NCD980602163_19950601_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Joint Working Group, 1 June 1995-OCR

FROM NC DIU HAZEROUS WASTE 06.05.1995 15:09
; ~OtNT WARREN COUNTY /~ATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
: . \ . . June 1, 1995
I • • • :
. : he Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group met June 1, 199~,
m, the {Jury Room Qf the Warren County Court House, Warrenton. The three co-chairs-
-¥&. qoUfe Burwell, Mr. Ken Ferruccio, and Mr. Henry Lancaeter--began the meeting
at 4:10 p~. •
'
: h~ rnfnute~ of the May 18 meeting were read and approved with one correctio.n
noted Y: ~&. Billie Elmore. •
I I
: he! group hbld a discussion concerning the possibility of an interim contract with ei e~ Me. Pauline Ewald or Ma. Hope Taylor. Mr. Ferruccio said that during a
tel~pho e cortversa,'tion with Ms. Ewald, she had agreed to do the three items on the
scope o wprk (valued at $10,500) on a voluntary basis. However, this offer was not
m}do wtitlflg. Some members of the group wanted to continue with Ms. Ewald so
th re u.ld be an element of continuity to the work. Other members of the group
ex · roe d µieir con'.cems about continuing to work with Ms. Ewald because she had
not defi nd~d hfl"r report on an item-by-item basis, her report contained errors, she
failed t prpvide work and information the group requested, she f'ailed to provide
inf9rm • on on time, she failed to attend meetings or have a deeignee attend, and she 1
had ex s1s f'or eve~ing. •
: e. Therese Vick noted that Ms. Ewald had given no indication at a previous
me~tin , th~t she wished to continue her work with the group. Ms. Burwell said Ms. ,
Ew4l}d 1ad iattempted to let Mr. Lancaster kn.ow she was interested in continuing her
work wi the group, but there were some complications with communications and
faxes. eydral members of the group pointed out that Ms. Ewald could have followed
up With dltphone calls, but did not.
! s, Sharron Rogers aaid that Ms. Hope Taylor had contacted the vendors and
alr$dy ad eome information that she could share with the group. Mr. Jim Warren
poit).ted utl that Ms :Taylor had p1~vided in two weeks what the group had begged for .
frortl Me Ewald for several months. Ms. Vick suggested that Ms. Ewald be informed in
a ta.,ctful :manner of the problems that the group had encountered with her previously.
i
i M . ~urw,..11 said that both Ms. Ewald and Ms. Taylor were qualified to do the
ne~ ph se~ of work. She said Me. Ewald was unwilling to do phases two and three of •
the wor if ~s. Taylor did phase one. Ms. Ewald does not want to work on a team with
Ms. iTayl r.: She aleo prefers to work with her own staff.
' !
• M .. ~aria Holcomb said that the group needed to hear what Ms. Taylor had to
say. Mr. Fetruccio suggested that Ms. Ewald and Ms Taylor should each be allowed to
m~e th ir case to the working group. Ms. Burwell recommended that the working
gro~p ta le ric pree~nt discussion and go to the next item of business.
\ M . !~ogcrs made a presentation on bioremediation and its relationship to the •
PCBLan t1U in Warren County. She provided the group with handouts about this
process. M~. Rogers leaid that eamples from the Warren County PCB Landfill had been
sent tot e OE corpotate laboratory in New York and the EPA laboratory in Atlanta.
I •
p. 2
FROM NC DIU HAZEROUS WASTE 06.05.1995 15:09
: I I . • •
s4enti t~\in both labs said that slow dechlorination was occurring in the Warren :
C~~nt~P'f~ t,andfill. Based on the Bamples, the scientists estimate that 15-25 percent
of~e qnnes have been removed.· Ms Rogers noted that the bioremediation proces1s
th~t h opcurred in the landfill is not enough and it is not happening fast enough.
She s 'd that the r~search community is very interested in the landfill because it is
sltjall, ontaifted, anaerobic, water-filled, and there are no other major constituents
pr~sen . Ms. :Rogers indicated that the Institute of Oas Technology, EPA, and OE are.
~g o 40 some bioremediation work on a volunteer basis. She expressed her hope
th4t W rci1n Count}' might consider bioremediation as a possible option in addition to
th~ BC ptocess.
' I
•. s. \ooborah'. Ferruccio said that while the project was interesting, Ms. Ewald
had tol tQe group that it did not need to use this process. She also did not like the
po;sibl inrolve~etj.t of the EPA. Mr. Ferruccio asked if _the samples se~t to the other
labs we e taken in Ms. Ewald'e presence. Ms. Rogers srud that the original ones were .
tal<en i MFi. Ewald':s presence, but not the later samples. Ms. Rogers suggested that
the gro p qonsidor bioremodiation ae an option because it could have national
implica ·oqe for other communities with PCB problems. Mr. Warren said he was not
corlvinc d that Me. Ewald was fully aware of the state of the bioremediation
technol gyl
r, Lancastet said that the co".'chairs had met with Senator Frank Balance.
SeQator Ba,ance ia agreeable to pursuing $2 million to $3 million for the pilot studies
as well s setting up a part time office in Warren County. He indicated that funds for a
long-ter project would have to be brought before the General Assembly in the short
session. Senator Balance is also willing to talk with Oovemor Hunt about this project.
Mr.'. W en said that with that amount of money, possibly more could be done. Mr.
Lancast r ~greed ailice estimated costs for the pilot studies range from $150,000 to
$500,0 . ~e gro~p generally agreed to provide Senator Balance with any assistance
or ~upp rt fle knight need. :
: s. Taylor gave an update on the technology screening process (see attached
hatldou . ~he reviewed what the group had developed already as well as the criteria
usea in ,ltPA feasibility study for Superf'und site remediation. She listed nine
crit~ria d, auggeat~d a ranking scale. Ms. Taylor reviewed materials from the Division
of Solid aMe Management concerning technology screening. She found the 1993
Re~edi ·o* TechnoJogies Screening Ma~ and Re~erence Guide helpful, but noted
that it not contain the most up-to•date mformat1on on some processes such as
BCD .
M . 'tayior also distributed a summary of her contacts with the potential pilot
stu4y ve dqre. She ~eviewed the information she had from each vendor, including the
amount f eoil needed for the pilot study, the estimated cost, and time factors. Mr.
Lan~ast e.~ked if a tpilot project had to be done on site or if it could be done
elsel'J'he . Mr. Bill Meyer &aid that such projects could be done anywhere, but that a
TSO" pe . t would be required if a certain quantity of the soil were stored, It was
sug$eete that sorne of the group's standards, criteria, etc., concerning the pilot
projects ·~ ,hared WJ.th Senator Balance.
• M . :Meyer said that finalizing the screening process was fundamental to moving .
; [
: i
. I
p. 3
FROM NC DIU HAZEROU S WASTE 06.05.199 5 15• 10
alo~. ~ F~cclo asked if she could meet with the screening sub-committee as a .
loCfil .. co u~ty re~resentative. Mr. Meyer said that if the community did not want .
on;slte r ff-~ite incineration, then that should be part of the criteria.
: r. ~caster asked about the significance of EPA approval. Mr. Meyer said
tha,'t sta e Qr EPA approval of a project means that it is okay to try the project. Such
approv d~ea not xtj.ean that it is a ptoven technology. :
s. t'aylor od'ered to do the screening and then meet with the group to see what
the co u'.nity feelt:l is acceptable. Mr. Meyer asked if the group wanted to hold a
conµnu ity meeting concerning the screening process and community acceptability of
certain echnologies. Ms. Ferruccio said she thought the working group spoke for the
com.mu ity~ Mr. Warren suggested inviting the community to the next regular meeting
of tlie w rkJ.ng group. Mr. Ferruccio wanted to first discues the possibility with Ms.
Burwell. •
. Lancastet offered to accept the work of the subcommittee and come up with
a repo eQdation f()r the RFP. The group agreed. •• •
I
e. taylor aslced the ~ubcommittee members to send th_eir comments to her by
Ju1'e 9. Sh~ would then review them and aet up another meeting. • I •
1 M . i:i'erruccio; informed Me. Taylor that the working group he.d not made a
dec~sion coiicerning :an interim contract. Ms. Taylor agreed to do the technology
scr~nin o~ a volurlteer basis. •
. ! . I
e fedting doncluded at 7:03 pm.
e Jext meeihlg of the working group will be on June 15 at 4 pm.
I
l " , l 1 l ,!l. •
p. 4
06.05.1995 15:08 FROM NC DIU HAZEROUS WASTE
-,...,~U.,CA"-.J/~ut,(.,t..J
_n/)_ -.... ,.· .. _+_ -! ' ~../f~
I i IU~~ ~
I ; I ' tuP-d. J~ .,'1ht,J
• Tb~ next meetlllg of
t :,1 Joint \Vatren p ·~U-ty/State PCB
t 1:pdftll Working Group
-,.V ll ~e on :Thursday,
J" 'he 15, 1995 at 4 pm
i I the Jury Room,
W '1rren Co·unty Court a I Us~, Warrenton.
p. 1
i :
...
JOINT WARREN COUNTY /STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
June 1, 1995
The Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group met June 1, 1995,
in the Jury Room of the Warren County Court House, Warrenton. The three co-chairs-
-Ms. Dollie Burwell, Mr. Ken Ferruccio, and Mr. Henry Lancaster--began the meeting
at 4: 10 pm.
The minutes of the May 18 meeting were read and approved with one correction
noted by Ms. Billie Elmore.
The group held a discussion concerning the possibility of an interim contract
with either Ms. Pauline Ewald or Ms. Hope Taylor. Mr. Ferruccio said that during a
telephone conversation with Ms. Ewald, she had agreed to do the three items on the
scope of work (valued at $10,500) on a voluntary basis. However, this offer was not
made in writing. Some members of the group wanted to continue with Ms. Ewald so
there would be an element of continuity to the work. Other members of the group
expressed their concerns about continuing to work with Ms. Ewald because she had
not defended her report on an item-by-item basis, her report contained errors, she
failed to provide work and information the group requested, she failed to provide
information on time, she failed to attend meetings or have a designee attend, and she
had excuses for everything. a ~" ,....._ .. 0 f) Mi\ ('tv\,,__ . ~. ~ \ \~' . ~~ ~R-~ ~· r .\J-:-:··~ N\"',,~~ 'f'i~Y\~
Ms. Therese Vick~ that Ms. Ewald had given no indication at a previous
meeting that she wished to continue her work with the group. Ms. Burwell said Ms.
Ewald had attempted to let Mr. Lancaster know she was interested in continuing her
work with the group, but there were some complications with communications and
faxes. Several members of the group pointed out that Ms. Ewald could have followed
up with telephone calls, but did not.
Ms. Sharron Rogers said that Ms. Hope Taylor had contacted the vendors and
already had some information that she could share with the group. Mr. Jim Warren
pointed out that Ms Taylor had provided in two weeks what the group had begged for
from Ms. Ewald for several months. Ms. Vick suggested that Ms. Ewald be informed in
a tactful manner of the problems that the group had encountered with her previously.
Ms. Burwell said that both Ms. Ewald and Ms. Taylor were qualified to do the
next phases of work. She said Ms. Ewald was unwilling to do phases two and three of
the work if Ms. Taylor did phase one. Ms. Ewald does not want to work on a te with
Ms. Taylor. She also prefers to work with her own staff. ~ f lJ ~ ~~
Ms. Daria Holcomb said that the group needed to hear~ Ms. Taylor . ad to ~
say. Mr. Ferruccio suggested that Ms. Ewald and Ms Taylor should each be allowed to ~
make their case to the working group. Ms. Burwell recommended that the working 'flll:~.._ •
group table the present discussion and go to the next item of business.
Ms. Rogers made a presentation on bioremediation and its relationship to the
PCB Landfill in Warren County. She provided the group with handouts about this
process. Ms. Rogers said that samples from the Warren County PCB Landfill had been
sent to the GE Corporate Research Development Laboratory in New York and the EPA
"
Region IV Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Scientists in both labs said that slow
dechlorination was occurring in the Warren County PCB Landfill. Based on the
samples, the scientists estimate that 15-25 percent of the chlorines have been
removed. Ms Rogers noted that the on-going bioremediation process that has occurred
in the landfill is not enough and it is not happening fast enough. She said that the
research community is very interested in the landfill because it is small, contained,
anaerobic, water-filled, and there are no other major constituents present. Ms. Rogers
indicated that the Institute of Gas Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, EPA, and
GE are willing to do some bioremediation work on a volunteer basis. She expressed
her hope that Warren County might consider bioremediation as a possible option in
addition to the BCD process.
Ms. Deborah Ferruccio said that while the project was interesting, Ms. Ewald
had told the group that it did not need to use this process. She also did not like the
possible involvement of the EPA. Mr. Ferruccio asked if the samples sent to the other
labs were taken in Ms. Ewald's presence. Ms. Rogers said that the original ones were
taken in Ms. Ewald's presence, but not the later samples. Ms. Rogers suggested that
the group consider bioremediation as an option because it could have national
implications for other communities with PCB problems. Mr. Warren said he was not
convinced that Ms. Ewald was fully aware of the state of the bioremediation
technology.
Mr. Lancaster said that the co-chairs had met with Senator Frank Balance.
Senator Balance is agreeable to pursuing $2 million to $3 million for the pilot studies
as well as setting up a part time office in Warren County. He indicated that funds for a
long-term project would have to be brought before the General Assembly in the short
session. Senator Balance is also willing to talk with Governor Hunt about this project.
Mr. Warren said that with that amount of money, possibly more could be done. Mr.
Lancaster agreed since estimated costs for the pilot studies range from $150,000 to
$500,000. The group generally agreed to provide Senator Balance with any assistance
or support he might need.
Ms. Taylor gave an update on the technology screening process (see attached
handout). She reviewed what the group had developed already as well as the criteria
used in an EPA feasibility study for Superfund site remediation. She listed nine
criteria and suggested a ranking scale. Ms. Taylor reviewed materials from the Division
of Solid Waste Management concerning technology screening. She found the 1993
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide helpful, but noted
that it did not contain the most up-to-date information on some processes such as
BCD.
Ms. Taylor also distributed a summary of her contacts with the potential pilot
study vendors. She reviewed the information she had from each vendor, including the
amount of soil needed for the pilot study, the estimated cost, and time factors. Mr.
Lancaster asked if a pilot project had to be done on site or if it could be done
elsewhere. Mr. Bill Meyer said that such projects could be done anywhere, but that a
TSCA permit would be required if a certain quantity (500 pounds) of the soil were
moved off site or stored. It was suggested that some of the group's standards, criteria,
etc., concerning the pilot projects be shared with Senator Balance.
Mr. Meyer said that finalizing the screening process was fundamental to moving
along. Ms. Ferruccio asked if she could meet with the screening sub-committee as a
local community representative. The group approved Ms. Ferruccio's request to meet
with that committee. Mr. Meyer said that if the community did not want on-site or off-
site incineration, then that should be part of the criteria.
Mr. Lancaster asked about the significance of EPA approval. Mr. Meyer said
that state or EPA approval of a project means that it is okay to try the project. Such
approval does not mean that it is a proven technology.
Ms. Taylor offered to do the screening and then meet with the group to see what
the community feels is acceptable. Mr. Meyer asked if the group wanted to hold a
community meeting concerning the screening process and community acceptability of
certain technologies. Ms. Ferruccio said she thought the working group spoke for the
community. Mr. Warren suggested inviting the community to the next regular meeting
of the working group. Mr. Ferruccio wanted to first discuss the possibility with Ms.
Burwell.
Mr. Lancaster offered to accept the work of the subcommittee and come up with
a recommendation for the RFP. The group agreed.
Ms. Taylor asked the subcommittee members to send their comments to her by
June 9. She would then review them and set up another meeting.
Ms. Ferruccio informed Ms. Taylor that the working group had not made a
decision concerning an interim contract. Ms. Taylor agreed to do the technology
screening on a volunteer basis.
The meeting concluded at 7:03 pm.
The next meeting of the working group will be on June 15 at 4 pm.