NCD980602163_19811231_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Misc. Undated Material, 1981-OCR

l</91
DEPTH TO STATIC WATER LEVEL
COUNTY BORING NUMBER MEASURED WATER DEPTH
Harnett 1 (22' -No Water)
2 (22' -No Water)
3 22'
Granville 1 22'
2 (17' -Rock -No Water)
3 (12' -Rock -No Water)
Lee 1 7,
2 6'
3 8.7 1
Warren 1 18.5 1
2 (20.6' -No Water)
3 13.8 1
Frankl in 1 ( 3, -Rock -No Water)
2 ( 7' -Rock -No Water)
3 (11.5 1 -No Water)
4 (21 1 -No Water)
5 ( 3, -No Water)
Halifax 1 14. 3'
2 14 .5'
3 18.6 1
Wilson 1 10'
2 8'
3 6'
COUNTY
Johnston
Nash
Edgecombe
- 2 -
DEPTH TO STATIC WATER LEVEL
BORING NUMBER
1
2
3
MEASURED WATER DEPTH
( 19 1 -No Water)
13 1
7.5 1
PERMEABILITY AT 95 PERCENT STANDARD PROCTOR (AT OPTIMUN MOISTURE)
Franklin 5.3 X -7 10 cm/ sec
Warren 5.1 -7 x 10 cm/sec
Lee 2.6 -7 x 10 cm/ sec
Johnston 7.2 X -6 10 cm/sec
Harnett 1.3 X -5 10 cm/ sec
Halifax 4.2 X -8 10 cm/sec
Granville 1.2 X -7 10 cm/ sec
Wi 1 son Test Not Completed
Nash Test Not Completed
Edgecombe Test Not Completed
, AJ6 W ·~
II) 6 W /171£12-
~ l) f,(ff ,lf/L
AJo IA./~
/J b wAr7;1't.-
lJ,-/ JJW
I' I-/"l)
rJ-_ ~I
~ 3-v
r~ /..
AID ~,4-7'",f;L rL'V
;J.' 13 I -3_ ?,s
/
I 1·
I
2
CO~1UNITY RELATIONS PLAN--PCB IN N.C.
In the summer of 1978, transformer oil laced with PCBs
was dumped illegally along more than 210 miles of rural roads
in 14 North Carolina counties .
Since that time , the state of North Carolina actively
has sought to remove the PCB -laiden soil from the roadsides
to an EPA-approved landfill site in Warre n County , but court
action has prohibited state officials from taking r emedia l
action .
To determine how much soil should be removed from the
affected roadbeds , state a nd federal environmental experts
coilducted an extensive soil sampling survey in the fall of
197 8 . Periodic sampling has been done by the state since
that time.
In an effort to study more fully the effects PCB
might have on the environment over ext ended periods of time,
the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to conduct
anothe r soil sampling survey along the roadsides in North
Carolina this year . Federa l Resource Cons e rvation and
Recovery Act funds will be used for the survey , which wil l
be contracted by the EPA .
Prior to the survey , it will be necessary to notify
the general public of EPA 's intentions, and the state 's role
in the sampling process . Media coverage of the PCB dumping
in North Carolina,and the civil and criminal actions that
have followed, has been e xtensive . The refore it will not
be nece ssary to conduct a massive media or public awareness
campaign to inform the c itizens of the state about the PCB
2
problem. Several steps are r e commended, however, to insure
that a ll North Carolinians are aware of EPA's intention to
do more sampling, the purpose of the sampling, and the sampling
results when the y become available.
(1) When a date for the sampling is established, a
press advisory should be mailed to all weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers in the state , as well as to all daily papers, both
/Jlr'I)
wire services,\all radio and television stations. The advisory
should be designed to fit the format of the medium to which
it is being sent .
0:!!2._lic servic~
A r e corded~uld be mailed, for
instance , to all radio stations if it is deemed appropriate
by the agencies involved . Special care should be given to /u,t1
inform the media representatives in the 14 counties where
the PCB was dumped: Alamance, Chatham, Edgecombe, Franklin,
Granville, Halifax, Harnett, Johnston, Lee, Nash, Person,
Wake, Warren, and Wilson counties. All p r ess advisories should
explain as simply and as completely as possible the sampling
procedure, the r eason f o r the sampling, and other pertinent
information. The name of a contact person in the state should
be included in the advisories in case additional information
is desired . This contact person will be the state spokesperson
for the project, and information should be released only
with his prior approval . His telephone number should be made
available to the press. Since the EPA will be the lead agency
for the project, a federal spokesperson also should be
appointed , and this person should approve all information before
it is released .
3
(2) All public officials in the affected counties
~ J ( c ounty commissioners, city manager, county manager~ city
commissioners, etc .) shou ld be£ ] informed of the sampling
program before the information appears in the media. These
fhe,I
officials1,will illllllll be able to respond to any general questions
that might arise from their constituents. An information
packet could be provided to county and city officials as well
as to the press as one method of answering any questions before
they arise. A toll free numbe r will be provided through the
Department of Human Resources' "Care Line" so that the general
public can call in any questions or concerns that they might
have.
(3) The designated state spokesman for the sampling
project should visit as many samp ling sites as possible during
the first few days of the program to familiarize himse lf with
the procedures involved, and to be on hand in case local media
representatives have any questions. It should be made clear
to all consultants working with the sampling program that
no information is to be released without the approval of the
state and federal contact persons.
(4) The consulting engineer for the project should
be utilized as a source of information when compiling data
for release to the media on the more technical issues involved
(the sampling procedure, for instance).
(5) While a state contact person should be on hand
t o handle press inquiries, all written material should be
released jointly through the state and the EPA, or from the
4
EPA regional office (with prior state approval). The results
of the sampling should b e released by the EPA, with state
approval. At all time s it should be made clea r that information
will be released as quickly and as accurately as possible
through the proper sources. It is e xtremely important that
this information come only from designated federal and state
spokespersons in order to avoid confusion, and to insure
that corre ct informa tion is released .
###
PROPOSAL
Introduction
North Carolina and Environmental Protection Agency have
established the cleanup of PCB's dumped along North Carolina
highway shoulders as the State's highest priority for action under
CERCLA. Until recently, North Carolina has been enjoined
from proceeding with cleanup and disposal by an order of a
U.S. District Court. There is currently no legal restraint
prohibiting North Carolina from proceeding with cleanup and
disposal. Once the injunction was removed, North Carolina
took immediate steps to secure bids and award contracts for
construction of the landfill as proposed in the State's
environmental impact statement. (EIS ) The State received
bids from several contractors and must award a contract by
March 21, 1982 or reject all bids. The State currently has
no source of funds which will enable it to enter into a
contract. Extensions of the date for awarding the contract
are legally possible but only with the concurrence of the low
bidder.
The State has engaged in extensive work to determine the
necessity and feasibility of removing and disposing of con-
taminated soils. An environmental impact statement has been
prepared and has withstood judicial review. Several hundred
thousand dollars of out-of-pocket expenses have been incurred
by the State in addressing this issue.
The State is anxious to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency to take the steps necessary to secure funding under
CERCLA so that the clean-up and disposal of the contaminated
soil can proceed in the most expeditious manner possible. To
this end the State would like to secure a commitment of funds
from EPA under CERCLA to undertake the following basic plan
of action.
Outline of Plan
1. Access Road
Undertake construction of the access road to the
landfill site by the N. C. Department of Transportation.
(DOT)
2. Landfill Construction
Begin construction of the landfill by a private
contractor in accordance with plans approved by EPA.
(Ideally, the State needs to have a commitment of funds
by March 12 so that the contract can be awarded at the
last meeting o~ the Capital Building Authority before
the expiration of bids. It may be possible to extend
the time for awarding the contract if the low bidder agrees.)
-2-
3. Sampling and Testing
Initiate a soil sampling program by the State with
testing by a private contractor to identify any soil
which needs to be removed in addition to the 3'' x 30"
strip specified in the State EIS. The suggested scope
of such a plan is as follows:
a. Erosion Areas -Visually survey the entire
210 miles and identify areas where erosion
appears to have occurred. In areas of
channel erosion or gulley erosion a com-
posite sample would be taken from the
deposition fan of sediment at the end of
an erosion channel. A second sample would
be taken downslope from the sediment fan.
For sheet erosion a composite sample will
be taken from the sediment fan and three
additional composite samples will be taken
at the predicted edges of the fan. All
laboratory analyses will determine whether
concentration of PCB's is equal to or
greater than 50 mg/kg.
b. Beginning and End of Dump Sites -Composite
samples will be taken just beyond the
4. Pickup
starting and stopping points already identi-
fied and at all intersections. If quantities
indicative of dumping are detected, addi-
tional sampling will be undertaken to deter-
mine the extent of the additional contaminated
soil.
Once the landfill is completed pickup will begin in the
areas already identified plus any additional areas
identified as a result of additional sampling. Pickup
will be done by the N. C. Department of Transportation
in accordance with the plan specified in the EIS. Five
pick-up crews will be working simultaneously in dif-
ferent geographic areas. Contracts with private firms
for hauling may be utilized on an as-needed basis so
as to assure the quickest closing of the landfill.
5. Sequence of Events
Road construction and sampling can begin as soon as
funding is available. Landfill construction should begin
as soon as the access road is constructed. DOT can
identify the five locations which it prefers to begin
pickup, and sampling can be scheduled to coincide with
the preferred pick up sequence. This will identify
additional pick-up areas in the same order as the
planned pick-up.
-3-
Conclusion
The State respectfully requests that a cooperative
agreement be entered into immediately which will provide
funding for construction of the landfill and removal of
3" x 30" by 211 miles of contaminated soil. The agreement
will also contain provisions for a sampling and testing
program to identify any additional areas outside of the
3" x 30" strip which should be removed and taken to the
landfill.
•
IP1;{1Jl Ti
Ll'H/fJJ1..::
C ,t::J~ (J/3 ~//4t l,c/J ]0~/9-d'~J
.l) C>; S(.)/J11 ~A-J;f/.a_
r'/1{, ~19 t,oµ
J"'7l'ltCA 71()4.f ._ (!_') S t.,)/3,/JD/J}'"S 6Yc. /.Jd ~Rov/~..J ~-,?.//..:-~
<OA...-r1.r~"t/PA/
u r t:
-('OA-CL U.>/011.,-! WI£(._
/)~ 1:·/JJ lt/!&u,~1,i.,/, ;(},t1.l'1J t£) -,_,JtJl s ,CJ ,,.,/'<--t .t. ~ .,,.:c::,..,.e Sur'✓.'-4>/~~
{ 4,u.. ,CuA4.J;ttJ/J 1.1.; '1~ ;,,P
S ~A.~ d .,,.::U,vl))
-,JC...
RC/2/J Fll;v0£.0 NO l
/
/2£.SUlTS / CC>NCLL15IONS ANO DA 7/9 6£NER-4 r£D /
CAN 8£. USl;.I!) ,'JS l'/·}~r C>t= ,,Ci:AS I /.f ll IT'r s ruo ~
( /JHJ9SE I) 01-· SUl'l:teF-UND
2.) [)[SIGN
.....
-
I/.-( / 0CCci~.S
CO,vC LLJS/ONS
AOO I TION /-/l
4 001 i1l>AJ/q(_
s u p4;·t2 f{Jt?'I) 0.
{)ES /{,N
sroO'r
I.Jill
S,tJ "') I' LI A.I{,
SA "71'LHvl:,
S,"7 itSTtCl9llr'
Sf'tll
J}
CO,v.t-t O.c ,vT
1"1,v l'O;AJT ~~£"1 s Vtl£4E
Will. IJ Jl. Al ,£c C s.s ,9/2 r . THI~
'vll (. fl£ . ,.C<J,v0A8lc u,Jf)fe
)"o /1~ oo Tl tA.1£/)
f /JA Cl),v TR/?c 7t>lc.
1111Rv J..JJJ£K 1>v Ocro E£R.
will INCLOIJE !
2) .s ,-r.t s,q ~£1 r
{.·c) .fJl;"JC IP 1Jt' TtOA.J 0/-.Jo t5EAJE~Al
5/9/JAt ,-,I:, a:>c4-)7t:JN.! .
ir.'c) ()£.)C/R 1/JTll>A) or= /t'l'f cc t)A.)/1/S /;;9"1-CJ'
lv~!£t:J£O 'YO ~J.;J C~IJ~},! 7tJ~
Al'tl' /roJc. I '7;11JTf l ( 20 S4"'7/"U ;i...6
/'O;,v)5, ,4J .J.~'4Cf/ or-71lf $0
SJ:/r,Pu,v{. COCA noN.r
b>) s ,q ,.., 11l-1 ,.,"' /' .iv Cf:<) LJ ~ E S .,,_
C Ht:>11v &,:.. COS,o () r
u) Ov,tJLI 7Y /tSS LJIP-,t:/NC/.!. /
Qu A-urr Co-<.>7/f't>l
~ HOU {l£TW££N '7t/c tr" £/JA
.S lbN£f) 15 { hO U f I? ,<.,0 ~ ~,v(J [ /J;:J R. /J.
/3 ,4 c K f, Ro J.JNO
--12t;u I t·w { o ~ Ac.~,Jo M L-"o 61~"7~·..vr B ~ STrlTt" '961:'4.Xt.cs)
~C.T/ONS.
i) Rt 6Hr o~ I;>£ u,ew
it) fRov11J£ ;<Jcc£SS H) /e .91~/Jl/Nb
O~ f'~IV4TJ;' ~l?o/:J.£~1r
i,_.i) St°l.{ T '71N 6 o_p .s,:J/'JI" '-E J I;: OcSIRt'<J
l 0 SJ-/11~£ '45 t9~.S.c~v£,e pfA.,t)
.p;,,e Jt C. t /1,Q;r.Jr; .J-/J,::)12 II Cl /J AT£ ;Al
1:.-1 £,l t) Ac Tl v IT 'r
'·
2. GtT
[JOT
D£rJ
a
Sf:1,,...,l'l/11.,{, srvo r CJ '2111-1
'l ,,ou ~--bou.€,e.,AJ~ ~ Afl'hiJ1t-
1sJico1Y; ___________ ----· --
_ ·-__ d _ .A~ __ bOU.,_ ·-j :IJL _S,9_-')_!:_il ~_6 l°f'C"11.[J__!_c:>~ __ -----_
{<l --::: _ ~ ~ _ C/JJ~Gt~-/04. _ ll_f.~T/CJ:>-L. ____ M.!.~ Rtf.[li'_!Y_ __ _ _ _ _ __ .. _ __ _ ___ _
I ··; \ ' fl.o~ TA,.;Lf.N
_ .. . {[{y CP !V(/Qor IY.. 6b~ -J. .. (),'h_cl>@ ·,6,e . . .. ? .. ,o. (JS ... _
L j J;v }}I) _ ( {;1&_ _ 5t ttJf' ___ /JfltU-Jj __ __ -=-_ "! 7ro__r? -'":_£ .YS_. _ _ _ _ __ _
/ IAf:f"-I
-----
. u) T_t]LJ,c'_ '1-v .,;-117.Qtrv_fr' __ OrFtct;_ ··-A~()LJ_-,-__ ~fcc>N. -~r..lJ~
co"'f Q£M c1-~1l. q:;..,'r"l"' • /'Q2to~ 7G o-e14L
I / .,.t,'3 L-L(' .q:, ~11-µ,__ -t}.eff. -1../IJ!!~/1
fr l6fl T . Of
fllrlT
_MDU
~
0,,7{{>
l'c./
/l~,PSe>,.,,,:, l ~qC>~.ht7'1_ __
KM)C{<! o....., ,<Joo-er
1 GD B 4 Cic b fOLJNO -
I
-
CL f../.L~/:. 0 It 't -_ , b: HpYL C ;:Jl /'c (:'u Jjf _ ,1-)'J"p-e~f 1'-. .6.t/N t 'J o.,,-i~/c~ __
/ Ct l'"I/.'
_ bOve!c.,-.,_Q~. _7 -~re _ ____ _()O ~-_ _/J_[ /1__ _ ___ _
_ ______ _ _ f_J1:l?J~t'l.ldY.. !?~ r}l1rr _ A_,v MOL,,P ~ltt.f1 ·v:i"' "ft, , <-ii;.,., I).
Jl\.!.L:ri~l _ ~f} It _ ,,. _,,__.. ,l},0J 1[?-J. -_ le Ioli_ .T __ ~.I~ JettJtfV..S ---,,,, --
~,/J'JI'~["-~-/';J.A!rK.J{._~T/~_4 __
rt-b t=V'J/Jtc Sf'tq1,M,.
ll1;Rt;:,/Ye_l'v7":_ pl\/ ____ fJ.iTl't _ M~f!',.£1) ____ ------r,-i -~\lll~r,&-~--
PA ""'v-. Q)Ar
-t"1"ATt. t ~o,;
-----------------------
. e ~UA-Ttp~lf ~ l.u c'T!I _. 071)t/L _ ~..l_l)l'f, A6P~lff ----{)[)_< i)L}lf L.~15---
G 17 Vl.Ctit:.-,vc.,Y St Tt..l I}-J/0 A.;6 -J<-( tft2. co ,v'T/} er
r
'
---· ·----· ----------· ·----------------
----~ ----••----·------------·----------------
;f £.{Q_,v_ IV' ti~ ,q ~ ~f. _ . 13.£..f-2~ £ _ _!:( _·fl --'-1.-/:,..f-~ S ~
_ _]_:D __ . -~ L~~ll_I_l()A/. ____ { c~~.1~~) __ _
- - . -· -----. CC()tcJl>)t, ___ TEt:1-"1) ------
11"1_.!_lJC_lin1.2,.:_i _!?r:-___ IZ(_JLJL_n _ fo./~4_,it111-!_1:~LJ _/; 't _'t-;.,q __ _ ------------
~ --
() 'Y..
0 ~ '( t1cAtv ~ 3 v1icl.S --~--t ----[)_5..l ----·11:CO/J~ -------------------· -----------
-____ .. __ -~---_fJJF[ __ O _rv _____ ~-fl_/'f/Jl£ _/:_'-:f:1tv-1~0,-, C~---tD 001/, __
o/ $_(7_.1,; -.SIJ.i..c-1/"' --·-------------------------------
_<.!)_ _ ---~o __ ~e_:1!!..L:.L/\,6 __ .l..!2 5...!!lI!.b .... 1__ _ ____ _ ____ _ _ __ _ ______ _
l ~ ~). __ SJ9'),4L/ A,;6 -_l'flb~e(JO/((Il_ ___ r -Cj./,q11\,/ f),..::. _coS;-t?!J..i: ---------·--
_LJJ}-· .S:.TAYI:~> _ -~ ft);_uc _ (J~ ___ EPB ~ _____ Ctv8l-l [t _fJ-lSL?~~"-:.cf.:_ ______ · __ _
-2-
4. What happens to PCBs in the environment?
PCBs are relatively insoluble in water and t end to attach to soil particles.
For this reason they are sanetimes found in clay sediment and could be expected to
stay in a landfill that was properly designated.
5. What are the alternatives for disposal?
Depending on the concentration and form PCBs can be treated, incinerated or
landfilled. Since the chemical attaches to soil, the contaminated soil must be
handled and that limits the treatment possibilities. Incineration for a large
volume of soil is simply not practical because dirt will not burn. For PCBs to
break down, a very high temperature is required (over 2000 F) so burning is not
a workable technique for 40,000 cubic yards of soil.
PCBs mixed with oil in certain concentrations can be chemically treated, but
the process does not work on contaminated soil.
Biological treatment has also been considered, but it is an unproven technology
that requires very carefully controlled conditions. It is not practical to experiment
with a 210 mile spill area.
Disposal in a well designed landfill is the only proven technology with any hope
of success. The landfill has many safety features including ~rtificial and natural
liners, leacheat collection systems and monitoring devices. Given the care that
went into the design and construction of this facility, it seems extremely unlikely
that any contaminated soil will leave the site.
6. Why is the landfill located in Warren County?
Originally over 100 possible locations were screened, and the best 11 were tested
for soils, hydrology and other factors. The list was narrowed down further by a
strict evaluation of technical factors and the Warren County site emerged in every
analysis as the best overall choice.
7. Is there any truth to the rumor that other hazardous materials and landfills will
be located in Warren County?
Absolutely not. The 140 acre site purchased by the State cannot be expanded.
Twenty acres will be used for the landfill, monitoring wells, access roads, etc;
the remaining 120 acres has already been deeded back to Warren County to serve as
a buffer and provide assurance that the site wouldn•t be expanded. Only soil
contaminated in the 1978 roadside dumping will be placed in the landfill.
8. Where can I get questions answered about this project?
Call Careline at l-800-662-7030.
I r
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
ST ATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
32!5 NORTH SALISBURY STREET
SARAH T . MORROW. M.D .. M.P.H.
RALEIGH 27611
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
ON PCB
SECRETARY
TELEP'HONE
11111/733-4!534
1. A lot has been said about the PCB problem in North Carolina; what are
characteristics of PCBs and why are they a problem?
PCBs or polychlorinated biphenyls have been in regular use in a variety
of products for nearly 50 years and are especially valued in industry because
of their insulating properties and the fact that they are virtually indestructable.
Because this chemical has been so widely used it is found in low levels almost
everywhere in the environment including in over 90 percent of the U.S. population.
Because they are so long lasting in the environment, (it is estimated that it may
take 500 years or more for PCBs to break down) PCBs can accumlate in the food chain
and hence build up in the bodies of human beings at the top of the food chain.
To prevent this effect, it is necessary to prevent the release of PCBs into the
environment.
2. Aren't PCBs toxic?
Yes, especially in acute exposures, but in the case of this North Carolina
roadside spill acute exposure is not as great a danger as the release and buildup
in the environment over a long period of time. The most common use is for PCBs
to be mixed in oil for use in electric transformers. In this usage the mix is
usually about 30 to 70 percent PCB. It is thought that the illegal dumping in
1978 involved material in about this concentration. ,.
3. How much contamination is there?
Since the PCB oil was spilled over such a long route (210 miles), a very large
volume of soil will have to be picked up to assure that the PCBs are cleaned up.
This of course will further reduce the concentration. In the estimated 50,000
tons of soil to go into the landfill, only a small fraction of 1 percent is
actually PCBs.
(more)
♦
Site
Person
Warren
Chatham
Alamance
Granville
Wake
Wilson
Nash
Edgecombe
Halifax
Johnston
Franklin
Harnett
Lee
/79 I
COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILLS
Location
SR 1552
SR 1600
U.S. 64 W ~ 5 mi. W of Pittsboro
SR 2158
SR 1423
SR 1172
SR 1503
SR 1411
SR 1601
SR 1103
SR 1503
SR 1109
SR 1725
SR 1177 (Access road has
another II)
.. I
..
I .
I a-ro .. ) -...
I;, NV .
.. -·· --. ·•• -·· ~
_ __ __ /: _ __ S!rt(Ns11t1_/i.."c &,:,1i,;/J1b,,;(6op;1,) .... _ _ _ _ _ ... . .. _ .....
Ii ---------··~ ·-·-·--... f.:'Jl~1 ~t., /~~/~~K 32c) .............. IZ,e<'.<? ... ·--· ----
~-----.-.•--·-· L . --·------· ... ~----____ _ ____ 'J_f~------·-----____ l?o/& _'( ~ ".l.'? )_ _ ______ _ ________ 4!.,.::J_ O ~--···:-.. ______ _
I :
---··-··--··-·-· !: If_~~ ~c:(i_/}JIJ-l.~~1--·-------·-·-.. _ .. ··-----·-···. __ ··•--·-·---·--·-3 c,) cnn:, ----. --·· --''. ll OP. /2. ·-·------· .. l; ,_r_ ____ .l0t/{_j~/'J -·----------_ --·-·· .. ----····-· -----······• .. ---·-··-·--·-·-·····-···-····· ........ .
_________ . ..; ~--______ . ____ . ___ ?W ftf.14p;1 . __ .... ___________ ...... _ _ s ~
. ·----· . j i ..... . . . 'iu110/9hb,,,_, ~-fll"4h,,o 9,'1,<,u) JOj avyl l.s-c/2 ,I ;:;.:s; dol) __ ...
! ! C•fi1a-t{01 l, a1/•uh()"' ·-··----------·t•·-··· ...... ••·•·· ··-• ...... . .. ----------. . .. ······ .. --.............. ..
l i ..._, / i, /)' /.r, . / .// -. h· ____________ ... L . ___ . . . __ t'Jf~~ ( 4. .. //{o!) _ ,ob;;7://..5 /f{l"11)
_ .. __ _____ _ j ~ ~ll>1p ('?.) _; ool):511 1., _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .. . .. s-ro
.. _ ... . . : ! _ R:11111111,M,. 61/to/1 ; ~ ( zx / j II 1-U 5) _ .. .
:; . ___________ .. _lf,,.f·/,f/_~ __ {t-e;Ei/f _(111/!J,/);_µ_l;,(t'tj) w1r;.I ~11,0
. 9 <!o?:J ....
-•• -~. -I' -~, " •. ' •• '\,., I,. I-'-<lQ/../.:/1¥--C.-/b:t.&7). _t/J_ ()_~{ ., -·--·-~: .$ lllS::Z::L : ___ -,.___
f;1.,))? c;7 1(,,~/,1/'I &:1!r . ·----~------pmyp-~~~-· .
,4/,A.,!j ,IJ-<... /)lo ;t I r !,11: r~?f (k;..; 1 . ________ _
. _ _ __ .. {-~ f z«lJ I Smy;k.:; ________ _
. _ ___ __;itf &uu:-(~tL St1;.,y,1/£5 ------······
~ 1v/tC~u.dw11-t-r 1JlJ1LtiZJl'1 .. r 7~ _______ -···-·-_ --
::;cf S,~h i~p&..~ _ fzcoph>y/4) _ ...
;ll IJ1-"' J;'bt<J./ i'
.rs () 0 'b
·----:5-::r-47f:t) __
;J,t) aa-t>
;;;.. _(;?jD
"qz..m
.tJ ·t av
,,-, 3 '17~{9 !),,:f'D
-t /?1:, 431/, ZG
. .. /4800
l 6&o
PERMEABILITY AT 95 PERCENT STANDARD PROCTOR (AT OPTIMUN MOISTURE)
Franklin 5.3 X -7 10 cm/sec
5. 1 -7 Warren X 10 cm/sec
Lee 2.6 -7 x 10 cm/sec
Johnston 7.2 X
-6 10 cm/sec
Harnett l.3x -5 10 cm/sec
Halifax 4.2 X -8 10 cm/sec
Granville 1.2 X
-7 10 cm/ sec
Wilson Test Not Completed
Nash Test Not Completed
Edgecombe Test Not Completed
Wilson
V,sh
Warren
Frankl in
Granville
Lee
Harnett
Johnston
Halifax
Edgecombe
NORTH CAROLINA
PCB INVESTIGATION
High Water
July 11, 1979
James H. Scarbrough
Probab.ly only way -artificial liner
Mostly out of ground
Probably OK (maybe liner required)
OK with liner
OK with liner if home well
Up gradient (probably no)
Technically OK but county said no on
specific trench location
OK with liner maybe above ground
OK with liner
Property leased
Owner says no
OK with liner;, control
water table
~;~Q, LJ,<.)!-/Z... OK may want to .. to reduce pub 1 ic
opposition
OK with liner probably/partialy out of ground
check creek
July 11, 1979
James H. Scarbrough
INVESTIGATION
COUNTY LANDFILL
PERCENT
COUNTY WATER LEVEL PERMEABILITY PASSING LL PI COMMENT
(.0000001) (30) (30) (IT)
/Wilson (1000) 6-8-10 ? 76 61 41 Above ground
only way
J Nash (3000) 91 48 18 Probably OK
/warren (4200) 20 .00000051 58 46 11 Liner required
Franklin ( 3296) Rock .0000005.3 45 30 11 OK with · liner
12-22 Drinking water
/4anville
well within 350 1 ]
[phone] .0000001.2 92 56 22 County says not
at this location
Person County Says No
Alamance County Says No
Wake County Says No
Lee (1065) l-6-9 .0000002.6 34 28 12. Liner Required
~arnett (3100) 22 .000013 26 23 NP Liner Required
/s'ohnston (2720) 19-13-7.5 .0000072 27 27 NP Liner Required
/41ifax (1600) 18-14 .000000042 67 47 24 OK
Edgecombe (2000) 64 35 17 Distance to
stream
Liner???
Partially out of
ground
.. I J_ f~-Pcv,!J )*p.,.___l·' 'ITT,. L/::"\ ;-{"5 _jJ · ..1..1., . V
·-·· ·--> ---------·,
PERMEABILITY AT 95 PERCENT STANDARD PROCTOR (AT OPTIMUN MOISTURE) Franklin -7 5.3 x 10 cm/sec Warren -7 . 5.1 x 10 cm/sec -7 Lee 2.6 x 10 cm/sec Johnston -6 7 .2 x 10 cm/sec Harnett -5 1. 3 x 10 cm/ sec Halifax -8 4.2 x 10 cm/sec Granville -7 1.2 x 10 cm/sec Wilson Test Not Completed Nash Test Not Completed Edgecombe Test Not Completed
-( ( DEPTH TO STATIC WATER LEVEL COUNTY BORING NUMBER MEASURED WATER DEPTH Harnett 1 (221 -No Water) 2 (221 -No Water) 3 221 Granville 1 221 2 (171-Rock -No Water) 3 (121-Rock -No Water) Lee 1 71 2 6' 3 8.71 Warren 1 18.51 2 (20.61 -No Water) 3 13.81 Franklin 1 ( 31 -Rock -No Water) 2 ( 71 -Rock -No Water) 3 (11.51-No Water) 4 ( 211 -No Water) 5 ( 31 -No Water) Halifax 1 14 • 3 I 2 14 .5 I 3 18.61 Wilson 1 101 2 81 3 61
J· COUNTY Johnston Nash Edgecombe - 2 -DEPTH TO STATIC WATER LEVEL BORING NUMBER 1 2 3 MEASURED WATER DEPTH --(191 -No Water) 131 7.5•
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE WILSON COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING MEASURED WATER DEPTH
-7 Permeability -

1

x

10 cm/sec
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -76
LL -61
PI -41
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE NASH COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING MEASURED WATER DEPTH
-7 Permeability -1 x 10 cm/sec
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -91
LL -48
PI -18
22'
22 1
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE WARREN COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING MEASURED WATER DEPTH
-7 Penneability -5.1 x 10 cm/sec
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -58
LL -46
PI -11
18.51
20.6 -No Water
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE GRANVILLE COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING
-7 Permeability -1.2 x 10 cm/sec
Percent Passing# 200 Sieve -92
LL -56
PI -22
MEASURED WATER DEPTH
22'
17 1 -No Water
17 1 -No Water
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE HARNETT COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING
Bl
MEASURED WATER DEPTH
22 ' -No Water
22 1 -No Water
22 1
Permeabilit y -1.3 x l0-5crn/sec
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -26
LL -23
PI -Non-Plastic
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE JOHNSTON COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING MEASURED WATER DEPTH
-6 Permeability -7.2 x 10 cm/sec
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -27
LL -27
PI -Non-Plastic
19 1 -No Water
13 1
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE HALIFAX COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING MEASURED WATER DEPTH
-8 Permeabil ity -4.2 x 10 cm/sec
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -67
LL -47
PI -24
14 • 3 I
14.51
18. 6 I .
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR PCB STORAGE ON THE EDGECOMBE COUNTY LANDFILL
BORING
Bl
Permeability - 1 x 10~7cm/sec
MEASURED WATER DEPTH
15.31
Caved In
Percent Passing #200 Sieve -64
LL -35
PI -17
IN THE UN I TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
Civil Action No . 79 -560 -CIV-5
WARREN COUNTY ,
Plaintiff ,
v .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , et al .,
Defend ants.
STATE 'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
I . Back.ground
The State and Federal defendants have previously moved for
surnmary judgment on all five causes of action existing at the
time the previous motions were made . Subsequent to arguments
on the previous motions for summary judgment but prior to a
ruling on said motions the State issued a ''Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Removal and Disposal of Soils Contami-
nated With PCB 's ... " (FEIS). The FEIS was issued on November
13 , 1980 . On or about December 29, 1980 the plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to Add Supplemental Complaint . The motion
to file a supplemental complaint was allowed on March 11, 1981
with the consent of all parties . The supplemental complaint
added a sixth cause·of acti on in which the plaintiff alleged
that the FEIS was deficient in certain respects . The State
defendants filed an answer to the supplemental complaint on
March 16, 1981 in which it was admitted that the State had
failed to comply with a procedural requirement of the North
Carolina Administrative Code by not including in the FEIS a
response to the comments submitted by the plaintiff on the
Draft EIS . The State 's Answer denied that the FEIS was defi -
cient in any of the other respects alleged by the plaintiff .
The State then prepared an Addendum to the FEIS in which
the State add ressed the comments submitted by the plaintiff .
The State has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental
Answer and a Supplemental Answer which amends the pleadings
to reflect the State's position that the filing of the FEIS
.. !
-2-
hnd the Addendum thereto constitutes compliance with the pro-
visions of G.S. ll3A-4 and applicable regulations .
The State defendants have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Sixth Cause of Action which is the subject
of this brief .
II. Applicability of Previous Arguments
In the _previous Motion for Summary Judgment heard by the
2ourt on September 12, 1980 the State defendants argued that
they were entitled to summary judgment on the basis that
the county lacked standing to bring an action under the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act . (Third and Fourth
General Defenses). The memoranda presented in support of this
argument are also applicable to the Sixth Cause of Action and
are hereby incorporated by reference . (See Memorandum in
Support of State Defendants ' Motion for Summary Judgment , pp
3-5, and State Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion
for Summary Judgment , pp 1-4).
III. Allegations of the Plaintiff In
Sixth Cause of Action
The plaintiff has alleged in its supplemental complaint
(sixth cause of action) that the State defendants failed to
comply with the provisions of G .S . 113A-4(2) and applicable
regulations . The Statute in pertinent part states :
11 (2) Any State agency shall include in every
recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and actions involving expendi-
ture of public moneys for projects and
programs significantly affecting the
quality of the environment of this State ,
a detailed statement by the responsible
official setting forth the following :
a. The environmental impact of the proposed
a ction;
b. Any significant adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided should
the proposal be implemented ;
c. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize
the impact ;
d. Alternatives to the proposed action ;
e. The relationship between the short-term
uses of the environment involved in
the proposed action and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity ;
and
f. Any irreversible and irretrievable environ-
mental changes which would be involved in
the proposed action should it be imple-
mented."
-3-
~he regulations implementing this statute are found in Title
1 of the North Carolina Administraive Code , Chapter 25 .
(1 NCAC 25) a copy of which is attached to this brief as
Exhibit A .
The plaintiff has alleged nine separate deficiencies in
the FEIS in paragraphs 24 a . - i . of its Supplemental Complaint.
These allegations are dealt with separately in Part V
brief.
IV. Review by the Court
of this
A. The Adequacy of the FEIS is Not Reviewable Under
the Allegations in the Complaint .
The plaintiff has not purported to bring the sixth cause
of action under the North Carolina Administrative Procedures
Act (NCAPA). The plaintiff was correct in not attempting to
raise this issue under the NCAPA since r eview of an agency
decision or procedure cannot be brought under the NCAPA unless
it arises out of a "contested case ." G.S . 150A-43 . The
decision here clearly did not arise out of a "contested case"
and thus is not entitled to judicial review under G .S . 150A-
43 . (See Memorandum in Support of State Defendants' Motion
for Summary J·uctgme nt, pp 9 and 10 and State Defendants ' Reply
Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment , pp 5-7).
Since the sixth cause of action is not based on the con-
cept of judicial review under the NCAPA it must be brought
under a proceeding in the nature of certiorari or in the
nature of a declaratory judgme nt . The North Carolina courts
have seemed to 3pprove challenges of agency decisions which
are alleged to be contrary to law , "when public officers
whose duty is it is to supervise and direct a State agency ...
invade or threaten to invade the personal or property rights
of a citizen in disregard of law ... and where plaintiffs have
asserted their status as taxpayers and are trying to prevent
the expenditure of money unauthorized by statue or in disre-
gard of law ." (citations ommitted) Orange County v . Department
of Transportation, 46 NC App. 350, 378 , 265 SE 2d 890 (1980).
The existence of legal theory under which to raise an issue
-4-
does not mean that the plaintiffs 1n this case are appropriate
parties to bring the action . The State defendants contend
that the plaintiff has no standing to bring an action under
either of the theories cited in Orange County . (See .Memorandum
in Support of State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ,
pp 3-5 and State Defendants ' Reply Brief , pp 1-3).
For the foregoing reasons the Court should dismiss the
sixth cause of action .
B. If the Adequacy of the EIS is Reviewable the
Test is Whether the Agency Acted in Objective
Good Faith and the FEIS Would Permit a
Decisionmaker to Fully Consider and Balance
the Environmental Factors .
Initially it should be noted that the plaintiff's sixth
cause of action does not allege that the State's decision to
locate the landfill is arbitrary and capricious . (See however,
Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action). The sixth cause of action
raises only the question of whether the State defendants have
prepared an EIS in accordance with G.S . 113A-4 . The North
Carolina appellate courts have never been called upon to
determine the applicable test to be used in judicially reviewing
the adequacy of an EIS . The North Carolina courts have implied
that federal court decisions interpreting the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) serve as guidance in the interpre-
tation of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA)
Orange County v . N. C. Dept . of Transporation , supra . In
Orange County the North Carolina Court of Appeals cited
Kleppe v . Sierra Club , 427 US 390 , 96 S .Ct . 2718 , 49 L .Ed 2d
576 (1976) for the proposition that:
"It is the policy of thi s State and the Federal
Government that environmental :impacts be con-
sidered before major governmental action
involving the expenditure of public funds are
taken . Nonetheless , once these environmetnal
factors are properly taken into consideration ,
pursuant to prescri bed procedures , governmental
agencies may effect the completion of a proposed
project, notwithstanding the fact that adverse
environmental consequences may occur .... A court
may, however , revi ew the manner in which an
asency decision has been made to ensure that
environmental consequences have been considered
in the manner prescribed by law ."
46 NC App . at 358 & 359 ; 265 SE 2d 890 .
-5-
In judging the adequacy of an EIS prepared under NEPA ,
the standard applied is well stated in Sierra Club v . Morton ,
510 F 2d 813, 819; 7 ERC 1768 (5th Cir 1975) as follows :
"In determining whether an agency has complied
with Section 102(2) we are governed by the rule
of reason, i .e ., we must recognize on the o~
hand that the Act mandates that no agency limit
its environmental activity by the use of artificial
framework and on the other that the act does not
intend .to impose an i mpossible standard on the
agency . (citations omitted). The court 's task is
to determine whether the EIS was compiled with
objective good faith and whether the resulting
statement would permi t a decisionmaker to fully
conside.,.:-and balance the environmental factors ."
"A reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects
of the probable environmental consequences is all that is
required by an E .I .S ." Trout Unlimited v . Morton, 509 F 2d
1276, SELR 20151 (9th Cir 1974) "[A] court , in reviewing
an EIS ... is not ... permitted to 'fly speck' the statements , or
to use the applicable statutes as 'a crutch for chronic
faultfinding'." Monroe County Conservation Council v . Adams ,
566 F2d 419, 8 ELR 20077 (2nd Cir 1977); cert den. 435 US
1006, 98 S.Ct. 1976 , 56 L .Ed 2d 388 (1978), 11 ERC 1545 .
"An EIS is not required to document every conceivable problem
from every angle ." Woida v . U.S ., 446 F . Supp . 1377 , 8 ELR
20305 (D Minn 1978)
V. The Sixth Cause of Action Should be
Dismissed on the Grounds that the FEIS
and the Addendum Thereto Meet the Require-
ments of G.S . 113A-4(2).
A. The Addendum to the FEIS Responds to the
Comments Submitted by the Plaintiff on the
DEIS in Accordance with 1 NCAC .0206(e).
Paragraph 24 a . of the plaintiff 's supplement complaint
alleges that the State defendants failed to consider and respond
to comments made by Warren County on the DEIS and that the
State defendants failed to attach the comments to the FEIS ,
all as required by 1 NCAC 25 .0206(e). The State defendants
initially admitted that they inadvertantly did not comply with
the procedures in l NCAC 25 .0206(e) and subsequently prepared
an Addendum to the FEIS (Addendum) which corrected this inad-
vertant deficie~cy. (See affidavit of Burley B. Mitchell , Jr .)
-6-
The Addendum addresses each of the comments made by the
plaintiff and includes a complete copy of the plaintiff 's
comments. This constitutes compliance with l NCAC 25 .0206(e)
and cures the procedural deficiency in the FEIS alleged in
paragraph 24 a . of the plaintiff's supplemental complaint .
B. The FEIS and the Addendum Adequately Describe
the Project in Accordance with 1 NCAC .0201(2)
Paragraph 24 b. of the plaintiff's supplemental complaint
alleges that the FEIS did not adequately describe the design
details of the proposed landfill . Regulations which specify
the contents of an EIS require the EIS to contain :
"summary technical data , and maps and diagrams
where r elevant, adequate to permit an under-
standing of the proposed action and its setting
by commenting agencies and the public."
l NCAC . 0 2 0 l ( 2) .
It is impossible for an agency to always have the detailed
construction or design plans completed at the time of the
preparation of an EIS . East 63rd St . Assoc . v . Coleman , 414
F . Supp . 1318 , 7 ELR 20459 (SD NY 1976). In such cases con-
ceptual designs are used to enable the commenting agencies and
the public to make relevan t comments on the design and to allow
the agency to take such comments into account when preparing
or approving final designs . In this case the commentors made
several suggestions on design features of the project and
these comments were considered by the State defendants .
Many of these suggestions will be incorporated into the final
design of the project to be prepared by a professional con-
sultant with experience in landfill design . For instance ,
Kerr Tar Council of Government and the Sierra Club suggested
changes in the d esign of the landfill cover . As a result of
these comments the State contacted the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) to obtain recommendations for the landfill cap
design . The State has agreed to incorporate the SCS recom-
mendations into the final design . (FEIS , pp 42 , 48).
Various commentors , including the plaintiff , suggested that
the soil liner be extended up the sidewalk . The State has
agreed to incorporate this suggestion into final design plans .
-7-
'(FEIS, p 48, Addendum~ pp 5 & 6). The FEIS and Addendum included
further elaboration on design and construction techniques
which were not available at the time the DEIS was published .
(See generallyFEIS , pp 11-15, Figures 4 & 5 ; Addendum , pp 4-7 .)
This discussion of design is adequate to permit an under-
standing of the proposed project by the commenting agenices
and the pub~ic hence is in compliance with l NCAC 25 .020l(e)
The FEIS is sufficiently detalied to enable the decisionmaker
to reasonably judge the environmental impact of the project ;
therefore it is in compliance with G.S . 113A-4(2)
C. The Description of the Soil to be Used
in the Soil Liner Was Adequate to Comply
With l NCAC .020l(e).
Paragraph 24 c . of the plaintiff 's supplemental complaint
alleges that the FEIS did not adequately describe the avail-
ability of the soil to be used in construction of the clay
liner. The plaintiff made essentially this same allegation
J_n its comments on the FEIS. (See Addendum to F'EIS, Comments
of Warren County, pp 3 & 4). This clearly and simply is a
matter of a difference of opinion between experts . The State
and an independent soil engineering firm hired by the State
both concluded on the basis of soil sampling and testing that
there was a sufficient quantity of suitable soil at the site
to construct a clay liner in accordance with EPA regulations .
(FEIS, Appendix B) (Addendum, pp 1-4). EPA reviewed the
information developed by the State and the independant
consultant and reached the same conclusion . (FEIS, Appendix C) .
Warren County raised questions about the adequacy of this
information and the conclusions drawn from the information
in its Comments on the DEIS . As a result of the Warren
County Cormnents the State has further elaborated on the method
of selecting the most suitable soil for liner construction .
(See Addendum, pp 1-4). Generally speaking the selection of
the most suitable soils will be done by a qualified soils
engineer and tests will be performed to verify soil suitability .
(Response to Comrne nt b, Addendum p 2; Response to Comment c .,
2'1.ddendum, pp 3 & 4; Response to Comment d ., Addendum p 4} .
-8-
~he DEIS was obviously adequate to enable the commenting
agencies and the public to understand the basic proposal .
... ': ·:·) The EIS process has worked as intended by allowing Warren
County to comment on the lack of specificity and allowing
the State to consider these comments and show its response
perfect
thereto . Since/detail is not required in either the DEIS
is
or the EIS, the EIS in this case/sufficiently detailed to
comply with l NCAC .0201(2). See East 63rd Assoc . v . Coleman,
supra.
D. The State Was Not Required to Address the
Treatment of the Soil With TSPP When that
Suggestion Was Not Raised by Any of the
Commentors and Where the Suggestion is
Unreasonable.
Paragraph 24 d. of plaintiff 's supplemental complaint
alleges that the FEIS did not discuss treatment of the soil
liner with tetrasodium pyrophosphate (TSPP) and that this
violated G.S . ll3A-4(2) c . and d ., and 1 NCAC 2S .0201(3) (c)
and (6). The statutory and regulatory provisions which the
plaintiff alleges were violated require the EIS to address
alternatives to the proposed action and mitigation measures
proposed to minimize adverse environmental impacts.
While it is true that the EIS does not address TSPP
treatment, it is also true that neither the plaintiff nor
any of the other commentors on the DEIS suggested that the
State address this as an alternative or a mitigation measure .
The plaintiff did raise the issue of TSPP treatment by in-
formal channels on September 8 , 1980 (seven months after the
end of the cormnent period on the DEIS) and the State con-
sidered and rejected the proposal. {Affidavit of Bill Meyer)
This allegation should be judged on the basis of whether
the FEIS adequately addressed reasonable alternatives .
Treatment with TSPP is a design alternative and is not a
"mitigation measure proposed to minimize the [un avoidable
adverse environmental) impact ." G.S. 113A-4(2)c. A discussion
of alternatives serves as the basis for proposal of mitigation
measures, but it is clear from the wording of the statute
"chat the NCEPA requires the agency to discuss only "migi tation
..
measures proposed to minimize the impact ." The statute does
"'----
-9-
·not require an agency to discuss mitigation measures which
are not proposed. Mitigation measures not proposed by the
agency are more appropriatelj discussed as alternatives which
are not selected .
In determining the adequacy of the discussion of
alternatives in an EIS the U.S . Supreme Court has provided
the following guidance :
"Common sense also teaches us that the 'detailed
statement of alternatives ' cannot be found wanting
simply because the agency failed to include every
alternative device and thought conceivable by the
mind of man . Time and resources are simply too
limited to hold that an impact statement fails
because the agency failed to ferret out every
possible alter nati ve , regardless of how uncommon
or unknown that alternative may have been at the
time the project was approved ."
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp . v . National Resources
Defense Council, Inc ., 435 US 519 , 98 S .Ct . 1197, 55 L . Ed . 2d
4 6 0 , 11 E RC 14 3 9 ( l 9 7 8 ) . The agency is not obligated to
consider in detail each and every conceivable variation of
the alternatives stated; it need only set forth those alter-
natives sufficient to permit a reasoned choice . Monroe
·•
County Consexvation,Council v . Adams , 566 F 2d 419 , 8 ELR
20077 (2nd Cir 1977), cert. denied , 435 US 1006, 98 S .Ct .
1976 , 56 L.Ed 2d 388 (1978); Coalition for Responsible Regional
Development v. Coleman , 555 F 2d 389 (4th Cir 1977); Brooks v .
Coleman , 518 F 2d (9th Cir 1975). In the consideration of
alternatives the agency and the reviewing court should use a
rule of reason. The agency is not required to consider every
one of an infinite variety of unexplored and undiscussed
alternatives that an inventive mind can suggest . FayetteviLle
A-rea Chamber of Commerce v~ 515 F 2d 1021 , 7 ERC 1953
(1975), cert denied 423 US 912 , 96 S .Ct . 216 , 46 L.Ed 2d 140 .
"The concept o:E alternatives is an evolving one , requiring the
agency to explore more or fewer alternatives as they become
better known or understood ." Vermont Yankee v . NRDC , supra .
In determining whether alternatives were adequately
addressed in the EIS process the court may take into account
whether the c;-::)rnmenting agencies or the public raised the
-10-
aiternative in their comments on the DEIS . NRCD v . TVA , 367
F . Supp. 128, 5 ERC 1670 (E .D. Tenn 1973 ); EDF v . Froehlke,
368 F . Supp . 231 , 4 ELR 20066 (WD Mo 1973). Although the
failure of Warren County to raise the issue of chemical
additives in their comments on the DEIS does not waive their
right to do so later , i t is a factor which the court shoul d
consider in ~etermining the reasonableness of the alternative
and its need for discussion . NP.CD v . TVA, supra; EDF v .
ErD.ehlkB, ..3.ll.P...J:::_Q,.
The fact that the plaintiff failed to sug gest chemical
treatment of the soil as an alternative when commenting on
the DEIS is evidence of the unreasonableness of the alternative .
The concept of TSPP treatment of a landfill liner is so radical
and unreasonable it was unknown to the State 's engineer who
has had extensive contact with hazardous waste treatment and
disposal technola:i y . (Affi.davi t of Bill Meyer) The application
of TSPP treatment to a project such as the PCB landfill was also
unknown to soils engineering firms . Theoretical or experimental
applicability does not elevate the suggestion to the threshhold
of reasonableness so as to require discussion in the EIS ,
particularly in the absence of any suggestions by comrnentors
that it be discussed .
E . The EIS Adequatel y Addresses the Need for A
Montmorillinite Clay Liner .
Paragraph 24 e . of the plaintiff 's supplemental complaint
alleges that the FEIS did not discuss the alternative of
designing the landfill to include a layer of montmorillinite
clay and that this violated G. S . ll3A-4 (2 ) (c) & (d), and ,
l NCl\C 25 .0201(3)(c)&(6 ). As in the case of the previous
argument concerning treatment of the soi l with TSPP this alle-
gation should be judged on the basis of whether the discussion
of alternatives in the FEIS was adequate ,
Just as in the case of TSPP treatment (SEED . above)
none of the commentors on the DEIS suggested the inclusion of
a montmorillinite clay liner in the landfill design , The
plaintiff did suggest in their comnent l .d that the State should
-11-
have selected a landfill site which was located in an area of
r:iontmorillinite clay . The plaintiff urged in their comment
that the montmorillinite type clay would exceed the EPA
standards for plasticity and liquid limit by a wider margin
than the soils at the proposed Warren County site . The
Addendum to the FEIS addresses this comment by reiterating
that the soil testing at the Warren County site showed that
the EPA standards for plasticity and liquid limit would be met .
"The soil characteristics were evaluated under
ASTM standards for engineering purposes not
USDA standards . The clay content of the eval-
uated materials were sufficient to meet 40 CFR
.7l(b) standards for permeability , liquid limit ,
and plasticity index . There is no standard
for percentage of clay, type of clay and
mineralogical content in 40 CFR .7l(b)
regulations ." (Addendum, pp 3 & 4 ).
The State acted reasonably in limiting its analysis of
alternative design features to the factors specified in the
EPA regulations. This is particularly true in the absence of
any comment~ on the DEIS which suggested such a design alter-
native. (See argument D above).
When the design al t erntive of a montmorillinite liner was
advanced by the plaintiff , the State defendants did explore the
suggestion and rejected it as being a considerable expense
which would provide little or no protection not already
afforded by the proposed soil liner and articifical liner.
(See affidavit of Bill Meyer).
F . The FEIS and Addendum Discuss the Procedure
for Construction of the Landfill in Accordance
With the Requirement of G.S . 113A-4(2)c.
Paragraph 24 f . of plaintiff 's supplemental complaint
alleges that the FEIS set forth inadequate procedures for
selection of soils for the soil liner, compaction of soils in
the liner, ru1d quality control of the project . The plaintiff
alleges that the alleged inadequacy was contrary to the require-
rnents that the FEIS contain a "detailed statement setting
forth ... mitigation measures proposed to mirninize the [adverse
environmental) irnpact " of the project . G.S . 113A-4(2)c .
Th~ NCEPA like NEPA requires an agency to first identify
the adverse environmental effects of the proposed project .
-12-
Ohce this had been done t h e agency should consider measures
which mitigate these effects . See Prince George 's County
v. holloway , 404 F . Supp 1181 , 6 ELR 20109 (D . DC 1975). In
this case the EIS discloses that the adverse environmental
effects of the project as prepared will be limited to minor dis-
ruption of the environment on the road shoulder , and some
temporary disruption of the environment around the disposal
site . It is the S tate 's position that under the proposed plan
no PCB 's will escape the landfill during the filling or after
completion . (FEIS , p 39 ). Where there are no adverse impacts
to mitigate there are o bviously no miti gation measures which
need be discussed .
The allegations of the plaintiff seem to be more appropri -
ately directed at the requi rement for a discussion of alterna-
tives . G .S . 113A-4 (d ) (d). As stated previoulsy the discussion
of alternatives 1s governed by a rule of reason . (See D. above
and cases cited therein). The description of the project must
contain only enough detail to allow the commenting agencies
to make cornrnents and to allow the decision maker to make an
informal decision . The de sjgn details of the project need not
be included . East 63rd St . Assoc. v . Coleman , supra.
At the time of the preparation of the DEIS the specific
design plans had not been formulated . More specific design was
included in the FE I S as a resu lt of comments . The Addendum
includes even more speci fic design and operational plans .
The Addendum goes into some detai l as to the procedures for
the selection of the soi ls t o be used for the liner . (Addendum
pp 2 , 4, 6) The selection and con~act ion of soils will be
supervised by a soil expert and will be tested to assure that
it meets the applicable standards . Various quality control
measures are also outlined in the Addendum at pages 2 , 4 and 6 .
The fact that the State has considered quality control pro-
cedures is also established in the Answer to Interrogatories
to State Defendan t s , f i led March 11 , 1980 .
The FEIS and Addendum set fort h t h e procedures and
quality cont~ol in sufficient detail to show that the landfill
will be constructed to exceed EPA standards . Construction in
-13-
a~cordance with EPA standards measures that the PCB 's will be
encased and will not be able to leave the landfill . In
addition, the Answers to Interrogatories show that the State
has tentatively developed an adequate quality control plan .
The f~nal procedures will largely be the responsibility of the
contractor and the State 's consultants both of whom will be
contractually obligated to build the landfill in accordance
with the EPA standards . The EIS satisfies the rule of reason
in its description of the procedures and quality control
measures which the State proposes to use in construction of the
landfill .
-14 -
G. The EIS Was Not Required to Discuss the
Possible Failure of the Leachate Col-
lection System Since Failure of the
System Can and Will Be Avoided.
Paragraph 24h . of the plaintiff 's supplemental complaint
alleges that the FEIS was in violation of G.S . 113A-4(2)b .
by failing to address the probable failure of the leachate
collection s~stem. G.S . 113A-4(2)b . requires the EIS to
set forth" [a)ny significant adverse environmental effects
which cannot. be avoided shoul d the proposal be implemented ."
It is the State's position that the EIS does address
the adverse effects which cannot be avoided . These effects
are limited to temporary environmental disruption involved
with the pickup and the landfill construction and the per-
manent effect of taking approximately five acres of land out
of traditional land uses . (FEIS p . 3 8) . There is no require-
ment that the State address issues which are remote or
speculative . Vermont Yankee v . NRDC , supra ; Fayetteville
l\rea Chamber of Commerce v . Volpe , supra ; Farmland Preserva-
tion Assoc . v . Goldschmidt , 611 F2d 233 , 10 ELR 20052 (8th
Cir . 1979). NRDC v . Morton , 458 F2d 827 , (D .C. Cir . 1972).
The conceptional design in Figures 4 and 5 of the FEIS
shows two leachate systems . The plaintiff does not specify
which system it believes will probably fail . The State is
committed to constructing the two leachate systems in accor-
dance with the plans and the State 's contractors will be
contractually obligated to do so . In addition , the State is
comi~itted in the FEIS to undertaking appropriate remedial
action should the leachate systems or other monitoring dis-
close any unanticipated movement of PCB 's . (Addendum ,
Response 4, p . 43). This committment constitutes an adequate
d iscussion of the remote and speculative possibility of
leachate system failure .
H.
-15-
The FEIS Adequately Addresses the Design
Alternatives of a Thicker Landfill Cap .
Paragraph 24h . of the plaintiff's supplemental complaint
alleges that the EIS failed to show adequate depth of recon-
structed soil on top of the landfill . The plaintiff alleges
that this is a violation of the requirement that the FEIS
contain a di~cussion of proposed mitigation measures. G.S.
113A-3(2)c. As previously argued this allegation is more
appropriately discussed in the context of consideration of
alternatives. (See Argument D above).
The State contends that the FEIS does adequately ad-
dress the design alternative of a thicker soil cap. The
Sierra Club raised a question concerning the sufficiency of
the cap design in its comments on the DEIS . As a result of
these comments the State consulted with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and included
the suggestions of the SCS in the FEIS. (FEIS p . 49 and
Appendix E) . The FEIS indicated that the suggestions of
the SCS would be fol lowed in the construction of the land-
fill . (FEIS p . 49). The FEIS is clearly adequate in
its treatment of the design of the cap .
I. The Possibility of Failure of the Soil Liner
and the Migration of PCB's Into the Ground-
water is so Remote and Speculative '11hat It
Does Not Require Extensive Discussion in
the EIS.
Paragraph 24i of the plaintiff's supplemental complaint
alleges that the EIS failed to discuss the unavoidable ad-
verse economic and social effects of the probable failure
of the landfill liner and migration of PCB's into the
groundwater as required by G.S . 113A-4(2)b.
It is the State 's position that the failure of the liner
and the contamination of the groundwater are adverse effects
which can and will be avoided and that no extensive dis-
cussion is r e quired of these remote and speculative events .
There are seve ral factors which virtually guarantee that PCB
-16-
contamination of groundwater will not occur under the
proposed plan .
l . The PCB 's in this case are adsorbed onto
soil particles and have been treated with
activated carbon to further assure that
they are tightly bound to the soil .
2. Even without being bonded to the soil the
PCB 's are almost insoluable in water , and
are virtually non-volatible in normal
teroperature ranges . (FEIS p . 6) . Move -
ment by diffusion is so speculative and re-
mote in terms of any real effect within
the foreseeable future as to be unworthy
of discussion .
3 . The PCB 's will not migrate from the land-
fill without some physical medium to trans-
port them . The onl y foreseeable physical
movement within the landfill could be the
movement of water . The following features
of location and design will assure that
there will be no movement of water through
the landfill:
a. The landfill is located on a ridge so
that the surface wa t er to which the land-
fill might be subject is limited essentially
to that which fa lls on the ridge . (FEIS
ppl5andl6).
b . The soil type and contours of the sur-
rounding land surface and the grading
to be done at the site assure that
almost all rainfall will run off the
site and adjacent areas rather than
percolating through the soil . (FEIS
pp 15 and 16).
c. The small amount of water which might
percolate through the soil in areas ad-
jacent to the landfi ll would provide a
very small quantity of groundwater which
would be available to infi ltrate the
landfill .
d . Even if groundwater were to come into
contact with the landfill it would have
to make its way through both the clay
liner and the plastic liner and then
find its way back out through the clay
liner and plastic liner .
e . It would require massive amounts of water
to move into and out of the landfill to
create enough PCB in solution to be de-
tectibl e . Even under ideal situations
PCB 's are virtually insoluable in water.
The solubility is even further restricted
by the fact that the PCB's in the land-
fill will be adsorbed onto soil and carbon .
-17-
f . The landfil l is being constructed with
the contaminated soil fourteen feet above
the high groundwater elevation . In ad-
dition the State is committed to the con-
struction of subsurface drainage to prevent
the water table from reaching the outside
or bottom of the landfill if mointoring
detects t he water table near the landfill
liner . (Addendum p . 5).
Scientific theorist might speculate as to how the PCB 's
could leave the landfill o nce they have been encl osed in the
soi l and plastic liner; however , the possibility is so re-
mote as to be unworthy of d i scussion in the EIS . EPA has
established standards for PCB landfills designed to protect
the publ ic health and safety . These standards were designed
to provide adequate protection for the disposal of highly
concentrated PCB 's i n liquid form. The PCB 's in this
case wi l l be in low concentrations when the pick-up is com-
pleted and are already bound to soil and activated carbon . The
soil l i ner to be constructed at this disposal site will
exceed EPA standards . (FEIS , Appendix C). All of these
factors establish that t he EIS need not , and in f act cannot ,
address the social and economic effects which would occur
due to some hypothetical event whic h is so r emote as to be
beyond reasonabl e speculation .
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing arguments the State defendants
request that summary judgment be granted in its favor on the
sixth cause of action.
Respectfully submitted this the 1st day of July , 1981 .
RUFUS L . EDMISTEN
Attorney General
By l (J . --;e_
W. A. Raney , Jr .
Special Deputy Attorney
P . 0 . Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
919/733-5725
Attorney for State Defendants
I.
PCB SAMPLING
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
AND
THK UNITED STkTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT
DRAr~
A statistical study has been designed to redefine the physical limits -
of the PCB laced oil an<l associated contaminated soil along 210 miles
of North Carolina roadway. Specifically, the investigation is designed
to describe any lateral and vertical migration of PCB contaminants as
well as any di l11 tions or reconcentrations that rnay have occnrrecl due to
natural processei.
The sampling progra~ will be totally funded with money from the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act {RCRA) and administered by EPA. The results
of the study would be an invaluable aid in any potential clean up operation.
II. BACKGROUND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
See pa~es one through nine of Environmental Inpact St""atement Attachment "A". which oy reference 1s made a part of this MOA.
III. NORTH CAROLINA DECISION MAKING/FOR PROJECT
(See Chart)
Sampling rrogram inquiries should go to the State coordinator, Tom I~arnoski.
Major program decisions will be made by O. W. Strickland, Head of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Branch. Technical decisions will be cleared by
Torn Karnoski through Bill Meyer and O. W. Strickland at the Branch level.
Technical assistance on the State/EPA MOU will be provided by Emil Breckling,
environmental planner with the Branch. Decisions involving Secretary MorrO\-J
or Governor Hunt will be cleared by O. W. Strickland through the proper
official to Secretary•Morrow. Community relation/newsrelease inquiries
should go to Bryant Haskins, public affairs coordinator for the hazardous
waste management program. Bryant will be responsible for coordinating with
Gary Pearce, the Governor's press secretary, on the release of information.
IV. STATE AGENCIES PCB PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES
(See Chart)
Department of Human Resources
Environmental Health Section -Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
B:r c1.nch
The Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch is responsible
for State coordination of the sampling project. State coordinator,
Tom Karnoski, will be responsible for coordin<1tion as indicated in
the project decision making chart.
Department of' Justice
The Departmf;nt of Justice provides legal support and 1s responsible for
legal action as a result of the PCB spill.
[phone]
* Sarah T. Morrow
[phone]
Division Level
III. STATE PCB Sk~PLING
DECISION MAKING CHART
Governor
James B. Hunt
Governor's Press
Secretary * Gary Pearce [phone]
Secretarial Dept.
of
Human Resources
*
[phone]
Proper
Official
Public Information
* Bryant Haskins r1i [phone]
~ r-----.J------.
. *
[phone]
* O. W. Strickland
Hazardous Waste
William Me rer
·~ Tom Karnoski
[phone]
Director of
Health Services
Dr. Ron Levine
Environmenta
Health
Jim Stamey
Solid and
Hazardous
Waste Mgt.
Branch
* Emil
Breck ling
Dept. of J:sticel AG I Rufus Edmisten 733 I 3377 Legal -Bill Raney 733-5725 Robert '-Reilly 733-4618 IV. STATE AGENCIES PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES Governor James B. Hunt I Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Devel. Secretary -Joseph Grimsley 733 I 4984 Environmental ~Management Bob Helms 733-7015 l Dept. of Human Hesources Secretary -Sarah T. Morrow 733 j 4534 Public Information Bryant Haskins r-733-4471 Solid and.Hazar-dous Waste Manage-._ment Branch O. W. Strickland Tom Karnoski 733-2178 l Dept. of Crime Control and Public Safety Secretary -Burley Mitchell 7331 2126 Assistant Secretary of 1-Public Safety Dave Kelly 733-2126 Emergency '-Management Division Jim Buffaloe 733-3867 " l Dept. of Transporta-tion Secretary 7331 2520 Head of Equipmet" t-Branch M. C. Adams 733-233(
-2-
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Coordinates all law enforcement and traffic control measures
Provides any services or logistical support as may be directed
Department of Transportation
Erects and maintains signs, lights, barricades, or other traffic
control devices as deemed appropriate to maintain or control traffic
along affected routes during sampling
V. PARTICIPATION IN DATA: COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION
North Carolina may provide representatives to be present during all
procedures and processes of the sampling program. These representatives
will meet the following requirements:
1. Have prior approval from the North Carolina Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Branch
2. Will act only as observers
3. Will not hinder or obstruct the sampling program as outlined in
the work plan
4. Will not release any information except as outlined in the community
relations plan
North Carolina will be provided with multiple hard copies of all records,
written observations, documents, analysis, etc. that are generated by and
arc.: directly related to the sampling program.
North Carolina will accept all data (in final form) generated by the
sampling program to be factual. Final conclusions, recommendations,
interpretations, etc., based on the factual data, will be reviewed
by EPA, and North Carolina, and will be publicly released as per the
community relations plan.
-3-
VI. ACCESS TO STATE AND PRIVATELY OWNED LAND
Permission to go on property and collect soil samples from sampling
points will be received in written form. As outlined in the work
plan, an initial survey will locate all sample points in the field.
At this time the appropriate landowners {North Carolina Department
of Transportation or private individuals) will be identified so that
written permission to enter the property can be secured from them.
In the event a particular private landowner can not be found or actually
denies entry to his property, an attempt will be made to secure a ·,..arrant
from the local magistrate.
VII.· QA/QC
EPA will conduct a quality assurance/quality control program on ran-
dom selection of soil samples collected by their contractor. North
Carolina will be provided with results of this program and will be
notified immediately of any discrepancies discovered or implied.
VIII. E)1ERGENCY SITUATIONS
The North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch will
provide individuals responsible for 24-hour call should unexpected or
emergency situations arise. The designees are:
Thomas C. Karnoski
Bryant Haskins
Emil Breckling
IX. COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
Home Phone
{919) 851-1517
{919) 787-7841
{919) 467-6571
Office Phone
{919) 733-2178
[phone]
{919) 733-2178
See Attachment ''B" which, by reference, is made a part of this MOA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Human Resources
By: --------------
.Date: -------------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
By: -----------------
Date:
i ~
I
I
i I a
Removal And Disposal of Soils
Contaminated With PCBs
Along Highway Shoulders
In North Carolina
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
Atta..::hment "A"
The state of North Carolina proposes to .remove and dispose
of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of PCB (polychlorinated
biphenyl) contaminated soil. The PCB contaminated soil is
the result of deliberate discharges from a passing truck of
approximately 30,000-35,000 gallons of liquid waste material
on to the roadway shoulders of North Carolina's highways.
The discharge of this industrial waste material containing
PCEs have been identified along approximately 211 shoulder
miles of roadways located in fourteen central and eastern
pied:nant counties of the State.
The proposed action involves the mechanical removal of
the PCB conta~inated soil from the roadway shoulders and
trans?orting of the PCB contaminated soil to a disposal
site fo= permanent storage. The disposal site for contain-
ment cf the PCB contaminated soil will be located, designed
and constructed according to Environmental Protection Agency
rules and regulations governing the removal and disposal of
PCBs (40 CFR 761.41). The site recommended for disposal of
the PCB contaminated soil is located in Warren County
approximately four miles south of Warrenton.
B. Historical Resume
The first deliberate discharge of what was later iden-
tified as PCB +iquid materials took place the last week of
June, 1978, on remote roads of the Fort Bragg Military
Reservation. The discharge was investigated by Fort Bragg
personnel who secured liquid samples of the material. The
next discharge occurred on July 27 and July 29 on the
roadway shoulders of NC 58, north of Centerville in
Warren County. This discharge was reported by private
citizens to the N. C. Highway Patrol, who alerted the Divi-
sion of Health Services, Water Supply Branch. Water Supply
Branch personnel notified Division of Environmental
Manage~e~t, Water Quality Program personnel in the Raleigh
Field ;,,ff ice of the spills. Raleigh Field Office person-
nel i n ve ~:i tigated the spill on July 31 as an oil spill and
on fi ~~i ng no oil ponded or evidence in surface waters,
returned to their office without taking further action.
,· .. .
On August 2, the Water Quality Operations Branch,
Division of Environmental management, received a call from a
Johnston County farmer concerning a spill on NC 210 in front
of his farm. Because of the description of the odor and the
effects on field workers being reported, a staff chemist was
immediately dispatched to investigate the spill and to take
appropriate samples. Grass, soil, and water samples were
. hand delivered to the Division of Environmental Management
Laboratory for analysis later that afternoon, August 2. The
same chemist who investigated the Johnston County spill
encountered a similar spill near Snow Camp, North Carolina
on SR 1004, Alamance County, while returning to his home. A
sample was taken from the spill area and hand delivered to
the laboratory the following morning for analysis.
On August 4, the Laboratory's Analytical Section Chief
notified the Water Quality Operations Branch that the material
spilled in Johnston County appeared to be Aroclor-1260, a
Polyclorinated Biphenyl (PCB) substance. The Water Quality
Operations Branch immediately notified the Chief of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Emergency Response
Branch, of the Laboratory's findings. After briefing the
Director, Division of Environmental Management, a meeting
was called with representatives of the Attorney General's
Office, t~e Department of Crime Control and Public Safety,
and Public Information representatives of the Secretary of
the Depart.~ent of Natural Resources and Community Development.
A notification to all law enforcement officials was prepared
and sent over the Police Information Network system during
the late evening hours of August 4. A news release was
prepared a..~d sent to local newspapers for publication in the
Saturday morning newspaper. The same day, the laboratory
confirmed material discharged in Alamance and Chatham Counties
were Aroclor-1260, the same form of PCB material found in
Johnston and Harnett Counties. Also on August 4, the N. C.
Highway Patrol delivered soil samples obtained from Chatham
County to EPA. The results of the EPA laboratory analysis
were reported to SBI on August 8.
On August 5, Water Quality Operations Branch met with
concerned citizens in Johnston County, investigated the
spill areas in Johnston and Harnett Counties, and conducted
a door-to-door contact with people residing along NC 210.
·Because of concern by some residents along NC 210, the
Division of Highways, Department of Transportation was
reques·ted to cover the spill with a layer of sand in order
to suppress the noxious odors present. This was completed
in late afternoon August 5 and continued on August 6.
On August 6, the Raleigh Regional Office was directed
to secure samples of the spill area in Warren County to
determine if similar material had been deposited along
NC 58. Because of the publicity being given by the news-
paper and TV to the spills, the Fort Bragg Environmental
2
' ...
Coordinator requested the Water Quality Operations Branch to
analyze material secured from the spill at Fort Bragg to
determine if similar material was spilled on the military
reservation. Because of the publicity, reports of spills
began coming in from many different sources such as Highway
Patrol, Department of Transportation Division Engineers,
private citizens, and others in nine additional counties.
It appeared that most of the spills took place the evenings
of August 1, 2, and 3. While it has not been conclusively
determined, spills may have occured in Wilson County the
evenings of A~gust 5 and August 8. The Division of Envi.:::.-or-.. -n-
ental Management Laboratory continued to work -around the
clock to verify the material in the spills in the other
counties.
On August 7, a preliminary conference was held with
representatives of the Division of Highways, Division of
Health Services, Attorney General's Office, and Public
Infornation personnel. Specific information gathering
activi~ies were spelled cut and assigned to specific people.
A coordination conference was held with ·representatives of
the Department of Human Resources, Department of Agriculture,
Attorney General's Office, the Department of Transportation,
Environmental Protection Agency, and the news media, on
August 10. A wo=king session was held following the briefing
to news media to provide direction, identify responsibilities
and initiate specific actions concerning the spilled material.
Advice was ·solicited from the Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Toxic Substances, the National Center for
Disease Control, Hevi Duty Electric Company, the EPA Health
Effects Research Laboratory, and various academic and private
sector personalities known as having expertise in handling
this t:ype of material. On August 11, the EPA Health Effects
Research Laboratory began ambient air sampling at spill
sites.
North Carolina State University was identified as
having expertise in detoxifying pesticides. The University
was contacted to provide expert advice and assistance. A
· proposal was submitted to the Governor for temporarily de-
activating the PCB materials to prevent its migration and to
neutralize any hazard to people coming into contact with the
material on the shoulder of the highway. The Governor
provided directive authority to proceed on August 15, 1978.
An activated charcoal solution was applied to the PCB contami-
nated roadway shoulders during the latter part of August.
On August 15, the Governor requested assistance from the
Presid~Gt of United States. On August 17, a special EPA
coordinator was assigned to the problem.
Because the initial sampling procedures only gave gross
approximation to the concentration of PCB material on the
grass and in the soil column, several cross sectional samples
were taken at one-inch intervals to determine the magnitude
3
-;,;:=, :·_;-_E :-_.~
-:.~ ; .. •.;. :~<:i .•,
~-J ~
~j ·;•_:-t
;·::.;· .. ,:
/f -"" -~..:~ i-# 1-·
~ :t.
; •7~-
•. ' .. : .. -~ ;::._
~ -~·;.·
i {
i \ t ::~-
l } ' ~~,
• ¥•~
;
·: • ~&
~-' .
' . •
I
of the penetration into the soil column and the strength of
the material at various depths. These samples were taken
during the period of August 21-28.
On August 28 and 29th, the Epidemiology Section of the
North Carolina Division of Health Services convened a meeting
of national experts on PCBs. Those in attendance included
scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency, National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, and tile Center for Disease
Control. State person..-riel in attendance were from the Di-..rision
of Health Services, Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of
Transportation. Industrial users of PCBs were represented
by a person from Carolina Power and Light. The purpose of
this meeting was to assess the immediate risks to the persons
who live along the spill routes and to discuss the safety of
those persons who would be participating in the removal and
storage of the PCB contaminated soil.
On Septerr~er 6, i3, and 19 alternative methods of
removing soil from the roadway shoulders were conducted on
noncontaminated sections of roadway shoulders. When the
soil removal procedure had been formulated a test removal
ope~ation was conducted. The test removal operation was
performed on October 5, 1978 on a one mile PCB contaminated
section of NC 58 near Inez in Warren County. The PCB contanli-
nated soil obtained during the test removal operation has
been te~porarily stored at a ·disposal site in Warren County.
The p~::-pose of the test was to examine the practicality of
picking up -the contaminated material as well as any possible
healt...~ or environmental effects. On November 6, test results
indicated that the oick uo of contaminated shoulder material
was not harmful to the environment or personnel.
On September 29, 1978, Governor James B. Hunt's request
for assistance from the Federal District Assistance Admini-
stration, Department of Housing and Urban Development was
denied. On October 4, North Carolina officials were notified
by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, that the request for emergency relief funds
was denied.
During the month of December a Draft Negative Declara-
tion was prepared pursuant to the North Carolina Environmental
· Policy Act. The statement was sent to State Clearinghouse
on Dece~~er 21, 1978 for circulation. Comments received on
the Draft -Negative Declaration requested an EIS be prepared.
Therefore, a Final Negative Declaration was not prepared.
On December 12, an application was filed with EPA for
approval of the Warren County site for placement of con-
taminated PCB material. On January 4, 1979 a hearing was
held on the Warren County site at the National Guard Armory.
4
,.
'
I I ! -I I
I •
1.
'.
i.
'
\
During the period January 25-31, 1979 additional soil
samples were taken by the Division of Environmental Manage-
ment to substantiate the location of the contaminated mater-
ial and determine if any migration has occurred. Test re-
sults indicated that the material was present and had not
migrated. On J;inuary 29, 1979, a meeting was held in Washington.,
D. c. between representatives of the State of North Carolina
and EPA officials to discuss the current PCB regulations and
to discuss alternative solutions. On February 6, the State
of North Carolina filed petition with EPA to amend the rules
under the Toxic Substances Control Act to allow consideration
of alternate me tr·~ods of treatment.
On February 15, 1979, a test was run on a contaminated
section of NC 210 in Johnston County and on March 22, on a
contaminated section of SR 1004 in Alamance County to deter-
mine the feasibility of utilizing the theory of PCB fixation
with activated carbon.
On June 4, 1979, the EPA Administrator, Douglas Costle,
ruled against the petition of February 6 to change the
regulations to allow consideration of alternate methods of
treatment. The Region IV EPA Administrator, John White, on
June 4, 1979 approved the State's application to construct a
landfill in Warren County for disposal of the PCB contami-
nated soil (see Appendix C).
C. Purcose of Action
1. Definition of PCBs1
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are a class of
chlorinated, aromatic compounds which have found wide-
spread application because of their general stabilities
and dielectric properties. PCBs have been prepared ·
industrially since 1929 and are now produced in many
foreign industrial countries. The Monsanto Company's
preparations of PCBs were tenned "the Aroclors".
Production of PCBs ceased in the United States in mid
1977.
The outstanding physical and chemical character-
istics of PCBs are their thermal stabilities, resistance
to oxidation, acid, bases, and other chemical agents as
well as their excellent dielectric (electrically in-
sulating) properties. These and other properties have
led to numerous uses of PCB such as dielectric fluids
(in capacitors and transformers), industrial fluids (use
in hydraulic systems, gas turbines, and vacuum pumps),
and plasticizers (adhesives, textiles, surface coating,
sealants, printing, and copy paper).
1Hutzinger O. et. al., Chemistry of PCBs, CRC Pres
Cleveland Ohio, 1974.
5
.1 -.. ~;. r!· ·,
' ' I I
:--
:;
';
·1
.i I. I
PCBs were prepared industrially by the chlorin-
ation of biphenyls with anhydrous chlorine, using iron
filings or ferric chloride as catalysts. The crude
product was generally purified to remove color, traces
of hydrogen chloride, and catalyst which was usually
achieved by treatment with alkali and distillation.
The resulting product was a complicated mixture of
chlorophenyls with different numbers of chlorine at9~s
per molecule. (This fact is responsible for the physical
state of PCB preparations). Most individual chlorophenyls
a~e solid at rocm temperature whereas commercial mixtures
are mobile oils.
The most important physical properties of PCBs
from an environmental point-of-view are solubility and
vapor pressure. The solubility of PCBs in water is low
and decreases with increasing chlorine content~ Values
given by Monsanto are 200 ppb (parts per billion) for .
Aroclor 1242, 100 ppb for Aroclor 1248, 40 ppb for Aroclor
1254, and 25 ppb for Aroclor 1260. Studies on the solubil~
ity of PC3 in water are complicated by the fact that these
co.r::pou::ds are strongly sorbed onto various surfaces. PCB
has been siown to sorb relatively rapidly onto charcoal,
plastic, glass, and silt or soil particles.
PCBs have a high specific gravity (Aroclor 1260/
1.566) and a relatively high density (Aroclors 1260
weighs 13.50 lbs./gallon at 25°C). Loss of PCB by
evaporation is extremely slow, i.e. Arcoclor 1260 ex-
pcsej to 100°C for six hours would have an evaporation
loss cf Oto 0.1%. PCBs are very stable at high tem-
pe=a.tu.res. A temperature of 2000°C or greater is
necessary before these chemicals are destroyed.
In summary, PCB compounds have been manufactured
and used in this county since 1929. Their uses have
varied from the manufacture of many household products
to industrial uses. PCBs are very stable heat resis-
tant compounds that are fat soluble and some are known
to build up in biological food chains. PCBs are re-
latively insoluble in water but have strong absorption
properties onto such materials as clay, soot, charcoal,
and grease. PCBs are found in a wide variety of sub-
strates throughout our environment.
2. Regulations Pertaining to PCB Spills
The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated
rules and regulations pursuant to the Toxic Substance
Control Act to protect the environment from further
contamination by PCBs resulting from improper handling
and disposal of PCBs. Title 40 Part 761.10 {b) (3) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act spells out disposal
6
t r
requirements of PCB mixtures in soil. The regulation
initially defined PCBs to mean any mixture with 500
parts per million (PPM) of PCB. This regulation was
amended effective July 2, 1979. The amendment in 40
C.F.R. 761.l(b) lowered the concentration of PCBs which
are covered by the regulation from 500 ppm to SO ppm
(Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 106, May 31, 1979).
The regulation requires that soil and debris contaminated
with PCBs must be disposed of either through incineration
or in a chemical waste landfill.
Criterion for any such landfill is ·contained in
Annex II to the referenced regulation. Specific wording
in C.F.R. 40, Part 761.10 (b)(3) is as follows:
"Soil and debris which have been contaminated with
PCB as a result of a spill or as a result of
placement of PCBs in a disposal site prior to the
publication date of these regulations shall be
disposed of
(i) In an incinerator which complies with
Annex I, or
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill."
The State of North Carolina petitioned the USEPA
for a change in the disposal requirements for PCB
mixtures in 40 C.F.R. 761.10 (b)(3). North Carolina
req~ested that the regional administrator be allowed to
approve methods of disposal other than incineration or
landfilling. The petition for a rule change was denied
by EPA on June 4, 1979.
3. Need for the Proposed Action
In early August, 1978, the Water Quality Operations
Branch received a call from a Johnston County resident
pertaining to an apparent chemical spill along the
roadway shoulders of NC 210. Grass, soil and water
samples were collected from the spill site and analyzed.
The laboratory analysis identified the material taken
from the roadway shoulders as Aroclor 1260 a polychlo-
rinated biphenyl (PCB) substance. Reports of other
chemical spills along sections of roadway in various
counties were reported and investigated in the first
week of August.
Because the initial sampling procedure only gave
gross approximation to the concentration of PCB material,
a more detailed soil sampling and analysis procedure
was performed during late January, 1979. The.soil
samples taken served to quantify the PCB as to the
7
,........-.
I
level of concentration along the roadway and to deter-
mine the depth in the soil column the PCB substance had
penetrated.
The deliberate discharge of industrial waste mate-
rial containing polychlorinated biphenyl substance onto
the roadway shoulders was identified in fourteen coun-
ties of the state. The 211 shouders miles of roadway
on which the spills occurred were grouped to form 15
spill site locations. Appendix A contains county maps
showing the locations where the PCB industrial waste
material was discharged onto the roadway shoulder_s.
Appendix A also contains descriptions of the sampling
site -locations and the soil sampling results in terms
of mg/kg of Aroclor 1260, a PCB substance.
Polychlorinated biphenyls are highly stable com-
pounds that will remain unchanged in the environment
for a very long time.-PCB will biologically magnify in
food chains and _accumulate in the fatty tissue of both
humans a..,d animals. The long term effects of human and
anim~l exposure to low levels of PCBs are not clearly
docUJ.~en~ed; however, studies using laboratory animals
have shon-n potential chronic effects such as cancer
.ind'.lction, pigmentation, and behavioral changes. The
PCB conta.'ninated soil may become translocated into
adjacent agricultural crop lands and may have an impact
on agricultural cash crops such as tobacco, feed and
forage, and crops for hwnan conswr~tion. The State of
N~=--~~ Carolina considers the removal of the PCB contami-
~atec soil a necessary action to insure the protection
of t~e natural and human environment.
In addition to the above reasons for removal of
the PCB contaminated soil, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation must periodically reshape shoulders
and ditches adjacent to state highway system travelways
in order to maintain safe egress for the traveling
public and to maintain proper cross slopes for storm
drainage. While these operations are closely followed
by necessary erosion control measures to stabilize the
loosened soil. There nevertheless follows a period of
time during which the shoulders and ditches are suscep-
tible to erosion. In addition normal deterioration of
the highways caused by traffic, climate and age will
require future modifications to the contaminated areas
including resurfacing and possible widening and realign-
ment of the highway facilities. All of these operations
would tend to redistribute the contaminated soil in a
manner which would be very difficult if not impossible
to control.
The presence of PCB contaminated material along
state highway system routes has caused the Department
8
. .. . .
D.
of Transportation to disallow all encroachment requests
along those roadway shoulders which involve activities
requiring excavation or redistribution of the soil
structure. This has included placement of utilities
. and commercial and private driveway pipes. These
activities involving the roadway shoulders are necessary
in order to provide needed services to property owners
located adjacent to PCB spill areas.
4. · Estimated Cost for Removal and Disposal
The total estimated cost for removal of the PCB
contaminated soil from approximately 211 shoulder miles
of roadway and disposal of the soil in a chemical waste
landfill to be constructed in Warren County is $-l.,580,000 ..
A summary of the cost breakdown follows: -1~ &S:i.., v"'c>
Removal From Roadway Shoulders
Reshaping of Roadway Shoulders
Hauling of PCB Contaminated
Soil to Disposal Site
Disp~sal Pit Construction
Leachate Collection System
Impermeable Clay Liner
~..rtificial Liner (30 mil)
Erosion Control & Equipment
Pit Closeout
Construction Monitoring
Engineering & Contingency
Land Acquisition
$ 365,000
250,000
350,000
56,000
14,000
48,000
150,000
63,000
100,000
8,000
75,000
173,000
$1,652,000
Description of Removal and Disposal Action
1. Soil Removal
Shortly after the PCB spills occurred, measures
were taken to contain the PCB compound spilled along
the roadway shoulders. An application of a 10% solu-
tion of activated carbon applied at the rate of approxi-
mately one gallon per square yard then followed by an
application of liquid asphalt at the rate of approxi-
mately one-tenth of a gallon per square yard were
applied to the roadway shoulders where the PCB spills
have occurred. Figure 1 is a location map indicating
the approximate location of the PCB spills_.. A more
detailed description of the spill locations are in-
cluded in Table 1 and Appendix A.
The activated carbon solution was utilized to bind
the surface concentration of PCB by absorption of the
PCBs into the pores of the activated carbon and retard
dissipation into the surrounding environment. The
liquid asphalt was applied to eliminate dusting of the
9
..
·-Attachment "B"
COI-il-1UNITY RELATIONS PLAN--PCB IN N. C.
In the summer of 1978, transformer oil laced with PCBs
was dumped illegally along more than 210 miles of rural roads
•in 14 North Carolina counties.
Since that t i me, the state of North Carolina active ly
has sought to remove the PCB-laiden soil from the roadsides
to an EPA-approved landfill site in Warren County, but court
action has prohibited state officials from taking remedial
action.
To determine how much soil should be removed from the
affected roadbeds, state and federal environmental experts
conducted an extensive soil sampling survey in the fall of
197 8 . Periodic sarap ling has been done by the state since
that time.
In an effort to study more fully the effects PCB
might have on th<.= environment over extended periods of time,
the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to conduct
another soil sampling survey along the roadsides in North
Carolina this year. Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act funds will be used for the survey, which will
be contracted by the EPA.
Prior to the survey, it will be necessary to notify
the g ew::r a l ·public of EPA's intentions, and the state's role
in the sampling process. Media coverage of the PCB dumping
in North Caroliria,and the civil and criminal actions that
have followed, has be en extensive. Therefore it will not
be necessary to conduct a massive media or public awareness
campaign to inform tho citizens of the state about the PCB
2
problem. Several steps are recommended, however, to insure
that all North Carolinians are aware of EPA's intention to
.do more sampling, the purpose of the sampling, and the sampling
results when they become available.
(1) When a date for the sampling is e~tablished, a
press advisory should be mailed to all weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers in the state, as well as to all daily papers, both
f11(/)
wire services,~11 radio and television stations. The advisory
should be designed to fit the format of the medium to which
it is being sent.
~ic servics,
A recorded~uld be mailed, for
instance, to all radio stations jf it is deemed appropriate
by the agencies involved. Special care should be given to ~~i1
inform the media representatives in the 14 counties where
the PCB ~as dumped: Alamance, Chatham, Edgecombe, Franklin,
Granville, Halifax, Harnett, Johnston, Lee, Nash, Person,
Wake, Warren, and Wilson counties. All press advisories should
explain as simply and as completely as possible the sampling
procedure, the reason for the sampling, and other pertinent
information. The name of a contact person in the state should
be included in the advisories in case additional information
is desired. This contact person will be the state spokesperso~
for the project, and information should be released only
with his prior approval. His telephone number should be made
available to the pre ss. Since the EPA will be the lead agency
for the project, a federal spokesperson also should be
appointed, and this person should ap~rove all information before
it is released.
-·
3
(2) All public officials in the affected counties
!, .s (county commissioners, city rnanageri county manager~ city
commissioners, etc.) should be M •~ informed of the sa~pling
program before the inforrna~ion appears in the media. These
fhe1!
officialsAwill 1:mlls be able to respond to any general questions
that might arise from their constituents. An information
packet could be providee to county and city officials as well
as to the press as one method of answering any questions before
they arise. A toll free number will be provided through the
Department of Human Resourc-2s 1 "Care Line" so that the general
public can call in any questions or concerns that they might
have.
(3) The designated state spokesman for the sampling
project should visit as many sampling sites as possible during
the first few days of the program to familiarize himself with
the procedures involved, and to be on hand in case local media
representatives have any q~estions. It should be made clear
to all consultants working with the sampling program that
no information is to be released without the approval of the
state and federal contact ?ersons.
(4) The consulting engineer for the project should
be utilized as a source of information when compiling data
for release to the media o~ the more technical issues involved
(the sampling procedure , for instance).
(5) While a state contact person should be on hand
to handle press inquiries, all written r.1ateria:, should be
released jointly through the stat2 and th~ EPA, or from the
--...
I
4
EPA regional office (with prior state approval). The results
of the sampling should be released by the EPA, with state
approval. At all times it should be made clear that information
will be released a s quickly and as accurately as possible
through the proper sources. It is extremely important that
this information come only from designated federal and state
spokespersons in order to avoid confusion, and to insure
that correct information is released.
###
APPENDIX B
GENERAL SPILL SITE LOCATION MAPS
FROM MITCHELL (1980)
B-1
Pureose t,>ff~~ !)£1.tl;-The purpose of this study is to determine ifAPCB contan,inated ~oil.and sediment I.as mi9i:.6~from the original dump sites alonq 210 mi'les of . \\~"> CH,C."W~• · ~-At,,E" roadway in North Carolinj, If mi~ation has occurred,.,_concenttJtior111al!d. 1%1 '"S"~CA' . ti,&;;(.~(.. -· ~-,, ,. • • • • ~ .Jie,11! . arealA.distribution patterns may be delineated.._~~D Olio) ~ S'l'A-r,;Tic~L "~'~e..:i\. Prior to any cleanup attempt, a comprehensive study vri"ll. be conducted to test the null hypoithesis that PCB is pr~sently imnobilized at the original sites (no migration has occurred). The presence of PCB concentrations -greater than 49 ppm at~ statistically significant number of off-site locations will result in rejection of this hypothesis. 9,..,\~.,+,~ ,,s,. ,. . C>"i The Central Limit Theorem11(J;'arsons, 1974) states that for a sample size~ (sample locations, not number of total samples)Gy 30 or more, the statistical sampling distribution that results will be close to normally distributed (Bell Curve) regardless of the shape of the original universe from which the samples are taken. Although geologically-related universe~ are commonly log-normally distributed, by randomly selecting 30 sample locations for th is study, standard statistical techniques can be emp loyr~d TC> ?~iCII W\"tl,-\ -~ C.011-l~;om-c,.e snE Sti-d::"l.i. ~r ~~u ... ',\ ~(.. Mftb-fJ\Tit>r.>\ t'\1''1 t1"-"llE° OC.,).Q~l:O • 9" (_b-oo ".) o.t. bLti,. '-. Methodo l 09.1 A lf!la-. ef.-A. Random sample location selection 1. From Emergency Action Plan (Lee, 16 February 1981) Table 1 p. 11-12~ select all spill locations at which analyses indicated PCB values greater than or equal to ~J pp~. 2. Assign consecutive numbers to each of these spill locations. 3. Using random number tables, select 30 ot -l-12.se. lou.-+-10115.
Jaded papl.:iaJ
S-.L~•OcJ "1/ll~#'i'S, \0 HQ ln't 13S "WII0\'0-.t.1 :9'-U., .a,~
.J,.QN \\'~ 3.iJOJ31Bl.\L o"'l ~l\_h,,'-N~ .,"J•J.~,.l"'l-~ ~ ~
Ol"?Rc,.•S>NQ) ;l4B ~~ \''!°"' 1 ~!1,..~ ~~~ ~-,.o:f S'-\1.-.
"'l.,...,. ~~. '\NCtlJ.~47 ~£of~ ~· 3UJ. •oc--"o~o:,
• •
~l::t\OJC'il ;..1.c,03 3\.\1.. r,,'2:).\1.•~ "'& "" xas ,9 o,n,~ ''~""
~~,J.~cn "'"'!l~~c;. 'ii • ~:n ~~as9 ~~ ,,
OJ-~o ~ · 3J~~M cP.,L,tf\\t\"-.-,ii~o q ?cJ \9 "'"''6w."<l
• •
t,ar«ON;y 0.."4 ;iTPlt'M ~=l9 ~9 U '."'l .....
~•jit$~cji\;a 3J; · CfS&:s49S 'li'i ts{::tL"') . ( S t'l_'"U"J! .,~J. Ca.~
\ ' ., !c;~,aJ. '..1""' .... o ~-'Id ~ 1 ) ~ 1:1 ! ca-a ..,.,..., :"' "'<I'll "la;\
-..... o ~,, ia' a• r t•~
\t-:>~ t°'► ~cu J..~")Ql _ ""N~~N~ _... ,... , •
1 l
1
B. Sample selection at each of the 30 sample locations.
1.
2-.
One or two samples will be collected from _the immediate right-of-way .
where durnping occurred. . , _ ~ 'i!, •
. --( cep ~ 'j...1:/ • ~ '
The remai.ning samples 11 from each locati.on will be collected fr.om
"1~"1 Rt.~£ ~c.(
zones where soil and sediment, which.a eroded from the dump sites,~ .
J ~~~ have been _deposited. Off site samples will be collected from ~ ~
.~ -Pt:9o~~'°~ .,.. :ttiUVOE 8,\)r ruoT UN\iTm '10: a. Borrow p1ts, ·· ·
b. Ditches,
c. Fields,
d. Residential yards,
e. Down slope from dump sites toward stream valleys or flood plains
( if appropriate)
~-ETC..
3. A fairly detailed sketch map showing the locatior of each sample.
w,\\ SE <O'Mf U.'-"'f.>
collected in relation to local points of reference -M 1e~u~~es~ f'c,«. ~ c;~~p~ U>c..A1"iC)~
4. Each sample site will be marked with an iron spike driven below
ground level and flagged.
, ..
,.
TABLE 1. CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL
CONTENT OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM NORTH CAROLINA SITES
Depth of Soil Layers Tested
Site No. 0 -l" 1 -3" 3 -

6
11 County
lA-.\-k 20.0* 1.9 32.0 Al~mance
lB :>< 140.0 4.1 (1 Chatham
lC iX 2100.0 130.0 35.0 Chatham
2A 2. 4 <l <l Chatham
p
p
p
~ ---~f!l!!9!1'ii" liililil•..,,,.lfilliii'·· W!ilVM1i%.'1Q~g-: .. Q9w,1!1:·'•·-~-;p~. P2,ii-;;;;,··i!l¥f'~-'-t1~~;-'fJ~!e!.·-_,,,•. ·;,;;,·--;;,;;;··-~-;;;,;;-,..·_M2£a~;l!-~ .. 9,ii~;,;;;-~-... .-_-?--, -~-?£~-. h<all'fw -r
@ 2C 480.0 (1 <l Chatham p
·@ 3A , 2400.0 110.0 110.0 Harnett C.
r • (/) 3B ~ 900. 0 260. 0 7. 6 Harnett C:.
( • (72 JC 2000.0 480.0 15.0 Harnett C..
@ 4A 710 .0 2.1 6. 7 Granville f
• /0
~ • /I
/Z.
/3
( • l 9-
2. • I'(
,I,. . , ,,.,
n
I 'I . ,,
• i..
4B 25 .0 <l <l Granville .f
4C 2. 9 (1 <l Person 1'
5A y .. 3600.0 12.0 14.0 Johnston f
5B -850.0 30.0 6.0 Johnston f ·
SC v(_ 4100.0 55.0 5.5· Johnston C.
6A 70.0 2.0 (1 Warren f
6B 190 .0 8 .0 <l Warren f
7A ,X (1 Edgecombe
BA v' 1400.0 20.0 1.8 Nash C
BB v<-1700.0 100.0 14.0 Wilson C..
BC K 1000 :o 13 .0 16 .0 Nash C..
9A
9B
l0A
lOB~-
l0C
llA
<l Wilson
<l Wilson
680.0 46.0 L2 Nash C
58. 0 <l <l . Nash C.
560.0 25.0 1.2 Nash C.. ·
130.0 4.8 1.2 Wake F
1,r llB -79. 0 1. 2 1. 0 Nash 1> .
t ).J...-llC ~
12A
12B
13A
13B lX
13C ~-
14A
14B ~
14C
2.-¥' 15A
15Al 7
15Bl7
15Cl7
Z..1 15Dl 7
15Al8
15Bl8 K
15Cl8
15Dl8
• 30
110.0 1.6 <1 Frankl inf
(1 Franklin
<l Wake
2500.0 210.0 3.4 Warren P
160.0 1.9 <l Franklin fp
2100. 0 41. 0 1. 5 Frankl in
91.0 <l <l Franklin f
240. 0 (1 <I Frankl in f
42. 0 (1 (1 Warren
120.0 1.6 (1 Halifax f
16 . 0 5 . 5 3 . 8 Hali fax t
7 .0 1.0 1.0 Halifax r
-1.4 1.0 1.0 Halifax /J
76.0 1.0 1.0 Halifax ?
13.0 ~1 (1
190.0 4.4 20.0
1.3 <I <1
5.3 <l <I
-11-
·Halifax
Halifax fl
Halifax
Halifax
I
2
3
'f
.5
8
/0 ,,
13
/9--IS
•. . .. . ...
TABLE 1. (continued)
Depth of Soil .Layers Tested
Site No.
'11 NC-00 7*-lnlr
A-tk .I , Ji.-NC-013 .,.---
3} NC-014
1+. • it N.C-015 ±_ K
15" NC-016 ,X
C. , H NC-017 II .✓
c.S • p NC-018 \I ~
)1' NC-019 'r!. .,>('
f 7 • JI/ NC-201 :;
4-NC-202
4-1 NC-203
~3 • 4-L NC-204 3 IX
4-,:> NC-205
1
4-f'~.:2:~-·-·--·--·-·
K ··· -NC·'"2UP:.:::ci1i,)<
• 4-r., NC-208 3-
17 NC-209
11 • 4::!::_Nc-210
NC-211
L.. • ~ NC-212
I .5
13
NC-215
NC-216
NC-217 l< f
NC-218 -~-&)(
l'f , .1,-NC-219 i
~J NC-241
✓~ NC-249 ./
1. 7 • Si NC-253 · .3 V'\ .sr· ~!EH ·-,.-~~---
2.-l. ,
0 -1/2"
5,200*
4,100
3,800
600
12,000
9,000
14,000
8,800
2,400
10,400
4,500
2,200
4,900
··-·. -~~,80
·· --U -,400
11,900
11, 700
610
(40
2,400
4,300
1,900
530
2,700
3,600
6,300
10,000
5,400
66, 208._
* Results in ppm Aroclor-1260
County
Franklin f
Granville P
Granville p
Person f
· Wake P
Nash ·p
· Franklin f
Nash f
Johnston f
Johnston C
Harnett C-
Harnett C.
Harnett C.
:::z::wc r -r p GI 9 I I I
Chatham
Chatham
Chat-ham
Chatham
Alamance
Warren P
· Hali fax P
Hali fax fl
Wilson C
Edgecombe C..
Chatham f'
Chatham P
Harnett C.
I
** Samples from sites lA-15D18 collected and analyzed by North
Carolina State investigat~rs.
*** Samples from sites NC-007-NC-262 collected and analyzed by EPA-SAD
investigators.
No data available.
-12-
PROJECT SAFETY PLAN
FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE
NORTH CAROLINA PCB SPILL SITE
The purpose of the project safety plan is to provide adequate health and
safety protection for the workers involved in the pick-up and deposition of PCB
contaminated materials . It is not felt that any special precautions will be
necessary to protect the general public except to keep them away from the
operational areas .
Since the PCBs have lain on the roadside for over three years it can be
assumed that they have assimilated to the available soil particles and activ~ted
charcoal applied for just such a purpose . The containment of the PCB materials
depends upon controlling the bulk soils to be picked up and fugitive dust. Air
quality studies conducted by the State during a trial roadside pick-up indicai:eu
that fugitive airborn PCB particles were far below r ecommended NIOSH standards
providing that dust suppression measures, as outlined in the remedial response
plan, were followed. It is concluded then that respiratory equipment will not
be necessary for the DOT roadside clean-up crews.
It is suggested by Ralph Jennings (Head, Toxic Substances Section, EPA
Region IV) that the roadside pick-up crews (excluding truck drivers) be provided
with booties and coveralls during the operation. This protective clothing should
not be taken home but kept for use the following day at a secure location. At
the end of the clean-up the clothing .should be deposited in the PCB landfill.
Fugitive PCB airborne levels at the disposal site can only be speculated
upon but it can be assumed that they would be appreciably higher than those
measured at the roadside pick-up trial. Article 61 (Safety Regulations) of the
contract document for the construction of the PCB waste disposal site specifies
that the contractor 'sha 11 adhere to the rules, regulations, and interpretations
of the N. C. Department of Labor relating to Occupational Safety and Health
. . ' -2-
Standards for the Construction Industry (Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations,
1926, published in Volume 39, Number 122, Part II, June 24, 1974 Federal Register)
which are hereby incorporated in these requirements." It is the contractor's
responsibility to see that his labor force is adequately protected. It is
conceivable that respiratory equipment as well as protective clothing may be
necessary at or in the landfill depending upon dust levels during the actual
disposal operation. Any State employee located at the landfill during the
disposal operation should have comparable protection .
An effort should be made to inform all workers the circumstances under which
they are to work. This should include the potential risks involved if any, and
the fact that steps have been taken to minimize all risks as much as possible.
Any worker with a skin rash should be excluded from the clean-up operation.
This is to avoid confusion if symptoms of PCB contamination (skin rashes) do
occur foll owing the completion of the project.
Decontamination of equipment and vehicles will not be necessary.
l
.
+..-~~'}:J_
UL1 '' .
' .·~ ~· I
..
\
' '
>!:.~ ..
' ' '< -~ ..
: ----~-.u•~ _'r\ · CHATHA ✓ ---EE CO.
'
t
J1 l .L•
_ .... ,/.
"'· --
4
,. .. ~'
.. ·•"'
: I . 1/i(
I ~
iijt" -....:...
, .
' . ·.-~
., .,,, ..... "I
,_,,,.ii ;:::-:.
~-/ / -
. ~ ----~
\
\
~\;--
y~ . ,,
::!.£9~ ·;·· .
)-.
' '
--------:
. \ ., '.'.\.
11,-n'C'~
, :: . ·1 ;"1·03
AM ' . ,,
r 1 ,,
~
" -._-::
l!il.
;_~
r
'~, 1 -'<!..--.;._
. -
Uli'
,~, ~
.,.------.
'~
..,
i
~ ----~
El !.J.U 't-,:.::_; / '-:-, "' .... ,,,,,, .... ' Oi • '
.!.Lil
LIU
IJJ
Z1
f"':""'?---...-'!.:10~---.·. "-:.. ~ ~fJ~ ~ -,,-.
~
:-----,...__.,,,
" ... .
,,
·o C-
..... ~
' , \ ..,....-:::
: ., . .., ·•~
P , ''\ II .,..--'J:1,,,-~-
,:
,
/ n-
' (
' .. ,
~ \ ·;
• 0 :r. " }Yv ··~ . .;,1 ' ;/?;,'/--'\ 1;,;; . ·,_ . t T·-..... _ .J
/j'/ . . ,y I
-_;, • (:· #'
/
--,
" .. ~·/ ... \,, ; ""'(' .· -.. , .....
I· I
.... . . . ...
. ;_ ;:--:-,.;.
.1-'C.."" : ,· ~~ : . \.,, -' __,,,..
>
--:: -~-~ ~:..,,. .. """'-':"",-~=-;_.-.v' :-:-,.. -.. --: i ~
" .
~
t,:~ -b -~ l_
• ....,;_.-.,k , ~ , 1 r-.:'I -
o,,,,.&o ..
--.._,'
) ;,. ,, ..
~-.,I .
'.i
i
\ --
.!.
/
.;...Cl.
' ~--; .j -:__,,,'---:.; ~-i. r~ ~ -r·------~; .,..
.....
' (
11
,.J ...
---&
-.a /~,.p-!..~ ~ -~ e,..;;
-
"" -~~
No.'\~,/
},•
-··---,,...., . ...., ~ : J ,
--
!.l5!l '.llt
.l '..l.li
, ,
"<=-..
I
-□ ~ ,-
-
c..-
.l.!,!.I.
, ... .!.!l!
--;..'Sy,.~/ ~~r;~c;
. ~\\.-':,., f--·, I.AN" ,,,_ . ' !J,l,J..,,, · ·-
'Jll.,.
' "
-~. . ~---::-s ; I,----.;~
i;_f'·
-----._; /tfOO
'oo. ,/ 1.J •
~ '
.
SAMPLE A . tJ.11.,\.(/,o,k
L .. ~", n ··t
~ ~ .IJoll. ·-· "~ .... ·.;: :: ~-~-... ~ ~ ·-·
~ ..
!!!l
-
' . J
'
~ '\mt
~, \
,t:..LJ.J
~ , ... "~,.
\/ ;
E A(l6)
';J r::--, -"' "11(.L!Jt. l.!.JI dH"'·· -;
. • q '1 \111
•
APPENDIX C
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
OF SPILL AREAS IN NORTH CAROLINA
C-1
Mammals
Cougar, eastern (Felis concolor cougar)
Endangered, North, East
Birds
Eagle, bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Endangered, entire state
Warbler, Kirtlands's (Dendroica kirtlandii)
Endangered, North
Woodpecker, red-cockaded (Picoides
Reptiles
Alligator, amer1can
(=Dendrocopos) borealis) Endangered,
entire state
(Alligator Mississippiensis)
Threatened, inland Coastal Plain
c-2