NCD980602163_19980202_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Correspondence from Patrick Barnes and Joel Hirschhorn (Working Group)-OCR

ME:MORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Working Group (Strategy Meeting Attendees)
Patrick A. Barnes, P.G· . .A
February 2, 1998
General Outline for the Development of Various Strategy Components
As requested of me during Saturday's Strategy Session the following is a general outline of the
broad topics that each strategy component should include.
1. Introduction -What is the program and why is it necessary?
2. Goals and Objectives -Discuss the overall goal and the objectives necessary to achieve it.
3. Program Approach -How the program will be implemented should be discussed in a stl!p
by step fashion.
4. Implementation Schedule -How long will it take to implement the program approach? A
timeline should be given for each task in the program approach.
5. Manpower and Cost Requirements -What are the manpower needs and associated costs of
implementing the program approach?
6. Roles and Responsibilities -The program should include a section on who will do what -
not just individuals, but also what organization we are asking to participate.
If you feel other items should be included please feel free to do so.
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando. Florida 32803
Offir.P. [phone] • Fax [phone]
3 -22-1997 3:28AM Fl?Ot1
October 21, 1997 .................................................................................... by FA..X -
To: Mike Kelly
From: Joel Hirschhorn
Re: Methane air monitoring at PCB Landfill
In the overnight package received today there were two .memo reports on methane testing, one
for sampling in Jan./Feb. and the second for sampling in early October. According to the first
report, there was to be monthly testing.
If there is data for the period between these times0 would you please provide me wjth those
internal reports.
3-21 -1 S)97 l Cl : 45i:::-ot.1
bLI
f!µ_/2"_.L
f{-r
F~ October 21, 1997 ............................................................................... by FAX
To: Mike Kelly
From: Joel Hirsch.horn and Patrick Barnes
We regret that your office did not inform us or the Working Group that in early August you
contracted Environmental Efficiency to pe1form an evaluation of a portion of the dioxin/furan test
results obtained for the PCB Landfill site investigation. Because we have just received your
contractor report we now make certain requests.
We reqnest that your office officially submit the contractor report prepared for your office by
Environmental Efficiency to the appropliate official at Southwest Laboratory of Oklahoma, the
laborato1y that the state contracted \vith for the dioxin testing used iu the PCB Landfil1
investigation, and request that Southwest prepare a \Vritten technical response to your contractor
report. Specifically, we request that you ask Southwest to address the following issues:
1. Did the analysis of Environmental Efficiency fairly and comprehensively address all of the
testing for dioxins/furaus conducted by Sonthvvest?
2. (A) Does Southwest believe that the Region IV guidance document used by Environmental
Efficiency represents generally ac.cepted and applied EPA proc.edures used by Southwest? (B)
Are there any specific differences between the Region IV guidance and other applicable EPA
guidance used by South\.Yest? (C) Would Southwest have used different testing procedures if the
state had requested compliance with the Region IV guidance?
3. Are there any technical issues, :findings, inte1vretations, or conclusions presented in the
Environmental Efficiency repoxt that Southwest disagrees with, or 'Wishes to discuss or amplify
on?
4. To what ex-tent do the finclings and conclusions given by Environmental Efficiency apply to
dioxins/fur.ans other than the on.es examined by Environmental Efficiency?
5. After considering the Environmental Efficiency report, does Southwest ,,;vish to modify any of
its previously submitted data and repo1ts provided to the state?
Would you please request that Southwest provide responses as soon as possible.
Please provide us \\>ith copies of your request to Southwest and any reply by them. Would you
also provide us ""ith some desc1iption of the procedure used to select Environmental Efficiency,
the scope of work nsed by the state, the competing finns considered, and all bids rec-eived from
competing firms. Has Environmental Efficiency provided previous contractor services to the
Division of Waste Management?
cc: Working Group Technical Committee
b~tr
1'\-~ !\ ,(__
~!
0 ~
CO-CHA.IRS:
JOINT WARREN COUNTY/STATE PCB LANDFILL
WORKING GROUP
DOLUE B. BURWEU
HENRY LANCASTER
October 8, 1997
C. Thomas Hendrickson, Chairman
Triangle Environmental, Inc.
P.O. Box 41087
Raleigh, N.C. 27629
Dear Mr. Hendrickson:
The Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group (Working Group) received your
proposal dated September 15, 1997. The Working Group considered your proposal and voted to not
accept your proposal at this time; primarily because both companies were represented at the pre-bid
conference (February 17, 1997) and decided not to bid. Later it was brought to the attention of the
co-chair that only companies with base catalyzed decomposition and gas phase reduction were
allowed to bid. In fairness the Science Advisors were asked to review your technologies. (See report
attached) They discovered that the technologies did not meet several criteria of the RFP and
recommended that the technologies not be considered for detoxification. Based upon that
recommendation the Working Group regrettably denies your request. However, we do appreciate
your interest and we thank you for trying to aid us with the detoxification of our landfill.
Sincerely,
/J~6 &~
Dollie B. Burwell, Co-chair
DBB/drf
Attachment
720 Ridgeway Street -Warrenton, N. C. 27589
Phone [phone] -Fax [phone]
.BF A Environmental Consultants -==---o a w __, w ca =--~
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Kelley and the Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P.O ., Science Advisor
DATE: October 15, 1997
SUBJECT: Water in the Landfill
BFA #95 -017 .01
The purpose of this memo is to clearly state my position concerning the water in the landfill . As
you know, in my opinion, the site investigation and data analysis performed strongly indicates
that water is both entering the landfill through the upper liner system and leaving the facility
through the bottom liner system. Moreover, this is supported by the results of the analytical
te.sting of two wells adjacent to the facility (lA and 50) which both indicate the presence of
dioxins. The period of record reviewed indicates that leakage out of the facility has been
occurring for at least the last 5 years. This means the potential exists that a substantial area of
impact exists immediately beneath the landfill. The soil or groWldwater immediately beneath the
facility was not tested. Although the severity of the impact beneath the landfill is unknown, it is
known that the existence of approximately 15 feet of water in the landfill acts as a driving force
for continued releases.
I realize that the desire exists to keep the facility in as poor a condition as possible to str1::ngthcn
the case for detoxification, however, it is more important that prodent steps t() protec.t the
environment be made whenever possible and as quickly as possible. Moi:eover, no temporary
measure could ever take the place of the long-term detoxification solution. The need for
detoxification must be able to stand on its own, which I feel it clearly can.
( therefore strongly recommend that the Working Group formally ask the State to proceed
irnmediately with a program to safely and effectively remove the water from the facility. I have
an3lyzcd the geotech.nical data on the landfill contents and can assist in the design of an
extraction system,
PAB/p,g, 10-ISMX ------··
Poat-Ir Fax Nota 7671 Date
3655 Maguir• Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando. Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
._, l. I I ..;;I..;.,.' ~ I /"""l'I I '"'-Ut'I
October 20, 1997 .......................................................................... by FAX (3 pages)
To: Working Group [through Doris, preferably by fax)
From: Joel.Hirschhorn
Re: Water in the LnodflU
Thexe is no doubt that water in the landfill is an indication of a failed containment system and that
it is a condition that must roceive attention., particularly because it violates federal legal
requirements for such a landfill.
The real issue is when the state will perform some type of conect.ive action to remove the water
and to ensure that more water does not continue to build up in the land.fill, which means having an
effective leachate collection syst~ which again this landfill does not now have. 1he "~hen"
issue, however, is also connected to the detoxification issue.
Some citizens in the community have correctly been conce1ned that applyw.g fixes to the landfill.
like pumping water out and fudng the leachate collection system, could make it more difficult, and
perhaps impossible, to get the state to spend a co11siderabl)· larger sum of money on
deto,ci£ication.
Pat Bame& said "The need for detoxificatiou mm be able to stand on its own, which l feel it
clearly can." This statement is not necessarily correct and consistent "'ith how all federal and
state agencies in the nation currently make cleanup decisions. especially ones involviug millions of
dollars. The fundamental problem facing the Warren County enmmunity is that the longstanding
promise of the Governor and the state to e\'entually provide detoxification is not entirely
consistent with the normal, bureaucratic, and regulatory means used by government to justify a
detoxification kind of cleanup. What are the normal means for government ageuc;es to defend
implementing multimillion dollar cleanups based on treatment or detoxification technology·:, lt
comes down to proving with data a significant tlneat to health or environment and then sho\.\11ng
through co~-beoefit types of analyses that no lower cost type of cleanup action can mitigate the
risks.
For the Wan:en County PCB Landfill one can objectively consider the CWTent con.dition of the
landfill, and a coodition after the state might dewater the landfill and fix the leachate collectiou
system. .In the first case, the burden would be to demonstrate an unacceptably high Jevd of risk to
public health or envixonment based on data showing BOIH releases of toxic substan~s from the
land.fill AND actual impacts to health or environment because of actual exposure to the releases.
Even though we have con&iderable evidence of a leaking landfill that has released some ofits toxic
contents to the environment outside the landfill, l can unequivocally say professionally that it
would be highly unlikely that any analyses could be c.onducted to make a conventional case,
1
~•-21-1997 0 : 17At--1 FROM
following current rules and procedures, supportin.g a multimiJlion dollar cleanup based on
detoxification. Cleuly, if the state dewaters the landfill and fixes the leachate collection system,
the ability to make a conventional case for detoxification becomes even more unlikely.
There arc, of course, other arguments that can and should be made for dcto,cification, but they do
not have the power of cwrent governmental cleanup program requirements behind them
Certainly, the promise of the Governor and the state to detoxify the landfill when feasible
technology became available bas a fundamental moral authority to it. The Governor made a
promise to the county on behalf of the state and that promise can now be fulfilled. But this is a lot
different than having current statutes and regulations to support detoxification. Similar!)', the
community can argue that having the PCB Landfill exerts a continuing negative force on
economic development in the coU11ty, making the landfill a cause of poorer community we1f are
and unfairly condemwng local residents to poorer economic conditions.
Pat Barnes seems to suggest that an ugument can be made to show that spending some $25
million on detoxilicatio11 ·will in the long tmn be more cost-effective than fixing defects in the
landfill. As a professional dealing with cleanups for nearly twenty years, l am telling the working
group that I do not believe that an accurate, quutitative analysis can be performed to show that
this is actually the case. If normal economic analysis procedures are folJowed, it will be found, as
it routinely is for similar types of sites, that the long term flow of expeoditures for periodic
maintenance and repair (including even considerable environmental monitoring uowld the land6U)
vvil1 cost less money than a one time expenditure of some $2S million. 1hiuk of it this way: if the
state spent $ I million during the next year to fix the landfill and also put a $1 million int.o a
dedicated landfill account earning interest, then it would have a flow of monies for pcrpetuitJ
sufficient to fund continued maintenance, repair, and monitoring of the landfill. That is S2 million
versus $25 million for near term detoxification.
The only major way this situation changes, is if an argument can be made that at some time it
would become necessary to fully remediate the bndfil~ such as through detoxification, because of
some catastrophic failure (i.e., release of to,cic substances) that caused sufficient damage to public
health or environment to justify full remediation through deto,cification. In that case~ it can be
argued that it is cheaper to do the detoxification sooner rather than later. One reason is that the
eventual cleanup would probably involve addressing more contaminated materials reqwring
detoxification than an earlier cleanup. But how realistic is that scenario? Without a large
residential community living very close to the landfill and without use of local groundwater for
drinlcin.g water pmposes, ma.king that case is difficuh. Even if contaminated groun.dwatCl' was
fowid at greater distances from the landfill, govel1llllent agencies would nonnally first consider
some pumping approach to hah the spread of the groundwater before it is used fer any ptUpose,
including, for example, irrigation for farms. This approach to gro1D1dw1ter problems is routinely
use for landfills, rather than excavation and treatment, because the cost is considerably J~s
Because of the EPA noncompliance notification to the state, the state will have to address the
water in the landfill. But I grooelv recommend that the Workina GroUJ) 111ply all possible
2
P ,•, . "'-
-~-21-1997 1 . 33AM FROM
wessure on tbe state to ensure that the state responds to EPA w a plao that includes mcnilii
toward detoxification based primarily on the proven availability offeuible detoxification
~chnology. That plan, as indicated by Bill Meyer at the Jut meeting, can also include steps to
dewater the landfill, even linking it to a more efficient and cost-effective deto,ci,6.cation e.Jfoit.
However, there is no pr\JVen emergency situation and tbe data we have obtained do not shov,,.
widespread releases of landfill contCllts. I respectfully disagree with Pat Bames recommendation
that in some way the state must 11procecd immediately" with dewatering. There simply is too
much risk that tl1e state may subtly slip out of its original commitment for detoxification once
band~aid repairs arc made. Both the state and EPA consciously let the landfill exist for many,
m,.ny years without an operating leachate oollectioo system and without removing the water
known to be in it from its very beginning. What does this history demonstrate? Most people
would conclude that both the state and federal government perceived no great th,eat and no
particular need to spend even a relatively small sum of money on repairing the umdfill. Yes, the
Govtmor made a promise to the county, but where is the evidence that, now that detoxification
technology has been shown to be feasible and commercia.Uy available, the mate is willing to spend
a much greater amount of money on detoxification? Logicall}', the Working Group should remain
very skeptical and keep focused on the main goal, which is detoxification, not repair of the
land.fill. and not dewateiing it.
3
P . l