NCD980602163_19960403_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_PCB Working Group Master Plan-OCR

04/03/1995 14:34 4078"351822 BARt"iES FERLAND ASSOC
BF A Environmental Consultants ==aw rm = = = .:at== Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
.MEMORANDUM
~-1.c.J tc;,1
#h { ~ .
t./-s -9~
BFA #95-017 ynAt. l t-6 ,-t"
<D i>II ' e
TO:
.--.~--'-.t ~t.CE/Vfb , 11
Solid Waste Co-Chairs, Joint Warren Count /St 1'CB Landfill Working Group
Bill Meyer, Solid Waste APR . 3 1996
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P G
DATE: April 3, 1996
SUBJECT: Development of a Project Master Plan Outline
On April 1, 1996, shortly after receiving a fax from Bill Meyer concerning the need to move
forward with the ''Master Plan", Joel Hirschom and I spoke at length about how we felt things
should proceed. He informed me that he had developed a preliminary assessment of
detoxification technology, which he later faxed me a copy of. Although I have not thoroughly
reviewed the report, I agree that the issues raised must be thoroughly discussed by the Working
Group.
With respect to the Master Plan, I think one is sorely needed. It appears that everyone knows
where we want to go, but we have yet to agree on how best to get there. I believe that the
general direction provided by the Working Group is sufficient for Joel and I to develop a draft
outline of the path wruch should be taken to efficiently and effectively achieve the goal of
detoxification. Any such effort on the part of the Science Advisors with the limited input we have
received from the Working Group would certainly require several assumptions. Nevertheless,
such professional judgment calls are within our job description and in fact, Mr. Hirschom's
Preliminary detoxification assessment represents the type of independent analysis which is needed
to develop an effective approach for project execution (Master Plan).
I prefer the option of providing an outline of a Master Plan within two weeks. I also recommend
that1 because of the independent decisions which may be made by the Science Advisors, that the
resulting document be presented to the Working Group in a workshop format.
PAE/psg/4-3 Memo.doc
cc: Joel Hirschorn
ihe Hollister Building• 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
9-02-1995 11 :53PM FF-:OM
April 3, 1996
To: Working Group Co-Chairs
Th.m: Bill Meyer
From: Joel Hirschhorn
I choose the option of providing an outline for the master plan "vithln. two weeks.
However, at this time, the core problem, as I see it, is that the overall strategy of the Working
Group requires reexamination and clearer atticulation so that the specific tasks performed by the
Science Advisors are logically ordered within the contex.i: of all actions and objectives of the
Working Group. In this way, the Science Advisors could be effective members of the whole
team, where everyone has a clear un.derstancling of and common commitment to the same
strategy.
I strongly believe that at.l appropriate basis for the Master Plan outline could be the recommended
strategy presented in my repOlt faxed to the Co-Chaus on April I. I believe that my initial report
was a very much needed .first step to both reexamine and develop a more effective strategy that
makes the best possible use of the Science Advisors aud maximizes the chance for obtaining a safe
and effective deto,-,ification of the Wan-en County PCB Landfill.
I strongly recommend to the Co-Chairs that a workshop kind of meeting ( at least a full day) be
scheduled relatively soon that would allow a presentation of these new ideas, and a very intensive
discussion of my report by either the whole Working Group or some appropriate committee. At
the meeting the Science Advisors could also present a proposed road map (Master Plan outline)
based on the recommended strategy. I envision that I would concentrate on the strategic
:framework and technology issues, and that Pat would focus on the details of the Master Plan
outline for project implementation. Pat and I would meet beforehand to work out our t.hlnking
and presentations. I think that in additio.n to the Master Plan outline, the meeting with the
Working Group committee should also develop a consensus mission statement and clear
statement of specific objectives which together with the Master Plan outline could be
subsequently presented to the fuU Working Group for approval.
As for scheduling, a Working Group meeting during the week of April 22 or on April 29 or 30
would be feasible for me. Pat and I could meet beforehand during the week of April 15.
cc: Patri.ck Barnes
P. ·1
r'
f .,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
.RA
DEHNR
April 1, 1996
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Patrick Barnes, Science Advisor
Barnes, Freeland & Associates
THRU:
FROM:
Joel Hirschhorn, Science Advisor
Hirschhorn and Associates
Bill MeyeriW\
Dollie Burwell
Ken Ferruccio
Henry Lancaster
SUBJECT: Assignment from Working Group for Development of PCB Landfill Detoxification
Project Master Plan
The Working Group has directed the Science Advisor to develop a PCB Landfill
detoxification master plan as defined in the Scope of Work incorporated under Task 1.
Task 1 includes four elements with fourteen (14) subdivisions. Certain elements may have
a higher priority than others. Some may need to be modified, based upon your recommendations,
by the Working Group. Element four requires the Science Advisors to draft or outline all tasks
and processes with milestones, scheduling, and budgets for all elements for consideration by the
Working Group. This includes development of the master plan. The Working Group requests
that either an outline of the master plan with times, milestones or schedules be submitted within
two weeks~ or, that the full master plan be submitted within thirty days. The Working Group
requests notification of which option the Science Advisors select within two days of receipt of this
request.
The Division of Solid Waste Management will provide the Science Advisors with a copy
of all information and documents from the first meeting of the Working Group up to the present
time. A copy will also be provided for the file in the office of the Warren County Working Group
and Science Advisors. In the future, all information and documents on the detoxification project
will be provided to the Science Advisors as well as the file in the Warren County office.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
April 1, 1996
Page2
The Working Group has hired a Secretary who will serve as a contact for the Working
Group and ensure that your needs are responded to in an effective and timely manner. The
Working Group has also established a Technical Committee for review of your work and to make
recommendations to the full Working Group.
The Working Group welcomes the Science Advisors and looks forward to a good
working partnership that focuses on our goal to detoxify the PCB Landfill in a timely manner.
MASTER PLANNING PROJECT -PCB LANDFILL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND DETOXIFICATION MASTER PLAN
TASK 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Spill/Excavation
During July and August 1978, approximately 30,000 gallons of PCB contaminated
transformer oil was illegally discharged onto more than 200 miles of road shoulder in 14
North Carolina counties. Reactivated charcoal and a liquid asphalt tack solution was
applied to the spills to absorb the PCB and minimize migration in the environment <1> .
From September 15, 1982 until November 1, 1982, approximately 40,000 cubic <2> yards
of PCB contaminated soil were excavated, a 24-30" width by 3-1/2 inch deep spill (3>, from
the road shoulders. The contaminated soil were placed in a USEP A permitted (Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 761) Ioxic Substance .Control Act Chemical Waste
Landfill.
Landfill Desiin
The PCB landfill consists of a single cell approximately l..Q acres (260' width by 560'
length) <4>_ Containment systems, including clay and PVC liners, were constructed <5>_ An
internal leachate collection and removal system allows removal of water followed by on-
site treatment with sand and carbon filters <6> with irrigation over the landfill surface <7>_ An
external holding pond or sedimentation basis (0.35 acre, 120' by 120') with a storage
capacity of two and one half acre feet was constructed immediately North East of the
landfill cell <4>_ Final grade consisted of a crown along the center line of the cell with 10
percent side scopes. A chain link fence was constructed along the encloses an area of
approximately ll acres (555' by 300') <3>_ A four inch PVC air vent was installed in the
approximate center of the cell for release of gases <5>. Four groundwater monitoring wells
were installed, one each North, monitoring well #2, South, monitoring well #3 , East,
monitoring well #1 , and West, monitoring well #3 of the landfill cell <3>_ Surface water
sampling points were located upstream and downstream on Rich Neck Creek, North of
the site and an unnamed tributary to Rich Neck Creek South and East of the site. (figure
).
Physical and Chemical Characteristics of PCB Landfill Contents
The 40,000 cubic yards of road shoulder materials consist of organic matter, primarily
grass stems and roots, and mineral soils. The soils are classified as silty or clayey sands.
(AASHTO A-2-4)(10). The weight of the soils are approximately 59.9 lbs per cubic foot
(11). The soils contain less than 30 percent fine materials, the liquid limit and plasiticty
index is 8.5 and 8 respectively. Total organic matter is less than 2% on a weight basis <10>.
Contaminated soils have an average PCB concentration of approximately 350 ppm with a
range of 150 to almost 900 ppm.
The PCB is a mixture of congeners with approximately 61 weight percent (2+2) arochlor 1260,
27 wt% of arochlor 1254, and 12 wt% arochlor 1242 <12>. Other organic constituents include
chlorinated benzenes, furans and dioxins at pp 6 or ppq concentrations <13>.
Releases and Monitorin~ of PCB Landfill
The air vent was monitored for PCB emissions in January 1983 and found to be
substantially lower than the occupational standards for workplace atmospheres <14> <15>.
From March 1983 until October 1995, leachate was extracted, by an on-site pumping
system, for sampling and analysis or for treatment. Sixty eight pumping events <16>
generated approximately 12,360 gallons ofleachate. The leachate was treated in the on-
site sand and carbon filtration system and discharged to the holding pond. The average
treated leachate PCB concentration was 0.045 ppm PCB <11><18>.
From 1982 through 1995, the following number of monitoring samples were performed:
groundwater monitoring wells -96 samples; surface water 164 samples; stream sediment -
104 samples; leachate -136 samples; private water supply wells -77 samples; soil - 6
samples; miscellaneous samples -17 samples <19>. The results from these sampling events
indicated that PCB was not detected except for leachate, at the O .1 ppb reporting level <19>.
Water Content in PCB Landfill
The PCB contaminated soils on the road shoulders were thoroughly wetted down to
control dust or particulate migration during removal and placement in the landfill <20>.
Wetting of the road shoulder before digging was apparently effective in keeping dust
levels down <21>. This water was transported and placed into the landfill as part of the
40,800 cubic yards of material. [at 59.9 lbs per cubic foot dry wetting <11>, the weight of
the contaminated soils is approximately 64.7 million lbs] <20>. The water used form
particulate control could have contributed from 700,000 to 800,000 gallons of water to
the landfill (at 10% by weight or 10% by volume of water to soil) <23>.
The landfill cell construction was completed and on September 15, 1982 PCB
contaminated soils delivery to the site was initiated. On November 17, 1982, all PCB
contaminated soils had been placed and compacted in the cell <23>. During this time, the
three closest weather reporting stations (Arcola, Henderson and John H. Kelv Dam)
indicated an average rainfall of 7.88 inches <24>. The open cell during this time consisted of
3.0 acres <4>. 7.88 inches of ......... in this area is approximately 642,000 gallons of water
(25)
The water used for wetting the soils on the road shoulders combined with water resulting
from rainfall during this time of landfill cell was open indicates that approximately 1. 3 to
1.4 million gallons of water is present in the PCB landfills.
In May 1986, leachate pumping systems would only generate or return the water used to
prime the leachate pump. From 1986 until the fall of 1989, attempts to pump leachate
continued to indicate only the return of prime water. In the fall of 1989 the leachate
pumping system was dismantled and removed to provide access to the water well in the
landfill. At that time, it was determined that the water level was 10 to 12 feet in depth.
Leachate pumping was resumed but the recharge rate to the leachate extraction system
would only yield approximately 160 gallons over an eight hour time frame. Measurements
of water levels within the landfill leachate collection pipe indicated fluctuations of one to
two and one half feet in elevation. One conclusion that could be made from the
fluctuation of water levels is that the high water levels indicate a recharge event through
the top lines followed by lower water levels indicating a discharge or release event from
the landfill. In the fall of 1992, soil and material engineers, Inc. (S&ME) was requested to
inspect the landfill and identify the cause of water level fluctuations and propose remedial
actions. S&ME inspected the landfill and hypothesized that the fluctuations of the water
level in the leachate well resulted from a marginal or insufficient gas venting system.
Production of gases from decomposition of organic matter was creating a nominal
pressure within the clay and PVC lined cell. Presumably the only links to the atmosphere
are the methane vent and leachate recovery well. Consequently, the well was acting as a
barometer and the water column fluctuation was a response to variations in atmospheric
pressure on conjunctions with the back pressure caused from gas generation within the
landfill. A one pound per square inch pressure differential between the cell and the
atmosphere would be equal to an approximate 2.3 feet rise in the leachate pipe water
column <21>. If the landfill cell liner system is sufficiently sealed to gas migration, it is
highly probable that the system would not be leaking water or chemical constituents.
The fact that the water in the landfill ( 1.3 to 1. 4 m gallons) causes a highly significant
pressure (10 -12 foot hydraulic head) raises concerns about the continued integrity of the
clay and synthetic liner system for containment of contaminates within the landfill.
Response to Existina Conditions at the PCB Landfill
Concerns about public safety due to the water in the landfill and proposed actions to
address these concerns were presented in a public meeting in Warren County in June
1993 . Public response clearly reiterated the state's commitment for detoxification of the
landfill contents rather than independently remedy the water in the landfill. This
commitment was made in 1982 <23> and included the state pushing as hard as it can for
detoxification of the landfill .......... and if appropriate.
A previous local -state and federal working group studied detoxification of the landfill
and concluded that, at that time (1984), that processes appropriate for detoxification
contaminated soil in the PCB landfill had yet to be demonstrated. The Working Group
recommended that the landfill not be disturbed, regular maintenance and environmental
monitoring of the site and establishment of mechanisms to continue surveillance of
developments in PCB detoxification <29>_ During the approximate 10 years between the
former Working Group's conclusions and recommendations, there have been highly
significant technological processes for detoxification and analytical capability.
The State reaffirmed the commitment for detoxification and ensuring the safety of the
landfill. In March 1994, a Joint Warren County & State PCB Landfill Detoxification
Working Group was established. An independent Science Advisor was hired to assist the
Working Group. The major focus of the Working Group was evaluation of the safety of
the landfill and identifying appropriate and feasible PCB detoxification technology. In July
1994, under the direction of the Science Advisor, the Working Group performed a
comprehensive sampling and analysis of the landfill environment and selected a technology
(Base Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD), and vendors for detoxification of the landfill. The
Working Group also developed a process for implementing Pilot Scale on-site studies of
PCB detoxification technologies.
The Science Advisor contract ended in May 1995. The General Assembly appropriated
$1 million to fund pilot projects to identify and select a technology for detoxification and
remediation of the PCB landfill. Two new Science Advisors were hired to continue the
detoxification efforts.
The new Science Advisors developed a Master Project Plan <30>. The plan directs new
strategies for development of feasbilility and remedy selection for detoxification and
development of a comprehensive site investigation. These efforts can proceed
independently; however, there is a significant degree of dependance between the two
efforts for final recommendations on detoxification. Dependance is primarily based upon
the form of materials, solids and liquids, and the quantity of materials to be detoxified.
Both the type of technology and scale or size of the detoxification effort is dependant
upon form and quantity of materials to be treated. In order to accurately determine these
factors, a comprehensive site investigation is required for providing information relative to
technology and scale.
Existini Site Information
The 1994 Comprehensive site investigation included sampling of all surface water,
sediment, groundwater, landfill contents and land surface features associated with the
landfill. Dioxin & furans at part per quadrillion (ppq) levels as well as metals, PCB,
VOCs, base ........ , acid extractable organics were analyzed <31>. At best, the date is
inconclusive with respect to dioxin and furans. Comparisons between landfill content and
monitoring wells #2, #3, and #4 indicate different dioxin isomers which tends not to
fingerprint dioxin well sources as associated with the landfill. Dioxin concentrations in
monitoring wells were higher than landfill leachate which is not consistent with ...... .
sources of contribution of dioxins. In addition, the adequatecy of the groundwater
monitoring wells is also a concern <32>. Analyzing hydrographs and variation of flow and
gradient over time incidates that the wells may not be intercepting groundwater flow from
the landfill cell. Monitoring well number one is east of the site hydrographs indicate
fluctuations in the magnitude of groundwater elevations are not consistent with the other
three wells. The quantity of change is lower than other wells.
Some phenomena is resulting in reduced hydraulic conductivity which may not reflect
actual natural groundwater flow conditions into the well. Monitoring well #2 is a
hydraulic down gradient well, but due to seasonal fluctuations or variations in flow
patterns, it appears that this well only intercepts flow from the landfill 25 percent of the
year. Monitoring well #3 is in an apparent side gradien, parallel rather than perpendicular,
to groundwater flow from the landfill and does not accurately reflect or capture releases
from the landfill. Monitoring well #4 is suspected to be located near a groundwater
divider that runs in a N - S direction. If a divide exists between the landfill and the well,
then well #4 is not hydraulically connected to the landfill and does not serve to monitor
the landfill. In addition to concerns with the adequacy of monitoring releases from the
landfill, the construction of the monitoring wells is of conern. The wells were cnstructed
in 1982 using 1982 standards. These standards are not suitable or acceptable for 1996
analytical methods <33>_ These wells would not be acceptable for monitoring trace levels of
organic contaminants if installed in 1996.
Recommendations
Proposed plan to install additional monitoring wells. Proposed plan to sample and analyze
monitoring stations.
Purpose
To determine extend and degree of contamination for selection of detoxification
technology and scale of selected technology.
Footnotes:
(1) 10% solution of activated carbon at one gallon per square yard followed by liquid asphalt at
one tenth of a gallon per square yard; p.6
(2) p.15c, Estimated Waste Volume (EIS)
(3) p. l0b, (EIS)
(4) Sheet #5, Site Grading and Erosion Plan, Sverdrup & Parcell, 12/14/81
( 5) Sheet #8, Misc. Details, Sverdrup and Parcell, 8/7 /81
(6) Sheet #7, Carbon Filter System, Sverdrup & Parcell, 8/12/81
(7) Sheet #8a, Leachate Pumping & Spray Irrigation System, Sverdrup & Parcell, 4/8/83
(8) Sheet #6, Final Grading Plan, Sverdrup & Parcell, 8/12/81
(9) Map Indicating Monitoring Features of PCB landfill
(10) 7/28/94, NCDOT materials and ........ Soil Lab (attachment.. ..... )
(11) Weight Volume Index 0.96 on NCDA Soils Report ...... .
(12) 7/31/95, Direct Assistance Project No. MTAC950516003, Evaluation of PCB Remediation
Possibilities in NC Landfill, p.1.
(13) 1994 Sampling Report, Warren County PCB Landfill, July 1994
(14) 8/616/83, final report on Ambient Monitoring for PCBs at the Warren County (North
Carolina) landfill. Syontz, DL.et al, p.2.
(15) October 1995, Measurement ofLugitive Atmospheric Emissions of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls from hazardous waste landfills, Robert G. Lewis and Barry E. Martin in
Environmental Science and Technology, pp. 986 -991.
(16) Some pumping events ranged from less than 5 gallons to approximately 180 gallons.
(17) PCB landfill leachate samples (table from raw data)
(18) PCB landfill treatment works, monitoring wells, surface water/sediment analysis dates from
6/6/84 to 10/25/89 (table from raw data)
(19) PCB landfill summary of samples analyzed for PCBs (table from raw data) (excluding July
1994 sampling events).
(20) EIS, p.10 a.
(21) EIS, pp 27 -29 from "Studies Conducted in Connection with PCB Spills in NC". USEPA,
RTP Analytical Chemistry Brands Environmental Toxicology Division
(22) (11) 59.5 lb/ft:3 (40,000 yd3)(25 ft:3/yd3)
(23) 10% by water volume (64.7 m lbs or 40 yd3)"'7" 83 lbs/gallon or 7.4 gall/ft3
(24) 9/83 Final Report PCB Waste Disposal Site, Warren County, NC
(25) NCSU climate data; Thomas Keever, ASC
(26) 27,154 gals/Ac inch (3 ac) (7.88 inch rainfall)
(27) 11/20/96 letter, S&ME to Bill Meyer
(28) Oct. 20, 1982, Open letter to citizens of Warren County
(29) 12/12/84, Final Report and Recommendations of the Intergovernmental Working Group on
PCB Detoxification, pp 13 -14
... . ...
IMPORTANT REASONS FOR CHANGING
CURRENT STRATEGY
• Field Testing of Small Amounts of Site Waste will not
Provide Information that is more Useful than Bench-Scale
Testing
• Costs of Two Field Tests Would be Extremely High
• It is Necessary to Examine Other Detoxification
Technologies
• Current Approach Would not Provide Sufficient Detailed
Information
• A Much Stronger Case for Funding can be Made by
Spending Money on More Thorough Site Investigation
and Remedy Design
KEY STEPS OF RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY
• Detailed Evaluation of Detoxification Technologies and
Vendors
• Initiate Site Investigation
• Design Soil/Waste Removal Plan/Select Vendor .
• Issue Feasibility Study Report
• Invite Vendors to Conduct Bench-Scale Treatability Tests
• Science Advisors Evaluate Test Results and Select/Rank
Vendors
--. . '• ., ' .
/:,t~' _.., ______ _J
KEY STEPS OF RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY
(Continued)
• Finalize Site Investigation Report
• Working Group Meeting with Highest Ranked Vendors
• Best Technology Vendor Selected/Pre-Qualified for Actual
Cleanup
• Selected Vendor is Hired as Design Contractor (Under
Current Funding)
• Remedy Selection and Remedial Design Report
• Report used as the Basis for Working Group/DEHNR
formally Proposing the Landfill Detoxification Project to
the State Legislature to Obtain Funding
~£tF· .;•c· ~J~~~~~ ... ~~~~Sf..~~~$~~~~~:g~,=:z~~4~~~l~~=~~~:k~"~~;,;~~~~J.~l~*l~.i~~:;i~~~~~~~~fr
SITE INVESTIGATION GOALS
• Establish Condition of Liner
• Bedrock Condition and Topography
• Transmissivity of Weathered Rock Zone
• Direction of Groundwater Flow
• Identification of Contaminant Plume
• Types and Amounts of Contaminated Media Reguiring
Clean-Up
SITE INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
• Collection of Samples to Conform with Permit
Requirements
• Analyze Existing Data
• Develop and Implement Field Sampling and Testing Plan
• Non-Intrusive Testing (Geophysics)
• Soil Borings
• Installation of Additional Monitoring Wells
• Collection of Additional Surface Water and Sediment
Samples
MASTER PLAN
PURPOSE
• Guidance Document
• Road Map
• Operational Document
• Stand Alone
PLAN CONTENTS
• Introduction and Background
• Project Goals and Objectives
• Approach for Evaluating Technologies and Selecting
Remedy
• Approach for Performing Site Investigation
• Legislative Funding
• Project Schedule
PCB LANDFILL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AND DETOXIFICATION
MASTER PLAN
PRELThfINARY TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Site History
1.2 The Working Group
1.3 The Role of the State
1.4 The Role of the Science Advisors
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Mission Statement
2.1.1 Impact Assessment
2.1.2 Detoxification
2.1 .3 Community Involvement
2.1.4 Responsibility of the Working Group
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF FEASIBILITY AND REMEDY SELECTION REPORT
3.1 Detoxification Technology and Vendor Evaluation
3 .1.1 Review of Past and Current Approach
3 .1.2 Comparative Analysis
3.1.3 Recommendations
3 .1. 4 Work Plan for Treatability Testing
3.2 Landfill Soil/Waste Removal Plan
3 .2.1 Review of Current Approach
3.2.2 Soil/Waste Removal and Vendor Selection Procedure
3.2.3 Testing Requirements
3.3 Treatability Testing
3 .3 .1 Bench Scale Testing Results
3.3.2 Analysis of Data
3.3.3 Recommendations
3 .4 Remedy Selection
3.4.1 Effectiveness/Perfonnance
3.4.2 Safety/Environmental Impacts
3.4.3 Cost
3.4.4 Comparative Analysis and Recommendations
3.4.5 Role and Responsibility of the Working Group
3.5 Procedure for Establishment of Remedial Goals
3.5.1 Evaluation of Test Results
3.5.2 Ranking Procedure
3. 5. 3 Perfonnance Standards
3.5.4 Responsibility of Working Group
3.6 Procedure for Selecting and Awarding Detoxification Design Contract
95-017.00 -1-
MPTOC.DOC
3. 6.1 Role of Science Advisors
3.6.2 Role of the Working Group
3.6.3 Role of the State
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
4 .1 Site Investigation
4.1.1 Review of Past Sampling and Analysis
4.1.2 Field Sampling and Testing Plan
4.2 Landfill Integrity
4.2.1 Leachate Collection System
4.2.2 Liner Condition
4.2.3 Water in Landfill
4.3 Scope of Off-Site Impact
4.3.1 Soil
4.3.2 Groundwater
4.3.3 Surface Water
4.3.4 Sediment
4.3.5 Air
4. 4 Contaminant/Waste Releases
4.4.1 Fate and Transport
4. 5 Estimates of Volumes Requiring Remediation
5.0 REMEDIAL DESIGN
5 .1 Roles of Technology Vendor, Science Advisors/ST ATE
5.2 Site Layout and Logistics
5.3 Construction Phasing
5 .4 Health and Safety Concerns
5. 5 Impact Monitoring
5.6 Detoxification Field Pilot Test
5. 7 Preliminary Design and Operation Plan
5.8 Clean-up Cost Estimates
6.0 LEGISLATIVE FUNDING
6.1 Briefing Document
6.2 Presentation Procedure and Materials
6.2.1 Role of Working Group
6.2.2 Role of Science Advisors
6.2.3 Role of the State
7.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE
95-017.00
MPTOC.DOC
-2-
ACTMTIESfTAROET DATE 1 . Master Plan Development 2. Detox. Tech & Vendor Evaluation 3. Site Investigation 4. Soil/Waste Removal 5. Treatability Testing 6. Feaslbility Study 7. Remedial Goals 8. Vendor Screening & Awarding Of Detoxification Contract 9. Site Investigation Report 10. Remedial Design/Remedy Salee. Rpl 11. 0 Report Submitted to Working Group/State PCB Landfill Master Plan Implementation Schedule MONTHLY Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec.96 ---~~ ~~ --·~ ~;~ ~~­~~~~ "fl Technical Memorandum (Procedure Document) Submitted To Working Group/State 0 Technical Specifications Submitted To Working Group/State PlAN1.XLS Jan-97 Feb Mar Apr