion
concerning the Engineer making recommendations on request
by the Contractor is an internal mechanism and should not
be included in a contract. RESPONSE: THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF
SECTION 4.3 WILL BE DELETED.
In Section 8 on Page lA-4, the provisions provide for
lump sum payme~ts and per diem unit prices. We would
suggest consideration be given to utilizing unit bid items
for the work involved with appropriate measurement and
payment provision for each bid item. This might result
in increased engineering costs to administer, but should
reduce contingency bidding by the Contractor since the way
the contract is drafted will require the Contractor to
protect himself by bidding overruns, plan alterations, etc.
RESPONSE: SECTION 8 PAYMENT WILL BE REVISED IF CONTRACT IS COST PLUS FIXED FEE.
It appears many of the provisions in this contract are vague
and general in nature and I would expect a prudent Contractor
would protect himself and minimize his risks by including
contingency monies in his bids to an extent greater than you
would normally expect. (SEE ABOVE.)
Section 2A -Clearing and Grubbing
Subsection 2.1.2,Page 2A-l -Do not understand the
provision as written. Is start of the contract the
date of award, the date of beginning construction, etc?
Contractor could not dispose of timber prior to taking
possession of the site. Believe intent is to have
timber removed prior to commencement of grading operations.
RESPONSE: WILL AMEND TO READ DATE OF AWARD OF CONTRACT.
·_/Subsection 2 .1. 4 and 3. 2 and· 6, Page 2A-l, 2A-2 and 2B·_:4 -
Is material to be disposed of to be buried, covered, and
site seeded or just left out in open? Hard for Contractor
to bid this item the way it is written. RESPONSE: UNBURNED MATERIAL
WILL BE BURIED ON A SITE AWAY FROM THE LANDFILL, GRADED, AND SEEDED. ALL
Section 2B -Earthwork SECTIONS WILL REFLECT THIS CHANGE.
/ .
:_.,.Subsection 4. 3, Page 2B-2 -Recommend a minimum requirement
of density for each test,not an average. ·
RESPONSE: WILL REQUIRE All TESTS TO PASS 100% COMPACTION.
,.-Subsection 4. 4, Page 2B-3 ...: A proof roller is not defined.
Is the intent to proof roll the slopes? What constitutes
a soft spot? It would appear difficult for a Contractor
to bid this work. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SPECS TO READ THAT EXCAVATED
AREAS WILL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED.
/S~bsection 4.5 and 4.5.1, Page 2Q-3 -These two provisions
are vague and would appear to be difficult for a Contractor
to bid with a realistic estimate of h:i,.s costs. RESPONSE: THE
STOCKPILING SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO lDENTIFY SOIL TYPES, WHERE,
AND HOW THEY WILL BE STOCKPILED.
1Ht.Ut~1N111UN OF CLAY MATERIAL WILL BE ELABORATED ON {SEE OTHER COMMENTS).
,. • · . sub~ection 4. 7, Page 213-3 -We qucstio~ the value and · ·
the feasibility of requiring a roller to operate on
. the sand layer on the excavated slopes. RESPONSE: • WILL NO LONGER
· •.,SPECIFY EQUIPMENT, JUST PERFORMANCE. Section 2C -Landfill Construction
-~~bsection 2.1.2, Page 2C-l -Subgrade is not defined nor
. delineated on plans. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SYS6AAOE TO READ
f.XCAVATED ·AREA. . ...
,~ubs~ction 2.2.1, Page 2C-2 -Need to indicate 1978 Edition
' of Standard Specifications. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SPECIFICATIONS.
~ubsection 2.2.2, Page 2C-2 -Refer to comment on Subsection
L 4.7. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE SPECIFICATIONS AS PER SUBSECTION 4.7 •
. ,/Bubsection 2.6.4, Page 2C-3 -Do not understand what the
-ten foot cells are or will be used for. This may be an
obvious thing to those that normally do landfill construction.
RESPONSE: FROM E.I.S. .
1 .. Subsection 2. 7. 4, Page 2C-4 -The word "slope" should
be inserted after the word "percent" in the 1st line
in order to be clear as to intent. RESPONSE: WILL ADD SLOPE.
Section 2D -Ground Water Monitoring Wells
/ .,.,,,Subsection 2.5, Page 2D-1 '-We could not find a plan
detail indicating the grouting of the to2-two feet of
annular space. RESPONSE: GROUTING WILL BE TO TOP 5 FEET AND WILL
BE ,.NOTED ON PLANS.
~bsection 2.6, Page 2D-1 -Is the information submitted
, for approval or for informational purposes only? Could
make a difference in th~ way it was bid. RESPONSE: INFORMATIONAL
~POSES TO MAKE SURE THE WELL WILL WORK. __,A>ubsection 2.10, Page 2D-2 -Can satisfactory be better
defined for the bidder? RESPONSE: WILL AMEND PARAGRAPH TO DEFINE
..SATISFACTORY MORE THOROUGHLY.
1 Se~tion 2E -Chain Link Fence
/
Subsection 3.2.2, Page 2E-l and 3.2.4, Page 2E-2 ~ Th~·~ype
of material (steel) is not specified as it is in Subsection
3.2.3. Need to be consistent. Suggest posts length of
each type of posts be indicated. RESPONSE: TYPE OF MATERIAL
WILL BE NOTED IN THESE SUBSECTIONS: POST LENGTH IS DELINEATED BY FENCE HEIGHT.
Section 2F -Landfill Liners
/2~~ection 2. 5. 4, Page 2F-3 -·Insert the words "by the .
· Contractor" after the word "available" in the 1st line
to clearly indicate who must make the arrangement for
the -rep re sen ta ti ve to be present. RESPONSE: WILL AMEND
SPECIFICATION.
_Subsection 2.5.6, Page 2F-4 -Appears to be an unfinished
,, sentence in this paragraph·.. RESPONSE: TYPO WILL BE CORRECTED.
SUBSECTION 2.4.3, PAGE 2C-2 WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THIS SUBSECTION.
·~eciion 2H -Soil ~ro~ion Control
. Subsection 2.2, P~ge 2H-l -If water must be reprocessed
·through the carbon filter, who ·aces it, how is it done,
and who pays for it? RESPONSE: CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE PERSONNEL
UNDER ENGINEER'S SUPERVISION. PLANS WILL BE ELABORATED ON HOW TO OPERATE SYSTEM.
Section 21 -Seeding
_Subsection 2.2, Page 21-1 -Last sentence should refer
to the current edition of Specifications which is the
1978 Edition of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. RESPONSE: WILL MAKE CHANGE.
~ubsection 4.3.2, Page 21-3 -Our experience with results
,,-from using wood cellulose as a mulch has not been very
good except in early Spring and late Fall when no mulch
might be just as productive. Suggest straw. RESPONSE:
WILL CHANGE TO STRAW.
Subsection 5, Page 21-3 -Requiring a guaranteed stand of
,/grass is expensive. Might want to consider some other
approach. RESPONSE: A GRASS STANO IS NEEJ)EO FOR EROS-ION CONTROL.
Section 15A -Carbon Filter System
Subsection 3.1, Page lSA-1 -Pump not shown on plans
that we can find. Suggest more details on pump.
RESPONSE: THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE A RENTED TRASH PUMP.
Plan Comments:
Sheet No. 5
Our Utility Section of Design Units does not feel the
design of the relief pipe with gate valve· shown going
through the earth dam will work as designed~ They
believe relief valve will blow off when water level
in holding pond is significant. Connection of P.V.C.
pipe to riser pipe is questionable. Suggested design
be rechecked. RESPONSE: THE VALVE WILL BE SECURED TO THE PIPE ANO .•
THERE. IS ONLY 15 FEET± HEAD. THE PIPE CONNECTION IS FOR A TEMPORARY
Sheet No. 7 DRAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF DAM.
Manhole covers referred to in Section A-A should be more
clearly defined as to what is required. Note refers to
pipe penetration through walls being sealed but does not
indicate what with. RESPONSE: COVER WILL BE MORE CLEARLY DEFINED
ON DRAWING. PIPE PENETRATION DETAIL WILL BE ELABORATED ON.
Sheet No. 8
Gas Vent Detail -How many l" holes should be provided in
bottom 5 feet of pipe? RESPONSE: 12 111 DIA. HOLES.
Cannot find where Specifications are given for type of
concrete intended to be used with details on this sheet.
RESPONSE: WILL MAKE NOTE FOR 2500 PSI CONCRETE.
Sump and Leachate Collection Pipe Detail~ How far across
excavation does sump run? RESPONSE: SUMP .·IS JUST FOR PIPES IN
NORTHEAST CORNERS ONLY. WILL NOTE ON PLANS.
<
~uggesL a plan view oe snown that shows .more detail and
~he 'location of some of the items listed on this shee·t.
RESPONSE: NOT REALLY NECESSARY.
We . have not attempted to list every typographical error,
misspelling, etc. that we have foun~ nor attempted to list
every specification wording that we believe could be written
more clearly. Suggest the Consultant look back over the
specifications. Some of the design concepts that inyolved
the sump and leachate system, gas vent, we are not competent
to offer opinions upon.·
RESPONSE: THESE WERE PRELIMINARY SPECIFICATIONS.
. ..
..
JAMIES ■. HUNT. JR.
GOVK.NOfl
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Division of Health Services
HUGH H. TILSON. M.D .
Dlfl~CTOR
SARAH T . MORROW, M .D .• M.P'.H.
SR:CRIETAIIY P. 0. Box 2091 Raleigh 27602
March 30, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mr. David Kelly
Assistant Secretary
Public Safety
Mr. Bill Meyer, Environmental Engineer
Department of Human Resources
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
SUBJECT: Comments on Sverdrup & Parcel Proposal For PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County
1-Page lA-3 Add Department of Human Resources to Sentence 1, 5.3
Define Contractor, Engineer and Owner. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE.
2-Page lA-1 2. Coordination of Work. Add:
The State of N.C. will have a qualified engineer on site during
_all construction activity to assist in coordination of work.
3-~a~sl~~i sJil~rtl~rkUB~ring Construction Add to 7.1:
The engineer shall submit l copy of contractor submittals to the
State of N.C. for review.
Note: Required submittals should be outlined in contractor
specifications. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE
4-Page 28-1 Earth Work
(a) There are no specifications for selection of fills and backfills
except all fill material shall be subject to the acceptance of th~
engineer.
There should be specifications on selection and excavation of
liner materials; placement in stockpile areas, preparation of stock-
pile areas, moisture control and sampling for laboratory of field -
testing. The specifications should include standards established for
clayey materials suitable for soil liners on PCB landfills. (40 CFR (ltJ iR\J1bJdsl 1cotMt~r%~gh v) RESPONSE: SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDiD
(b) Page 2B-2, 4.~ AiHSO T-180 Method Dor ASTM D 1557 Method D should
be evaluated for comp~ction standard . This would afford a safety
factor for engineering judgements on soil suitability for liner
construction. RESPONSE: AASHO T-99 OR ASTM D 698 IS SUFFICIENT . .
(c) Page 28-3 Specifications for stockpile areas (preparation methods
for stockpiling) How are selected excavated materials selected?
RESPONSE: SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED (SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS).
i
(d) Page 2B-3, ~0S.l The surficial soils on site a~e eroded and the
surface foot maY be suitable for final grading. It is suggested that
the surface 611 or excavation to the minimum depth to exclude plant
roots and other organic material to be stockpiled for final grade.
It was noted during site evaluation that the highest soil clay content
was immediately below the soil root zone. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE TO 611
~mI~~e0~iP-fl',n~_W_fXfrr~P~ifL~~Jcf9~t~tions on materials, methods and
tests for selection excavation, stockpile and protection (ie. moisture
content) of clay liner materials. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
(f) Page 28-3, 4.8 Specify compaction test. The credibility of entire
project is based upon the clay liner and more specifically the per-
meability of the clay liner. It is essential that a combination of
field/lab tests to determine density, moisture and permeability be
implemented.
It is suggested that AASHO T 147-54 Method A or B; or ASTM D-2167,
1556 & 1557 be utilized on a 2000 ft2 basis in addition to the lab
compaction tests on 10,000 ft2 intervals per 6 inch lift.
*This point should be fully discussed and a decision made on the method
of testing a number of tests and lab selection as soon as possible. 2 RESPONSEl· ASTM D-2937 OR ASTM D 1556 IS ACCEPTABLE. WE RECOMMEND ON A 10000 FT BASIS. 5-Page 2C-, 2.1. l Specify stockpile of materials on plans, (methods
and materials) RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
6-Page 2C-l, 2C-2, 2C-3 An evaluation should be made of the alternative
of installating a gravity leachate removal system(s) as to the proposed
system. RESPONSE: SEE E.I.S.
7-Page 2C-2, 2.3.l Specifications for compacted bridging fill on top of
artifical liner and liner protection materials. Depth of liner protection
layer should be a minimum of l foot. RESPONSE: SEE SHEET 8.
8-Page 2C-2, 2.4.l Specify liner soils from 40 CFR 761.4l(b) (1) i thru v.
Consider modified proctor for compaction standard.RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
9-Specify method of liner construction, i.e. constructed flat, 3:1 slope,
etc. Evaluate alternatives for proposed construction on 3 to l slope~
i .e., excavate 1:1 construct 3:1, 4:1. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
10-State testing for moisture/density, compaction in liner construction
11-
12-
13-
section. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
P. 2C-3, 2.6-Specify method and degree of compaction of PCB soil mixture.
2 _6 _2 RESPONSE: SUGGEST PNEUMATIC ROLLER ON 2-3 1 LIFTS, BUT NO TESTS.
Should be modified to include construction of ramp into excavation to
prevent damage to side wall from dumping and placing PCB waste. A N-S
ramp (long axis of landfill) to allow dumping in the bottom excavation
should be considered. Ramp construction should be based on truck capability.
Ramp should bP. excavated for removal as the bottom 10-foot lift of waste is
placed insite. A second ramp should be constructed for the upper 10-foot .
lift. This assumes that the waste will be placed into the site in 2-10 foot
lifts (lifts should be compacted on 2-3 foot sublifts). RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS. . . Sequence of construct1on on cover1ng the landfill. Evaluate proposed
sequence: bridging layer - 2 foot clay layer -PVC liner -protective
layer - l foot topsoil; versus: bridging layer -·pvc liner - l foot PVC
. 1 .
liner protection layer - 2 foot clay liner - l foot topsoil. They ·may offer
better protection for PVC liner. Evaluate 10 mil versus 30 mil PVC liner
for landfill cover. RESPONSE: SEE EIS, A 30 MIL COVER IS NOT THAT MUCH MORE
14-~!~~N~t~~ 1~~! l-°vaMruLaf~Vf~creasing depth of final cover to 3,. __ 4, or 5 feet
utilizing excavated spoil. Evaluate increasing final slope to 3-5% in east
to west direction. to reduce contact time for infiltration. RESPONSE : SEE EIS AND WE SUGGEST A 10% FINAL SLOPE DUE TO DRAINAGE AND SETTLFMFNT 15-Evaluate eliminating gas vent ana utilizing upper leachaL~·Yellfoval system
f~r ~~s venting_ (Predicted gas generation, diffusion pressure, etc.). RESPUNSE: SEE tIS. . . 16-2F-3 PVC Liner -Specify distances of over lap and adhesives for all Joints
of PVC liner. RESPONSE: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS .
17-S.ne~jfif..ation~ (calculations) for sizin~ sediment basin (holding pond).RESPONSE: CALCULA IONS WILJ. BE ~UBMITT~D TO THE .ST TE BUT.( WON'T BE IN THE WORKING DRAWINGS. 18-21-2, 3.1 Consider increasing topsoil epth see comment 14T ..
19-21-2 Planting -If the site is completed in mid-sumner a temporary vegetative
cover of a drought resistant grass (millet, milo, sudian, sudex) should be
considered, with permanent seeding to follow at optimum seeding season for
fescue and sericea. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE.
20-Section lSA
Specify size of internal landfill sump, maximum anticipated or predicted
rainfall event, size and type of carbon for filtering PCB contaminated
water, rate of treatment capacility (what happens if 2 or 3 major rainfall
events occur). RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE MINIMUM VOLUME FOR HOLDING POND.
Should the septic tanks be plastered or coated with sealant to ensure
water proofing . RESPONSE: SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STATIC TEST .
The design should consider a gravity system for leachate collection
(lower leachate a·nd upper leachate removal pipes extended through side wall
of landfill) and be tied (separately) to the sand and carbon filter system(s).
Valves (external) would control leachate flow to the sand and carbon system(s).
RESPONSE: NO, POTENTIAL PROBLEMS HERE.
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
Sheet No. 2
Borrow area proposed has not been tested for soil engineering propert1es.
What type of borrow materials will be obtained from this area. Areas to the
N and S of the proposed landfill location has been evaluated for soil engineer-
ing properties. RESPONSE: BORROW AREA WAS NOT FOR CLAY LINER -WILL ELABORATE.
Sheet No. 3 .
Are the concrete monuments identified as permanent bench marks; if so, where
are they located (specifically located)? RESPONSE: MONUMENTS ARE PERMANENT BE~CH MARKS FOR THIS SITE ONLY (ASSUMED ELEVATIONS).
Sheet No. 4
Should include sections E-W & N-S to locate source and volumes of materials
to be excavated and stockpiled for various purposes, especially clay liner,
PVC liner protection, final covers, etc. RESPONSE: NOT NECESSARY.
Sheet No. S'
Calculations for sizing holding pond possibly sections since dam sections are
included here. RESPONSE: NOT PART OF CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE . ' .
Sheet No. 6
Should the final grading plan be modified to provide 3-5% grade along center-
line of landfill and establish several (2-4) control points (piped slope drains)
to reduce flow over 5:1 side slopes? RESPONSE: WE RECOMMEND A 10% GRADE BUT DO
NOT RECOMMEND CONCENTRATING THE FLOW. =
Sheet No. 7
Note in detail -should the tranks be plastered or further water-proofed,
siz~ type and volume of sand and carbon stated; sealing of pipe through side
walls (specs), at 125 gpm flow and the reduced volume for free board and sand
or carbon, there should be a control mechanism for liquid level to prevent
overflow. There should be a detail for containing the carbon below the inlet
pipe, as it will tend to float in the tank (e.g. removable screen).
RESPONSE: SEE PLANS; THE SYSTEM WILL BE HAND OPERATED; AND A SCREEN (FILTER FABRIC)
Sheet No. 8 WILL BE PLACED OVER THE CARBON.
See comments concerning gravity leachate removal, sequence of top cover,
gas venting, top PVC liner thickness.
Evaluate all seal procedures, should the seal be l' or 2' and should the
seal extend up the sides of the PVC pipe. RESPONSE: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
Sheet No. 9
Cross section should include ramp section to allow placing PCB in bottom of
excavated areas. RESPONSE:. SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Kelly, Assistant Secretary
Crime Control & Public Safety
FROM: L. P. Benton, Jr., Chief
Environmental Operations
SUBJECT: Review of CoDUllents on PCB EIS
Warren County
As instructed, this Division has reviewed the comments on the above
EIS relative to groundwater levels at the proposed disposal site, with
special attention being given to the comments from Warren County.
In conducting this review staff again visited the proposed disposal
site. The Division measures water level fluctuations at a monitoring well
located approximately two and one-half miles from the proposed site in
similar terrain. Records of water level fluctuations at this well showed
a range of four feet. The recently drawn set of preliminary grading plans
showing the exact location of the proposed storage pit was also reviewed.
Finally, four Department groundwater hydrologists were shown all of the
data and opinions received.
Based on the review of previously recorded facts, evaluation of the
preliminary grading plans for the disposal site, and consultation among
hydrologists with general knowledge of the area groundwater, sta.f f con-
cluded that their review uncovered no additional information which would
refute the groundwater-water level part of the hydrology-topography
section in .the final environmental impact statement.
cc: Ted Mew
Stan Taylor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Bill Meyer
Charles Gardner
April 14, 1981 ·
SUBJECT: Review of Plans and Specifications -Warren Co. Proposed
PCB Disposal Site
As requested, we have reviewed the plans and specifications prepared
by Sverdrup and Parcel for the proposed PCB waste disposal site in
Warren County. The plans are dated 1/30/81 and were received by us from
your office on 3/3/81.
I have some concern that a seasonally high ground water table could
be at or above the proposed pit bottom. According to the data presented
on the plans, the measured groundwater levels are roughly 10 feet below
the proposed pit bottom; the date of the ground water readings is not
noted. The normal range in seasonal variation for upland Piedmont
ground water levels is 5 to 10 feet, and variations as much as 25 feet
have been observed. I understand that there is an observation well over
one mile away that shows historical variations of only a very few feet;
in the Piedmont, projection from that distance is questionable. In the
absence of long term site specific ground water data, you may want to
consider installing a covered drain trench and collection/monitoring
point extending from the northwestcornerof the pit bottom to about the
308-310 foot ground surface contour as a safety measure. According to
the site topography shown on the plans, this trench would be about 400
feet long. Alternatively, a short "deacl-end" trench could be extended
about 50 feet out from the northwest corner of the pit and could be
extended later if monitoring wells indicate a ground water level problem
is developing.
I am attaching some hand written comments from Bill Weldon, our Chief
Engineer at the time of this review. These comments apply mostly to
erosion and sediment control considerations. It is emphasized that
additional details on erosion and sediment control will be needed prior
,;
to construction. The more detailed plans should be forwarded to John Holley,
Land Quality Regional Engineer, at least 30 days prior to beginning
construction. Mr. Holley would be glad to meet with you or your engineers
to discuss the details, at your request.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
CHG:gf
cc: Steve Conrad
Harlan Britt
John Holley
+ ;( e. ~.,,. c-j/, c e Y:' ,;_ r e"O'
p,-,Jt) oJ.sd Pc~:s d,.s;,.~
c?~~ c!9 ,. ~,I N61r~e,, Co._.,_,y}' c? ">d 4 o1 .,, e. v'-,1 e_ r //o,-.,,,j Co~-'>~~,;~ ~ •
Geinera/ /.-s, .... ~ ,I ,.j a
~, C, /c''7/f
c;.o ,, ri-e:1 /
~~ O •/! c • ,'-_ ";., ,.
0~~/2,1~ d ~//
e:;,,,_,q a J./~
' o~-1 /7111' /11#// l'/1a'<I•
..f~eor /.),:;;,, .S:. • 4
/?7o ,,,-t2,.
?"' > .1.., -;r .... <¥' -r; -.../4 ~ ~ 7n / le T r',., ~,-,,,,,,., z/
~I, r' e-~,,,,,, r,..-N"& ~-&>;, ' s~, ... n C .Jo d ~,J ) . ./4,f#'
/. ,,-n" ,'1.,. d,,-.aw. ~, 1
C,~/4/ PAN.
(?,' A'f4,IJ-.NJ.
~/ ~,-4cr,;.4.JA ~;_ C•rr«:.
r ,;, J ,' /,4 r• ,1e. e. PrJt7 /,':s
C P "'7 ,.,0,, >: -/-,, ~ ,,1 a "y ~: c. 2-/ J.,'J✓ C4.«:)~ d....,,
,,,, ~ ... dQ>'ct"' •
/t:>Clll,-~ ..,P Jc ... l,) -,)..,e,,'.•-. J
/
/
d,,.,. c:htl • o/ '
?,, -'? eP / r"",.. 6e ~
J e
/r,_ 7J ?~r.-
r, ,-L-,,,r.
~1./
7-//J .J
,/!-o ,,.
1v, .,/d
/) , " e. .i /) (J ,vfZ "€,
r-s~ cl -,;, .. ,, r c; ... -.n,1 t:?H
/r ''1/
~e, C •IC.,_/;,';, f
/'.i/»f• ,:,,~
or1
' /JZ ~., ►,.-,,
r· '/ rr, ., /,,. i'
0 r1 Jeraci ''7 ,.J
/I .JO& ,t/e,, ~ r,rI -()v •
.,, <.
\
RESPONSE TO CHARLES GARDNER'S COMMENTS
Re: Installing a covered drain trench to relieve an abnormally high water
table that may occur.
Sverdrup & Parcel feels that there is no need for constructing the trench
for the following reasons.
1. Based on the EIS and soil borings the highest predicted water
table elevation is 31 feet below the land surface. Maximum
excavation shown on the plans is 24 feet, leaving a separation
of 7 feet. There is an additional 7 feet of clay liner and fill
separating the PCB contaminated soil from the ground water
giving a total separation of 14 feet. We feel confident this
design has a sufficient safety factor. In addition, it is
highly unlikely that the water will rise at all because the
landfill is located on top of a small hill. It is sealed at
the top and sufficient drainage is provided to get any rainfall
off the top of the hill.
2. If the water table did rise, the four monitoring wells could be
used to drop the water table by using pumps. Conversely, a new
well could be drilled near the northwest corner, a drain trench
could be constructed to tie into this well providing the ground
water relief. We feel that if the ground water did rise, either
of the above courses of remedial action would be adequate and
more cost effective than constructing the trench now.
«, \
PCB WATER DISPOSAL SITE -WARREN COUNTY, NC
SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
The site is relatively flat, final slopes will be 5:1 or flatter,
therefore silt fences will be employed. There will also be no
channelization of runoff. While the landfill pit is open, rain-
fall will be filtered through sand to remove silt and then
through the activated charcoal filter to remove potential PCB
contamination. The water released from the filter will be re-
tained in a holding pond for final testing for contamination
prior to release. It is very important to keep the potential
amount of contaminated water to a minimum, therefore all runoff
from outside the landfill will be directed from the holding pond.
Since there will be no channelization of runoff all storm water
flow will be sheet flow. Therefore, no permanent erosion con-
trol measures or structure or any additional holding ponds will
be needed. Silt fences should be adequate due to the very small
area of runoff. Constructing additional facilities would pro-
bably be more detrimental than using silt fences. Stockpile and
borrow areas -will also be protected by silt fences. Access and
haul roads will be the responsibility of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation which will be hauling the contam-
inated soil.
Slope5, stockpiles and ground left exposed more than sixty days
will be seeded.
B. Lead Agency
The State has requested and EPA has agreed that the lead
project role should be taken by the State.
By the transmittal letter Governor James B. Hunt has designated
the N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety as lead
agency for this project.
The Department of Crime Control has authority to enter into
agreements with federal agencies.
The project officer for N.C. is:
Special Assistant to the Secretary
N.C. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
In accordance with PL 96-510 and by Executive order No. 12316,
dated August 16, 1981, the project officer for the U.S. Environmental
Agency is:
-2-
B. Lead Agency
The State has requested and EPA has agreed that the lead
project role should be taken by the State.
By the transmittal letter Governor James B. Hunt has designated
the N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety as lead
agency for this project.
The Department of Crime Control has authority to enter into
agreements with federal agencies.
The project officer for N.C. is:
Special Assistant to the Secretary
N.C. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
In accordance with PL 96-510 and by Executive order No. 12316,
dated August 16, 1981, the project officer for the U.S. Environmental
Agency is:
-2-