NCD980602163_19970822_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Report on Ambient Air Monitoring-OCR

SEP-03-97 13 ,35 FROM,REGION 4 PESTICIDES ID ,404 562 8973 PAGE
INTRODUCTION
AIR STUDY
WARREN COUNTY LANDFILL
NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 1997
On August 5 and 6, 1997, Tim Slagle and Jon Vail of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, Science and Ecosystem
Support Division (SESD) conducted an air quality study at Warren County Landfill,
North Carolina. The study was requested by Waste Management Division, North
Remedial Branch, to determine if PCBs {polychlorinated bi-phenyls) were being
emitted into the ambient air from the landfill.
STUDY AREA
The six air monitoring sites utilized during the study were located within the
fenced boundaries of the landfill (Figure 1) for security purposes. Two sites,
designated A and B, were established adjacent to the vent pipe at the center of
the landfill. Meteorological data consisting of wind speed and direction was
recorded at this sampling location for the duration of the air study. Meteorological
data was recorded at the top of the land fill because the surrounding terrain was
relatively free of obstructions. Site C was located at the northwest corner of the
landfill. Site D was located on the west side between sites E and C. Site E was
located at the southwest corner of the landfill. Site F was located near the
southeast comer of the landfill. The upwind measurements at Site C were used to
determine if any of the pollutants being measured were transported into the area
from other sources.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
-
The Air PCB samples were collected by the high volume PUF/XAD method. The
sampling methodology conformed to TO-4 of the Compendium of Methods for the
Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. The high volume
sampler utilizes a glass fiber prefilter with polyurethane foam (PUF) and XAD
absorbent cartridge for collection of the compounds in ambient air. Approximately
210 M 3 of air was sampled during the 24-hour sampling period.
1
r
S EP-03-97 13 ,35 FROM ,REGION 4 PESTICIDES ID,404 56 2 8973 PAG E
SAMPLE CUSTODY
At the start of the sampling event, an initial flow rate and an initial elapsed time
reading was recorded from each high volume sampler internal clock. The samplers
were then sealed with custody seals. During the 24-hour sampling event a guard
was posted and the samplers were checked periodically. At the conclusion of the
sampling event, the integrity of the custody seals was verified, .and a final flow
rate and elapsed time were recorded. The sampling cartridges were then returned
to individual sampling jars and sealed with custody tape.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Co-located duplicate sets of PUF/XAD samplers were operated at sites A and 8-
They were used to show the precision of the monitoring method.
A field blank PUF/XAD cartridge was carried to the field but not exposed. It was
analyzed to document lack of contamination from field transport. Initial and final
flowrates were recorded for the samplers to verify flowrate stability.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The samples were analyzed by the EPA, Region 4, SESD laboratory in Athens,
Georgia, in accordance with the Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations
and Quality Control Manual, September 1990.
The media designed to collect PCBs in air was analyzed by the T0-4 procedure. A
surrogate mixture was added to each PUF/XAD cartridge before extraction. The
particulate filter and PUF/XAD cartridge was Soxhlet extracted for approximately
24 hours using a 5% ether in hexane solution. The sample extract was analyzed
for the target analytes listed in Table 1 by using a Gas Chromatograph equipped
with an Electron Capture Detector.
AIR RESULTS
No PCBs in ambient air at the landfill were detected at sub-microgram per cubic
meter concentrations. The air sample analysis data is attached as Table 2. The
prevailing wind was from the north northwest with an average speed of 2. 7 miles
per hour. Meteorological data is attached as Appendix 1.
2
...
--... .-.. ----.. -.. -... --~ ~ •• ., . l
9
eB
eA
:.....
I
._ .. -•• -.. - •• -•• -•• -•• -•• .l
400 ! 0 50 100 175 200
~ SCALE ~ (feet) ....___._______-~----=--_J
~EPA
FIGURE 1
WARREN COUNTY LANDFILL
WARREN COUNlY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 6, 1997
LEGEND:
Ae SArv'IPLER LOCATION
2 MET STATION
S VENTPIPE
, ___ 'LI _ -.J'-,j,£. .._. ...... , ....
Table 1
Target PCB Analytes
PCB -1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
PCB -1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
PCB -1221 (AROCLOR 1221)
PCB -1232 {AROCLOR 1232)
PCB -1248' (AROCLOR 1248)
PCB -1260 (AROCLOR 1260}
PCB -1016 (AROCLOR 1016)
3
Site Location Analyte PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016) PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221) PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232) PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242) PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248) PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254) PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260) AIR VOLUME (M3) A ug/M3 0.00341 U 0.01136 U 0.00341 U 0.00341 U 0.00341 U 0.00341 U 0.00341 U 220 TABLE 2 Air PCB Results Warren County PCB Landfltl Warren County, North Carolina 8 C ug/M3 ug/M3 0.00342 U 0.00350 U 0.01142 U 0.01168 U 0.00342 U 0.00350 U 0.00342 U 0.00350 U 0.00342 U 0.00350 U 0.00342 U 0.00350 U 0,00342 U 0.00350 U 219 214 D ug/M3 0.00346 U 0.01152 U 0.00346 U 0.00346 U 0.00346 U 0.00346 U 0.00346 U 217 U-material was analyzed for but not detected, the number is the minimum quantitation Hmit ug/M3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air E F ug/M3 ug/M3 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.01008 U 0.01008 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 0.00302 U 248 248 en IT1 'O I ISi w I (D -J ... w w IJ) 'Tl ;o 0 3: ;o IT1 C') ... 0 :z: :, 'O IT1 en ,-,J ... C1 ... 0 IT1 en ... 0 :, ISi :, en [JJ t\) (D (D -J w 'O J:, C') tT1 m ·J
APPENDIX 1
WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION
RM YOUNG CO. TRAVERSE CITY, Ml
26700 SERIES TRANSLATOR
-------~-------------------------------~------------·------------~---
DATE DATE TIME: TD-m WS:AVG WS:MAX 'lrr"D:AVG WD:SDV T:AVG T :MIN T:MAX
MON DAY HR MIN MPH MPH DRG DEG DEG F DE:G F DE:G F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
s s 14 0 3..S 12 354 48*********************
8 5 15 0 2_5 10 21 64*********************
3 5 16 0 2 .0 l.0 15 59********~•*T*********
2, s 1 7 0 5.6 24 293 85********************·
8 5 18 0 2_5 10 62 90*********************
s 5 19 0 l..5 5 296 65*********************
8 5 20 0 2.6 7 332 4l.*********************
8 5 21 0 1-1 3 312 67*********************
8 5 22 0 0.9 3 3Sl. 77*********************
8 5 23 0 2.9 7 324 20****~*WPWT~TY**T*****
C 6 0 0 3.l 7 336 16********************* ..,
8 6 l 0 1_0 3 153 100*********************
8 6 2 0 2.7 5 318 17*********************
8 6 3 0 2.8 5 335 12********~*~*****••~**
8 6 4 0 2_5 5 329 15*********************
8 6 5 0 1.9 5 328 19*********************
8 6 6 0 3.5 7 337 l l*********************
8 6 7 0 1.8 6 31.S 27***•**•~~--~*********
s 6 8 0 2.0 6 313 29*********************
8 6 9 0 2.8 9 358 32***********~*~•**7***
" 6 10 0 2 _8 8 355 30********************* 0
8 6 11 0 3.2 9 358 44*••-~***~************
8 6 12 0 3 .9 9 338 37***********W****-****
s 5 13 0 3 _9 12 349 55*****•~·~~••*•*******
8 6 14 0 4.1 13 340 43~•--~••**************
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 atthe Warren County PCB Landfill.
Both the Division of Air Quality Raleigh Regional Office with the assistance of the
Technical Services Section 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~c.-h~t"\t 1 Stc:ite of-North Carolina .A.VA 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. DEHNR
-----·····,
January 6, 1996 ; ~J ~ ® ~ u v; ~~ t ,,': ] ·.!. _ ... ,----__ .. ____ --· -'.
MEMORANDUM
; ! ·: • ! J.AN 8 !997 ,
TO: Laura S. Butler, P.E., Chief
FROM:
Air Permits Section f _._ ....... -·
. \
William J. Pate, P.E., C.I.H., Head VV
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 IST@'ttffl
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
t
State of North Carolina At~Lhl'Y'\Q.r\t ~
RA Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor DEHNR Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Michael Moser, M.D., M.P.H.
December 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM l: JAN 8 !997
TO: Bill Meyer, Director
THROUGH: :::;:::~ :f~::,5
: :.~:~::;::ND ), Chief ~-~~---
• Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Sectio~ .
FROM:
William J. Pate, Head ~r J3f
Medical Evaluation and· Risk Assessment Branch
,. Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D., Toxicologist~{ l,if"'
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 oral 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!;c
fi@Tfi@-'@tffl
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action 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 1x16·6. Using the oral slope factor in the USEPA 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 the 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) (EPN540/1-89/002).
2. Dr. Hirschhorn & Associates are propo~ir'lg 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
f 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 each.·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 COOs and COFs*
,.
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 Bulletins 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
5. POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE:
degrading org:rn1sms or, alternatively, by adding a genetically e11gineered strain that combines the
activities of mixed cultures (Unterman et al. 1989). Since PCB cl egrad:-it ion is a co-metabolic
process, Lhe ~dd ition of biphenyl or monochlorobiphenyls as growth substrate.::; Lo supply the
nutritional requ irements and to induce the catabolic path way is req uired 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 bioa vai ]ability of
PCBs to the microorganisms. However •. enriched cultures were unable to biodegrade PCB
congeners containing five' or higher chl6rine 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 ENVIRONMc;NT
5.4.1 Air
The atmospheric concentrations of PCBs in various locations are given m Table 5-2. The range of
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 PC Bs 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 0.02-0~ 8
ng/m3 "with a mean of <0.1 ng/m3 (see Table 5-2). The range and mean atmo spheric PCB
concentrations in other locations are as follows: 0.01-0.7 ng/m3. and 0.1 ng/m3, respectively, in
manne7coastal areas; and 0.2-4.0 ~g/m3 and 1.0 ng/m3, respecti vely, over the Grear Lakes
(Ei s~e=n=rea-!1=cnt-' --::ecrt-:a~I-. 11n9719ri'2 )'.~WTT::i t:i::h---:i:th:-:e~a v:-:-:a~i~l a~b-;-:1 e~d:-=a~ta::--, -;i-:-t ~i§=--::d~i f~f~i c~u~l t~t o~e s ~-~-bl i-s-~-th~· ;~~ ;, d • in a tm o spheric
-,-----:-.,..-----;--;--:-:---;-----;-~;:-;-;---:--.----:-----;:~--·--.-•·•····· -Pe:B-cmfcentrations 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 sti ll lacking (levels from one location cannot be compared with levels from another
because of differing emission sources), and the recent studies (Sc hreitmueller 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 ye ars (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.i
-::-·:·.
;.;.-;·
·i.
-~~; :r-
"".',-.. .
. :.o:...
~:;-
-r~
5. POTEN;'.AL FOR H'.)~.'.l.N EX.::>OSURE
TABLE 5-2. Atmospheric Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Location Year
Boston, MA 1978
Columbia, SC "1978
Columbia, SC 1985 ' ....
College Station, TX 1979-1980
Newport News, VA 1988
Bloomingt6n, 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
1991
Leister and Baker
1994
Baker and
Eisenreich 1990
Hott et al. 1992
Tanabe et al. 1983
Baker and
Eisenreich 1990
The ranges are given in parentheses.
'
State of North Carolina ~VY\9.-V\ t 3 NA Department of En v ironment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor DEHNR Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Michael Moser, M.D., M.P.H.
December 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Meyer, Director ,1/,) i p __ .
Division of,Waste Management ~-/---
THROUGH: Stanley Music, M.D., DTPH (Lond.), Chief • --i5 v v -
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
FROM: Luanne K. Williams, Pharm.D., Toxicolog ist ;(J(w--
Medical Evaluation and Risk Assessment Branch
,. Occupational and Environmental ERidemiology 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 concentration s 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
'N!iC
Pifflt-'H!et!
Exce ss Cancer Risk
1 x10-s
1 x1 o-s
5 to 7x10'6
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Ac1ion 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 exposu·re to the concentrations reported at the fenceline does
exceed the acceptable target excess cancer risk of 1x10·5_ However, the actual risk at
the site is most likely lower than 7x10·5 because the PCB concentrations present at the
site are most likely lower than reported . The PCB air concentration associated with a
1x10·5 excess cancer risk (target risk) is 10 ng/m3. The fenceline exceeds this 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 fencel ine
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 emissions 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
NffiMORANDUM
Air Permits Section
December 23, 1996
To : Lee A. Daniel, Chief
Technical Services Section
Through:
From:
Subject:
~v Alan Klimek ~
.%<;7/ Laura S. Butler, P.E., Chief/
Air Permits Section
PCB Air Emissions
Warren County PCB Landfill
Warren County
AVA
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 of December 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-consumer paper
Michael A. Kdly1 DcpUI.J Dirt:ctor
Sclid Waste Management Division
Plea$:
_ Draft a reply for my signature
Dale:
_ Take appropria.re action _; ____ Se~ me about attached
A ,nrove i • = -er i __;_ nandlr: and n:port to me
_ Note and return attached material tojme
Remarks: ••
\C) ~ ~;
)
Jan 3 '97 11 :02
•• ~Y,~\-\. '
K~
P. 01106 .
Jan 3 '97 11:02 P.02106 NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone]
state of North Caroli1:1a Department of Envlr6nment, Health and Natural ~.:esources
Division of Solid Waste M::inagement
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govei:nor
Jonathan 8. Howes. Sec~etary
AVA
DEHNR
William L. Meyer. Directo:;
SAMPLING PLAN SU~MARY FOR:
' MEASUREMENT 0:F FUGITIVE ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS OF : •
POLYCHLORINA1;ED BIPHENYLS FROM THE PCB LANDFILL
WARRJ)N COUNTY, NORTH CAROLJNA
Sampling Plan Date::
Sampling Plan Preparer:
Project Participants:
I
j
~~eccmbcr 18, 1996
~ierre Lauffe~
1-;[ealth and Safety Coordinator
Ijivision of Waste Management
F;~eigh, North Carolina 2760S
Pierre Lauffer, HWS-H;:~alth and Safety Coordinator (Project Manager and Sampler)
John Kirby, HVIS-En~ronmental Chemist (Project Chemist and Sampler)
Projected Sampling Dates:. C?/06-10/97
Site History: ,
Between June, 197& and Augu:1t, 1978. over 30,000 gallons of industrial waste material
identified as polychorinated bii,henyls (Arochlor 1260 ~d 1262) were discharged deliberately
along the shoulders of approxim.ately 210 miles of North 'Carolina highways. In June, 1979,
EPA approved a tract ofland d,reviously used for agriculture) in Warren County, North Carolina
as the disposal site for the PCB-contaminated 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 contaminated with PCBs. The concentration of PCBs in the landfill range from 150
to almost 900 part per million fppm), averaging about 350 ppm (1), bas_ed on 1994 subsurface
soil sampling results (these we;;e retrieved from the bottom of the vent) .
• 1 P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affio/lative Action Employer 51H, recycled/ 1 O'f. post-consumer poper
I !
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '97 11:02 P.03106
-
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (l:CBs):
PCBs are a family of aiomatic compounds consisting of two benzene nuclei bonded \vith
two or more chlorine molecule~. The PCBs of concern in trus study (the type existing in the
landfill) are the Aroclors. :
Aroclors are characteri:\~ed by four digit numbers. The first two (the number 12) indicate
that the mixture consists ofbi.i:;henyls. 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 };lOnconductive properties, PCBs had many industrial uses
including use as insulation co~ting in electrical capacitors. PCBs possess, as a whole, high open
cup flashpoints (348-356° F.-.A.roclor 1242, none for Aroclor 1254 and 1260), but do readily
dh,iill at temperatures above 3~~5°F. The distillation range for Aroclor 1242 is 325-366DF; for
Aroclor 1254, 365-390°F; Aroplor 1260, 385-420°F (4). -
Toxic effects from exp?,)sure to PCBs in human include chloracne, pigmentation of skin
and nails, excessive eye dischatge and swelling of eyelids, and gastrointestinal disturbances.
PCBs are considered carcinogt:nic (5).
Because of thefr high t~xicity, detrimental harm to the environment and stable molecular
structure (structure remains in:t(act jn the environment for long periods of time) PCB manufacture
was discontinued in 1976. ;
Objective:
Generally the vapor pr~ssure of PCBs under normal conditions in the PCB landfill in
Warren County is too low for :,olatilization 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. mclb.an:e, CO2, H2S) from the vent at the top of the landfill is improbable.
Though improbablc::i fu;ere remains a slim possib_ility that PCB contaminated air
particulate matter may be tran/: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 st1.1dy is to test this premise by determining if there are uncontrolled .I PCB emissions originating froh1 the Warren County PCB LandfiJL The premise will be tested by
.I conducting ambient air sampling to determine 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 '71-ill be a risk
assessment conducted to dete<nine if the PCB emissions (if found) are a risk to the surrounding
comm.unjty. ;
Materials and Methods: ,
Air sampling will be p~:rfonned with low-volume (L V) and high-volume (HV) constant
air-flow sampling systems. Th;e 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 ORBOrn~60 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
\ ~
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 contaminated particulates from the rur, 2) to filter PCBs which may
have vaporized. This system ~!ill 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 10:00am, 6:00pm and;2:00am. Each sampling period Vvill be separated by one day.
The reason for this delay betwf: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 unit';. One unit will be located inside the vent on top of the landfill.
Two more units will be locatec:l 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 mut w~ll be located 200 meters straight downwind from the vent. The
air-flow rate Vlill be calibrated1to NTOSH guidelines. NIOSH Sampling Method #5503:
Sampling for Polychlorobiphe~yls 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 wilJ
act as a background sampler. }?rior to each sampling event, the wind direction and temperature
will be indicated by aportable!weather station established on the east side of the landfill
NOTE: Please sec attached cHagram of the landfill showing sampling locations and a copy
of the NIOSH lab procedure;'.
PKUH&S/HW S/Uec96.
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '97 11:03 P.05106
-------------..... ---·~ -------··----·-----· ----·--·---· ·---····-·-------
________ ,., __ _
·--·-··-----·-···----
---·-·--··---. '• ... ------·------· .... i _ • 1~3-f'a_tc}-/1 --·-___ _
. ---··-----... ··------'----·-·--.. ___ ;______ ,..., sSO'--I ··-.. ---·
. ·-·---··---· -·-·-····. __ ,..,_,_ -·· ·-·--·--. -~ ·---J-....,5 ~ W . --• ------·--,_ .. ,_ .. ··--... --·-..
___ ____,;:;_=:j~=---' 4-,, t•U,W\Go ~ _
I i !
i --· ..... ·-·• .. . .. -··" .. . 1... .~· .-l,.. >'
........ ~.. . -·-:.----____ ;··-:~...,..~. v~ _..,, -•.
• _. ... --:1.; .... • rTI ~ ---"" . ---,, ,,.,.,...:.,'' L=:::J ' / -t'. t') ~ --~ .l;-
.4! ...
I
I
-••••••---......... •-••I•-•----• • ••-••••••--•-•••--•-----•••---•••-•-••••-•
05 c N • '
-....
..... -. --,.
NC-RESIDENT INSPECTOR Fax:[phone] Jan 3 '97 11:03 P.06106
mixture: C12H1a,,C1,
[where x • 1 10 10j
MW: ca. 2.EB (42¾ Cl i C12H7Cl.z);
ca. 32ll (54~ Cl i CuH5Cl5)
CAS; Table 1 RTECS: Table 1
OSHA : 1 mg/mi (42% Cl);
o.~ mg/m' (Soi% Cl)
NIOSH: 0.001 m11/m'/1C h (carc:nc:'~enj
ACGIH: 1 mg/m1 (42% Cl) (skin) '.
0.5 mg/m' (54% Cl) (skin) ] ,
EVALUATION: PARTIAL Issue t: 15 February 1984
Revision #t: 15 Augu:t 1967
Issue 2: 15 Auau:t 1994
PROPERTIES: 42% 0: EP 325 to 35S 0 c; MP -l!l •c;
d US g/ml @2!i °C;
VP 0.01 Pa (8 x 10·5 mrn Hg;
1 mg/m3) @ 20 °C
~4% 0; ep 3C;S to 3SO °C; MP 10 •C;
d 1.54 g/mL@ 2S °C; VP
0.0004 Pa (3 x 10" mm Hg:
a.as mg/r:,~ @ zo ~c
SYNONYMS: PCB; \, 1 '-!:::ii:;henyl ch~:ro: chlorod:phenyl, 42% Cl (Aroclot 1242):...gnd 54% Cl (Arcclor i254)
SAMPUHG ;
SAMPLER: FV,~~..+ .. s_ou.o, s.o.~ENT
(73-mm gr~ss 1lber -;-·=iorisil, ... ,oo ~g/50 me).,. • f
;;.~ :. ,· . . . . ·~-:. .:
.! Fl.OW AATE.~0-~S_jo_(_l.2 LJ.mi~_~!.~$::s
VOL-MIN: :,J~~j ~~ ~ _0.5 tT,Q/!]:13
-MAX: ,T ·50 L • ••••
i
SHIPM::NT: tta.ns1er filtm to glasslvials after sam~lir.g
SAMPL:
STABILITT: u~known for filter:.: -
2 mo:itis .f::,r Florisil n:]bes [·]
E!.ANKS: 2 to 10 fjQld blank~ pe-j set
RANGE STUDIED:
BIAS:
'
ACCURACYi I
j
n~tt stud:ed
OVERALL PRECISION (Srr):
n~ne identified
nc;t evalu.;.tec! ·,
ACCURACY: n1! determined
MEASUREMENT
.-~-TECHNIQUE: .. GAS CHf!OMATOGRAPHY, E:O ~ '.Ni) . . . . . .
ANALYTE: ~olychlorobiphenyh
DE50RPTION: filter + lront sec;tion, ~ ml h,:x;:,.n:,; bac:k
sec:!iort, 2 ml hexane
INJECTION
VOLUME: 4-µL witn 1.µL ba::kflus:i
TEMPERA TURE·INJECTION:
-OETECTOR:
-COLUMN:
CARRIER GAS; N2, 40 ml/min
250 to 30C "C
300 to 325 °C
180 °C
COLUMN: glass, 1.9 m x 2-mm 1D, 1.5% OV-17/1.95%
QF-1 on 80/100 mesh Chramosor:i WHP
CALIBRATION: standard PCS mixture In h~x,me
P.ANGE:
ESTIMATED LOO: 0.03 µg per sar.,ple [2]
PRECISION (S,): 0.044 (~] ____________ ,; _______ __, ___________________ _
f APPLICABILITY: The working rar:1,ejls 0.01 to 10 m1;/m: fot a 40-L air sample (1 J. With modificalions, surface wipe samples
may be analyzed (3,4J. i
j :•
INTERFERENCES: Chlorinated pest'ddes, suc:h as DDT a.nd DDE, may interfere with quantification of PCB. Sulfur~onuining
compounds in Fetraleurn proouc:s a;;so imer1cre [::iJ.
OTHE~ METHOOS: Tr.is method re;Jige.s metho::ls S120 [6] and P&CAM 244 {1), Methods S121 [i] a.nd P&CAM 253 [8] for
PCB have not been revised. •:
NIOSH M'.1nua1 ot A.1alytieal Methods (NMAM). Fourth Edition, S/15/94
C ',
APRD /NERL-RTP 14!001 :002 01/07 /97 12:13 '6'919 541 0239
?c3 -==---==--==---=c.......===-=-==-~-
Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
To From ASa
Co. co.
Phone # From: Terry Bidleman <[e-mail]>
To:
Date:
BOB-DR LEWIS <[e-mail].~ Fax # ~ / _ J tJ z / Fax # 7 / J-'-3 b (),).
1!7/97 10:50am i.......-=---"-'-...;:;....;...._.,:__ _ ___. _________ ---'=---
Subject: Re: N. C. PCB Landfill -Forwarded
Hello Bob,
Yes, I did get the package from Bill Meyer shortly before Christmas. Be
assured that l will pick up the gauntlet and respond to it. Bill did not
give a time frame In which he expected a response, but I hope that this can
wait until February. January is the month in which we at AES submit
proposals for next year's work and I am also gone for a week to an arctic
workshop. Finally, I am writing a report on long-range transport of
pesticides in North America for a NAFTA group called Commission for
Environmental Cooperation, and this is also due at the end of the month!
A quick look at Hirschhorn's comments and re-reading of your paper indicates
that several issues are involved. One is the quality of the data and its
interpretation in the ES&T paper, and a separate one is the follow-up (or
lack of it) by the state in continuing to monitor the landfill. I see these
as two separate issues, although Hirschhorn wants to link them.
Essentially your paper reports measurements of PCBs around the Warren Co.
landfill which were made with LV samplers. Because of the low air volumes,
limits of detection were high and in fact most of the measurements were
below the LOD. There were a few hits, and Hirschhorn is placing a lot of
emphasis on them.
Here is why I think a lot of Hirshhorn's statements are a bunch of hooey:
a) The analyses in the 1985 paper were done by packed-column GC and
apparently without silicic acid or florisil separation of PCBs from OC
pesticides. Thus it is quite likely that there could have been interference
from other OCs, especially toxaphene and chlordane. Hirschhorn makes a big
case of differences between 1242 and 1260, but from the chromatogram in Fig.
3 it is clear that 1242 would have been difficult to quantify except in
high-level samples --a good portion of it is masked by the solvent front.
For these reasons I can't see making a big deal out of the differences in
the two PCB mixtures, and I agree that the ambient air concentrations
reported are upper limits. The "false positive" results may well have been
due to interfering pesticides.
b) Hirshhorn's comments about the landfill being a source do not take into
account other potential sources of atmospheric PCBs. The biggest source --
and the likely reason why ambient levels exceeded those predicted from the
dispersion model --is volatilization from contaminated soils in the region.
Kevin Jones argues that outgassing of PCBs from soils is probably the most
Important source to the atmosphere in the U.K. (lnternat. J. Environ. Anal.
Chem. 59: 167-178, 1995). Also, a large area of NC was contaminated by the
PCB spills. Although a lot of cleanup was done, surely all the contaminated
soil was not removed. The measurements by Kathy Macleod show levels of 1260
in the air at the contaminated roadside sites before and after cleanup
(paper by Kathy and yourself in the ASTM volume 721 ). Concentrations at
roadside areas after cleanup were in the range of the highest levels found
in ambient air which were reported in the ES&T paper. So -it is it likely
that the ambient PCBs came not from the landfill but from contaminated soils
in Warren and surrounding counties?
c) On one issue I will agree with Hirshhorn: A follow-up study of the
landfill and indeed of ambient air PCB levels in the region is needed. We
"
01/0i/ 9i 12:14 '5'919 541 0239 APRD /NERL-RTP
know a lot more about PCB properties now and congener-specific analysis is
now routine. Sophisticated statistical techniques $uCh as principal
component analysis can be used to discriminate PCB patterns in soil and air
(see Grundy et al., ES& T 30, 2661, 1996). It is sad that Hirshhorn is more
intent on assigning blame than on investigating the problem.
I need to write this up in a more organized manner and respond to other
issues raised by Hirshhorn, but as explained in the first paragraph, I am
having difficulty finding time to do it right now. If Bill Meyer really
needs a response before the end of the month, I will provide one. But if he
can hold off until early February, it would certainly lighten my load.
Please let me know the situation.
We are continuing work on OCs in air, with a focus on the Great Lakes and
the Arctic. Some current projects are:
a) investigating sources of OC pesticides to the Great Lakes. This involves
air sampling over Lake Superior and also in suspected source regions such as
Alabama and South Carolina. Present-day levels of toxaphene are much higher
in these states than over the Great Lakes!
b) Using enantiomers of pesticides to discriminate racemic and non-racemic
{soil) sources, working with Renee Falconer of Youngstown State. So far
this has been most successful for chlordane and heptachlor epoxide. From
enantiomeric patterns we can distinguish chlordane in soils from chlordane
that arises from termiticide use. Also, the heptachlor epoxide in air
appears to come from soil emissions rather than oxidation processes in the
atmosphere.
c) Air-water gas exchange and distribution of pesticides in the Arctic. We
now have good coverage of both the eastern and western Arctic Ocean and have
made estimates of gas exchange for HCHs and toxaphene. Concentrations these
pesticides are higher under the ice cap of the Canada Basin than anywhere
else in the world!
d) Finally, Tom Harner is finishing his work on partitioning of PCBs and
other semivolatiles to Chicago aerosols. This is actually a project that
was supported by you guys under a cooperative agreement. Tom finds that the
octanol/air partition coefficient may be an improvement over vapor pressure
for describing partitioning to urban particles. Also, we found substantial
concentrations of polych!oro-naphthalenes (PCNs} in Chicago air --up to a
third of PCB levels!
Best wishes,
Terry
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Terry,
>I especially need your he!p on this problem since Ron
>Hites returned the package to the State of North Carolina
>saying that he could not help. Attached is an e-mail I sent
>to Ron asking him to reconsider.
>
>Bob
14) 002 .: 002
0 l/0ti/97
From:
To:
Subject:
Ron ,
14:23
BOB-DR LEWIS
internet."[e-mail]"
N. C. PCB Landfill
l~ t.t< L / :\l!lt<lJ / ,Ub -----------------~\JUJ \J\JI
Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 .~ 01 pages ► /
From A" / / • IO ?.J o t .. e,>J 1 ✓
Co.
Dept. Phone #
Fax # 6 / -J r) Z /
I was sorry to hear that you are unable to help us refute the criticisms lodged against me and the EPA in
connection with the PCB monitoring we did at the Warren County landfill. Perhaps the package that the State sent
to you was a bit overwhelming, especially at this time of the year.
In brief, we monitored the landfill shortly after it was closed in 1983 using low-volume PUF air samplers and
GC/ECD both for within vent measurements and ambient air measurements. We found only very low PCB
concentrations in the vents, except for the main vent, where we found 120 ug/m3 of Aroclor 1242 and 2 ug/m3 of
Aroctor 1242. Over two days of monitoring, all ambient air samples were found to be negative for 1242 (LOO 6
ng/m3) and below or near the limits of detection for 1260 (10 ng/m3), except for 4 of 39 samples, including two at 50
and 70 ng/m3 at the fence line (98 m from the main vent) and two (11 and 12 ng/m3) near the main vent (one
upwind).
We published this data, along with results from the Bloomington landfill in ES&T in 1985 (~. 986-991 ). In
the paper I stated that these measurements did not appear to correlate with proximity to the main vent. (Note: In
Table II of the paper, we erroneously listed one of the measurements near the vent as being at a nearby house.
Location A-7 for the main vent was adjacent to A-8 for the house on the data sheet. In fact, nothing was ever
detected at the house, 1000 m away.) We concluded that emissions of PCB from a well-designed chemical waste
landfill were found to be negligible.
Dr. Hirshhorn has harshly criticized our conclusions, and somehow equated what we found in Warren
County to the high emissions we found in Bloomington. In my rebuttals, pointed out that since the PCB detected in
ambient air did not correlate with proximity to the main vent (and main source), i.e., concentrations were higher at 98
m than 1 m, and since the more volatile PCB mixture (1242) was the dominant component in the vent as contrasted
with 1260 being the only component detected in air, the ambient air detects may have been false positives. Given
that we were using ECO and pattern recognition, this likelihood is high. •
Do you agree that (1) based on our results , PCB emissions from the landfill appear to have been negligible,
(2) little or nothing was found in ambient air, (3) the ambient air results were likely false positives, and (4) the main
vent was not likely the source of the PCB found in air even if the air measurements were real?
If you could respond to these questions in a brief letter to William Meyer, I would be grateful. You might
also add that you know of my work and have confidence in the quality of my interpretations.
Cc-4'"J---<-
/4-f r
~c:6 F-/I
Bob
,
]2/11/96 J -t: ?i 9 '0'919 5-U 3527 NERL/.-\JlRD /~IB
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LI\BORA.TORY
AIR 1vfEASUREMENTS RESEARCH DIVISION (lvIAIL DROP 44)
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH C..\ROLINA 277 11
TELEPHONE [phone] FACSIMJLE 919-541-3527
E-MAIL [e-mail]
FAX MESSAGE
DATE:
TO:
11 December 1996
Bill Meyers
FROM: Dr. Robert G. Lewis
USEPA (MD-44)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 2
Fax No.: 715-3605
Telephone:
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711-2055
SUBJECT: Response to Hirschhorn's Latest Comments
MESSAGE:
I will not dignify Dr. Hirschhorn by responding to his latest attack on the quality of the EPA
monitoring study at the Warren County landfill and my scientific interpretations. It is obvious that nothing
will persuade him to abandon the faulty reasoning that he has committed himself to in order to convince
the citizens ofWarren County that they are at risk.
I v,,,ill, however, provide you with my biographical sketch in support of my credentials and suggest
that you ask him to do the same. I can send you my full C.V. (28 pp), if you wish. I believe that I am
iNidely recognized throughout the world as an expert in environmental monitoring, especially for organic
compounds in air. I wrote the defining chapter on sampling for organic chemicals in air for the American
Chemical Society's Professional Reference Book, Principles of Environmental Sampling (L. Keith, ed.),
and am currently writing a book on the subject for the ACS. I have also authored or coauthored eight
ASTM standards and two ISO standards on monitoring methods, including one on the methodology
(updated) used in Warren County (ASTM D 4861). Furthermore, Battelle Memorial Institute, which did
the field v:ork at the landfill for us, is one of the leading environmental research institutions in the U.S . I
would suggest that you get the opinions of two of the world's leading PCB air monitoring experts as to
the validity of our conclusions and Dr. Hirschhorn' s arguments. They are both very familiar with my work.
Dr. Terry F. Bidleman
ARQP
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsville, Ont., Canada M3H 5T4
and
Prof. Ronald A. Hites (current editor of ES&T)
School of Public Health and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
10th. & Fee Lane
Bloomington, IN 47405
Tel. [phone] O
Fax. [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
,
\
12/11 /96 1 4: ::i9 'o'919 541 3527 \ERL/AJ IRD /\lfl [4]0021002
Biographical Sketch of Robert G. Lewis
ROBERT G. LEV/IS is a Senior Scientist in EPA's National Exposure Research Exposure
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He is responsible for overseeing research
focused on new sampling and analytical methods for pesticides, PCBs, dioxins and related
semivolatile organic chemicals and for their application to total human exposure assessment.
Dr. Lewis received his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina in 1960 and his Ph.D. in Physical-Organic Chemistry in 1964 from the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow and a
:-Jational Institutes of Health Fellow.
Follov..,ing six years v,.,i.th industry, Dr. Lewis joined the EPA in 1971 and held the positions of Section
Chief from 1971 to 1978 and Branch Chief from 1978 to 1993. He has done substantial research on
monitoring and exposure assessment methods for organic chemicals in air and other environmental
media .:md in human and biological tissues and f1uid3 . He established and headed for 12 years EPA' s
first ambient air methods development program. He was a member of EPA' s first task force on PCBs
in 1972 and in 1983 was appointed by the Governor of North Carolina to the Intergovernmental
Working Group on PCB Detoxification.
Dr. Lewis has authored or co-authored more than 200 journal articles, books, book chapters, and
other scientific articles and reports on various matters of environmental concern. He bas been
awarded the EPA Bronze medal for Commendable Servi.ce twice and has received four Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards for outstanding journal articles.
Dr. Lewis is a member of the American Chemical Society (since 1958), Air and Waste Management
.A.ssociation, American Association for Aerosol Research, American Society of Testing and Materials
(Fellow), International Standards Organization, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Alpha Chi Sigma
(Chemistry), Phi Lambda Upsilon (Chemistry) and Delta Phi Alpha (German). He has been listed in
American Men and Women of Science since 1966. He has served on numerous committees and work
groups concerned with environmental monitoring, exposure assessment, and the cilemical profession.
He is currently chairman of ASTM D22.05 .02 on Organic Chemicals in Indoor A.ir, U. S.
Representative to ISO on Indoor A..ir, Research Area Manager for Environmental Measurement
Methods for the EPA Residential Pesticides Exposure Research Program and an advisor to the EPA
National Human Exposure Assessment Study (NHEXAS), NCI/EPA/NIEHS Agricultural Health
Study, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Environmental Study (NAFTA), the Great Lakes Air Deposition
Project and the Pesticide Spray Drift Task Force.
• « JOINT \VARREN COUNTY/STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
720 Ridgeway Street
Warrenton, N. C. 27589
Office [phone] -Fax [phone]
Fax Cover Sheet
TO : Laura Butler 733-5317
Tommy Cline 733-1431
Nan Freeland 832-9100
Henry Lancaster 715-3060
William Meyer 715-3605
Ron Nixon 419-8315
Monica Porter 733-2120
Dennis Retzlaff 257-2897
Jim Warren 493-6614
FROM: Doris Fleetwood
DATE: November 27, 1996
Number of Pages including cover sheet: 11
• TO "d
pea 4 1B liNISSIQN§ ANp HfiALTH Bl&Ks
fBVN THI! JMAAAl!N CAYNYY
Summaa
pea bANDFll,L
Joel S. Hirschhorn, Scicucc Advisor
Warren. County PCB Land.fill Workin.g Group
November 27, 1996
Data obtained from a 1983 EPA study showed co1:tclusi:vely that uncontrolled releases of
PCBs into the air were occuning. Neither EPA or the state analyzed the data properly, and EPA
mad~ incu rn:ct statements indicating there was nQ problem, even though no analy!iis supported
the statements. In fact, the levels of PCB s fm.md by EPA in the air near the landnll and in the yard
of a residential house more than a half mile from the landfill were $.eVeral tinu!s greater than tht
level of health signific:mce found in EPA' s own risk assesmicnts. The PCB levels found iu the
winter of 1983 were significutly above the one in one million excess cancer death risk based
concentration presented in EPA databases. PCB emission levels in warmer periods and in later
times during the past 14 years since the PCB wastes were buried in the widfill could luve been
significantly higher. Expo~e over long times to relatively low levels of PCBs could also cau~
non-cancer htahh effects, especially in children. The PCBs rele:lsed into the air could also result
in PCBs being deposited on nearby lands and, therefore, contaminate crops: local vegetable
ga.rdens, and daicy and meat products ftom cattle grazing on local lands, leading to exposure
routes other than inhalation.
Arr analysis of the only ;sta~ documents refe"ing to the 1983 study by EPA and the
on{J! informatiM gi},IUJ to ti" public has shtJWn tlaat th~ stat.t intaationally misNpres~nt~d th~
flndilcgs of the 1983 tests for PCB air ,~t~asu from th~ la,edfill For ~amp/~ tn~ nigh~st
levels of PCBs fou·nd at the landfiU's main vent were 11ot reported by tlr~ at11t~, and thtt stat~
indicated that no meMUrab/1! amounts of PCB~ had been found in tire air around the site,
which was not the case.. The :stat~ has persi.stently deceived the public ohout PCB ai, releasu
and, more imponandy, tlat signlficant.public health riiks r~ulting f,o,,. ,,.~,,._
The results reported here mpply !till more support for the state takiD& seriously its
commitment to detoxify the Warren County PCB Landfill and to make a commitment for
:,upplying the n.ec~sary fuuding very quickly. There u now abundant proof th.at the
landfill bas not been safe and secure, that the crtt:icslly important bottom clay :.and plastic
liner system lcskcd almo,t immediately, that the lcschau c.ollectioa sy:rtem o~er worked
effectively, aud that PCBi b11ve leaked dinctly into~~ »ic aod leachate into the
surrounding soils. A numbet of new tests are recommended to assess health risks.
I
DJ 'd
My revii:w of the PCB fil~s provided by the state indicated very little attention had been
given over the years since the landfill constructiou \vas completed in 1983 to the potential for
human exposure to PCB air emissions from the landfill. Many people may have believed that
PCBs do not pose bazan!s because they ate not volatile organic compounds (VOCs). However,
ahhQugh PC:Bs are not classified as voes, they do p0$4ess :.ufficiently higb vapor pressures to
rcleuc potentially significant vapors into the air, if no pollution wntrol techuology is used to
control such emissions.
The one, most important document found in the state files was a copy of a professional
p11bJished paper entitled "Messurem.ent of Fugitive Atmo~bc:ric Emissions of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls from Haurdous Waste Landfills" (ItG. Lewis et al, Environmental Science and
Technology, vol. 19, no. lO, 1985). The two lead authors were affiliated with EPA's Research
Triangle Park facility. No document was found in the state ~s that provided auy analysis of the
information and results in this published paper, C$pcCiaUy with regard to the Warren County PCB
Landnll This was especially significant, b~causc the paper provided data 011 the Warren County
facilicy, probably the only data ever obtamcd on PCB air releases from the landfill.
The publishc::d paper noted in its introduction that "PCBs poi~SS suffi;iently high vapor
pressurc ... to be emitted directly into the air surround.inz haz~rdous waste disposll $i:te~ through
volariliza.tion from conuminated surfaces. They also may be released from controlled lmdfills
through vents, along with more volatile gascs."
The papel' presented tlie result~ of field testing at four PCB landfills, including the Warren
County facility, which "was studied to determine if PCBs were being emitted into the surrounding
atmospheric environment from. sas vents and leachate access ports." The paper characterized the
Warren County Landfill as "ToSCA-designed" and referred to it as i "statc-of-the~an landfill
designed to exceed the requirements of To SCA" Th.esc statements referred to the federal Toxic
Substances Control Act, the key federal law covering PCBs. But the paper indicated th.at the
oodfill had a pc=rforated pipe le~chate collection system, whi.d1 in f.act was not installed, and did
not recognize that the state had received waivers from certain landfill requircwcuts, rahing doubts
about the paper's accuracy in dcscn'bing the lmdfill as ,tatc-of~th(Nlrt. The authors clearly
wartted to use the Warren CoWlty Landfill as a control landfill against which to compare data
obtained for other les, sophisticated PCB tand:filb ("in the vicinity of one city in .Indiana") that
were described as 11uncontrolled landfills'' where PCB materials were dumped or disposed and
were probably Superfund cleanup sites.
It should be noted that the experimental field wock used soplwiticatcd and accurate
methods for collecting and measuring PCB levels in air. Also, the field work was conducted in
January and February 1983, which was some months after the PCB wastes were buried in the
land.61~ before the leachate collection system. pumps were first turned on, &11d before the land1ill
CQn~ructiou was officially coDsidered complete.
2
£0 'd St61 -lS~-616:XE~
.ft is also important to note an imponant inconsistency in the statements made in the
published paper, because non-professional people who may read the paper could be:: misinformed
or confused. There were two statc::me.u.ts about the sigmiicauce of tbe findings for the Warren
County &cility. Toe paper's initial 81.llllIIWY said " ... air levels were at or near backgroW1d at the
T oSCA-:designed landfill. PCBs were detected at low levels iii ga$ vtnts at the latter (Warren
County] site." In the paper's section with c-0nclusions, in referring to the Warren County facility,
it was said that "air emissions of PCB from a well-designed chemical waste landfill were found to
be negligible.'' It is important to note these two statemen'3 are not equivalen~ because low
i8 not the ume H nq:licible. Negligible means inconsequential or insignificant, but a level that
is measured may be low without being wer wcoo5equential or insignificant with respect to some
important potential qfcct of PCB emissions. Moreover, drawing a conclusion that measured
PCB emissions were 11:0.c!ligi"ble" requires much more analysis than concluding they are low,
because one must answer the question: negligible for what effect'? The easier task is to conclude
that the emissions were low, because that could be logically based on a comparison with similar
data for the other landfills studied. However~ to conclude tht a level was negligible implies use
of some uthcr criterion or effect, which normally would be for health risks. 1n fact, the published
pap~ presented oo analysis whatsoever in justifying any conclusion in rebtion to health risks.
The present Tq>ort provides such an analysis.
It should be noted that the paper paid particuLu attention to the history of the Warren
County Landfill and included reference to "t.he great amount ofpu.blic concern over the: safety of
the disposal site." Moreover, the paper said: "Several months ~fter closur~ of the landfill, local
residents voiced concerns that gases emanating from the ve,:i.t pipe and ( as yet U11capped) leachate
collection pipes may have been introducing PCBs in.to the swrounding atmosphere. In response,
a study was undertaken in Jan and Feb 1983 to monitor these emissions and the ambient air at the
site." Thus. it is fair to interpret the paper's statement about "negligible" air emissions to have
referred to health effects and public concerns about health effects. It is also reason.able to believe
that the all the data from the EPA study and a. highly objective, professional evaluation of the data
would have been given to local residents. This Science Advisor, therefore, also has closely
examined what infurmation was comIDUnicated by the state to the public.
Analyst, of Dau
Data were obtained for PCB emissions (for AroGhlors 1242 and 1260) at the main v~t~
the upper and lower leachate access poqs, and two small vents ( created by placing pipes in
surface bubbles in the thin plastic liner on top of the landfill). Measurements were also made ".in
the yard oft.he nearest house (J. km away)." This is a little over onebalfmile away from the
land.fin.
The follov.ing are the most important observation.:, about the data presented in the
published paper:
■ The highest levels measured were at the main vent. The hi.ghest levc::l was 120.2
3
• • • • • • • ' --•--I J --170 "d 8176T-LSZ-6T6:XEj
microgr.uns/cubic meter (ug/cm) for Arochlor 1242. In trying to compare this level with
the othCI" highest tev~ls found a·t the other three PCB landfills is difficult, bee.a.use the inudy
used differeut modes of mearuremmt. A big dift.erence is the height at which PCBs were
mc.asured. For the Wa.rTen County landfill, the measurements at the: mam vent uc
somewhat difficult to compare to ones made at diff'erent hei~ts above an open landfilJ
location. Diff~ent heights mean that the potential for diluting PCB vapors iu.crcases with
increasing height above the PCB waste. The published paper never made any cxplictt
analysis of the data from the different landfills. HQwcver, the: paper focused on results
from measurements at 120 to 180 cm for the other three Lmdfill$, which i$ someVl-hat
analogous to the :main vent pipe condition at the Warren CoW1ty landfill For this
comparison, the .ma.-mmun kvel found at the main vent was actually higher than most of
t.he nwcimum levels reported over hot spots (i.e.: areas of high PCB levelE) at the otl,er
three PCB land.fills ennrincd in the study, Mth the other, corre$pondmg values being
18.0, 33. 8, and 193 ug/cm. But these other levels were found for field tests conducted jn
the ~ of 1983, and the paper showed that PCB levels were very mnch higher in
Jut1e/July than iu October, with the average increase being about 200%. This su.gge~s
that the maximum level of 120.2 ug/cm found in Jan./Feb. in Warren County could easily
be 2ooch or more greater if measured in the summer, or perhaps S<lme 310 ug/cm. ln
QUte.r word5, the high levelsfo,md tzt the maill vent at the Warren County Landfill
.,..~,~ quiiL compa.rabk, and p~rhaps e11ert great~r than the levels /Mnd a.bow the other
thre4: uncontrollt!d la1tdfllls, contrary to the statement made in tl,t publi~hed {Xl/Jt:T that
the lev-e/5 wer~ "low."
• It is important to note tut the srudy also found that only the main vent was releasing a
positive gas flow, but there was no measurable gas flow for the leachate collection pons
and small vents. This means that only the wain vait was serving 1s a source of PCB
releases into the air during the wiutcr period oftbc study. This fact does not change the
accuracy of the measuremc::nts of .PCBs at the other locations, but only that there was no
J::IU:asurablc natural flow of gas out of those other openings at that time. The study
measured the actual ma:ss flow or flux rate for PCB releases from the main ven.t as 12.1
nanograms/second (ng/s). In other words, any staum~.nts by governm~nt officials tltar
no l'CBs w,:r~ being rehased from the Wwren County Landfill wue totally
co,rtradic:tory to the acruolfkld data obtained in ~arly l98J. The EP,-t sl"dy mew"rttd
u11.control.led rd~~ of PCBs from the l@dful which probably would be $ignifica11tly
higher during war1ner paiods. •
■ The n~xt highest levels w~re found at the upper leachate access port (2%, of 1242 and
2 5% of lZ60). This is consjjtent with contaminated leachate residing iu the upper
leachate colle.ction ~em at the time.
■ Much lower levels were fo,md at the lower leachate access port (.03% of 1242 and 2.5%
of 1260). For both PCBs, however, there were positive readmgs above the very low
detection limits reported. br other words_. thtrt were reliahlt futdings of PCB vapors
-4
9J 'd
from th~ Iowa l~tJcltate collection syst~m b~I""' the main day and plastic bottom liner
syston. This urdicatd that PCB contttminaud ka.dl.atL had reaclr~d th~ lower
leaclt,zu collection J_VSt~m ur early 1983, becauu there is 110 oth~ pUlllJible
explanati<Ht for flndi1tg PCBs ln tlrt! air draw11 from thl! a.cc~s pipt!. EPA 's finding
was consistent with leaking of contaminaud l~drau through both the clay layer and
plastic bottom liner into the lower leac/,1Zte r,sqrailoring a,ad cdlecti,;,n layer and sump.
■ Even higher kvclJ of PCBs were fou.od at the two smaller vents, with the vent with the
highest rudings sho-...ving levels in the range found for the upper leae,hatc access pipe.
• ,1\lthough most of the measurements at the closest house were below detection liroits. one
of the six. measurements was at 0. O l ug/cm for Arochlor 1260 (the more toxic PCB). The
key question is: is this concentration of PCB of health significance? To answer this
que:;tion one can consult several EPA risk assc&Sment type databases. Both EPA Rcgjon:,
3 and 9 maintain such databa$eS and the)' contam the levels of PCBs in air that pose an
.excc5s cancer death nte of one in a million ( or I o-li) for residential exposure. 1 Thosi,
concentrations arc 0.00081 and 0.00087 u.g/cmin the two EPA databases. Since the
m~asuted level at the house was 0.01 1 the data sh.ow that the cancer risk level at the house
'".'a:i about 10 times greater, or approximately 10-s risk. In other words, the wiuter-time
high readin_g at the hQuse that was over one.half mile away was of considerable
significance. Also, the other findings that were below the detection limits ofO 006 and
0.01 ug/cm for Aroohlors 1242 and 1260, respectively~ are also sigmfi.cant. The reason is
that the appropriate EPA methodoloS)' is to use onehalfthe detection limits when
ass~ssin! heahh risk, rather than a$$Ume that a nondetect is 3. zero concentration. Thus, it
is proper to assume that most of the readin.gs at the house would have been 0.003 and
0.005 ug/cm, and these are al.so above t.he 10"' risk kvel of 0.00081 and 0.00087 and
correspond to riciks of3 to 6 x 10·0. 111 othtr words, all ofthtfUtdingsfrom tJu
published pafHr show that /eytfs of PCBs found at the residenctt close# to the WtUrOI
County 1.41,dflll In the winter of l98S wtrt of health signifJc.ance and, lnfact,JX)sed
,,,, w11acceprable long term canca-mk. In all probl#bility tht PCB levels fqund <Jffsite
wo"ld have been conslduably hirher in warm~, pukXls, and mllJ' also have Increased
ov,r time.
• The study also found measurable PCB lev~ls iu ambient air at various other l<><;ation~,
particularly a 1;1.umbe-t ofreadi11gs at th~ fen.cc line and do-wnwin.d, with th~ .lll.llximu.m level
foucd at 0,07 ug/cm, v,hich is some 100 tim.es g:rc::atet th.an the 10~ cancer risk level, or a
risl of 1 O"', which is a very high risk level. This find.mg was even more evidence that PCB
rele1tses from the landfill were occurring.
■ 11,e paptr did not pay close attention to tbc diffcnroces found in measured levels of
1The 10-~ cancer risk level is the: best crilcriou to uso: because .it is the most used basis for
cleanup decisions in the federal Superfund program when residential exposures are appropriate.
5
90 "d
Arochlor 1242 versu:i Arochlor 1260. It is kno·wn that the vaporiution rates decrease
significantly with increasing chlorine content and the vaporization rate of 1242 i.s about 10
times higher than for 1260. Because the water solubility of 1242 is about l 00 times
gTC-itcr than for 1260, one would also expect more 1242 when leachate is the source of
'PCB vapors. for tbe most part, this relmonship existed in the data rcponed. For
example, for the main vent data the average level was 120,2 ug/cm for 1242 but only 2
ug/cm for 1260. What merits some consideration, how~cr, is that over the longer tenn..
the more slowly vaporizing but more toxic Arochlor 1260 will be expected to represent a
higher fraction of all the PCBs emitted from the landfill
Information, b:oYidcd Bx The State lfu lnP Wt®e
Only three pertinent documents havl! been found in the files provided by the state. First,
the state's description of the bndfill and its chronology contains a statement that in January 1983
"EPA monitors ga.s venting from landfill a:od reports no significant emissions of PCBs. 11 Use of
th~ t~nn significant is like use of the tmn negligible by EPA, discussed earlier in this rep on. The
secmiD.gly simple statement is in fact incorrect and misleading.
Sccon.d, the ~nd page frotn what ~parently was only a two pa,se actual rep on from
EPA about the testin! has bcQ\ found in the .file:~ provided by the state. 2 The conclusions
pY-csented in this one page section reveal a superficial analysis of incomplete data and a clear
attempt to downplay any health risk issue related to wicontrolled au r~leases of PCB&. It
C(;rtainly would have been normal for EP~ persoonel to prepare some type of report for the state,
especially since the srudy of PCB emissions was reportedly done because of citizen concerns
rOnc undated page was found ; it is titled Section 2 Co11clusions and the page number is 2
and presented four conclusions, indicating that the first and only other page may b.ave been a brief
des...-ription of the field work by EPA. Hand written statements at the top of the page: arc: "Ail
Quality, Monitoring Data from Jan. '83, Air Vent (6" PVC) Watten Co. PCB Landfill" Most
likely the brief report was prepared by EPA durin~ the latter part of 1983 or early J 984, perhips
before all tile dau was fully assessed. The first conclusion noted th.at the main vent was ''the
principle )oQurce of emi5$.ions " The avcrag~ values given for the two Aro~hloTs match those in
the published paper. The firn conch,sion also said "These concentrations arc sub5tantially lower
than the cuTTcnt oci.;upational sta.ndl!ds for wol'kplace atmospheres ... " But workplace standards
aTe set fo:r short time exposure and acute health effects. The secclD.d conclusion referred to
amb1~t .PCB levds, but did not correctly refer to levels found above detection limits. The third
conclusion referred to the results of mathematical modeling. and stated that level$ would not be
signific:mt, but no mention was made of the positive finding at the nearby house. The fourth
conclusion predicted that the low PCB emission rate would be reduced still funher because of less
decay of organic matter and production of methane and by "removal of water from the srte" that
should "reduce emis5ion .-ates substantially." But the state says that methane is still being
produced md the water was not removed.
6
2.0 'd
8 d
'Third, a page titled "PCB l.AN.LJt'.lLL Ml~L~.L.L..t\..N~VU~ .}J\JV.lYL.C.;) pl"q,1111:u rJY 1:m:
state's Division of Solid W astc Management Division, and given in a document entitled Sampling
Analysis, and Leachate Removal Activity 1982-1993 (delivered to the Working Group in April
1994 ), contains four results of gas measurements in January l 983, which is the EPA worlc The
problem is that the data do uot match the data in the published paper or the information in the one
page of conclusions apparently prepared by EPA.) Some e~pccially significant discrepancies are:
■ The state reported the highest level of PCBs found at the "gas vent exhaust" (surely the
nwn vent) as ''3 .0 PPB" (three parts per billion), which equ..tes to 3 ug/cm, in compariS4>o
to the .actual tJLfl.ximum level reported by EPA of 120 ppb in the published paper and 123
ppb in_ the one page of conclusions. Even ifth<:: state argued that it never closely ex.unined
the published paper it had in its possession for many years, it ~ely had the short ,:eport
prepared by EPA for the state so it could address public concerns.
• The state reponed for "ambient air samples" the result of "none detected~ .. but the state
failed to report the finding of PCBs in the air at the location of the house about a half a
mile from the land1ill1 which is a very significant distance to find such measurable lcvc;ls.,
nor the positive finding$ at the fcnci=line, as reponed in the published paper. Tia:
statement in the one page conclusions page from the EPA repon that ambient PCB levels
"were; found to be at or below minimum detection limits" was definitely not in agreement
with the data reported in the published papc:r, that inchlded four .readings significantly
above the detection lilnit. The only plausaole, acceptable exp.bnation might be that the
brief EPA repon was prepared p.rior to completion ofEPA'5 analysis of .ill of its field
dau.. This would be consistim.t with the desire by the ~ate to receive the findin!:i gftbc
f PA. study as soon as possible in order to address the considerable public opposition of
Warren County residCJ1ts to the landfill. In any event, the state had the published paper
that clearly revc.alcd the positive findings of PCBs at the fdl.celiu.e ind the nearby house.
• The state reported for the ''leachate wll~on pipe exhaust" a result ofleS£ thazi one part
per billion. Since EPA me..sa.red PCBs at the both the: upper :tnd lower leachate collection
access port$, the state)s information is at best incomplete and at worse nmleadi:ng. The
State would logically have had a problem with explaining any positive finding of PCBs
from the lower a.ocess pon. Th~ one page of EPA conclusions did :a.ot include a.ny data
for the leachate collection acce$$ ports, raising the qutstio.n of why the state teported less
than one part per billion, especially since the state had the publi&hed paper tlat incluric:d
the maximum value of 2. 6 ppb given for the leachate acuss pons.
111 may b~ significant th.at the data reported. were given for January 6 and 12 only, but that
the published paper said that the study lad been undeltaki;n in Januuy and February, suggesting
that not all the data became rc~oguized by the state, even though it was published in. the paper by
the EPA scientists in 1985 and the state office had t.hat pap!r for nw1y yesrs.
7
HOcl..::I HdV L L L 966 1-LZ-~
Beca"s~ there is no evide1ta that tht! actual EP.i rfp<R't o,. the published papu had
bl!en providt!d lo tht! gl!noal public or the Working Group by the state, these di'screpancieJ in
tht! only information made gvaj/able ckmonstrQte tJ.11t the state i,,"ntior,ally 1nisr~pru~ted
thefindi11g1 of the 1983 tests/or PCB air releaesfrom th, ltutdfllL Tlris wd.S done most
recently,·,, 1994. Sel'O'al c:.oplu of the 1985 puhllshcd pap,r w~r~fou11d in sttllefilu OIi thtt
landfill witl,, "markilfg tl,ai the paper had bttm rt!ceived in 1986. All tlicfa.ct.s show that the
stau has ~eodfastl)' <k1;,tived tht p14blit: about th~ data and, morf! import111rtly, tht
sig11ifica,ace oftlaefuulings with rtspcct ID public health risks. All PCB tmlssimu could ha>1e
hu11 prev~1ttt!d at ,,.iltimal e.ost by usbsg some form of carb"n adsorptiM tkvic~ at all la,ulflll
gas exit pQrts.
C9Pdwi0m
The concerns of Warren County residents about uncontrolled relea9es of PCBs into the air
emanating from the Warren County PCB Landfill were well founded and, in .&ct, proven by the
1983 measurements made by EPA, but incorrectly disregarded by EPA as well as the state. In
fact , the record shows that the state ha:, explicitly .wisrepreseuted the facts of the EPA study in an
attempt to undermine the concerns of Warren County residents about the health risks of PCB air
emissions. Alihougb MJ1ay rc,idtnU have be-eu very concerned about. drinking water being
(onuminated, :all the available data indic..ate that public health risks resultillg frou. PCB air
emissions have prob1bly been the most sicnificant threat for resident, lhin: relatively close
to the laodfilL
It is disturbing that EPA scientists made explicit statements designed to counter the
wncerns of citizcms and that those st1tel"DCltS were not ,upponed either by the facts or any
analysis. Of course, EPA itself hid given the state not cnly approval to construct the landiill, but
also financing for it, so it was not a completely impartial party, In fad, the levels of PC~s
measured i11 198.S wert: n~itlrer /.qw or nqligihl-4, as EP..-4 daim~d. The rwo cltlef
cotts~quoias of r~chmg the wrong conclllsio11s was that no ~mission control ,~clr11ology wen
used t<, pr~veM PCB 11ir rel,11:us and no odditi<mal m"nitoring was ca"ied out If EPA had
co1ne to the conclusion that sirniflcant lev,:/s of PCBs were being e.mitted from th~ landfill.
the serious conctrns of local resuun~· would hav~ b~en fully supponed by tht fedtffll
gova-nment. ft would /r.11w: been t1ppr0JJriln~ /11r EPA, on tlu basi'°3 of Its initial findings, to
have co,,du.cud another rou11d of more extensive air monitoring in die s"mm,:r of 1983,
e.sptcially at ltoniesiU!S withi11 01f.e to mi/C$ of tht$ landfill.
As to the issue of PCB health effects and monitoring, it should be noted that the federal
g°" emment had examined the issue of whether exposure to the origin.al PCB spill materials on
North Carolina roads resulted in increa~s m PCB level:s i.n breast milk. The study was completed
in 1982 and publishedin. 1983 (W.J. Rogan et al, Chromatographic Evidence of Polycblorinated
Biphenyl Exposure From a Spill, Jowual A.ml!rk:m Medical Association; voL249, no.8, pp. 10,1-
8
so ·d St61-lSZ-616:XE~
1058). The rc5Carcbers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences concluded that
the data for 1.2 exposed women that had been part of il larger study indicated that some pan of
the PCB levels found in their bodies correlated with the types of PCBs q,illed on the roads. Toe
women had been exposed to PCB vapors from spill locations along roads. It would have been
very useful to monitor the PCB levels in breast Dlllk in women living near the Warren Collllty
landfill, but that did not happen.
The levels of PCBs measured during the 1983 winter period around the landfill and)
especially, in the area of the residc:ui;e closest to the lan~ were of health significance and
con,.em. There is every reason to believe, on th~ basis of scientific principles, that emissions of
PCBs from the W arrcn. County PCB Landfill have been si~ca.nt for over 15 years. Release
rates would probably have been greater in wanner periods and may have changed over time a~
more time was available for vaporization of PCBs within the landfill, as compared to the early
I 983 period, just a few months after the wastes were buried in the landfi.Jl. Although local
residents report having asked the state over th~ years to u~e some type of afr pollution control
syst~m, such as carbon adsoiption: the state never implemented any control method.
In addition to cane-er risks, however, attention must also be given to non-cancer health
effects that could result from long periods of exposure to relatively low PCB levels. Also,
exposure dwing pregnancy is a threat. Research 3t Wayne State University and publish~d in the
New England Journal of Medicine in September 1996 reported developmental effects in eleven-
year old children whose mothers had consumed PCB contaminated fish in..:thc I 980s while
pregnant. At birth children had smaller heads and lower weights, and later: children had lower IQ
scores, poor reading comprehension. memory problems and shorter attention span. Similar results
have been found in several animal studies and in &tudies of Taiwanese children accidentally
exposed to PCBs. The damage to children was deemed similar to the effects oflead poisoning in
children .
The air rele:ise of PCBs also raises questions about other exposure routes. For example,
air releases of PCBs implies that som.: PCBs would be deposited on the local surrounding lands,
some of which are used for agricultural purposes, suggesting that crop~, vegetables gro'Wll in
household gardens, and dairy and meat products from cattle grazing on local lands could be
sources of PCB exposure through ingestion, not only for local residents but perhaps for others.
There is clearly a need for the st~te or EPA to conduct several types of tests, including the
following :
■ Current PCB emissions rates from the main vent and any other points open to the
atmosphere should be determined using the most sensitive and reliable testing ml:tbods.
■ Testing of PCBs in human tissues among adults md children who have lived near the
landfill for long times should be conducted.
9
60 'd
..
■ Health effects surveys should be couducted for long tCim nearby residents, especial!)·
children bome by mothers that livi!:d nc:ar th.c snc during pregnancy.
• There should be some t~sting of toe.ally gro"-U fruits and vegetables (and perlups cann<.d
locally grown produce known to have: been grown some years ago).
If PCBs a.re still beiug released from the lmdfill, then an engineering study ofusmg some
type of carbon adsorptioD $)'Stem should be immediately initated.
Finally, the rflults reported here supply still more support for the ,r.aie caking
nrio,uly i~ commitment to detoxify the Warren County PCB Laodfall and to make a
commitment ror 1upplying the necessary funding very quickly. There is now abwidant
proof that the huadfi.ll has not been safe and Heu.re, tbat the critically Jmportant bottom
da~ ~ad pl~stic linrr •ystem leaked, that the leachate collection system never wor1'td
effectively, and thst PCBs have leaked dire(:dy into the •ir and lu~h:ue into the
iurrounding soils.
BF A Environmental Consultants -=--;::r.~ =;:,n•:::-Fsrland•andwAssociates, inc.
MEMORANDUM BFA#9S·0l7
TO: PCB Landfill Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, Science Advisor
Joel O Kimrey, P.G., Senior Hydrogeologist
DATE: December 2, t 996
SUBJECT~ Air Emiuions of PCB and Associated Health Riaks
We have performed a cursory review of the U.S. EPA research repon on "fugitive Atmosphere
Emissions of PCB's from Hazardous Waste Landfills", ~ well u the review of that repon
prepared by Joel Hirschhorn, and, in general , it appears to me that the investigators made up their
minds that the Warren County PCB Landfill was going to be the control site regardless of the
testing results. They failed to draw the most important conclusion of their study, which is that
even so-called controlled landfill represents potentially significant health fisks .
lt is difficult to believe that the facility was not designed to include gas filters at the main vent
opening I believe that the community should demand an immediate explanation from the State of
this apparent disregard for the safety of the citizens of Afton . Moreover, I recommer:d that
community leaders demand, in no unce11ain terms, that:
1. The main vent or any uncapped opening to the landfill be fitted with an activated carbl,n
adsorption type filter within 72 hours. The filters should allow for influent and eftluent
sampling.
2. In addition to the health related 5ampling recommended by Joel Hirschhorn, additional
sediment sampling should be performed by the EPA or the State which include$ deposits at
the mouth of each major surface .drainage feature within 1/2 mile of the site. The PCB ' s
which have been depo,itcd by air emissions may have accumulated in these surface drainas1:
features and thus may still prc~ent a threat to the environment.
The Hollister Building• 3535 Lawton Road· Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office(407)896-8608• Fax[phone]
· ZO "d
,JOINT WARREN COUNTY/STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
720 Ridgeway Street
Warrenton, N. C. 27589
Office [phone] -Fax [phone]
Fax Cover Sheet
TO: Laura Butler 733-5317
Tommy Cline 733-143 l
Nan Freeland 832-9100
Henry Lancaster 715-3060
William Meyer 715-3605
Ron Nixon 419-8315
Monica Porter 733-2120
Dennis Retzlaff 257-2897
Jim Warren 493-6614
FROM: Doris Fleetwood
DATE: December 3 , 1996
Number of Pages including cover sheet Li
TO "d TO : 6 8P6T-lS[-6T6 :XEj dl-1Cld9 9t.,lI>ldl]Pl HJd
BF A Environmental Consultants ~ sct ti U W inc_ F,Q,4.11¢
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PCB Landfill Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, Science Advisor
Joel O Kimrey, P .G., Senior Hydrogeologist
DATE: December 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Air Emissions of PCB and Associated Health Risks
BFA #9S•0l7
We have performed a cursory review of the U.S . EPA researc;h repon on "fugitive Atnio.5phere
Emissions of PCB's from Hazardous Waste Landfills'', I! well a5 the 1eview of that repon
prepared by Joel Hirschhorn, and, in general, it appears to me that the investigators made up thei.r
minds that the Warren County PCB Landfill was going to be the control site regardless of the
testing results, They failed to draw the most important conclusion of their study, which is that
even so-called controlled landfill represents potentially signi.ftcant health risks.
It is difficult to believe that the facility was not designed to include gas filters at the main vent
opening. I believe that the community should demand an immediate explanation from the State of
this apparent disregard for the safety of the citizens of Afton. Moreover, I recommerid that
community leaders demand, in no uncertain terms, that:
1. The main vent or any uncapped opening to the landfill be fitted with an activated c:1ubt1n
adsorption type filter within 72 hours. The filters shouJd allow for influent and efl1uent
sampling.
2. In addition to the health related sampling recommended by Joel Hirschhorn, additional
sediment sampling should be performed by the El' A or the State which include$ deposits at
the mouth of each major surface drainage feature within 1/2 mile of the site. The PCB's
which have been depo,ited by air emissions may have accumulated in these surfa,.e drainase
fearures and thus may still prc5ent a threat to the environment.
The Holli1t~r Building• 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office {407) 896-8608 • Fax [phone]
,30 "d
. .
PCB LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
By: Patrick A, Barne:, -Sdenu Advisor
Joel 0. Kimrey, P.G. -Senior Hydro1eoJ01ist
Bad Site for Landfill
• The facility siting investigation failed to appropriately consider the criticaJ nature of the
geolosicaJ setting in locating the landfill . No in-depth geological work was perfom1ed to
detc:nn.ine actual subsurface flow characteristics,
Bdd Enginet:ri11g Colftrols
• The system to remove leachate failed to properly consider the type of materials deposited and
subsequently does not function .
• Improper stannwater mana.aernent during construction has allowed a significant amount of
water to enter the landfill.
• Pressure frorn the water in the landfill has resulted in leakage through the bottom hnt:r
• The poody detiigncd/installed top liner is also allowing additional water to enter the landfill
• Water entering and leaving the landfill represents a real threa.t to ,groundwater and surf&ce
water supplies of the area.
• Signifk.ant quantities of PCB's have apparently discharged into the air through the rnf\in
landfill vent, and immediate action should be taken to install a properly siz.ed cart,<in
absorption fi.lter-
lmpropu MonUoring
• The State has failed to maintain compliance with the operating/monitoring requirements of the
landfill.
• The existing monitoring wells are poorly designed and positioned, and will no~ p~operty ~~tect
possible release of contaminants from the landfill. The process of estabhshmg a.dd1t1onal
locations is u1'derw;iy.
• The existing surface water and sediment sampling locations are also po~rly located a.n_d_ will
not intercept potential releases e.t the earliest stage, Here to, the estabh~hment of add1t1onal
locations i! underway
The Hollister Building • 3~J~ Lawton Roed • Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Offiee (407) 8Q6-8608 • Fax (~07) 896,1822
£:Cl 'd
Recomm~ndation5
• Redesign the environment1l monitoring network.
• Move immediately towards complete detoxification of the landfill contents.
• InstaU a carbon adsorption filter on the main landfill vent
More detailed discussion of these items are available through the PCB Landfill Office m
Warrenton -[phone].
I 2-2S11.m.doc
The Hollister Building• ~535 Lewton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando. Florida 32803
Office (407) 898•8e08 • Fax (407) 896·1822
170 "d ,::::CJ: 6
Published in Environmental Science and Technology, October, 1985, pp. 986-991, by the American Chemical Society
Measurement of Fugitive Atmospheric Emissions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
from Hazardous Waste Landfills
Robert G. Lewis• and Barry E. Martin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Donald L. Sgontz and James E. Howes, Jr.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio 43201
■ Four landfills known to contain large quantities of po-
lychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were monitored for at-
mospheric emissions: Three of these were uncontrolled
and contained large numbers of electrical capacitors, many
of which were scattered on the surface and leaking PCB
askarel fluids. The other is a state-of-the-art PCB waste
landfill designed to exceed the requirements of the Toxic
Substances Control Act of 1978 (ToSCA) for PCB disposal.
Both high-volume and low-volume air sampling equipment
were utilized at each landfill to monitor air levels of PCBs
on site, upwind and downwind. In addition, vent ports
were monitored at the controlled site. Simultaneous,
collocated sampling was performed for quality assurance
purposes and to obtain information on sampling perform-
ance and comparability. High atmospheric PCB concen-
trations were measured at the uncontrolled sites, while air
levels were at or near background at the ToSCA-designed
landfill. PCBs were detected at low levels in gas vents at
the latter site.
Introduction
The disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is
strictly regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(ToSCA). Specifically designed chemical waste landfills
with impermeable liners are required and are subject to
approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The only access to the external environment in the case
of ToSCA landfills is through open vents and ports re-
quired for leachate monitoring and for relief for gases
generated within the landfill from decaying organic matter.
Prior to 1978, however, many PCB-containing articles were
disposed of in municipal landfills or at uncontrolled
chemical waste disposal sites.
PCBs possess sufficiently high vapor pressures (l0-4-10-5
kPa) to be emitted directly into the air surrounding haz-
ardous waste disposal sites through volatilization from
contaminated surfaces (1, 2). They also may be released
from controlled landfills through vents along with more
volatile gases (3). To test this premise, four PCB landfills
were monitored in this study. One was a ToSCA-designed
facility in North Carolina which was studied to determine
if PCBs were being emitted into the surrounding atmos-
pheric environment from gas vents and leachate access
ports. The other three consisted of two uncontrolled
private landfills and one municipal landfill in Indiana, each
of which contained large numbers of PCB-containing ca-
pacitors.
Materials and Methods
Air sampling was performed with low-volume (LV)
and/ or high-volume (HV) sampling systems previously
described (4-6). The components of the LV sampling
system consisted of a battery-operated, constant flow
sampling pump (Du Pont Model P-4000A) and a glass
cartridge containing a 22-mm diameter X 7.6-cm long
986 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 10, 1985
cylinder of polyurethane foam (PUF). The HV sampler
consisted of a conventional Hi-Vol shelter and pump
modified by addition of an inlet head to accommodate a
PUF sampling cartridge. The sampling head was com-
prised of an aluminum housing which held a 10-cm diam-
eter particulate filter (Pallflex 2500 QAST quartz) followed
by a glass sampling cartridge containing a 62 mm diameter
X 7.6 cm cylindrical PUF plug. The General Metal Works
(Village of Cleves, OH) Model PS-1 sampler is essentially
identical with the HV sampler used in these studies.
The Du Pont sampling pumps were calibrated with a
Du Pont calibrator pack (catalog no. 66-242-f-l) before and
after each sampling period. The HV samplers were cali-
brated once each week by means of a calibrated venturi
tube which was attached to the inlet. Flow audits were
conducted in the field prior to and at the termination of
monitoring activities by an independent team using two
laminar flow elements calibrated by the National Bureau
of Standards (NBS). Clean filters and PUF plugs were
used to simulate actual initial operating conditions.
The PUF plugs were precleaned by Soxhlet extraction
with acetone as previously described (4), vacuum dried,
and loaded into the appropriate glass sampling cartridges
under clean laboratory conditions. The cartridges were
wrapped in hexane-rinsed aluminum foil and stored in
carefully cleaned glass jars padded with clean PUF for
transport to and from the sampling sites. Exposed filters
from the HV samplers were completely wrapped in pre-
rinsed foil and placed in the jars with the PUF cartridge.
Disposable latex surgical gloves and prerinsed tongs were
used for handling the sampling cartridges when PUF plugs
were loaded and unloaded in the laboratory and for atta-
ching them to the sampling systems in the field.
Exposed PUF plugs and filters were Soxhlet extracted
together with 5% diethyl ether in hexane following the
procedure of Lewis et al. (4, 6), the extracts reduced to 10
or 1 mL in Kuderna-Danish concentrators according to
analytical needs, and the PCBs determined by electron
capture gas chromatography following EPA Method 608
(7). Identification and quantification of Aroclors 1242 and
1260 in the samples were performed by the technique
originally described by Webb and McCall (8). All solvents
were pesticide quality or analytical reagent grade. NBS
Standard Reference Material 1581 (Aroclors 1242 and 1260
in motor oil and transformer oil) were used for calibration
purposes. Recovery of Aroclors 1242 and 1260 from PUF
plugs fortified with SRM 1581 at three levels (0.06, 0.6,
and 6 µg/plug) averaged 93%. One laboratory blank and
one laboratory "spiked" PUF plug were analyzed with each
20 samples. In addition, ca. 10% of all samples analyzed
were field blanks which had been transported to and from
the monitoring sites.
Continuous measurements of wind speed, wind direc-
tion, ambient air temperature, and relative humidity were
obtained with Meteorology Research, Inc., portable
weather stations. Since the landfill sites were subject to
3-STAGE
□ CLEAN EARTH/TOPSOIL
~ ARTIFICIAL LINER
~ LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
§j CLAY LINER WATER TABLE
SPRINKLER
ORIGINAL
GROUND
-........_/SURFACE ------
Figure 1. Cross-sectional drawing of controlled PCB landfill in North Carolina.
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-o■H0USE A MAIN VENT
8 SMALL VENT
E SMALL VENT tion and Liability Act ("Superfund"), all samples were
collected, handled, and transported under standard
chain-of-custody procedures.
Results and Discussion
Controlled Landfill. In 1978, an unprecedented spill
of PCBs along 387 km of roadway occurred in central
North Carolina. Some 40 000-120 000 L of transformer
fluid consisting of Aroclors 1260 and 1242 in chloro-
benzenes were illegally and surreptitiously dumped along
the shoulders of the roads. Over 4 years of litigation were
required before a disposal site for the 30 000 m3 of con-
taminated soil could be located in a sparsely populated
area of the state. Because of the great amount of public
concern over the safety of the disposal site, a state-of-
the-art landfill designed to exceed the requirements of
ToSCA was constructed in late 1982. The EPA-approved
(Superfund) site, located on a 4 ha of land in a rural area,
measures 75 m X 145 m and has a maximum depth of
about 7 m. The contaminated soil is encapsulated within
0.6-m (top) to 1.5-m (bottom and sides) thick layers of
highly impervious, compacted clay, augmented with 10-mil
(0.25-mm) and 30-mil (0.75-mm) plastic liners on the top
and bottom, respectively. The landfill is properly sloped
and equipped with sump pumps and a leachate collection
system for monitoring purposes. It is also provided with
a gas vent which protrudes 1.5 m into the landfill for relief
of methane and other gases generated by bacterial decay
of organic matter contained in the soil. A cross-sectioned
drawing of the landfill is shown in Figure 1.
Several months after closure of the landfill, local resi-
dents voiced concerns that gases emanating from the vent
pipe and (as yet uncapped) leachate collection pipes may
have been introducing PCBs into the surrounding atmos-
phere. In response, a study was undertaken in Jan and
Feb 1983 to monitor these emissions and the ambient air
at the site.
Only the LV samplers were used in this study. The
vents and leachate access ports were sampled by placing
the PUF cartridge inlets into the pipes or ports and sealing
the openings with plastic bags to assure maintenance of
positive pressures. Sampling was performed for 8 h at
reduced flow rates of 1.2-1.4 L/min so as not to exceed
the volumetric flow rates of the vent pipes. The sampling
efficiency of the LV sampler employing PUF cartridges
had been previously shown to be essentially quantitative
for collection of Aroclor 1242 in natural gas, which is
97-98% methane (9). Soil temperatures within the landfill
were presumed to be nearly constant at 4-5 °C (thermic
temperature regime); therefore, emission rates were es-
sentially independent of ambient air temperatures.
0-.... ------
l
1000m
l
C UPPER LEACHATE ACCESS POAT
0 LOWER LEACHATE ACCESS PORT
0 SAMPLERS
145m
..__ ..__ ---o..._ ..__ -..._ • B 75m
130m 36m 36m -0 36m 160m o, • ot------o~•~o----+----o
_.....__:::.o-i"m oe -____ --o---c• ~ W
_nl-..::::,_ ___________ ___, LEACHATE
---~ POND 0-------
WEATHER STATION N-........
Figure 2. Sampling arrangement for monitoring at the controlled landfill
when winds were from the north. Array was rotated with wind direction
so as to monitor at the perimeter of the landfill and at half the distance
for the main vent to the perimeter.
Ambient air sampling was performed with an array of
samplers operating at 3.8 L/min and located from 1 to 200
m upwind and downwind of the main vent as shown by
the example presented in Figure 2. Air samples were
collected at 1.2 m aboveground at each of the 13 locations
designated by open circles. Simultaneous samples were
also collected at 4.6 m above ground at the perimeter of
the mounded landfill (72 m downwind of the main vent
in the arrangement shown in Figure 2) so as to be on
line-of-sight with the opening of the main vent. The spatial
arrangement of the samplers was alternated as necessary
at the start of each sampling period to reflect average wind
direction. That is, downwind samplers were placed in a
fanned-out array at half the distance from the main vent
to the perimeter, at the perimeter, and at the tree line
(100-130 m downwind). Upwind samplers were placed
accordingly. One sample was taken at the same location
in the yard of the nearest house (1 km away) during each
sampling period. Sampling was performed from 0900 to
1700 Eastern Standard Time on 3 days and from 2100 to
0500 on the fourth day. Ambient air temperatures ranged
from -1 to +14 °C, wind speed from 0.04 to 6.6 m/s, and
relative humidity from 46 to 95%. No vent sampling was
performed on these days, and all vents were left open.
Analytical results from the gas samples collected from
five vents are presented in Table I. It should be noted
that the lower leachate removal pipe extends below the
landfill. The two small pipes were installed temporarily
to release gas bubbles in the upper plastic liner. PCB
concentrations in the gases (principally methane) ema-
nating from the main vent ranged from 105 to 141 µg/m3
measured as Aroclor 1242 and from 1.8 to 2.1 µg/m3
measured as Aroclor 1260. A typical gas chromatogram
of the PCB mixture found in the main gas vent is shown
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 10, 1985 987
Table I. Controlled PCB Landfill Vent Monitoring Results
PCB concentration, µg/m3
Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260
location range av range av
main vent (A) 105.7-141.5 120.2 1.8-2.1 2.0
upper leachate access 0.8-2.8 2.6 0.3-0.6 0.5
port (C)
lower leachate access ND-0.09 0.04 ND-0.08 0.05
port (D)
small vent (B) ND-0.07 0.05 <0.02-<0.3 <0.02
small vent (E) <0.02-0.67 0.24 <0.02-1.3 0.4
• Letters in parentheses refer to position identification in Figure
2. b Average of three to four measurements; 7-8-h samples.
1:1 AROCLOR 1242 AND 1260
PCB IN GAS VENT
Figure 3. Gas chromatograms of standard mixture and sample from
main gas vent at controlled landfill.
in Figure 3 along with the 1:1 Aroclor 1242-Aroclor 1260
standard used for quantification. Collocated samples
collected in the main vent agreed within 6-9%. Concen-
trations found in the leachate collection ports were much
lower, ranging from nondetectable (ND) to 2.8 µ,g/m 3
Aroclor 1242 and from ND to 0.5 µ,g/m3 Aroclor 1260.
Detection limits were 0.01-0.02 µ,g/m3. Analyses of
transformer oil and soil samples prior to interment showed
a 4:1 ratio of Aroclor 1260 to Aroclor 1242. The greater
volatility of the latter mixture apparently accounted for
the relatively higher concentrations found.
Ambient air data are given in Table II. Only four of
the 39 ambient air samples analyzed contained detectable
quantities of PCB (MDL = 6 ng/m3). Three samples were
positive for Aroclor 1260 only (at 11, 12, 50, and 71 ng/m3)
and did not appear correlate with proximity to the vents.
The two maximum levels were found 98 m downwind of
the main vent.
Gas flow measurements made at three different times
showed flow rates of 4.8-6.4 (average 5.7) L/min from the
main vent. No flow was measurable from the leachate
ports or small vents. The average gaseous PCB emission
rate from the landfill, therefore, was estimated to be 12.1
ng/s. By use of these emission parameters and meteoro-
logical conditions that prevailed during the study, standard
dispersion models were applied to calculate downwind
PCB concentrations for comparison with field measure-
ments. Two EPA models (10, 11) were employed to cal-
culate estimates of maximum hourly concentrations under
a full spectrum of meteorological conditions and estimates
of the range of hourly ambient concentrations that would
occur at downwind distances of 50, 100, and 150 m under
the meteorological conditions that probably controlled
988 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 10, 1985
Table II. Ambient Air Monitoring at Controlled Landfill
location
beside main vent
on site, downwind
on site, upwind
fence line, downwind
off site, downwind
off site, upwind
nearby house
air concentration, µg/m3
Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.006
<0.01-0.01 •
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01-0.07b
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01-0.01•
• One of six measurements above detection limit. b Two of 13
measurements above detection limit (0.05 and 0.07 µg/m3). c One
of six measurements above detection limit.
dispersion during the field monitoring. The predicted
maximum 1-h concentrations downwind of the vent under
prevailing and worst case conditions ranged from 4 X IO~
ng/m3 at 14 m to 1 X 10-7 ng/m3 at 50 to 150 m. The 8-h
concentrations would be expected to be about 10-s ng/m3•
These values are far below the detection capability of the
sampler employed (or that of any known sampler).
Uncontrolled Landfills. Three disposal sites in the
vicinity of one city in Indiana have been the subject of
recent concern because they contain large numbers of
PCB-containining transformers which were dumped there
prior to 1972. One of the sites, designated here as site 1,
is about 8 ha in size and located on an abandoned farm.
Site 2 is a small, rural site of about 0.2 ha, surrounded by
mobile homes. Site 3 was a municipal landfill, some 3 ha
in area, located in a suburban area. At each of these sites
capacitors were strewn across the ground surface (some-
times in mounds) and were visibly leaking askarels con-
taining Aroclor 1242 into the soil and nearby streams. The
total quantity and depth of burial of the capacitors is
unknown.
Both L V and HV samplers were employed to monitor
PCB atmospheric emissions at the three uncontrolled
landfills. The air measurements at the sites were per-
formed at localized areas (hot spots) where leaking capa-
citors were evident and at other locations to determine
upwind (background) and downwind levels. Three dif-
ferent sampling approaches each using PUF cartridges for
collection of PCBs were used. The LV samplers were set
up at hot spots to sample during 8-h daytime periods at
3.8 L/min with intakes positioned 120 cm above ground.
The HV systems were set to sample at 226 L/min for
8-24-h periods at hot spots and at upwind and downwind
points. The intakes at the HV sampler were 180 cm above
ground. Where line power was unavailable, gasoline-
powered generators placed downwind of the HV samplers
were used. Arrays of five LV sampling systems placed
from 2 to 180 cm above ground were used to determine the
vertical concentration profiles at hot spots. Detection
limits were ca. 10 ng/m3 for the LV sampler and ca. 50
pg/m3 for the HV sampler.
Three or four days of monitoring was performed at each
site during June and July 1983. Results from single-level
(120 or 180 cm above ground) monitoring are presented
in Table III. The following summarizes these results:
At capacitor disposal site 1, airborne PCB concen-
trations measured at 120-180 cm above five hot
spots during the day (0900-1700 central daylight
savings time) ranged from 0.4 to 18 µ,g/m3. Levels
along the downwind perimeter of the site ranged
from 0.2 to 1.8 µ,g/m3. Upwind PCB concentrations
ranged from <0.05 to 0.09 µ,g/m3.
Ambient air PCB concentrations measured at
120-180 cm above two hot spots at site 2 ranged from
Table III. Range of PCB Concentrations (µg/m3) in Air at Uncontrolled Sites, June-July 1983
site 1
location daytime
hot spots 0.4-18.0
downwind 0.3-0.5
upwind <0.05-o.10
meteorology
temperature range, °C
wind velocity range, m/s
relative humidity range, %
Table IV. Vertical Profile Air Measurements at
Uncontrolled Landfills
distance air concentration,• µg/m3
above site la site lb
ground, cm October July July
2 271-520 577-1053 602-1108
30 27-33 56-120 111-157
60 8.6-18 30--58 4o--62
120 2.9-5.7 17-30 15-21
180 1.3-2.3 6.4-1.3 8.6-10
• Average daytime levels over a 4-day period.
24 h
8.3-13.0
0.60--1.3
0.08-0.09
19-42
0--2.3
62-83
site 3
July
367-955
53-159
28-69
16-33
6.8-21
0.6 to 19 µg/m3 during the day. Near residences
adjacent to the site, levels ranged from <0.04 to 0.2
µg/m3.
At the municipal landfill (site 3), daytime PCB air
levels measured at 120-180 cm above three hot spots
ranged from to 193 µg/m3. Upwind concentrations
were fairly constant at ca. 0.05 µg/m3, and levels
measured downwind of the landfill ranged from 0.3
to 0.8 µg/m3. There were a number of residences
around the perimeter of this site.
Generally, the airborne PCB levels measured at hot spots
correlated with the quantity of exposed capacitors.
Vertical emission profiles at hot spots are given in Table
IV. Air concentrations decreased with distance above
contaminated surfaces. Levels at 2 cm above ground level
were from 40 to 100 times higher than the levels at an
elevation of 180 cm, while those at 120 cm were twice as
high. PCB emission rates during July 1983 were probably
maximized by the unseasonbly warm (19-42 °C), dry
weather which prevailed throughout the study period.
Sampling data from site 1 during Oct 1982, when tem-
peratures ranged from 13 to 30 °C, showed PCB levels
about half of those obtained during the summer.
Typical gas chromatograms of downwind and upwind
samples from site 1 are shown in Figure 4. Chromato-
grams of hot spot air samples taken at several heights are
presented in Figure 5.
Both the LV and HV samplers (including one com-
mercial version of the latter) performed well throughout
the study. Sampler pumps were calibrated before and after
each sampling period. Flow calibrations ranged from + 1.9
to-7.9% for the LV samplers and from +8 to-7% for the
HV samplers. Pre-and postflow readings agreed within
±5% in over 90% of the cases. Independent flow audits
indicated average flow accuracies of -2.8 % for 20 L V
pumps and +5.2% for seven HV samplers. Field blanks
analyzed with ambient air samples collected at each landfill
site showed no PCB (measured at Aroclor 1242) above the
minimum detectable level of 0.02 µg per plug. The blank
sampling cartridges were carried through all field handling
operations except attachment to the sampling devices.
During the field study, pairs of LV and HV samplers
were operated for the same time period at the same sam-
site 2
daytime
0.6-33.8
<0.04-0.07
site 3
24 h daytime
6.3-193
0.08-0.20
0.08-0.20 <0.04-0.05
19-38
0.1-2.7
37-83
AROCLOR 1242
DOWNWIND
AIR SAMPLE
SITE 1
STANDARD
24 h
21.5-77.4
0.3-0.8
0.08-0.09
22-42
0-2.2
24-70
UPWIND
AIR SAMPLE
SITE 1
Figure 4. Gas chromatograms of standard and ambient air samples
at uncontrolled landfill.
AROCLOR 1242
STANDARD
AIR SAMPLE AT
2cm { 1 :40 DILUTION)
AIR SAMPLE AT
60cm
AIR SAMPLE AT
120 cm
Figure 5. Gas chromatograms of standard and air samples at several
heights above hot spots at uncontrolled landfill.
pling location to estimate the reproducibility of the mea-
surement methods. Measurements were also made with
collocated L V and HV samplers to compare results ob-
tained by the two methods. As can be seen from the data
in Table V, good agreement between pairs was obtained.
The average difference calculated from all the paired L V
sampler measurements was 7.2% while that for the HV
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 10, 1985 989
Table V. Collocated Sampler Comparisons
paired LV samplers,• µg/m3 paired HV samplers/ µg/m3 paired LV and HV samplers,b,c µg/m3
% difference % difference % difference
sampler A sampler B in pair sampler A sampler B in pairs sampler A sampler B in pairs
9.4 11 15.7 12 14 15 8.7 7.1 +20.3
8.8 8.6 2.3 11 12 8 7.0 6.5 +7.4
11 6.8 47.2 37 61 49 8.5 11.6 -30.8
11 12 8.7 98 89 9 5.2 9.9 -62.3
5.1 5.3 3.8 30 47 44 11.0 12.3 -11.2
7.9 9.1 14.1 20 23 14 8.5 13.5 -45.5
18 19 5.4 45 45 0 18.5 28.0 -40.9
77 72 6.7 11.0 21.0 -62.5
6.2 6.0 3.3 40.0 49.0 -20.2
85 89 4.6
11.2d 20d -27.3d
• Located 30 cm apart. b Located 1 m apart. c Data corrected to account for difference in height of intake above ground. d Average.
Table VI. Comparison of Active and Passive Sampling Data
air concentration, µg/m3
distance above site la
ground, cm active passive active
2 1060 980 670
30 120 53 90
60 37
120 19 14 17
180 5.1/5.2
• Average.
samplers was 20%. Since the inlets of the HV and LV
samplers were not located at the same heights above
ground, it was necessary to apply a correction factor in
order to achieve reasonably accurate comparisons between
values obtained from collocated pairs of HV and LV sam-
plers. For this purpose, corrected HV values (C180) were
calculated by
where C180 and C120 were the PCB air concentrations
measured by the collocated HV and L V samplers, re-
spectively, and V180 and V120 were concentration values
obtained from vertical profile measurements with the L V
samplers at 120 and 180 cm above ground, respectively.
After these adjustments, the L V /HV sampler comparison
averaged -27.3%, with the LV sampler generally giving
lower results.
A limited numer of experimental passive devices (12)
were also exposed at hot spots on site 1 on 2 of the 4 days
of sampling. The passive sampling devices (PSDs) were
3.8 cm diameter X 1.3 cm stainless-steel cylinders con-
taining a series of diffusion screens and plates on each end.
Tenax GC (0.4 g) was used to collect PCB gases diffusing
into the devices. The sampling rate for PCBs was esti-
mated at 30 cm3 /min on the basis of trichlorobiphenyl.
The devices were transported to and from the exposure
sites in sealed cans, which were placed in a larger can
containing activated charcoal. Cyclohexane was used for
extraction of the PCBs from the PSDs. Collocated expo-
sures with the L V samplers showed reasonably good
agreement, as can be seen from the data presented in Table
VI. The detection limit for the PSDs was only ca. 5 µg/m3
for 8-h exposures, however. Efforts are currently under
way to improve sensitivity by means of supercritical fluid
extraction and concentration.
Temporary remedial actions were taken during
1983-1984 at sites 1 and 2 to remove all exposed capacitors
990 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 10, 1985
site lb average
passive active passive % difference P / A
340 865 660 -24
125 105 89 -16
55/100 37 77 +48/108
18 14 -22
5/16 5 10 +100
+16.8°
Table VII. Range of PCB Concentrations• (µg/m3) in Air at
Uncontrolled Sites after Temporary Cleanup, Aug 1984
hot spots
downwind
upwind
location
meteorology
site l
3.1-4.6
0.4-1.4
0.2-0.3
temperature range, °C 14-32
wind velocity range, m/s 0-1.3
relative humidity range, % 48-92
• 24-h samples.
site 2
2.7-3.1
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.1
Table VIII. Vertical Profile Air Measurements at
Uncontrolled Landfills after Temporary Cleanup, April
1984
distance above
ground, cm
2
30
60
120
180
air concentration,•
µg/ma
site 1 site 1 b
2.3-3.2
1.1-1.8
0.9-1.4
0.7-1.4
0.4-0.6
11.5-21.3
4.1-5.8
1.7-3.1
1.7-3.1
1.5-2.5
•Average daytime levels over a 4-day period.
and obviously contaminated surface soil. Following this
cleanup, limited additional air monitoring was performed
during a 4-day period in Aug 1984. The results of HV
sampling at both sites are presented in Table VII. Vertical
profile measurements (using the LV samplers) at two
previously monitored hot spots on site 1 are given in Table
VIII. Significant reductions (by an order of magnitude)
of PCB air levels at the hot spots were noted postcleanup.
However, downwind levels at both sites 1 and 2 appeared
unchanged, suggesting that the landfill proper is still
contributing PCBs to the surrounding atmosphere.
Conclusions
The results of these studies demonstrate that fugitive
emissions of PCBs into the atmosphere can occur at un-
controlled landfills. At the three sites, PCB air levels
measured at hot spots on the landfills greatly exceeded
ambient background levels, thus indicating that PCBs
from the leaking capacitors were being emitted into the
air. Concentrations that exceeded background levels were
also observed at sampling locations downwind of the
landfills, even after removal of exposed capacitors and
obviously contaminated surface soil. By contrast, air
emissions of PCB from a well-designed chemical waste
landfill were found to be negligible.
All PCB sampling systems were found to perform well.
The L V samplers offered an advantage over the HV sam-
plers when electrical power was not available (as was the
case at most of the sites monitored). However, limited
battery life would not permit 24-h sampling with the LV
pumps. The experimental passive sampler, which can
readily operate unattended for 24 h, shows much promise
if its sensitivity can be increased by 100-fold through im-
proved extraction and analysis methods.
Acknowledgments
We than Donald E. Johnson of Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, TX, for valuable laboratory support
in preparation and analysis of PUF cartridges, Jack C.
Suggs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC, for modeling assistance, William
F. Barnard and Jack A. Bowen of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, for per-
forming field audits, James Gray of EPA Region IV,
Athens, GA, for field support at the controlled landfill, and
Ralph Riggin of Battelle for analysis of the passive sam-
pling devices.
Registry No. Aroclor 1242, 53469-21-9; Aroclor 1260, 11096-
82-5.
Literature Cited
(1) MacLeod, K. E.; Lewis, R. G. In "Sampling and Analysis
of Toxic Organics in the Atmosphere"; American Society
for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA, 1980; Pub-
lication STP721, pp 56-69.
(2) Weaver, G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1984, 18, 22A-27A.
(3) Murphy, T. J.; Formanski, L. J.; Brownawell, B.; Meyer,
J. A. 184th National Meeting of the American Chemical
Society, Kansas City, MO, Sept 1982; American Chemical
Society: Washington, DC, 1982; ENVR 70.
(4) Lewis, R. G.; Brown, A. R.; Jackson, M. D. Anal. Chem.
1977,49, 1668-1672.
(5) Lewis, R. G.; Jackson, M. D. Anal. Chem. 1982, 54, 592-594.
(6) Lewis, R. G.; MacLeod, K. E. Anal. Chem. 1982, 54,
310-315.
(7) Fed. Regist. 1979, 44, 69501-69509.
(8) Webb, R. G.; McCall, A. C. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1973, 11,
366-373.
(9) Jackson, M. D.; Hodgson, D. W.; MacLeod, K. E.; Lewis,
R. G. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1981, 27, 226-229.
(10) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "NTIS Tape of
User's Network for Applied Modeling of Air Pollution
(UNAMAP)". EPA, 1980, Version 4, NTIS No. PB81-
164600.
(11) Turner, D. B.; Busse, A. D. "User's Guides to the Interactive
Versions of Three Point Source Dispersion Programs:
PTMAX, PTDIX, and PTMTP" 1973, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report EPA/DF/00lf (NTIS No.
PB81-164667).
(12) Lewis, R. G.; Mulik, J. D.; Coutant, R. W.; Wooten, G. W.;
McMillin, C. R. Anal. Chem. 1985, 57, 214-219.
Received for review December 19, 1984. Accepted April 5, 1985.
Although the research described in this article was funded wholly
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through
Contract 68-02-3745, it has not necessarily reflect the views of
the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Mention of trade names for commercial products do es not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 19, No. 10, 1985 991
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR 2 O Jg83
DATE: APR I 8 1003
SlJBJECT: Draft Final Report on Ambient Monitoring for PCB' s at the Warren County
(North Carolina) Landfill
FROM: Barry E. Martin, Chief <d'CX4lvi ~
Field Monitoring Section, EMTB, /£,M.D, EMSL/RTP (M.D-76)
TO: Doyle Brittain
EPA, Region IV College Station Road
Athens, GA
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Final Report on Ambient Monitoring
for PCB's at the Warren County (North Carolina) Landfill submitted to
me by Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio. Please review
and provide your comments to me so we can finalize this task with
Battelle.
If I can be of further assistance, please call me at FTS: 629-3076.
Enclosure
cc: T. Hartlage (M.D-76)
"A Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
J
]
l
]
]
)
I
l DRAFT FINAL REPORT
ON
AMBIENT MONITORING FOR PCBs AT THE
WARREN COUNTY (NORTH CAROLINA) LANDFILL
by
D.L. Sgontz, W.E. Bresler, L.A. Winker
and J.E. Howes, Jr.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio 43201
I
Contract No. 68-02-3745
Work Assignment No. 10
Project Officer
Barry E. Martin
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27TI1
April 8, 1983
J
J
]
J
]
]
]
]
] ,
J
j
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
=-
Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated dirt excavated from
along roads the central piedmont area of North Carolina has been disposed of
in an approved hazardous waste landfill in Warren County (NC). Local
residents and the Warren County Health Department have expressed concern
apout the possibility of airborne PCB emissions from the landfill being
transported to neighboring areas, thus threatening the public welfare.
In answer to this concern, a study was performed to monitor airborne PCB
emissions from the landfill and ambient air levels on and surrounding the
site. The specific objectives of the study were:
o to determine if PCBs are being emitted from vent pipes on the
1 andf i 11.
o to determine if PCBs are present in the ambient air downwind of
the vent pipes. /
o to determine if PCBs are present in the ambient air in the
vicinity of the nearest residence, approximately one-half mile
away.
o to quantify the actual concentration of PCBs, if any, being
emitted from the vent pipes.
o to quantify the actual concentrations of PCBs, if any, being
transported off the landfill.
The study was performed at the request of the North Carolina Division of
Health Services and was conducted according to a plan developed by EPA,
Region IV and EPA/EMSL personnel. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories personnel,
assisted by Jim Gray of EPA Region IV, performed the field sampling program.
....
I
]
]
]
1
]
]
]
l
l
1
Southwest Research Institute performed the PCB analysis of the polyurethane
foam sampling cartridges. The following sections describe the landfill site,
the sampling and analytical procedures that were used, and present the
results of the study.
·\
I
J
]
]
]
1
]
]
J
SECTION 2
SITE DESCRIPTION
=-
\
The landfill is located in Warren County, North Carolina on an
approximately 20 acre tract of land owned by the State of North Carolina.
The landfill proper covers an area of approximately 75m x 145m. In the
construction, plastic pipes were installed to vent gases :and aqueous leachate
from 1 andf i 11. The 1 ocat ions of the vents on the 1 andf i 11 are shown in
Figure 1. The main vent is 4 in. in diameter, extends approximately 1.2m (4
ft.) above the ground, and is located in approximately the center of the
landfill. Two leachate vents are located near the northeast corner of the
landfill. Two small vents have been added after construction to relieve gas
pressure under the plastic cover on the landfill. One of the vents is
located approximately due west of the main vent and the other is located near
the leachate vents.
'f I . ....L,
111'.
I
J
I
1 i,
Nl /2 mi. 0.,..... from 1 andfi 11
House
J I
N
B A
0 0
Vent Identification
A-Main Vent
8-Small Vent
C-Upper Leachate Vent
0-Lower Leachate Vent
E-Small Vent
0 Leachate Pond
Q OE
D Q
C
Figure 1. Vent locations on Warren County (NC) Landfill
I
]~
1:
I
]
l
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
J
I
1 -
•
\
FIELD MONITORING
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The field monitoring program was conducted over the period January 26 -
February 1, 1983. Sampling was performed to determine PCB emissions from the
5 landfill vents and ambient air PCB levels on and in the vicinity of the
landfill. The monitoring schedule was as follows:
January 26 -vents and ambient air (daytime)
January 27 -vents only
January 28 -vents only
January 29 -ambient air only (daytime)
January 30 -no sampling due to weather conditions
January 31 and
February 1 -ambient air onft y (night time)
All PCB monitoring was performed with DuPont P-4000A battery-operated
pumps equipped with sampling cartridges consisting of a 20mm i.d. x 10cm long
borosilicate glass tubes into which was fitted a 22rrm dia. x 7.6cm long plug
of polyurethane foam plug. The PUF sampling cartridges were connected to the
pumps with a short section of Tygon tubing as shown in Figure 2. Sampling
was performed according to the procedure described in Appendix A.
The vents which were sampled are identified in Figure 1. Sampling was
performed by placing the PUF cartridges into the vent pipes and sealing the
vent openings with a plastic bag or tape to restrict gas flow. Nominally,
sampling was performed for 8 hours at a flow rate of 1.2 -1.4 L/min.
Ambient air sampling was performed with an array of samplers located as
shown in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows the sampler placement for the
ambient air monitoring conducted on January 26 from approximately 1000 to
,
r ,L
r
r
]
I
I
I
1
l
1
l
]
I
l
1 l
..
I ' l
• \
SAMP,LING CARTRIDGE
St . -~--::::: • FLOW RANGE VALVE
t15V AOAnOR/ •• -~:::.._)I I--_:;.---
CHARGER ,LuG V 'J~------lFLow RATE ADJUSTMENT
! I
.i.,,...,...~--I, ~---,,. I ;
I
LED INDICATOR LIGHTS
(TIMING, FLOW, BATTERY)
.
TIMING SWITCHES
DRIVE IELT
OFF-ON SWITCH
Figure 2. DuPont P-4000A pump and sampling cartridge.
"'"-
I J \
l I 0 N
l 8
] 0 0 0
]
]
7
1
1
l
0 2A Q 28
]
©
] -MRI
; Weather
Station
] □ I
3 4A 48 4C
]
l •
l i •
l SA 5B SC
I •
6A 68 6C
Figure 3. Ambient air sampling locations on January 26, 1983.
l
l
l
]
:1
~]
]
]
6A
J
J 6B
J
J □ 3
]
J
J 6C
1
J
l •
·1 Figure 4 . •
•
! ..
1 -
=-
J
I 0 N
0 0 0
5A
4A
2A
5B 04B 0 7
2B
4C 4 ......
SC
Ambient air sampling locations on January 29,
8
1983.
©
MRI
Weather
Sta ti on
-l
_]
]
_]
_]
_]
]
_J
_J
-i
~l
_J
_J
1
-J
J
1 •
1700 hrs. EST. Two samplers were located upwind of the main vent; one on-
site approximately midway between the vent and the north fenceline (Location
7) and the other off-site (Location 8). Two samplers were located near the
main vent (Locations 2A and 2B); one on each side at a distance of 1 meter.
An array of 12 samplers were located downwind of the main vent in
approximately a 90° quadrant. Samplers were placed at three locations (4A,
4B, and 4C) approximately midway between the main vent and the south fence
line. Along the south fence line, samplers were placed at three locations
(SA, 5B and SC). At each location, sampling was performed at 4 ft. and 15 ft.
above ground level. The sampling locations (6A, 6B, and 6C) were off-site
approximately 200 meters from the main vent.· One sampler was placed near the
residence which is approximately 1/2 mi. west of the landfill. With exception
_of the downwind fence line points, ambient air sampling at all other
locations was performed at 4 feet above ground level. The sampling pumps were
operated at a nominal flow rate of 3.8 L/min.
' Sampler pla~ement for the ambient air monitoring conducted on January 29
is shown in Figure 4. Samplers were deployed in the same general pattern as
used on January 26, however a change in wind direction required a shift in
the specific sampling points as shown. Sampling on January 29 was performed
from approximately 0900 -1700 hrs. EST.
Night time ~ampling was p~rformed on January 31 -February 1 using the
same sampling pattern and sampling locations as on January 29. Sampling was
started at approximately 2100 hrs., January 31, and was to be terminated at
approximately 0500 hrs., February 1. However, most of the DuPont pumps
failed after 2-3 hours of operation due to the low ambient temperature
(...,30°F) and the high relative humidity ("'95%). Consequently, very few valid
samples were obtained.
PCB ANALYSIS
Analysis for PCBs in the PUF cartridges was performed according to the
procedure given in Appendix B. The steps in the analysis procedure included;
1) Soxhlet extraction of the foam plugs with 5% ether in hexane; 2)
concentration of the extract to 1 ml and 3) determination of PCBs in the
]
i
]
i
]
l
~]
]
]
l
. J
l
.l
l
]
J
.J
1
extr~ct by electron capture-gas chromatography using EPA Method 608(l).
Identification and quantification of Aroclor 1242 and 1260 in the samples was
performed by the technique described by Webb and McCall(2).
METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS
Continuous measurements of wind speed and wind direction were performed
during the field monitoring period with a MRI portable weather station. The
ambient temperature sensor on the unit•dtd 1rotfunction, thus continuous
ambient temperature data were not obtained. The weather station was located
east of the landfill in an unobstructed area. Ground level elevation at the
weather station location was approximately the same as the center of the
1 andfi 11 .
Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure readings
were taken approximately hourly during sampling periods.
1
'I
l
]
1
]
J
l
]
]
J
]
l
l
1
I
I
I
'"· Ft~tt
J(· ".
~ .. ~.' ".:··-
PCB MONITORING DATA
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the PCB monitoring at the Warren County landfill are
presented in Tables 1 through 6. Tables 1 through 3 give the concentrations
of Aroclor 1242 and 1260 (in nanograms/standard cubic meter*) measured in the
vent emissions on January 26, 27, and 28, respectively. The results show
that the main vent is the predomi~ate source of PCB emission from the site.
During the study period, the average concentrations of Aroclor 1242 and 1260
. observed in the main vent emissions were 123 and 2 µg/scm, respectively. The
PCB emission rates from the main vent based on these average concentrations
and the average flow rate · (measured by EPA) are: 12 ng/sec of Aroclor 1242
and 0.19 ng/sec of Aroclor 1260 .. • PCB emissions from other vents on the site
were significantly lower than f fom the main vent.
The ambient air monitoring results obtained during the study are. shown
in Tables 4,5, and 6. On January 26, vent and ambient air monitoring were
performed concurrently. Thus, the ambient air monitoring data for this date
(Table 4) are probably not representative since the flow from the vents was
restricted during the sampling period.
The daytime ambient air monitoring data for January 29 is shown in Table
5. PCBs were not detected at any sampling location downwind of the main
vent. Aroclor 1260, at a concentration near the minimum detection limit was
found in one of the upwind samples (Location A-7).
* Standard conditions -2s0c, 76011111 Hg
~··:-µ;;J ~ ~ ~ a-., "--' a...., &-.I a-., 1-.4 L-.1 ....., ....., ....., ..... ~ ...... '--' ~ ....... L.-... TABLE 1. VENT MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL(a) Sampling Date January 26, 1983 Sampling Location Sameling Period, Hr EST Sampling Avg Sampling Total Sample guantit~PCBs in PUF2 ng Code and Description Start End Time, mins. Rate, sec/min Volume, scm Aroclor 1 42 Aroclor 1260 V-A Main Vent 1010 1700 410 1408 0.58 82,100 V-B Small Vent west of Main Vent 1010 1701 411 1237 0.51 35 ----V-C Upper Leachate Vent 1005 1701 416 1424 0.59 1270 V-D Lower Leachate Vent 1005 1701 (b) (b) (b) ND V-E·Small Vent near Leachate Vents 1010 1701 411 1460 0.60 400 a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Arochlor 1242 and Arochlor 1260 in the cartridges are estimated to be 10 ng and 15 ng, respectively. b) Sample pump malfunctioned during sampling period. 1200 ND 360 ND 780 PCB Cone. in Air1 ng/scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 141,552 2,069 69 <29 2,153 610 667 1300 _,. 11
it!, ff ·.1~ V •-~ I'•-............. I ...._, "---A '---4 _,,.__. f _ __J TABLE 2. VENT MON I TOR I NG RESULTS -WARREN COUflTY (NC) LANDF ILd a) Sampling Date January 27, 1983 Sampling Location Samelln!J Pcriod1 ltr [Sf Start Ena Sampling Avg Sampling Total Sample guantitr PCBs in PUFI ng Aroclor 12~2 Aroclor 1260 Code and Description Time, mins. Rate, sec/min Volume, scm V-A Main Vent 0900 1700 480 1359 0.65 76700 V-B Small Vent West of Main Vent 0900 1700 480 -i-359, 0.65 ND V-C Upper Leachate Vent 0900 1700 480 1410 0.68 1920 V-D Lower Leachate Vent 0900 1700 480 1330 0.64 ND V-E· Small Vent near Leachate Vents 0900 1700 400 1259 0.60 ND a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Arochlor 1242 and Arochlor 1260 in the cartridges are estimated to be 10 ng and 15 ng, respectively. 1380 ND 320 51 ND PCB Cone. in Air1 ng/scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 12oO 118,000 2123 <15 <23 2824 471 <16 80 ,,. <17 <25 ,,
.... , ............. ~ ....., ;.t;:j!i:: . '· ·:•~11,! ':, ':.r /.'•.I'•! --~ ....... .... .... ......, ...... ---..... ..... .... ..... TABLE 3. VENT MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL(a) Sampling Date January 28, 1983 ..... Sampling Location Sameltng Period1 Hr EST Sampling Avg Samp 1 i ng Total Sample g11t1ntit.Y PCBs in PUF1 ng Start End Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 Code and Description Time, mins. Rate, sec/min Volume, scin -V-A-1 Main Vent(b) 0900 1700 480 1254 0.60 69300 V-A-2 Main Vent(b) 0900 1700 480 1347 0.65 68700 -V-B Small Vent West of Main Vent D900 1700 480 1326 0.64 42 V-C Upper Leachate Vent 0900 1700 480 1388 0.67 510 V-0 Lower Leachate Vent 0900 1700 480 1324 0.64 61 V-E Small Vent Near Leachate Vent 0900 1700 480 1279 0.61 18 a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Arochlor 1242 and Arochlor 1260 in the cartridges are estimated to be 10 ng and 15 ng, respectively. b) Co-located samplers. 1130 1150 ND 206 54 18 ....... ..._. ....... ..__. '----A PCB Cone. in Air1 ng/scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 115,500 1883 .,.. 105,692 1769 66 <23 761 307 95 84 JI 30 30
-· ·•·&.illiii·"~'-~----·"" ..... '·'" ..... ,-. ~ -------_...,_. ----··-·------• :···· :t • "f, :·'!'-~. --~~·~: : !:: TABLE 4 Sampling Location Sampliny Sam~J in~ Pcrtod, llr[ST Code and Description Height, m tart End •·· --~-·----. ---. -B_es !_d!! __ M~J!l__'{.en_t_ 2A l m west of main vent!cl 4 1005 1700 2R-1 1 m east of matn vent 4 1005 1700 2U-2 1 111 cast of main vent c 4 1005 1700 On-Site Oownwlnq 4A 49m from matn vent@ 230°! l 4 1005 1710 40-l 49111 from main vent@ ]80° c 4 1010 1711 48-2 49m from matn vent@ 180° c 4 1010 (b) 4C 49m from main vent@ 140° 4 1005 (b) Fenceline Downwind SA 98m from main vent@ 230° 4 1007 1700 SA 98m from main vent @ 230° 15 1000 1702 58 98m from main vent@ 180° 4 1008 1706 58 91lm from main vent @ l 80° 15 1000 1708 SC 98111 from n1a in vent @ 140° 4 1010 1710 SC 98m from main vent@ 140° 15 1000 1713 Off-Site Downwind 6A 200m from main vent@ 230° 4 1014 1702 6B 200m from main vent@ 180° 4 ioo8 (b) 6C 200m from main vent@ 140° 4 1020 1708 A-3 House west of landfill 4 1025 1730 A-7 49m upwind of main vent@ 360° 4 1000 1700 A-8 Offsite, upwind of main vent 4 1015 1702 @360° AMBIENT AIR ~NITORING RESULTS -WARIIEN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL (a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 26, 1983 S,1111p l i ll!J Av•J. San~> l i n!J Total Sa111nle Quantity_ PC8s in PUF, nf Time, mins Rate, scc:/mln Volume, scm Ariiclor 124f-Aroc1o·r-260 415 3909 1.62 NO 20 415 3799 l.60 ND NO 415 3865 1.60 ND ND 425 3844 l.63 NO NO 421 3811 l.60 ND ND (b) (b) (b) ND ND (b) (b) (b) NO NO -413 3744 1.55 ND 110 422 3822 l.61 ND 80 418 3811 1.59 NO NO 428 3883 l.66 NO NO 420 3824 1.61 ND ND 433 3826 1.66 ND ND 408 3844 1.57 NO ND (b) (b) (b) NA NA 408 3904 1.59 ND ND 425 3845 1.63 NO ND 420 3894 1.64 NO ND 407 3894 1. 58 NO ND ,. ~----,.._......, • .,., • .,..r••"'f•r-r-.-.-,.......,.._~. --~------..-.• ,..-r rr r •••er-.·••-••••_,.• ra ••• ••• Tr•:r•...-.a-·-.._....,.._....._. r • ._ ... ..,. ••• ...,..__,.,, • ., •· (a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sanple. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 in the PUF cartridges are estimated to be lOng and 15 ng, respectively. NA -PUF cartridge was not analyzed for PC8s. (b) Sample pump malfunctioned during sampl Ing period. (c) Co-located samplers. .,.. "PCB __ Co_n_c1._ in _ _!._ir_, !1f/_scrr,2i _ roclor 242 Aroc or I 60 ·6 12 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 71 <6 50 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10 <6 <10
......... "9"'r""""11 .,.,. -, ., <f;~:-t ,: :~,z ~1 ~-~:3~ ' TABLE 5 ~~ _ ... ..,_.,._ AMBIENT AIR t-ONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL (a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 29, 1983 -----_,.. ., ......... ,., .............. , ....... .,. ......... ---· ·---~-.:r.....,..,-~ ...... ., .. -~-..---,., ... =. -~-.................... ,.. .... =--~----,.--· .. ,....~..---.-......... ., • ..,.. ......... ---~--...-,·--~-------..... ---•• ...,.. ......... n-.-,_,,., .............. ,,.,.. .. .,.. •·-• Sampling Location Sampling Sam~ling Period, HrEST Sampling Avg. Sampling Total Sample Quantfti PC8s in PUF, nf PCB Cone. in Afr, ng/scm Code and Descrjption Height, m tart End Time, mins Rate, sec/min Volume, scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor260 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 Beside Main Vent 2A lm·north of main vent(cl 4 0905 1713 488 3725 1.82 ND ND <6 <10 28-1 lm south of main vent{c l 0905 1715 490 3830 1.88 ND ND <6 <10 2B-2 Im south of main vent 0905 1714 489 3818 1.87 ND ND <6 <10 On-Site Downwind 4A 43m from main vent@ 310°l ) 4 0905 1712 487 3685 1.79 ND ND <6 <10 48-1 33m from main vent@ 270° c 4 0905 1710 485 3735 1.81 ND ND <6 <10 4B-2 33m from main vent@ 270° c) 4 0905 1707 482 3753 1.81 ND ND <6 <10 4C 40m from main vent@ 225° 4 0905 1705 480 3722 1.79 NO NO <6 <10 Fenceline Downwind SA 85m from main vent@ 310° 4 0905 1715 490-3770 1.85 ND ND <6 <10 SA 85m from main vent@ 310° 15 0905 1717 492 3853 1.90 NO ND <6 <10 58 66m from main vent@ 27D0 4 0905 ]708 483 3773 1.82 ND ND <6 <10 58 66m from main vent@ 270° 15 0905 1711 486 3870 1.88 ND ND <6 <10 5C 80m from main vent@ 225° 4 0905 1705 480 3792 1.82 NO ND <6 <10 SC 80m from main vent@ 225° 15 0905 1707 482 3778 1.82 NO ND <6 <10 Off-Site Downwind 6A 134m from main vent @ 280° 4 0905 1705 480 3752 1.80 ND ND <6 <10 68 132m from main vent@ 270° 4 0905 1709 484 3823 1.85 ND ND <6 <10· 6C 152m from main vent@ 240° 4 0905 1713 488 3839 1.87 ND ND <6 <10 A-3 House west of landfill 4 0930 1705 455 3366 1.53 ND ND <6 <10 A-7 On-site, 32m upwind of main 4 0905 1708 483 3790 1.83 ND 20 ND 11 vent @ 100° A-8 Offsite, 74m upwind of main 4 0905 (b) (b) {b) (b) NA NA vent @ 100° =---~....,..11.-,r.-~:-w·•-r-.-,-,:..--..,,rr-.~...-_._........,...,_.~.-----._...,...-.-.-.....__ • .....,.,_..,...._.,.. .... ,1.,,r:,..,.,.,.._. ....... .,, • .._.. ...... --..,...__.~,,-rr...,.o-9rt•~---~• (a) ND -PC8s were not detected in sanple. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 in the PUF cartridges are estimated to be lOng and 15ng, respectively. NA -PUF cartridge was not analyzed for PC8s. (b) Sample pump malfunctioned during sampling period. (c) Co-located samplers. ~-1 •. -~1 .....
~ .L-•·' 11
-~ ......, ...._ ...... ...... .__ .__ I--~ ~ ...... i....t '--l!. li..iJ TAOLE 6 PCO MONITO~ING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL(a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 31 -FEORUARY 1, 1983 Sampling Location Sampling Sam~ling Period, HrEST Sampling Avg. Sampling Code and Description Height, m tart End Time, mins Rate, sec/min Beside Main Vent 2A lm north of main vent 4 0117 (2/1) 0530 ( 2/1) 253 3896 On-Site Downwind 4A 43m from main vent@ 310° 4 2100 (1/31) 0530 ( 2/1) 510 3998 48 33m from main vent@ 270° 4 0120 (2/1) 0530 ( 2/1) 250 3882 4C 40m from main vent@ 225° 4 0120 (2/1) 0530 ( 2/1) 250 3944 ,..,...,.,=·--.,.___..~ .-&-;-..-:-..-,,-.,.._ • ...., • ...,.,..._,,. ,.....,,..,,... .. ,-.-..--~. ----..--------=--..--.---:--.~,....._.m&,-r--.. _..e-w-,:y~-.,,...,..___...-_..-_......,._. -~-·-...,.,-(a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 in the PUF cartridges are estimated to be lOng and 15ng, respectively. NA -PUF cartridge was not analyzed for PCBs. (b) Low flow Indicated during sampling period; sample volume questionable. Total Sample Volume, scm 0.99 (b) 2.04(b) 0.97(b) 0.99 --.ft ~ ...... 'i...d, '.....di. '--6. l....iJ\ iuantitt PCBs in PUF1 n~ roclor 1242 Aroclor260 PCB Cone. in Air, n~scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor -m ND ND <10 <15 ND ND <5 <8 ND ND <10 <15 ND ND <10 <15 ,.
}
}
l
J
]
I
l
t
I
I
I
J
The limited data obtained during nighttime sampling on January_ 31 -
February 1 is shown in Table 6. PCBs were not detected in any ambient air
samples. However, most of the data are questionable because of malfunction
of the DuPont pumps due to the low temperature and high humidity conditions~
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The results of wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, relative
humidity, and barometric pressure measurements performed at the Warren County
landfill during the period January 26 -February 1, 1983 are presented in
Appendix C.
VENT FLOW RATE MEASUREMENTS
Gas flow rates from the vents on the landfill site were measured by
EMSL/EPA/RTP personnel on March 2, 1982. The measurements were performed by
sealing the vents and determining the volumetric flow of the exit gas with a
bubble meter. Flow data for the main vent are given below. No flow was
detected from the other vents on the landfill.
Time
0945 hrs.
1200 hrs.
1500 hrs.
Main Vent Exit Gas Flow
F10ow, sec/min
(25 C, 760mm Hg)
Avg.
4854
6000
6400
5751
]
J
J
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' !
-----------· -
DISPERSION MODELING
In order to obtain confirmation of the ambient air concentrations
measured during the field monitoring, standard dispersion models were used to
calculate downwind concentration of PCBs using emission parameters and
meteorological conditions that prevailed during the field monitoring program .
Two EPA UNAMAP models, PTPLU and PTDIS, respectively, were employed to
calculate 1) estimates of maximum hourly concentrations under a full spectrum
of meteorological conditions and 2) estimates of the range of hourly ambient
concentrations that would occur at down wind distances of 50m, 100m, and 150m
under the meteorological conditions that probably controlled dispersion
during the field monitoring on January 29.
The following par·ameters were either used explicitly in the modeling or
provided guidelines from which maximum and minimum limiting concentrations
could be calculated.
PCB emission rate from main vent* --12.1 ng/sec
Main vent gas exit velocity** --0.012 m/s
Vent gas temperature (estimated) --288.2K (15°C)
Vent diameter --0.102m (4 inches)
Height of vent above ground --i .2m
Observed ambient temperature during
monitoring (1/29/83) --minimum= 274.2°K (1°c)
maximum= 286.2°K (13°c)
8-hr. average= 282.2°K (9°c)
Observed wind speed during
monitoring (1/29/83) --minimum= 0.72 m/s (1.6 mph)
maximum= 2.3 m/s (5.1 mph)
8-hr. average= 1.6 m/s (3.5 mph)
* Average of emission measurements made on January 26, 27, and 28.
** Average of flow rate measurements made by EPA on 3/2/83.
Since the terrain sloped downward from the location of the vent pipe to
the ambient monitoring locations, each model was run for two scenarios to
bracket the expected actual concentrations. One scenario treated the vent as
standing 1.2 meters above a flat terrain while the second scenario placed the
vent exit at a height of 5.2 meters above a flat terrain.
The one-hour concentration predictions of the model were converted to
eight-hour averages by multiplying by a factor of 0.6. This factor was
selected after a review of the EPA publication, Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates (AP-26) by D.B. Turner (pp 37-38).
The maximum one-hour PCB concentrations predicted by the PTPLU model
under the two scenarios are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7 PREDICTED MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR DOWNWIND PCB CONCENTRATIONS
FOR VARIOUS VENT HEIGHTS
Scenario
Vent 1.2m
above flat
terrain
Vent 5.2m
above flat
terrain
Maximum
1-hr. Conce~tration
(ng/i)
4.0 X 10-6
1.4 X 10-7
Distance
to Maximum
Concentration,m
14
75
Conditions Producing
Maximum Concentrations
Wind Speed Atmospheric
(mps) Stability Class
0.3 4 (neutral)
0.5 4 (neutral)
Using the PTDIS model, the average wind speed observed during the
monitoring period on January 29, Class 4 stability, and the 0.6 conversion
factor, the estimated ranges for 8-hour average ambient concentrations at the
three downwind distances calculated. The results are shown in Table 8.
\
]
J
J
J
]
I
)
]
J
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
l
I
l
l
I
I
-------------·
\
TABLE, 8 PREDICTED 8-HR. DOWNWIND PCB CONCENTRATIONS FOR JANUARY 29, 1983.
Distance
Downwind from
the Vent (m)
50
100
150
Range of 8-Hour
PCB Ambient Co~centration
(ng/m)
1.5 -8.0 X 10-S
1 -8 2.0 -2.5 X 0
1.25 -1.35 X 10-8
The concentration range limits were taken from the model output for the
two vent height scenarios.
A wider concentration range estimates can be obtained by using the
maximum and minimum one-hour concentrations calculated for the two scenarios
under all combinations of the three wind speeds (minimum, maximum, and
average) and the six stability classes. The concentration limits predicted
by the model for the three downwind points for these conditions are shown in
Table 9.
TABLE 9 RANGE OF ONE-HOU ~ CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS WIND SPEEDS
AND ALL STABILITY CLASSES
Monitor Distance Minimum 1-Hour Maximum 1-Hour
Downwind from PCB Concentration PCB Concentration
Vent (m) (ng/m3) (ng/m3)
50 1.5 X 10-lQ 4.5 X 10-7
100 7.0 X 10-9 2.Q X 10-7
150 3.5 X lO_g 1.Q X 10-7
---------------.... •----·•-·a..:i,•..,. ____________________________ _
J
i'
I
\
For each downwind location the conditions which yielded the maximum 1-
hour PCB concentration were; a 1.2m vent height, a wind speed of 1.6 m/s and
Class 6 (very stable) stability. Under this set of conditions the PTPLU
model predicted that the maximum PCB concentration would be 4.8 x 10-7 ng/m 3
and would occur at 37m downwind of the vent.
In summary, the dispersion models predict that downwind PCB levels under
prevailing and worst case meteorological conditions should be significantly
lower than concentrations that could be detected by the monitoring techniques
employed in this study. Thus, the monitoring data for January 29 are
consistent with the modeling predictions in that PCBs were not detected in
any downwind ambient air samples.
------------------,MWili .... -------------.,_~----......... -------------
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' l
I
'
\
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA SUMMARY
PUF CARTRIDGE CLEAN-UP CHECKS
All PUF cartridges were pre-cleaned before being used for PCB sampling.
One cartridge from each batch of 20 clean cartridges was re-extracted and
analyzed for PCB contamination. The batch of cartridges was considered
acceptable for sampling if the PCB level in the check sample is <10 ng.
FLOW RATE CALIBRATIONS
The flow rate of the DuPont pumps was calibrated with a bubble meter
before and after each sampling period using a DuPont Calibrator system. The
flow rate calibration data are summarized in Table 10. Average flow rates
for the sampling period were calculated from the pre-and post-sampling
calibration data.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
A flow rate audit of the DuPont sampling pumps used during the study was
performed by W.F. Barnard, EMSL/EPA/RTP.
QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
A set of 18 quality control samples consisting of PUF cartridges spiked
with various quantities of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 were analyzed with
the vent and ambient air samples. The QC samples were prepared by BCL using
NBS/SRM 1581 (Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 in oils). Results of the
analysis of the QC samples are given in Table 11.
-:... ]
\
l TABLE 10. DUPONT PUMP FLOW CALIBRATION DATA
I
l Date Pump Sampling Calibrated Flow Rate, sec/min Avg Flow
S/N Location Before Sampling After Sampling Rate,scc/min
I 1/26/83 A-083 V-A 1370 1446 1408
A-080 V-B 1230 1243 1237
f A-118 V-C 1370 1478 1424
4789 V-D 1397 (a)
A-062 V-E 1388 1531 1460
( A-089 2A 3748 4069 3908
A-121 28-1 3710 3888 3799
A-088 28-2 3722 4007 3865
l 4803 4A 3760 3927 3844
A-038 48-1 3728 3894'. 3811
A-032 48-2 3752 (a)
' A-127 4C 3710 (a)
A-061 5A(4) 3705 3782 3744
A-125 5A(15) 3736 3908 3822
l 4696 58(4) 3728 3894 3811
A-092 58(15) 3710 4056 3883
A-087 5C ( 4) 3748 3901 3825
l A-037 5C(l5) 3751 3901 3826
A-126 6A 3788 3901 3845
5136 68 3794 (a)
l A-120 6C • 3800 4007 3904
A-143 A3 I 3782 3908 3845
A-094 A7 3754 4034 3894
f
4779 A8 3801 3987 3894
1/27 /83 A-118 V-A 1301 1416 1359
I A-079 V-8 1306 1411 1359
A-062 V-C 1301 1519 1410
A-120 V-D 1276 1383 1330
'
9806 V-E 1209 1309 1259
1/28/83 9806 V-A-1 1206 1301 1254 , A-062 V-A-2 1252 1441 1367
A-037 V-8 1245 1408 1326
A-118 V-C 1283 1492 1388
A-083 V-D 1242 1405 1324
5138 V-E 1242 1305 1274
a) Pump malfunctioned during sampling period.
1:0·
J • \
I TABLE 10. DUPONT PUMP FLOW CALIBRATION DATA (Cont'd.)
I Date Pump Sampling Calibrated Flow Rate, sec/min Avg Flow
I S/N Location Before Sampling After Sampling Rate,scc/mir:i
I 1/29/83 A-126 2A 3692 3758 3725
A.:.037 28-1 3710 3949 3830
A-079 28-2 3787 3848 3818
I 4803 4A 3681 3688 3685
A-088 48-1 3698 3771 3745
4779 48-2 3710 3795 3753
I A-092 4C 3692 3753 3722
A-080 5A(4) 3721 3820 3771
A-118 5A(l5) 3704 4002 3853
I 9806 58(4) 3669 3877 · 3773
A-062 58(15) 3681 4058 3870
5138 5C ( 4) 3687 3896 3792
I A-083 5C(l5) 3692 3864 3778
A-127 6A 3779 3724 3752
A-061 68 3768 3878 3823
I A-094 6C 3768 3910 3839
A-089 A3 3710 3022 3366
A-121 A7 3779 3802 3790
I A-032 AB 3687 (a)
1/31/83 5117 2A 3731 4060 3896
I 2/1/83 4696 4A I 3738 4258 3998
4789 48 3772 3992 3882
5942 4C 3743 4144 3944
I All other pumps used on this date malfunctioned during
sampling period.
I
a) Pump malfunctioned during sampling period.
' ' I
i
!
-
1
l
]
I
I
I
I
I
' l
TABLE 11 QC SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS(a)
Sample No. Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260
Added,ng Found,ng % Recovery Added,ng Found,ng % Recovery
1 60 64 107 0 37
6 60 52 87 0 32
5 600 680 113 0 ND
13 600 530 88 0 85
8 6000 3700 62 0 190
9 6000 3200 53 0 ND
10 0 ND 60 70 117
14 0 ND 60 180 300
4 0 ND 600 515 86
7 0 ND 500 600 100
2 0 ND 6000 4700 78
12 0 ND 6000 4000 67
15 120 90 75 60 120 200
17 120 85 71 60 70 117
11 400 260 65 200 170 85
16 400 460 115 200 260 130
3 4000 1820 46 2000 1530 77
18 4000 1320 33 2000 2950 148
a) ND -Not detected. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and
Aroclor 1266 are estimated to be l0ng and 15ng, respectively.
1
l
1
I
I
I
I
I
' l
·•• • ·c· 8 • ' nt o·t . I o·
FIELD BLANKS
Eight field blanks were analyzed with the ambient air samples. The
blanks were PUF cartridges that had been carried through all field operations
except sampling. PCBs were not detected in any of the blanks above the
minimum detectable level i.e. 10 ng for Arochlor 1242 and 15 ng for Aroclor
1260.
CO-LOCATED MONITORING
Co-located monitoring of the main vent was performed on January 28. (See
Table 3 for results). Concentrations determined from the co-located monitors
differ by 9% for the Aroclor 1242 and 6% for the Aroclor 1260. Co-located
ambient air monitoring data cannot be evaluated since PCB levels were below
minimum detectable levels in all paired samples.
J
t
i
IO
!'
.. , .
R~CES
1. Federal Register, Vol. 44., No. 233, ~day, Dec~r 3,, 1979, Pgs. 69501-
69509.
2. Webb, 'R.G. -and .McCall, A.C . ., •Quantitative PCB Stnrlards for Electron
Capture Gas Chromatography8, Journa.1 of Chromatogr.~ic Science, 11, Pgs.
366-373, July 1973. -
·he a-A
]
J
]
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
l
I
APPENDIX A
PROCEDURE FOR PCB SAMPLING WITH
DUPONT P-4OOOA PUMPS AND PUF CARTRIDGES
(1) Calibrate the flow rate of the DuPont pumps before sampling with a
DuPont Calibrator system.
(2) At the field site, place pumps at designated sampling locations. Record
pump S/N and corresponding sampling location I.D.
(3) Using latex glove~, remove a clean PUF cartridge from its sample bottle,
carefully unwrap the aluminum foil from the cartridge. Fold aluminum
foil, replace in sample bottle, and tightly close the bottle cap.
Connect the PUF sampling cartridge to the DuPont pump sampli·ng inlet
using a short piece (12-18 in.) of Tygon tubing. (Note: Clean latex
gloves must .be worn_ at all times when handling the PUF cartridges).
(4) Using metal three-prong clamps that have been rinsed with 'B&J hexane,
mount the PUF cartridges orl the sampler support rod in a vertical
position with the inlet pointing downward. Record cartridge height
above ground.
(5) Turn pumps on and begin sampling period. Record starting clock time.
During the sampling period check pumps at least every 2 hours for proper
operation. Record any abnormal conditions.
(6) After sampling for the specified time, terminate sampling period by
turning pumps Dff. Record clock time that pump was turned off. Just
before turning pumps off, push test button on pump and check low flow
light and the elapsed time indicator lights. If low flow light comes
on, it indicates that a low flow condition existed during the sampling
\
]
]
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rt ttttt'f ''# ~,-tt· ti '"L ,·wt • a s · ti u , ..... ff"f a r • ··, Ft»~-f t @3ltthCt1tit1tfltr ... 1iA
\
period, e.g., Tygon tubing crimped, cartridge plugged, pump stopped,
etc). Record results of the low flow check. Record elapsed time from
the pump timer as a check on the clock time.
(7) As soon as possible after termination of sampling, remove the PUF
cartridge from the Tygon sample line (using latex gloves), wrap
cartridge in its original aluminum foil wrapping, and place in the
original sample bottle. Cap tightly, label bottle with sampling data
and sample I.O. and seal the bottle cap with a stri~ of "Evidence Tape".
(8) Re-calibrate the flow rate of the DuPont pumps after completion of
sampling.
]
I
I
M a 7 • -} 'fr" n>cor . lftboee-.-i◄se··•,. ·:, _ w · wnsrt··mcc·MYtff•t --n ·
APPENDIX B
PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF PCBs
IN PUF CARTRIDGES
I. Equipment and Reagents Required for PUF Sample Extraction
1. Glassware
500 ml boiling flasks
300 ml capacity Soxhlet extractors
3 ball condensers
500 ml Kuderna-Danish apparatus
15 ml receiver tubes
Snyder columns
Filter tubes (Corning 9480-32)
t • ? ; •rt& t l -·
Pre-scored (1 ml, 5ml) amber glass vials with teflon-lined caps
911 long disposable transfer (Pasteur) pipets
Wash all glassware with Alconox; rinse with deionized water,
acetone, hexane, and deionized water; then fire in kiln (500 C)
2. Equipment
Extraction Apparatus, Multi-Unit Heater (CMS 119-362)
Blunt-end forceps
Surgical tongs (approximately 1211 )
Steam bath
Nitrogen blow-d6wn evaporator
Glass wool (Heater overnight at 350 C in muffle furnace)
Boiling granules (Heater overnight at 500 C in kiln)
Teflon wash bottles
·rs:±aui4tl
]
l
1
I
I
f
II.
\
3. Reagents
Burdick and Jackson, Distilled in Glass Solvents:
Acetone
Hexane
Ethyl Ether (Preserved with Ethanol)
Sodium Sulfate, 12-60 mesh, Anhydrous (Baker 5-3375) (Heated
overnight at 5000C in kiln).
Sample Receipt and Extraction
1. Log samples in log book. Note any damage to sample or
irregularities (i.e., EPA chain of custody tape broken).
2. Prepare 5% ethyl ether in hexane. Prepare by case lot of hexane.
Remove 200 ml of hexane from freshly opened bottle and add 180 ml
of freshly opened ethyl ether (preserved with ethanol).
3. Rinse condenser towers With 5% ether/hexane.
4. Wipe off lab bench wit~ 5% ether/hexane.
5. Add 300 ml of 5% ether/hexane to 500 ml boiling flask. Add boiling
granules (no more than 3 granules).
6. Dim lights in laboratory before removing first sample. Rinse a
large sheet of aluminum foil with 5% ether/hexane. Be sure to use
waste rinse container. Place foil, rinsed side up, on lab bench.
Use this for forceps and tongs. Rinse forceps and tongs with 5%
ether/hexane.
7. Carefully remove sampling cartridge from jar and unwrap aluminu m
foil. Handle cartridge minimally, placing it on its own aluminum
foil wrapping.
8. Note in project log book any breakage or damage to sampling
cartridge.
]
]
]
I
I
I
I
\
9. With pre-rinsed forceps, carefully remove the foam plug (PUF) from
the sampling cartridge.
10. Place the PUF in the Soxhlet, and connect the Soxhlet to the 500 ml
boiling flask. (If hi-vol sample, also place corresponding
particulate filter in Soxhlet with PUF plug). Wet the joint with
5% ether/hexane. Place the forceps on the aluminum foil wrapping.
Label the boiling flask with sample I.D.
11. Taking the pre-rinsed tongs, adjust the PUF in the Soxhlet to wedge
it midway along the length of the siphon. Rinse the tongs into the
Soxhlet with the 5% ether/hexane. Rinse the forceps, glass
sampling cartridge, and aluminum foil wrapping with 5% ether/hexane
into the Soxhlet. Place the forceps and tongs on the aluminum foil
sheet. Dispose of the aluminum foil wrapping and place the glas
cartridge aside for washing and recycling.
12. Connect the Soxhlet to the condenser, wetting the glass joint with
5% ether/hexane for a good seal.
13. Repeat the process for the day's samples being sure to include a
solvent blank, field blank, and a control sample.
14. Check water flow to condenser towers, and turn on heating units.
15. As samples begin to boil, check Soxhlets making sure they are
filling and siphoning properly (4 cycles/hour). Allow samples to
cycle overnight or for a minimum of 16 hours.
16. Turn off heating units and allow samples to cool to room
temperature. Be sure the lights are dim.
17. Set up Kuderna-Danish (K-D) with receiver tubes. Add one boiling
granule to each set up. Label the K-D's with the sample I.D.
18. Pack filter tubes with glass wool and sodium sulfate. Place tube
in neck of K-D.
19. Carefully remove Soxhlet and boiling flask from condenser tower.
Drain remaining solvent into boiling flask.
__ )
\
I
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I III.
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
20. Carefully pour sample through filter tube into K-0. Rinse boiling
flask 3 times with hexane. Swirling hexane along sides of boiling
flask. Once sample has drained, rinse down filter tube with
hexane.
21. Attach Snyder column to K-D and rinse Snyder column to wet joint .
22. Place K-D on steam bath and evaporate sample to approximately 5 ml.
Do not let sample go to dryness.
23. Remove sample from steam bath, rinsing Snyder column with a minimum
of hexane. Allow sample to cool.
24. Remove sample from K-D, making sure to label receiver tube.
25. Rinse nitrogen blow down spouts with hexane and place samples so as
to further concentrate. Transfer samples to pre-scored vials using
transfer pipets. Rinse receiver tube 3 times making a quantitative
transfer. Concentrate samples to 1 ml or per instruction from
analyst.
26. Make a master list of ,11 samples prepared, date received, and
processed. Give the list and sample extracts to the GC analyst.
GC Analysis (EPA Method 608)
1. Analyze samples using the following GC operating conditions.
Column: Supelcoport 100/120 mesh coated with
1.5% SP-2250/1.95% SP-2401 packed in
glass (180 cm x 4 mm ID)
Carrier: 5% methane/95% Argon at 60 ml/min
Column
Temperature: 200 C, isothermal
Detector: ECD
2. Calibrate the system daily with a minimum of three injections of
calibration standards which hav~ been referenced to NBS/SRM 1581
(Aroclor 1242 in oils)
3. Inject 2-5 µL of the sample extract using the solvent-flush
technique. Smaller (1.0 µL) volumes can be injected if automatic
devices are employed. Record the volume injected to the nearest
0.05 µLand the resulting peak size, in area units.
4. If the peak area exceeds the linear range of the system, dilute the
extract and reanalyze.
IV. Quality Control (QC)
1. Analyze one laboratory blank per each batch of 20 samples.
2. Analyze one laboratory spike per each batch of 20 samples.
]
]
]
]
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------------------------
APPENDIX C
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The results of the meteorological measurements performed at the Warren
County Landfill during the PCB monitoring period are given in Tables C-1
through C-6.
,ii
]
J
]
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
-w,wrz 7 " .. • ·--s ,-,('·mt ---·•.. • c:ezt ·t?r<, •
TABLE C-1. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERroo(a)
Date: January 26, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Hurni dity Bar. Press.,
Temp, °F hrs. EDT mph Deg. ( Compass) % in Hg
0000-0100
0100-0200
0200-0300
0300-0400
0400-0500
0500-0600
0600-0700
0700-0800
0800-0900
0900-1000
1000-1100
1100-1200 58 29.95
1200-1300
1300-1400 46 29.90
1400-1500 3.3 150
1500-1600 3.0 120 48 29.89
1600-1700 2.8 135 49 29.89
1700-1800 1.6 150
1800-1900 0.1 150
1900-2000 0.7 80
2000-2100 0.2 105
2100-2200 1.3 95
2200-2300 1.9 75
2300-2400 1.9 60
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction values
are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
IQd )··g ··illllll
•
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C-2. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIOD(a)
Date: January 27, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient
Temp, °F
Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) % in Hg
0000-0100 1. 7 90
0100-0200 0.8 90
0200-0300 1.8 15
0300-0400 1. 7 30
0400-0500 1.3 30
0500-0600 1.9 15
0600-0700 2.6 30
0700-0800 2.7 90
0800-0900 2.8 75
0900-1000 4.1 45 43 88 29.93
1000-1100 6.9 45 44 81 29.93
1100-1200 8.5 60 47 66 29.90
1200-1300 8.2 60 45 71 29.87
1300-1400 9.0 60 46 68 29.86
1400-1500 6.8 60 46 65 29.86
1500-1600 8.0 6(1 45 67 29.86
1600-1700 8.7 45 44 78 29.84
1700-1800 7.8 45
1800-1900 9.3 45
1900-2000 7.8 45
2000-2100 8.5 45
2100-2200 11.1 45
2200-2300 9.4 45
2300-2400 9.2 45
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction values
are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
\
J
1
]
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f ::tt. K • 5 l -Sat ►• :,70 x ·12, aea:::· t • . . .~.a . ·g m· H •• 1 ¢ •· rue r
-:..
\
TABLE C-3. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIOD~a)
Date: January 28, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambieit Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, F % in Hg
0000-0100 10.9 45
0100-0200 12.7 45
0200-0300 12.9 45
0300-0400 12.9 45
0400-0500 12.6 45
0500-0600 11.4 30
0600-0700 12.0 30
0700-0800 11.5 30
0800-0900 10.4 25
0900-1000 9.5 15 37 87 29.82
1000-1100 10.3 360 38 83 29.84
1100-1200 10.9 15 40 75 29.85
1200-1300 11.9 15 46 64 29.82
1300-1400 11.6 360 49 54 29.80
1400-1500 11.5 360 50 49 29.80
1500-1600 10.9 366 50 43 29.80
1600-1700 7.5 360 48 43 29.81
1700-1800 14.8 360
1800-1900 2.3 360
1900-:-2000 1.5 315
2000-2100 1.2 300
2100-2200 1. 7 30
2200-2300 1.1 30
2300-2400 0.8 50
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction values
are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
==·➔• .....
....
]
1
]
]
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rr:mcrassrnr'. ·-c:if' t"i s ¼z· -· 'ri a ·:rt 71 ·-~ Si'rt:t#:i' ·¥5 tihr b :2 iliflllli • ~ • ··1111r-~-I • ._Ii ~ i .--~~·~ifiilif-·i( li..-°ifli11·iii&
\
TABLE C-4. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIOD{a)
Date: January 29, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambier!f Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, F % in Hg
0000-0100 1.2 345
0100-0200 1.2 315
0200-0300 1.3 300
0300-0400 (b) (b)
0400-0500 (b) (b)
0500-0600 (b) (b)
0600-0700 (b) (b)
0700-0800 (b) (b)
0800-0900 (b) (b)
0900-1000 (b) (b) 34 86 29.99
1000-1100 1.6 90 45 57 29.99
1100-1200 2.1 180 49 44 29.97
1200-1300 3.6 150 55 33 29.92
1300-1400 3.5 180 56 32 29.89
1400-1500 3.9 18~· 55 39 29.86
1500-1600 5.0 195 54 42 29.84
1600-1700 5.1 195 50 49 29.84
1700-1800 3.7 180
1800-1900 2.3 180
1900-2000 2.2 180
2000-2100 1.8 195
2100-2200 1.4 210
2200-2300 1.6 210
2300-2400 0.4 180
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction values
are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
b) Data missing due to instrument malfunction.
,....
1·
]
1
I
I
I
I
' '
. \
TABLE C-5. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIOO~a)
Date: January 31, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, °F % in Hg
0000-0100
0100-0200
0200-0300
0300-0400
0400-0500
0500-0600
0600-0700
0700-0800
0800-0900
0900-1000
1000-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1600
1600-1700
1700-1800
1800-1900
·1900~2000
2000-2100
2100-2200
2200-2300
2300-2400
1.1
1.1
0.5
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.3
2.2
5.1
4.8
4.5
5.3
3.5
3.0
2.5
0.3
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.9
330
345
355
315
345
330
345
325
315
360
5
5
360
300
345
2sf5
270
270
240
360
180
240
165
180
40
39
36
87
92
95
29.84
29.84
29.84
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction values
are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambienl Rel. Humidity Bar. Press. ,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, F % in Hg
0000-0100 0.4 150 36 91 29.83
0100-0200 0.7 195 32 95 29.84
0200-0300 1.0 180
0300-0400 1.0 360 31 89 29.84
0400-0500 0.5 5
0500-0600 0.5 5 30 29.91
0600-0700
0700-0800
0800-0900
0900-1000
1000-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1600
1600-1700
1700-1800
1800-1900
1900-2000
2000-2100
2100-2200
2200-2300
2300-2400
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction values
are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.