The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCD980602163_19841212_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Final Report and Recommendation of Intergovernmental Working Group on PCB Detoxification - Conclusions and Recommendations-OCR' • Raleigh S4£.c. A-~t> NA p ✓ ~po~L,e~~ FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON PCB DETOXIFICATION UoA..CLLl~10AJS \ ~01\\W\ -r..~u~\'\~S <i...~closw to THE HONORABLE JAMES B. HUNT, JR. Governor of North Carolina December 12, 1984 DANIEL A. OKUN Chairman ' ' ... ·-·· ·----. ------·-------......, . .,_,__-~ .......... a,. .• ;• ... -~·· _, ....... _ _._ ....... _ •• -13 - Conclusions 1) The Warren County PCB landfill is a state-of-the-art, high-security landfill which exceeds the design requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 2) Monitoring reveals that PCBs are being contained within the landfill, and there is no known discernible threat to the health or environment in the community. 3) Microbial or chemical processes appropriate for detoxi- fying the contaminated soil in the Warren County landfill have yet to be demonstrated. Even if such methods were feasible, not enough is known to assess potential health hazards associated with the agents, reagents and/or solvents used in the processes or with the degradation products evolving from treatment of the PCBs. 4) Thermal destruction may be possible, but given the nature of the contaminated soil, the massive earth movement required, as well as the risk involved in keeping the landfill open for an extended period, it would entail greater risks than maintaining the landfill in its present state. In addition, the cost of thermal destruction would be exceedingly high. 5) While the landfill was very well designed and constructed, proper maintenance is exceedingly important. The hallmark of a successful landfill is a sound monitoring and maintenance program. 6) While monitoring results are made public, there is inadequate perception among the people in Warren County about the nature of the landfill and the measures that are being taken to i~sure its integrity. Recommendations In light of the findings, the following recommendations are made: 1. The Warren County PCB landfill should not be disturbed at this time. -14 - 2. The program for the routine maintenance of the landfill should continue with the responsibility being clearly set forth both in the record and in public. 3. Regular monitoring of the site should continue. Monitoring of private wells in the area should be initiated. No fewer than 25% of the private operating wells within a l½-mile radius of the landfill should be monitored at least once every four years. The monitoring of the landfill should include structural monitoring to detect subsidence. 4. A contingency plan should be prepared in the event of damage to the landfill or evidence of PCB leakage. This con- tingency plan should establish responsibility for corrective action, sources of funding for such corrective action, and who would be responsible for compensatio~ to injured parties in the vicinity. This contingency plan should be updated periodically. 5. The necessary funding and supporting statutory authority should be provided, if not already in place, to implement Recommendations 2, 3 and 4. 6. This ad hoc Working Group should be dissolved, but a mechanism should be established within state govenunent to continue surveillance of developments in PCB detoxification, with repre- sentation from the appropriate state agencies as well as liaison with EPA, Warren County and the research community. Finally the Working Group appreciates the level of concern extended to this problem by the Governor and State agencies and of the support given to the Group in exercising its responsi- bilities. Particular thanks go to Robert Jansen, Senior Policy Advisor to ~he Governor, for his concern and assistance. Also, William L. Meyer is recognized for his service as rapporteur. I • (2) 1984 Task Force Recommendations and Implementation of Recommendations (a) October 20, 1982 open letter from Gov. Hunt to Otizens of Warren County. (1) October 27, 1982 meeting to discuss safety features of landfill (meeting held) (2) Establish landfill detoxification work group. (Appointed group and met nine times from January 1983 and adopted "Final Report and Recommendations of the Intergovernmental Work Group on PCB Detoxification" in December 1984.) (3) State will maintain monitoring of landfill and private water supply wells within a three mile radius of landfill, streams and creeks. (Have monitored landfill, groundwater and surface water every year since 1983 and sampled 55 private wells in 1983. Note: The Governor's letter of October 20, 1982. Did not state emergency of monitoring.) ( 4) The State will cooperate with county Health Director to provide environmental & health monitoring for persons living near Landfill. County & State Health Director to develop a monitoring program to guarantee health of citizens in Area protected. (Program includes site monitoring, private well monitoring, blood samples for background analysis and response to complaints concerning health issues. Note: More than 50 blood samples are in lab but never analyzed.) (5) Funding and statutory authority to implement recommendations 2,3, and 4. (no specific funding identified, no clear line of responsibility and no funding to provide for the current maintenance of the landfill.) (6) Establish mechanism within state government to continue surveillance of developments in PCB detoxification--group to consist of state agencies, EPA, Warren County and research community. (No formal group established, however, to the division's knowledge, no new detoxication techniques have been developed for safe detoxification of the PCB landfill. b. 1984 PCB Task Force Recommendations Recommendations (1) PCB landfill should not be disturbed at this time. Landfill has not been disturbed. (2) Program for routine maintenance should continue with the responsibility being clearly set forth both in the record and in public. '.. (3) Regular monitoring of site should continue (monitoring has continued). Monitor 25 percent of residential wells within 11/2 mile radius at least once every four years. (monitored once in 1983, no monitoring since that time, however, the landfill is not leaking and off site wells could not be contaminated. Monitoring of landfills for subsidence (established bench marks for subsidence measurements) ( 4) Contingency plan for damage to the landfill or leakage ( no contingency plan developed, EPA as owner is responsible for any corrective action, no sources of funding for any corrective action, identified, no responsibility for injured parties identified, however, there is an expressed need for "contingency" if something does occur for example the current need to remove the rainwater, even this could be viewed as routine rather than "contingency measures". A contingency plan with funding would provide assurances that problems could be corrected in a timely manner. (5) Legislation to prohibit additional waste from going to PCB landfill and the state from placing and then landfill in Warren County. (a) Permit prohibits other waste from going to PCB landfill. (b) Senator Frank Bullock introduced bill and the Governor supported bill that passed in 1983 GS 130A-294(c)(8) the Commission shall adopt --rules concerning the management of hazardous waste --and shall provide for: location, design, ownership and construction of hazardous waste facilities; provided, however, that no hazardous waste disposal facility or PCB disposal facility shall be located within 25 miles of any other hazardous waste disposal facility or PCB disposal facility. (6) Department of Commerce to make special efforts to attract industry and encourage businesses and industry to visit the county. (Not sure if this effort is continuing). 3. If the oversight group had been formed, what would it have done? Could its actions have affected the situation? (The oversight group could have served to advocate for the commitments made by the Governor and the task force including addressing removal of rainwater, funding, identifying specific roles, formally addressing the detoxification issues, advise on health and environmental monitoring and address other citizen concerns.) 4. If continuous maintenance had been done, how would thing be differentf (The removal of rainwater would have been accomplished years ago, all other repairs and maintenance would have occurred in a more timely manner. We would have had the opportunity to make the landfill safer with a more timely response.) 5. How did the water get into the landfill? (Two major rainfall events occurred while the landfill was being filled and before the final cap was placed over the site. 500,000 to one million gallons of water was introduced by the rainfall events). .. Is there something we could have done to prevent it? (No.) Why didn't we remove the water before it was capped? (The rainwater soaked into the soil, similar to a sponge, and was tied up int eh soil mass. With time, the water drained by gravity to the bottom of the landfill. There was no liquid to remove until the rainwater filtered to the bottom. The landfill did not have liquid to pump until sometime after it closed.)