NCD980602163_19961107_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Files examined by Patrick Watters for Bill Meyers-OCR

I 1/7/96
Bill,
I went and reviewed the files that Pat W. had told me about and I found the following:
Several references to the leachate system in various documents that hint at or imply that revisions
were made. I think the key to tracking down this paper chase is to find the Sverdrup & Parcel
specifications and drawings and see how they evolved from beginning to end.
I also found a copy of the Cooperative Agreement between EPA and the Dept of Crime Control
& Public Safety dated 5-26-82 but I understand ya'll already got it through EPA.
This is all I could find in this batch of files ....
Patrick W.
August 16, 1983
REF -4AW-ER
345..C:OURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
Mr. William W. Phillips, Jr.
Assist,.mt to the Secretary
North½::arolina Department of
Crirre Control and Public Safety
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Phillips:
·A Certified Professional Civil Engineer attached to our staff has reviewed
the "As Built" plans you submitted to us during our August 3, 1983 site
visit to the Warren County PCB Landfill. The following minor discrepancies
were noted and should be corrected.
-Sheet #5 -The drawing still shows a stockpile area with silt
fence. This f eature is no longer in place.
-Sheet #6 -Regarding the grading contours, the elevation of the fill needs
to be cited to be certified "As Built."
-Sheet #7 -The drawing still states that the manhole covers are needed
wh~re, in reality, they a re in place.
-Sheet #8 -The drawing still states that the temporary anchors should be
rerroved and the lowe r and upper liners seamed. Has this been accanplished?
If so, the drawing should reflect the canpleted work.
Sheet #8a -The double swing gate shown on this sheet is incorrectly
located. It should be drawn as shown on Sheet #6.
We would appreciate having these discrepancies corrected prior to submission
of the Final Project Report which is due September 13, 1983.
I, ./ ~c_---,
Sincerel~y,, o~.-~
A. R. Hanke
Project Officer
Emergency & Remedial Response Branch
cc: Jim.Scarbrough, Residuals Management Branch
,r·'"'· \
1 ... :.,)• !
\ ......... '
XEROGRAPHIC COPY BY
rlOV 7 199J:
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE ARCHIVES
0
G. H. ANDREWS
C. L . CUTTING
E. M. OOUGHERTV
ELI LEMCOE C. N. LcTELLIER
W. LITTLEFIELD C.M.METCALF W. H. RIVERS G. E. ROSENKOETTER
B. R. SMITH. JR. I. R. VERON R. C. WEST
December 7, 1981
Mr. H. M. Mccowan
Secretary-Treasurer
North Carolina Board
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Cl!II WEBT KE.A.DOWVJBW ROA.I> BCJTB 114
OREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 2?40?
for General Contractors
P. 0. Box 10685
Ralei ~h, NC 27605
~-
Subject: PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County, North Carolina
Code 14900 Item 1111-1990
Dear Mr. Mccowan:
~
DEC 1987
DIV. OF
JOHN I. PARCEL 11128-11165
L • .I. SVERDRUP I 9211• I 1176
11111/855-11260
.· ·,. ., ..... ::.n
STATE ~::;
CONSTRUCT/ON •
t'2£t;
Per conversations earlier today with our · Mr. P. Flanigan, attached
please find a copy of the budgetary cost estimate for the above
referenced subject.
Per your recommendation, we shall revise the Notice to Bidders of the
above listed project to require a general contractor's license
classification of 1) Highway, 2) Highway (grading), or 3) Unclassified
with a limitation of intermediate size.
Very truly yours,
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
c-~ ~ 1~ • ...,. ~
Frank B. Rainey, Jr. C: ':J.
Manager
cc: D. E. Kelly
J. H. Emmerson
M. C. Adams
W. Meyer
ITEM
1.
2.
Clearing and Grubbing
2S Sand
COST ESTIMATE
QUANTITY
L.S.
6,500 CY
3. MIRAFI 140 100,000 SF
4. 30-mil PVC Liner 137,700 SF
5 . 10-mil PVC Ll..ner 130,000 SF
6. Fencing 1,670 LF
7 • Monitoring Wells 4 EA
8. Excavation and Backfill 55,000 CY
9. Seeding and Erosion 20 AC
Control
10. Filter System and L.S.
Leachate Pipes
11. Placement of
(Contractor) PCB
Material
30 Days
(6 Week Period)
0
UNIT PRICE
$ 10.00/CY
0.20/SF
0.30/SF
0.20/SF
9.00/LF
500.00/EA
2.50
2000.00/AC
500.00/Day
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
COST
$ 3,000
65,000
20,000
41,310
26,000
15,030
2,000
137,500
40,000
10,000
15,000
$374,840
0
WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT
Date of Inspection: (-z~ fll"U 7-?-8 Z-
oate of Report: 7-Z-8 Z-
Project: e._~ 8 l,c/ ,t?S /2:. M j,P? 5,c / S, • /4.
Location: k,/4,~cen a> de..
Inspection of: Geae ,,:a.-1 (Contract~)
By: :5 v ~rdrU-,4 f §rt::~/ (Designer)
I (nilme)
Name and Title of Inspector: Dt:u,, el dt~J /er /4.spec d,r-
¢' ~~~r-1-,6;:,&J;-1{ /&~. tE;,f,'ne~,-
COMMENTS: (Give status of project, notes of work being done, and
describe any outstanding problems. If more space is needed,
use reverse side.)
z,.{e 7.ysoJ h,u ieen .5/2-J,ped ,4,,, &e
l1 A r" ,m&1 ~ f. ~ "./' ~ Z-S' and /2r -1-f e.
J.~_cl;'ate l,,,t)/lec. ~on w;,v~ ~m J~.j J-e~n c/e/~ered,
'-: s..,, ,· !. f-¼ -// r ~J' d e en a;~ /I efr ,//4 u /4 v e.
yle l'rl/ m~ ~,CL/ ~ e!nt~lr~t!I 'fe~m ~/'"tUl/1§.;fe:-
d:::sLJP.S~/ s,·/2. gnd P&~ecl ad°~·lonei./6,/f ./Jnc~
z;; ru,, fr,,, I c:;,," I'./ 0.,-.,,, # e. 4 3/ s /2.J p, /4. ,, ,,. e "--.
TJ~ f~le ,0'111, ",11 G,11, #4-htt~t'n-?e~.,£ ~/"~/Jdw'1ler
c./:>e:u, .11$ .5 " eel ttl--1/4 v1;,11 ·/4(;,, a,;-~/;6 11.J'
0 0
WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT
Date of Inspection: 7•23-8 2.
Date of Report:-_~7_-__,;;2;:...;;.7_-___,;;8;._.,2._..--_
Project: /' C 8 L &NLJ FILL,
Location: WA,f'/?,OV Ct2,
Inspection of: ~ ltt£8Q,{El{'.s l"o-iv,rZ:: (Contract(s))
By : __ ·~S_.l/.~Efl~:,0;..:;H;..:V~P~,fL...,18~t?i;.c..:.i/l;....:C':.:4::.a.-:---~----------(Designer) (name)
Name and Title of Inspector : __ D...,A.._.,y....._1E"'"""'4..__.._H ....... (J ..... 1E__,.,<'.' .... k'.'. ... e ... E--'R..._ _______ _
COMMENTS: (Give status of project, notes of work being done, and
describe any outstanding problems. If more space is needed,
use reverse side.)
s:o-r<?? J"',/4',Y..O .8,£<5:«41 ,A')Y z-e.r..r L>r)Y o e T#LJ: W4:?/r;, .etc/CEMD/~
OC: .Sd'...V.e .#4(..0 <fi1'412/44f: ('04:".'P,«Pm fill W~-0--t9(YLJ W;f.r
.[7t:P/,f?PL:.0 E/'oN? T#/ [ ,&R,1» 4.,v,4 ...szc:,er&✓E/2 Tt:1 WE .So11n;-
~ <1E 7A"E &LZM Wdll 11(,"i,S LlEtrPAI d/V Oozw~ fZP7 T#£
f'<ZNB &em 8/YL2 .8o/LLJ,r¥<£ THE e09M .NALLS.
IIMO f?BWJ eFL/ L..f)ff Etf/lUJYJ li'eTZlN<f 0/C ~,f'tl!I.PED
LEliCMZZ: (?qJLtCT'iJ:11( sYrr,E;JV). WtM',r n:'4,1 JT(?/'.P[() (llV'QLL
MatlfJ&Y,
...... (~~;.'
:'' -I
WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT
Date of Inspection: '1-Z4 ..fhn,,( t· $0--82-
Date of Report: 7-3~·!3 2:.-___ ....;::;...;...--:~------
Project:_e..__e__,;B;.;:;;...___,~...;....a;aq;-~._i..;a;e:-·--·l) ..... ~0-:""'·e'---o--~--,::f_ .......... / _____ ..5J_1 __ 'A __ ~ __________ _
Location: i</2rrer1 &>unf'v. ~ t!, . _..-,,.:;:;..~;...;.....;;....;...__,;;;.__ __ /-,,.-,J,-....... _____________________ _
of: bea~ra / . Inspection (Contract (s)')
By: .5ve o•-.fru ;=>
J
I /~~re~/
(name)
(Designer)
Name and Title of Inspector: ,fb be, f /-::foe:>// ~J
COMMENTS: (Give status of project. notes of work being done. and
describe any outstanding problems. If more space is needed.
use reverse side.)
,//,/~ ✓-~: ,[~_;.E,e _: t:{ .. /.2,4LJ/,V~ I &v/,,,/U> ,~,,,/A'--r:::t-"'A£c".t) ~ /IL
·' / ,IV'E /2. . . , I,•./-'(_ ... / , .::. ~ ;C ~-
I" 1:rx-r ".£?.rl~t-r z!' E Y 1</EEL s q/D,
,
~ lfhE,fE,('C:L~~ L·t-1cl. S ,:.'rl'!:-1,L.'-
-&i/r~A<!.-r t?,u;~~ v~&•tz:il; (4 AL-./Jl. /;.J1l/71'1;!1,<id,. J.'/GZL~J WA$"
FIJ/AOZ€C> ~ 7f<lu4.S.t>Ar-; w1r;/ a~A ME/,e. ,./s"✓,:,<t., (::-,;;.·_!tJ,1./r/ .. ',::.::r"/~
rZ) -ScC.1.J ~/J,.e...k. dEKr ·,,A-.,,?l'-t':.£>A'r;' ,...;,,; .. -)
'-"
.,
North Carolina Departmenrof
Crime Control AtVa,~
& Public Safety ;;
512 N. Salisbury Street P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh 27611 -7687 [phone]
J;:,mes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. William N. Hed~man, Jr.
Di rector
May 26, 1982
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Oear'1-1r. Hedeman:
Heman R. Clark, Secretary
On behalf of Governor Hunt and the State of North Carolina,
I am pleased to enter into this cooperative agreement .and accept
the award of $2.5 million to provide for the pickup of contaminated
PCB soil from 210 miles of our North Carolina roadways.
We appreciate the excellent cooperation your staff has provided
in helping us obtain this award and we look forward to a continuing
close working relationship as the reject develops.
Ct.A..
HRC:jj
UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A~ENCY
WASHINGTON, D .C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Heman R. Clark
Secretary
North Carolina Department of Crime
Control & Public Safety
512 N. Salisbury Street
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Secretary Clark:
On behalf of Miss Rita M. Lavelle, the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, I am pleased to confirm the signing of a
cooperative agreement with the State of North Carolina for
remedial cleanup action on approximately 210 miles of State highway
contaminated by PCB spills.
This agreement, funded under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act commonly known as Superfund,
includes an award of $2,543,700 to the State to conduct the necessary
work.
You and your staff are to be congratulated for your strenuous
efforts and cooperative attitude, which led to development of this
mutually acceptable agreement. Your contribution is very much
appreciated. We at EPA looks forward to continued cooperation with
the State of North Carolina to bring the project to a successful
, conclusion . ...,
Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
IOI _l'.'OUR FLU
--1. "' ,TANCE ID NO, 2. LOG NUMBER
"i . . CXSl.0314-01-0 I ... U.S. INVlfllONMENTAL l'fllOTECTION AGENCY . ' EPA ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT/AMENDMENT 3, DATE OF AWARD •• MAILING DATE
PART !•ASSISTANCE NOTIFICATION INFORMATION IMY 25 1982
; 6. AGREEMENT TYrE 11. l'AYMENT METHOD
CooperS11we Ag-nt X 0 Advance D Relmbur-,,ent [X) Lmer of Credit
Send l'eyment Request To: , 7. TYPE OF ACTION · Grant Ao,-■eme,nt Fin. Mgmt. Center, Las Vegas New ; A•ln.nca Amendm■nt
I, REClriENT 9, l'AYEE
State of North Carolina Business Office ;
;~ Department of Crime Control & Public Safety State of North Carolina
;~ 512 N. Salisbury Street Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
·N Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 512 N. Salisbury Street
z Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 ct
C) EINNO~-----~---ic5NGREnThN~o~~~T--10, RECIPIENT TYPE a: 0 566023166 \,J 1'th State ,_ z 11. l'ROJECT MANAGER AND TELEPHONE NO. 12. CONSULTANT (WWT Con,trucHon Gront. Onl)I) ""' = William W. Phillips, Jr.
u Project Manager N/A u
C: [phone]
13, ISSUING OFF ICE (Cl~/Stat•J 1'. EPA PROJECT/STATE OFFICER AND TELEPHONE NO,
Al Hanke ,_ Project Officer u Washington, D.C. c.: FTS: 8-257-2643 (404) ,_ 881-2643 z 0 u
< ~ .., 15. EPA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON 6 TEL. NO. 111. STATE APPL 10 (Ci.llrln1laoWM) 17. FIELD OF ICIENC 18. l'ROJECT STEP(WWT CO
Judy Rohrer 755-2687 81-E-4900-5214 99 Onl)I) N/A
1&. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 20. REGULATORY AUTHORITY 21, STEP 2 + 3 6 STEP 3 (WWT Con,tri,cHon Onl)I) N/A
•· T,.atmant Leval PL96-510 40 CFR, Part 30 b. l'roject Type
c. TrNtmant Level
d. Sludge Ofllgn
22. l"ROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
Remedial actions at the North Carolina Roadside Sites -"The construction of a PCB land-fill and the cleanup of PCB contaminated soil along North Carolina Roadsites using
CERCLA or "Super Funds".
23. l"ROJECT LO CATION (Arya, lmP"tcd b)I Pro/ct:t)
City/Placa County State Cong,N&lonel Dlnrlc-t
Raleigh Wake NC 4th
1 2,. ASSISTANCE l"ROORAM(CFDA Propam No.• Tit~, 25. l'ROJECT l'ERIOD 21. BUDGET l"ERIOD
Superfund 5/25/82 -5/24/83 5/25/82 -5/24/83
i 27. COMMUNITY l"Ol"ULATION (WWT CG 128. TOTAL BUDGET l"ERIOD COST 29. TOTAL l"ROJECT l'ERIOD COST Onl)I) N/A $2,543,700 $2,543,700 '
I FUNDS FORMER AWARD THIS ACTION AMENOEO TOTAL ' I 30. EPA "'-mount Thia Ac-tlon ~~,;><t.J,/UU I
; 31. El"A ln•Klnd Amount n/a
:_ 32. Unexpended l"rlor Y .. , Balance n1a
i 33. Other Federal Funda n1a
' 3•. Recipient Contribution I n /a
i 35. State Contrlb11tlon ... I,,.,
36. Local Contribution n1a
l 37. Othar Contribution n/~
, :18. Allowable Project Con -,~ .,
\ -' Program Element F.Y Appropriation Doc. Control No. Account Number Object Cla• Obllgatlon/Daobllg. Amour,t , •. _l
ct ........
u TFAY98 !!! 82 68/20X8145 E2A031 2TFA724Rl4 41.83 $2,543,700 ...
ai .
M
,,. .,.,1 n ~An.ts. ... s.~.r.st .. h' ~-,,~ ,--;--------a--_, ___ , ___ --....:-•-_,,,,,:.:--• •-4" C'DA r--• C'"tt\l\.... A D. r :r --
PART 11-APPR OV ED I St OGET ASSISTANCE IDENTIFICATION NO
.. TABLE A .BJECT CLASS CATEGORY TOTAL APPROVED ALLOWABLE
(Non-construction) --· BUDGET PERIOD COST .
I. PERSONNEL ' s 799.654
2. FRINGE BENEFl"rs 215.806
J. TRAVEL 144 000
•• EQUIPMENT -0-
5. SUPPLIES 119,850
6. CONTRACTUAL 466.600
7, CONSTRUCTION -o-
8. OTHER 797.790
9. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 2.543.700
10. INDIRECT COSTS: RATE ,, BASE -0-
11. TOTAL (Shore: Recipient. %. Federal 100 .,. o) $2,543,700
12. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT $ 2,543,700
TABLE B -PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION ( Non-construction)
I .
2.
3 • ..
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12. TOT AL (Share: Recipient---%. Federal °lo)
13. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT s
TABLE C -PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSI FICATION
(Construction)
I. ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE -2. PRELIMINARY EXPENSE
3. LAND STRUCTUFIES, RIGHT-OF-WAY
•• ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING BASIC FEES
5. OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING FEES
6. PROJECT INSPECTION FEES
7. LAND DEVELOPMENT
8. RELOCATION EXPENSES
9, RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS ANO BUSINESSES
10, DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL
II. CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
12. EQUIPMENT
13. MISCELLANEOUS
1'. TOTAL (Llnu J tlvu JJ)
IS. ESTIMATED INCOME (II app//cable)
16. NET PROJECT AMOUNT (Lin• 14 mlnue JS)
17. LESS: INELIGIBLE EXCLUSIONS
Ill. ADO: Cc.>NTINGENCIES
Ill TOT AL (Share: Recipient,___'! •. Feder•' %)
tf'-.
20.;TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT
I .. :_; ·) s ,_,/
'
EPA Form 5700-20A (Ro, 8-79) PAGE20F4
PART Ill-AWARD COHOITIOH!._
a. GENERAL CONDITIONS
The recipientcovenants and agrees that it will expeditiously initiate and timely complete tbe project work for
which assistance has been awarded under this agreement, in accordance with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR
Chapter I, Subpart B. The _recipie~t warrants, ~epresents, and a_grees that ~t,. and its contractors, subcontractors,
employees and representatives, will comply with: (1) all applicable prov1s1ons of 40 CFR Chapter I, S~bchapter B,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO the provisions of Appendix A to 40 CFP Part 30, and (2) any special
conditions set forth in this assistance agreement or any assistance amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 30.425.
b. SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
(For cooperative agreements include identification or summarization ·of EPA responsibilities that reflect or
contribute to substantial involvement.)
1. EPA awards this cooperative agreement in accordance with the Federal Grant
and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977. This agreement is· subject to all
applicable EPA assistance regulations.
2. This award is subject to the procurement standards of 40 CFR Part 33 (copy
attached). Any contract issued by the State under this Cooperative Agreement
shall meet the requi~ements of Subpart F, Sections 33.1005-.1024, and shall
include the clauses in Section 33.1030 or the equivalent.
3. The reci:pient agrees to the following conditions in accepting this Assistance
Agreem1..,~t for the letter of credit method of financing:
(a) C.:sh drawdo..m will occur only when needed for its disbursements;
(.h) Provide timely reporting of cash disbursements and balances as required
by the EPA Letter of Credit Users Manual;
.Cc) Impose the same standards of timing and reporting on secondary recipients,
if any.
4. The maximum daily rate for consultant services shall not exceed the daily rate
for a GS~l8, which is currently $221.12.
5. The cost principles of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87 are
applicable to this award.
6. The recipient agrees to submit the final report in accordance with 40 CFR
30.635-2 and the "Scientific and Technical Publications"; 5/14/74, as revised
and updated at the time of report preparation.
7. The Governor's certification letter and the assurances in Part ID (page 4)
of the cooperati've agreement application comply with CERCLA section 104(c)(3)(A)
which requires that the State assure all future maintenance and -operating costs
for the expected life of the PCR landfill as determined by EPA. ·
E P>. f o, .. .5700-20>. (Rev . 1-79) PAGE 3 OF 4
· .......
. Ct810314-0l-0
Page 3a of 4
Special Conditions
8. The Governor's certification letter and the assurances in Part ID (page 4)
of the cooperative agreement application comply with CERCLA section 104(c)(3)(B)
which requires that the State assure EPA that it will provide an approved PCB'
disposal site which has adequate capacity and is able to receive the PCB
contaminated soil for proper disposal.
9. The Governor's certification letter and the assurances in Part ID (page 4)
of the cooperative agreement application comply with CERCLA sections 104(c)(3)(C)
and 104(d)(l) which require that the State assure payment of 10 percent of
the costs of the remedial actions undertaken pursuant to this cooperative
agreement. The State has requested an audit to verify expenditures during the
credit period allowed by CERCLA. If the total amount allowed as State credit
is less than 10 percent of the costs of remedial actions, within 60 days of
notification, the State will demonstrate its capabilities to provide the
additional amounts necessary to meet its statutory cost share.
10. All activities co~ducted under this cooperative agreement will be consistent
with the existing National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 1510 (1981).
Pending revision of the NCP, all activities should be consistent with the
existing NCP and proposed amendments dated March 12, 1982 (47 Federal Register
10972). When the revised NCP is promulgated, it shall take precedence.
11. Final safety plans prepared for activities performed pursuant to the cooperative
agreement shall be approved by the EPA Project Officer and shall be consistent
with the requirements of CERCLA section 104(f), EPA's Occupational Health
and Safety Manual, and other applicable EPA safety guidance. All workers
will be given appropriate safety training and informed of health risks, if any,
prior to commencement of each activity. Protective disposable clothing will
be made available to employees working at the roadside excavation sites and
at the disposal site. No work clothing exposed to contaminated soils will
be taken from the work sites by employees after completion of the work day.
Exposed clothing will be discarded in the PCB approved landfill.
12. In awarding contracts to any person engaged in response actions, the State
shall require compliance with Federal health and safety standards by contractors
and subcontractors as a condition of such contracts.
13. In accordance with 0MB Circular A-102, the State will utilize small, minority,
and women's businesses as sources of supplies and services whenever practicable.
14. The State shall adequately document the costs incurred in undertaking
the activities described in this cooperative agreement. Within 30 days of
acceptance of this award, the State will submit to the EPA Project Officer,
a sampling plan which will establish a sampling protocol, quality controls
and quality assurances, and sample chain-of-custody procedures acceptable
to EPA. The plan must be approved by the EPA Project Officer ten days prior
to commencing any sampling activities at the roadside spill strips. The
Stat~ shall assure that the approved quality assurance, quality control,
and Jnain-of-custody procedures are adhered to throughout all activities.
15. The EPA Project Officer will conduct periodic reviews and site inspections
to evaluate project activities to assure compliance with applicable EPA
requirements and regulations. The State Project Officer will assure that
all project schedules and reporting requirements are met.
··CX810314-0l-O
Page 3b of 4
Special Conditions
16. The State agrees to submit all final plans, reports, and/or recommendations
to the EPA Project Officer for review and approval prior to i~plementation
of any project activity.
17. The"'State agrees to provide the EPA Project Officer with a copy of the
contract for landfill construction and all other available technical
documents pertaining to the landfill construction, operation and maintenance.
18. The trucks used for hauling the contaminated soils to .the PCB approved
landfill with be lined with (6 millimeter or greater) plastic sheeting.
All contaminated sheeting will be disposed in the PCB approved landfill.
~~
0
;;~=§:;;_;~~:~~;::~~sq?~~;:~;;.;:;;~;!2::::::t=:~:~:!;:::::::::~ lfl{~
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
The State agrees to establish a final EPA approved community relations
plan within 30 days of the award. All press releases, media presentations,
etc., shall be issued in accordance with the EPA approved community relations
plan and EPA policy guidance.
The State agrees to submit quarterly progress reports to the EPA Project
Officer. These reports shall cover expenditures to date and expenditures
since the previous report; estimates of work completed (as a percentage of
the total work to_ be done on that activity), with a description of the basis
for the estimates; estimated variance (cost and time) expected at project
completion, based on current project status; as well as an itemization of
expenditures by cost category.
The State shall satisfy all Federal, State, and local requirements, including
permits and approvals, necessary or implementing activities addressed in
this cooperative agreement.
The State will provide access to the site, as well as all rights-of-way
and easements necessary to complete the planned response actions.
The State will fully comply with all applicable requirements under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2601, et. seq., and
each condition of the landfill's TSCA approval as found in EPA's letters
dated June 4, 1979, and December 14, 1981 (see attached letters).
Any costs incurred by a State contractor or subcontractor in removing
or disposing of wastes for which that contractor or subcontractor is determined
to be liable under section 107 of CERCLA are not allowable costs.
EPA shall not be liable for damages to property or injuries to persons
that result from or are caused by the acts or omissions of State
employees, State contractors or State subcontractors in carrying out
the activities set forth in the cooperative agreement.
CX810314-0l-O
Page 3c of 4
Special Conditions
27.
28.
29.
30.
32.
33.
V
The u~~rd of this Cooperative Agreement does not create an agency
relationship between the State and EPA. Further, EPA is not and shall
not be held out to be a party to any contract awarded by the State
pursuant to this cooperative agreement.
The award of this cooperative agreement does not constitute a waiver
of EPA's right to bring an action against any person or persons for
liability under sections 106 or 107 of CERCLA, any other statutory
provision, or common law.
The State of North Carolina warrants that it has not acted, is not
acting, and will not act as the agent, representative or privy of EPA
in the expenditure of CERCLA funds or in the prosecution of any action
at law or in equity for the recovery of funds expended or to be
expended by the State or funds expended or to be expended by EPA with
regard to actions related to the PCB spill. EPA expressly denies that
the State of North Carolina has acted, is acting or will act as the
agent, representative or privy of EPA in the expenditure of CERCLA
funds or in the prosecution of any action at law or in equity for the
recovery of funds expended or to be expended by the State or funds
expended or to be expended by EPA with regard to actions related to
the PCB spill.
After the State's acceptance of CERCLA funding from EPA for cleanup of
the PCB Roadside sites, the State agrees not to settle its claim or
claims with any of the responsible parties in the case entitled State
of North Carolina, et. al., v. Ward, et. al., currently pending in the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division of Wake County,
North Carolina, or in any other case against any of the responsible
parties without the express written consent and authorization for such
settlement from EPA.
Any recovery achieved by the State pursuant to settlement, judgement
or consent decree in the above-referenced action or any action against
any of the responsible parties will be shared with EPA in proportion
to EPA's contribution to the site cleanup under CERCLA.
Upon the. State's acceptance of CERCLA funding from EPA for cleanup of
the PCB Roadside sites, the State agrees to provide the EPA Regional
Counsel with copies of all papers filed to date with the court in the
above-referenced action. In addition, the State agrees to submit to
the EPA Regional Counsel quarterly status reports (including copies of
any papers filed in court) regarding the above action or any other
action by the State against any of the responsible parties.
The State will cooperate with EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice
so that legal actions against any of the responsible parties are
coordinated in a manner that will result in the greatest recovery of
the costs of the response measures undertaken by both the State and
EPA.
......
(~~~ .. :
. c;Bl0314-0l-O
Page 3d of 4
Special Conditions
34. CERCLA section 104(c)(4) requires that selected remedial actions
provide a cost effective response which provides a balance
between the need for protection of public health, welfare and
the environment, and the availability of amounts from the Fund
to respond to other sites. In the event that additional CERCLA
funding is requested by the State to expand the scope of work
for this project, EPA will re-evaluate the need for additional
remedial actions and available Fund monies to determine the
appropriate extent of remedy to the funded under CERCLA. Based
on this determination, EPA may amend this agreement or negotiate
a new cooperative agreement.
35. The State agrees to submit to the EPA Project Officer
certification that the State possesses the necessary competence
required to accomrlish the activities to be performed by "force
account" (utilization of State employees). The State must also
perform a cost analysis of alternative methods (force account
and subagreement) for accomplishing these activities. The
analysis should be submitted to the EPA Project Officer within
36.
30 days of acceptance of this cooperative agreement and should include
the technical and cost data necessary to enable EPA to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of the alternative methods. EPA may make a downward
adjustment on the cooperative agreement based on the findings of the
cost analysis.
~ 25, 1982 01
You are authorized to charge allowable costs on this project ~effJectj
1
~
V\~
{;~-) ,_..
CX810314-0l-0
ASSISTANCE IDENTIFI ION NO.
0b, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
I,.;
PART IV
~OTE: The Agreement must be completed in duplicate and the Original returned to the Grants Administration
Division for Headquarters awards and to the appropriate Grants Administrations Office for State and local
awards within 3 calendar weeks after receipt or within any extension of time as may be granted by EPA.
Receipt of a written refusal or failure to return the properly executed document within the prescribed time, may
result in the withdrawal of the offer by the Agency. , Any change lo the Agreement by the recipient subsequent
to the docu~ent being signed by the EPA Award Official which the Award Official determines to materially
alter the Agreement shall void the Agreement.
OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
The United States of America, actinE by and through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), heieby offers
assi!":tance/amendment to the State of North Carolina De artment of Crime Control & Public Safet
RECIPlt.NT ORC.ANIZA ION
&>r 100 % of all approved costs incurred up to and not exceeding S 2 1 543 1 700 ___ ......._ ___ X""'l,.l"'l»""t.,.l ... N..,C""t-X"'M .. b'"'O""'l"'"J 1--------
for the support of approved budget period effort described in application (includinA all application modifications)
"Remedial Actions at the North Carolina Roadside Sites" 4/16/82included he,ein by reference.
t<lTt .i.Nb f TLE
ISSUING OFFICE (Grants Administration Office) A WARD APPROVAL OFFICE
ORGANIZATION/ A00R£SS ORGANIZATION/ A00R£S5
Grants Administration Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 2 460 Washington, D. C. 20460 -,
OF AMERICA BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This Agreement is subject to applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency statutory provia:ons and assistance
regulations. In accepting this award or amendment and any payments made pursuant thereto, (1) the undersigned
represents that he is duly authorized to act on behalf of the recipient organization, and (2, the recipient agrees
(a) that the award is subject to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter B and of the provisions
of this agree 111ent (Parts I thru IV),•and (b) that acceptance of any payments constitutes an agreement by the payee
t~J the mounts, if any fou by EPA to have been overpaid will be refunded or credited in full to -EPA. ' . . ~ ·,_,
...a(..,·• . ..,·~,..' -H----+'r---r-1----------------------------------------t'' ·) BY AND OH BEHALF OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION
TYPED NAME ANO TITLE CATE Heman R. Clark, Secretary, Dept. of CCPS 5-25-82
PAG£40F4
..
Sverdrup & Parcel
Consulting Engineers
2211 W. Meadowview Road
Suite 114
December 16, 1981
Gre~loro, North Carolina 27407
Attention: Mr. Frank B. Rainey, Jr., PE
Subjact: Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
PCB Wasta Disposal Site
Warren County, North Carolina
Code 14900 -Item 1111-1990
Gentl~en1
Raceipt is acknowledged of your lotter of December 14, 1981 responding to
·comments on the above subject project made by Mr. John Holley on the erosion
control measures. The revised specification inserts and plans have been
inserted into our file copy of the plans and specifications.
In accordance with our conversation on Monday, December 14th, it is our under-
standing that the project is now advertised for the receipt of bids on January ,
7th, 1982. This advertisement was authorized with the understanding that
verbal l; :,proval of the project had been received from the Envirorunental Protec-· ·.
tion Ag~cy, and my conversation with officials in the Office of State Budget
and Management authorizing the receipt of bids without Advisory Budget Commission
approval.
Mr. Bill Raney with the Attorney General's office has requested that the follow-
ing sentence be added to Article 61 of the Supplementary General Conditions:
"The contractor shall also adhere to all federal health and safety standards
contained in the National Contingency Plan pursuant to Section 301(f) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(PL96-510) • "
You are also to make the necessary modifications 1n the Notice to Bidders and in
the Instructions to Bidders to change the 30 day period for acceptance of bid
proposals .to a 60 day period. This was requested by Mr. Raney and Mr. David
Kelly to allow the state additional time to aecure federal funding for this ·
project.
Sverdrup & Par~el
December 16, 1981
Page 2
·A Federal Wage Rate Schedule must be inserted into your specifications either
prior to issuiDg any documents for the receipt of bide, or by addenda before
the receipt of bids.
We are enclosing herewith a copy of a certification required for all contractors
as a part of their bid proposal relating to suspended contracting firms. This
certification must be made a part of the proposal, and may be issued by addenda
if plans and specifications have already been distributed.
If you have any questions concerning thfa project, please advise us.
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Kelly
Mr. Ray DeBruhl, PE
Mr. Bill Raney
Ma. Jane Patterson
i
Very truly yours,
John H. Emerson, PE
Chief Engineer
.... •
UNITED Sl,. rEs ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE.LTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET .
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 303~!5
MAR 3 1 1881
REF: 4AH-.RM
Mr. O.W. Strickland
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Strickland:
..
)
EPA has received and reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications
for the Warren County P03 Disposal Site, prepared by Sverdrup and Parcel
Consulting Engineers. A copy of the cOITIIents is enclosed.
We must have a copy of the facility post-closure care program. It should
include details on ground water monitoring, and the collection and
management of leachate.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Emilio Gonzalez or Don Hunter at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
/Jt;dl)!H/1 ~ .
f£:.es. H. Scarbrough, Chief
~siduals Management Branch
Enclosure
I.,
,, .... . . :, • f
AT.rACff>1ENI' ,
The preliminary plans and specifications for the Warren County Disposal
S~te has been reviewed as r~ested. The following are our ccmnents:
(a) The pipe used for rem:>val of leachate from the leachate detect ion
system sump should be buried in the corrpacted aggregate layer, and
not placed on top. The drawings and the specifications for landfill
construction do not seem to agree. RESPONSE: IS SHOWN IN SUMP AND
LEACHATE COLLECTION PIPE DETAIL SH.8.
(b) 'Ihe clay liner permeability rrust be 1 X 10-7 cm/sec or less. The
specifications does not make reference to this. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE IN SPECIFICATIONS AND SAMPLES OF MATERIAL WILL BE LABORATORY TESTED.
(c) We suggest a minimum 2% slope for the bottom grade of the disposal
pit. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE PLANS TO 2% SLOPE.
(d) Vandal protectior. should be provided for the gas vent and the
leachate collection pipes. lt>ne is provided as shown on drawing
number eight. RESPONSE: ENTIRE LANDFILL INCLUDING GAS VENT AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION PIPES ARE WITHIN AN AREA SECURED BY A 7 FOOT HIGH FENCE.
(e) Section 5.6 reads, "If contaminated water is found in the silt pond,
the sedinents in the bottom of the pond will also be placed the
landfill prior to pit close out." 'l})e sediment should be analyzed
too, not the water only. RESPONSE: (SEE BELOW)*
(f) Based on bore hole log data, it appears that less than favorable
permeability conditions exits in the proposed holding pond area,
therefore, the holding pond should be lined to prevent any
contamination of the ground water. RESPONSE: A I-FOOT CLAY LINER WILL BE
PROVIDED AT THE POND. AND BUILT TO THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS AS THE LANDFILL CLAY
(g) Ground Water Monitoring -Ther~ has not been a detailed ground water LINER.
study at this site. Three borings intercept the water table and are
not adequate, in them.selves to thoroughly characterize the
configuration of the water table below the site.· Well nunber one
pr~ly can serve as the upgradient monitoring well. The problem is
adequately nonitoring all downgradient ground water zones. While ··
wel1s number two and three rronitor ground water zones that are in
fact downgradient from the disposal area as required, it appears that
another downgradient zone is left unmonitored. This situation is
defined in the following manner. Well nunoer one is located on a
narrow east-west trending divide which terminates in a blunt
north-south trending face facing west. It is within this feature
that Lhe disfX)sal area is located. The indications are that there is
defikitely ground water flow north from the divide (rronitored by well
nllTTt,er two) and west .from the face terminating the ridge (monitored
by well m.mlber three) • There is also the strong iooication, based on
*AMEND SENTENCE TO READ: "IF CONTAMINATED WATER IS FOUND IN THE SILT POND,
THE SEDIMENTS AND CLAY LINER WILL BE PLACED IN THE LANDFILL PRIOR TO PIT
CLOSEOUT.-.
#
"' -~ ..
,
,
-2-
topographic evidence that there is probably ground water flow south
from the disposal area. Unless it can be shown conclusively that
there is no ground water flow to the south beneath the disposal area,
a well to monitor any southward flow would be highly advisable. Its
location should be approximately 50 feet from the fence and near the
centerline of the landfill. RESPONSE: A FOURTH MONITORING~WELL WILL
BE INSTALLED.
(h) The specifications call for only two feet of cement grout in the
annular space. EPA would like to see five feet of grout to anchor
the well more securely and to provide more isolation from the
surface. We would also like to see each well screened so that a
minimum of ten feet of the upper ground water zone can be sarrpled at
anytime (ten feet below seasonal low water table evaluation).
RESPONSE: A 5 FOOT CEMENT GROUT IN THE ANNULAR SPACE WILL BE USED.
....,
.., ........
,· ,_ i
........ 1
Removal And Disposal of Soils
Contaminated Wit~ PCBs
Aiong Highway Shoulders
In North Carolina
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ""
<
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Burley B. Mithell, Jr., Secretary
Department o Crime Control
And Public fety
4' I t • t
l •• I . ·,..,wl
f t
~ I I
t ! I ,1 ~ · t
"' t
i -~ j
1
" i 1 l -~ I , .. ,j.
1 t 1 )l t
t i f ~-t l I I I I •'
holding pond will be analyzed for PCB and if
negative the water will be released -~ surface
drainage. If the analysis for PCB i s positive,
the water will be processed through a carbon
filter prior to release. The carbon filter,
and the silt in the holding pond will be placed
in the disposal pit prior to final closing.
Since the PCB disposal site is located above the
100 year flood plain, no flood diversion struc-
tures are required after completion of the PCB
landfill operation. Surface run-on at the site
will be diverted by grading the vegetative cover
for the PCB landfill to topographical lows along
the:perimeter of the landfill site.
(3)i Leachate Collection and Detection Systems
· Two leachate collection systems will be
installed. One system above the clay liner and
another below the artificial liner. The leach-
ate collection system will consist of a highly
permeable material with PVC pipe for access and
removal of any collected leachate. The leachate
will be tested for PCB contamination. If the
leachate contains PCB particles and depending
on the concentrations found, the leachate mate-
rial will be disposed of in an EPA approved
PCB incinerator.
(4) Sampling and Monitoring
Three monitoring wells will be placed on
a line through the site. One of the wells
will be located above the disposal pit and
two below, with one of the wells located at
the area with the lowest groundwater. The
leachate collection systems will be monitored
monthly by the N. c. Department of Human
Resources. The receiving surface water in
the vicinity of the pit will be monitored
biannually by the N. c. Department of Human
Resources. The disposal site will be monitored
as long as required by EPA.
(5) Supportive Facilities
A six foot chain link fence with barbed
wire topping will be installed approximately
200 feet from the perimeter of the disposal
pit to prevent unauthorized persons and
animals from entering. The site will be
periodically inspected and maintained in a
manner to insure security and to prevent
hazardous conditions from developing.
14
,,
,. ,,
' . •
.... ..
JANU ■. HUNT. JR.
eova•11110■
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Divi,ion of Health Service,
HUGH H. TILSON. M,D,
DUICCTO"
SARAH T. NO,.ROW, N.D .• N .P'.H.
allCACTAAY P. 0. Box 2091 Raleigh 27602
March 30, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mr. David Kelly
Assistant Secretary
Public Safety
Mr. Bill Meyer, Environmental Engineer
Department of Human Resources
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
"·
SUBJECT: Comments on Sverdrup & Parcel Proposal For PCB Waste Disposal Site
Warren County
1-Page lA-3 Add Department of Human Resources to Sentence 1, 5.3
Define Contractor, Engineer and Owner. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE.
2-Page lA-1 2. Coordination of Work. Add:
The State of N.C. will have a qualified engineer on site during
.all construction activity to assist in coordination of work.
3-fa\S[~!i sfil}rtl~f~UB5rin~ Construction Add to 7.1:
The engineer shall submit copy of contractor submittals to the
State of N.C. for review. ·
Note: Required submittals should be outlined in contractor ..•
specifications. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE
4-Page 28-1 Earth Work
(a) There are no specifications for selection of fills and backfills
except ~ll fill material shall be subject to the acceptance of th~
engineer.
There should be specifications on selection and excavation· of
liner materials; placement in stockpile areas, preparation of stock-
pile areas, moisture control and sampling for laboratory of field·
testing. The specifications should include standards established for
clayey materials suitable for soil liners on PCB landfills. (40 CFR
(ltJP~EJfdu~l~oiMt~r%~gh v) RESPONSE: SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED
(b) Page 28-2, 4.1 AAf-fSO T-180 Method Dor ASTM D 1557 Method D should
be evaluated for compaction standard. TMs would afford a safety
factor for engineering ·judgements on soil suitability for 1;ner
construction. RESPONSE: AASHO T-99 OR ASTM D 698 IS SUFFICIENT • .
(c) Page 28-3 Specifications for stockpile areas (preparation methods
for stockpiling) How are selected excavated materials selected?
RESPONSE: SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED {SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS).
. .
'
(d) Page 2B-3, ~ S.l The surficial soils on site are eroded and the
surface foot maJ 0be suitable for final grading. It is suggested that
the surface 6" or excavation to the minimum depth to exclude· plant
roots and other organic material to be stockpiled for final grade.
Jt was noted during site evaluation that the highest soil clay content
was immediately below the soil root zone. RESPONSE: WILL CHANGE 10 611
~t~I~~eO~If-Ff,T~ .\0. f XCrr~Pf i fL:~Jc~~~t~t i ens on materi a 1 s, methods and
tests for selection excavation, stockpile and protection (ie. moisture
content} of clay liner materials. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
(f} Page 2B-3, 4.8 Specify compaction test. The credibility of entire
project is based upon the clay liner and more specifically the per-
meability of the clay liner. It is essential that a combination of
field/lab tests to determine density, moisture and permeability be
implemented.
It is suggested that AASHO T 147-54 Method A or B; or ASTM D-2167,
1556 & 1557 be utilized on a ~000 ft2 basis in addition to the lab
compaction tests on 10,000 ft intervals per 6 inch lift.
*This point should be fully discussed and a decision made on the method
of testing a number of tests and lab selection as soon as possible. 2 RESPONSE· AS1M 0-2937 OR ASTM D 1556 IS ACCEPTABLE. WE RECOMMEND ON A 10000 FT BAS! 5-Page 2C-1, 2 .. l Specify stockpile of materials on plans, (methods
and materials} RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
6-Page 2C-l, 2C-2, 2C-3 An evaluation should be made of the alternative
of installating a gravity leachate removal system(s) as to the proposed
system. RESPONSE: SEE E.I.S.
7-Page 2C-2, 2.3.l Specifications for compacted bridging fill on top of
artifical liner and liner protection materials. Depth of liner protection
layer should be a minimum of l foot. RESPONSE: SEE SHEET 8.
8-Page 2~2. 2.4.1 Specify liner soils from 40 CFR 761.4l(b) (1) i thru v.
Consider modified proctor for compaction standard.RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
9-Specify ·rnethod of liner construction, i.e. constructed flat, 3:1 slope,
etc. Evaluate alternatives for proposed construction on 3 to l _slope;
i.e., excavate 1:1 construct 3:1, 4:1. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
10-State testing for moisture/density, compaction in liner construction
~ection. RESPONSE: SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
11-P. 2C-3, 2.6-Specify method and degree of compaction of PCB soil mixture.
lZ-2_6_2 RESPONSE: SUGGEST PNEUMATIC ROLLER ON 2-3' LIFTS, BUT NO TESTS.
Should be modified to include construction of ramp into excavation to
prevent damage to side wall from dumping and placing PCB waste. A N-S
ramp (long axis of landfill) to allow dumping in the bottom excavation
should be considered. Ramp construction should be based on truck capability.
Ramp should be excavated for removal ~s the bottom 10-foot lift of waste is
placed insite. A second ramp should be constructed for the upper 10-foot .
lift. This assumes that the waste _will be placed into the site in 2-10 foot
lifts (lifts should be compacted on 2-3 foot sublifts). RESPONSE· SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS. · 13-Sequence _of construction on covering the landfill. Evaluate proposed •",
sequence: bridging layer - 2 foot clay layer -PVC liner -protective
layer - 1 foot topsoil; versus: bridging layer -·pvc liner - l foot PVC
. .. . .
liner protection layer - 2 foot clay liner - 1 foot topsoil. They ·may offer
better protection for PVC liner. Evaluate 10 mil versus 30 mil PVC liner
for landfill cover. RESPONSE: SEE EIS, A 30 MIL COVER IS NOT THAT MUCH MORE
14-~!~~N~t~~ 1~1.-f t°vl\I}af~Vf~creasing depth of final cover to 3,~4, or 5 feet
utilizing excavated spoil. Evaluate increasing final slope to 3-5% in east
to west direction to reduce contact time for infiltration. RESPON5~: SEE EIS AND WE SUGGEST A 10% FINAL SLOPE DUE TO DRAINAGE AND SETTLFMFNT. 15-Evaluate eliminating gas vent ana ut1liz1ng upper leacha~~·ye~oval system
f~r ~~s venting__ (Predicted gas generation, diffusion pressure, etc.). RESPONSE: SEE C:IS. . . 16-2F-3 PVC Liner -Specify distances of over lap and adhesives for all Joints
of PVC liner. RESPONSE: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
17-S.neJ:jfif:_ations (calculations) for sizin~ sediment basin (holding pond).RESPONSE: CALC.:ULA 10NS WIL_L BE ~UBMITT~O TO THE .ST TE BUT.( WON'T BE IN THE WORKING DRAWINGS 18-21-2, 3.1 Cons1der 1ncreas1ng topso1l eptn see comment 14T. . •
19-21-2 Planting -If the site is completed in mid-sumner a temporary vegetative
cover of a drought resistant grass (millet, mile, sudian, sudex) should be
considered, with permanent seeding to follow at optimum seeding season for
fescue and seri cea. RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE.
20-Section 15A
Specify size of internal landfill sump, maximum anticipated or predicted
rainfall event, size and type of carbon for filtering PCB contaminated
water, rate of treatment capacility (what happens if 2 or 3 major rainfall
events occur). RESPONSE: WILL INCLUDE MINIMUM VOLUME FOR HOLDING POND.
Should the septic tanks be plastered or coated with sealant to ensure
water proofing. RESPONSE: SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STATIC TEST.
The design should consider a gravity system for leachate collection
(lower leachate and upper leachate removal pipes extended through side wall
of landfill) and be tied (separately) to the sand and carbon filter system(s).
Valves (external) would control leachate flow to the sand and carbon system(s).
RESPONSE: NO, POTENTIAL PROBLEMS HERE.
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
Sheet No. 2
Borrow area proposed has not been tested for soil engineering propert1es.
What type of borrow materials will be obtained from this area. Areas to the ·
N and S of the proposed landfill location has been evaluated for soil engineer-
ing properties. RESPONSE: BORROW AREA WAS NOT FOR CLAY LINER -WILL ELABORATE.
Sheet No. 3
Are the concrete monuments identified as permanent bench marks; if so, where
are they located (specifically located)? RESPONSE: MONUMENTS ARE PERMANENT
BE~CH MARKS FOR THIS SITE ONLY (ASSUMED ELEVATIONS).
Sheet No. 4
Should include sections E-W & N-S to locate source and volumes of materials
to be excavated and stockpiled for various purposes, especially clay liner,
PVC liner protection, final covers, etc. RESPONSE: NOT NECESSARY. .
Sheet No. s·
Calculations for sizing holding pond possibly sections since dam sections are
included here. RESPONSE: NOT PART OF CONSTRUCTION PA~KAGE. (~>)
·• r
.,.
Sheet No. 6
Should the final grading plan be modified to provide 3-5% grade along center-
line of landfill and establish several (2-4) .control points (piped slope drains)
to reduce flow over 5:1 side slopes? RESPONSE: WE RECOMMEND A 10% GRADE BUT DO
NOT RECOMMEND CONCENTRATING THE FLOW. . · v.
Sheet No. 7
Note in detail -should the tranks be plastered or further water-proofed,
siz~ type and volume of sand and carbon stated; sealing of pipe through side
walls (specs), at 125 gpm flow and the reduced volume for free board and sand
or carbon, there should be a control mechanism for liquid level to prevent
overflow. There should be a detail for containing the carbon below the inlet
pipe, as it will tend to float in the tank (e.g. removable screen).
RESPONSE: SEE PLANS; THE SYSTEM WILL BE HAND OPERATED; AND A SCREEN {FILTER FABRIC)
Sheet No. 8 WILL BE PLACED OVER THE CARBON.
See cormients concerning gravity leachate removal, sequence of top cover,
gas venting, top PVC liner thickness.
Evaluate all seal procedures, should the seal be 1' or 2' and should the
seal extend up the sides of the PVC pipe. RESPONSE: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
Sheet No. 9
Cross section should include ramp section to allow placing PCB in bottom of excavated areas. RESPONSE:. SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
' / -.. ✓.'. ...
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Bill Meyer
Charles Gardner
April 14, 1981 ·
SUBJECT: Review of Plans and Specifications -Warren Co. Proposed
PCB Disposal Site
As requested, we have r .eviewed the plans and specifications prepared
by Sverdrup and Parcel for the proposed PCB waste disposal site in
Warren County. The plans are dated 1/30/81 and were received by us from
your office on 3/3/81.
I have some concern that a seasonally high ground water table could
be at or above the proposed pit bottom. According to the data presented
on the plans, the measured groundwater levels are roughly 10 feet below
the proposed pit bottom; the date of the ground water readings is not
noted. The normal range in seasonal variation for upland Piedmont ·
ground water levels is 5 to 10 feet, and variations as much as 25 feet
have been observed. I understand that there is an observation well over
one mile away that shows historical variations of only a very few feet;
in the Piedmont, projection from that distance is questionable. In the
absence of long term site specific ground water data, you may want to
consider installing a covered drain trench and collection/monitoring
point extending from the northwest corner of the pit bottom to about the
308-310 foot ground surface contour as a safety measure. According to
the site topography shown on the plans, this trench would be about 400
feet long. Alternatively, a short "dearl-end" trench could be extended
about· 50 feet out from the northwest corner of the pit and could be
extended later if monitoring wells indicate a ground water level problem
is developing.
I am attaching some hand written comments from Bill Weldon, our Chief
Engineer at the time of this review. These comments apply mostly to
erosion and sediment control considerations. It is emphasized that
additional details on erosion and sediment control will be needed prior
t construction. The more detailed plans should be forwarded to John Holley,
Land Qualit Rei nal Engineer, at least 30 days prior to beginning
construction. Mr. Holley wou d be glad to meet with you or your engineers
to discuss the details, at your request.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
CHG: gf .
cc: Steve Conrad
Harlan Britt
John Holley
. . ..
i.,,
JA"!E:S B. HUNT.JR.
f:OV[RNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH 27611
March 2, 1981 ,:DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
THOMAS W. BRADSHAW. JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Dave Kell~
M. C. Adams pl FROM:
SUBJECT: PCF Waste Disposal Site
Enclosed herewith please find comments on the subject
plans and specifications which have been submitted to me by
our Department of Transportation Construction Unit.
I submit these for consideration by the Consultant.
In addition to the comments made by the Construction Unit,
I offer the following:
(1) I specifically would like to point. out the importance
of the .Construction Unit's comments concerning density.
I would strongly suggest the provisions require that
each density test pass a required 1007. maxi.mum density.
RESPONSE: lOOX DENSITY WILL BE USED.
(2) In further reference to densities, due to the extreme
sensitivity of this project, I suggest the provi_s_ions
go into further d~tail with.regard to control of
moisture content. This should include a description
of moisture density cu~es to be developed for all
soils to be included as a part of the clay liner
and. also, a requirement that in the event optimum
moisture is not present at the ti:me a density test
is made. the soil will either be manipulated by
harro.ws, etc. for drying purposes, or moisture will ·
be carefully added and blended in with the soil material.
RESPONSE: .THE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE EXPANDED TO MORE FULLY COVER MOISTURE CONTROL.
(3). I continue to question the backdumping of the ! __ .,/ contaminated material over the side slopes of the pit.
This will cause a great deal of manipulation within ·
the pit area and could cause dusting and spillage
problems. ~··
RESPONSE: .THE SOUTH ENO OF THE LANDFILL WILL BE CHANGED TO A 5:1 SIDE SLOPE So 19
!TRUCKS CAN BACK INTO THE LANDFILL TO DUMP CQNTAMINATED SOIL.
..
-;section 2H -Soil :osion Control
sub~ection 2.2, ·p~ge 2H-l -If water must be reprocessed
·through the carbon filter, who ·aces it, how is it done, .
and who pays for it? RESPONSE: CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE PERSONNEL ·
UNDER ENGINEER'S SUPERVISION. PLANS WILL BE ELABORATED ON HOW TO OPERATE SYSTEM.
Section 2I -Seeding
......
. Subsection 2.2, Page 21-1 -Last sentence should refer
to the current edition of Specifications which is the
1978 Edition of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. RESPONSE: WILL MAKE CHANGE.
: fiubsection 4.3.2, Page 21-3 ~ Our experience with results
/from using wood cellulose as a mulch has not been very
good except in early Spring and late Fall when no mulch
migh~-be just as productive. Suggest straw .. RESPONSE:
WILL CHANGE TO STRAW.
; ~~bsection 5, Page 21-3 -Requiring a guaranteed stand of
/·grass is expensive. Might want to consider some other
approach. RESPONSE: A GRASS STAND IS NEEJ)ED FOR EROSION CONTROL.
Section 15A -Carbon Filter System
Subsection 3.1, Page lSA-1 -Pump not shown on plans
that we can find. Sug9est more details on pump.
RESPONSE: THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE A RENTED TRASH PUMP.
Plan Comments:
Sheet No. 5
Our Utility Section of Design Units does not feel the
design of the relief pipe with gate valve·shown going
through the earth dam will work as designed~ They
believe relief valve will blow off when water level
in holding pond is significant. Connection of P.V.C.
pipe to riser pipe is questionable. Suggested design ·
be rechecked. RESPONSE: THE VAlVE WILL BE SECURED TO THE PIPI AND .•
THERE IS ONLY 15 FEET± HEAD. THE PIPE CONNECTION IS FOR A TEMPORARY
Sheet No. 7 DRAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF DAM.
Manhole covers referred to in Section A-A should be more
clearly defined as to what is required. Note refers to
pipe penetration through walls being sealed but does not
indicate what with. RESPONSE: COVER WILL BE MORE CLEARLY DEFINED
ON DRAWING. PIPE PENETRATION DETAIL WILL BE ELABORATED ON.
Sheet No. 8 ·
Gas Vent Detail -How many l" holes should be provided in
bottom 5 feet of pipe? RESPONSE: 12 l" DIA. HOLES.
Cannot ;find where Specifications are given for type of
concrete intended to be used with details on this sheet.
RESPONSE: WILL MAKE NOTE FOR 2500 PSI CONCRETE. :
Sump and Leachate Collection Pipe Detail~ How far across
excavation does sump run? RESPONSE: SUMP :IS JUST FOR PIPES IN
NORTHEAST CORNERS ONLY. WILL NOTE ON PLANS.
,~)
'"-.,...,,'
'