NCD980602163_19801229_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Warren County vs State of North Carolina - Supplemental Complaint-OCR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLIN~0RTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION ATTORNEY GUfflUIL 'S OF FICE
No. 79-560-CIV-5
WARREN COUNTY, ) :r Ori ) l ,,-
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) SUPPLEMENTAL COMP LAINT
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiff, supplementing its complaint against defendants,
setting forth transactions, occurrences, and events which have
happened since the filing of the comp l aint, adds the following
sixth cause of action:
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION TO REVIEW THE
ADEQUACY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
20. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through six of
the complaint are realleged as fully as if set forth again herein.
21. Defendants State of North Carolina and Burley R. Mitchell,
Jr., undertook to prepare and publish an Environmental Impact State-
ment required by N.C.G.S . sec. 113A-4(2), for the chemical waste
landfill and disposal therein of PCB's, as an action involving ex-
penditure of public monies for projects and prograrns significantly
affecting the quality of the environment of this state .
22. Fallowing receipt of a copy o f the draft Environmental
Impact Statement , plaintiff prepared and filed its corrunents on the
draft Statement, pointing to a number of deficiencies and inadeq uacies
in the draft s tatement , A copy of plaintiff's comments is attached
hereto, designated as Exhibit A. Defendants notified plaintiff that
its comments were accepted and deemed timely filed.
23. On November 13, 1980, defendants filed their final Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
24. The final Environmental Impact St atement is defective and
inadequate, and violative of N.C.G.S. sec. 113A-4(2) and defendants' own
applicable regulations, l NCAC Chapter 2 5 , in the following respects:
iMITH, PATTERSON, FOLLIN,CURTIS,JAMES & HARKAVY
ATTORNEYS ANO COUNSELLORS AT LAW
a. Defendants failed to review the environmental
effects of their proposed action in the light of plain-
tiff's comments on the draft Environmental Impact State-
ment, failed to address plaintiff's comments in the
final Environmental Impact Statement, and failed to
attach a copy of plaintiff's comments to the final En-
vironmental Impact Statement, all in violation of 1
NCAC Section 25.0206(e}.
b. Defendants failed in their final Environmental
Impact Statement to describe the project adequately, by
not developing and disclosing the actual details of the
design of the waste chemical landfill, and only provid-
ing "conceptual" aspects of the design, a serious de-
ficiency in light of the uncertainty as to the ground
water elevation at the proposed site and the presence
of soils meeting the minimum permeability and plasticity
limits for construction of the clay liner, in violation
of 1 NCAC Section 25.201(2).
c. Defendants failed to describe the project ade-
quately, by not identifying the availability of clay en-
riched soils to be used in construction of the clay liner;
in violation of 1 NCAC Section 25.0201(2).
do Defendants failed to discuss the proposed mitigation
measure and design alternative of treating clay enriched
soils with chemicals such as TSPP to break down natural
structures of the soil and reduce permeability, in viola-
tion of N.C.G.S. sec. ll3A-4(2)c, d and 1 NCAC Section
25. 0201 (3) (c), and (6).
e. Defendants failed to discuss the proposed mitiga-
tion measure and design alternative of including a com-
pacted layer of 2:1 type (Montmorillonite) clay along the
interior of the clay liner, in violation of N.C.G.S. sec.
113A-4(2)c, d and 1 NCAC Section 25.0201(3) (c) and (6).
f. Defendants set forth inadequate procedures for
selection of soils for the clay liner, compaction of
soils in the liner, and quality control of the project,
-2-
3MITH, PATTERSON, FOLLIN,CURTIS,JAMES & HARKAVY
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
in violation of N.C.G.S. sec. 113A-4(2)c and 1 NCAC
Section 25.0201(6).
g. Defendants failed to deal with the probable
failure of the leachate collection s yst em , in viola-
tion of N.C.G.S. sec. 113A-4(2)h and 1 ~CAC Section
25.0201(4).
h. Defendants failed to provide for adequate
depth of reconstructed soil on top of the landfill
site, in violation of N.C.G.S. sec. 113~-4(2)c and
1 NCAC Section 25.0201(6).
i. Defendants failed to deal with the economic
and social consequences of probable failure of the
landfill liner and migration of PCB's into the
ground water, in violation of N.C.G.S. sec. 113-4(2)b
and 1 NCAC Section 25.0201(4).
Plaintiff has filed with defendants its review of the final Environ-
mental Impact Statement, which treats in detail each of the
deficiencies of the Statement, which are summarized above. A copy
of pla intiff's review is attached hereto, identified as Exhibit B.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that defendants be enjoined from
carrying on any physical construction activities at and in the
vicinity of the proposed chemical waste landfill site.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Norman B, Smith
Smith, Patterson, Follin, Curtis,
James and Harkavy
704 Southeastern Building
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
Telephone: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Charles T, Johnson, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 646
Warrenton, North Carolina 27589
Telephone: [phone]
-3-
5MITH, PATTERSON, FOLLIN, CURTIS, JAMES &. HARKAVY
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
. ,,
EXHIBIT A
COHHENTS OF WARREN COUNTY O'N
DRAFT ENVIRONMEr1T.l\L IMPACT STATEMErT
OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OF REMOVAL ANO DISPOSAL OF SOILS
CONTAMINATED WITH PCB'S
ALONG HIGHWAY SHOULDERS IN NORTH CAROLI~1F-.
DATE: 1/29/80
·····-~
Warren County offers the following comments on the Dra1:t
Environr.,ental Impact Statel'T1.ent prepared by the State of North
Carolina in coILtpliance with the ~-;orth Carolina Environmental
Policy Act on removal and disposal of soils contaminated ~ith
PCB' s along highway shoulders in !7orth Carolina:
1. SITE SELECTION
The technical requirements for a che~ical waste landfill
to be used for the storage of PCB's according to -EPA regulations
stated in 40 C.F .R. Sec. 761.4l(b) are as follows: (1) Soils.
The landfill site shall be located in thick, relatively imper-
meable formations such as large-area clay pans. Where this is
not possible, the soil shall have a high clay and silt content
a n d the following parameters:
(i) In-place soil thickness, 4 feet or compacted soil
liner thickness, 3 feet;
-7
(ii) Per~eability (cm/sec), ( 01 X 10 ;
(iii) Percent soil passing no. 200 sieve,7 30;
{iv) Liquid limit,~ 30;
(v) Plasticity index,') 15;
{vi} Artificial liner thickness,') 30 mil.
a. Laboratory Procedures and Results .
The laboratory test results presented in the EnvironEentai
Impact Statement, Appendix B, fail to s a tisfy the require~ents
sta ted in paragraph 716.4l(b). ~he test results were too few
in nur:i.ber for the critical soil cha racteristics of p e rmeability,
liquid limit and plasticity index. Specifically, there we re
- 1 -
inadequate sample numbers and replications of saF<ples to deter-
mine the mean and standard deviations for these key soil. para-
~eters both with depth and across the site in general. ~nyone
familiar with the field of soil science is fully a~are that
soils are highly variable in their che~ical anc physical pro-
perties and there is likewise variation associated with the
procedures selected to estimate the ~agnitude of the various soil
parameters, even among "standard methods". ~here are two pr.o-
cedures listed to measure soil permeability in the 1974 edition
of Earth Man~al - A Water Resources Technical Publication , 2nd
Edition, U. S. Department of Interior. One procedure outlines a
"constant head"-approach to measure permeability in a compacted
soil; another procedure outlines a ''falling head" approach to
estimate the permeability of a compacted soil. '!'he "constant
head" approach is by far the more accurate of the two. The "fall-
ing head II approach requires one to "interpolate" values frorn. a
graph in order to complete the calculations. It has been common
e~perience that such "interpolations" often lead to larger error
components. The State unfortunately has chosen to use the
"falling head" method for this project. ~.nether major factor
concerning the test methods used to deter2ine the permeability
results was the fact that "remolded" samples were used in the
"falling head" niethod. Such "remolding" assured a breakdown in
native soil structure, and insured uniformity of moisture through-
out the sample and the general creation of artificial conditions
within the sarr.ple prior to measureDent of the per~eability.
- 2 -
Had the sample been compacted as removed fron the field, i.e.,
just as will be the case during actual soil liner construction,
there is no doubt but what a different and probably far less
acceptable set of values for permeability would have been
obtained. There was no report of per~eability values for undis-
turbed samples. It is important to.recognize and appreciate the
wide variability that is found in soils for these inportant
parameters and to likewise understand that one can often bias
the results by the creation of artificial conditions within the
samples -even using "stancarc methods". In conclusion, t!'le per-
meability data presented in the i~pact statereent gives no evidence
of the "true'' perneability of the soil under actual field com-
pacted conditions or the variation which m.ost likely exists with
depth or across the site in this critical parameter.·
b. Soils Map of Site.
With the limited soils information provided in the irrpact
report, it would be a physical i~possibility to construct a PCB
waste chemical landfill at the Warren County site and be 100%
certain that the soil liner meets the requirements stated in
paragraph 761.4l(b). In addition to the lack of definitive
test results regarding permeability, no detailed subsu~face map
of the various soil layers found at the site has been prepared.
This would have involved a systematic physical identification
ancl characterization of the various subsurface horizons to deter-
mine which layers meet or exceec the stated 0 requirerr.er.ts by the
EPA for liner construction. The linited nu~b~r of test borinos ..,
at the site were ''bulk sampled" with depth rather than at F-inch
intervals. Mechanical analysis o f the samples 1/ith depth into
sand, silt and clay fractions would allow the co~struction of
a detailed subsurface map indentifying those la:·ers meeting
the minimum requirements. Since t he s.oil liner •,.;ill be con-
structed from materials existing a.t the site, the present impact
statements fail to identify the e xact soil layers which do
meet the requirements. The impact state8ent suggests that
the construction engineer will "stockpile'' layers of soils
which visually appear to meet the necessary requirements and that
these materials will be blended in a manner to ass~re the re-
quirements are met. No feasible method is available for deter-
mining the adequacy of the blending operation. It cannot be
accepted that the blended product will be of such a quality as
to satisfy the minimum liquid limit and rlasticity index speci-
fied by the EPA regulations, when the best soils at the site
are only marginally within these limits. This procedure rnay be
adequate for building a road or dam, but is ~uch to6 unsafe or
risky f or the building of a chemical waste landfill on marginal
soils.
c. Clay Content and Definitions.
The critical features for retaining chemicals in place would
be the clay content in the soils used in the soil liner. Clays
are defined by both the International Society of Soil Science
and U.S.D.A. classifications as sol.id particles o~ soil less
than or equal to 0.002 mm in size (Soil Su_r-vev ~-"£2;1.ual, U.S.D.A.
Eandbook, No. 18; August 1951, p. 208). The i~pact statement
- 4 -
does not identify the quantities of solids below 0.005 r.iw. in
size, ~hich are fine silts. Since 761.4l(b) states that "the
landfill site shall be located in t~ick, relatively iQ.penr.eable
formations such as large-area clay pans [and] [w]here this is
not possible, the soil shall have high clay and silt con-
tents • II
0 0 g . it is paramount that these zones of clay enrich-
rnent be identified prior to construction.
The clay content is the controllini factor in several
critical soil parameters including liquid limit, plasticity
index, chemical exchange capactiy (CEC) and surface area.
According to Baver (Soil Physics, Third Edition, John
Wiley and Son), "The Atterberg constants are widely used in
highway construction. The plasticity n~:'.ber or index in engir.eer-
ing terms, is employed as an "empirical r.easure" of the suita-
bility of the clay binder naterial in stabilized soil nixture".
'rhe P. N. (plasticity m.ir..ber) = 0. 6C (clay content) -12 for
0.005 ~I!l particles and P.N. = 0.66C -11) for OeOOl rr.m particles.
Thus , with t hese relationships, this illustrates that the soil
liner has to be constructed with soil which always exceeds 45%
content of 0.005 rr.rn material or 38% of 0.001 wm material. From
material supplied by the Soil & Haterial Engineers, Inc., March
5, 1979, report, the soils in the O' -2' Marginally meet the
0.001 and 0.005 ~E< soil requirements fo~ pl2sticity index, but
a sizable portion of the O' -4' and O' -6' would not meet
the requirements. However, soils, such as that at the Warren
-5 -
1
I
County site, which contain appreciable quantities of mica
..,
may cause the plasticity index value s to be higher than would
be expected from the clay contents. These differences are
attributed to a gr~ater surface and incre ased contact in the
case of plate-shaped particles. Therefore, the presence of
mica in the Warren County soils r.iay have resulted in the higher
plasticity index values than should actually have been measured
based on the cla ys content at the site. Again, the liwited
number of samples from the various soil horizons prevent any
intelligent assessnent of the r.iean plasticity index values
or the variation in plasticity inde x value s at the s ite. These
results would strong ly suggest that the a~ount of soil whi ch
would likely meet the requirements for a soil liner would be
limited to the upper two feet of the soil. Therefore, the calcu-
lat ions in the amount of soils at the site which would be suitable
for liner construction may be grossly overesti~ated. r!ithout
more detailed subsurface mapping and :mechanical analysis charac-
t erization, it is difficult to e s t i ma te the volume of soil
materia l which would safely meet the soil liner specifica tions.
I t is of paramount importanc e that the 0.002 rr.m size for
clays be the accepted standard for judging the· acceptabil ity
of soils for establishment of PCB was te chemical landfills.
. 3
Soil 0.005 mm in size would have a surface a rea for 1 CD of
soil equal to 6,283 .2 cm
2
2
whereas a soil 0.002 ID.I'.'! i n size would
3
have 15,708 cm surface area within a 1 c~ sample or over twice
the surface area for retaining the PCB chem ical. Like wise, the
chemical exchange capctci ty (CEC) for O. 005 nr:1 soil \·rou l d be
about 11 rnilliequivalents (M.E.) per 100 g~ of soil. The chemi-
cal exchange capacity (CEC) for 0.002 r:-.r:1 soil would be about
19 H.E. per 100 gr. or over 1.5 X higher than the 0.005 rn.~
soil (Baver, Soil Physics, cited above). These two important .
paraneters, related to clay content, affect the retention of
chenical substances in soils. It is vital that the soil liner
be constructed of soils "high in clay" to reduce the risk of
chemical migration from the site. The very thin layer of
clay enriched soil at the Warren County site would appear in-
adequate in quantity to safely construct the soil liner. The
reference of "mixing of soils" within the initial O' -S'S in
the March 15, 1979, letter from Soil & ~taterial Engineering,
Inc., to Mr. Jerry Perkins appears an oversinplification in
their estimate of the volu~e of "high clay" soil available for
soil liner construction.
de Clay Type vs. Plasticity Index and Liquid LiBit.
One of the most disturbing and troubling aspects of the
site selection .process was the lack of interest and regard by
both the State of North Carolina and EPA administrators in
information concerning the lack of chenical activity and sur-
face area of the type of clay found at the Harren Count~:{ site.
The limited quantities of clay found at the Harren County site
appear to be predominately kaolinite clay. As shown in Fig~re
10~ p. 28, Earth Manual (attached), soils with sandy clay, snall
amourits of clay, and kaolin clay have very low plasticity index
and liquid linits, both key parameters as noted by EPA
-7 -
regulations 761.41(b) (1). Kaolin clay is 1:1 type crystal
lattice material with very low chei'!'.ical exchange capacity
(CEC) and low surface areas for cherical adsorption of
toxic substances. On the other harlc, clays with 2: l t~{pe
crystal lattice have much larger surface areas, higher
chemical exchange capacities, and ~uch higher plasticity index
and liquid limits. These clays are co~ronly referred to as
"Montrnorillonite" clay or "Bentonite" clay. From Figure 10,
"Mbntmorillonite" clay, identified by n~ber 10, had plasti-
city indexes which varied fro~ 55 to 140 and liquid limits
which varied from 80 to 165. The ''Bentonite", identified by
nu1r~er 13, had plasticity indexes which varied from 250 to 560
and liquid limits which varied from about 300 to 600. On page
35 , the i mpact statement lists the a verage plasticity index
as 9-21 and the liquid limit as 36-71 for the Warren County
site, which is identical to line nUD.ber 4 on Figure 10 listed
for "kaolin clay formed from decoroposed granite."
From Figure 10, it is very evide nt that the EPA mini2u..rn re-
quirements of plasticity index) 15 or liquid limits) 3 O, and
the position of the Warren County soil --i.e., similar to
number 4 --should be considered as r..uch too ,;,,ieak for the pro-
tection of healt h from PCB. This is especially true for the
soils at the Warren County site since there are a nurober of
soils in other areas of the state where 2:1 type clays are
predominant. Fron the publication "'!:"he Soils of "t-:orth Carolina",
-

8

-
Tech. Bul. No. 155, by W. D. Lee (attached), the key soils
which contain 2:1 type clays are Iredell (II.C.l), White Store
(V.C.l), and Creedmoor (V.C.3). These .soils are located across
the Piedmont region of North Carolina and can be found in the
areas identified by IM and WC on the attached map obtained
from the above listed publication. Lee estir.ta.ted these two
soil associations --i.e., IM and NC --covered some 790,000
acres. It would seem logical that the State of North Carolina
could have located the 10-15 acres needed for a PCB landfill
somewhere in this 790,000 acres. From the limited information
published regarding the sites exa1i1ined by the State prior to
selecting the Warren County site, it is difficult to deter-
mine how rr.any, if any, of the alternative sites were located
within the areas shown on the attached soils map for North
Carolina. Due to the high plasticity indexes and high liquid
limits for the 2:1 type clays, the areas designated on the
map are where the State should have concentrated its initial
efforts for locating a landfill site. The site chosen by
the State would qualify as one of the least desirable sites
from the type and quantity of clay present at that location.
From a transportation perspective, spill sites nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 are near regions designated by the IM and ~C soils.
From a health safety perspective, it would be far more desirable
to locate one or more landfills for PCB on the I!-i or WC soils
than to select the Warren County site with soils which have
clays with marginal plasticity inde~ and liquid limit values.
-9--
2. GROUNDWATER
The impact statement indicates that the base of the
leachate collection syster.: will be a rr.inir..u.r:i. of 7' above·
the water table for the site. The EPA regulations state
that there must be a 50' separation; however, this regulation
was waived for the Warren County site. Based on the previous
discussions regarding the soils at the site, the EPA should
not have been allowed to waive this very iDportant regulation.
This is especially true since there appears to be a great
deal of uncertainty just where the 11mean high water table"
for the area should be placed. As stated in the i~pact state-
ment, the U.S. Geology and Groundwater Resources show this
table to be 47' below the surface, whereas the Soil & Material
Engi~eers 1 Inc., suggest the static water table is 32' to 37'
below the surface, but is estimated to vary 5' to 11'. The
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc ., assumed their February, 1979,
samples were at the top of the range because there had been
a 5 percent above normal rainfall f or some time preceding the
sampling e '£he initial samples for the site taken in Septenber,
1978 , normally the lowest period in the hydrology cycle for
North Carolina, show moist soils at some 20' and wet soils at
25'g Thus, the report fails to identify the actual high
grc'J.Ildwa ter limit therefore, and this determination woulc. be
~ade after construction begins c Since the plasticity index
and liquid limit of the soil is marginal at best, it is
totally unsound to have such great uncertainty as to the
loca tion of the water table. Also, the EPA regulztions direct
-10 -
that there must not be a hydrological connection bet·.•:een
the landfill and the groundwater. This report fails to "prove"
that no such connection exists at the site. Therefo=e, to
allow the landfill to be constructed 7' more or less above
a water table, about which there is great uncertainty as to
its actual location, is greatly to exacerbate an already
risky operation.
3. PCB LANDFILL DESIGN
The conceptual plan, Figure 5, for the landfill has several
severe limitations. Perhaps the most critical faults in the
design are the absence of a clay l i n e r along the uppe= side
walls and the outsloping of the sidewalls at an angle ratio
of 3:1. This design is founded unde= the assumption that
"water movement through a landfill is always downwart, thus
the construction of a liner beneath the system to recove the
water b efore a hydraulic head is allowed to develop would produce
a site which would retain waste che:rd.cals". 'l'his ass~ption
is demonstrably false with res pect t o the unlined, ou~sloped
uppe r s idewalls , since at these locations the downward move-
ment of water would leach PCB's directly out of the landfill.
The other problems with this assusption are that che~icals
rnay escape from the site through the lateral flow of noisture
and by diffusi on both laterally and cownwa r d. A clay liner
along the sidewalls of the landfill would reduce the rate of
lateral flow of moisture and waste chel"lical, but this will not
stop the escape of chemicals from t he l andfill site b y diff usion
processes, especially if the clay is Y.aolinite.
The diffusion process is governed by the laws of therroo-
dynamics; chemicals will move fron a zone of high chemical
potential to a zone of low chemical potential. The high con-
centration of PCB chemicals inside the landfill would be a
major factor associated with a high chemical potential zone
inside the landfill. The absence of PCB outside the landfill
likewise would cause a zone of low chemical potential. The
chemicals will move from the inside to the outside of the
landfill walls even with zero moisture flow. Once outside,
the rate of PCB movement will greatly increase due to rapid
:ffioisture flow through the sandy subsoil; Other major routes
by which the PCB's can be expected to migrate out of the
landfill include volatilization, uptake by soil microorganis0s,
transport with water, and possibly plant uptake. Contamination
of the groundwater will soon follm•1 i f the landfill is only
7' above the water table (Marshall, The Physical Chemistry and
Hineralogy of Soils, John Wiley and Son, 1964).
The primary method for reducing the rate of chemical diffu-
sion will be t o ~rovide a thick barrier of clay enriched soil.
The type of clay is also of critical inportance since th2
surface areas and chemical exchange capacity (CEC) of the clay
deternines the adsorptive capacity of the clay. PCB molecules
adsorbed on the clay particles will tend to diffuse at a rnuch
slower rate, and 2:1 type clay would be far superior to 1:1
type clay in retaining the PCB molecules.
-12 -
·------, ... ~
The conceptual plan, noted in Figure 5 of the ir:-.pact report,
sho-•!s no r.,.eans for r.\oisture to flow from the sand to the lower
leachate collection system. As shown in Jl.ppendix B of the
report, the native soils at the bottom of the landfill are
extremely sandy with less than 20 % clays. Baver (Soil
Physics, p. 111) states that soils that contain less than 20%
0.005 ran sized particles do not exhibit plasticity. Thus,
these soils below the landfill would be highly perIBeable and
PCB which enters the lower collection system would tend to
move downward rather than laterally in the sand layer. There
should be a clay soil liner below the lower collection system
to assure collection of the leachate. In fact, a double clay
liner with a sand layer between the layers for the walls would
substantially improve the safety of the landfill design.
4 a MOISTURE CONTROL DURING Cot~STRUCTIOi;.
The Environmental Inpact Statement is very non-specific on
how the construction engineers plan to control rainfall and
excess ~oisture within the site at the tine the soil liner is
being constructed.· The Soil and !1aterial Engineers, lnc.,
were very specific that the samples of soil they tested for
permeability had to exhibit about 29~6 to 30.7~ moisture
(optir.i.ur.-: _ r:-,oisture contents) in order to compact to 9 5% of
· ~~ximum dry density of 90.2 to 92.0 pounds per cubic foot to
-7 meet the (1.0 X 10 c~/sec permeability regulation. These
consultants made the further point that even 95% compaction
will not ~eet the regulatory require2ent ; the suggestion is
-13 -
made that 100% compaction will have to be achieved in order
to assure that the permeability standard will be attained.
Since soils are typically 50% solids and 50% air and water,
and water does not compact, a very low moisture content would
· be necessary to maintain the 100% compaction. As a practical
matter, it will be nearly impossible to achieve 100% compaction
under the field conditions that will be present during ·con-
struction. With an open pit of some five acres in size, rain-
fall on the soil liner may lead to inadequate compaction that
will cause the liner not to meet the regulations. In other
wordsi h6w do you "dry out" seve ral feet of clay enriched soil
following several days of rainfall, especially in such a
large area? It would appear that such problems as moisture
control should be addressed more specifically in the impact
stat ement.
5 . .ALTERNATIVE OF TRANSPORTATION TO EXISTING
CHEMICAL LANDFILL.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement only mentions
in passing the alternative of transportation to an existing
chemical waste landfill. This alternative is dismissed on the
basis of "excessive cost" with the estimate that the cos t
would be $12,000,000. (pp. 25-26).
Unfortunately, the State does not disclose its basis for
estimating the high cost of dispos al at an existing la~dfill.
-14 -
From ~aterials prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency
and filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, it appears that the cost for trans-
porting PCB contaminated materials to a chemical waste landfill
site {400 mile average trip) would amount to two cents per pound.
(Support Document for Proposed Regulations, p. 20). Because
40,000 cubic yards or approximately 86,400,000 pounds 9f con-
taminated material are involved here, the estimated transporta-
tion cost would be $1,728,000. The closest adequate exist-
ing chemical landfill site is near Emeile, Alab~ma. This land-
fill has been in operation for some time, so no unique site
expenditures would be involved with disposal of the PCB material
from North Carolina .. According to information obtained from
the landfill operator, charges for disposing of the 40,000 cubic
yards of PCB materials from North Carolina would be about
$5,184,000. Hence, the total cost of transporting the Eaterial
to and disposing of it at an existing landfill, apparently would
amount to $6,912,000, substantially less than the $12,000,000
estimated by the State.
Considering the extremely serious safety problems involved
in use of the proposed Warren County site for PCB disposal,
as discussed in this comment, the significant, but not extra-
ordinarily, greater expense for transporting the PCB materials
to an existing landfill site outside North Carolina, is easily
justified by the additional protection afforded to the public
-15 -
. .
health of our citizens. The State has estimated that disposal
at the Warren County site would c ost $1,580,000. Of this
amount~ $615,000 represents costs incurred in removal of
the material from road shoulders, and would be incurred re-
gardless of the disposal method chosen. The remaining
$965,000 is specifically related t o use of the Warren County
landfill site. (Draft Environmental Impact Statenent, p. 9).
Thus, additional costs of $5,947,000 would be incurred if
the material were transported to the disposal site in Alabama.
6. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HATTERS.
Sections IV through VII of the impact statement fail to
address the major i!:!'.pact this landf ill will have on the
cor1:tinuni ty in which it will be located, the value of the property
adjacent to the landfill, and the extent of the injury fro~
groundwat er contamination, if and when it occurs.
-16 -
EXHIBIT B
REVIEW OF THE E!NJJWNHEHTAL I:T' . .:.CT
STATE:·;EiIT CONCERND-:0 THE ESTABLISi--'J-u::;?r OF
A PCB DISPOSAL SITE IN '\·:A.'Fffi.EU COU1~TY
BY T'rlE STATE OF NORTH CAROLIIJA
BY
CHA.'ltLE.5 L. HULCHI, PhD.
ElNJROJ'~JE;JTAL COllSULTAl1T
1 J,:TROIJUC TI ON
Before one can adequately review the prop::::s ;,l t o establish a FCB disposal
site in soils located ui thin 1·7F...rren County, N .c., o::e nust consider the USEPA
resnlations .~hich establish the basis for site e \·?-1 .. :'-'.Lions. 'TI1e prh.':'ry regu-
latio;,s ;;s stated in C .F .R .ho, part 761.10 (b) (3) <..'..:::,cernin~ cl,e.nical i,·aste
lam:.fj 11s .s.re as f ollov:s:
perr1:e.'.lbility ~ 1.o:x.10-7 cf'i/s.-;;c
percent passing 1;0. 200 se.i,;e ;,-30
plasticity index 7 15
distance from ,-:ater · supply wells :> 500 feet
ground F&ter sep2.ration ;,, 50 feet
In addition, the regulations gave specific sugge~tions that the soils ex-
hibit high levels of' clay enrichment such as "clay pans11• Such references as
"clay p2.ns II p1·ovide the clear intent that the site have a deep clay layer so as
to provide added protection from possible leakage of waste chemicals from the
landfill site. A deep clay layer yas necessary since the EPA regulations con-
cerning perrr:eability ( ~ 1.0 x 10-cm/sec) and plasticity index ( > 15) were
based not on extensive field evaluations of established landfill sites but
were instead selected rather arbitrarily from civil engineering studies such
as those used to construct roads, druns, etc.
In my opinion, these rezulations should be challenged since they fail to
consider the basic chemical aDd physical properties of soils, especially the
types 211d aP1ounts of clays, which should be the basis for retaining 1-:aste chem-
ictls in soils. The EPA regulations fail to specify the types, @nounts, sur-
face are.s.s, and chemical exchanee capacities of the most important physical
feature in a waste chemical 12.ndfill, the clays which form the soil liner.
It would appear from the rather vague nature of the regulations re-
garcii.ng the soil components in liners for a waste chemical landfill and
the fact that the permeability and plasticity index limits are extremely low,
· considering the health consequences should the soil liner fail, that the ·
primary intent of the regulations were to establish minimal conditions which
could be used in a broad spectrum of circwnstances rather that to afford max-
imum protection to those having to coexist with the waste chemical facilities.
Perhaps the regulations would prove helpful in reducing the levels of pollution
in areas such as the Love C2.nal tragedy. Hm ;ever, the regulation appears
totally inadequate to prevent pollution from occuring in areas such as i·!arren
County, N.C. which has no history of waste chemical pollution and which a
majority of the population obtain their drinking water from local wells rather
than from municipal sources. It is important that it be recognized that the
soils at the proposed llarren County landfill site are extremely marginal with
respect to the EPA regulations. Considering that the EPA regulations concern-
ing soils for chemical landfills are purely arbitrary in the first place and
the types and amounts of clays present at the Harren County location possess
the least desirable of physical and chemical features for such an important
purpose, this site should have been rejected by the State of North Carolina.
al i · r-t} t .1. ' 1 t ·· f ' ' ~ · '., · 1·· c n ,~ c · ·' ' y ' ··, .1. ... • --s The only loeJc :.'1 <.:lS .1.01· ·,cs al,C s s•~ e:c 10n o ;,: ~ .. .-,t ·, ,.••~ .,, •:.·"-' •.'
t}iat the site was availf!.b le. This dec:,iction is :::;upi:-01'Lcd by t ,.:: . : _;t 0,:'2.t 1, .c
first action of the state i-:2.s to request a l:ai.vc:r for the c:;1'ow ,:li:der rq;ul,:-!:.io!:~.
No such waiver was requested for e.ny of the ofrer sites unde:r con sideration du .. dng
the preliminary phase of the investigation.
SPECIFIC FEA'i\iRES
1. SOILS The Enviro!1!Tlental To)pact Statement fails to identify the clay en-
riched soils which will be used in the liner construction. The state has failed
to accept suggestions made not only by me but by an independent soils co~-
sultant firm., having experience with ~aste chemical site construction., that
detailed subsurface characterization of the soils at the landfill site be made.
From personal inspection., I found only a thin (u-8 inch) layer of clay enrich-
ed soil at the site. This thin layer of clay enriched soil., in my opinion., is
the only soil material present at the proposed site ,,hi ch comes close to meeting
the minimal requirements stated in the EPA regulations. This observation was
confirr;;ed by representatives of the state at the ._T;:u;~12.ry h., 1979 public hear-
ing when it ,;-,as admitted that soils l.-hich met the pen:,cability requirer,1ent carie
from a very select location in the soil profile. This i mpact statei:ient fails
to identify the exact location of this layer of soil he nce., should be adequate
grounds for rejection of this statement.
The soils information provided in the app endix of this ir1pact state.::ent are
the same 1:ague data which were provided in previous statements. One 1-:•)uld think
that this matter should have been resolved considering the nearly h:0 years
which have lapsed since the January 4., 1979 public hearing when this defeciency
was first called to the attention of the state. For some unJmmm re2.son., the
consulting firm hired by the state to evaluate the site has failed to accept
this recognized deficiency. They have insisted that some 4 feet of soil is
available at the site which would be suitable for liner construction yet they
fail to provice appropriate subsurface soils maps and statistical data re-
garding the permeability and plasticity index values to support their state-
ments. One could speculate that the parties concerned are fearful that
should such deficiencies be adrnitted8 after having purchased the site., etc.
that they may have the whole matter rejected by EPA.
The state was recently provided suggestions that could possibly reduce the
potential for the escape of waste chemicals from the site. These sugeestions
concerned the treatment of the clay enriched soils with chemicals such as TSPP
{tetrasodium pyrophosphate) which would break dovm the natural structure of the
soil hence greatly reduce the permeability of the soils used in the liner. The
state rejected such suggestions as being laboratory in nature a~d not of prac-
tical value. I would advise the state to consult with hydrology specialist with
the US DA Soil Conservation Service uhich have fiel d tested the tedu;ique at
numerous locations where farm pond failures have be8n a problem. So~e l abora-
tory work is necessary to establish exact amounts of TSPP to add; hm;ever., the
. . .
p-,-,:.,>-.>::-c 3 ;::re ,'.-1 ·,,•st 5'_11 :1 Ljcal to tJ.., ,.lln'c1d, i,•!'C•c •_--lu1:.::::, used to ,-:,:,-t!'!'i2.t c
· psi·-~-1 ilit_y. In fact, t ),8 f :ield r >.,:-,1·i,.::aLi on of '1'SFP wou_ld VE;ry c11·--;8ly cb~J--
1 -i ct· ~ t'.;e l r..bon~.tory p·occc1ures f •)1' C', G-ir:ating pc1'r.·,cnbili t.y in i ,c;·.-TSPP
tr(_c:·•-:d soil. 11-iercfore, this \Joul rl <.-·:ure ti·12 t. U·,c ~,oil liner ·,;11..d p:;sse:s
sh,ilP.r physical properties as the soil sa:-:1ples useci .in t he labo:i,-9.::,ory i-,ro-
ceclui'G S to estin'.ate permeability.
rn1e procedures outlined in the iRpact state: 1:mt for the selection of soils
for -~he liner, compaction of soils in the liner an.d quality control of the entire
operation to insure that the liner r.,eets the EPA guideli.'1es are grossly inade-
<;_ud e. Co:1sidering that it is highly unlikely that the personnel invol·.red will
ha·.-e hc.d any experience ,Ti th the construction of a waste chemical lancii' ill, tre'i:.-
i:::g -Lhe process as if one i;ere constructing a r oad or dam may be totally inade-
m~ate to insure that the i.:2.ste chem.cal landfill 1-:ill remain safe forever • •
A second suggestion made to the state to reduce the potential for chemical
migration from the landfill site and to prohibit the movement of v;ater across
the soil liner v~as the inclusion of a compacted layer of 2: l type (montmorilloni te)
clay along the interior of the soil liner on the bottom, sidev:alls and top of
the PCB conta'ilinated soil. The 2:1 type clay exhibits high surface areas for
PCB adsorption, high cher.tlcal exchange capacity for retention of waste cherrd.cals
plus its• e)..-pansion properties make the layer self-sealing uhen moisture pene-
trates the layer. The .state has rejected this proposal and substituted a JO
mil plastic liner on the exterior of the bot tom and side,-;alls a,,d a JO mil
pl2stic liner on the exterior of the upper soil liner. In my judgement, the
2: 1 type clay would be far superior for the follo;Iing reasons: (1) the clay is
a natural material not subject to significant chemical deteriation per!1aps over
the next several million years; (2) the pl2stic liner is subject to deteriation
by n atural fore es and perhaps uould fail ui thin a few decades; (J) the thin 10
mil plastic on the top .-,ou.ld be subject to root penetration ,-ri thin a rel2.ti vely
short period; (4) there is no ~eans to insure that the plastic liners 1-;ould not :
slLf f er d2r.,age from the mechanical devices curr;f}acting the soil liner riiaterials;
(5) the plastic liners have no capacity to adsorb or retain 1:aste waste chemi-
cals in place other than by mech211.ical means; and (6) plastic liners a.re rela-
tively recent products uhich have not been subjected to natural stresses under
actual field concli tions for very long l:hereas t he clays have been proven to
have stable properties. Considering that what is at stake is _health protection
for the region,one would think that the state would incorporate all three~ieo
TSPP, 2:1 clay Dl!ler liner plus the plastic l:L'1er.
2. DESIGN OF THE HASTE CHE1·1ICAL LANDFILL 'The impact statement is nonspecific
on the actual details of the design of the 1"12ste chemical landfill yet empha-
sized the "conceptual" aspects of the design. In my opinion, one cannot accept
an impact statement without actual details of the item for which the impact
statement is being prepared. The "conceptual designs" (Figures 4 & 5) appear
inadequate for a number of reasons. (a) T'ne plaDs call for constructing the
site only five to seven feet above the vater table when there is considerable
confusion regarding the fluctuations in the water table for the area. 'The EPA
regulations a.re specific in that there can be no hydrological connections be-
t1-:een the landfill and the grounduater. In my opinion, there is slLf ficient
doubt recarding this critical point that the EPA should not p ermit the state to
cor,struct a landfill on soils with less than the 50 feet separation as specified
in t ~:eir i rd_t.rtl r ._·._-J1 17 .. t ~,·1,·0 . ·:(.u 50 f oot -.•1.··'··~.L -i (-r-1 ;n:~· .... !1J~ -~-~~.:~---,·::I 'Ly i.~/,.
,:::t s a Ley e1e:,,-,nt ,~\.H' 1.,,J\';cling a •. ::cc~n of ~:'. ~cty, , : . ··d.171::· f c•i' c:1,:1:; --~,i r:h
Only r·.·.,:;:;,,:_·_ii•.Plly n •c,t, t,'~·c r ·,•ll l0 '·1·-··'y ~1·-,·1dr·y,cJ~ .,. ".1··r]i ,·,· ---~h il i ·',-~ 1 -1 L· .... ,:;;..J. ~-CJ. • ,,_._ ., .__,. l, ,·...:. .:, -~'-' a... .u C 1...·...,c, . ··•G l·"-·~-,._,,., ...•.. 1,,_. <.:. •• ·, ~ :.~ •,lJ :11.,y
inc'.ex values.
(b) 'l11e leachate detection system would nost pro::;2hly fail. 'The nec11a.nic:1l
ru12.lysis results, shown in the appendix to t he ir.:pc~ct s t atc:-:.:;nt, ~hou the natural
ec..rth bcmeath the lanclfill site to be co:~,l)oscd of ovcc 55-60;', r..:.tei'ials clc.s si-
fied as s c>~"1ds, 24-28i 1:iaterials classified as s i l t s G...11d t he r e~·:aini;-~g r:ateric2ls
as clays. This suggest that the ;.,::iterials bcr:cath t he lancuill, ,•:ri:ich would be
clas 5ified as a sa11dy lornn, 1·:ould be 1~ell drained. 'i'h erefore, in orcier for the
le2.ch2.t 0 detection srstem to function p2·or::erly, a se c0nd soil li:r;er will need to
be constructed belm-1 the leachate collection system. Otherwise, U:e leachate 'l>:ill
esc&.pe into the eround,·:rater irr:::-,:ecliately belm·r.
(c) 'i'he artificial liner protection mater i al ,rill allow moisture percolating
through the soil above the land.fill to flou to the ed6es of the liner hence along
the outside of the side1-1alu.s and flood the le.s.chate collection systSJ-n following
each rain. Without a soil liner beneath the l eacl:ate collection syste1:1, there
will be rapid movement of the percolating 1~c1ters into tte g;.,otmdi:ater. If there
has been a r:;echanical breakage of the plasti c liner ch.u ir:g installation 9r
physical deteriation f ollm-ring insti?.llution, the rq.lid novenent of 1:ater will
flush the PCB materials into the 6row1d1;ater bc,:cath the site thus cont c.J-ninating
the grm.mch:ater supply for the entire re13ion.
(d) The soil liner should be uniform in thic~rness on the top, bottom and
side1\'all8. The "conceptual design" has a thi n r egion in the soil liner near the
leachate r emoval pipe. The bottor.. of the site should be desiened such that
there is uni form flow of the leacbate to a central location, p e·chaps JT:ore
centi·al than the current design calls for a.11d havi ng a uniform t l;ic~::ness of 5.0 feet for the soil liner.
(e) The layers of soil. on top of the l a:.r1dfill site should have a minimum
of 24-36 inches of reconstructed soil. The 24-36 inch depth is necessary to:
(1) provide a rooting zone for vegetation; (2) provide moisture reserves for
the vegetation in times of moisture sb::css; and (3) protect the soil or artifi-
cial liner from freezing and thawing. The soils in this region are often sub-
ject to freezing to a depth of 24 inches during severe llinters. The freezirig
action will cause the compact structure of soil in the liner to become soft
thus more permeable to moisture. Also, if the artifical liner were used, there
may be pockets of free water on the upper surface which may turn to ice, expand
and rupture the liner. This is another reason why a 10 mil liner r-..ay be al-
most useless within a few years, especially if the present 11conceptual11 design
were accepted.
(f) The impact statement does not provide adequate details on the fre-
quency of leachate checks,. removal, storage and subsequent dispose.lo Also,
how frequent will the leachate protection syste:n be checked and who will assu.:'ile
responsibility for groundi,ater conta;,d.nations should they occur?
3. ECOI:0!1IC AUD SOCIAL Should PCB contaninat i on occur, is the state prepared
to accept the res ponsibility for providing all t he residents in t he affected
region with a supply of 1-1ater of cor;parable qu2..11ti ty and qua1.i ty to that which
they curre~tly enjoy? Also, ~~at about the pos sible health risk to per sons,
' -5-
I -•
' 1(1111t::·J -:-1.n d li·,cstocJ.: sLou1 r1 c-.d:'11·,1i.1;ation occur Lo he r].d :.}:'.."·:.,; ·. i:.::r '.·1 ,.,117"•
'!'Le 1·r;clon is attc1,11:t : ng to e:-.,:u1 d a poultry i ndus t.:cy to incre2:::e t:·.e C:,;oncc:5..c
~cc:~s ~. Si1ou.ld the F\J t.\ f'i nd ICG cun trunination in t 11e r·o11ltry 1Jroc;·.lc-Cd in tr.e r;:~on,
,~L o 1rill undenn'i t,:3 ·;: :i ccono. 1 i c lo~ses to t he f :-:.1·,. ·. :·3 ar:,l i:-.cl.· ,stry in ~! ;;:i.t 1·•:;.,l cv,?
.'I. recent court case ii. vol i.,-e d tl-:e recall of rnillio,.s o.f dollc..r s 1~or t;1 of pou.H,ry
p1·oducts from a single r.Jshap involving PCB arid f 1.;ed cont c.:;jt::'.~ion. '.i'he ir:9E.ct.
state:::cmt assu1:1es such 1-Jill not occur but fails to address the econo:uc a...'1d social
con2e:quei1ces of a possible mishap.
The state is being presumptuous in its I assess;-_ent that the rer;ion v.i.11 r,0t
suffer Rny econor.tlc or social disorders should the 1:r~ste chc;dcal site be locat ed
in 1:.s.r ren County. Considering that there are only a YCl'Y liTii ted n\l.7'ter of i:~?A
2.1,pr0,.,ed i:aste chemical land.fill sites in the U .s . 2.11d t hat t1-.ose ~::1ich a:e in
• .L • h · al · d t · · · h · · t' 1·as.Le t' · e:ns ..,ance are near r.:aJor c .e;;n c in us ries 1-.1nc proo.uce n.e ·. · .., , ::ere is
s:L ·,ply no basis for such a presunptuous s-tatenent since -::arren Courity is a rural,
non-industrial region d. th no chcnical industry. In my opinion, the location of
this facility in 1:arren Cou.nty will only lead t o a significa...'1t deteriation of t h e
quality of the enviroru;:ent for t h at region ar1d introduces um:arrer1ted risk for
the pla..11ned develop;.1ent of a rnojor poultry p1·oduction and processine industry.
· Should ground1-;rater contamination occur, there ;r.ay be scores of poultr y houses,
"1'1hich use well water, forced to close. The processing plant mentioned in the
impact stater.1ent will be on municipal 1-1ater .. ,hich is less likely to be impact-
ed. It will be the poultry producers who are most likely to be L-q:iacted if
groundHater contaminati ons are detected.
There is insufficient data available to support such state.:i!e:1ts that land
values will not be affected by the Haste chemical facility. About the only
consequence which one can safely project concerni.11g the developnent of a l,aste
chemical land.fill in the region is that it will provide a basis for the f utm,e
e:xp2.nsion of such facilities in the region. If EPA approves this site for use
by t he state of North Carolina for use as a 1-,aste cher.1 cal la11d.fill, what is to
stop the property 01mers adjacent to this site from offering their l ands to out-
side cormnercial interest who are eager to find properties on which to establish
similar facilities? Once standards have been lmwred for the state, this would
open the door for commercial interest to apply to EPA for sinilar pcrr.rl.ts. In
my judgement, EPA would not be in a position to r ej ect their request assuning
.the coITElercial interest based their applications on the state's application. In
fact, a commercial waste chemical firm examined a site in 1:arren County several
years ago but rejected the site on the grounds t hat the site did not meet EPA
regulations.
If this application is approved, one can be certain that pressure from
commercial interest will soon follow. Also, if the chemical industry within the
state of North Carolina comes under pressure from EPA or the state to develope
other waste chemical facilities., what is to keep such concerns from forcing the
state to expand the facility in Harren County since the site already has EPA.'s
approval regarding the soils, etc. With such prospects, the quality of life
in liarren County will likely change for the worst in the future.