NCD980602163_19781221_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Adminsitrative Action Draft Negative Declaration - Removal and Disposal of Soil Contaminated with PCBs Along Highway Shoulders in NC-OCR

' t
Removal And Disposal of Soil
Contaminated With PCBs
Along Highway Shoulders
In North Carolina
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN COMPLIANCE WI TH
THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
av1 e
Assistant Secretary
Department of Crime
And Public Safety
lie Safety
I.
II.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AC1ION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
History of PCB Spill
Purpose of Action
1.
2.
3.
Definition of PCB s
Regulation's Pertaining to PCB Spills
Cost Estimate
Description of Removal and Disposal Action
1.
2 .
3.
Soil Removal
Transport
Disposal Method
Alternatives Considered
1.
2.
3.
Alternative Methods of Treatment
Alternative Sites Considered
No Action
Description of Enviornmental Setting
1.
2 .
Roadside
Disposal Site
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC TS
A.
B.
Soil Removal
1.
2.
3.
4.
Air Quality
Water Quality
Plant and Non-Human Animal Life
Traffic Disruption
Disposal Methods
1.
2.
3 .
4.
5.
6.
Geology
Hydrology
Plant and Non-Human Animal Life
Air Quality ' '
Land Use
Cultural Resources
Page
1
1
4
4
5
6
6
6
12
12
20
20
22
23
23
23
23
25
25
25
31
34
35
35
35
38
38
39
39
39
I I I.
IV.
V.
VI.
C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Effect on Workers, Motorists, and Area
Residents
BASIS OF NO SIGNIFICANT AD VERSE EFFECT
DETERMINATION
A.
B.
c.
D.
Standards for Allowable Concentrations
Studies and Test Results
EPA Penni t
Mitigation Measures
COORDINATION
AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT
SUMMARY
Page
39
41
41
.41
41
41
42
42
42
Removal And Disposal of Soil
Contaminated With PCBs
Along Highway Shoulders
In North Carolina
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. History of PCB Spills
The first deliberate discharge of what was later
identified as PCB liquid materials took place the last
week of June, 197 8, 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 Division of Health Services, Water Supply
Branch. Water Supply Branch personnel notified Division
of Environmental Management, Water Quality Program person-
nel in the Raleigh Field Office of the spills. Raleigh
Field Office personnel investigated the spill on July 31
as an oil spill and on finding 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 re-
ported, by 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 Hanagement Laboratory for analy-
sis later that afternoon, August 2. The same chemist who
investigated the Johnston County spill encountered a simi-
lar spill near Snow Camp, North Carolina on SR 1004,
Alamance County, while returning to his home. A samp l e
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) compound.
The Water Quality Operations Branch immediately notified
the Chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IV, Emergency Response Branch, of the Laboratory's find-
ings. After briefing the Director, Division of Environ-
mental Management, a meeting was called with representa-
tives of the Attorney General's Office, the Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety, and Public Informa-
tion representatives of the Secretary of the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development. A noti-
fication 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 re-
lease was prepared and 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.
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 ~C 210, the Division of Highways, Department
of Transportation, was request~d to cover the spill
with a layer of sand in order to suppres$ the noxious
odors present. This was completed in late afternoon
August 5 and continued on A~gust 6.
2
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
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 mili-
tary reservation. Because of the publicity , reports of
spills began coming in from many different sourc~s 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, as yet, spills may have occurred
in Wilson County the evenings of August 5 and August 8.
The Division of Environmental Management Laboratory con-
tinued 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
Information personnel. Specific information gathering
activities were spelled out and assigned to specific
people. A coordination conf~rence was held with repre-
sentatives of the Department of Human Resources, Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Attorney General's Office, the
Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection
Agency, and the news media, on August 10. A working ses-
sion 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
Toxic Substances Office, the National Center for Disease
Control, Hevi Duty Electric Company, the Health Effects
Laborator y, and various academic and private sector per-
sonalities known as having expertise in handling this
type of material.
North Carolina State University was identified as
having expertise in detoxifying pesticides. The Univer-
sity was contacted to provide expert advice and assistance .
A proposal was submitted to the Governor for temporarily
3
deactivating the PCB materials to prevent its migration
and to neutralize any hazard to people coming into con-
tact 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 contaminated roadway shoulders during
the latter part of August.
Because the initial sampling procedures only gave
gross approximation to the concentration of PCB material
on the grass and in the soil column, in order to deter-
mine the magnitude of the penetration into the soil column
and the strength of the material at various depths, several
cross sectional samples were taken at one-inch intervals
in order to obtain quantitative data. These samples were
taken during the period August 21 -28.
On September 6, 13, 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 operation was conducted. The test removal opera-
tion was performed on October S, 1978 on a one mile PCB
contaminated section of NC 58 near Inez in Warren County.
The PCB contaminated soil obtained during the test re-
moval operation has been temporarily stored at a dis-
posal site in Warren County.
B. Purpose of Action
1. Definition of PCBs
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are a class
of chlorinated, aromatic compounds which are highly
stable, relatively inert and display excellent elec-
trically insulating properties. PCBs have been pro-
duced since 1929. The Monsanto Company preparations
of PCBs are termed "the Aroclors".
PCBs are complex mixtures of chlorobiphenyls
with different numbers of chlorine atoms per mole-
cule. They are nearly insoluble in water and are
very stable at high temperatures. PCBs are heavier
than water and do not float on top of water as oils
do. Some PCBs have been shown to have insecticidal
and fungistatic activity however, they have not been
used as pesticides. PCBs have relatively low toxi-
city to mammals compared with most pesticides.
Some industrial usages of PCBs are: 1) dielectric
4
fluids in capacitors and transformers, 2) industrial
fluids in hydraulic systems, gas turbines, and
vacuum pumps, 3) fire retardants, 4) heat transfer
agents, 5) plasticizers in adhesive, textiles,
sealants and printing.
2. Regulations Pertaining to PCB Spills
The Environmental Protection Agency has pro-
mulgated 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 requirements of PCB mixtures in soil
and the legal authority of the Regional Administrator
EPA to require clean up and removal. This regulation
defines a PCB mixture to mean any mixture with 500
parts per million (ppm) of PCB. The referenced regu-
lation requires that contaminated material containing
concentrations of PCB greater than 500 ppm must be
disposed of through either incineration or disposal
in a chemical landfill. Criterion for any such land-
fill is contained in Annex II to the referenced re-
gulation. 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 same regulations provide for applying in
writing to the Regional Administrator for approval
of alternate "disposal methods when disposal in an
incinerator or chemical waste landfill is not rea-
sonable and appropriate, based on technical, environ-
mental or economic considerations, and information
that the alternate disposal method will provide
adequate protection to health and the environment."
5
3. Estimated Costs for Removal and Disposal
The total estimated cost for removal and dis-
posal of the PCB contaminated soil from the roadway
shoulders is $2.0 million.
c. 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 one
gallon per square yard then followed by an applica-
tion of liquid asphalt at the rate of 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 loca-'
tion of the PCB spills. A more detailed description
of the spill locations are included in Table 1.
The activated carbon solution was utilized to
deactivate the surface concentration of PCB by absorp-
tion of the PCBs into the pores of the activated car-
bon. The liquid asphalt was applied to eliminate
dusting of the activated carbon and to reduce run-off
of the activated carbon caused by storm drainage.
These applications also served to delineate the con-
taminated areas.
The method of removing the PCB contaminated soil
from the roadway shoulders will consist of the fol-
lowing sequential steps:
a. The contaminated area will be thoroughly
wetted down with water, if necessary, in
order to control dust during the removal
and disposal operations. This may not be
required during wet seasons, but on the
other hand, may be required as much as 24
hours in advance during extremely dry con-
ditions. This operation is recognized as
extremely critical in the total removal
operation and will be stringently controlled.
6
LOCATION MAP
111n111 PC 8 SPILLS
FIGURE I
0 5
I ■ M
IQ 20
SC~LE OF MILES
30
TABLE 1
1. SR 1004, Alamance County -From Bethel Church north of
Snow Camp to the Chatham County Line.
Length: 5.00 shoulder miles
2. SR 1004, Chatham County -From Alamance County Line to
SR 1346.
Length: 2.22 shoulder miles
3. SR 1346, Chatham County -From intersection with SR 1004
to NC 87.
Length: 11 .16 shoulder miles
4. NC 87, Chatham County -From intersection with SR 1346
southerly.
Length: approximately 1.42 shoulder miles
5. US 421, Chatham County -SR 2120 to Lee County Line.
Length: 9.59 shoulder miles
6. SR 1006, Chatham County -Between NC 902 and NC 42.
Length: 3.46 shoulder miles
7. NC 42, Chatham County -From Deep River (Lee County Line)
to intersection with SR 1006.
Length: 4.56 shoulder miles
8. NC 902, Chatham County -From SR 1006 to Rocky River.
Length: 9.68 shoulder miles
9. SR 1146, Edgecombe County -From US 301 to SR 1135.
Length: 2.40 shoulder miles
10 . SR 1135, Edgecombe County -From SR 1146 to SR 1143.
Length: 2.43 shoulder miles
11. SR 1143, Edgecombe County -From SR 1135 to SR 1141.
Length: 0.51 shoulder miles
12. SR 1130, Edgecombe County -From SR 1003 to NC 43.
Length: 1.33 shoulder miles
13. SR 1141, Edgecombe County -From SR 1143 to NC 43.
Length: 1.43 shoulder miles
14. NC 44, Edgecombe County -From $R 1409 east . . 0.2 miles.
Length: 0.23 shoulder miles
7
TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
15. NC 43, Edgecombe County -From SR 1130 to SR 1131.
Length: 0.87 shoulder miles
16. SR 1003, Edgecombe County -From NC 43 to Wilson County Line.
Length: 3.38 shoulder miles.
17. SR 1432 and SR 1436, Franklin County -From 1/2 mile east
of Moulton to a point beyond Gupton, then traces to Center-
ville.
Length: 5.10 shoulder miles
18. NC 561, Franklin County -From Nash County Line to Center-
ville.
Length: 4.80 shoulder miles
19. NC 58, Franklin County -From Warren County Line to Nash
County Line.
Length: 5.10 shoulder miles
20. NC 98, Franklin County -From Nash County Line to Bunn and
approximately 5 miles west of Bunn.
Length: 4.70 shoulder miles
21. NC 97, Franklin County -From Wake County Line to Nash
County Line.
Length: 0.90 shoulder miles
22. NC 96, Granville County -From just north of Oxford to NC 49.
Length: 15.2 shoulder miles
23. NC 49, Granville County -From NC 96 to Person County Line.
Length: 1.80 shoulder miles
24. SR 1315, Halifax County -0.2 miles from NC 4 to 0.1 mile
east of bridge.
Length: 1.03 shoulder miles
25. SR 1308, Halifax County -From 0.1 mile north of SR 1309 to
1.2 miles north.
Length: 1.18 shoulder miles
26. NC 4, Halifax County -From SR 1314 to SR 1308.
Length: 3.13 shoulder miles
27. NC 43, Halifax County -From Warren County Line to NC 561.
Length: 0.65 shoulder miles
8
TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
28. NC 561, Halifax County -From SR 1317 to Nash County Line.
Length: 3.58 shoulder miles
29. NC 87, Harnett County -From Lee County Line to NC 27.
Length: 5.30 shoulder miles
30. NC 27, Harnett County -From NC 87 to SR 1252.
Length: 12.00 shoulder miles
31. NC 210, Harnett County -From Johnston County Line to city
limits of Angier.
Length: 1.82 shoulder miles
32. NC 210, Johnston County -From ,intersection with US 70
southerly to Harnett County Line. North side only.
Length: 17.00 shoulder miles
33. NC 42, Lee County -From intersection with SR 1322 to Deep
River (Chatham County Line).
Length: 4.52 shoulder miles.
34. NC 87, Lee County -From Harnett County Line to US 421.
Length: 2.14 shoulder miles
35. NC 98, Nash County -From Franklin County Line to NC 231.
Length: 1.41 shoulder miles
36. NC 231, Nash County -From NC 98 to SR 1137.
Length: 0.94 shoulder miles
37. SR 1137, Nash County -From NC 231 to NC 97.
Length: 3.48 shoulder miles
38. NC 97, Nash County -From SR 1137 to Franklin County Line.
Length: 4.39 shoulder miles
39. NC 58, Nash County -From Nashville to Wilson County Line.
Length: 4.12 shoulder miles
40. NC 561, Nash County -From Franklin County Line to Halifax
County Line.
Length: 0.7 shoulder miles
41. NC 97, Nash County -From NC 58 west 1 mile.
Length: 0.35 shoulder miles
42. NC 58, Nash County -From Franklin County Line to 3 miles
north of Nashville.
Length: 4.11 shoulder miles
9
TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
43. NC 49, Person County -From Granville County Line to
SR 1515.
Length: 4.24 shoulder miles
44. NC 96, Wake County -From 98 to Franklin County Line, to
traces only.
Length: 0.30 shoulder miles
45. NC 97, Wake County -From Zebulon to Franklin County Line
and from US 64 Bus. to Zebulon.
Length: 4.50 shoulder miles
46. NC 43, Warren County -From Liberia to Halifax County Line .
Length: 6.40 shoulder miles
47. NC 58, Warren County -From intersection with NC 43 southerly
to Franklin County -both sides.
Length: 19.25 shoulder miles
48. us 158, Warren County -Between Macon and Vaughan.
Length: 0.60 shoulder miles
49. SR 1407, Wilson County -From SR 1003 to SR 1002.
Length: 1. 06 shoulder miles
so. SR 1419, Wilson County -From us 301 to SR 1003.
Length: 0.87 shoulder miles
51. SR 1003, Wilson County -From Edgecombe County Line to
US 301 Bypass.
Length: 4.76 shoulder miles
Total Length: 210.97 shoulder miles.
10
b. The contaminated shoulder area will be
trenched out approximately 24"-30" wide,
and approximately 3,i deep by means of a
motor grader equipped with a specially
designed blade to allow for the cutting
of a reasonably neat line trench, working
with all motor grader wheels on the pave-
ment. The trenched out material will be
fed along the motor grader blade to form a
windrow of material located inside the
edge of pavement.
c. The windrow of contaminated material will
be mechanically picked up and fed into
trailing dump trucks by means of an Athey
force-feed loader. This loader operation
forces the contaminated material onto a
self-contained belt conveyor by means of
rotating paddles. The material is con-
veyed up the belt and dropped into dump
trucks. A specially designed canvas shield
will extend from the top of the belt down
into the dump truck bodies to prevent wind
drift of the contaminated material.
d. The Athey loader is designed to scrape the
road surface; however, very thin amounts
of residue will be left on the road sur-
face following the loader operation.
Depending on soil moisture conditions,
this residue will be either water sprayed
back into the excavated trench or broomed,
by means of a tractor mounted rotary broom or
a corabination of both spraying and brooming.
Spraying will be performed by a Hydroseeder
with especially designed adjustable outlet
nozzles and the broom will be covered with a
specially desigped canvas cover to minimize
dusting and wind drift.
e. Reshaping of the disturbed shoulder area will
immediately follow the removal operation.
Depending on the width and cross slope of
11
the existing shoulder, reshaping will con-
sist of either scarifying and reshaping of
the shoul der by a motor grader, or fil ling
in the excavated area with borrow soil
material and shaping with a motor grader.
f. The shoulder reshaping operation will be
followed by erosion control operations
consisting of seed bed preparation, seeding,
fertilizing and mulching of all disturbed
areas.
2. Transport
Once the contaminated material is deposited in
dump trucks, the dump bodies will be tightly covered
with tarpaulins using elastic tie-downs. Insofar
as possible and practical, contaminated material
will be hauled to the disposal areas along rural
routes, avoiding highly congested areas. Hauling
of contaminated material will take place only during
daylight hours.
Vehicles equipped with mobile radio units will
routinely survey the haul routes for trucks with
mechanical difficulty. In the event of mechanical
trouble, mechanics will be radio dispatched.
3. Disposal Method
a. Construction Procedure
The disposal site for the PCB contaminated
soil is located on approximately 142 acres of
land in Warren County. The exact site location
is shown on a County Map and a U. S. Geodetic
Map (see Figure 2 & 3).
The State of North Carolina proposes to
construct the PCB landfill in accordance with
plans approved by EPA. Figures 4, 5, and 6
are conceptual sketches of the landfill. A
general description of how the landfill will be
constructed follows:
1. Excavate to within seven feet of the high
groundwater elevation.
2. Select borrow and stockpile which will allow
reconstitution and compaction of a five-foot
liner which will have a maximum permeabi lity
of lxlo-7 cm/s.
12
'\
0
C
-z.
36°:IO'
/
' J
F R N
N
WARREN COUNTY
D . I e1 'I
I ·) u N y
I ,
' 1
FIGURE 2
13 SCALE'
0
J 'I ,.,,
'b .
r~~
' . ,,,(\/.
, I
]:
I
N
\ I,
cfl, -\ , ) 1(\(1,_,,/
' ,v \ \ ' ,) l\\1
'
! \
, '
I
I
I . ,' DISPOS ' ' r V
Pit Ar ·<>
✓<l, \ "',
. . ('\...\ Contour Interval 10' c__,; V .
()
~ /·,--. -~ a /." I i , ~ • ' -__.,; ... 11
CONCEPTUAL.,
PLAN VIEW
and
Surface Drainage Plan
A
~-------+------"',
--------~---------:,• I I •1: ------------------
NOT TO SCALE
15
- - - --1
I
I
I --;
I
I
I
I ----,
l
EXISTING GROUND • • • • • • •E~~V~:I~: ~ ---... ....._• .... .... °' ------..._...._ ..-"'.:. T 10' t 7' --CONCEPTUAL PLAN CROSS SECTION A-A FINISH GRADE /ELEVATION --------1r-------............ lf;://.1::j COMPACTED -CLAY LINER .. . . . . . . . . . • • • PVC PIPE ----e.R1TABLE _____ _ NOT TO SCALE PLASTIC LINER 'y'" ' ' \. \. \. \ \ '-.................. ------. .......... . FIGURE 5
--------~ ., CONCEPTUAL PLAN CROSS SECTION B-B ---FINISH GRADE ELEVATION L---PLASTIC ---;L~N~R-EXISTING ~ • • • • • • • •• GROE~~~ION 'r -• • • • • ••• • •• • 1 EL • • •. •• 1, ........................................ ·-............ . . .. .. . ..... .. -.:i NOT TO SCALE 1' COMPACTED CLAY LAYER ._, . , 7' ....... .... ' ' ' .... . ..... . ... -------------FIGURE 6
3. Construct five-foot liner in the bottom of
the trench and up the sides five feet in
elevation.
4. Install 4-inch PVC perforated leachate
collection system leading to a sump which
will allow liquid withdrawal for the relief
of any head buildup.
S. Place one foot of selected sand or other high
permeability material around the pipe over
the entire bottom of the trench. The trench
will be sloped to drain to the sump.
6. The side slopes will be 2:1.
7. The waste will be placed on top of the one foot
sand in lifts as described in the operations
plan.
8. When all the waste is in place, the landfill
will be covered with one foot of soil (excavated
from trench). A 10 mil artificial liner will
be placed on top of the one foot of soil. A
1.5 foot layer of excavated soil will be place,.l
on top of the liner and six inches of topsoil
will be placed on top of this.
9. The top surface will be sloped at about two
percent to facilitate runoff of rainfall. The
top will be seeded with a perennial grass.
10. All surface drainage during construction and
after completion will be diverted from the
landfill surface.
b. Operational Pl~n
1. Excavation
The backfill and placing of PCB conta-
minated soil will be completed as follows:
Two ten foot lifts will be used. The trucks
will back into the open end of the pit and
place the waste as near to working face as
possible without the truck wheels getting
on the waste. A track piece of equipment
will be used to push and compact the waste
18
into place. Clean earth will be placed
on the floor of the pit as needed to
keep the trucks out of the waste. The
leachate collection system will be
constructed as placement of first lift
progresses. The qpen end of the pit
will be closed to the level of the first
lift. A lfoot layer of clean earth will
be placed over the first lift so the
trucks can be on a clean surface and the
second lift will be completed as the
first. After the second lift has been
completed, including placing the residue
from the runoff collection system, the
open end of the pit will be completely
closed. One foot of clean soil ~ill be
placed on top of the waste. A ten mil
plastic cover on a 2 percent grade will
be placed over this one foot of soil.
Two feet of compacted earth will be
placed over the plastic cover on a 2
percent grade. Erosion control procedures
will be utilized as required by the
Division of Land Resources, Department
of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
2. Surface Runoff
Surface runoff from the pit area will
be collected in a holding pond. The water
collected in the holding pond will be ana-
lyzed for PCB, and if negative, the water
will be released to surface drainage. If
the analysis for PCB's is positive, then
the water will be processed through a car-
bon filter prior to release. The carbon
filter, if used, and the silt from the pit
will be placed in the disposal area prior
to final closing.
3 . Leachate Collection System
Leachate collection system will con-
sist of placing 4~inch PVC perforated pipes
on top of the clay liner graded to a sump
with a stack to at least two feet above the
completed surface with a cover and lock.
One foot porous material will be placed
over the clay liner to enclose the perfo-
rated pipes.
19
4 . Sampling and Monitoring
Three monitoring wells will be placed
on a line through the site . One of the
wells will be located above the disposal
pit and two below, with one of the wells
located at the area with the lowest ground-
water. Sampling and monitor ing of the
leachate collection system, t he wells, and
the receiving stream will be carried out
as recommended by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Background samples will be
collected and analyzed prior to the placing
of any waste.
5. Supportive Facilities
A six foot chain link fence with
barbed wire topping will be installed
around the disposal area to prevent un-
authorized persons and animals from en-
tering. The site will be periodically
inspected and maintained in a manner to
insure security and to prevent hazardous
conditions from developing.
c. Estimated Waste Volume
The landfill site will be constructed to
accommodate up to 40 ,000 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with PCBs.
D. Alternatives Considered
1. Alternatives Method of Removal and Treatment
a. Removal
1. Cons j dera tion was given to the use of
vacuum pick up of the residue l e ft
behind the Athey loader operation;
however, simulated removal opera tions
utilizing both state owned and commer-
cially available vacuum trucks r e-
vealed that this method was very
non-productive and did not elimi nate
the need for spraying/brooming of the
pavement surface.
20
2. Consideration was given to the utili-
zation of mechanical loaders which
could load directly from the contami-
nated shoulder area directly into
dump trucks without moving the con-
taminated material onto the pavement.
It was determined that the predominant
existing shoulder width would not ac-
commodate these type loaders.
3. Consideration was given to vacuuming
the material directly from the con-
taminated area into specially de-
signed dump truck bodies. Simulated
removal operations indicated this
method to be non-productive and sus-
ceptible to dusting and wind drift
problems and, therefore, not appro-
priate.
b. Treatment
Many unproven techniques for treatment of
the PCB spill were considered. Some of the
methods of treatment considered included bac-
terial seedings, biodegration, microwave de-
struction, plasma jet destruction and other
methods. Only three alternatives were consid-
ered as potentially viable methods of treat-
ment and disposal of the PCB contaminated soil.
These alternatives are as follows:
1. Treatment in Place
It was determined that long-term
neutralization and fixation could
be achieved through mixing high ionic
bonding potential, activated charcoal with
the contaminated soil and then distributing
this material deeper into the soil column
of the highway shoulder. This would be
followed by packing, seeding, and reshaping
of the highway shoulder and a continuous
maintenance program to insure that erosion
and soil migration did not occur. This
procedure would result in a soil PCB mix-
ture well below 500 ppm concentration with
most of the PCB particles being deactivated
through bonding to carbon particles. The
21
Regional Adminjsirator, Region IV, EPA
has not considered this approach to meet
minimum requirements of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
2. Incineration
Three incinerators have been identi-
fied as having the capability to destroy
the PCB material through incineration.
These incinerators are located in New
Jersey, Arkansas, and Texas. At the pre-
sent time, these incinerators have not
been issued permits by EPA which would
authorize them to accept and dispose of
PCB materials. Additionally, transporta-
tion and handling logistics would make
this alternate cost prohibitive.
3. Chemical Waste Landfill
Consideration was given to trans-
porting the PCB contaminated soil to an
existing chemical landfill located in
Alabama. This Alternative was considered
not feasible, because of limited transpor-
tation resources , manpower requirements,
and excessive cost of disposal estimated
at $12.0 million, as well as the hazardous
nature of the long distant haul.
2. Alternative Sites Considered
There were approximately 90 sites in 20 counties,
on public and private land, which were investigated.
Most of the sites were eliminated due to the location
being within a public water supply watershed, private
water supply well too near, soil conditions, rocky
terrain, and access problems. Eleven sites were
drilled to establish soil conditions, water table,
etc.
After all subsurfas e data had been evaluated
five of the eleven sites drilled were given fur-
ther consideration. It is anticipated that the
site chosen can meet EPA requirements and is consid-
ered the best site when considering land availability,
proximity to populated areas, access, relative loca-
tion to total spill and site preparation.
22
3. No Action
The no action or "Do Nothing" Alternative was
not considered a viable alternative because of EPA
regulations.
E. Description of Environmental Setting
1. Roadside
The discharge of material containing PCBs
occurred on approximately 211 shoulder miles of
North Carolina highways. The PCB spills have been
identified in 14 counties. See Figure 1 for a
general location of the spill areas. The discharge
of material containing FCBs occurred mainly in ru-
ra.1 areas on the roadway shoulder within 12 inches
of the pavement edge.
2. Disposal Site
a. Geology
The proposed disposal site is located in
the northeastern North Carolina Piedmont
Plateau, approximately four miles south of
Warrenton, North Carolina. The site is more
than 20 miles northeast of the maximum exten-
sion of the Jonesboro Fault.
Site geology consists of foliated and
gneissic rocks striking in a northeast direc-
tion. Predominant rock types include biotite-
feldspar gneiss, quartzitic gneiss, garneti-
ferous biotite gneiss, and interbedded mica
schist and gneiss. All are metamorphic rocks
which show banding, foliation, or gnessic tex-
ture. The mica gneiss on-site is deeply wea-
thereed, forming thick layers of brown-red
clay residum soils . Residum soils are clas-
sified as: clayey, kaolinitic, thermic, typic
hapludults.
The aquifer below this site is associated
with consolidated bedrock, flows toward topo-
graphic lows, and groundwater encountered in
the site borings indicates the upper aquifer
elevations. Local existing wells on ridges
and elevations similar to this site have a
depth of 40-47 feet to water table.
23
The disposal site is located on a hill
well above the floodplain, as can be seen by
the location on the USGS map (see Figure 3).
There is no hydraulic connection between the
waste and any ground or surface water. The
bottom of the waste will be a minimum of 13
feet above the seasonal high groundwater ta-
ble.
b. Environmental Profile
The proposed disposal site occurs on open,
rolling cultivated land presently utilized for
soybean production. In addition to the soy-
beans, various weeds and grasses have been ob-
served growing on the proposed disposal site
and include such species as foxtail, ground
cherry, thistle, broomsedge, ragweed, aster,
and horseweed. Mixed deciduous hardwoods in
association with pine occur on the periphery
of the soybean field. Oaks including white,
southern red, black, and post, red maple,
sweetgum, tulip poplar, hickory and loblolly
pine are the major canopy species present.
Understory species consists of redbud, dogwood,
American holly, red cedar, and winged sumac
scattered among small shrubs, saplings and
vines -primarily honeysuckle.
24
II. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Soil Removal
1. Air Qualityl
a. Ambient Air Monitoring
Off-road sampling sites were established
at four locations along the proposed one mile
(1.6 km) test site on NC 58 near Inez, Warren
County, North Carolina. These sites were 30 m
(100 ft) from the line of removal on either
side of the highway and are designated as sites
A, B, C and Din Figure 7. Two additional air
samplers were located on either side of the tem-
porary storage site, about 2 m from the outer
edge of the plastic soil liner. The storage area
monitoring sites are designated E and Fin the
inset in Figure 7. Background samples were
collected one day prior to the test dig at
all sites except A and B. Power generator
problems interferred with pre-dig sampling at
these sites. All sites were monitored for 4
hr during the removal operation and again one
week afterwards. During the removal operation,
the air sampling was begun when the first vehi-
cle (1st hydroseeder) of the removal train ap-
proached within 90 m (100 yds) of the appro-
priate pair of samplers. That is, samplers at
sites A and B were started when the train came
within 90 m and were operated for 4 hr beyond
that time. The same procedure was used at
sites C and D. At the storage site, sampling
was begun when the first dump truck arrived
and was continued for 4 hr.
Aroclor 1260 was found in the ambient
atmosphere at all sites monitored. Air levels
were generally in the 0.01 to 0.05 micrograms/m3
range (see Figure 7) before, during and after
lThe following Air Quality analysis and results are taken
from "Studies Conducted In Connection with PCB Spills In North
Carolina", Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Toxi-
cology Division, Health Effects Research Laboratory, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.
25
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING
SITE A SITE B SITE C SITED SITE E SITE F
AIRBORNE ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ i ! ~ i ~ i PCB* i:r: i:r: i:r: i:r: ! 0 H w 0 H w 0 H · w 0 H i H ~ H
(µg/m3) ~ i:r: 8 ~ i:r: 8 i:.. i:r: 8 ~ ~ g:: ~ II,
0 r.. 0 ~ ~· 0 ~ 5 ~ IXl 0 ..t IXl 0 0 al 0
Less than 0.01 X X X lt
0.01 -o.os X X X X X X X X X X X
More than 0.05 X ·-* as Aroclor 1260 (0.06)
~WIND
INEZ
-0
END @]
1/4 MILE
STORAGE SITE
Figure 7. Ambient air monitoring at Warren County test removal site.
26
the dig. This corresponds to 8 to 42 farts-
per-trillion (wt/wt) for dry air at 20 C and
760 mm Hg. Several values were below 0.01
micrograms/m3 and one was above 0.05 micro-
grams/m3. The range 0.01-0.05 micrograms/m3
constitutes normal levels of PCBs found in
most areas of the United States. However,
atmospheric levels of PCBs in rural, non-in-
dustrialized areas such as that near Inez
would be expected to fall into the 0.005 to
0.015 micrograms/m3 range. The fact that
levels are generally higher than this and the
distribution matches that of Aroclor 1260
(PCBs in the ambient atmosphere usually more
closely resemble Aroclor 1254) indicate that
there is a specific source of Aroclor 1260
in the area.
The quantities of Aroclor 1260 collected
as airborned dust and vapors are tabulated in
Table 2. In most cases vapor levels were
higher than dust levels. However, some of the
particulate-bound PCB would be expected to
volatize from the collection filter into the
vapor trap during the 4 hr sampling period.
In only one case was the PCB dust level found
to be significantly greater than the vapor
level. At site A, the only site where levels
exceeded 0.05 micrograms/m3, some 60% of the
Aroclor 1260 was found on the particulate
filter. This site was downwind from the high-
way and near the beginning of the digging
operation. The initial sweeping of the road
surface after pick-up of the excavated dirt
was done without a preliminary water spray.
The sweeper was observed to generate appre-
ciable dust levels, which were swept by the
wind in the direction of sampling site A.
The total Aroclor 1260 air concentration mea-
sured at this site was 0.06 micrograms/m3
(50 parts-per-trillion), which is at or below
PCB levels which have been reported for air
in residential areas in highly industrialized
areas. Because of the problems with wind-
blown dust, the procedure was changed early
in the removal operation and water was applied
to the road surface residue prior to sweeping.
Observable dust levels were considerably di-
minished, and subsequent measurements (at
sites C and D) were substantially lower. It
27
Site A0 ~ lahle Z Airborne Aroclor 1260 Concentrations in Micrograms per Cubic Heter of Air Near Test Re110val Site In Warren County, North Carolina'" Site e Site C Site D0 Airborne (Tobacco field, west side) (Tobacco field, east side) (Thorne garden, east side) (Thorne lane, west side) state Before During After Before During After Oust 0.038 0.002 -0.001 0.003 Vapor 0.026 0.008 0.010 0.010 Total -0.064 0.010 -0.011 0.013 *Dates of sa111pllng: Before 10/04/78; During 10/05/78; After 10/12/78. '"*Oownwind during dig. N 00 Before During After Before During After 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.012 0.001 0.017 0.006 0.006 0.012 0.011 0.005 0.022 0.007 0.008 0.014 0.023 0.006 Site E** Site F (Dump site, far side) (Du111p site, near side) Before During After Before During After 0.010 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.00~ 0.001 0.014 0.025 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.024 0.034 0.012 0.011 0.014 0.007
should be noted, however, that the downwind
sample (collected at site D) was the only
other sample to show dust levels higher than
vapor levels.
Weather data for the three sampling dates
(October 4, 5 and 12) were not recorded, and
will not be available from the National Clima-
tic Center, Asheville, North Carolina, until
late November, 1978. However, the weather was
apparently similar to that recorded at the
Raleigh-Durham Weather Station on those dates.
High temperatures were 25 to 27°C on each day
and lows were 16uC on October 4 and 5 and 9°C
on October 12. There was no precipitation
during the daylight hours on any of these days.
However, heavy rains occurred during the night
on October 4-5 and heavy fog prevailed the
test site early in the morning of October 5.
By the time digging was begun at about 10:00
a.m., there was high haze and the ground ap-
peared to be damp (but not damp enough to pre-
vent blowing dust).
Wetting of the road shoulder before dig-
ging was apparently effective in keeping dust
levels down during dumping of the trucks at
the temporary storage site. No significant
enhancement of particulate-bound PCB was de-
tected at sites E or F, and little if any in-
crease in total airborne PCB was measured
within two meters downwind of the dumping.
Vertical profile measurements were taken
at one site along the test removal route one
day before and one week after the removal.
Portable low volume air samplers were used
for this purpose and only vapors were sampled
for a period of 4 hr. Air was sampled at
several levels directly above the spill on
the road shoulder between sites C and D.
Five levels were sampled prior to removal,
but due to a shortage of air samplers only
three levels were sampled afterwards. Data
are presented in Table 3. The concentration
measured at 60 cm after removal (0.14
micrograms/m3 is suspected to be in error.
29
Table 3
Vertical Profile of Aroclor 1260 Air Concentrations Directly
Over Treated Spill on NC 58 Test Site (Warren Co.)
Distance
above spill
(cm)
2
30
60
120
180
Conclusions
Air Concentration
micrograms/m3)
Before removal After removal
0.90
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.14
0.01
The presence of PCBs in the air at normal breathing levels
(i.e., above 120 cm or 4 ft) was not f ound to exceed ;he NIO~H
proposed criterion for workplace air of 1 microgram/m, even
directly above spill sites. There wa s no significant increase
in ambient air concentrations of Aroclor 1260 during test re-
moval operations performed along NC 58 in Warren County, North
Carolina.
30
b. Indoor Air Monitoring
The air was sampled for the presence of
PCBs inside seven houses or other structures
along the test removal route on NC 58 near
Inez in Warren County. Sampling was performed
before, during and after removal operations.
The seven sites monitored in connection
with the Warren County test removal are shown
in Figure 8. Air was sampled inside six of
the structures -on September 19 and inside the
remaining one on October 4, 1978, one day prior
to the dig. Due to a late and unexpected change
in plans, however, the dig route was terminated
outside the community of Inez (See Figure 8),
so that most of the buildings were not in the
immediate vicinity of removal operations. Con-
sequently, samples were not collected at sites
1, 2, 4 and 5 during or after the dig. Indoor
air levels of Aroclor 1260 are given in Table
4. All were substantially below the NIOSH pro-
posed criterion of 1 microgram/m3. There was
no evidence of increased air levels in any of
the structures monitored during the digging
operations.
2. Water Quality
A short-term water quality impact will occur
as a result of leaving particles of soil contami-
nated with PCBs on the surface of the highway after
removal. This soil, which is not returned to the
shoulder and incorporated into the soil column, will
migrate to streams during rainfall events which car-
ries the soil particles into drainage channels,
ditches, and streams. Wind could pick up the soil
particles as dust and create some migration of par-
ticles into adjacent fields. Test results of the
test pickup suggest that concentration of PCBs con-
tained in the soil remaining in cracks and crevices
of the pavement surface would be insignificant when
compared to the volume and strength of the material
being removed from the shoulder. Some contaminated
pockets will remain adjacent to the pavement and
with the excavated portion of the shoulder which
could migrate into the environment through soil
erosion. This amount of PCB material is insignifi-
cant when compared to the volume and strength of
the material removed from the shoulder. The entire
pickup operation will be monitored to insure that
the volume of the contaminated soil residual is
minimized.
31
m
--0
INEZ (§1 END
II] 1/4 MILE
START
Key:
1. Thompson Grocery
2. Thompson House
3. Inez Country Store
4. Thorne House
5. Thorne Barn
6. Fleming House
7. Chicken Coop
Figure a . Indoor air monitoring at Warren County test removal site.
32
Table 4
Indoor Air Levels of Aroclor 1260 i n Buildings Along Test
Removal Route
Location
Thompson Grocery
Thompson House
Inez Country Store
Thorne House
Thorne Barn
Fleming House
Chicken Coop
Conclusions
Before
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
Air concentration
(micrograms/m3)
During
0.01
0.01
0.01
After
0.01
0.01
0.01
All air monitoring data taken inside domiciles and other
buildings located along roadways on whi~h PCB spills occurred
showed no level above 0.10 micrograms/m. This level is one-
tenth that of the proposed NIOSH criterion for workplace air.
33
3. Plant and Non-Human Animal Life
There are two main points to consider, i.e.
the effect on the environment from the removal of
a 24 to 30 inch width of soil approximately three
inches deep adjacent to the paved roadway and the
effect of, if any, PCB contaminated dust or other
soil particles that may be distributed in the sur-
rounding area. Insofar as the actual soil removal
operation simulates the normal Department of Trans-
portation shoulder maintenance work along the road-
ways, no adverse effect on the plant or non-human
animal life would be expected. The excavated area
will be back-filled with soil pulled from the ditch
area or trucked in from a non-contaminated area.
The area will be reseeded; therefore, this repre-
sents only a temporary disruption of the plant life
along these roadways.
The other possible risk that must be considered
is that of displacement of PCB contaminated soil to
the adjacent area. Previous laboratory testing by
the North Carolina Department of Agriculture has
shown that the PCB can be translocated up to several
hundred yards along these roadways. This transloca-
tion is presumed to be via PCB laden dust. The
areas under consideration are all in rural areas
and therefore the possible contamination of home
gardens and agricultural field crops must be con-
sidered. In assessing the r i sk of vegetable and
field crops, two points must be considered. First,
if the removal operation along the roadways is com-·
pleted prior to May 1 or begins after October 1,
there should be virtually no risk of PCB contamina-
tion to vegetable or agricultural crops. Removal
operations between May 1 and October 1 would sub-
stantially increase the risk of contamination of
vegetable and field crops if adequate dust controls
were not maintained. However, with adequate dust
controls, as demonstrated during the test removal
operations in Warren County, any resulting contami-
nation would be at insignificant levels and would
not preclude the expected usage of vegetable or
field crops grown along the contaminated roadways.
Air samples collected and analyzed by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency during the test removal
operations in Warren County showed the PCB contami-
nation levels at all sites to be less than 1 micro-
gram/m3. It was also determined that the predomi-
nance of PCB in the air samples were in the dust
phase rather than the vapor phase.
34
B.
4. Traffic Disruption
It is not anticipated that the removal and
hauling operations will create any major traffic
disruption. The PCB spills are predominately along
rural routes with relatively low traffic counts.
The removal operation wlll be quite similar to
shoulder and ditch maintenance operations routinely
carried out by state forces. Accordingly, these
personnel have a great deal of experience in the
handling of traffic und~r these conditions.
One way traffic will be maintained throughout
the removal sites. Advance warning signs in accord-
ance with the Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices
and flagmen will be employed. Emergency vehicles
will be given immediate ingress and egress through
the areas and local school officials will be kept
posted as to the location of current work areas.
Haul trucks will be dispatched from the removal
area at approximate 5 minute intervals providing
adequate passing distance for following motorists.
The haul routes will also be routinely monitored by
vehicles equipped with mobile radios in order that
traffic disruptions that may be caused by mechani-
cal failure may be promptly alleviated.
Disposal Method
1. Geology
The proposed disposal site does not meet one
of the EPA technical requirements for a chemical
landfill that being "located in thick relatively
impermeable formations such as large-area clay
pans" (see Figure 9). Since the proposed disposal
site does not contain large-area clay pans but
does meet the other EPA criteria, a waiver of this
requirement with the following modifications has
been requested in the EPA permit application.
Required
In-place soil thickness
four feet, or compacted
soil liner thickness three
feet.
permeability lxlo-7 emfs
35
Actual
Five feet compacted soil.
2.osx10-8 cm/s permeability
' i
----1-L . I •
I •
' t
I I
' I . --i----' ' : I , ' I ' i .. . l
1-, • I i ~ 'i
!
I : '-r: • j ;
' ' ' t
I i
l t1·· I I : ; I , I .
I I
I I
t /. I
~I
:...11
01
I
I
\
I
I
I
':i1 -(/)I
\
i I
'
·f···-· ------
/
/ ~:ll /
ID' I c:t i 1-; I
I-I i ~
Ct:i I u ...I Lu! 0 -;;; I 1-1 ·a:
c:tS :1, 0 ~,-Lu
oi1 a:: c:t w
(/) I wl I a:: I I-
\ a: <{
Lu \ ~ IJ..
\ :z, \ -; ' . \
\
\
. q ~9 ~o
0 a, T-·· ,,, ,,, C\i
36
The soil characteristics as shown by the sieve
analysis and the atterburg limits and the percent
moisture versus compaction curves indicat~ that the
native clay MH-CH will compact 92 lbs/ft. Labora-
tory verification indicates a permeability of
2.osx10-s cm/sec.
Required Actual
Percent passing No. 200 Average passing No.
sieve 30 200 = 65%
Liquid limit 30 Average LL = 50
Plasticity index 15 Average PI = 18
Artificial liner None
A waiver has been requested to delete the arti-
ficial liner. The State of North Carolina does not
feel that the lack of an artificial liner will pre-
sent an unreasonable risk of injury to the health
or the environment from PCBs for the following rea-
sons:
(a) This landflll is not a commercial facility
which will be in operation for a long period
of time. It is a one-time operation for a
special problem. Soil with low concentration
of PCB, less than 500 ppm, is generally expected.
(b) The 5-foot compacted clay liner exceeds the
requirement found in 761.41 (b)(l)(i), EPA-
Part V-PCB Disposal and Marking.
(c) There will be a 10 mil plastic liner placed on
top of the landfill. This "umbrella" top will
be covered by two feet of soil which will sup-
port the growth of grasses. The grass, the 2
percent slope, drainage ditches, and the top
liner will effectively prevent any rainwater
infiltration into the landfill.
37
2. Hydrology
The proposed disposal site does not meet the
separation requirements of SO feet between the site
and the groundwater table. The State of North Caro-
lina has requested in the EPA permit application a
waiver of this requirement. The State of North
Carolina does not feel that this will present an
unreasonable risk to the environment based on the
same reasons listed for waiver of the liner require-
ments and the fact that the groundwater table is
within 50 feet or less of the surface in essentially
all the Piedmont area of North Carolina.
Three groundwater monitoring wells will be placed
in a line through the disposal site. One will be
located at an elevation above the site and two below.
One of the below will be located at a point having the
highest water table. Samples will be taken and ana-
lyzed for pH, conductivity, and PCB on a quarterly
basis for the first year and bi-annually thereafter
for at least ten consecutive years. At the end of this
period, further evaluation will determine whether ad-
ditional sampling is necessary.
Surface water monitoring in the vicinity of the
disposal site will be conducted for the same para-
meters on the same basis as the groundwater monitoring.
Monitoring will be conducted by the Division of Health
Services and the Division of Enviornmental Management.
3. Plant and Non-Human Animal Life
To assess the effect at the disposal site, both
the short and long range factors were considered .
The short range effect, if any, would be due to
translocation from the disposal site primarily by
PCB dust and soil particles . Any short range effect
would be the same or similar to those expected along
the clean-up routes except those possible effects
on vegetable and field crops. No such agricultural
crops will be within the expected impact area.
The disposal site will be constructed,
filled, closed, and maintained as detailed elsewhere
in this report. There are no expected long range
adverse effect on the plant or non-human animal
life at or near the disposal site.
38
J .
c.
4. Air Quality
The air quality measurements taken before,
during and after the test removal of PCB contami-
nated soil from the roadway shoulder were not f ound
to exceed the NIOSH criterion for workplace air of
1 microgram per cubic meter. Based on the air moni-
toring data compiled during the test removal opera-
tion, the ambient air quality at the disposal site
would not be signifi cantly effected by the disposal
of PCB contaminated soil.
5. Land Use
The proposed disposal site is located within
the Region K, Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Govern-
ments. A Land Use Plan for Region• K was prepared
in January of 1978. The existing land uses in the
vicinity of the project are classified as rural
areas. The rural areas are comprised of forest,
agricultural land, residential land and to a lesser
extent industrial land. The proposed disposal site
appears to be compatible with the existing Land Use
Plan and the projected Land Use Plan for the year
2000.
6. Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Re-
sources, Divi sion of Archives and History has re-
viewed the disposal site for potential effects on
cultural resources. There are no structures in
the disposal area of architectural importance. The
disposal site was also reviewed for potential ef-
fects on archaeological resources. It was concluded
that there is little likelihood that any archaeo-
logical resources will be affected by the proposed
disposal site.
Effect On Workers, Motorists and Area Residents
Based on the NIOSH (National Institute of Occuua-
tional Safety and Health) standard of 1 microgram/m~ of
PCB in air, there is no reason to believe that temporary
exposure, if any, would creat e a health hazard to motor-
ists who may drive past a clean-up operation or to any
resident who lives along a spill route. The NIOSH stand-
ard is based on the expected working life of an employee,
i.e. forty hours per week during a lifetime. Within this
time frame, any exposure a motorist or area resident
would experience would be insignificant.
39
l •
While no adverse effect i s expected among the per-
sonnel involved in clean-up operations, personal pro-
tective wear will be furnished those workers directly
involved wit h the removal and disposal operation.
In summary, no adverse effect on the workers, mo-
torists, or persons living al ong the spill sites is
expected.
40
' "
·(
III. BASIS OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT DETERMINATION
A. Standards For Allowable Concentrations
The rules and regulations promulgated by EPA
define "PCB mixture'! to mean any mixture with 500 parts
per million (ppm) of PCB. Quantitative analyses of
Soil picked up along the shoulder showed concentrations
of PCB in excess of 500 ppm in a strip 1"-12" wide and
1" to 2" deep. Test at the storage site of the test
cleanup operation in Warren County revealed PC~ con-
centrations from 210 to --380 ppm.
B. Studies and Test Results
The air quality monitoring data obtained during the
test cleanup operation along NC 58 in Warren County re-
vealed PCB air concentrations directly over the spill
sites of 0.01 to 0.09 micrograms per cubic meter. The
NIOSH (National Institute of Occupation Safety and
Health) standards is 1 microgram per cubic meter. Moni-
toring data collected inside homes along the spill sites
and in the breathing zones of the test removal team indi-
cated values of 0.01 to 0.10 micrograms per cubic meter,
which is substantially lower than the NIOSH criterion of
1 microgram per cubic meter.
Studies were conducted on the activated charcoal
used for containment of PCB spills along the roadway
shoulders to determine its sorption and retention char-
acteristics. The studies showed that PCB was trans-
ferred from soil and sand to charcoal after mixing in
either the dry or wet state with 50 to 70% efficiency.
C. Environmental Protection Agency Permit
An application has been submitted to the Regional
Director, Region IV EPA, in accordance with Part V,
EPA, PCB Disposal and Marking Regulations.
D. Mitigation Measures
The streams entering the disposal site, the leachate
collection system and the monitoring wells will be sam-
pled and monitored as required by EPA. Three monitoring
wells will be established at the disposal site. Prior to
construction of the disposal pit, baseline samples of
ground and surface water will be collected and analyzed.
The monitoring wells and the surface streams will be
monitored monthly while the chemical landfill is being
operated. Further monitoring will be performed in ac-
cordance with the procedure descri bed in Hydrology sec-
tion of this report. The wells wi ll be constructed as
required by EPA regulations concerning disposal of PCB
mixture in a chemical waste landfill.
41
IV. COORDINATION
The following State Agencies assisted in the prepara-
tion of this Draft Negative Declaration:
N. C. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
N. C. Department of Transportation
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Agriculture
V. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT
The Draft Negative Declaration is available for public
inspection and review at the State Clearing House, Division
of State Budget & Manaagement, De?artment of Administration,
Room 508-S, 116 West Jones Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.
VI. SUMMARY
During the months of June and July, 1978 PCB mixture
was discharged on approximately 211 shoulder miles of North
Carolina Highways. This Negative Declaration includes the
evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated
with the removal and disposal of the PCB contaminated soil
on North Carolina highway shoulders. Up to 40,000 cubic
yards of PCB contaminated soil will be stored in a chemical
waste landfill to be constructed in rural Warren County.
FV/dc/dk
42