Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD980602163_19841212_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Final Report and Recommendation of Intergovernmental Working Group on PCB Detoxification-OCRFINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON PCB DETOXIFICATION to THE HONORABLE JAMES B. HUNT, JR. Governor of North Carolina Raleigh December 12, 1984 \ DANIEL A. OKUN Chairman MEMBERS Dr. Daniel A. Okun Dr. Robert A. Neal Dr. Robert G. Lewis Dr. Linda Little Mr. William W. Phillips, Jr. Mr. o. w. Strickland Mr. Robert Jansen Mr. George E. Shearin Mrs. Joyce Lubbers Rev. Luther G. Brown Rev. J. Clinton McCann, Jr. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public concern with the establishment of a landfill in Warren County for the storage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated soil removed from North Carolina roadways led Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. to commit the state to pursue a program of detoxification of the facility. To this end, he established an Intergovernmental Working Group on PCB Detoxifi- cation. This report constitutes the findings of the Group. Technologies developed up to now for detoxifying PCBs are directed towards the treatment of material in a relatively "pure" state. The only EPA-approved method today is incineration, but this is not feasible for the massive volume of essentially non- combustible material in the landfill. The biological and chemical methods under study today are.not yet proven. The most promising method for the landfill involves treatment of the PCB-laden material with a proprietary solvent and reagent in large reactors with ultimate decontamination by biological treatment or distilla- tion. The effectiveness of this approach is not yet demonstrated, the costs are uncertain but certainly considerable, and the h.ealth hazards associated with toxicity of the by-products of the process raise further serious questions as to its feasibility. Current methods of detoxification, even at the experimental pilot~plant stage, require destroying the integrity and security of the landfill. Given that the existing landfill is protective of the environment, .as revealed by monitoring, the exposure and risks involved in detoxification are not now warranted. The Group recommends that the landfill should not now be disturbed. The Group believes strongly that a thorough and con- tinuous program of monitoring of the environment in the vicinity of the landfill and proper maintenance of the landfill should be given adequate funding and strong institutional support by the state. In addition, a contingency plan should be available in the event of any threatening occurrence. Lastly, the state should maintain surveillance of technology in PCB detoxification so as to be alert to new developments that might be appropriate to the Warren County landfill in the future. .. REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON PCB DETOXIFICATION In the summer of 1978, the first reports of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) spills along North Carolina highways were received by the State. Discovery was initially made along N.C. Highway 58 in Warren County. Subsequently, evidence of such spills was found on roadway shoulders of fourteen counties in North Carolina and the military reservation at Fort Bragg involving more than 240 miles of secondary roads. Almost immediately the N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) applied a mixture of activated carbon and liquid asphalt to contaminated areas as a temporary measure to prevent migration of the PCB and to reduce hazards to the public. Following exami- nation of the contaminated samples, state officials and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the only viable solution available at that time was the removal of the material and its storage. In June, 1979, EPA approved a tract of land in Warren County as the disposal site for the PCB- contaminated soil. Several court actions were filed by local officials and private citizens to review these decisions. The U.S. District Court enjoined the state from further action pending a full hearing. In the meanwhile, the State attempted to have federal regulations amended to allow for treatment of the contaminated material in place. These efforts were not successful and the only disposal of the waste authorized by EPA was by incineration or storage. In November, 1981, all legal cases were dismissed by the Court and in January, 1982, the appeals were dismissed. In May, 1982, state and federal officials signed a cooperative agreement for the removal of the PCB contaminated soil and - 2 - storage landfill, which was largely paid for with funds provided to the State under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act of 1980 (CERCLA or "Superfund"). This removal was completed in October and the landfill was closed in November, 1982. A chronology of the events associated with the landfill is_ included as Appendix A. In October, 1982, Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. met with residents of Warren County who expressed concerns about the project. In an Open Letter issued two weeks later, he made a series of commitments, among which were: that no other wastes would be stored at the site; that no other landfill would be built in the county by the state; that certain monitoring would be conducted and the results made public. One of the commitments was: "The State will push as hard as it can for detoxification of the landfill when and if the appropriate and feasible technology is developed. We will seek to establish a joint local-state-federal working group to pursue this end." In fulfillment of this commitment, the Intergovernmental Working Group on PCB Detoxification was organized. Nominations to the Working Group were made by local, state and federal officials, and representation from among these constitute the Group membership. Toe Group met nine times beginning in June, 1983, and adopted this report at the final meeting in December, 1984. Members of the Working Group and their affiliations are listed in Appendix B. Generally meetings were held in state offices in Raleigh; although one meeting which included a visit to the site, was held in Warrenton and another was held at EPA offices in Research Triangle Park. A listing of dates and locations of meetings is appended to the report (Appendix C). Toe meetings were open to the public. Toe proceedings of the meetings were summarized and are on file in the Governor's Office. - 3 - The Working Group Process The first meeting was an orientation session. Dr. Linda Little, executive director of the Governor's Waste Management Board and a member of the Working Group, presented a report on the nature of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); what they are, where they originate, and their properties, including particularly the health and environmental significance of these contaminants. Mr. William W. Phillips, Jr., project director for the PCB cleanup operation and a member of the group, described the Warren County PCB landfill, the nature of its construction, and the monitoring procedures. A special presentation was made by Dr. Gary Sayler of the University of Tennessee, a director of an EPA-sponsored study on microbial detoxification of PCBs. He described research on microbial decomposition of PCBs and provided a basis on which the Group could evaluate subsequent presentations. The Working Group agreed to invite all individuals and organizations, both public and private, who indicated they had information of significance to appear before the Group. In particular, invitations were extended to organizations with experience in developing and applying PCB detoxification technology; to engineers employing such practices in real situations; and, also, to others whom Group members identified as having something to contribute. A list of all of those who made formal presentations and their affiliations is appended to this report (Appendix D). The Governor's Office met the expenses of all individuals who expressed an interest in making a pre- sentation, whether that interest was elicited by the Governor's Office or the Group, or was initiated by the individual or his organization. Repeatedly the Working Group was connn.ended by those who participated in later stages of the study for having conducted possibly the most exhaustive review of the status of PCB detoxification technology currently available. - 4 - Unfortunately, as is described later in the report, the Working Group found that most of the technology has been devel- oped for detoxification of PCBs in a relatively "pure" state. The PCBs in the Warren County landfill are heterogeneously mixed with soils of various types and fixed in varying degrees to the activated carbon and asphalt applied to the road shoulders before removal of the material. A second important complicating factor in evaluating the technologies offered to the Group was that most of the investigations now under way are directed to materials that are currently presenting a significant environmental and health -hazard due to their being open to the environment. In the case of the Warren County landfill, the material is not exposed and most of the technologies offered require exposing it for the purpose of detoxification. · The Warren County Landfill The Warren County landfill, a cross-sectional diagram of which is attached to this report (Appendix E), contains about 40,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated by PCBs associated with activated carbon, asphalt, and other impurities inevitably found on roadway shoulders. Analyses made by the State of six core samples taken prior to covering the landfill showed the concen- tration of PCBs to range from 46 to 200 ppm, averaging about 135 ppm. The PCBs in the landfill consist of about 80% Aro- clor 1260 and 20% Aroclor 1242. The average chlorine contents of these PCBs are 6.3 and 3.1 chlorine atoms per molecule, respectively. (The difficulty in degrading Aroclor is a function of the chlorine content: those with higher chlorine content are more difficult to decompose.) ThePCBs in the landfill are in an anaerobic (airless) state because the landfill seal prevents replenishment of the oxygen used by microorganisms in the landfill. Determination of the precise condition of the PCBs and associated soil materials is impossible without violating the integrity of the landfill. However, it can be assumed that, - 5 - although all drainable water has been removed from the landfill, the content of "held" water is relatively high because evaporation cannot take place. Detoxification Technologies Currently incineration is the only method generally approved by EPA for treatment of materials containing more than 50 ppm of PCBs. Incineration of the 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil in the landfill, given that most of the material in the fill is not combustible, would involve a mammoth earth moving project that would be highly impractical in this particular application. Microbial degradation methods have drawn considerable attention but the methods studied have been exclusively aerobic. Far less is known concerning PCB degradation by anaerobic bacteria. Several chemical methods have been approved by one or more of the regional offices of EPA for PCBs in oil and other non-aqueous liquids. These generally involve dechlorination which requires that the moisture content be low. Incidentally, all EPA approved processes are for closed systems where batches of the contaminated material are treated. No definitive laboratory or field work studies supporting any treatment in the open have been presented to EPA. Also, PCBs may be destroyed by ultraviolet rad-iation, but this requires that the PCBs be dissolved in liquids that permit penetration of the ultraviolet light. Therefore, this process would not be feasible for contaminated soils. As listed in the annex to this report (Appendix D), the following organizations made presentations regarding their pro- posed technology for destroying PCBs: PPM, Inc.; Bioteknika International, Inc.; Genex Corporation; Atlantic Research Corporation; Sybron; and Galson Research Corporation and Polybac Corporation, jointly. Of these, only the Galson/Polybac proposal was supported by actual field data on treatment of PCB contaminated - 6 - soil. Their approach involves an initial chemical dechlorination procedure using a proprietary sodium based reagent system, followed by aerobic microbial treatment for final cleanup. Currently EPA is evaluating the Galson/Polybac process. Inasmuch as the Galson/Polybac approach is, if it should prove successful, one of the most likely to be appropriate, some description of the process is warranted here. For the Warren County storage facility, the entire landfill would need to be excavated at a rate so as to be treated in three reactors of 18 cubic yard capacity, each operating on a 24-hour basis for about 14 months. The reactors, built on the order of cement mixers, would bring the solvent in contact with the contaminated soil and the reagent. The composition of the solvent and reagent is known only to two members of the grou~, Drs. Lewis and Neal, under a confidentiality agreement with the proprietary owners of the solvent. The solvent itsel_f, after agitation with the soil, would be reclaimed by distillation, and the wastewater would be decontaminated by centrifugation followed by biological treatment or distillation. The chemically treated soil would be returned to the landfill after further biological treatment. Many questions remain unanswered regarding the exact procedures so that even an approximate estimate of the cost cannot be made. The Galson/Polybac r~presentative suggested a range from as little as $2 million up to as much as $12 million. In any event, before such a connnitment could be made, laboratory and pilot scale tests would be required. In order for such tests to be undertaken at the Warren County facility, the landfill would need to be opened to extract a reasonably representative and adequate sample of the soil contained therein for study. The promise of this process is further placed into question by the field trials conducted for EPA by Galson on PCB contaminated soils. The results were inconclusive, with soil moisture content apparently a complicating factor. The process would appear to work on soil with up to 15% moisture content~ however, the soil - 7 - in the Warren County landfill is estimated to contain about 30% moisture. Another complicating factor in all the evaluations is the uncertain toxicity of the chemicals used for treatment and more especially the chemical by-products of the decomposition of the PCBs. Based upon experience with other synthetic chlorinated hydrocarbons, it is not unreasonable to expect that some of the degradation products may be as toxic or even more toxic that the original contaminants. Another process with possible promise, not reviewed by the Working Group, is a reductive thermolysis method developed by Huber Corporation, in which the contaminated soil is fed through a reaction chamber at 4000° to 5000° Funder a nitrogen blanket. The PCBs are vaporized from the soil and innnediately reduced to carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine or hydrogen chloride. The soil, which is converted to spherical glass beads in the. reactor, is collected in a hopper. The gases are passed through an elaborate system of cyclones, activated charcoal filters, and liquid scrubbers. In EPA authorized tests, sand dosed with 3000 ppm of Aroclor 1260 was fed at 60 lbs/minute through the reactor with almost total destruction efficiency. While this process looks promising, the existing unit would require three years or more to process the soil in the landfill and the cost, not including the construction of the unit, would probably be over $8 million. In summary then, several processes are emerging, some of which may eventually be applicable to the contaminated soil in the Warren County landfill. However, all of these processes presently suffer from one or more of the following difficulties: 1) They require violation of the landfill, generally over long periods of time, so that exposure of the population to the PCBs in the landfill may be greater over the period of detoxifi- cation than over the lifetime of the PCBs in the undisturbed landfill. - 8 - 2) Some of the methods require the use of chemicals, the toxicity of which is currently unknown in the amounts required. 3) In the event that degradation is not complete, a very likely situation in most such treatment processes, uncertainties regarding the toxicity of the degradation products would require extensive studies on a laboratory, pilot, or field basis to examine these by-products for their toxicity before a large project is initiated. 4) The disruption in the comm.unity from these detoxifica- tion methods would be great. Gaseous emissions, noise, heavy traffic, and possible contamination of nearby waters from operations around the landfill are likely. 5) All of the methods would be very costly, probably far more costly than presently anticipated. The situation was best summed up by Dr. Paul Busch of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. a consulting engineer with extensive experi- ence in disposal of PCB-laden· soils. Consulting engineers could see the potential for profitable work for themselves in such detoxification projects. Nevertheless, Dr. Busch and his associate recommended against any detoxification of the Warren County landfill at this time, based upon his firm's estimates of the costs and the local situation. The firm estimated that chemical treatment would cost $8-14 million and take one to two years. Excavation, transportation, and incineration at a commercial site would require $85 million and four to five years; on-site incineration, $6.4 million and three years; and excava- tion, transportation to and landfilling at the Chemical Waste Management Alabama facility, even if feasible, would cost $8- 10 million. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. does not believe technology for in situ decontamination of the landfill currently is available. Dr. Busch concluded that the Warren County landfill is a well-designed, secure landfill and recommended that, based upon our present knowledge, a commitment be made to maintenance - 9 - and monitoring and the preparation of a contingency plan to deal with any unexpected problems. Finally, he recommended that periodic reviews of applicable detoxification technologies be conducted. From a broad, long range perspective, there are many PCB problems in the United States far more hazardous than that posed by the Warren County landfill. These require urgent attack because exposure is a current problem. Experience in dealing with these may yield solutions or improvements on existing methods that might, in time, be valuable for application in Warren County. Moreover, it is not inappropriate that the burden of such inves- tigations be undertaken by EPA and by those who are required to deal with these hazardous situations. From a specific and immediate perspective, it is incumbent upon the State to continue reviewing technology as it develops. Of equal importance, it must be aware of emerging engineering applications, because it is at that stage that the data obtained can be translated for possible application in Warren County. Conducting pilot studies at the Warren County landfill would be more attractive if it 'll{ere unlikely that similar studies would · be conducted elsewhere. The major concern with such a study at the facility is that the landfill would need to be opened in order to obtain meaningful results. Furthermore, to get repre- sentative material from the fill, samples would need to be taken from several different points in the landfill. The appropriate time to undertake such pilot studies would occur after others facing far more serious problems have conducted pilot studies leading to full scale engineering appliations of detoxification on a scale similar to that needed for the Warren County landfill. When such technology is at hand, it would be appropriate to initiate pilot studies with specific application to the Warren County landfill detoxification. -10 - Maintenance of the Warren County Landfill Although landfill maintenance was not a charge of the Working Group, the integrity of the landfill is a baseline against which detoxification technologies must be measured. For example, if the landfill were found to be leaking PCBs into the local aquifer, thereby threatening local water supplies, a technology not yet fully proven would be far more attractive in dealing with the emergency than where the landfill is known to be secure. Accord- ingly, our conclusions that technologies are not yet available to be applied to detoxifying this facility are based upon the landfill being of sound construction, adequately containing the PCBs, and promising to do so for a long period in the future, hopefully at least until such time as a technology suitable for detoxification does become available to those who currently have a far more urgent need for that technology. The Group is interested in the maintenance program for the landfill. A presentation was made to the Group by representatives of the N.C. Department of Transportation, which is responsible for its maintenance. The following measures are currently being taken: * The District Engineer and the Warren County Maintenance Supervisor are authorized to perform routine maintenance work on the landfill. * The District Engineer or Maintenance Supervisor makes monthly inspections of erosion protection, burrowing animals, surface subsidence, and other observable conditions. * Seeding and fertilization are done semi-annually for two years. * After the initial two years, applications of fertilizer, top dressing, and seeding for cover maintenance will be made annually. * Mowing is done twice a year to a six-inch height to preclude woody growth. * The fence perimeter will be treated for vegetation control. -11 - * The access road will be maintained annually, ensuring a ten-inch stone surface with proper drainage and proper vegetation control. All of these procedures are to be implemented along with routine maintenance. Monitoring of the Warren County Landfill The design and maintenance of the PCB landfill required the installation of four groundwater monitoring wells, one on each side of the landfill, and four stream monitoring stations, two upstream and two downstream from the site. In addition to systems for monitoring the area innnediately around the landfill, there are two monitoring systems within the landfill. These include a leachate collection system above the landfill liners and a collection system below the liners. The purpose of the monitoring system is to detect, at the earliest possible moment, any potential impact on public health by migration of PCBs within the landfill or through environmental pathways external to the landfill. The Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, has been charged with the responsibility of monitoring the PCB landfill. The Division of Health Services sampled the groundwater monitoring wells and surface waste monitoring points prior to any PCBs being delivered to the landfill. Thirty-six private water supply wells within a one and one-half mile radius of the landfill were sampled at the request of the Warren County Health Department. None of the samples indicated the presence of PCB at a 0.1 part per billion detection level. These data, along with approximately 100 blood samples obtained for PCB analysis from Warren County citizens, form an accurate basis for comparison of future samples and for the determination of potential public health or environmental impacts from the PCB landfill. -12 - After background data were obtained, the Division of Health Services has continued to sample the groundwater monitoring wells and stream monitoring points two times per year and the leachate collection systems within the landfill on a monthly basis. The groundwater and stream samples have indicated no PCB contamination. Some rainwater that infiltrated the PCB contaminated soil prior to placement of the final cap on the landfill had been collected in the leachate collection system. This water was removed on 37 occasions since the closure of the landfill, treated by the on-site filtration and carbon adsorption wastewater treatment system and used for irrigation on the landfill surface. Since March of 1983, no PCBs (at the 0.1 ppb detection level) have been detected in the treated wastewater. No water has ever been de- tected in the lower leachate system. This demonstrates that the liner systems are intact and not leaking. All of these data indicate that there is no public health or environmental impact from the PCB landfill. Sampling locations and analytical data are attached as Appendix F. Role of U.S. Envirotllilental Protection Agency The EPA expects the State to maintain the facility, conduct the routine monitoring of water, and maintain security. It can be assumed that if PCBs are detected in any of the monitoring wells, or if anything else portends difficulty, EPA will parti- cipate in correction. It was reported to the Group that EPA is developing a plan for "second phase" management of cleanup facilities but this program is at least several years away. Under present policies, EPA will not permit funds for secondary treat- ment of wastes; (i.e. retreatment of waste which had been satisfactorily handled under the "Superfund" program) provided the best proven disposal technology was used and there is no problem with it. -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 insure 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. 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. No 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 compensation 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 government 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 the Governor, for his concern and assistance. Also, William L. Meyer is recognized for his service as rapporteur. ANNEX TO THE REPORT Appendix A Chronology Appendix B Membership Appendix C Schedule of Meetings Appendix D Presenters Appendix E Cross Sectional Diagram of Landfill Appendix F Analytical Data and Sampling Locations July .1978 July 30 Augu$t .1978 August 2-5 August 10 August 15 August 18 September .· 1973 September 6-19 Oc.toberl978 October 5 ·November ·1973 November 6 APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY First report of a chemical spill which was later identified as PCB on N.C. 58 in Warren County. PCB located along roadsides in several other North Carolina counties including Johnston, Alamance, and Chatham. · Conference held with representatives of the Department of Human Resources, Department of Agriculture, Attorney General's Office, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and the news media to discuss the PCB dumpings. Activated charcoal solution and liquid asphalt applied along 210 miles of North Carolina highways where shoulders had been contaminated by PCB. This action was taken at the recom- mendation of specialists at North Carolina State University, who submitted a plan for temporarily deactivating the PCB to prevent migration and to reduce any hazard to the public. The N.C. Department of Transportation began applying a solution of activated carbon and liquid asphalt to the 210 miles of contaminated roadside. Tests conducted along uncontaminated road shoulders to determine the safety and effectiveness of equipment to be used in picking up the PCB. Test conducted along a contaminated road shoulder on Highway 58 in Warren County. Test results of the pick-up of contaminated soil along the roadside in Warren County show that the contaminated soil can be picked up and treated without harming the environ- ment or personnel involved. December 1978 December 1 December 12 January ·1979 January 4 · January 17 February 1979 February 2 June 1979 June 4 June 4 June 6 August 1979 August 16 Sept -Dec 1979 July -Aug 1979 SeEtember . 1980 September 12 - 2 - The state obtained an option on 142 acres of land in Warren County to be used to dispose of the contaminated soil that would be picked up along the roadsides in 14 North Carolina counties •. Application· filed with the EPA for approval of the Warren County site as a disposal area for the PCB contaminated soil. Public hearing on the Warren County site conducted in Warrenton National Guard Armory. Robert Burns and sons pleaded guilty to a violation of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Burns received an active jail sentence and his sons were placed on probation. North Ca~olina petitions EPA to modify its regulations to permit alternative methods of disposal of PCB contaminated soil and debris (i.e. in-place treatment). EPA denies North Carolina's petition. EPA's Region IV administrator approved Warren County site, and the state's application to construct a PCB landfill there. Robert Burns and sons plead guilty to state charges surrounding the PCB dumping in Halifax County Superior Court. Burns later received an active jail sentence and his sons were placed on probation. Buck Ward was found not guilty on state charges. Suit filed by Warren County. Draft EIS prepared, filed on December 28, 1979. Comments received on EIS. Engineering consultant firms were interviewed by the state and a recommendation was made to the Capital Building Authority for selection May 1981 May 22 November ·l981 November 25 May .-1982 May 13 May 26 May 26 June 1982 June 21 ·July 1982 July 2 Atigust .1982 . August 4 August 10 - 3 - of a firm to develop plans for a PCB landfill in Warren County. Buck Ward tried and found guilty of a viola- tion of the federal Toxic.Substance Control Act. He received an active jail sentence and a $200,000 fine. Judge Earl W. Britt grants sunnnary judgment in favor of state and EPA in Warren County and Twitty suits, resolving legal obstacles delaying constructing of landfill. Appeals taken in both cases. Contract for construction of the PCB landfill awarded by the Capital Building Authority pending the approval of federal "Superfund" money to fund the PCB cleanup project. The contract was awarded to the low bidder, Jim Lineberger Grading and Paving Company of Gastonia. North Carolina and EPA officials announced the signing of a cooperative agreement which provided $2.5 million in federal "Superfund" money to construct a PCB landfill in Warren County, and to clean up the PCB contaminated soil along 210 miles of North Carolina roadsides. 120 acres surrounding the landfill site deeded by state to Warren County as buffer zone. Voluntary dismissal taken by Warren County in suit on appeal. Construction began on the PCB landfill in Warren County. NAACP files discrimination suit in federal court requesting preliminary injunction to prohibit placement of soil in Warren County. Hearing held before Judge Earl Britt. Preliminary injunction denied. September .1982 September 15 October .1982 October 6 October. 12 October 27 November ·l982 November 1 December ·19s2 December December 13 December 27 'January ·19s3 January January 26 - 4 - Removal of PCB from roadsides begins by DOT crews. Protests begin in Warren County and a total of 423 adult arrests were made and 100 juveniles were taken into custody over the following 4½ weeks. Fort Bragg begins removal operation for PCB on base.· State finishes roadside removal of PCB. There were 2.41 shoulder miles picked up; 6,455 truckloads taken to landfill. Fort Bragg finishes removing PCB from base; 768 truckloads put in landfill. Total state/Ft. Bragg truckloads 7,223. Capping operation begins; plastic liner and clay liner in place, soil layer added. Bad weather prevents final soil layer and seeding of cap to be accomplished. Heavy rains cause soil erosion on cap and exposes plastic liner. Bubbles develop in exposed liner from gas in the landfill caused by decomposition of vegetation mixed in with soil. Bubbles vented, soil erosion temporarily corrected and a temporary seed cover is installed on the cap. Landfill will be completed in Spring. Buck Ward begins sentence at Danbury, Connecticut, Federal Prison after being denied petition for certiorari by U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Appeals Court affirms Judge Britt's ruling in Twiddy case. EPA monitors gas venting from landfill and reports no significant emissions of PCBs. U.S. Files civil suit in federal court against Buck Ward and Ward Transformer, Inc. ·February 1983 February 17 March 1983 March 4 ·May .1983 May 11 May 24 Julyl983 July 14 July 15 July 23 August .1983 August 3 - 5 - State dismisses state law suits .against Buck Ward and state allowed to intervene in federal suit. All counterclaims dismissed by Ward against state. Voluntary dismissal. taken by plaintiffs in discrimina~ion suit. Contractor resumes work on completion of landfill construction. EPA grant period extended until July 23, 1983. Construction completed. Inspection held at the site and acceptance made by state officials. Grant period ended. Inspection held .at the site by EPA officials and approval given. MEMBERSHIP Chairman: Dr. Daniel A. Oku.Il Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering School of Public Health 201-H UNC-Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Representing ·Federal Interests: Dr. Robert A. Neal, President Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology P.O. Box 12137 Research Triangle Park, N.C. Dr. Robert G. Lewis, Chief 27709 Advanced Anaylsis Techniques Branch Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory US EPA Mail Drop 44 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709 Representing State Interests: Dr. Linda Little, Executive Director Governor's Waste Management Board 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Mr. William W. Phillips, Jr. Assistant to the Secretary N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, N.C. 27611 . Mr. O. W. Strickland, Head Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch N.C. Department of Human Resources 306 North Wilmington Street Raleigh, N.C: 27611 APPENDIX B Mr. Robert Jansen Senior Policy Advisor Office of the Governor State Capitol Raleigh, N.C. 27611 · Representing Local Interests: Mr. George E. Shearin Warren County Board of Commissioners Route 2, Box 108 Norlina, N.C. 27563 Mr. Thomas Henry Rooker (Deceased) Route 2, Box 12 Warrenton, N.C. 27589 Mrs. Joyce Lubbers Route 2, Box SO Warrenton, N.C. 27589 Rev. Luther G. Brown 108 W. Geer Street Durham, N.C. 27701 Rev. J. Clinton Mccann, Jr. Warrenton Presbyterian Church Warrenton, N.C. 27589 ·Rapporteur: Mr. William L. Meyer Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch N.C. Department of Human Resources 306 North Wilmington Street Raleigh,. N .C. 27611 APPENDIX C SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON PCB DETOXIFICATION June 23, 1983 Raleigh July 21., 1983 Raleigh September 29, 1983 Raleigh December 12, 1983 Warrenton (Landfill) February 9~ 1984 Research Triangle Park (EPA) March 22, 1984 Raleigh June 6, 1984. Raleigh August 9, 1984 Raleigh December 12, 1984 Raleigh APPENDIX D ·consultants Dr._Gary Sayler University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Dr. Robert B. Pojasek, V.P. Dr. Robert J. Schoenberger, V.P. Roy F. Weston, Inc. West Chester, Pennsylvania Dr. Charles Rogers Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio Dr. Paul Busch Dr. John Henningson Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. White Plains,. New York ·presenters Dr. Louis Centofanti, Pres. PPM. Inc. Tucker, Georgia Mr. Claude Terry Claude Terry & Associates Atlanta, Georgia Mr. Byron Moe, Pres. Dr. Josephine Smith Dr. John Ludlem Bioteknika International, Inc. Springfield, Virginia Dr. Edmund A. Kobylinski Chemical Engineer Atlantic Research Corporation Alexandria, Virginia Mr. Thomas G. Zitrides, Pres. CYTOX Corporation Allentown, Pennsylvania Dr. David Eaton Mr. Reid Parramore Genex Corporation Rockville, Maryland Dr. Robert L. Peterson Mr. Tony Nassef Galson/Polybac Research East Syracuse, New York Dr. Anne L. Kepecky Dr. Lois T. Davis Sybron Chemical Division Salem, Virginia LEACHATE POND □ ~ ~ . . CLEAN EARTH/TOPSOIL ARTIFICIAL LINER LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM ~ CLAY LINER -------' , .. ~,. , : • .. -~---.-~.-~ . ·___,,.... -~ . · · PCB -.._ J . CONTAMINATED -......_ ....._ ·>, ' SOIL .v ~ -~ , _ _;., •• : WATER TABLE ORIGINAL / GROUND ''--SURFACE ------~ to t:rJ s H . :>< t:rJ Groundwater WlA WlB W2A W2B W3A W3B W4A W4B Surface Water RCUSA RCUSB RCDSA RCDSB UTUSA UTUSB UTDSA UTDSB Surface Water RCUSA RCUSB RCDSA RCDSB UTUSA UTUSB UTDSA UTDSB PCB LANDFILL ROUTINE MONITORING ANALYSES FOR PCB's 11/29/82 5/5/83 ND ND ND ND Sediments ND . ND ND -None Detected APPENDIX F 11/21/83 ND ND ~D -For all water samples, none detected means -< 0.1 parts per billion. -For all sediment samples, none detected means <. 0 .1 parts per million. - 2 - PCB LANDFILL TREATMENT WORKS ANALYSES FOR PCB's Date Influent (eeb) Effluent (eeb) 3/7/83 .43 .24 3/11/83 ND ND 3/14/83 ND ND 3/16/83 ND ND 3/21/83 2.47 .18 3/22/83 1.41 .294 3/23/83 1. 35 ND 3/24/83 ND ND 3/28/83 ND ND 3/29/83 ND ND 3/30/83 ND ND 3/31/83 .279 ND 4/1/83 ND ND 4/5/83 ND ND 4/7/83 ND ND 4/11/83 ,ND ND 4/12/83 ND ND 4/13/83 ND ND 4/14/83 ND ND 4/18/83 ND ND 4/19/83 ND ND 4/20/83 ND ND 4/25/83 ND ND 4/26/83 ND ND 4/27/83 ND ND 5/10/83 ND ND 5/25/83 ND ND 6/1/83 ND ND 7/20/83 1.63 ND 7/29/83 ND ND 11/21/83 ND ND 12/29/83 ND ND 1/26/84 . 3 ND 3/7/84 ND ND 4/3/84 . 2 ND 5/3/84 .6 ND ND -None Detected For all water samples, none detected means <0.l parts per billion. - 3 - PCB LANDFILL MONITORING CODE RC -Richneck Creek UT -Unnamed Tributary OS Downstream US -Upstream SW-CON -Spring Discharge 30 feet above UT SW-HE.AD -Spring Wl -Groundwater W2 -Groundwater W3 -Groundwater W4 -Groundwater A -Replicate A B -Replicate B Discharge 500 feet above UT Monitoring Well Ill Monitoring Well 112 Monitoring Well 113 Monitoring Well 114 ---:-.--: ..... -:;, ?-•.· ,: :·•.