NCD980602163_19790116_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Written and Oral Questions Raised at the 4 Jan 1979 Public Hearing-OCR

CR1MECONTROLW
& PUBLIC SAFETY
State Highway Patrol · Alcohol Law EnforceIIlllnt • Crone Control -National Guard • Civil Preparedness · Civil Air Patrol
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor January 16, 1979 Herbert L. Hyde, Secretary
WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON PCB STORAGE IN WARREN COUNTY HELD AT WARRENTON ON JANUARY 4, 1979;
QUESTIONS CONTAINED IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PROCEEDING;
AND ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS
PO. Box 27687 • 512 N. Salisbury Street · Raleigh.NC. 27611 · [phone]
WRITTEN AND ORAL QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON PCB STORAGE IN WARREN COUNTY HELD AT WARRENTON ON JANUARY 4, 1979;
QUESTIONS CONTAINED IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PROCEEDING;
AND ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS
Did we fully explain the possibility of burying the PCBs on State-owned land?
Yes. Every parcel of land offered by the State Property Officer as being
a possible candidate as a site to receive soil contaminated with PCB was
investigated. These included properties assigned to the National Guard,
institutions, tower sites, Prison property, experimental farms, State Parks,
State Forests,utility-owned property, and properties belonging to the Depart-
ment of Transportation.
Did we fully explore the possibility of burying the PCBs on Federally-owned land
(such as Fort Bragg or Butner)?
Fort Bragg was considered but due to its
to as dune-type soils, it was not deemed
problem . Butner is State-owned property
as a possible candidate. Its property
Raleigh water supply project and was not
detailed investigation.
What soil was used to determine permeability?
extremely permeable soils, referred
a suitable solution for the State
and its property was investigated
border the proposed extension of the
viewed as a favorable candidate for
Surface soils on the proposed site were tested from a depth of 5 inches to
6 feet below ground level . A 5-foot layer of soils was proposed as a liner;
therefore, a 5½-foot soil layer was tested for permeability. The layer
meets the permeability criteria and enough materials are present to construct
a 5-foot liner.
How many acres do we really have to have to bury the PCBs?
Sixteen to twenty usable acres depending on the specific site. This acreage
includes the bas i c working area plus additional acreage for buffer zo nes,
monitor wells, stockpile areas, holding ponds, run-off control devices, fenc-
ing, immediate site access, and other acreage required to efficiently and
safely dispose of the contaminated soil. This acreage does not include deeded
right-of-way which would be required from a State maintained road to the specific
disposal site.
What if water found on Warren County site --what will State do?
Water table data was established by utilization of the subsurface borings and
by consideration of information furnished by the U.S. Geological Survey. As
indicated in the application, the soil contaminated with PCB is proposed to be
2
disposed of at an elevation which is no closer than 13 feet to the historical
high water table.
Why was Warren County chosen? Does the Governor want to push it further down?
Of the sites investigated, the site in Warren County is the best available
considering its soil, water, other geological features, location, and access.
Were tests made on road side? What were the findings? How were the tests per-
formed?
The State took representative samples from each segment of highway along
which spills were suspected. It was found that 210.97 shoulder miles in 14
counties exceeded the threshold of 500 parts per million established by EPA
as the level of contamination which requires disposal under their regulations.
Why did the State option so much additional land in Warren County?
The owner offered to sell the entire tract of 142 acres only.
Will that extra land be used in the future for storage of other hazardous materials?
No, surplus land not used for storage or monitoring purposes will be leased
back to the present owner for agricultural purposes.
Why is the State asking waivers from EPA; that is, why not find a site where waivers
won't be necessary?
Of the approximately 90 sites in 20 counties investigated, this site would
require less waivers than any of the other sites investigated.
If death or injury occurs, will the State assume moral and legal responsibility?
The State has certain legal responsibilities in cases such as this, which
wi 11 continue for as long as the Warren County site is us 'ed for the present
storage of PCBs.
Chatham County--why such special treatment?
The County Commissioners refused to confirm the sale of the proposed site;
therefore, the application with EPA was withdrawn,
What other sites in North Carolina have been considered?
Approximately 90 sites in 20 counties located on both public and private land
were investigated. Most of the sites were eliminated due to the location
being within a public 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 sub-
surface data had been evaluated, 5 of the 11 sites drilled were given further
consideration.
3
Why in this Warren County crisis is the Governor not here?
The Governor regrets that he was unable to attend the Warren County Hearing.
He did, however, send the State's highest ranking public safety official,
Mr. Herbert Hyde, the Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety.
Why didn't the Governor see fit to fully inform (by TV, etc.) the public of the
potential dangers of PCB right away?
It took several days to identify the type of contaminant which was being
disposed of along North Carolina highways. Even after the contaminant was
identified as PCBs, the job of fully informing the public has been difficult
because experience with the health effects of PCBs has been very limited, and
there is a great deal of disagreement among the scientific conmunity as to
the actual dangers of PCBs. EPA itself states in its Fact Sheet on
Polychorinated Biphenyls, "The long-term effects of PCBs on human or other
animals is not clear. More study is needed in this area.11
Why didn't the State carry through with its threat of eminent domain in Chatham
County?
In many instances the State does have the option of using its eminent domain
powers to acquire land, hence the mention of that option in its December 5
letter. After that date, however, it began to appear that the use of that
power in the Chatham County situation would be inappropriate. It therefore
decided against using that option in that county.
Why is the State seeking a waiver of the artificial liner requirement?
The following statement from the application answers this question:
The State of North Carolina does not feel that the lack of an artificial
liner will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environ-
ment from PCBs for the following reasons:
This landfill is not a commercial facility which will be in operation
for a long period of time. It is a one-shot (90 days open) operation
for a special problem. (Soil with low concentration of PCB generally
expected to be less than 500 ppm based on test dig, see attachment.)
The 5-foot compacted clay liner exceeds the requirement found in
761.41 (b)(l)(i), EPA-Part V-PCB Disposal and Marking.
There will be a 10 mil plastic liner placed on top of the landfill. This
11 umbrella 11 top will be covered by two feet of soil which will support
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.
Why is the State seeking a waiver of the requirement for a 50-foot separation
between the site and the groundwater?
The State of North Carolina does not feel that the request for waiving the
50-foot separation between the site and the ground water will present an un-
reasonable risk to health or the environment from the soil contaminated with
PCB for the same reasons stated for the liner waiver.
Why is the State seeking a waiver of the requirement for the leachate collection
system under the liner?
On the advice of EPA, the leachate collection system was placed above the
soil liner to prevent the occurrence of a leachate head and to be able to
detect sooner any leachate movement from the waste conglomerate.
4
EPA requirements state that the "site must not be subject to flooding, nor have
hydraulic connection with surface water." The proposed site is located near the
fork of Richneck Creek and Fishing Creek. Both of these are special flood hazard
areas. What about that?
Refer to the attached letter dated November 29, 1978, from the United States
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.
Why not covei~ up the PCBs where they are with a 2" asphalt extension of the road-
way? The State already owns this land; the money to be spent on a disposal site
could be used instead for widening the highway; no further disturbance of the
PCBs would be necessary.
T~is is an option which EPA would have to approve. In addition, the shoulders
containing PCBs would have to be lowered in order to make the new 2 11 asphalt
extension of the roadway even with the roadway. To lower the shoulder would
require removing the land containing the PCBs, and thus the problem of dis-
posal would still ex i st. ·
(Dr. Mulchi) EPA regulations, while not specific, suggest that a disposal area should
have a thick clay layer. My observations show the maximum concentration of clay
be within 24 inches of the surface. The figure on page 13 of the N.C. Proposal
suggests a clay layer of perhaps 10 feet in thickness at the site. It is my judg-
ment that the data given in the proposal on 1A-8A samples which represent depths
from 1-10 feet are more representative of the upper 2 feet rather than for the entire
10 feet. The soils should have been sampled at 6-inch intervals for the initial
10 feet rather than bulk sampled to such depths. In fact, the data for the 1A-8A
samples appear to represent only the initial 6 to 12 inches of the upper portions
of the profile.
How do we respond to that allegation?
REFERENCE TO THICK CLAY LAYER
The EPA regulations are very specific on soil technical requirements. Regu-
lations requi re one of two equivalent site locations. One alternative is to
locate the site in t hick relatively impermeable formations such as large-area
clay pans. The equivalent alternative is to locate the site in soils with
high average clay and silt (fine soil materials) content, with specific en-
gineering characteristics. There is no specificatton for thickness of clay
layers in either alternati ve.
5
Nor~h Carolina does not have large-area clay pan fonnations but does have
equivalent alternative soils. The proposed site is located in these type
soils. These soils are representative of thick, relatively impenneable, high
clay and silt formations found in North Carolina. These soils exceed the
minimum requirements for engineering characteristics.
REFERENCE TO FIGURE ON PAGE 13 of the PROPOSAL
The figure on Page 13 of the proposal is a general cross-section of the site
and is not intended to be an absolute representation of the site. The intent
of Figure 13 is to indicate relative depth and sequence of soil materials,
topography, geology, and hydrology.
Soil boring (1A-8A) data established that a layer approximately Oto 10 feet
below the surface is classified as clayey materials by standardized engineer-
ing testing procedures. (The soil materials are classified as A-7, and A-7
materials represent the most clayey classification under standardized analysis
procedures by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO)
classification system.)
REFERENCE TO MAXIMUM CLAY CONTENT
The EPA regulations do not specify any criteria for maximum clay concentration.
Regulations require a high average clay and silt content.
Examples: Maximum concentration of clay versus average clay content
(1) A soil may have a maximum clay concentration of 5 percent. This is a
low average amount of clay but is still a maximum clay concentration.
This soil would not meet EPA regulations since it may have a maximum clay
concentration but low average clay and silt content.
(2) A soil may have a thin clay layer of 100 percent clay sandwiched between
deep sand layers. Although the maximum clay concentration is 100 percent
clay, when the total soil is evaluated, it will have a low average clay
content. This soil would not meet the requirements for high clay and
silt content.
The average clay and silt content is the more adequate criteria for soil
evaluation.
Soils on the proposed site exceed the minimum required average clay and
silt content.
REFERENCE TO LOCATION OF MAXIMUM CLAY CONCENTRATION LAYER
Maximum clay concentration is located in upper soil layers in essentially all
soils.
JUDGMENT ON DATA PRESENTED
The data from the soil borings is a result of extensive testing procedures
established by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and the American
Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO). These tests are standardized
valid engineering procedures and are basic to the entire field of soils engineer-
ing. The suggestion that the data from samples lA to 8A are representative
of any soil materials other than presented in the application is invalid (and
unresponsible) with respect to verified and certified engineering interpre-tations.
REFERENCE TO 6-INCH SAMPLING INCREMENTS
6
It is suggested that 6-inch sampling intervals would be more appropriate than
collecting representative material from a layer sampling interval. Small
sampling intervals may give detailed data; however, the data is only valid
for that one small sample area. If one were to sample at the same depth a few
feet away, comparison of the results might indicate significant differences.
By representative sampling and mixing the entire soil layer, average data is
obtained. Average data would mask any small differences and the data is valid
over a larger area than 6-inch sampling and analyses intervals.
For example, it was suggested that the maximum clay concentration is on the
upper 2 feet. When a mixed representative sample is taken from the upper 10
feet, the effect of the clay content is diluted by mixing less clayey materials
with higher clay materials. Sampling and testing netergenous materials from a
given soil layer is an accepted engineering procedure and on this specific
site provides additional safety factors.
More detailed sampling was required and performed to test materials for the
impermeable clay liner. The upper clayey soil materials were sampled and
tested on intervals of several feet rather than 6-inch intervals.
Both detailed and sampling procedures for average site evaluation were used
on this site.
The 1B-8B samples, which represent depths from 7 to 30 feet, show sand, silt and
clay contents of about 44%, 35% and 21 % respectively, which translates into a loam
classification. There are very small amounts of clay present deep within the soils
at the site which would serve to trap escaping materials in future years, with a
resulting risk of groundwater contamination.
How do we respond to that allegation?
REFERENCE TO TRAPPING OF ESCAPING Ml\TERIALS AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
The conceptual desiTn includes detailed engineering erocedures to arevent any
movement of materia s below the clay liner. Monitoring we l ls woul be in-
stalled to detect any PCB movement.
Although soils below the site do increase in silt and sand content , the
materials are still cl assified as fine materials, are relatively impermeable,
and have a large capacity to trap PCB.
Trapping PCB is related (97 percent) to the surface area of soil materials.
There is a large volume of fine material below the site. It was suggested that
soil chemical processes (cation exchange capacity) was involved in PCB trap-
ping . This is not a factor in trapping PCB. Soil physical properties of
surface area and porosity will control trapping PCB, mass flow movement and
movement by diffusion. It is proposed in the design to engineer soil physical
7
properties in such a manner to totally contain PCB movement.
Even an artificial plastic liner might not give the safeguards necessary for storage
of PCBs in soil less than 50% clay, because it will ultimately deteriorate.
How do we respond to that, especially when we are asking for a waiver of the liner
regui rement?
Refer to liner-waiver question (p.3). No specifications for clay content
are outlined by EPA regulations. However, the soil materials do have greater
than 65 percent clay and silt. This amount of fine materials exceeds this
minimum specified by EPA.
The cores drilled at the site did not show groundwater at approximately 40 feet, but
this is not proof that the nearest groundwater will be a safe distance below the
rock layers. In fact, the lack of groundwater on the top of the rock layer is
probably evidence that the rocks are unconsolidated. Such being the case, there may
be natural channels within the rocks which have hydraulic connections with streams
and wells in the region. In such regions, a drill core may miss groundwater channels
very easily. Mr. Paul Pope says it is difficult to strike water in the region, but
he has had success on several occasions.
How do we answer that?
REFERENCE TO GROUNDWATER AND HYDROLIC CHARACTERISTICS
Water table data was furnished by deep soil borings and investigations of wells
on similar topographical locations. The site has a low water table and is
representative of this area.
Regardless of site geology and hydrology, there will be no hydraulic connection
between the PCB and surface water and no connection between the PCB and ground-
water. Therefore, no water transport or contamination can reasonably be ex-
pected to occur.
Movement of groundwater in fractured rock with flow away from the PCB site was
proposed to be representative of site hydrogeology. This would prevent water
buildup below the site and is an asset in that it is additional.
The proposal does not provide for leachate collection beneath the burial site, but
instead suggests such a system "within" the site. Thus, possible leakage from the
site would go undetected. There is no means to assess the effectiveness of drain
pipes which may be rendered nonserviceable during backfilling operations. There
are other sites in the U.S. where leakage from waste chemical sites has been detected,
which should serve as forewarning that "cost cutting" procedures at this site may
endanger the success of making this a "safe site. 11
How do we answer that?
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
The design for the leachate collection system, placing the system above rather
than below the clay liner, is a sound engineering practice. If the system is
placed above the clay liner, then any liquid movement can be removed at the
closest point of generation and at the point of least distance of travel. It
8
will also prevent any water pressure buildup that would tend to push water
through the clay liner.
Wells will be installed to monitor any PCB movement below the clay liner.
All precautions will be taken to ensure that the drainage blanket (sand layer)
and the drainage pipe for liquid movement will be installed so that it will
be completely serviceable as designed.
The above measures are not cost cutting measures but are based on sound
engineering design, installation, and maintenance.
EPA regs require an artificial liner of more than 30 millimeters. Originally, N.C.
officials promised there would be a 30 millimeter liner above, below and along
the outsides of the ~lay liner. These promises have disappeared in the formal pro-
posal, and have been replaced by a 10 millimeter thickness top on the PCB residue.
How do we answer that?
Originally the disposal problem was thought to be more severe than the sampling
results from the one-mile test run indicated and some consideration was given
to use of an artificial liner. The reason~ for not considering the artificial
liner are explained in the reply to the liner-waiver question (p. 3).
One way to dispose of the PCBs is the following --The State should distribute soil
containing no greater than 200 ppm (mg/kg) PCB residue in the upper portions of
soils beneath major roadways and airports.
The State plans to pick up only that soil which is contamirated at a level
of 500 parts per million or above, and therefore would not have the problem ef
distributing soil containing no more than 200 parts per million. Even if during
the pick up and disposal procedure the level falls below 500 parts per million,
EPA indicates that we would still be required to follow their regulations. *
Another way to pay for the disposal is to make part of the polluters' sentence the
payment of the cost of transportation of the PCBs to an EPA approved chemical waste
site.
It is unrealistic to expect that the polluters would be able to come up with
$12 million cash to pay the costs of transportation.
Another place to dispose of the PCBs is Orange County, because it contains soils
high in 2:1 type clay materials or montmorillonite clays.
How do we answer that?
It is suggested that areas with clays that exhibit greater chemical activity
and physical properties than those on the Warren County site be investigated
for PCB disposal. Several sites containing these clays were investigated and
were not as suitable as Warren County for the following reasons: high population
*Distributing the soil beneath major roadways and airports would not conform .to those
regulations.
9
densities, located in a public supply watershed.
The greater chemical activity of these clays does not increase PCB trapping.
The greater surface area and decreased compacted permeability would be a
desired characteristic for a PCB disposal site. However, a single criterion
such as type of clay is not an appropriate criterion for evaluation of a
PCB disposal area. In consideration of all criteria established by EPA,
the Warren County site is the best available site.
If the Pope site in Afton is deemed viable by the EPA, would the State be willing
to deed back the balance of the land that it would not use to the County to insure
that other chemicals are not dumped here?
The State would not be justified and indeed would not have the authority to
deed the excess land to the County, but the State does assure the County and
its residents that no other or additional chemicals or other was'!Eswill be
stored on the site.
United States Departn1ent of the Interjor
Mr. Jerry C. Perkins, Head
GEOLOGIC.\L Sl"R \T.Y
P.O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602
Solid Waste and Vector Control Branch
Division of Health Services
N. C. Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Hr. Perkins:
November 29, J.,978
The proposed PCB disposal s:i.te located in Harren County r1t lat:i.tude
36°20'13", longitude 78°09 1 58", is above the 100-year flood level.
The site is located on a hilltop between Richneck Creek and cn1c of its
tributaries. J estimate, based on flood records collected at North
Carolina stre~ms, that the 100-year flood height is not more than 8 feet
above average water level in these creeks. The proposed site is
approximately 80 feet above these creeks and not subject to flooding.
Sincerely yours,
4i--N. N. Jackson, Jr.
/' Hydrologist
m!J:ceh