NCD980602163_19951018_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Water Monitoring, 1978 - 1995-OCR

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
October 18, 1995
Mr. Gary R. Chirlin, PhD., P.G.
Chirlin & Associates, Inc.
16623 Bethayres Road
Rockville, MD 20855
Dear Mr. Chirlin:
NA
DEHNR.
The Joint Warren County State PCB Landfill Working Group (YI orking Group) has requested
that I submit information to you concerning the existing landfill groundwater monitoring
systems. There is consensus among members of the Working Group that the existing monitoring
system should be evaluated and upgraded if appropriate.
The staff of the Division of Solid Waste Management (Division) has proposed recommendations
for upgrading the existing monitoring system. In order to move forward on a final proposal for
upgrading the monitoring system, the Working Group has requested a peer review, external to
the State, of the State's recommendations. Chirlin and Associates was recommended as a peer
reviewer that has the confidence of the members of the Working Group.
I am enclosing two documents, which the Division staff sent to another independent professional
geologist, for your consideration for peer review and recommendations. If you need additional
information or have any technical questions, please contact Bob Glaser, staff hydrogeologist, at
[phone], ext. 300.
The Working Group has previously received peer review gratuitously. If Chirlin and Associates
anticipates compensation for the requested peer review, please let me know. In addition, I
would like to know a schedule for responding to this request.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Gary Chirlin
October 18, 1995
Page 2
Please call me at [phone], ext. 202 if you need any further explanation or assistance in
this process. I look forward to a response and working with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
\ I t0~c1~~
William L. Meyer
WLM/cb
cc: Bob Glaser -w/o enclosures
H,nry Lancaster -w/o enclosures
.Jfm Warren -w/o enclosures
Enclosures
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources @ PrintedonRe~ledPaper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonbthan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
Mr. George Bain
3966 Bachelor Creek Road
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203
October 9, 1995
RE: Ground Water Monitoring System for the PCB Landfill
Dear Mr. Bain:
.NA
DEHNR
I am in receipt of the September 25, 1995 letter regarding the additional material needed to complete your
evaluation. The material attached to this letter should address most of your requests. Some of the items
you requested were not available.
The material I have included is:
1. boring logs for the original test borings for the site characterization;
2. a copy of the construction plans for the PCB landfill;
3. elevation of the bottom of each well;
4. aerial photograph of the site (please return it when you are finished);
5. elevation of the water in the landfill;
6. well records for each of the wells; and
7. copies of memos, reports, and other applicable correspondence pertaining to the PCB Landfill.
In addition to the material specified above, I have included a table with water level data for well MW-4.
The data sent to you previously included an incorrect measuring point elevation and incorrect water table
elevations.
If there are any questions please call me at [phone] extension 300.
Respectfully,
f 7 /) 171·; }J /)
.---._Qf_,.~,Ylf J~1.,,:.__,l "\./
Robert Glaser, Hydrogeologist
Remediation Branch
Hazardous Waste Section
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-c onsumer paper
PCB Landfill Measurements
The following water level and well depth measurements were taken on October 5, 1995 by Larry Rose,
hydrologic technician with the State's Solid Waste Section, and Bob Glaser.
Well# MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 Landfill Well
Measuring
Point Elevation 343.99 329.98 325.12 322.82 357.67
(ft)
Well Depth
below
Measuring 51.88 46.86 40.80 38.48
Point (ft)
Static Water
Level below
Measuring 45.23 38.25 26.38 23.48 20.43*
Point (ft)
Water Table 298.76 291.73 298.74 299.34
Elevation (ft)
Water Level
Elevation in 337.24
Landfill
*measurement made on July 21, 1995
The elevation of the bottom of the leachate collection system is approximately 321 feet above mean sea
level.
H:\BOB-G\G-BAIN2.WPD
0~-------.,;_1200FEET
• Sw(e,ca WM« M--.1 Swiae ....... In-Mile ... dun
-c---•·ll':·• @ I
,__ T
-r-c-•a-.---•_,... r,t ,..__.. ._ • "'-'it i< ,.,... • ,..,.,,, -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
l\ffiMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Bill Meyer, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management ~
Ed Mussler,E.I.T., Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Manageme ~
Greg Eades,E.I. T., Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management 7 l
RE: Volume of Soil Estimated in the PCB Landfill
The approximate volume of soil in the PCB landfill has been calculated. There is
approximately 36,500 cubic yards of material in the landfill. Assuming an average weight of
1.5 tons per cubic yard, there are approximately 54,750 tons of material in the landfill.
The volume and weight of the wet and dry soil that may be available was determined. The
amount of wet and dry soils in the landfill are conservatively estimated as:
Volume of Dry Soil-21,500 cubic yards
Volume of Wet Soil-15,000 cubic yards
METHODOLOGY
The average-end-area method of calculating the volume was employed. This method tends to
over estimate the actual volume, so it should represent a maximum amount of soil in the
landfill. The supplied drawings were consulted. It was assumed that the final contours were as
depicted and that the grading plan was the subgrade. Five feet were subtracted from the top
elevations to account for the closure cap system, and 7 feet were added to the grading plan
elevations to account for the leak detection layer, clay barrier layer and leachate collection·
system. Seven cross sections were chosen and the geometry plotted. Given the simple nature
of this design we were able to determine the area of right triangles. These areas were summed
and multiplied by two to account for the entire cross section of the landfill. The volume of soil
was estimated using the following formula:
V = L (Al+ A2)/ 2 (27ft3 per yd3)
The weight of the soil was conservatively estimated by assuming that the soil has a unit weight
of 1.5 tons per cubic yard. The cross sections and calculations are attached.
Water level measurements in the landfill are available from two measurement points, the
leachate sump pipe and the gas vent well. The water level readings from the two points were
obtained and translated into an elevation. The two measurements are within six inches of each
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
other. The top nineteen feet (at the maximum point of the landfill) is dry, and the maximum
depth of saturated soil is ten feet.
The approximate volume and weight of soil which may be recovered from four cased wells,
each two feet in diameter was also determined. The wells were assumed to be evenly spaced
across the flat bottom portion of the landfill (i.e. no wells were located over sideslope
portions). Each well could yield:
Volume of soil in two foot diameter well,-91.11 cubic feet
Dry Weight of soil per well-89.48 pounds per cubic foot
Total Dry Weight of Soil from four wells -4 tons per well
The soil was assumed to have a dry denisty of 111 pounds per cubic foot. The weight of
saturated soil was adjusted to its dry weight equivalent. The adjusted density per well is 89 .48
pounds per cubic foot.
LIMITATIONS
The information and numbers generated herein are based upon commonly accepted engineering
methods. All of the drawings and measurements have been supplied by others and the resulting
information is as correct as the data supplied to us. The actual conditions and amount of
saturated and unsaturated soil within the landfill may vary, dependent upon the variance of the
actual conditions in the landfill. A reasonable dry weight and density of the soil was assumed
for computational purposes; the actual soil is highly variable.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Section
C:\WPDOCS\COMMENTS\PCBVOLl .DOC
J,, •
. -l ; I
. NORTH CAROLINA DMSION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
i I i I i ! \ i I i
I !
I I I I i I I I I
; i !
i s1: I ~loP4
. I i I
I !
l
I
i i
I ' i
; I
' ' I ! ! ! !
l I i i ! , , • I
! ! : ' I !
A-i_= Y,: f i+'/n.b'J!(
I ' I i
! ;
i i
I
i ' ' ' i -i i
~ ,.,' i ! i i I I
i ! I ' i
i 32.s' ' ' ' ; I
I i
; !
' I ' ' ' ; , I
J4S-'.
LF {vMe --r (_,...
Date: tu/{,b ~
Date: 1c/;/;. /fr r,
. NORTH CAROLINA DMSION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGE:MENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
i i i i I I ~ i l
1 ; ' I 1· I 1' I i 1
1 I , 1 ... ,
i I I i ! l I
; i i i I I l j . I l i
! 54-' i I i 1 ! i ~ !
i j
, ___ · __ 5± I
; i
I I
I !
i I
! i i
.I
I
I I
! '2i i' 1
I ! !
I
!
• v;:: '3S' l i. 1 2.p +: 13-_z._,.o ...... ) _-= -----'-'2,,_,, g."-': =r<-.;r'---+t-#7...c...i -----'--'--'----'--...;___-'--i---'!-----'---'-~--'---'--+--'--;-!i __;___;____;__'---I
S4-. . : ! ! I
~------.-___,..-------~----_._~ ..... T~; ···-1 -------;-------...--1 -'---'---'----1
' I
i !
I I i : : .
--~--~:~o~k~U. ~±V~LtJp-±-4_±~~ ~ J 1 l 4:b ~ c}ff~\-=-.:56__,• I--'----+---+-----'----'---
! t ,5a.! 3,)()o~ le.~ ! -f"()f~( 'So~"{ ; v?'
. : : I i --.----~ I '
i :
:
: I ! .
' i ! '
Project Title: --Pc-a LF Volv,sfe 1Zi774 l-
By: iii Date: /111&/45"
Checked By: $~ Date: /b/~/n-
Sheet -2:_ of_±::_
'
:
:
'
i
:
I ' l j
l
I
i
'
· NORTH CAROLINA DMSION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGE1\1ENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
I ;
i • i I I ' ! l I 1 i
I I
I i I !
I -i I i ' j 1 ,
! I I
: . i l !
. i i i !
I !
:
: . I
i • . !
• i
';
I i ! ! !
I I I I 1 . _. I
I I Ii tJk.f !
! I ! ' ; I •
Ii : 1'-' " i'' _ I .1
! i
I
!
i
I
i l
i I
i i i i
! i ! ! !
! I
.
. •
' i
I
! !
; I
' I
:
i
i :
:
' i
1---"-----~--+-1 ___ ,;...-.. i. --..;.... ---"-~----+-------------"---'---1---'--~--l--'-~---'----•
.
! i
:
.
--··
i i
:
I
i ! . ' ; I , I
i i I : ! I
I I
I
I
Project Title: ?ci3 LF · iUE!"vh-1-oc YJ/( -
By: ijj;_ Di\te: /v G ,,-
Checked By:i<[_ Date: 10 6 1 ----
Sheet _J__ of _J__
.
.
I : I '
I i •
i
: i
!
.
. NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
i i l .
l I l
. i
A~:=
CALCULATION SHEET
: I 1 1 I I I i ! ,..i I i i I i
I i
! ! I
I l ! !
! I !
I i
I
! I ! I ! I !
1 I ! ! i
! i ' I I
! ' I
I I l I
! I ! ! ! I I • I i , i I ' ! . . ; • ' ! : ! ' i :
i i i !
-~_\{J .,_· 50 (o+•H,6l
54 ; ; ! ' I
~ -=. /{;(J ( yl/lt (2.00) :! 6400c. :
S'4 : : 1 : , i i '\
i
v' ! _4:
! i i
l'3o ( l;to<i+l~~o) ~ 6(;4-4:c '
, 54 1 •:
i : I i I
i !
I
i :
I
i i
' i \
i !
i
I I
i
I
I l
I r
i i
I !
I
I I
I
i
! i
:
•
!
' :
;
:
i ' i I I 1
'To~~I : ~ "t"' \/'7:-+ r/.4. + v ... i:: /1-944 c>,~: l/5,z. is-, boo C-t., .-"
' I
' !
! ; i
i
:-D. rt-= °14{4:( Vol,.---ti ~ 1.vCf ~clvr. e ~: ! 3~1000 <-¼ ~. 15.bo~ <~:: : 2.,, ~0:0~1,( ,_;.../
: : • , • 1 1 : : · ! ! , I : , · / !U : ' 1 : :/J , . i I U,
. • llol/-c_l Vo{:v...;4-!:) _1{. oo<l c.r,-~n~ AA~-i ,s -i 'E'fo/J Dr.., I
,_~ ___ __,__D_ ... __,_1>' : 1/1.Jt ... --e. \-: l 2.( td11 / c..~ / ! ! : I 41 o/o l 1,Ua.+'
Wtif l V~/v i.~ { lts-J oho l du"'+ / i i : i I i
...______,_.._.. _____ ____.__,.;_,--4:__;____.l..1,I~·· I i i
Project Title: ~kh"\.e.5A T1.Ji2A il::7) 5oc'l · --:Pc. E
By: JI~
Checked By: ·f?~
Sheet_/_of_/_
Date: to/6-7,(
Date: iO/b /<is-
' l,
L-F .
I
I
I
i
' I
' ' . i
. NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
! , i I i 1 i I i
: I ~ . ,tJ I
i i I
I ! I
i ! ,; I I ' I : i I I I I
,I I I i1
' i
I
'" I l/
I i
I
! !
-l-I
I r I i I I I , /! / A I
I
i
,, . . I 20.s i ; l .
i ! I i
I i
I ' I
• -h , I -: I TT· +I '
! 1 ,-i
1 ! I ! !
V i
i i I ,. 7" l ' I i
I ! !
: :
! i
: ~-+------+----4-----'-,-----'----'----'-----'---4--_;__..._l___,, __ ,___;_·___;_:---'-,--+---'-__;----'----'---l
!
T
I I ! I . I ! !
I l
ll :
' i ! ' '
! 7': /=1 i T i ! i : l
' : !
Project Title:
By: /f4 L E ttc. ft14. TF LEVEL-, -?cB L F
Checked By: 1pn£
Sheet _i__ of _l__
Date: ''-i'h"
Date: 1o/(e/~J,,...
FI
! i
1
I
: '
'
i
:
Warren County PCB Landfill Environmental Sampling Data
August, 1994
Sample ?. SampJe 409cition· •. ·· · · ·•· Lab ID •• ·Chemical ••·•· . . . .·. .
· Name ·•··•. •·•··•· · NGr11bet Parameter ··•.·
,.· :·
WL-001-SS Leachate Pond -Ravine 013921 Barium
outlet
II II 013921 Chromium
WL-003-SS Leachate Pond -middle 942752 PCB
WL-004-SS Leachate P. -filter outfall 942753 PCB
WL-028-SS Leachate P. -filter out -942781 PCB
duplicate
WL-029-SS Surface Soil Background 942782 PCB
WL-001-LC Dry Landfill Contents 942796 PCB
II II 942795 Chlorobenzene
II II 942795 1 ,4 Di-chloro-
benzene
WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents 942799 PCB
II II 942797 Chlorobenzene
II II 942797 1 ,4 Di-chloro-
benzene
II II 013919 Arsenic
II II 013919 Barium
II II 013919 Chromium
II II 013919 Lead
WL-001-LE Landfill Leachate 013909 Barium
WL-001-GW Monitoring Well No. 1 013914 Barium
WL-004-GW Monitoring Well No. 4 013917 Barium
Mon. Well No. 4 -duplicate 013918 Barium
WL-002-SD Richneck Ck-OS sediment 013920 Barium
WL-005-SS West side Landfill -seep 013922 Arsenic
II II 013922 Barium
II II 013922 Chromium
WL-006-SS Air Vent Area Soil Grid 14-3 013923 Barium
II II 013923 Chromium
~:c TCLP results for this element did not exceed standards.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
Results .·
88 ppm*
12 ppm*
0.53 ppm
1.15 ppm
1.45 ppm
0.22 ppm
301.4 ppm
62 ppb
23 ppb
151.8 ppm
60 ppb
48 ppb
2 ppm>:<
23 ppm >:<
12 ppm*
35 ppm>:<
0.23 ppm *
0.05 ppm>:<
0.08 ppm*
0.08 ppm>:<
16 ppm*
2 ppm*
94 ppm*
12 ppm>:<
72 ppm*
16 ppm>:<
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
NA
DEHNR
April 26, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Members of the joint Warren County and State
PCB Landfill working group
Bill Meye&
SUBJECT: Sampling Analysis, and Leachate Removal
Activity 1982-1993
Enclosed is a summary of sampling and analysis of groundwater
monitoring wells, surface stream water, stream sediment, leachate
and miscellaneous samples. This report does not include
approximately 35 private water supply wells sampled and analyzed in
1982-83 or the recent well testing conducted by the Warren County
Health Department. None of the wells tested positive for PCB's.
There are also approximately 120 blood samples taken the last
quarter of 1982 to establish a background PCB blood level. The
blood samples are preserved and will be analyzed if there is a
release from the landfill.
If you have any questions please contact me at [phone].
WLM:aw
Attachment
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611 -7687 Telephone [phone] FAX 919-71&-3605
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 O't post-consumer paper
LEACHATE REMOVAL, SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS OF PCB LANDFILL
1982-1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
I. PCB LANDFILL-SUMMARY OF LEACHATE REMOVAL,
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS EVENTS FOR PCB
1982-1993 1
II. PCB LANDFILL, LEACHATE REMOVAL AND ANALYSIS
1983-1993 2-5
III. MONITORING WELLS, SURFACE WATER
STREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLES
1982-1993
IV. MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLES
1983-1993
V. PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELLS
1982-1990
6
7
8
PCB LANDFILL
SUMMARY OF LEACHATE REMOVAL, SAMPLING AN ANALYSIS FOR PCB'S
LEACHATE PRIVATE
MONITORING SURFACE STEAM REMOVAL ANALYSIS WATER
DATE WELL WATER SEDIMENT 1· E* Well SOIL OTHER
1982 8 8 8
1983 16 16 16 33 35 26 4((
1984 8 16 16 11 10 9
1985 16 16 16 11 10 2
1986 16 16 16 3 3 1
1987 4 4 4
1988 8 8 8
1989 8 8 8 1 1 1 (2*
1990 8 8 8 7 6 6 1 5 6 (3*
1991 8 8 8 10 0 3 1
1992 8 8 8 11 1
1993 5 2 2 1 (4*
*1) Air Samples; 2) Lagoon.sediment basin water; 3) Grass.treatment system; 4) Lagoon sediment basin sediment
LEACHATE*
REMOVAL ANALYSIS
E
82
83 33 33 26
84 11 10 9
85 11 10 9
86 3 3 1
87 0 0 0
88 0 0 0
89 1 1
90 7 6 6
91 10 0 3
92 11 1
93 5 2 2
* I= influent
* E = effluent
Page 2
PCB LANDFILL
LEACHATE SAMPLES
DATE GALLONS INFLUENT EFFLUENT
03-07-83 0.42 PPB 0.24 PPB
03-07-83 0.44 PPB
03-08-83 0.34 PPB 0.28 PPB
03-08-83 0.25 PPB 0.043 PPB
03-08-83 2.80 PPB 0.062 PPB
03-14-83 <1.0 PPB
03-16-83 <1.0 PPB <1. 0 PPB
03-21-83 2.471 PPB 0.184 PPB
03-22-83 1.408 PPB 0.294 PPB
03-23-83 1.349 PPB 0.107 PPB
03-24-83 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
03-28-83 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
03-30-83 0.279 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-01-83 0.10 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-05-83 0.40 PPB 0.10 PPB
04-07-83 0.20 PPB
04-11-83 0.20 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-12-83 0.50 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-13-83 1.114 PPB 0.708 PPB
04-14-83 0.708 PPB 0.196 PPB
14-18-83 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-19-83 0.22 PPB 0.21 PPB
04-20-83 0.27 PPB 0.24 PPB
04-25-83 0.60 PPB <0.1 PPB
Page 3
DATE GALLONS INFLUENT EFFLUENT
04-26-83 0.20 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-27-83 <0.1 PPB
05-10-83 0.20 PPB <0.1 PPB
05-25-83 0.10 PPB <0.1 PPB
06-01-83 <0.1 PPB
07-20-83 1.63 PPB
07-29-83 <0.1 PPB
01-21-83 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
11-29-83 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
01-26-84 0.30 PPB <0.1 PPB
03-07-84 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-03-84 0.60 PPB <0.1 PPB
05-03-84 0.60 PPB <0.1 PPB
06-06-84 100 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
07-17-84 90 0.30 PPB <0.1 PPB
08-16-84 90 <0.1 PPB
09-11-84 135 0.20 PPB <0.1 PPB
10-10-84 135
11-05-84 140 0.20 PPB <0.1 PPB
12-11-84 135 =690 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
02-18-85 90 <0.1 PPB
03-26-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-23-85 112 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
05-24&25-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
06-27-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
07-16-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
'.
Page 4
DATE GALLONS INFLUENT EFFLUENT
08-13-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
09-18-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
10-24-85 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
11-13-85 135 = 967 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
03-04-86 90 <0.1 PPB <0.1 PPB
04-24-86 5 <0.1 PPB
05-06-86 5 = 95 0.18 PPB
03-21-89 <0.1 PPB
02-26-90 22
04-19-90 100 <0. lppb <0. lppb
05-03-90 105 <0.lppb <0.lppb
05-08-90 100 <0.lppb <0.lppb
08-28-90 130 <0. lppb <0.lppb
09-27-90 120 <0.20ppb <0. lppb
10-25-90 75 = 652 gallons <0.lppb <0.lppb0
03-20-91 75 + 85
04-24-91 75
04-25-91 85 <0.1 ppb
5-30-91 75 + 85 <0. lppb
06-27-91 110
07-26-91 125 + 95
09-11-91 120
09-30-91 55
10-29-91 100 <0.lppb
11-27-91 165 = 1250 gallons
01-31-92 160
Page 5
DATE GALLONS INFLUENT EFFLUENT
02-28-92 160
03-27-92 160
04-29-92 160
06-26-92 160
07-30-92 160
08-28-92 160
09-29-92 160
10-27-92 160 <0.lppb
11-24-92 160
12-23-92 160 = 1780 gallons
01-26-93 160 <0. lppb <0. lppb
02-26-93 160
03-26-93 160
04-23-93 160
05-21-93 160 = 800 gallons <O.l]2J2b <0.lJ2J2b
PPB -PARTS PER BILLION PCB'S
INFLUENT -LEACHATE PRIOR TO ENTERING TREATMENT WORKS FILTRATION
SYSTEM
EFFLUENT -LEACHATE AFTER DISCHARGE FROM TREATMENT WORKS FILTRATION
SYSTEM
.-
PCB tJ\NOf1U.
SAMPUNG DJ\ TA
DATE MONITORING WELL SAMPLES SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
1982
11 -29 <0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES) <0.1 Pf'B (8 SAMPLES)
1983 <0.1PrB (8 S.I\MrLES) <0.1 Pre (8 S.I\MPLES) 05-05
11 -21 <0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES) < 0. 1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
1984
06-06 <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) < 0. 1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
12-11 <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
1985
05-24 < 0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
11-13 < 0. 1 PPB (8 SAMPLES) < 0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
1986
05-06 <0 1 PPB (8 SAMPLES) < 0. 1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
11-18 <0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLES)
1987
06-04 <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
1988
02-02 <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
07-06 <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
1989
03-21 < 0 .1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) < 0. 1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
10-25 <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
1990
04-19 < 0 .1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
10-25 < 0 . 1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
1991
04-24 < 0 .1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
10-28 < 0 .1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
1992
05-13 < 0 .1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
11-24 < 0 .1 PPB (4 SAMPLES) <0.1 PPB (4 SAMPLES)
PPB = PARTS PER BILLION PCB'S
PPM = PARTS PER MILLION PCB'S
STREAM SEDIMENT SAMPLES
<"0.1 PPB (8 SAMPLESl
<0.1 PPB {g SAMPLES'
<0.1 1'PB (8 SAMPLES)
< 0.1 PPM (8 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (8 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (8 SAMPLES)
< 0.1 PPM (8 SAMPLES)
< 0. 1 PPM (8 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (8 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
< 0. 1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
< 0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
< 0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
<0.1 PPM (4 SAMPLES)
The PCB Landfill has 4 monitoring wells, 4 surface waler sampling sites and 4 stream sediment sampling sites that are currently sampled
semi-annually.
....
PCB LANDFILL
MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLES
DATE
01-06-83
01-06-83
01-12-83
01-12-83
08-28-89
05-03-90
04-18-90
04-18-90
04-18-90
04-18-90
10-29-91
02-26-93
PPB -PARTS PER BILLION PCB'S
PPM -PARTS PER MILLION PCB'S
ND -NONE DETECTED
SAMPLE LOCATION
GAS VENT EXHAUST
LEACHATE COLLECTION
PIPE EXHAUST
AMBIENT AIR SAMPLES
GAS VENT EXHAUST
LEACHATE LAGOON
WATER
SOIL SAMPLE
GRASS (4 SAMPLE
SITES)
SOIL (4 SAMPLE
SITES)
CHARCOAL FROM
TREATMENT WORKS
LEACHATE LAGOON
SEDIMENT
SOIL
LEACHATE LAGOON
SEDIMENT
RESULTS
3.00 PPB
<1.0 PPB
ND
2.00 PPB
<0.1 PPB
<0.1 PPM
<0.1 PPM
<0.1 PPM
<0.1 PPM
0.27 PPM
<0.1 PPM
0.12 PPM
DATE
08-24-82
08-24-82
01-13/19-83
07-16-85
03-16-90
PPB -PARTS PER BILLION PCB'S
PRIVATE WATER WELL SAMPLES
SAMPLE LOCATION
PRIVATE RESIDENCE WELL
PRIVATE RESIDENCE WELL
PRIVATE RESIDENCE WELL
(35 WELLS FOR 45
RESIDENCES)
PRIVATE RESIDENCE WELL
PRIVATE RESIDENCE WELL
RESULTS
<1.0 PPB
<1.0 PPB
<1.0 PPB
<0.1 PPB
<0.1 PPB
Landfill Leachate Samples
The original design of the landfill included a piping system inside the landfill liner at
the bottom of the PCB-contaminated soils that are in the landfill. Water that has separated
from those original materials and water that fell into the landfill while it was under
construction has flowed into this pipes. Samples of this leachate water will be taken and
analyzed by methods similar to those for landfill's solid soil samples. This Leachate
Collection System was originally design for future sampling and no unusual techniques are
required beyond normal sampling safety precautions.
Groundwater Samples
When the landfill was built, four wells were installed around the landfill, so that
samples of groundwater could be taken frequently. Samples of groundwater have been
collected and analyzed for PCBs throughout the lifetime of the landfill. During this
sampling event, the state proposes to take groundwater samples for PCB and dioxin
analysis. In addition, the depth to the surface of the groundwater will be measured. This
measurement will allow us to know in which direction the groundwater is flowing in the
area under and around the landfill.
Surface Water Samples
Two stream pass by the landfill. Richneck creek passes several hundred yards to the
north. An unnamed tributary of Fishing Creed passes several hundred yards to the south.
The state has two permanent sampling locations on each creek. One upstream of the
landfill, and one downstream. During this sampling effort, samples will be taken of the
water in each of the four locations and analyzed for PCBs, dioxins, and other organic
contamination.
CHEMICAL TESTING PLAN
Modern chemistry laboratories can measure very, very small amounts of the
chemicals we must know about at the Warren County PCB landfill. These measures may be
as small as one part of a chemical to one billion parts of other materials. These very
sophisticated chemistry tests are done only in laboratories that are approved for such tests.
All chemical tests to be done on these soil and water samples will be done in approved
laboratories operated by the state or by private companies.
All samples collected will be tested to see how much and what kind of dioxins and
PCBs they may contain. Other special chemical and physical tests will be done for many
of the samples An outline of each type of sample and the tests that will be used on them
are listed below, , .
~,,..,,__ _,;~~ i'. ~.._ll.
t-,·,',<a fJP•~f .,•'~ j,r ed. ,.. tf
QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN _-{JJ~t~~:;..;; 5•:;-;:-;/-~,f~ /
,i..o "'to' fl.• ..---; J.yU-V,._,.
'lV t; ,-/J•N"f7jJ: f
~e).l-4 -SITE SAFETY PLAN
; !
' fC/7;?
_ff~ ______________________ L _0-~ _,y_o : _____ ··---__ _
-----· ~---~ ~ f:_'!_<;_l~":!':7 e. -.. fo~_/::? ______ . -.. --c) _,, S-3 -. --·-·--····~ 9 _l_[ ?:.7.!iL --~
... --~ _____ L_lf:./J:£/#.J::riZ, ________ .Po ~JJ _ __ _ _____ _ _ _ J,,_, ,;-__ _ _ __________ / __ C/_ l/ Z_7 S > ____ ./' ____ _
_ . v_ ··-·• L -~--1-~ . .!:!4£C ________ !:'!~ JJ_ ·-. _ -------... _ .. I , L./_5' _ --. _ ---~ 9 V Z_ 7 S-__ ) __ -~---· _
. __ . _________ tf ~_r__s__uJ_~----__ . _ . _____ _ __ . __ _ _ __ _ ____ C?, z. __ -z.. . _ _ _ __. __ .. ~ _ 9 Y.z zg -z-_____ . _
-------------Dr-1-L• ,,,_h_,c,_j_1__ ____ _ . . 3_ o I. '1 ; . _ ~CJ'! Z._lf__(e ___ _ ___ _
,t-Je,J· f 0 --. h .__f ~_ _ ____ D-1,__'1.__ ___ c:D_~'!_~ z 7 i 1 __ _
______ 'tl_~W~/L-----__________ tJ > _LJ ll YZ. ____________ q ff,t..~J-1 ____________ _
_ _____ _______________ _ d /b_u.f.y_Lf h_flt _~j_qf-0 ___ .=_ _ .M J tftJC?__ //J} __ . . _ _ . _ .. _ . __ .. __________________ _
_ __ -------~~-{c?--.. ~f6_y_/b_~~1JJ1A.thtf_l w . ~) lJl_l/l) _____ ---------------------------------
.
____________ (!) /rt l:-___ Q-3 ______ ~g:/(_ ___ )u~L _____ /~_(o _c) _ _ __
.... --····-(J) __ _fj) __ Jl[)_1-(f)_ __ _cci--, £~n-u_d ___ ~--___ 9::._r/1J1._5-__ l,/£~------fl.;v_/,1_ ___ 4.h_AJy S{_~ ------.
_________ (j)__......f2/L--f.l✓-_~_L./_ __ 1 ___ 4._f / ___ d_t:J_/~ ___ /_o o )L 7 ____ -c~_o-_{_ -j~-' --~-:/~'------
--------_______ hg--_aLLJ,r __ & ______ pe,-s .,, .... ~ _ , . ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _____ _
--·----------·--·----------··---·----~---·----··---------------... ·-·--···----·-------------·--------·
-~h.~~) ___ _h_ /;_..z__~----·---~---~------..... ·----------····-··----------------------------
____________ u)__ ~_J):f -c ,-~~ ~----~---~-~~-, ~~-~ ... ;)o.S , __ f"--~--=s"--, __
----W.: "R.ss, U S:--1ac-L,A;-. ON---~~--~--~Qs/h v; 5 \
______ (])_-:f__~_±h f ✓~ __ d~-c.C.. t,.,,v..1_~_#(._,,-f. ~-__ '! ... ____________ . __ _ _ ___ _______ _ __ ------------
_________________ l}y-_-f: _______ -f)y_ ... pi~r~.f~s __ ./~ftv l-r'_V:,~~-t,-1 ~-_ t;v; __
_ ___________ ____ ___ _______d ~ f ~ v,,.,,,, :t,A .• J--,rn:. 7 _____ __ ___ _ _ _ ___________________________________________ _
------------·-··------·--·------•--·---------·-----·-·---------··-·----·-··• -··---·---
. ----------...... -------.. -----
' f.
July 6, 1992
-~----'--· --WARREN COUNT'i PCB LANDFILL WATER EXTRACTION
1. llectrical Power
2. Site Survey
3. Drilling, Well Inatallation
4. Soil Cutting• -Teetlng & Disposal
5. Liner Repair, Certification
6. Three (3) Tank Storage System with Saddles & Primer Paint
(10,000 Gallon Tanks)
7 . Concrete Containment Arca (2 or 3 tank system)
8. NPDES Permit
9. Quality Control Person for System Set-up & Follow-up
Fleet Year only (Division of Solid Waste Management)
(26 weeks)
10. Pump
11. Wiring, Piping & Pump Installation for Automate Pumping
System (Including stand-by for periodic maintenance &
adjuetment or pump replacement, 1 day per month, first
year only)
12. Engineering, Drafting & Project Management for rump
Automate System
13. Divieion of Solid Waste Management personnel (under
Quality Control Supervisor) Responsible for testi11g,
!valuation, Release of clean or treated extracted
landfill water (13 to 26 weeks/yr)
14. Sand , Carbon Filter Diaphragm
15. Incidentals, Miscellaneous additional costs
$ 22,600.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 4,100.00
$ 2,000.00
to 12,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 12,400.00
to 19,000.00
$ 12,000.00
to 16,000.00
$ 400.00
$ 26,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 7,000.00
to 9,000.00
$ 4,000 .00
to 6,000.00
$ 8,062.00
to 16,123.00
$ 16,000.00
$ 11,906.00
to 15,172 .00
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
collection system, il appears that an additional evacuation and treatment system may take I lo
greater than 5 years lo complete at a recovery rate of I to 3 GPM . This time frame may be
more precisely determined after the Evacuation System is installed and in operation for
several months .
3
. r
I
I .
TOTAL COST FOR INSTALLATION, OPERATIOU FIRST YEAR $ 130,968.00
to 166,895.00
THE FOLLOWING ARI ANNUAL OR PERIODIC COST FOR THE LIFE OF TIIE PROJECT
-Quality Control after first year to Honitor, Control
Sy•t•m Operation ■, Testing, , Disposal of extracted
landfill water, Contract additional work as required
(10 to 20 w••k•/yr)
-Subcontract Chemical Laboratory to Sample, Teet Extracted
Landfill Water on weekly or bi-weekly basis
(PCB, PH, CONDUCTIVITY)
-Diviaion of Solid Waste HanagQment personnel (under
Quality Control Supervisor) Responsible for testing
review, Evaluation, Release of clean or treated
extracted landfill water (13 to 26 weeks/yr)
-Additional Sand, Carbon r :lter Diaphragms
-Diaposal of contaminated Sand & Carbon Filter Diaphragm
-NPD!S Permit, Annual Honitoring Fee
-Contractor atand-by for periodic maintenance & adjustme11t
of automate pumping system (l day per month)
$ 10,000.00
to 20,000.00
$ 16,400.00
to 32,800.00
$ 8,062.00
to 16,123.00
$ 0.00
to 16,000.00
$ 0.00
to 17,000.00
$ 300.00
to 1,125.00
$ 2000.00
-Incident ah , Hiscellaneous adJ i tlona 1 costs $ 3,676.00
to 10,SOS,OO
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AFTER FIRST YEI\R UUTIL EVACUATIOU IS COMPLETE $ 40,438.00
to 115.553.00
NOTE: Portions of the work listed above may be performed by the Diviaion
of Solid Waste Management or other state Departments in order to
minimi~• contractor costs. The coordination and implementation of
the inter-departmental work should be performed in the planning etage.
2
f
Warren County PCB Landfill Environmental Sampling Data
August, 1994
.. /Sanipl~.• :>:::.·:::. , ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~.f i]JIS••·•L0C:9·t·i
i·~•0••i••••·••·•······················ ····•~i~~~:••·············
••chernicah··•···
••••••••••
I ~jss'fr \ >Name < ·•·p13ri!m;Jer\••·· ...... ".
WL-001-SS Leachate Pond -Ravine 013921 Barium 88 ppm * outlet
JI JI 013921 Chromium 12 ppm*
WL-003-SS Leachate Pond -middle 942752 PCB 0.53 ppm
WL-004-SS Leachate P. -filter outfall 942753 PCB 1 . 15-wln
WL-028-SS Leachate P. -filter out -942781 PCB / -1 .4/ ppm
duplicate /
WL-029-SS Surface Soil Background 942782 PC~J/ 0 . .2 2 ppm
WL-001-LC Dry Landfill Contents 942~ PCE / 30 1.4 ppm
" " 94t795\ Chlo '6benzene 62 ppb
" " () 94'' ~795 1 1,4 I )i-chloro-23 ppb
/ benzene
WL-002-LC Wet Landfill ContE n!,S 94. ~9 PCB 151.8 ppm
JI ~II
/ 94. 1 797 Chlorobenzene 60 ppb
\
JI ( \ \1
\~ 94~1 797 1,4 Di-chloro-48 ppb
I benzene
II \ .~ \ 013919 Arsenic 2 ppm* I
II \ / II 013919 Barium 23 ppm *
II II 013919 Chromium 12 ppm*
JI II 013919 Lead 35 ppm *
------
WL-001-LE Landfill Leachate 013909 Barium 0.23 ppm *
WL-001 -GW Monitoring Well No. 1 013914 Barium
WL-004-GW Monitoring Well No. 4 013917 Barium
Mon. Well No. 4 -duplicate 013918 Barium
WL-002-SD Richneck Ck-OS sediment 013920 Barium
WL-005-SS West side Landfill -seep 013922 Arsenic
JI II 013922 Barium
II JI 013922 Chromium
WL-006-SS Air Vent Area Soil Grid 14-3 013923 Barium
JI II 013923 Chromium
* TCLP results for this element did not exceed standards.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
0.05 ppm*
0.08 ppm*
0.08 ppm *
16 ppm * 2 ppm * 94 ppm *
12 ppm *
72 ppm *
16 ppm *
n
' (
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
r~-~ ~---• a n
DEHNA
September 12, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: William Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
THROUGH: John I. Freeman, D.V.M., M.P.H.,
Environmental Epidemiology Secti
FROM: Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D., Toxicologi V,ltf,2.
Environmental Epidemiology Section
SUBJECT: Health Risk Evaluation
Warren County Landfill Samples
This memo is a follow-up to the September 7, 1994 memo that
evaluated PCB and chromium contamination in the Warren County
Landfill. In addition to the compounds commented on previously,
the following chemicals were identified:
013921 -88 ppm barium -Leachate pond
942795 -62 ppb chlorobenzene -dry landfill contents
23 ppb 1,4-dichlorobenzene
942797 and 013919 -wet landfill contents
60 ppb chlorobenzene
48 ppb 1,4-dichlorobenzene
2 ppm arsenic
23 ppm barium
35 ppm lead
013909-0.23 ppm barium -landfill leachate
013914 -0.05 ppm barium -monitoring well #1
013917 -0.08 ppm barium -monitoring well *4
013918 -0.08 ppm barium -monitoring well *4 duplicate
013920 -16 ppm barium -Richneck CK-DS sediment
013922 - 2 ppm arsenic -west side landfill
94 ppm barium
013923 -72 ppm barium -air vent area soil
The levels of barium, arsenic, lead, chlorobenzene, and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene in all the above soil and sediment samples should
not pose any increased health risks upon prolonged exposure.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. Norfh Carolina 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
I William Meyer
Page 2
September 12, 1994
The EPA MCL for barium is 2 ppm and the North Carolina
groundwater standard is 1 ppm. Barium levels detected in the
monitoring wells are below both standards and should not pose any
increased health risks if this groundwater source was utilized
for consumption.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me
at 733-3410.
KR:td
cc: Grover Nicholson
John Neal
..
OCT-20-95 FRI 02:34 BC GeoLo9ic,lnc 91 (':1 879 269E, P.01
(_\_ J. /3,·1 I
IO-d-3 -9 5
J966 Bachelor Creek Road
Asheboro, NC 27203
[phone]
FAX [phone]
To:
Company:
Location:
Fax Number:
From:
Company:
Date:
Subject
BC GeoLogic, LLC.
E.m,iron,nent.tl Cc,mu/r.-mts
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Total number of pages transmitted, including this Transmittal Sheet: h
MESSAGE
OCT-20-95 FRI 02:35 BC GeoLogic,Inc
BC GeoLogic, LLC
Environmental Consultants
Robert Glaser, Hydrologist
Hazardous Waste Section
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Bob:
910 879 2696
October 19, 1995
Attached is the requested peer review of the Division's plan for upgrading the PCB
landfill groundwater monitoring network. Thanks for sending the additional infom1ation
which allowed me to finally understand what the likely groundwater in situ flow regimen
looks like.
Having done that, it is my strong recommendation that additional monitoring wells are
also needed near the landfill in what, according to the data from the auger holes, is the
upgradient part. To do otherwise will leave us v.i th a rather incomplete monitoring
scheme and no possibility of defining likely flow paths.
Please call me if you wish to discuss any part of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Attachment
cc: William Meyer
P.02
OCT-20-95 FRI 02:35 BC GeoLo9ic,Inc
PEER REVIEW
PROPOSED PCB GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
At the request or'Bill Meyer of the North Carolina Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste, for peer review of a supplemental ground water monitoring system for the State's
PCB land fill, I have reviewed the follov.ing:
1. Correspondence from Glaser to Bain dated 09/07/95
2. Internal memo from Glaser to Meyer dated 04/06/95 outlining plans for the
monitoring system upgrade
3. Various site maps contained in item 2, above
4. Table of site water level measurements from 11/92 to 3/95, also contained in item 2,
above
5. Table of site landfill elevations and a copy of part of the USGS topographic map
covering the site
6. Internal memo from David Lo\vn to Sharon Rogers on PCB waste thicknesses.
Finding a need for additional information to complete my review, I requested any as-built
dra-w"ings, detailed site topo maps, PCB fluid elevations, ge.ologic logs, etc.. These were
received on October 10. I have since reviewed the following :
1. Revised water level elevation information for MW4
2. Engineering soil classification logs for the four wells and the eight initi.al auger holes
3. As-built topographic maps and construction details for the PCB site
4. A large obUque aerial photo of the landfill site
5. Recent (October 5, 1995) water level elevations for the site
6. Various well construction diagrams, driller's logs, auger hole location maps, and
various reports and correspondence from 1978 through 1983.
·OCT-20-95 FRI 02:36 BC GeoLo,ic,Inc 910 879 269E,
REVIEW AND EVALUATION
As is my normal practice in assessing the quality of ground,...-ater monitoring networks> I
first attempted to construct a potential groundwater flow diredion map for the site in
order to determine whether the existing wells were p]aced in geographically strategic
positions best suited for detection of any fugitive PCB discharge .. This exercise led to the
discovery that the resulting groundwater contour map didn't make good hydrologic sense
,,,hen compared to the site topography. The principal problem appeared to be that the
monitoring well with the lowest measuring point (MP) elevation (from the table of water
level elevations) had the highest water level elevation.
Since receipt of the additional information, it is apparent that the MP elevation for MW 4
js correct on the various maps but is incorrect on the current table of water level
elevations. Subsequently, I have used the revised water level elevations along with water
level data from three initial auger holes to construct a generic water table map for the site
(Figure 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Proposed State Plan
The DSWM Plan is essenria/ly as follows.
1. Install tvv·o additional wells to deeper depths at sites W2 and W3 to detennine the
vertical component of flow.
2. Install four additional wells (two sets of nested wells --one deep and one shallow) at
two locations in the northeast quadrant of the landfill site.
On review of the State Plan and examination of the additional material submitted to me, I
find the following.
1. The locations of the existing monitoring wells, relative to the Jandfill as plotted on
various maps and to elevations from the site detailed topographic map, are internally
consistent.
2. Groundwater in each of the monitoring wells, as recorded in tables furnished to me,
fluctuates several feet each year in response to seasonal precipitation and
evapotranspiration demand. There appears to be no doubt that each is a functioning
monitoring well.
3. I concur v.-ith the DSWM that there is a need for additional spatial coverage and also
with the concept of addition of deeper monitoring well installations at the locations of
the existing wells to better define the vertical component of flow.
P.04
4. The elevation of the water in the waste cell (337 feet) when compared to the average
site water level near the cell (299 feet), although not proof that the site is not leaking,
is evidence that, if it is, it is doing so at a very low rate.
5. Plotting of groundwater levels from the existing network, supplemented by
information on water levels from auger holes located near the crest of the knoll from
the initial investigation, show that the present net does not do an adequate job of
defining the shape of the upper surface of saturated rock and soil (i.e., the water table)
in the immediate vicinity of the PCB landfill. That is, there is not good definition of
the upgradient part of this site.
6. In addition, well MW4, even with a c-0rrected MP elevation, has a water level that
appears to be anomalously high if only water levels from the existing network are
used to construct a water level contour map.
7. The addition of water levels from the initial auger holes (although not the best of
good science since they are not from the same period of time) causes the water levels
from the existing network to make more hydrologic sense . See Figure 1. When a
water table contour map is constructed with the addition of auger hole water levels,
upgradient is directly beneath the cell and possibly both to the southwest and
southeast, principally along the small ridges in those directions. Discharge is to the
northwest and northeast, toward Richneck Creek and possibly south toward the
unnamed tributary.
8. Since one cannot evaluate flow direction and/or the hydraulic effect of the landfill on
the local hydraulic regime, better definition of both the site water table and the
vertical component of groundwater flow is required.
Recommended Alternate Plan
Therefore, I recommend:
1. Addition of one more well at site MW 4 at a deeper interval to document vertical
groundwater movement at this point, as well as to solve any ambiguity as to the
representativeness of data gathered there to date.
2. Install three shallow top-of-water-table monitoring wells at former auger sites 4a, 3,
and IA (Sheet 3, Suerdrup and Parcel, 8/12/81) to document the upgradient part of the
site water table and so that adequate groundwater flow maps can be draVrn.
3. Install the three shallow monitoring wells (item 2, above) first, to construct a more
accurate site vvater table map from which on-site adjustments can be made, as
necessary, in the location of the two new well nests proposed for the northeast
quadrant.
3
·OCT-20-95 FRI 02:37 BC GeoLo,ic,Inc 910 879 2696
4. Strongly consider the addition of a two-well nest immediately south of the cell at a
location based on the new groundwater flow map (item 3, above).
5. CoJlect geologic data, as weJI as soils engineering data, from any new holes drilled for
construction of the monitoring wells.
-· 6. Finally, I wish to caution that my recommendations for the number of wells and their
locations are based on current acceptable practice for monitoring systems in granular
materiaJs and should be adequate for monitoring the change in groundwater head
across this site, as well as the potential flux of groundwater.
There is no affordable monitoring system, in my opinion, that will guarantee 100%
early detection of any contaminant in a fractured rock system such as W1derlies this
site. The location, attitude, direction, aperature width, nwnber, and degree of
interconnection of rock fractures arc essentially unknowable below the ground surface
or beyond the edge of a borehole. Therefore, the placement of monitoring wells for
early detection of contaminant release is an exercise in the chance interception of the
critical fracture(s). Thus, the practicing science, as here, is reduced to making the
best educated guess as to the most probable discharge locations: hence, the need for
the best possible growidwater potential flow map. Hopefully, any discharge from
sites such as this will occur aJong the soil/weathered rock interface which is much
easier to monitor for contaminant discharge.
4
P.05
BC GeoLogic, LLC
Environmental Consultants
Robert Glaser, Hydrologist
Hazardous Waste Section
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
October 19, 1995
Attached is the requested peer review of the Division's plan for upgrading the PCB
landfill groundwater monitoring network. Thanks for sending the additional information
which allowed me to finally understand what the likely groundwater in situ flow regimen
looks like.
Having done that, it is my strong recommendation that additional monitoring wells are
also needed near the landfill in what, according to the data from the auger holes, is the
upgradient part. To do otherwise will leave us with a rather incomplete monitoring
scheme and no possibility of defining likely flow paths.
Please call me if you wish to discuss any part of this report.
Sincerely yours,
la
GeorgeL.B~
A
cc William Meyer
3966 Bachelor Creek Road, Asheboro, NC 27203 • [phone]
PEER REVIEW
PROPOSED PCB GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Bill Meyer of the North Carolina Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste, for peer review of a supplemental ground water monitoring system for the State's
PCB land fill, I have reviewed the following:
1. Correspondence from Glaser to Bain dated 09/07 /95
2. Internal memo from Glaser to Meyer dated 04/06/95 outlining plans for the
monitoring system upgrade
3. Various site maps contained in item 2, above
4. Table of site water level measurements from 11/92 to 3/95, also contained in item 2,
above
5. Table of site landfill elevations and a copy of part of the USGS topographic map
covering the site
6. Internal memo from David Lown to Sharon Rogers on PCB waste thicknesses.
Finding a need for additional information to complete my review, I requested any as-built
drawings, detailed site topo maps, PCB fluid elevations, geologic logs, etc. These were
received on October 10. I have since reviewed the following:
1. Revised water level elevation information for MW 4
2. Engineering soil classification logs for the four wells and the eight initial auger holes
3. As-built topographic maps and construction details for the PCB site
4. A large oblique aerial photo of the landfill site
5. Recent (October 5, 1995) water level elevations for the site
6. Various well construction diagrams, driller's logs, auger hole location maps, and
various reports and correspondence from 1978 through 1983.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION
As is my normal practice in assessing the quality of groundwater monitoring networks, I
first attempted to construct a potential groundwater flow direction map for the site in
order to determine whether the existing wells were placed in geographically strategic
positions best suited for detection of any fugitive PCB discharge. This exercise led to the
discovery that the resulting groundwater contour map didn't make good hydrologic sense
when compared to the site topography. The principal problem appeared to be that the
monitoring well with the lowest measuring point (MP) elevation (from the table of water
level elevations) had the highest water level elevation.
Since receipt of the additional information, it is apparent that the MP elevation for MW 4
is correct on the various maps but is incorrect on the current table of water level
elevations. Subsequently, I have used the revised water level elevations along with water
level data from three initial auger holes to construct a generic water table map for the site
(Figure 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Proposed State Plan
The DSWM Plan is essentially as follows.
1. Install two additional wells to deeper depths at sites W2 and W3 to determine the
vertical component of flow.
2. Install four additional wells (two sets of nested wells --one deep and one shallow) at
two locations in the northeast quadrant of the landfill site.
On review of the State Plan and examination of the additional material submitted to me, I
find the following.
1. The locations of the existing monitoring wells, relative to the landfill as plotted on
various maps and to elevations from the site detailed topographic map, are internally
consistent.
2. Groundwater in each of the monitoring wells, as recorded in tables furnished to me,
fluctuates several feet each year in response to seasonal precipitation and
evapotranspiration demand. There appears to be no doubt that each is a functioning
monitoring well.
3. I concur with the DSWM that there is a need for additional spatial coverage and also
with the concept of addition of deeper monitoring well installations at the locations of
the existing wells to better define the vertical component of flow.
2
4. The elevation of the water in the waste cell (337 feet) when compared to the average
site water level near the cell (299 feet), although not proof that the site is not leaking,
is evidence that, if it is, it is doing so at a very low rate.
5. Plotting of groundwater levels from the existing network, supplemented by
information on water levels from auger holes located near the crest of the knoll from
the initial investigation, show that the present net does not do an adequate job of
defining the shape of the upper surface of saturated rock and soil (i.e., the water table)
in the immediate vicinity of the PCB landfill. That is, there is not good definition of
the upgradient part of this site.
6. In addition, well MW4, even with a corrected MP elevation, has a water level that
appears to be anomalously high if only water levels from the existing network are
used to construct a water level contour map.
7. The addition of water levels from the initial auger holes (although not the best of
good science since they are not from the same period of time) causes the water levels
from the existing network to make more hydrologic sense. See Figure 1. When a
water table contour map is constructed with the addition of auger hole water levels,
upgradient is directly beneath the cell and possibly both to the southwest and
southeast, principally along the small ridges in those directions. Discharge is to the
northwest and northeast, toward Richneck Creek and possibly south toward the
unnamed tributary.
8. Since one cannot evaluate flow direction and/or the hydraulic effect of the landfill on
the local hydraulic regime, better definition of both the site water table and the
vertical component of groundwater flow is required.
Recommended Alternate Plan
Therefore, I recommend:
1. Addition of one more well at site MW 4 at a deeper interval to document vertical
groundwater movement at this point, as well as to solve any ambiguity as to the
representativeness of data gathered there to date.
2. Install three shallow top-of-water-table monitoring wells at former auger sites 4a, 3,
and 1 A (Sheet 3, Suerdrup and Parcel, 8/12/81) to document the up gradient part of the
site water table and so that adequate groundwater flow maps can be drawn.
3. Install the three shallow monitoring wells (item 2, above) first, to construct a more
accurate site water table map from which on-site adjustments can be made, as
necessary, in the location of the two new well nests proposed for the northeast
quadrant.
3
4. Strongly consider the addition of a two-well nest immediately south of the cell at a
location based on the new groundwater flow map (item 3, above).
5. Collect geologic data, as well as soils engineering data, from any new holes drilled for
construction of the monitoring wells.
6. Finally, I wish to caution that my recommendations for the number of wells and their
locations are based on current acceptable practice for monitoring systems in granular
materials and should be adequate for monitoring the change in groundwater head
across this site, as well as the potential flux of groundwater.
There is no affordable monitoring system, in my opinion, that will guarantee 100%
early detection of any contaminant in a fractured rock system such as underlies this
site. The location, attitude, direction, aperature width, number, and degree of
interconnection of rock fractures are essentially unknowable below the ground surface
or beyond the edge of a borehole. Therefore, the placement of monitoring wells for
early detection of contaminant release is an exercise in the chance interception of the
critical fracture(s). Thus, the practicing science, as here, is reduced to making the
best educated guess as to the most probable discharge locations: hence, the need for
the best possible groundwater potential flow map. Hopefully, any discharge from
sites such as this will occur along the soil/weathered rock interface which is much
easier to monitor for contaminant discharge.
4
o::::e: .-:is;
:D ::0
-rri ~ :z:
i2: ::, c-:> nc:::> -c=: -:z:
---j
--<
0 (a=-t-U,H)
■ (a.~ 11-1. s~
0 (EL" l'U ,501
0 (_a.a 1i1.ss)
z·
0 (a=-ft.~')
1·,~Wt'f I
$~~Ill t. "'t. hl~p
·-l • •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL
AND PUBLIC SAFETY
FINAL REPORT
. PCB WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
WARREN COUNTY, N.C.
SEPTEMBER, 1983
Prepared By:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Introduction
FINAL REPORT
PCB WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
WARREN COUNTY
The decision to remove the approximately 40,000 cubic yards of PCB
contaminated aoil along public roads by the state of North Carolina was based
upon the availability of a secure disposal facility. Such a facility is
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) administered by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The State of North Carolina applied for permission to utilize a 140-acre
tract of land, owned by the State and located in Warren County, to construct,
operate, and maintain an Annex 11 PCB Landfill. The site and operational J
plans were approved conditionally by the Environmental Protection Agency in
correspondence dated June 4, 1979. Additional conditions were added on
December 14, 1981.
Pre-Operation Phaae Activitie•
The North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch was chosen
by the PCB Remedial Action Project coordinators in the Department of Crime
Control and Public Safety to ensure construction and environmental monitoring
compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's approval conditions.
This was made clear in a pre-construction meeting located at the site on June
10, 1982.
Of primary importance in pre~operation activities was the establishment of
background data on groundwater and surface water around the site. This is
imperative for any long-term environmental monitoring program associated with
such disposal facilities. The initial groundwater monitoring wells were
constructed according to the Environmental Protection Agency approved
standards when general site construction started (June 21, 1982). These wells
were found to be unsatisfactory by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management and replacement wells were installed, with the
Environmental Protection Agency's approval the first week of July. One of
these replacement wells was vandalized on August 5, 1982, and was again
reinstalled. The Environmental Protection Agency stated that the "closing
out" of unusable groundwater monitoring using cement would not jeopardize the
collection of representative groundwater samples from monitoring wells in the
immediate vicinity. Groundwater and surface water background chemical data
was collected using the Environmental Protection Agency-approved methodologies
and analytical techniques (see attachment I).
Vandals damaged the 30-mil PVC liner on August 21 or August 22, 196,r.-Z..
Repairs were made and certified by a representative of the liner supplier.
The Environmental Protection Agency inspected the repair work on August 27,
1982, and gave verbal approval at that time to continue construction.
Inspections by the North .Carolina Division of Environmental Management to
ensure compliance with North Carolina Sedimentation and Erosion Control Laws
were conducted on August 3, 1982, and August 25, 1982 (see attachments 11 and
III).
I
I
Ronald H. Levine, M.O., M.P.H.
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-2091
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 30, 1983
0. W. Strickland, Head
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Environmental Health Section
Thomas C. Kamoski, Environmental Engineer )C~
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Environmental Health Section
Environmental Monitoring of the PCB Disposal Facility
ST A TE HEAL TH DIRECTOR
Environmental monitoring of the PCB disposal facility to identify releases
from the landfill consiam of select sampling and analyses of groundwater,
surface water, and surface water sediments. Analytical parameters dictated
by EPA are pH, specific conductivity, and total PCB for groundwater and
surface water and total PCB for surface water sediments. All sampling,
analytical, ·and security chain of·· custody procedures rigidly follow EPA
and N. C. Division of Health Services accepted methodologies.
Locations of the four groundwater monitoring wells were designated by EPA
a1 were the four 1urface water and surface water sediment sampling points
(1ee attachment). ·
The following identifies the dates that environmental monitoring events took
place:
Pre-Operation Monitoring of Groundwater to Determine Background Quality
August 20, 1982
August 30, 1982
September 6, 1982
Pre-Operational Monitoring of Surface Water and Surface Water Sediments
to Determine Background Quality
July 7, 1982
August 3, 1982
August 10, 1982
Operational Phase Monitoring of Groundwater, Surface Water and Surface
Water Sediments
' October 5, 1982
' October 28, 1982 '--~:::::::..:::..:__:_::.!-.:.::.,:_ _____________ ~
Jome, 8 Hunt Jr / Sarah T Morrow, M 0, MPH ~ · ncn.-n,,,c,,, l"'\C u,,,, • .,., occn,,orcc
-· ' i
' .
Memorandum
Page 2
June 30, 1983
AttadtUlt:!llL i
Poat-Operational Phase Monitoring of Groundwater, Surface Water, and Surface
Water Sediment ■ (to occur indefinitely twice each year)
November 29, 1982
May 16, 1983
To date, all monitoring activity has indicated no release of PCB's are
occurring at the disposal facility. All analytical data is available as
a part of public record.
A functional aspect of the landfill's design is a mechanism to remove free
liquid from the waste mass and hence eliminate material that has migration
(or release) potential. Pumping of the leachate collection system commenced
on March 7, 1983 and continued at various intervals through June 1, 1983.
I
Approximately S,000 gallons of free liquids were removed from the landfill
and treated at the landfill'• treatment works. Below are dates where water
analytical work was .conducted on influent and effluent water of the treat-
ment system:
March
April
May
June
7, 11,
1, s,
10, 2S
1
14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30
7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27
.. . ., .
The highest concentration of PCB's detected in the influent water was 2.47
ppb /J..47 (10-7)% by ·we,ght]. All effluent analyses show PCB concentrations
less than .1 ppb D.(10-)% by weight}. Attached are allowable concentrations
of PCB's in food and feed products according to 29 CFR 109(B). Effluent from
the treatment works meets EPA drinking water standards.
Over fifty-five private drinking water wells from resident• in the area around
the landfill were ■ampled in January of 1983. All analytical data 1howed no
detectable levels of PCB'■•
TCK:ct
Attachments
Measurements of in-place saturated hydraulic conductivities of the clay
liner were taken on September 12, 1982, in accordance with Environmental
Protection Agency permit conditions. All measurements showed the liner to
meet or exceed regulatory requirement (see attachment IV).
Operation Ph••• Activities
[
Placement of the contaminated soil into the prepared landfill commenced on
September 15, 1982. The last load of contaminated soil was delivered on
November 17, 1982. The total volume of contaminated soil was estimated at just
under the projected 40,000 cubic yards. An attempt to calculate the average
concentrations of PCB in the contaminated soil was made on October 7, 1982,
following advice given by Mr. Ralph Jennings, Toxic Substances Section,
Environmental Protection Agency. Composite samples were collected at six
locations in the contaminated soil fill. Each sample consisted of a composite
of material from six foot deep borings. The average concentration of PCB's in
the landfill as determined by the October 7, 1982, sampling event was 135 ppm
(see attachment V).
Operational phase monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and surface
water sediments was conducted on October 5, 1982, and October 28, 1982 (see
attachment I).
Post-Operational Phase Activities
Final placement of the topsoil covering over the clay and PVC cap was
impeded by wet weather conditions. The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management inspected the landfill for compliance with erosion
control regulations on November 5, 1982 and November 17, 1982 (see attachment
II). The lack of an adequate stabilized topsoil cover resulted in the
uncovering of the PVC cap due to accelerated erosion during January, 1983.
The lack of the topsoil covering's weight on the PVC cap allowed decomposition
gases to accumulate in bubbles under the PVC cap instead of being forced
through the gas vent located at a single location at the center of the
landfill. These bubbles were pierced and temporary venting pipes installed to
prevent gas buildup until weather conditions allowed the contractor to repair
the PVC cap and finish the placement of topsoil.
Analyses of gases venting from the single permanent vent and the temporary
vents by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency showed them to consist primarily of
methane with concentrations of PCB's far below OSHA standards.
Post-operational phase environmental monitoring of groundwater, surface
water, and surface water sediments was permformed on November 29, 1982, and
May 16, 1983. Identical monitoring events will occur each November and May
until the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator
and appropriate authorities of North Carolina determine otherwise.
1 ./ The pumping of the landfill' s leachate collection system to remove --,
V' rainwater that accumulated during the operational phase commenced on March 7, ((
1983. Over 5,000 gallons of water were removed and treated in the site's
treatment works by June 1, 1983. Any effluent from the treatment works met }
the Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water standards for PCB's. _,,,
2
Final con1tructlon of the landfill was completed on July 14, 1983. The
State of North Carolina accepted the site conditionally on July 15, 1983. All
k1y1 to lock• at th1 faci~ity ar1 in the cu ■tody of the North Carolina Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Branch.
The Environmental Protection Agency permit conditions identifying
po1t-clo1ure maintenance of the PCB landfill specify month¼f inspectioDJLof
the phy1tcal atructure• at the landfill and the leachate c~lection/detection
sumps in addition to the twice a year environmens!! monitorig& .. Program. The
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch retains responsibility for these I actions until directed otherwise by th~ Secretary of the Department of Ruman
Resources.
3
\ .
·.:::··,.
--~ ~ ;: .-~ ~ .... _ ;:~~-i" .... :!
.\ ;• ::" .: . .-.. :.,)~/:-:-:
. ' ,,
' •. •·· ',!
_r'.:.::,-
, ' : ~ -~: .. ~-/
•-f.' ·. • ..
·;,·_;.
.. "/.
•: .. :..'·
'.
----• A_~_O_N~-UL-r_Tla_N_O_~_Ol_Ne_EEH_ir_s __ -~-[E_lt:_~_F:Rs_A.._~-s-~-!-.~---t_e_s_,_I_n_c_. _____________ _ A CIVIL ENOINEERJNo • srnucTURAL EN01:sE1:.-nr:.o • GEoTEcus1caL ENGINEERING • l!ATEIIIALs TESTL'-:G SERvicEs
401 GLENWOOD AVE .• P. 0. Box 12447. RALElGll. N. C. 2760~
919/828-0801
March 7, 1983
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources & Community Development
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687
Attention: Mr. Edward L. Berry, Hydrologist
Re: Monitoring Wells
PCB Landfill
Warren County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Berry:
hAt.r.iUH nEGIONAL OFFICE
As requested by Jim Lineberger Grading & Paving, Inc., of Gastonia,
North Carolina, Ezra Meir Associates, Inc. constructed four (4) moni-
toring wells around the PCB Landfill in Warren County, North Carolina.
The wells were constructed in August 1982 under the direction of Mr .
. Daniel H. Biechler, of Sverdrup & Parcel, Consu~ting Engineers, Greens-
boro, North Carolina. On August 25, 1982, Mr. Biechler accepted the
construction of the monitoring wells and the grouting of all open holes.
Effective on August 25, 1982, it is our understanding that the State of
North Carolina assumed responsibility of the wells.
Attached, please find monitoring well construction records and one (1)
copy of the well specifications. If you need any further information in
this regard, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
EZRA MEIR ASSOCIATES, INC.
Y-✓ ..,f( 1~ ~
Edward G. Aguirre
Enclosure
EGA:sam
I . •.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HANAGEMENI
Bz~a Meir Associates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 12 4 4 7
Ralei~h, NC 27605
ATTENTION Mr. Edward G. A~uirre
Dear Mr. Aguirre:
RE: Monitoring Wells In Warren Co./
and DEM Groundwster Re~ulatio t
I am writing to infer~ you that we have received the well construc-
tion information on the four Warren County wells and to tha~k you for
your prompt action.
I would also like to inform vou and vour corporation that any wells
that you construct for groundw3ter information 3hould oe reported to
us regardless of who they ape for~~ what groundwater information is
being sought. If the information i 3 ~f 3 confidential nature. send
3 letter requesting confidentiaility q l~n~ witt1 sts~~d r~~sn~3 to
have us restrict ~nv release of t n8 in f□rmatia:1 for som~ so~c ~f i ed
time oeriod.
Again thank vou for yo~r c~o ~~~~~i0 n ~n -j cont~ct m~ i f I can be
of helo.
EB:bch
Sinc::!relv ,
Edw,H·d Berry
H v d r· o 1 o g i s t
SH££1. ). Of"
· c ·o·M,..uTATloNs FOR MotJ1roRJNG WeU-S
OATEJUt."( 9,1982-
CHKO
r-
1
'N5L
No
I
z
3
~
----
L
---
-
-
To/?
ELEV ------------
:?·}2 ---
328 ·--
3ZZ ----
326
-------
--=--3-~_:.vi__''-------~----~
l:.f',CH Ot.12!:Crt~,,.J I
. . 4 . · .. · . 4 "°' • A.
--.g:.--.-. • V ·, L--y----------
.
CON C S l-AB . ·.
------,-.-------Borro/V? SC€£:;A..J
ELEV ,_ ~ ~·':1 ~TI-L ---. ·-----·-
'l9/ CO I
281 Za' ,___
281 Zu' --·-
251 'lo'
I c5TEGL C,qp
H/Nt:;fiO~ ,l,oc.t...~,,-J1.£
I
8" S TECL P/Pli'
SCHG'O<..>Le °4-0
z•,I," L,o,.;,:; l
i d"4@u'' t:Ar-t-1 01-RknoAJ,
o R C. ,c4, ><:. 4/1-WW P
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WELL RECORD DIVISION ut' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P.O.Box27687 -RAL,El~,N.C.27611 919·733·2020
DRILLING CONTRACTOR E2~tf'/,f!:' ,,..IS~Y//i~ NO. WELL CONS'_'f1.UCTION PERMIT NO.
1. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below);,;!/
Nearest Town: ~~,,v~.A/' /v, C:,
D33 YI
County: Wt'}U/.N Lek ,v z{/
7
____ ........;._,...------,~--e--=----,.--:-:--...,.....----0-uadrangle No. ////b,A./ · L/.S &,~.
(Road,Coaununity or Subdivision and Lot No. l /97' / •
2. OWNER:$/ :f¼U' ,,/"~RTh &; ... -?.5J/;;./'4'. RILLING LOG
i ·,
3. ADDRESS:;..... ____________________ _ DEPTH FRO-M--TO FORMATION DESCRIPTION
4. TOPOGRAPHY: draw,valley,slope,hilltop,flat(circle one)
· s. usE oF WELL: /J/cv.1:-/,.e.hv.:; DATE, a -18 ·B .3
..J 6. DOES THIS WELL REPLACE AN EXISTING WELL? . VIS I . I
7. TOTAL DEPTH, S/ RIG TYPE OR METHOD: ------
8. FORMATION SAMPLES COLLECTED: YES NO_-'X__,__ __
9. CASING: Depth Inside
Dia.
fr~31/Zto2'13 ft_L\:.....;:q_•_
Wall thick. type
or weight/ft.
II SI ::SC-IIE/,1.dE .t,10 ,,lVG
10. GROUT: Depth Material Method
From~to~O~ ft _ _..3..-....;;..S_' __
11. SCREEN1 Depth Dia. Type & Opening
If adaitional space is needed, use back of form
From;03to1i}_ft __ f .... 0_1_ ~twT✓/.IPOP.:!> SL() 1 LOCATION SKETCH
(Sho~ distance to nUll'bered roads, or other map reference point&)
12. GRAVEL: Depth Size Material
From.,?O3 to 2 Ci( ft :!. 2Z
13. WATER ZONES(depth) : _____________ _
14. STATIC WATER LEVEL1 __ ft.:~~::top of casing
Casing is ft. above land surface ELEV:
15. YIELD(gpm) : _____ METHOD OF TESTING: ___ _
16. PUMPING WATER LEVEL: ________ ft.
after ____ hours at ______ gpo.
17. CHLORINATION: Type _____ -'Amount ____ _
18. WATER QUALITY: TU1PERATURE (OF) __
19. PERMANENT PUMP: Date Installed'-----------
Typec..-. _____ Capacity _____ (gp~)HP __ _
Hake __________ Intake Depth ____ _
Airline Depth _____ _
20. HAS THE OWNER BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS RECORD AND WFOR!'.ED OF THE DEPARTME?JTS REQ:JIRE~~!;TS }I.NO
RECOMMENDATIONS?
21. REl'.A.IU<S -------:----------------------------I do hereby certify that this well was constructed in accordance with N.C. nell Construction
Regulations and Standards and that this well record is true and exact.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WELL RECOl:D OIVISl()N 01' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P. 0. Box 27687 -RAL,EI~, N.C. 27611 919·733·2020
DRILLING CONTRACTOR £2~~ /,ft' t"'/S'~Y//;~ NO. WELL CONS'_'II.UCTION PERMIT NO.
1. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)~/
Nearest Town: ~~.,vll;'\/"' Iv,~.
D33 YI
County: W~}UL°N Lti~--vz!v
A ~Al ;;_ ~ ./ .,.,,, _ _____________________________ Quadrangle No._,_rT....:..;.•r-=-/_,.~-:--c:-~'-'=·~=~=.::::.::.!... __ _
(Road,Community or Subdivision and Lot No.) /9'7 I •
2. OWNER:$/ ~z:1;-t2 c~«Vh c:::::;. .. -?~/4;./_.,, : RILLING LOG
3. ADDRESS: _____________________ _
4. TOPOGRAPHY: draw,valley,slope,hilltop,flat(circle one)
. S. USE OF WELL: ;7/~;-/,,.e//',A9 0ATE1 8-/8 ·B3
..J . 6. DOES THIS WELL REPLACE AN EXISTING WELL? VIS I . I
7. TOTAL DEPTH: S/ RIG TYPE OR METHOD: ------
8. FORMATION SAMPLES COLLECTED: YES NO _ __.X:c....1.----
9. CASING: Depth Inside
Dia. ;}t 3qz to 2Ci 3 ft_'\:....,'1._1_
Wall thick. type
or weight/ft.
II r :so1Eb1 .. dE .:.,10 ,,2vL.
10. GROUT: Depth Material Method
From~to~oq ft ___ 3oc..=:.S_' __
11. SCREEN: Depth Dia. Type, Opening
DEPTH
FRO-M--TO FORMATION DESCRIPTION
If adaitional space is needed, use back of form
Fr0111303to1i1.._ft __ fL.0_1_ a,,v71;,.11,1()p~ SL() I LOCATION SKETCH
(She~ distance to numbered roads, or other map refereoce point•)
12. GRAVEL: Depth Size Material
From,'?O3 to 2. 'i. / ft ::t 2Z
13. WATER ZONES (depth): _____________ _
14. STATIC WATER LEVEL: __ ft.~~~~=top of casing
Casing is ft. above land surface ELEV:
15. YIELD(gpm) : _____ METHOD OF TESTING: ___ _
16. PUMPING WATER LEVEL: _______ f.t ..
after ____ hours at ______ gpr.i.
17. CHLORINATION: Type ______ .Arnount ____ _
18. WATER QUALITY: TEMPERATURE (°F) __
19. PERMANENT PUMP: Date Installed'----------
Type ______ Capacity _____ (gp~)HP __ _
Make __________ Intake Depth ____ _
Airline Depth _____ _
20. HAS THE owi;ER BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS RECORD AND lllFOR..".ED OF THE DEPARTME!>TS RI:Q:.JIR!:~!£!;Ts AND
RECOMMENDATIONS?
21. REl'.AIU<S ---~---:----------------------------I do hereby certify that this well was constructed in accordance with N.C. ~ell Construction
Regulations and Standards and that this well record is tnie and exact.
NORTH CAROLINA DE.PARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WELL RECOr.o DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P. 0 . Box 27687 -RALEIGH, N.C. 27611 919-733-2020
DRILLING CONTRACTOR eZ.,e.f fffi/-' /4.:,~_,//1/(REG. NO. WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO.
l. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)#,2 D34U2
Nearest Town : _ _::;.?_0...;':4..:....:;:.&=-::...•·-=-~•.c.;;.--<·/4...;:;,:,;::;.;..'//:..-'-'-1\./.~, J..l''-'.'-----------Coun ty: ~.,-;c' //41 6..-A/;,{/
A .c~a..-,7 __________________________ Quadrangle No. /Tr / • rv VS 6-_5
(Road,Community or Subdivision and Lot No.) /97/
2. OWNER: ..5/4 z{: C,/ /4,E$ u,-42,,(;.._,,...-? DRILLING LOG
3. ADDRESS: DEPTH FRO-M--TO
4. TOPOGRAPHY: draw,valley,slope,hilltop,flat(circle one)
FORMATION DESCRIPTION
.. t
s. USE OF WELL: 4,;v.,"z/,e/:-V,; DATE: 8· 10-BZ.
6. DoEs THis WELL REPLAcr{N EXISTING wELL? Vc-3'.
7. TOTAL DEPTH1 -¥7' RIG TYPE OR METHOD:
8. FORMATION SAMPLES COLLECTED: YES NO x
9. CASING: Depth Inside Wall thick. type
Dia. or weight/ft. E/4-
From3Z13 to 2.13/ ft ~s/ ¥~c./'/.dv_i"/ ~",P;--c.
lO. GROUT: Depth Material Method
From328 ta504/ft -t ~+'"
11. SCREEN: Depth Dia. Type, Opening
From 303 to~ft zo'
12. GRAVEL: Depth Size Material
From303 to..l...E/ ft_~Z;;._2_1_
13. hATER ZONES(depth): _____________ _
14. STATIC WATER LEVEL: ft abovetop of casing 0 below
Casing is ft. above land surface ELEV:
15. YIELD(gpm) 1 ME'l'HOD OF TESTING: ___ _
16. PUMPING WATER LEVEL: ________ ft.
after _____ hours at ______ gpr:i.
17. CHLORIIIATION: Type ______ Amount _____ _
18. W/,7Ert QU/,LITY: ________ TE;MPERATURE (0 F) __ _
19. PER:1.J..NEllT Pl,'}\P: Date Installed ---------
Type ______ Capacity _____ (gprn) HP ___ _
~:ake ___________ In take Depth;__ ____ _
Airline Depth _____ _
,</.? .ezc.-e-p..-Y.a~/4--:.-o-<( .
If aodicional space is needed, use back ot form
LOCATION SKETCH
(Show distance to nwcbered roads, or other map reference points)
20. P.AS T!!E o;-:i:ER EEEN PROVICED A COPY OF ';iilS lu:CORD ;..:;o 1,;FO:<.~:::o 01;' 'i"i:E DEFr.!<'i"J-1..:::;,s REQUIREl-'..Er;,s A!-,D
REcm::1.EllDATIO!IS?
21. REl-~P.;<S ---------------------------------------I do hereby certify that this well was ccnstructed in accorddnce ~ith ll.C . ~ell Construction
Regulations and Standards and that this well tecord is true and exact.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WELL RECOl:D DIVISION OF ENVIRONl,\E..'HAL MANAGEMENT
P.O.Box27687 -RALEIGH,N.C.27611 919-733-2020
DRILLING ':ONTRACToR-fY.4 /?.?..ac:, /l'~f:S REG. NO. WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO •
.....,;-
1. WELL L('CATION: (Show sketch of the location below) -3 D JJ./-u ~
Nearest Town1 t-,/..4.e.-v...v;:;2V/ //, C, County: M~;,V .:::::;w-v•1{,, ___ .;.;.::a=...;._;_"--....;....,.._~~.....;...---------/
-------------------c _____ Ouadrangle No. /rr7Cvt/ . V .<; 6-~
(Roa'.S,Co111111unity or Subdivision and Lot No.) /'17/
2. OWNER:_~,; .::5/4k ~//"Utd ~M:.V-4 DRILLING LOG
3. ADDRESS1 ----------------------
4. TOPOGRAJ•HY: draw ,valley, slope,hilltop, flat (circle one)
5. USE OF '~ELL:,,.%,✓,'6..,e.:,r",;:r DATE: 8-ri-82.,
6. DOES THIS WELL REPLAC~ EXISTING WELL? W-:S, 7
7. TOTAL DEPTH1 f'/ ; RIG TYPE OR METHOD: _____ _
8. FORMATION SAMPLES COLLECTED: YES NO
9. CASING: Depth Inside
Dia.
Wall thick.
or weight/ft.
X
type
37 1 // -,.l r ~CL';!'oo/
10. GROUT: Depth Material Method
.f.30y _j / e I Fro~to ft ____ _
11. SCREEN: Depth Dia. Type, Opening
DEPTH
FRO-M--TO FORMATION DESCRIYTION
If aod1t1onal space is needea, use back of !orm
Fro:u 303 to 283 ft zo I C..ti,,✓7✓-,.!./t);j_-<, .5Lor LOCATION SKETCH
12. GRAVEL: 9epth Size Material
From3D3to 28/ ft! 22
13. WATER ZONES (depth): _____________ _
14. STATIC 1•;ATER LEVEL: ft a~ovetop of casing 'below
Casing is ft. above land s•.irface ELEV:
15. YIELD(gpm) : _____ METHOD OF TESTING: __ _
16. PUMPING WATER LEVEL: ft. -------
after ____ hours at ______ gpr:1.
17. CHLORINATION: Type ______ Ar:iount ____ _
18. WATER QUALITY: _______ TE:MPERATliF.E (oF~--
19. PER!-IANENT PL'!-:?: Date Installed
Type ______ Capacity _____ (gf~)HP __ _
Make __________ Intake Depth ____ _
Airline Depth _____ _
(Show distance to numbered roads, or other -e reference painta)
20. HAS THE OWNER oEEN PROVIDED A COP\' OF THIS !'.ECORD ~;o r::,·c:-.'-'.£D OF T::E DE?.0.::::-:'.::I\TS R:.QUI!s."'.!'.E:::-s r,•;o
RECO!'-V.E!WATio:;s?
21. REMAl'J(S ---------------------------------------------1 do hereby certify that this well was constructed in ac==r~ance with N.C. ~ell Con~truction
Regulations and Standards and that this well record is tr~e and exact.
. . NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WELL RECOl:O DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT AL MANAGF.i-,icNT
P. 0. Box 27687 -RALEIGH, N.C. 27611 919-733-2020 .
DRILLING CONTRACTORL'Ud ~/ .-4~6 REG. NO. WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO.
1. WELL LOCATION: (Show sketch of the location below)~ -y' D 34 U +
. Nearest Town1._--=W-~r.a;;;:f~;.;;;v-:i:..y.:_;v;-;___:_/.::;~.:;;_""'.:;./.....,_,.LM..J;..;,_c_. _________ county: Mtc&°/V £~.v/v
Quadrangle No. 4/;?2',./ /1,,/5&5, _(_Ro_a_d ___ C_o_mm_u_n.,.1i-t.tJ __ o_r_S_ub_d_1-· v-i""a_i.,..o_n_a_n_d_. _Lo_t_N_o ___ ) ______ ,/7 /
2. OWNERv¥i ::(/4Zf ,t,/ ~ 4,:.'~/✓Ji/,1 DRILLING LOG
3. ADDRESS1;.. _____________________ _
4. TOPOGRAPHY: draw,valley,slope,hilltop,flat(circle one)
s. USE OF WF.LL:4-✓✓k✓.:v,? DATE: 8-l":>-82
6. DOES THIS WELL REPLA~ EXISTING WELL? y1/°~,
J 7. TOTAL DEPTH: __,3..::.<9°_✓_ RIG TYPE OR METHOD: _____ _
8. YORMATION SAMPLES COLLECTED: YES NO X
9. CASING: Depth Inside Wall thick. type
Ea
From 32D to 7$3 ft
Dia. or weight/ft.
31' .Y~-,/eU/U-I"~ ?Y-C:.
10. CROUT: Depth Material Method
From 32D fo 30"tt :t I°&/
-----
11. SCREEN: Depth Dia.
From3o3 to 26J ft w'
DEPTH FRO_M_·_TO FORMATION DESCRIPTION
If additional space is needea, use back ot form
LOCATION SKETCH
Type, Opening
C.,:J,vT,,;,,,,vDu:5 3Lor (Show distance to nu:,bercd roads, or other ac.ap reference points)
.I.
____._
12. GRAVEL: Depth Size Material
From3O3 to 28/ ft ±zz
-----
13. WATER ZONES(depth):
14. STATIC WATER LEVEL: ft.~~~~:top of casing
Casing is __ ft. above land surface ELEV:
15. YIELD(gpm):. _____ METHOD OF TESTING: ___ _
16. PUMPIUC WATER LEVEL: ______ ___:ft.
after ___ .-hours at ______ gpr:i.
17. CHLORINATION: Type ______ /\..~o~~t ____ _
18. i,;ATER QUT>.LITY : ______ __,TUIPERATURE (OF) __
19. PERM.•~"IEllT PL'MP: Date Installed
: Type_·--~--' Capacit'y _____ (qpm) HP __ _
Make ___ -'-______ lntake Dept;.h ____ _
Airline Depth _____ _
20. HAS THE OWNi:R BEE!I PROVIDED A CO?'i OF 'l"r.IS RECORD J.2lD It,FOF-'SD OF 7i:iE DEPhR'!ME!ITS REQUI?-EHE!-TS AllO
RECOMMENDATI0!-lS?
21. REMA:u<S ----:--------------------------------1 do hereby certify that this well was constructed in accorda~cc with N.C. ~ell Construction
Regulations and Sta,idards and that this .,,.ell record is true and exact.
c. Estimated Waste Volume
The landfill site will be conatructed to
accommodate up to 40,000 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with PCBs.
E. ·nescription 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 PCBs
occurred mainly in rural areas on the roadway shoulder
within 24 . inches of the pavement edge.
2. Disposal Site
a. Location and General Description
The proposed disposal site is located in the
northeastern North Carolina Piedmont Plateau of
Warren County, approximately four miles south of
Warrenton. See Figur·e 2 for a county map showing
the site location.
The proposed disposal site consists of ap-
proximately 142 acres of which about five acres
will be used for the actual disposal of the soil
contaminated with PCBs. The remaining acreage
will serve as a buffer zone for the disposal area.
b. Hydrology-Topography
Surface water discharges are controlled by
the topographic position of the land. The proposed
disposal area occupies the crest of a gently
sloping upland ridge which has 70 to 80 feet of
relief. Surface water discharge from the site is
toward seven draws located in a radial pattern
around the site. See Figure 7 for surface drainage
patterns. Two large draws immediately Northeast,
and West of the site receive the major portion of
surface run-off. Exposed clayey subsoils, topogra-
phic position and side slop.es tend to minimize .
surface water infiltration and maximize surface
water run-off.
15
~Qgl/ .. 7 .
--------:=~ r. II -----\j
....__ ... ......-......,.......T"""T"T"~~........-----.::c=------y,--•·· . I
V "-.u-111""'II, ,~ l \./\. '\ "'-// _ '" I
SURFACE DRAINGE FROM PCB
DISPOSAL AREA
. '. '
-
. v"
... A_ :r\.. $_~ LEGEND · ~
: ... J • SOIL BORING LOCATIONJ.11
7 _.. SURFACE DRAINAGE ~ ·
~~(( \ \ \ ~ 1/r~J -~ -SCA LE. .. ;.:;001
-.
Surface water discharge is to Richneck Creek
and an unnamed tributary to Richneck Creek via
draws around the site. Richneck Creek discharges
to Fishing Creek. The confluence of Richneck and
Fishing Creek is approximately 3 miles downstream
and Southeast of the Warrenton raw water intake.
Stream classifications for Richneck Creek and
Fishin9 Creek in the discharge area is class c.
Approximately 40 miles separate the site discharge
area and the closest raw water intake.
U. s. Geological Survey Flood Records of N. c. streams indicate that the 100-year flood eleva-
tion is not more than 8 feet above average water
levels in Richneck Creek and its tributaries. The
site is 70 to 80 feet above these streams and not
subject to flooding. ·
Recharge of groundwater ~esulting from su+-
face water infiltration and percolation is esti-
mated to be low. There should be no significant
fluctuation in water table elevations beneath the
ridge occupied by the disposal site. All features
on the site which enhance surface run-off reduce
groundwater recharge. Rapid run-off and t4e rela-
tivelf small area of gently sloping ridge crest
minimizes the volume _of precipitation available
for infiltration and recharge. The close proximity
of 2 deep draws for ground water discharge and the
relative low retention and water storage capacity
of deep subsurface weathered rock (silty sand and
sandy silt) indicates a low potential for buildup
of any significant hydraulic head or water table
below the ridge. The net effect of constructing
impermeable barriers on the ridge crest and divert-
ing any off-site surface water will be to further
reduce the potent;al for mounding of groundwater
below the site. .
Precipitation aata from the u. s. Weather Bureau Station at Arcola in Warren County indicated,
that at the time of the September study, rainfall
in Warren County was approximately SX greater than
the preceding S year average. There were no
observed evidence of reduced soil colors or mottling
of soil colors to jndicate the presence of a
permanent water table. At the time of the boring,
no water table was observed at the 42 foot depth.
It is concluded that the water encountered in the
September study was a result of normal vertical
movement of percolating surface water rather than
ground water tables.
16
Representative Hydrographs of wells in Warren
County indicate that during September ground water
levels are declining. Ground water levels are at
maximum elevations during the period from January
to April. Borings performed during Februarr 1,
1979 by the consulting firm of Soil & Material
Engineers Inc. indicated a static water level of
~pproximately 303' to 306' in elevation or 37 to
32 feet below land surface. Boring depths were
45' below land surface. In the Warren Section of
the report title "Geology and Ground Water Resources
in the Raleigh Area", compiled by the U. s. Geolo-
gical Survey, the static water level of well
number 122 was measured to be 47' below land
surface. For location of well number 122 see
Figure 3. This well is similar to the disposal
site borings with respect to elevation, topographic
position and time of water level recordation.
Hydrographs of observations wells in Warren County
show ground water fluctuations from approximately
5 to 11 feet. The study conducted by the firm
Soils & Materials Engineers Inc. was carried out
during the middle portion of maximum seasonal
fluctuation of 9round water.· The measured elevation
of groundwater 1n February, 1979, was 303 to 306
feet. Ground water elevations could be predicted
to rise an additional 5 to 6 feet. The predicted highest ground water elevation would be 309 to 312
feet. Maximum surface elevation in the disposal
area is 343 feet. The highest predicted water
table elevation is 31 feet below land surface
which would allow a maximum excavation depth. of
24' to remain 7 1 from the high water table elevations.
Construction of a clay liner would afford a 14
foot separation from the high water elevation.
c. Soil Conditions
Soils on the site are characterized within
the standardized engineering concept of surficial
earth materials. Procedures established by the
American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHO) and the American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) were utilized for soil evaluation.
The N. c. De~artment of Transportation and Soil &
Material Engineers, Inc. independently evaluated
site conditions and performed pertinent field and
laboratory analysis on materials obtained from 19
soil borings in the disposal area ..
Surficial soils on the site consists of
red-brown silty clays. The top soil on the site
is significantly eroded but where present extends
to a depth of 3 to 6 inches. Subsoils are clayey
17
and silty and extend to depths of 38 to 45 feet.
In general, a gradual transition exist between
upper silty clays and deeper clayey silts. Obser-
vations of soil borings on site indicate that the
clayey silts grade into sandy silts and silty
sands. The general stratifications of clays
overlying silts which grade to fine sands is typi-
cal of the Piedmont province. Detailed analysis
of the soil materials were performed by the N. c.
Department of Transpor~atian laboratory and Soil &
Material Engineers, I~c. ~he two laboratory
analysis indicated an upper layer of clayey soils
ranging in depth from Oto 38 feet below land
surface. Soils at the 45' maximum drilling depth
were classified as silty sands and sandy silts.
Standard Engineer11m~-::rTvoratory tests for
maximum density at optimum moisture and permeabi-
lity at 95 and 100 percent maximum density were
performed on the soils. At 9~% maximum density
the permeability of l.9 x 10-cm/sec and minimum
permeability of l.8 x 10-~ cm/sec . At 100 percent
maximum ~,nsity no permeability was ireater tjlan
1.0 x 10 gn/s9c. ~be 8 acres encompassed by de-
tailed soil borings and analysis demonstrates that
SO,oou to 75 oo cubic ards of cla e materials
e avai able to cons 1g y e soil
d. nv1ronmental Profile
The proposed disposal site occurs on open,
rolling cultivated land presently utilized for
soybean production. In addition to the soybeans,
various weeds and grasses have been obse~ed
growing on the proposed disposal site and include
such species as foxtail, ground cherry, thistle,
braomsedge, ragweed, aster, and horseweed. Mixed
deciduous hardwoods in association with pine occur
on the periphery of the soybean field. Oaks in-
cluding white, southern red, blac, and post, red
maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar, hickory and loblolly
pine are the major canopy species present. Under-
story species consists of redbud, dogwood, American
holly, red cedar, and winged sumac scattered among
small shrubs, saplings and vines -primarily
honeysuckle.
18
II. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
AND THEIR POTENT I AL U1P .~CTS
A. Procedures Utilized to Evaluate Alternative
Disposal site Locations
The North Carolina Department of Suman Resources,
Division of Health Services conducted a site search for
potential land areas that would be suitable for the permanent
storage of the PCB contaminated soil. The objective of the
investigati-:n was to evaluate available State and offered
priv.ate property for potential usage as disposal sites. It
was ,1nticipated that several suitable sites could be located.
A set. of general guidelines was developed ·· to assist in the
evaluation of potential sites.
The following is an outline of general site criteria
and EPA technical requirements utilized in the location and
evall.lation of potential disposal sites for the PCB contami-
nated soil.
1. General Area of Potential Site Locations
The search for potential disposal sites was gen-
erally limited to an area bounded by the counties where
the PCB spills had occurred•. Areas east of the spills
were generally eliminated due to evidence of seasonal
high ground water levels relatively close to land sur-
face. Potential sites in areas of the western portion
,,f the State were given a low priority due to the long
haul distances.
:?. General Site Screening & Evaluation Procedures
(a) Site Relief
A PCB chemical waste landfill should be loca-
ted in an area that provides low to mode,rte tAPAr-xrafhic relief to prevent landslides ors umping. eriai photographs,· U. s. Geological survey topo-
graphy maps and field measured elevations were
utilized to evaluate site relief suitability.
Sites with potential of land slumping resulting
from required construction activity were rejected.
(b) Topographic Position
Hill, flat, slope and draw are the four basic
topographic positions for surface features. Wells
installed on hill or ridge positions normally
exhibit the lowest average yield of 9round water
per foot of well. Bill or ridge positions are
also amenable to diversion of surface water and
control of local recharge to ground water by
19
minimizing areas available for recharge. Hilltop
and ridge were assigned a high ~riority for topo-
graphic position. Sites predominated by draws or
difficult to manage slope position were rejected.
U. s. Geological Survey topographic maps and
on-site evaluations were used to determine topogra-
phic position suitability.
(c) Soils
Surficial soils are formed by weathering of
subsurface geological rock formations. The charac-
teristics of the surficial soils are determined by
the chemical and physical properties of underlying
rock formations. Therefore, detailed geological
maps of specific areas and State and County soil
surveys were used to delineate sites with poten-
tially suitable soils. Site specific surface evaluations, soil borings and field & laboratory
testing of soil materials were performed on sites
with reasonable probability of meeting the hi~h
silt and clay content parameters for PCB chemical
waste landfills. Sites with sandy surface soils, rock outcrops or exposed boulders, surficial soils
with shallow depth to bed rock and insufficient
on-site soils for clay liners were rejected.
Surficial soils contained within the landfill site
which could not meet the following EPA technical
requirements were rejected. ·
(1) permeability 1.0 x 10-7 cm/sec.
(2) percent passing no. 200 seive230
(3) plasticity index~lS
(d) Hydrology
Potential contamination of ground or surface water were major considerations for screening all
sites. Any site that could not be designed to
prevent hydraulic cbnnection ·between the PCB con-taminated soils and surface streams or springs and
ground water was rejected. Sites within the
100-year floodplain, within close proximity of a class I or II reservoir utilized as a public water
supply or within½ mile of an A-II stream as de-
signated by the D.E.M. were rejected. A separa-
tion distance of 500 feet from the site and water supply wells was used as a ·site screening para-
·meter. The depth to ground water would limit the
depth of excavation and total storage volume of a
given site. The standard for site evaluations
with respect to ground water separation was SO
feet . It was acknowledge during the site evalua-
tion process that the probability of locating
20
sites with ground water levels below 50' from land
surface would be difficult if not impossible~
Therefore, sites were screened according to the
predicted or measured minimum depth from land
surface to the upper limits of iround water tables.
Transmissivity, gradients and discharge areas for
ground water were considered in site evaluations.
Ground water fluctuations were predicted from
data generated by U. s. Geological Survey publi-
. cations on geology and ground water resources and
field observations or measurements. Predicted,
observed or measured upward fluctuation of ground
water resulting in relatively shallow water tables
would cause a site to be rejected. Rainfall and
evaporation data from the U. s. Weather Bureau in
combination with U. s. Geological Re~orts and
field measurements were used to predict the maximum .
upper fluctuation from the measured static water
levels on sites that were drilled.
(e) Site Size
The disposal site for the PCB contaminated
soil should be large enough to allow adequate con-
struction and protection of the disposal area.
Considerations for sizing a site include: con-
struction of disposal pit; storage area for stock-
piling borrow materials to allow separation of
earth liner, topsoils, leachate collection and
spoil materials; access and turn around area for
haul vehicles, separate sedimentation ponds for
runoff from disposal pit and soil stockpile areas;
areas for installation of monitoring wells up
gradient and down gradient of disposal pit; berms
or ditching for diversion of surface water and a
buffer and security zone. A minimum 16-20 acres
in a fairly regular configuration was the rejection
criteria for site size.
(f) Access
Sites with deeded right-of-ways were assigned
higher priority than sites with no road ~rontage,
no deeded right-of-ways or property access by
easement. Consideration was also given to the
length and construction difficulty of access roads
from state maintained roads to the disposal pit.
(g) Isolation of Site
Population densities within 1 mile of proposed
sites and sites which would require transportation
of the PCB contaminated soil through highly popu-
21
-
B.
lated areas were considered for site evaluations.
The objective of this standard was to locate ·sites
which would impact the least number of citizens
during transportation and disposal~
Alternative Sites Evaluated
1. Total Sites Evaluated
The above outlined standards were utilized to
evaluate approximately 90 sites in 20 counties. Every
available tract of state-owned land considered to be a
possible candidate as a site to receive PCB contaminated
soil 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
under Department of Transportation jurisdiction.
Federal property on the Fort Bragg military reservation
was also evaluated.
The remaining sites were offered for evaluation by
private individuals and corporations, and county govern-
ments.
2. Site Rejection
Approximately 90 percent of all potential sites
were eliminated due to violation of one or a combination
of evaluation standards. A majority of the sites were
eliminated due to the location with respect to private
or public water supply reservoirs, intakes and wells;
high water tables and unsuitable soil characteristics.
The range of site evaluations included sites from 1.5
to 1300 acres; soils from highly impermeable saturated
marine clay materials in Wilson County and impermeable
clay stone pits in the Triassic Basin to sand dune sur-
ficial deposits on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation.
Water table elevations varied from 3' to greater than
40' below land surface.· Topographic positions varied
from relatively flat areas to areas with greater than
30 degree side slopes and population densities from a
few homes per square mile to hundreds within a mile of
the site.
Eleven of the total available sites were considered
to have a high probability for meeting the criteria for
PCB chemical landfills. Detailed soil borings and sub-
surface investigations were made on these eleven sites.
Table II lists these eleven sites. Sites in Franklin
County, the Nash County Prison Site, the Wake County
Prison Site, Chatham County Brick Plant site and the
Harnett County O.O.T. Borrow Pit site were rejected
from subsurface investigations. The remaining 6 sites
22
in Person, Warren, Nash, Wake, Chatham and Granville
Counties were evaluated by EPA and State personnel.
Consideration was given to multiple site distribution
by development of these sites; however 4 of the sites
were rejected and more detailed subsurface analysis
were required on the Chatham and Warren sites.
Maximum density, ~ermeability at 95% maximum dry
density and optimum moisture tests, volume of material
suitable for clayey liners and water table monitoring
test were performed on the Chatham and Warren sites.
Both sites afforded essentially equivalent evaluations.
The Chatham County site was unavailable for purchase by
the State for development as a PCB chemical landfill
and therefore rejected from further considerations.
In order to increase the disposal site alternatives
requests were made by the State to County Boards of
Commissioners for permission to evaluate existing sani-
tary landfill sites as potential sites for disposal of
the PCB contaminated soil. Table III illustrates the
result of subsurface evaluations for suitable soil
materials and water table elevat~ons. The sanitary
landfill sites were either unsuitable for development
or were unavailable for deyelopment as a PCB chemical
landfill.
3. Selected Site
Of the six most suitable sites located in Nash,
Person, Wake, Granville, Chatham and Warren counties
the Warren County site on SR 1604 demonstrated the
least restrictions and the greatest degree of protec-
tion of the public health and environment. Additional
tests were performed by an independent consulting firm
to confirm the state's evaluation of the site. Appli-
cation was made to EPA for site approval for this site
to be developed into a disposal site for the PCB con-·
taminated soil. Site and conceptual plan approval was
granted.
23
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES -
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-2091
James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Scarbrough:
Ronald H. Levine, M.D., M.P.H.
STATE HEALTH DIRECTOR
October 11 , 1982
The original groundwater monitoring wells for the Warren County PCB Landfill
were identified according to the well numbers on the engineering drawings.
Specifics are as follows:
Coordinates From Surface
Wel 1# Engineering Drawing Elevation (ft.)
1 10112 N 341.6
10146 E
2 10667 N 327 .8
9667 E
3 10235 N 322.5
9454 E
4 9662 N 320. 5
9669 E
A request to install replacement monitoring wells was made on July 2, 1982.
These replacement wells were completed on August 18, 1982. While exact
coordinates were not detennined, they are located within 10 feet of the original
wells. These replacement wells retain the identifying numbers of the original
wells. The original well casings were filled with cement from the bottom to
the ground surface.
On August 6, 1982 it was discovered that the half finished well 12 had been
vandalized with creosoted lumber. This vandalized hole was closed out by filling
it with cement from the bottom to the ground surface. The second replacement
well 12 was installed within 10 feet of the original well.
If you have further questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
~G'!str~
Solid Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Envt nmental Health Section
Jomes B Hunt, Jr Sarah T Morrow MD MPH
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA --··---·--DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ··--··· '.. '
North Carolina Department of
Crime Control .I~
& Public Safety
512 N. Salisbury Street P. 0. Box 2'/687 R<1lei!Jl1 2/611 7687 (919) '/3.'32126
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor September 8, 1982 I le111.1n R Cl,1rk, Sc'.crel.iry
{)
f
I
Mr. Al Hanke
Environmental Scientist
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Re: PCB landfill
Warren County
Dear Al:
Enclosed are the results of the background water monitoring
conducted by the Division of Health Services, N. C. Department
of Human Resources. I trust.this meets with your approval.
WWPjr:jj
Enc.
cc: 0. W. Strickland
Tom Karnoski
Jim Scarborough
Gary D. Babb .,,,,.,,,-
Sincerely, .ff'~ ~A 1~-11, 1,,. ~ 11 lam W. Phil lips, r.
Assistant to the Secretary
GROUNDWATER & SURFACE WATER IDNITORING
All groundwater, surface water and stream sediment samples were
analyzed for PCB by gas chromatograph utilizing electronic capture
detector as specified by E.P.A. Samples were collected at the
following frequencies:
Groundwater
August 20, 1982
August 30, 1982
September 6, 1982
Surface Water
July 23, 1982
August 3, 1982
August 10, 1982
Stream Sediment
July 23, 1982
August 3, 1982
August 10, 1982
All samples showed less than 1.0 part per billion PCB. This is the
detection limit of the analy.tical equipment used.
.. --·~ GROUNDWATER K>NITORING
H s ecific Conductivit
August 20 1 1982
Well 1 9.6 80
Replicate 10.0 80
Well 2 5.9 450
Replicate 5.9 470
Well 3 5.1 160
Replicate 5.1 160
Well 4 5.4 170
Replicate 5.3 160
August 30 1 1982
Well 1 5.1 250
Replicate 5.2 260
Well 2 5.0 400
Replicate _5.0 400
Well 3 4.4 110
Replicate 4.6 110
Well 4 5.7 60
Replicate 5.6 65
Se2tember 61 1982
Well 1 5.4 465
Replicate 5.3 465
Well 2 · 5.8 450
Replicate 5.9 455
Well j 5.0 65
Replicate 5.0 66
Well 4 5.8 63
Replicate 5.8 63
' ,
July 23 1 1982
UT-DS
Replicate
UT-US
Replicate
RC-DS
Replicate
RC-US
Replicate
August 31 1982
UT-DS
Replicate
UT-US
Replicate
RC-DS
Replicate
RC-US
Replicate
August 10 1_ 1982
UT-DS
Replicate
UT-US
Replicate
RC-DS
Replicate
RC-US
Replicate
SURFACE WATER OONITORING
H S ecific Conductivit
6.2 65
6.2 70
6.3 65
6.3 70
6.0 70
6.1 70
6.1 65
6.1 65
7.4 77
7.5 76
7.3 76
7.5 76
7.3 78
7.4 78
7.2 74
7.2 73
7.3 67
7.2 69
7.2 64
7.2 63
7.0 68
7.3 67
7.1 62
7.1 63
-· ... ,,_, ........... :... .. ,-;: _...., •• ~ ... ,, ....... a_ .... .
. •·· •-i~ ...... .,~ ·:·.· ....... -i."! ..... ~
••~r-• ,,_.._-:. ~~•.t ; •
.. :~Jl"•·,, .......... .
·",~:·•,C .. ·.~1.. (:·:·•.,.•
. .... ~ .··
...• -...
: L.,.
··· .•. ,;: -.
. ·•·---~--
·• . .J.--·
............ .,
.. · ....
I
I
I
r
[
r
r
r
f
f
r
r
r
r
f
.-
... :•
.; 1 I
GENERAL DESCRIPTION·
FINAL REPORT
PCB WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
. WARREN COUNTY
The PCB Waste Disposal Site is a hazardous waste · landfill,
' t
containing approximately 40,000 cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) contaminated ■oil, located in Warren County, North Carolina.
PERTINENT DATED
Contractor'■ bids for the construction of the site were opened on
January 21, 1982, and the contract was awarded to Jim Lineberger'&
Grading & Paving Inc., of Gastonia, NC on May 28, 1982. Construction
work began on June 21, 1982. Continuous heavy rains and vandalism of
the groundwater monitoring wells and the 30-mil PVC liner curtailed job
progress throughout the month of AugQst, and construction was not
completed to the stage necessary for PCB placement until September 15,
J .
1982. NC DOT trucks began hauling PCB contaminated soil on from Fort
I
Bragg on October 6, 1982, and finished on October 27, 1982.
Construction work was completed on July 14, 1983. The final inspection
of the completed project was conducted on July 15, 1983 and final
acceptance was on that date.
, ·,:
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND DESCRIPTION
Initially four groundwater monitoring wells were installed, located
north, south, east, and west of the landfill. These wells were
I .
determined to be unsatisfactory, as designed and installed, by the NC
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Four
-1-
North Carolina Department of
Crime Control.I~
& Public Safety
512 N. Salisbury Street P. 0. Box 27687 Rolei~/12'i611 7687 (919) 73.'12126
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor September 8, 1982
0
f
I
Mr. Al Hanke
Environmental Scientist
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Re: PCB landfill
Warren County
Dear Al:
Enclosed are the results of the background water monitoring
conducted by the Division of Health Services, N. C. Department
of Human Resources. I trust.this meets with your approval.
WWPjr:jj
Enc.
cc: 0. W. Strickland
Tom Karnoski
Jim Scarborough
Gary D. Babb ,_,,/"
Sincerely, .-r!!f' ~ ~A
1~-71, Ir·
~lliam W. Phillips, r.
Assistant to the Secretary
GROUNDWATER & SURFACE WATER KJNITORING
All groundwater, surface water and stream sediment samples were
analyzed for PCB by gas chromatograph utilizing electronic capture
detector as specified by E.P.A. Samples were collected at the
following frequencies:
Groundwater
August 20, 1982
August 30, 1982
September 6, 1982
Surface Water
July 23, 1982
August 3, 1982
August 10, 1982
Stream Sediment
July 23, 1982
August 3, 1982
August 10, 1982
All samples showed less than 1.0 part per billion PCB. This is the
detection limit of the analytical equipment used.
·• ··-~. ., ..
GROUNDWATER IDNITORING
H s ecific Conduc ti vi t
August 20 1 1982
Well 1 9.6 80
Replicate 10.0 80
Well 2 5.9 450
Replicate 5.9 470
Well 3 5.1 160
Replicate 5.1 160
Well 4 5.4 170
Replicate 5.3 160
August 30 1 1982
Well 1 5.1 250
Replicate 5.2 260
Well 2 5.0 400
Replicate ,5.0 400
Well 3 4.4 110
Replicate 4.6 110
Well 4 5.7 60
Replicate 5.6 65
Se~tember 61 1982
Well 1 5.4 465
Replicate 5.3 465
Well 2 · 5.8 450
Replicate 5.9 455
Well j 5.0 65
Replicate 5.0 66
Well 4 5.8 63
; Replicate 5.8 63
I
... • 4
SURFACE WATER K>NITORING
H S ecific Conductivit
July 23 1 1982
UT-DS 6.2 65
Replicate 6.2 70
UT-US 6.3 65
Replicate 6.3 70
RC-DS 6.0 70
Replicate 6.1 70
RC-US 6.1 65
Replicate 6.1 65
August 31 1982
UT-DS 7.4 77
Replicate 7.5 76
UT-US 7.3 76
Replicate 7.5 76
RC-DS 7.3 78
Replicate 7.4 78
RC-US 7.2 74
Replicate 7.2 73
August 101. 1982
UT-DS 7.3 67
Replicate 7.2 69
UT-US 7.2 64
Replicate 7.2 63
RC-DS 7.0 68
Replicate 7.3 67
RC-US 7.1 62
Replicate 7.1 63
Disposal Site
The proposed disposal site is located in the northeastern North Carolina
Piedmont Plateau of Warren County, approximately four miles south of
Warrenton. (See Maps).
The proposed disposal site consists of approximately 142 acres of which
about five acres will be used for the actual disposal of the soil contaminated
with PCBs. The remaining acreage will serve as a buffer zone for the disposal
area.
Surface water discharges are controlled by the topographic position of
the land. The proposed disposal area occupies the crest of a gently sloping
upland ridge which has 70 to 80 feet of relief. Surface water discharge from
the site is toward seven draws located in a radial pattern around the site.
Two large draws immediately Northeast, and West of the site receive the major
portion of surface run-off. Exposed clayey subsoils, topographic position and
side slopes tend to minimize surface water infiltration and maximize surface
water run-off.
Surface water discharge is to Richneck Creek and an unnamed tributary
to Richneck Creek via draws around the site. Richneck Creek discharges to
Fishing Creek. The confluence of Richneck and Fishing Creek is approximately
3 miles downstream and Southeast of the Warrenton raw water intake. Stream
classifications for Richneck Creek and Fishing Creek in the discharge area
is class C. Approximately 40 miles separate the site discharge area and the
closest raw water intake.
U.S. Geological Survey Flood Records of N. C. streams indicate that the
100-year flood elevation is not more than 8 feet above average water levels
in Richneck Creek and its tributaries. The site is 70 to 80 feet above these
streams and not subject to flooding.
Recharge of ground-water resulting from eurface water infiltration and
percolation is estimated to be low. There ■hould be no signficant fluctuation
in water table elevations beneath the ridge occupied by the disposal site.
All features on the site which enhance surface run-off reduce ground-water
recharge. Rapid run-off and the relatively small area of gently sloping ridge
crest minimizes the volume of precipitation available for infiltration and
recharge. The cloee proximity of 2 deep draws for ground-water discharge and
the relative low retention and water storage capacity of deep subsurface
weathered rock (silty sand and ■andy silt) indicates a low potential for build-
up of any ■ignificant hydraulic head or water table below the ridge. The net
effect of constructing impermeable barriers on the ridge crest and diverting
any off-site surface water will be to further reduce the potential for mounding
of ground-water below the aite.
Subsurface boring• performed during February 1, 1979 by the conaulting
firm of Soil & Material Engineer ■, Inc. indicated a ■tatic water level of
approximately 303' to 306' in elevation or 37 to 32 feet below land surface.
The study conducted by the firm Soils & Materials Engineer■, Inc. was carried
out during the middle portion of maximum sea■onal fluctuation of ground-water.
The measured elevation of ground-water in February, 1979, was 303 to 306 feet.
25
Ground-water elevations could be predicted to rise an additional 5 to 6 feet.
The predicted highest ground-water elevation would be 309 to 312 feet.
Maximum surface elevation in the disposal area is 343 feet. The highest
predicted water table elevation is 31 feet below land surface which would
allow a maximum excavation depth of 24' to remain 7' from the high water table
elevations. Construction of a clay liner would afford a 14 foot separation
from the high water elevation.
Surficial soils on the site consists of red-brown silty clays. The top
soil on the site is significantly eroded but where present extends to a depth .
of 3 to 6 inches. Subsoils are clayey and silty and extend to depths of 38 to
45 feet. In general, a gradual transition exist between upper silty clays and
deeper clayey silts. Observations of soil borings on site indicate that the
clayey silts which grade to fine sands is typical of the Piedmont province.
Detailed analyses of the soil materials were performed by the N.C. Department
of Transportation laboratory and Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. The two
laboratory analyses indicated an upper layer of clayey soils ranging in depth
from Oto 38 feet below land surface. Soils at the 45' maximum drilling depth
were classified as silty sands and sandy silts.
Standard Engineering laboratory tests for maximum density at optimum
moisture and permeability at 95 and 100 percent maximum density were performed
on the soils. At 95% maximum density the permeability of 1.9 x 10-7 cm/sec
and minimum permeability of 1.8 x 10-8 cm/sec. At 100% maximum density no
permeability was greater than 1.0 x 10-7 cm/sec. The 8 acres encompassed by
detailed soil borings and analysis demonstrates that 50,000 to 75,000 cubic
yards of clayey materials are available to construct highly impermeable soil
liners.
26
#' !
'
i .• ( ·-·~----7 ... . .
.
.. • I
•
iARREN COUNT.Y.
• \ • \
"'-· .
-&Ill 27 I. •• , '
., 0
B.
> '.
Background Information
The first deliberate discharge of what was later identified as PCB liquid .
materials took place the last week of June, 1978, 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 on NC 58, north of
Centerville in \~arren County. This discharge was reported by prfvate 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 personnel 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 Br■Dch, 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 reported, 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 Management Laboratory
for analysis later that afternoon, August 2. The same chemist who investigated
the Johnston County spill encountered a similar spill near Snow Camp, North
Carolina on SR 1004, Alamance County, while returning to his home. A sample was
taken from the spill area and hand delivered to the laboratory the follewing
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 ap~ared
to be Aroclor-1260, a Polychlorin~ted Biphenyl {PCB) substance. The Water Quality
Operations Branch immediately notified the Chief of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, Emergency Response Branch, of the Laboratory's findings. After
briefing the Director, Division of Environmental Management, a meeting was called
with representatives of the Attorney General'• Office, the Department of Crime
Control and Public Safety, and Public Information representatives of the Secretary
of the Dep8rtment of Natural Resources and Comnunity Development. A notification
to all all enforcement officials was prepared and sent over the Police Information
Network system during the late evening hours of August 4, A news release was
prepared and 1ent to local newspapers for publication in the Saturday morning
newspaper. The same day, the laboratory confirmed material discharged in
Alamance and Chatham Counties was Aroclor-1260, the same form of PCB material
found in Johnston and Harnett Counties. Also on August 4, the N .• C. Highway
Patrol delivered s6il •amples obtained from Chatham County to EPA. The results
of the EPA laboratory analysis were reported to SBI on August 8,
On August S, Water Quality Operations Branch met with concerned citizens
in Johnston County, investigated the spill areas in Johnston and Harnett Counties,
and eon .. •Ced a·,door-to-door coetact vith people reai.41111 alqn& NC 210. lecause
of concern by some reaident1 along NC 210, the Division or ~i&hway, Department
of Transportation wa1 reque1ted to cover the spill with a layer of 1and in order·
to 1uppre1a the noxiou1 odors present. Thi• was completed in late afternoon
August S and continued on August 6.
29
~cency, National Institute of Occupational -Safety and Health, Nat1ona1 -
lnstitute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the Center for Disease Control.
State personnel in attendance were from the Division of Health Services,
Natural Resources and Community Development, Department of Agriculture, and
the Department of Transportation. Industrial users of PCBs were represented
by a person from Carolina Power and Light. The purpose of this meeting was
to assess the immediate risks to the persons who live along the spill routes
and to discuss the safety of those persons who would be participating in the
removal and storage of the PCB contaminated soil.
On September 6, 13, and 19 alternative methods of removing soil from the
roadway shoulders were conducted on noncontaminated sections of roadway shoulders .
~'hen the soil removal procedure had been formulated a test removal operation
was conducted. The test removal operation was performed on October 5, 1978 on
a one mile PCB contaminated section of NC 58 near Inez on Warren County. The
PCB contaminated soil obtained during the test removal operation has been
temporarily stored at a disposal site in Harren County. The purpose of the
test was to examine the practicality of picking up the contaminated material
as well as any possible health or environmental effects. On November 6, test
results indicated that the pick up of contaminated shoulder material was not
harmful to the environment or personnel.
On September 29, 1978, Governor James B. Hunt's request for assistance
from the Federal District Assistance Administration, Department of Housing
and Urban Development was denied. On October 4, North Carolina officials
were notified by the Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of
Transportation, that the request for emergency relief funds was denied.
During the month of December a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared
pursuant to the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The statement was
sent to State Clearinghouse on December 21, 1q7s for circulation. Comments
received on the Draft Negative Declaration requested an EIS be prepared.
Therefore, a Final Negative Declaration was not prepared.
On December 12, an application was filed with EPA for approval of the
Warren County site for placement of contaminated PCB material. On January 4,
1979 a hearing was held on the Warren County site at the National Guard Armory.
During the period January 25-31, 1979 additional soil Aamples were taken
by the Division of Environmental Management to substantiate the location of the
contaminated material and determine if any migration had occurred. Test
results indicated that the material was present and had not migrated. On
January 29, 1979, a meeting was held in Washington, D. C. between representa-
tives of the State of North Carolina and EPA officials to discuss the current
PCB regulations and to discuss alternative solutions. On February 6, the state
of North Carolina filed petition with EPA to amend the rules under the Toxic
Substances Control Act to allow consideration of alternate methods of
treatment,
On February 15, 1979, a test was run on a contaminated section of NC 210
in Johnston County and on March 22, on a contaminated section of SR 1004 in
Alamance County to determine the feasibility of utilizing the theory of fCB
fixation with activated carbon.
31
On June 4, 1979, the EPA Administrator, Douglas Castle, ruled against
the petition of February 6 to change the regulations to allow consideration
of alternate methods of treatment. The Region IV EPA Administrator. John
White. on June 4. 1979 approved the State's application to construct a land-
fill in Warren County for disposal of the PCB contaminated soil.
Definition of PCBs 1
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are a class of chlorinated. aromatic
compounds which have found widespread application because of their general
stabilities and dielectric properties. PCBs have been prepared industrially
since 1929 and are now produced in many foreign industrial countries. The
Monsanto Company's preparations of PCBs were termed ''the Aroclors''. Produc-
tion of PCBs ceased in the United States in mid 1977.
The outstanding physical and chemical characteristics of PCBs are their
thermal stabilities. resistance to oxidation. acid. bases. and other chemical
agents as well as their excellent dielectric (electrically insulating) proper-
ties. These ~nd other properties have led to numerous uses of PCB such as
dielectric fluids (in capacitors and transformers). industrial fluids (use in
hydraulic systems. gas turbines. and vacuum pumps). and plasticizers (adhesives,
textiles. surface coating, sealants. printing. and copy paper).
PCBs were prepared industrially by the chlorination of biphenyls with
anhydrous chlorine. using iron filing or ferric chloride as catalysts. The
crude product was generally purified to remove color, traces of hydrogen
chloride, and catalyst which was usually achieved by treatment with alkali
and distillation. The resulting product was a complicated mixture of chloro-
phenyls with different numbers of chlorine atoms per molecule. (This fact
is responsible for the physical state of PCB preparations). Most individual
chlorophenyls are solid at room temperature whereas commercial mixtures
are mobile oils.
The most important physical properties of PCBs from an envoronmental
point-of-view are solubility and vapor pressure. The solubility of PCBs in
water is low and decreases with increasing chlorine content. Values given by
Monsanto are 200 ppb (parts per billion) for Aroclor 1242, 100 ppb for
Aroclor 1248, 40 ppb for Aroclor 1254, and 25 ppb for Aroclor 1260. Studies
on the solubility of PCB in water are complicated by the fact that these
compounds are strongly eorbed onto various surfaces. PCB has been shown to
sorb relatively rapidly onto charcoal, plastic. glass, and silt or soil
particles.
PCBs have a high epecific gravity (Aroclor 1260/1.500~ and a relatively
high density (Aroclor 1260 weighs 13.50 lbs./gallon at 25 C). Loss of PCB
by evaporation 1• extremely ■low, i.e. Aroclor 1260 exposed to l00°C for six
1 Hutzinger o. et. al., Chemistry of PCBs 1 enc Pres
Cleveland, Ohio, 1974.
32
8. Landfill Monitoring
Four groundwater monitoring wells will be constructed and located
North, South, East, and West of the landfill. The groundwater wells will be
monitored in accordance with 44 FR 761.41(6) standards. Base line groundwater
quality will be established by sampling the groundwater wells on one week
intervals for 3 weeks. Groundwater Base line groundwater quality will be
determined during construction and prior to receiving contaminated soil.
Four permanent surface water monitoring stations will be located to
determine water quality. Two receiving streams will be. monitored, Richard
Creek on the northern site perimeter and an unamed ttibutary to Richard Creek
on the southern perimeter. Two stations, one on each stream, will be located
up gradient from any site surface run-off event. Two stations, one on each
stream, will be located immediately down gradient from the site and through
which all flow from surface runoff events will pass. Representative surface
water and sediment samples will be monitored at each station in accordance
with 44 FR 761.41 (6) parameters. txcluded from analyses are chlorinated
organics as indicated in a letter to Governor Hunt from John White (EPA
Regional Administrator) dated 4, June, 1979.
Twelve groundwater, 12 surface water, and 12 sediment samples will be
monitored for base line data.
Three sets of samples will be obtained from each ground and surface
water monitoring point on 30-day intervals during construction. Each set
will consist of 1 sample from each groundwater well and 2 (water and sediment)
from each surface water station.
47
I • I '!,J
.bmes 11. Hunt, ,Jr., Governor July 2, 1982 I leman H. Cl,.111-, Svcrc t,11 y
()
t
j
Mr. Charles Jeter
Regional Administrator
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Re: N. C. Superfund Project
PCB Landfill
Deviation from Approved Construction Plans
Dear Mr. Jeter:
·tt ~
JUL '1 198
Groundwater monitoring wells have recently been installed at the
Warren County PCB Landfill as part of its construction activity. While
apparently meeting EPA standards, they do not conform to North Carolina
Standards which require additional grouting and use of a bentonite
seal above the well screen. I am requesting that North Carolina be al-
lowed to install four additional groundwater monitoring wells to replace
the four existing unsatisfactory groundwater monitoring wells. These
replacement wells will be:
1) Installed within 10 feet of the existing wells.
2) Installed with a bentonite seal above the well screen.
3) Installed with grout extending from land surface to the top of
the bentonite seal.
4) Screened so as to provide monitoring capability for at least
the top ten feet of the surficial saturated zone at its lowest
expected elevation .
5) Developed using drilling mud or revert as approved on June 24,
1982 via field letter (Tom Karnoski -N. C. Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Branch to Robert Boone -Sverdrup & Parcel).
6) Installed as soon as possible.
Mr. Charles Jeter
Page 2
July 2, 1982
7) Wells will be clearly labeled as monitor wells, not to be used
as a source of water supply.
8) Sampled (2 replicates) to assure background quality data is
similar to background samples collected from the original wells
prior to any waste disposal . If background water quality deviates
from that of the original wells, a new background water quality
data base line must be established for the new wells as originally
required and prior to any waste disposal.
Upon acceptance of the new wells, the original wells will be abandoned
in accordance with North Carolina standards.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
HHPjr:jj
cc: Jim Scarborough
0. W. Strickland
Perry Nelson
Gene Roberts
Frank Rainey
Jack Reavis
Bill Raney
Bob Jansen
Tom Karnoski ~
AUG 19 198
North Camli11a Uepartment of
Crin1e Control .11117#
& Public Safety
512 N. Slllisb111y S11el'I I'. 0 . Box 2/637 U11/ei11l1 21611-7687 (919) 733-21:!,i
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor August 17, 1982 • ieman R. Clark, SeGel,.uy
C
0
f
r
Mr. Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St .• NE
Atlanta, GA 30365 .
Attn: James H. Scarbrough
Re: N.C. Superfund Project -PCB landfill
Dear Mr. Jeter:
The installation of four replacen~nt groundwater monitoring wells
as requested by my letter of July 2, 1982 is currently being completed.
On the morning of August 6 the well driller discovered the open hole
that extended into the groundwater and was to replace monitoring well
#2 had been vandalized. The vandalism consisted of the placement of
dried cement, creosote treated lumber, and other foreign matter into
the open hole and the saturated zone. Efforts to retrieve these
materials were unsuccessful and the well driller relocated in close
proximity to the original well as required in condition #1 of the July 2
request.
On August 10 Tom Karnoski of the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Branch, North Carolina Department of Human Resources con-
tacted Don Hunter of your staff to determine if this vandalized hole
could affect the sampling integrity of monitoring well #2. It was Mr.
Hunter's opinion that the backfilling of the hole with cement to the
ground surface would minimize any impact on the replacement well. This
remedial action would also satisfy North Carolina Regulations concerning
abandonment of wells. Instructions have been given to the well driller
to close the hole.
Mr. Jeter
Page 2
August 17, 1982
We would appreciate a written reply to this situation so that
the integrity of the PCB landfill future groundwater monitoring pro-
gram will not be in question.
If further information is needed, please let me know .
WWPjr:jj
cc: Bill Raney
0. W. Strickland
Tom Karnoski v
Frank Rainey
Perry Nelson
Jack Reavis
. ' ,
PCB LANDFILL MONITORING CODE
RC -Richneck Creek
UT -Unnamed Tributary
DS -Downstream
US -Upstream
SW-CON -Spring Discharge 30 feet above UT
SW-HEAD -Spring Discharge 500 feet
Wl -Groundwater Monitoring Well
W2 -Groundwater Monitoring
W3 -Groundwater Monitoring
W4 -Groundwater Monitoring
A -Replicate A
B -Replicate B
Well
Well
Well
11
112
/13
114
above UT
_ ~ . }II
,,. -,
Su ,ef,4, E _,,.1,,e S/9'1 P'-G .S .Sfon,,;7:, 9
e c.. us 19 Re tiS a
fl c b.S A flC ll! It
?
lJ• u.s 19 ~ u-,-os B u, OJ~ (J TtJSjl
6 Lt/
·WI 19-
W IIS
Lve'4
u28
'-" .l A
'v l B
"" 't~
w l({l
•
l~Olt J=,,1Ct/
(. t ~c.J\O ..../A~/""
~E~'--,fCc: lOCKj
~~T l:6~I
11ft~ .4 IIDtJJ /'tJo;-o 6~~~rl~
i ..
JAMES 8. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
THOMAS W. BRADSHAW, JR.
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH 27611
September 20, 1978
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY~
MEM:>RANDUM TO: Mr. M.C. Adam:5 1 Maintenance Unit Head
W .D. Bingham, Head o! Geotechnical Unit
SUBJECT: Investigation for Disposal Site !or PCB (W.O. 4-5401101)
· Attached are boring logs and sketch of a site we have investigated tor
PCB disposal in Warren Cotmty.
The sito was drilled and :sampled to a depth ranging from 28 f'eet to
41 feet. Twenty (20) samples were delivered to -the Department or Transportation
Labqratory-to be te:sted tor: Minus 200 material, Plastic Index, Liquid Limit
and pH values.
I! we can be of further help in this matter please let us know.
WDB:nah
Attachments
, .
. \
PROJECT . 4.540llOl
ll. C •. DEPAR'ft4ENT QF TRANSPORTATION
· Division of Hi~h1-1a:13
PCB .PIT BORING I.CG
COUNTY Warren ___________ DATE 9-18-78
ROUTE _________ RES •. ENGINEER __________ PIT NO. _P.._C"""'B .... 11--.4._ __ _
~UIP. USED _2_3_7....()(YJ __ 1 ___ 6_•_• _A_uge_r ___ INVESTIGATED BY _ ..... J-1LalSu.,-'Br=-i .... tt ___________ _
w/rock teeth
•
i&i DEP'llfS. e!f!i REMARKS: i.e. groundwater data
H i:Q FP.e '1-, i:Q ·DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
§~ F~ TO ~~ moisture content; etc.
1 o.o 11.0 1-A Red-Brown Mica. -F~andy clay Dry
1 11.0 ,o.o 1-B Brown Mica. Clayey silt Moist@ 20.0'
1 10.0 tn.S 1-C Brown Mica:. Silty sand
·1 1.n. s li.1.2 Soft. weathered rocL Practical auger
retwsal @ 41 .2'
.. Groundwat~r;
.. 0 Hr.-Dry caved in @ 28. 51
·. ... ~ hours-caved in O 28 .5 ,:
.. -
2 o.o 8.0 ·2-1 Red-brown mica. tine sandy clay
2 8.0 38.0 2-B Brown highly ad.ca. sandy clay silt Wet @ 30'
Groundwater:
0-Hr. -Orv caved in@ 35.0 .
24 Hr.-34.2
3 o.o 3.0 3-A Red-brown mica. -F-sandy clay Dry
3 3.0 28.0 t3-B Brown· mica. sandy clayey silt Moist @ 19.0
Groundwater:
0 Hr. -Drv caved in @ 23. 5'
2L. Hr:3.-22.9'
4 o.o 10.0 4,-A Red-brown mica. -F-sandy cl~y · Drv
4 ~o.o 33.0 4,-B Brown mica. clayey sandy silt Wet@ 27.0' ,-Groundwater:
O Hr.-Drv .
24 Hr.-Dry
-
...
--
r
\ . :. · Pen· . .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT-~r.;;;r~n.r!,..__
DIVISION 0,. HIGHWAYS
MATERIALS Ai TESTS UNIT
SOILS LABORATORY
Rel.
ProJ. ···-···---··--·-·····-·-·--··· ·---DEPARTMENT OF TRAt,SPORT~mm
OIVJSION OF HIGHWAYS
GEclTECHNIC-;t U~IT
BEPORT ON SA)IPLES OF .SoJ.l_ f.Qr __ Qwui_tJ_J,_p.}i_________________ I
Project ___________ 4_._.540llal .. _. ___________ Count, -·-----------\ia:crJ:D .. ____________ Owner _____________ _
Date: Sampled •• 9:-18-78 ------·----------------Received ---~---=!~_-:?8 ---·----------Rcport«J -~-2~_:--7~----
Sai:npled from --~~_;_f! __ . _______________________ Br .l~-~~-Br!,!t; ________ _
Submitted b1 ----W !-D :.J!!~!:!-----------~---------------------------·----------19.,E_ Standard Specillcatlona
396732-396751 TEST RESULTS J)..;} · ?3' _J•
Proj. Sample ND-lA 1B
Lab. S11U1ple No. 396732 396733
Retained :.a S !eve ,~ - -
Paisini: :10 Sieve ,. 100 100
Pusin,r :40 Sieve ,.. 99 99
Passina :200 Sievo "· 74 54
tl c.,.,.. S-d-Z.O '-
1 e.:1 ,..,.. R..._ :ao ,.. 4 9'
J j )"la. Saad-0.U lo ,. 24 42 .. ,.u ..... Ret. nto 'i • .. C Sil&--0.06 22 33 ~ . -.,. a: ,.. "" t.oo, ......
~ -!£ Clai,-t-. 50 16 -l .:a ,.
I th~• 0.001 .,. ...
.I r...in. • -a ~ s1 .... CJ. -
Pk•in,r CJ. --::OQII.,.•
LL 64 48
P. I. 34 NP .
AASHO ·Classification A-7-5(20 A-5(5)
Tenure
Station
Hole No. 1 1
Depth (ft.) 0 1.1 . to 11 30
ph 6.26 6.36
cc: • •1• M. c. Adams
Air. W. D. Bingham
Soil:s File
'.
le 2A 2D 3A 38 4A ' 396734 396735 396736 396737 396i38 396739
-l 1 ---
100 98 98 100 100 100
99 96 95 99 98 98 . 48 74 63 78 70 77
7 7 11 3 . 7 4
53 21 30 22 29 24
24 24 33 29 42 24
16 48 26 46 22 48 . - ----' -
--- --I-
36 64 47 58 I SJ 58
9 36. 19 24 14 29
~-7-6(20) 1 A-7-6(1( ' :)A-7-6(19 A-4(3) )A-7-5(lq)A-7-5(1J .
1 2 2 3 3 4
30 0 8' 0 3 0
40.5 8 38 1 3 28 1 10
6.75 6.53 6.35 6.4-3 6.29 5.98 .
)
. ----·-·••·--·•
..
Rel.
• • I •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
01Vl510N Of" HIGHWAYS
MATERIALS a. T~STS UNIT
501L5 LABORATORY
ProJ. --------------------------------
REPORl' ON SAMPLES OF ___ s~u __ f9_i:_~~J.Att_§'_..2ti_ ______________ _
r ,,; .
M • T For• ,o:a ll•l•U
Project ----------Au~l0llOl. ______________ Count)o ---------------------------------Owner ______ _
Date: Sampled ---------------------------------Rcc1lved -------------------------Reported ________ _
Sampled from ___ fCiL .. Pi.t..l:l _______________________ a, -----------------------
Submitted bJ -------~-----------------------------~------------------19 ______ Standard Sp.cification~
396 732-396 7 51 TEST RESULTS -~;) -~ cl
Proi. Sample No. 4B SA 5B SC 6A 6B 6C 7A .
'
Lab. Sample No. 396740 396741 396742 396743 396744 396745 396746 396747
l(etained :~ Sieve ,~ -12 -1 1 2 --
. Paasinr t:10 Sieve ,. 99 84 99 96 90 97 100 100
Puainir :,o-Si..,e 'Ji, 97 80 96 93 86 92 97 99
62
. I 81 Paainsr ~00 SI,.,.. 'Ji, 64 64 48 65 59 so
1,,t c-... SaaJ-t.o 1e I 0.21 .... K9'. :ao .,_ 7 9 9 7 8 10· 11 2
J j Fl11• S• ... -.!S LO "' 36 20 33 51 23 35 41 14
'C :; O.lo6 """· Ret. :Tl ~-• i Sil&-0.0$ 3.'i . ;:: ;a I• ta 1.oos """· 'Ji, 31 38 28 21 35 24 30
~ -.!E .. l .a ci.,-i-. ,. 2,; ":l" 2f\ H. .d.A 20 18 54 u, ... t .011$ ..... j r .... , •• • a :JO 111-'Ji, --------
r ... , ... ~
,_
cw, ... _ --- ----
L. L. 41 62 45 28 64 43 34 67
P. J. 9 27 . 14 4 . 29 s 6 31
AASHO A-5(6) 4_7_c;(l4 A-7-5(8) A-4(3) A-7-S(U ,)A-5( S) !\-4(3) ~-7-5(20) Classific11tion •·
,
Texture
StaUon I
Hole No. 4 a; s 5 6 6 6 7
De1>th (ft.) ln n n -_a; 'l c; 0 7 12 1A . 't 't h a:1 ? c;I 331 7 121 33 + ....
ph 5.89 6.05 5.91 6.31 5.73 5.78 5.89 S.72 . cc: "
N. c: DEPAR'IMENT QF TRANSPORTATION
· Division of Highways
PCB PIT BORnn LOO
G-5
1-78
PROJECT __ 4_.5_40_1l_O_l_· _____ comrrr · _ w_ar_re_n _______ DATE 9-18-78
ROUTE _________ RES •. ENGINEEa PIT NO. __ PC_B_t1_4 ___ _
~UIP • USED __ ...,2:3.,..7~.ooo ....... ~l ------6-"_A_uge_r __ INVESTIGA'I'ED BY __ J_._s_._Bri_·_t_t ________ _
W /rock teeth
..
~f;i i~~s. ~&; · . · · DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL RDURKS: i.e. groundwater data Hill 11. Ill ~~ ~; ~oistu;re content; etc. FRCM TO .
5 0.0 6. 5 . 5-A Red-brown mica. -F-· 5andy clay Dry
W /auartz lenses
'i 6. 5 25.0 'i-B Brown mica. 5andy 5ilt ·• Moist @ 25.0'
'i 25.0 11.0 'i-C Tan nd.ca. silty -F-5aod Wet@ 29.0' . Groundwater:
.. ~Hr • -Dry-caved in @ J0.0'
24 Hrs.-Dry-caved in@ JO.O
..I 0.0 7.0 6-A Red~brown mica -F-sandy clay W / Dry
quartz lenses •. .
6 7~0 l~.O 6-B Brown mica. sandy silt Drv
6 12.0 33.0 6-c Tan mica. silty -F-sand WPt@ 26_()1 ..
· 'Groundwater:
O Hr~ -Drv caved in @ 29.io .
2L. Hr. -drv caved in @ 29. □
7 o.o 10.0 7-A Red-brown mica.· -F-sandy clay Drv
7 10.0 20.0 7-B Brown.;.tan -F-sandy clay Moist@ 20.01
7 20.0 33.0 7-C &own -F-aandy silt Wet @ 25~0'
Grnundwater:
o ·Hr.-dry caved in@ ·20. 7 1
21 Hrs.~ t-;::ived in @ 26.7• .
8 o.o 9.0 8-A Red-brown mica-i'ine sandy clay Dry
8 9.0 38.0 8-B &own nd.ca. :sandy silt Moist@ 26.o• r · -1.1 ... +. @ ':I('\ • 0'
Groundwater:
0 Hr. --drv caved in @ 33 .2'
21... Hrs. drv caved in @ 33 • ·
-F--f"in.,. --..
'
'
I•
r
....
~ o. ---r----.-'--_,,.;..----------=-=""',-------,~._.,,-,--------
· ~·-;~-)::_.,·.,.:
0::
V)
., ;·
\·
• 6 : :· ••
;· .. • .
· ....
•""! ••• -
SCALE 1•
Jlef.
.. -. . .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OY HIGHWAYS
MATi:RIALS Oi TESTS UNIT
SOILS UBOR'°'TORY
ProJ. ············--·---------------··-·
iMiW &f?ii&i%7
M 6 T t'or"' 11-1-11
Project ________ 4 • .540l.1Ql _______________ County-------------------------------------Owner ___________ _ Date: Sampled --------------------------------Recci•.d ----:-------··---------------Report.cl ______ _ Sampled from ••• 1.~!\ __ !1_~_f.:l, _______________________ B1 ----------------------------------
SYbmiu.d bF ---------------------------------------------------------
19 ____ Stand.ard Specifiealion, 396732-396751 TEST RESULTS ~,:) · t :;; Prof. ~mole No.
Lab. Siunple No.
Ket.ained :, Sieve
PaNinir :10 Sieve
Paaalnw :.ao Sieve
Pasafnir :200 Sina
·t c-... l&nci-1.0 le I 0.21 .... Ret. :&O
J j t1n• s.11,-4.JS to ~ I .Ila m111. Rot. i:ne 1 • .. i Sll_..o, · ... .a lo lo '·°"' ...... ~ ... --u Clair-t...• .. ~P' ..... t .001 .... !I .! raaain• :a :ae s,..,, • ,,. .... , ... ,. ::1111:11-
LL
P. (.
AASHO
Cluslfiaition
Texture
Sution
Hole No.
Deotb (ft.)
-1-n
nh
cc:
,--
f
.. ..
~
··' :., ;,-
·.• ........ --.,-.
--------
,;. ,. ,.
" ~ ,,. ., .
,:.
•
7D 7C SA 8B . 396748 396749 3967SO 396751 . ----
99 99 100 100
97 97 99 97
67 55 80 -58
4 7 3 8 .
38 . 45 20 43
38 30 23 31
20 18 54 18
--------
38 39 66 45"
8 8 23 4 .
A-4(6) A-4(4) A-7-S(17) A-5(5)
I I
7 7 8 8
10 20 0 9
20f 331 gr 39, I
i; 77 6.0] .-;_ F-1' 5.90
,,....
Unitt:cl Stutes l)q,:irt111u1t u( the lnt:crior
_tlr. Jerry C. P.:lrkins, Head
(;Ft,llO,,l('\I 'd l~\l.'i'
\I~ O. l:o~ 211~/
l'wllcJ.~h, t:c Vu02
Solid llasce nnd V~ct:or Control llranch
IHvision of llealch Scrvlcc:;1
t:. c. D~rilrtmcmc of Uuman RenoUL'C('.~
P.O. Dox 27687
Ralcich, No:th Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Perkin~:
lhc rroj'o:rn<l l'C_iS Ji:.;110:;,d :d.tc loc<1tl:ll in 1:.,c·•·a C,,l1nl:)' ;,t 1;:! j l.l1dc
J6.20'1J", lon&itud~ 1a•o9•5a", .iti al.iovc the lJll-:,,1..:ar Uciocl )c:vd. . .
•
The sttc i:; located on a hi.lllllop li.!L11c:cn ltici,,,,!c'.-: Cr<:1.:I: ;,nJ c111e: <1( .l:..s
lributaric:,. ,1 c:itlm::.Lc, IJ;:i!:~·d <lit (load 1,:cucd!i ,·oll,:c:t:c,l at: ~c•rlh
C,H·olin.1 r.tcc.?ms, th.it tho l00-}·1•ar floud h::;li>lat i:. not 1r.on: l'hc1n 8 !a<!t.
aunvc avcratc u.1ter level in thcr.c cre,,t-u. Th:! proposC:!<l t..itc: ir.
.i11pro;,imatcly 80 !ect ai:>ovc Lhc:;c: creel;:. .ind not :;ubjcct: to (.loc1dinr.,
Sincerely yuu.::.,
.../:.-N. ll. J,1ck:.un, Jr.
/ llydroloc:;bt
-.------.. ' . .,,
--~ . . . . . . ... -·
0 . ' C:, 9 ~ ~/ 0 '1§°-:J. 0 \ :t l.. ? r~ 1• .s,
\
~
tr\ ±,
~
'!A
• 0
J f tf\ /I
~ /
-\ z. /f
~ /
i / ~ ./
~' // 1 // 1//
1./'
\ } )01 0 (E.L"" lU .03) t~ z_ ·3 CJ 0 lt-L" 1,u,4;') :L E -n ■ (u-~ l'Ll. ~-~ I F o (a""-11.1 .so'i
\ I
vs) 0 (a=-1-Zi.SS) :l
' ftg
V' O (a= 4(..)
r?Je~ f f,t ' i:
':t ..,_;;/
' -J._' ---..,,,.. --~---·+-..... __, ---
1-,~~f I
~,,,~,,, c. ~ l 1-n~p
,.,.,. 4';,fe# 9-.,