NCD980602163_19970110_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_PCB Air Emissions-OCR

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Klimek, P.E.
January 10, 1997
FROM: Laura S. Butler, P.E., Chief ~
SUBJECT: PCB Landfill
Warren County
AVA
DEHNR
Attached are three documents prepared by the Division of Epidemiology concerning the
review of recent reports on air emissions from the Warren County PCB Landfill
(Attachments 1, 2 and 3). The Division of Epidemiology has recommended that additional
PCB sampling be performed at the Warren County PCB Landfill.
Both the Division of Air Quality Raleigh Regional Office with the assistance of the
Technical Services S'ection and the Division of Waste Management have agreed to
conduct air monitoring at the Warren County PCB Landfill (Attachments 4 and 5).
I recommend that the air monitoring be conducted with oversight of the Department to
ensure that the air monitoring is accomplished with the corporation and coordination of all
interested parties, including the Division of Air Quality, the Division of Waste Management,
the Division of Epidemiology and the Warren County PCB Landfill Working Group and its
science advisors, Dr. Joel Hirschhorn and Patrick Barnes.
Please advise me if you need additional information.
C: Bill Pate
Bill Meyer
Lee Daniel
George Murray
Ernie Fuller
Attachments (5)
P.O. Box 29580, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0580
Voice [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
50°/o recycles/10% post-consumer paper
A-tt~<--hYY\t.r\t 1 State-of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Michael Moser, M.D., M.P.H.
January 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Laura S. Butler, P.E., Chief
AVA
DEHNR
FROM:
Air Permits Section f
. \
William J. Pate, P .E., C.I.H., Head VJ
·-·-···•···•--.....
Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment Branch
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
SUBJECT: Warren County PCB Landfill
In your December 16, 1996 memo, you requested that the Occupational and
Environmental Epidemiology Section (OEES) provide guidance and input on concerns about
potential human health risks posed by the Warren County PCB Landfill. Luanne Williams, a
toxicologist in this Section, reviewed the documents that you sent to me and based on requests
from Bill Meyer has prepared two memos addressing review of acceptable dioxin cleanup levels
and risk assessment of PCB air sampling data collected in 1983 by Robert G. Lewis. Copies of
these memos are enclosed. There is some uncertainty associated with the risk assessment of the
air sampling data because of the small amount of data available and because this data was
collected more than ten years ago.
The OEES would be glad to assist you in evaluating additional sampling data if it is
collected. Please call me at 715-6432 if you want more information.
WJP:lp
Enclosures
cc: Dr. Luanne Williams
Dr. Stan Music
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687
NfJC
ltffldt'ntffl
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina AfuL.hr\"\Q.r\t ~
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epi demiology
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. How es, Secretary
Michael Moser, M.D., M.P.H.
December 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM ' -' •
i ; . JAN 8 !997
TO: Bill Meyer, Director
THROUGH:
Divisi_on of'\JVaste Management ~'. i .: . . .
Stanley Music, M.D., DTPH (LOND.), Chief' , 2 tfJ-~-_:_~----
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Sectio . .
William J. Pate, Head
Medical Evaluation and· Risk Assessment Branch
.,. Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
FROM: Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D., Toxicologistt{ ~
Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment Branch
• Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
SUBJECT: Review of Dioxin Cleanup Levels for the Warren County PCB Lan?fill
Proposed by Hirschhorn & Associates
I have reviewed the document prepared by Dr. Joel Hirschhorn titled "Cleanup Levels
for Dioxin Contaminated Soils." My recommendations with regard to the derivation of
cleanup levels for dioxins and furans and sampling are as follows:
1. Dr. Hirschhorn has proposed 2 to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) as the residential cleanup level
based upon a target excess cancer risk of 1 x 10-5 (one in a million). The recommended
target cleanup level for dioxin will be dependent upon the current or future use of the
site, use of the groundwater, and background concentrations. Guidance for determining
the target cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) is provided as follows:
RESIDENTIAL SOIL CLEANUP LEVEL
If the site is, or may be in the future, a residential area or in an area where activities of
sensitive human receptor populations occur (e.g., schools, day-care facilities, and
retirement centers), then the soil target concentration should be based on residential
exposure. The recommended soil cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in a residential area is
4 ppt (USEPA Region Ill Risk-Based Concentration Table, April 1996). The ora l slope
factor used to calculate 4 ppt was obtained from the USEPA 1995 Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables. The oral slope factor was determined by USEPA based
P.O. Box 27687 , Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687 N!iC
Ptiiffl(•tffl
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Ac tion Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Bill Meyer
December 10, 1996
Page Two
upon the 1984, 1985, and 1989 review of the study Kociba RJ, Keyes DG, Bower JW et
al., 1978. "Results of a Two-year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Rats." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 46(2):279-303.
In 1984, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) staff released a paper that contained
recommendations of 1 ppb or 1000 ppt as a level that would not likely result in adverse
effects in a residential area and according to CDC would correspond to an excess
cancer risk of 1 x1 b·6. Using the oral slope factor in the US EPA 1995 HEAST, a
residential soil dioxin concentration of 1000 ppt would correspond to a 2.5 x 10-4 excess
cancer risk. It is recommended to use 4 ppt instead of 1000 ppt as a cleanup level in a
residential area.
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SOIL CLEANUP LEVEL
If tf,e site is, or may be in the future, an area where adult worker exposure occurs, then
the soil cleanup level should be based on industrial/commercial exposure. The
recommended soil cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in an industrial/commercial area is 40
ppt (USEPA Region Ill Risk-Based Concentration Table, April 1996).
SOIL-TO-GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVEL
If the groundwater in this area is being used for drinking, then transport modeling may
be necessary to determine the maximum allowable dioxin soil concentration that would
not result in exceedance of the dioxin groundwater quality standard. If groundwater is
being used for drinking, then the soil cleanup level would be the lowest of the soil-to-
groundwater cleanup level; or the residential or industrial/commercial cleanup level
(whichever is applicable).
SOIL BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
If the TCDD soil cleanup level is determined to be less than the soil background
concentrations, then it is recommended to use the soil background concentration as the
TCDD soil cleanup level. I have enclosed guidance for collecting background samples
which was obtained from USEPA 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (EPA/540/1-89/002).
2. Dr. Hirschhorn & Associates are proposing higher toxicity equivalents factors (TEFs)
than those recommended by EPA for chlorinated dioxin and furan congeners . This
would result in lower cleanup levels. Higher TEFs are proposed to be used because of
the likelihood of synergistic effects from exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). I caution the use of higher TEFs because of the uncertainty in
synergism between dioxins/furans and PCBs. Also, I caution the use of higher TEFs
because conservative assumptions have already been considered in deriving the TCDD
carcinogenic slope factor and in deriving the exposure parameter values used to
Bill Meyer
December 10, 1996
Page Three
generate the TCDD cleanup level. The TEFs recommended by EPA and other state
should be used to determine cleanup levels for dioxin and furan congeners . A list of the
TEFs recommended by EPA is provided in Table 1 (USEPA 1995 Supplemental
Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins Human Health Risk Assessment).
The soil cleanup level for eacr(dioxin and furan congener found at the site can be
calculated by divi'ding the cleanup level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD by the appropriate TEF. If Dr.
'Hirschhorn has scientific evidence to support different TEFs, then I would like the
opportunity to review it.
Table 1. Toxicity Equivalents Factors (TEF} for CDDs and CDFs*
,.
Dioxin Compound TEF Furan Compound TEF
2,3,7 ,8-TCDD 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1
2, 3, 7, 8-PeCDD 0.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05**
2,3,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5**
2,3,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 2,3,7,8-HxCDF 0.1
OCDD 0.001 2,3,7,8-HpCDF 0.01
Other CDDs 0 OCDF 0.001
Other CDFs 0
* Source: EPA, 1995. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletin s Human Health Risk Assessment.
** Correction noted per telephone conversation with EPA Region 4 on November 27, 1996.
3. .. I have discussed the issues pertaining to this site with Dr. Renate Kimbrough with the
Institute for Evaluating Health Risks in Washington, D.C. She has expressed an interest
in reviewing the sampling protocol. She can be reached by phone at 202-289-8721 or
fax [phone]. Her address is as follows: Institute for Evaluating Health Risks, Suite
402, 1629 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Please feel free to call me at any time. I can be reached at 715-6429. Thank you for
~he opportunity to review the report.
LKW:lp
Enclosures
' i"JCBs
5. POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE:
degrading org:rn1sms or, alternatively, by adding a genetically ePgineered strain that combines the
activities of mixed cultures (Unterman et al. 1989). Since PCB degrad:-ition is a co-rnetaholic
process, Lhe ~ddition of biphenyl or monochlorobiphenyls as growth substrates to supply the
nutritional requirements and to induce the catabolic pathway is required to sustain the growth of the
degrader population for biodegradation of PCBs in soil (Guilbeault et al. 1994; Hickey et al. 1993).
In addition, the presence of surface active agents has been shown to increase the bioavailability of
PCBs to the microorganisms. However,_. enriched cultures were unable to bi ode grade PCB
congeners containing five 'or higher chl6"rine substitution (Guilbeault et al. 1994). It has been
> •
reported that the mono-, and di-chlorobenzoate, and possibly other higher chlorobenzoates formed
from aerobic degradation of PCBs act as inhibitors towards further degradation of higher chlorinated
PCBs (Guilbeault et al. 1994). Therefore, the efficiency of PCB degradation is not only controlled
by the enzyme substrate selectivity pattern, but also by the metabolite production pattern.
5.4 LEVELS MONITORED OR ESTIMATED IN THE ENVIRONM~NT
5.4.1 Air
The atmospheric concentrations of PCBs in various locations are given m Table 5-2. The range of 7-.;
atmospheric concentrations of PCBs in urban areas is 1-10 ng/m3 with a mean of 5 ng/m3
(Eisenreich et al. 1992). The atmospheric concentrations of PCBs in two rural areas are in the range
0.2-0.95 ng/m3 with a mean of 0.6 ng/3 and in two remote areas are in the range of 0.02-tu 8
ng/m3 "with a mean of <0.1 ng/m3 (see Table 5-2). The range and mean atmospheric PCB
concentrations in other locations are as follows: 0.01-0.7 ng/m3 and 0.1 ng/m3, respectively, m
marine/coastal areas; and 0.2-4.0 ~g/m3 and 1.0 ng/m3, respectively,. over . t~e Great Lakes
(Eisenre1ch et al. 1992). With the available data, it i.? difficult to establi?h the trend in atmospheric
--c--;-,------::-:-:-::---::.--.---:-:---.-.--;:-;-;---:--------:--;---:-:--::-:--;-;: ···-······•· .. ••••• • Pe:B--uincentrations over the last two decades following the cessation of PCB production. This is
because monitoring data indicating the levels of PCBs in air at the same location over this time
period are still lacking (levels from one location cannot be compared with levels from another
because of differing emission sources), and the recent studies (Schreitmueller and Ballschmiter
1994) generally report the atmospheric concentrations of the congeners and not the total PCBs or
Aroclors. On the basis of typical atmospheric concentrations of PCBs in pre-1980 samples
(Eisenreich et al. 1981) and the levels in more recent years (see Table 5-2), it can be concluded the
PCB concentrations in air may have shown a slightly decreasing trend from the pre-1980 lo post-
-.-
L:.<
7-:·
c.
·:--•
:..1."'··
,.
r"
:::---.,...-_ z.:: .. -;:·
'{··-
TAB LE 5-2. Atmospheric Concentrations of Polych lorinated Biphenyls
Location Year
Boston, MA 1978
Columbia, SC 1978
Columbia, SC 1985 , ...
College Station, TX 1979-1980
Newport News, VA 1988
Bloomingt6'n, IN 1986-1988
Chicago, IL 1989-1990 ·
Adirondack, NY 1985
Chesapeake Bay 1990-1991
Lake Superior 1986
Rural Ontario, Canada 1988-1989
Antarctica 1981-1982
Arctic 1986-1987
avalues are given as mean concentrations.
bValues at three different sites.
Concentrationa
(ng/m3)
7 .1
4.4
2.3
0.29
0.11-0.48
0.39
(0.185-0.794)
Summer: 1.74-3.84b
Winter: 0.31-0.62
13.5
(7 .55-20 .26)
0.95
(0.339-1.359)
0.21
(0.017-0.508)
1.25
0.2
(0.55-0.823)
(0.02-0.18)
0.02
Reference
Bidleman 1981
Bidleman 1981
Foreman and
Bidleman 1987
Atlas and Giam
1987
Knap and Binkley
1991
Hermanson and
Hites 1989
Holsen et al. 1991
Knap and Binkley
7 991
Leister and Baker
1994
Baker and
Eisenreich 1990
Hoff et al. 1992
Tanabe et al. 1983
Baker and
Eisenreich 1990
The ranges are given in parentheses.
,.
State of North Carolina ~VV\!1.V\ t 3
Department of En vironment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
James B. Hunt, Jr ., Governor
NA
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary DEHNR Michael Moser, M.D., M.P.H.
December 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: ~----· "',,--...,.,,.--~ V _,/
Bill Meyer, Director
Division of,Waste Management
,f
THROUGH: Stanley Music, M.D., DTPH (Lond.), Chief ----z~;)
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
FROM: Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D., Toxicologist o(-f w-
Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment Branch
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
At your request, I have provided a risk assessment following my review of the air
sampling results of the Warren County PCB Landfill reported in the 1983 USEPA study
"Measurement of Fugitive Atmospheric Emissions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Hazardous
Waste Landfills" and the December 3 letter from Dr. Robert G. Lewis, a co-author of the study.
RISK ASSESSMENT
1. The ambient air concentrations reported of 11, 12, 50, and 71 ng/m3 most likely exceed
the actual PCB concentrations present at the site for the following reasons:
'(a) the method used is not specific for PCBs but detects all chlorinated compounds
(b) ambient air concentrations were reported to be higher at 98 meters downwind
(50 and 71 ng/m3) than beside the main vent (11 ng/m3) and
(c) aroclor 1260 was the only analyte identified in ambient air even though aroclor
1242 was reported at much higher concentrations in the main vent.
2. It is my opinion that the ambient air concentrations reported are worst-case estimate of
the concentrations that may be present at the site. Therefore, a worst-case risk
estimate is provided based upon the concentrations reported at the following locations:
Locations
beside main vent
nearby house
fence line, downwind
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687
(cone. detected)
11 ng/m3
12 ng/m3
50 and 71 ng/m3
ewe e-·n, m
Excess Cancer Risk
1x10-5
1x10·5
5 to 7x10·5
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Bill Meyer
December 9, 1996
Page Two
If a million people were exposed to the concentrations reported at these three locations
over a lifetime, then one to seven of those individuals could possibly develop cancer as
a result of their exposure to the PCB concentrations reported . This cancer risk is a
worst-case estimate and is in addition to the existing cancer risk rate of 333 ,333 out of a
million expected cancer cases in a lifetime.
•'
The risk associated with exposure to the concentrations reported at the fenceline does
exceed the acceptable target excess cancer risk of 1 x1 o-6. However, the actual risk at
the site is most likely lower than 7x1 o-s because th~ PCB concentrations present at the
site are most likely lower than reported. The PCB air concentration associated with a
1 x1 o-s excess cancer risk (target risk) is 10 ng/m3. The fenceline exceeds th is level by
7.
3. The concentrations reported near the PCB landfill exceed typical background
concentrations in rural and urban areas. I have attached background concentrations
reported in the February 20, 1996 ATSDR Tox profile for PCBs. The highest reported
background concentration was 20 ng/m3 in Chicago in 1989-1990.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Contrary to Dr. Lewis' statement in his letter, it is my opinion that it is uncertain as to
whether or not PCBs are present at the site. Because PCBs were detected using a method
that is not specific for PCBs and since the excess cancer risk estimated at the fenceline
exceeds the acceptable target excess cancer risk of 1 x 10·5 , it is recommended to collect
additional vent and ambient air samples and analyze for aroclor 1242 and aroclor 1260 using a
more specific method. A carbon filter may also be used as suggested by BFA Environmental
Consultants to minimize PCB em issions from the landfill.
Please call me if you have any questions at 715-6429.
LKW:lp
Attachments
cc: Dr. Stan Music
Mr. Bill Pate
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
:rvrEMORANDUM
Air Permits Section
December 23, 1996
To: Lee A. Daniel, Chief
Technical Services Section
Through:
From:
Subject:
Alan Klimek ~v -..,
.f7/ Laura S. Butler, P.E., Chief/
Air Permits Section
PCB Air Emissions
Warren County PCB Landfill
Warren County
NA
DEHNR
Ernie Fuller, Regional Air Quality Supervisor, Raleigh Regional Office, has agreed to
conduct air monitoring at the PCB Landfill in Warren County. Ernie will be available to conduct
the monitoring after the first week in January 1997. I have suggested to Ernie, that the
monitoring be conducted with the cooperation and over-sight of the Joint Warren County/State
PCB Landfill Working Group, Science Advisors, Patrick Barnes and Joel Hirschhorn, and
representatives of the Division of Waste Management.
I am requesting that the Technical Services Section provide technical assistance to the
Raleigh Regional Office for this monitoring effort. You have stated that the Division of Waste
Management has the necessary monitoring equipment. As indicated to you earlier in my
memorandum ofDecember 16, 1996, the Warren County PCB Landfill Working Group is
concerned about potential human health effects and environmental impacts from PCB emissions.
Your earliest response is requested.
cc: Ernie Fuller
Bill Meyer
Bill Pate
George Murray
Lori Cherry
P.O. Box 29580. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0580
Voice [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycles/10% post-c onsumer paper
Michael A. Kelly, Deputy Director
Solid WasJe Management Division
Plea$:
_ Draft a reply for my si[P11JlW'e
Dale:
_ Take approprime action _; ___.. See me about attached
Jan 3 '97 11:02
A '.Prove ; • u -; ~ n.andlr: mid report to me
_ Note and return attached material tojme
Rcnar1:s: ••
\C) ~ ~;
i
~J"~ \-~ '
V\~
P. 01106 .
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone]
state of North Caroli1;1a
Department of Environment, Health and Natural R.:esources
Division of Solid Waste M::magement
Jan 3 '97 11=02 P.02106
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govei:nor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secietary
William L. Meyer. Directo;
SAMPLING PLAN SU~M.UY FOR:
~
~!·{'A
; --~_. an m
DEHNR
lVIEASUREMENT O:F FUGITIVE ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS OF :
POLYCHLORINA1;ED BIPHENYLS FROM THE PCB LANDFILL
WARR1}N COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Sampling Plan Date;
Sampling Plan Preparer:
I
j
rleccmbcr 18, 1996
~ierre Lauffoiffl
l;[ealth and Safety Coordinator
I~ivision of Waste Management
F;-aleigh, North Carolina 27605
Project Pnrticipants: .
Pierre Lauffer, HWS-H}alth and Safety Coordinator (Project Manager and Sampler)
John Kirby, HWS-En~ronmental Chemist (Project Chemist and Sampler)
Projected Sampling Dates:. C?/06-10/97
Site History:
1 Between June, 197& and Augw1t, 1978. over 30,000 gallons of industrial waste material
identified as polychorinated hivhenyls (Arochlor 1260 ~d 1262) were discharged deliberately
along the shoulders of approxhhately 210 miles of North 'Carolina highways. In June, 1979,
EPA approved a tract ofland (J)reviously used for agriculture) in Warren County, North Carolina
as the disposal site for the PCB-contamjnated roadside soil. The landfill (constructed in 1982-
1983 and permitted under the i'oxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) contains about 40,000 cubic
yards of soil contammated with PCBs. The concentration of PCBs in the landfill range from 150
to almost 900 part per million fpprn ), averaging about 350 ppm (1 ), bas_ed on 1994 subsurface
soil sampling results (these we:e retrieved from the bottom of the vent) .
• ~ P.O. Box 27687, Roleigh, North Corollna 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affir0ative Actfon Employer 5CH. recycled/ l O'I, post-consumer poper
1 I
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '97 11:02 P.03106
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (r.:CBs):
PCBs are a family of a:iomatic compounds consisting of two benzene nuclei bonded with
two or more chlorine molecuk:s. The PCBs of concern in trus study (the type existing in the
I landfill) are the Aroclors. :
Aroclors are characteri/~ed by four digit numbers. The first two (the number 12) indicate
that the mixture consists ofbirthenyls. The second two digits state the percentage by weight of
chlorine in the mixture (2). ,:
They tend to be colorl~ss to light yellow oily substances with a specific gravity of 1.4-1.5
(3). Due to their stability and honconductive properties, PCBs had many industrial uses
including use as insulation coa'.ting in electrical capacitors. PCBs possess, as a whole, high open
cup flashpoints (348-356° F.-.Aroclor 1242, none for Aroclor 1254 and 1260), but do readily
distill at temperatures above 3~~5°F. The distillation range for Aroclor 1242 is 325-366"F; for
Aroclor 1254, 365-390°F; Aroplor 1260, 385-420•F (4). •
Toxic eifccts from exp~)sure to PCBs in human include chloracne, pigmentation of skin
and nails, excessive eye dischaige and swelling of eyelids, and gastrointestinal distmbanccs.
PCBs are considered carcin.ogt:nic (5).
Because of thefr high t~xicity, detrimental harm to the environment and stable molecular
structure (structure remains in\act jn the environment for long periods of time) PCB manufacture
was discontinued in 1976. ;
Objective:
Generally the vapor pr~ssure of PCBs under normttl conditions in the PCB landfill in
Warren County is too low for ·,Jolatilization and cannot be emitted directly into the air
surrounding the landfill. PCB\ emissions carried into the air through the vaporization of more
volatile substances (ic. mclhan~, CO2, H2S) from the vent at the top of the landfill is improbable.
Though improbable:~ tb):~re remains a slim possib_ility that PCB contaminated air
particulate mattor may be trant:ported through the air in the area of the landfill. Due to the nature
of the landfill, however, it is n'._:>t believed that there are uncontrolled PCB emissions.
The objective of this study is to test this premise by detennining if there are uncontrolled ·' PCB emissions originating froh1. the Warren County PCB Landfill. The premise will be tested by
·' conducting ambient air sampling to determille if PCB contaminated air particulate matter and
vaporized PCB (Aroclors 124~!, 1254, and 1260) emissions ~ present The samples will be
analyzed by the North Carolini Public Health Laboratory. In addition. there \Vill be a risk
assessment conducted to dete<nine if the PCB emissions (if found) are a risk to the surrounding
communHy. ;
Materials and Methods: ,
Air sampling will be p}rfonned with low-volume (L V) and high-volume (HV) constant
air-flow sampling systems. 'fl1e components of the sampling systems consists of battery operated
constant .air-flow pumps (L V ~_,r HV) (Gil.air Pump by Gillan™, Models: Gilair3(L V) and
GilairS(HV)). 13 mm Gelman!Swinney :filter cartridges with 13mm, lµm pore-sized glass fiber
filters manifolded to ORBOn.tf60 100150mg, 6 x 70mm florisil sampling tubes. --
The pumps will be calibrated by the Gilian Gilibrator (digital calibrator) prior to and after
each sampling period. The gl~tss fiber filters will be precleaned prior to loading filter cartridges
by the North Carolina Public Health Laboratory and loaded at the laboratory by laboratory
'-i
'
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax :[phone] Jan 3 '97 11:03 P.04106
,
personnel. The sampling head (will consist of glass fiber filter cartridge followed by the florisil
tube. 'The two will be manifoked together by tubing. The purpose for this sampling system is to;
1) catch any possible PCB con:taminated particulates from the afr, 2) to filter PCBs which may
have vaporized. This system ~:vill then be manifolded to the sampling pump with plastic tubing.
There will be three s~lpling periods of eight hours. The sampling sessions will begin at
roughly 1 0:O0a111, 6:00pm and)2:00am. Each sampling period \\-ill be separated by one day.
The reason for this delay betwt':en sampling events is to provide time to recharge the air"flow
pumps (they require 16 hours t;f recharge time). Each _sampling period will consist of seven air-·
flow pumps and sampling unif.;. One -qnit will be located inside the vent on top of the landfill.
Two more units will be locateci two meters downwind from the vent (these will be seperated
from each other by one meter)!, Two other units will be located diagonally downwind at the
landfill fence line. One w1H will be located 200 meters straight downwind from the vent. The
air-flow rate 'ly\ill be calibrated1to NJOSH guidelines. NIOSH Sampling Method #5503:
Sampling for Polychlorobipbebyls states that air-flow rate should be 50-200cc per minute. The
flow-raie per unit will correspbnd to its distance from the vent-the further the pump is from the
vent, the greater its flow-rate. ~either sampling unit will be located 200 meters upwind and will
act as a background sampler. }_?rior to each sampling event, the wind direction and temperature
will be indicated by a portable!weather station established on the east sjde of the landfill.
NOTE: Please see attached o.iagra.m of the landfill showing sampling locations and a copy
of the NIOSH lab procedure;.
PKLJH&S/HWS/Dec96.
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '97 11:03 P.05106
····----·-·-------·
-------------. ··----·-· --,.--~---··---------·· ----·--·---· ·---····-·-------
_______ ,.., __ _
·--·- ··-------·-· ··--------------
...
-..... -..
-.. ····---····"-••' ·-· --......... • ···--·-·-·--·------.... ---···-·-···· -. ······--··---· ·-·-·--· •••••
•• J -
--,.
, NC-~ESIDENT INSPECTOR F~x:919-715-2715 Jan 3 '97 11:03 P.06105
mixture: C12H1~,C1,
[where x • 1 to lOJ
MW: ca. 2:8 (42% Cl ; C12H,Cli):
ca. 320 (54':. Cl i C12H5Cl5)
CAS; Table 1 RTECS: Table 1
OSHA : 1 mg/mi (42% Cl);
o.5 mg/m' (54% Cl)
NIOSH: 0.001 mg/m'/10 h (carc:r:c';;eni
ACG!H: 1 mg/m1 (42% Cl) (skin) ~
0.5 mg/m' (54% Cl) {skin) ;
EVALUATION: PARTIAL Issue t: 15 February 1984
Revision #t; 15 Au91..1$t 1967
Issue 2: 15 Auaust 1994
PROPERTIES: ~2% 0: BP 325 to 365 °C; MP -19 •c:
d US g/mL@ 25 °C;
VF 0.0, Pa (8 X 10·5 mn, Hg;
1 mg/m3) @ 20 °C
~4% Q; SP :365 to 390 °C; MP 10 °C;
d 1.54 g/mL @ 25 °C; VP
0.0004 Pa (3 x 10.a mm Hg:
o.os mg/r.1') @ zo •c
SYNONYMS: PCB: 1, 1 '-1:ii:;heny! chba: chloroci:phenyl, 42% Cl (Aroclot 1242):...].nd 54% Cl (Aroclor 1254) • j
SAMPLl!Hi :'
SAM Pt.ER: FV~R..+ .. s_ou.o. S.Of:GE:NT
(i3-mm ·grass 1ibar -t ·"iorisil,
.. -;1oo~g/5o me).,.· ,··
:.::, ': ....... ·-.-:·
.i
FLOW RA iE.~0-~S. Jc. (_).2 L/m!~ _ <?,r, i~'::s
VOL-MIil: t.J~~) J ~ _0.5 J!l~/!I,13
•MAX: .r -~O L • ••••
i
SHIPMENT: transfer filters 10 glasS:'vials af\2~ sami:lir.g
SAMPI.!::
STABILITY: u:-iknown for filter:;: .
B!.ANKS:
2 mc:it:is .f::Jr Florisil n)oes [·]
2 to 10 fi~fd blank~ pe·r set
'
ACCURACY; I
j
RANGE STUDIED: nett stud:ed
BIAS:
OVERALL F'RECISION ($rr}:
ACCURACY:
n~:,e i~enlified
nc;t evalu.:.ted ·,
nc.1! determined
::
i
iTECHNIQU2.:
ANALYTE:
CE5ORPTlml:
INJECTION
VOLUME:
M!e.ASUAEMENT
GAS CHRQ,\,l.ATOGRAPHY, E:D F iNi} : ... ·, .
.::olychlorobiphenyb
filter + front sac~ion, !I ml h~;,;;:,r.:,; bad;
se~iori·,. 2 ml hexane
4-µL with 1-µL ba:kflus:,
TEMPERA TURE·INJECTION: 25D to 30C °C
-0!.TECTOR: 300 to 32.: °C
-COLUMN: 180 °C
CARRIER GAS; N1, 40 ml/min
COLUMN: glass, 1.!l m x 2-mm ID, 1.5% OV-17/1 .95%
QF-1 on 80/100 mesh Chromo:;or~ WH?
CAUBRATIO~: standard PCS mixture In h~xane
P.ANGE:
ESTIMATED LOO: 0-03 µg per sar.,ple [2]
PRECISION (S,): 0.044 [~]
APF'UCABILITY: The working rar:i.ejls 0.01 to 10 m~/m• for a 40-L air sample [1 ]. With modifications, surface wipe samples
may be analyzed [3,4]. i
~ :•
INTi;JlFERENCES: Chlorinated pest'::ides, such as DDT a.nd DOE, may interfere with quantliica.ticn cf PCB. Sulfur-c::irtuining
eompounds in Fetro!eum pro:luc:s a-;:ao inter1ere [:i].
OTilE~ METHODS: This method re;',ises metho::fs S120 [GJ and P&CAM 244 {1]. Methods S121 [7) a.nd P&CAM 253 [8) for
PCB have not been rovised. •:
NIOSH ~'.lnual 01 A.1alytical Methods (NIVIAM), fourth Edition, S/15/94
'~