NCD980602163_19980518_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Patrick Barnes correspondence (Science Advisors) 1996 - 1998-OCR

4·
..BF A Environmental Consultants ~?%== = = = ~-=s=== Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORAi~'DUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mike Kelly
Patrick Barnes
May 18, 1998
Information for Your File on Incineration Pricing
As we have discussed, I made a few calls and researched the internet and have discovered the
following:
l . Off-Site -Laidlaw's list price for TSCA incinerables (soils is $0.50 -$1.00 per pound or
$1,000 -$2,000 per ton, which does not include transportation). Another source obtained
from the net (I was unable to pin point the site) gave a price range of $1,500 -$6,000 per ton .
. 2. On-Site incineration is much cheaper. At a Lock Haven PA site, 280,000 tons of PCB
t"AT'\f'~'t"n;..,.,'!::t.+~A SC:: ; h-=-~nrT 1.'nr;ru::aro;:1-f-,::arl a+ ,;a i-nc-+ ,......f <t: A 1 1 /tnn ,..,h;~l, ;s rT?'PO+P'T" +hoT'l th~ -t.'l~'7 ltn" __ , ... U-A,L ... a.a._ ... ~ .. -u. ~. I v-....... 6 VA>• ......... ~~"'" ..... c,A~ ~ "'V~""" VA . .....,t::;; 4 J . i..v.11. Y¥Jl.l'-'1.J J, 6'·"' .... ""'j, "11"4.J.J. \.LI.'-' """""'VI I \.V.lJ.
Warren County pnce tag. It is also important to note that because of the smaller volumes at
Warren County the unit price for incineration would be larger.
These are very rough ballpark numbers. For a true comparison, which takes into accow1t all
variables, a much more detailed analysis is needed.
Attached is a copy of the material I pulled off of the internet for your file.
PAB/psgl5-I8MK
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
nffi~,=. f.d.n7, ROR-ARnA • ~,:-,v r&n7\ Aa~.1A??
> ;
I '! Site Name
!Peak Oil Site
:jiampa, FL
t111p:11p1pes.ensg.s111c.com1secuon""'-"··'·"'rn,
L:::·z -t~u;~~~:::~---Jo~~t ~A::~11$1so,o~:::~m•tric ·•i
I Wall infrared mobi1e (PCBs and I ton ($164-$730/ton) ·1
I i 1
1
EPA RREL incineration unit lead) 1 .!
1 26 West 11 :i :i
1 M.L. Kim~ I :I ·: lnr. -r 1~ i ! t-1'"{1 L,J I • ! I Cincinnati,_/✓ l>a' 1 ·:
i OH 45268 ~ II) ·1 / :I
:_I __;;____;_;___:__i_ ~!~~_691 . 1 :J-~f-z._ _ _ 1 _ __ .. __ .. _I ..... . . i
·\Savanna AD
J:, ·'.: 1 , )!Savanna,-~
!I Michael G. I Full scale 1,000 ppm r I ppm ·1 $180/metric ton ·-1
, Cosmos I transportable TNT 1_
1 ... , .. i, (_$ __ 1 __ 7_3?,o ____ ?_) ___ i_n ___ c,·_lusive ·,:_·
1
1 ! Roy 'F. incineration system -. : ----· -.,
; Weston, Inc. j175,000 tons of soil ! \1 j1 :I
One Weston i! I !I ii 1
Way ij1 l I
West '. ! ·
' Chester, PA ' 1· :j
!!~ -'---'-"'---'-----'--'--"'j[~{EL3 .... L .. -·-i,;..;..1--..:...a.---'-'--'-"-'-~I ' ·----'•_II
! Lauder i Michael G. : Full scale ; 12,000 ppm J~! $200/metric ton
; Salvage Yard 'Cosmos i ~r~spo~able : PCBs ii \ ($180/ton) :I
:,Beardsto\\rn, Roy F. mcmerat1on system :1 !i 11 1
:In W t T ,I II ii :1· ;I~ P<: "", nc. :1 I :
t One Weston _i
1
J i ' ;i
'
:II 1::~1 'i I : I
i Chester, PA 1 :
1
i i 19380
:: 1(610)
I 1101-1423
-'----'--"---'-'-'---'--'-~-"-'-~'-'-';."-----';..;.;..:..:.~-=---:.c;.;.:_.....:.;..__,.;,.;...._;.._....:;._--'-'---"·-----·.......;_..,;..;._-""'.---'--""'--'-'----'-'-------_.c..; Note: NA;;;; Not Available. ---.. --------
Poi
4 cf5 5/7/98 1 :40 f>M
~ .2 ·; ltK:incration
Contact 1· ii j •·····
Government
Agency
. ········-··•· .. ····," .. ,. --------~----,
!Donald A. Oberacker IEP~~~
.,
!Joseph McSorley EPA
l1ttp://p1pc:s.e11sg,.~a1C.Cl)ffi,SCCUOl1-t,-. _-:·.ii llii,
JI ····.·1 tti{i!~:;ff~J[~t:~~~H~~' I
ilc919) 541-2920 I Alexander Dr.
i
Air & Energy ERL I : Research Triangle Park, NC
j \ ...
J ,,t .. ., Previous : S . M . ,t. .... ~.r , , ·. Section .. creerung atnx
.. ,
.. ---..
Front
Page
\ 17711 .. ------. ..
11lrn_rn r11 ,n.n 11,mii ui ■r ■Tn iiWn !ll41U) b) 1-lU~l! l'l!~!M-. ..!L-!!.!J _UJ'U, rax: (410) 1 J\,1I) 21010-s401
. :._612-~~36 ... 11
Table of
Contents
--
1-·.
,-11' ·., • . · ,!!It , .. ·,-,
l of 5
1-:-· ..
\4\. l."".Ll.&f-'....,.ll,H,u.l.\,,,,.., U.j-' LA..I u r u _, \ .&. ,"-''-''-' ,a. .J•
Incinerator off-gas requires treatment by an air pollution-control
system to remove particulates and neutralize and remove add gases
(Hci NO~, and SOX). Baghouses, venturi scrubbers, and wet
electrostatic precipitators remove particulates; packed-bed scmbbers
and spray driers remove acid gases. Limestone or caustic solution
added to the combustor loop removes acid gases in the CFB.
incineration, primarily off-site: has been selected or used as the
remedial action at more than 150 Superfund sites. Incineration is
subjc:ct to a series of technology-specific regulations, including the
following federal requirements: CAA (rur emissions), TSCA (PCB
5/7/9S I :40 PM
5/7/98 l :40 PM
.. . ;
4.23 Incineration
Previous
Section Screening Matrix Table of
Contents
Contaminant Class
Search Next Section
,( ··•··•·-•·•---· ... 'I l
\1 • . . _ 'fech11ol~.~ ....... _! . .. . .. _ Desc~.~p!i°-~ . •
{soil, Se~im:t, a~~.-~~1:1~~~ ..... . .. . .. . .---"--~--·•
;!3.6 Ex Situ I hermal l'reatment {as13u111ni excavai1on) I ' . . .. . . . . . . ..... •-· -... .. . . .. .. . .. ... .... . . . ·-. . .. ---··--I
j' 4 23 Incineration i High temperatures, 871-1,204 °C ( 1,600-2,200 °:F), are used to ·
i I combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous
, <0'.> ti ( .. J ~~~~~S.. .. ·• . . . .. . . .. .. . ·-. ···--· .. , .. .. ;::: '..'. .: ...... ; .••. :L ,,,,,
Description:
Figure 4-23:
Typical
Mo bile/I ransportable
Incineration Process
High temperatures, 870 to L200 °C (1,400 to 2,200 °f), are used to
volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) halogenated and
other refractory organics in hazardous wastes. The destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators exceeds
the 99, 99% requirement for hazardous waste and can be operated to
meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins .
Commercial incinerator designs are rotary kilns, equipped with an
afterburner, a quench, and an air pollution control system. The rotary
kiln is a refractory-lined, slightly-inclined, rotating cylinder that serves
as ~ combustion chamber and operates at temperatures up to 980 °C
(] ,800 °f).
An experimental unit, the circulating fluidized bed (CFB), uses
high-velocity air to circulate and suspend the waste particles in a
C~mbust1·~n loop and op~ra•~s ~+ •em .... .,. .. .,,t .... "'S ..... 'tn 'il7 0 o,·, /1 6"()() V U \,, "'"' Q.\. \. U ,!)\.,_.&,U. UJ."-" U}-' LV VI '-~ \J.,'-.VV
°F). Another experimental unit, the infrared unit uses electrical
resistance heating elements or indirect-fired radiant U-tubes to heat
material passing through the chamber on a conveyor belt and operates
at temperatures up to 870 °C (1,600 °F).
Incinerator off-gas requires treatment by an air pollution-control
system to remove particulates and neutralize and remove acid gases
(HCl, NOx, and SOx). Baghouses, venturi scrubbers, and wet
electrostatic precipitators remove particulates; packed-bed scrubbers
a...7.d spray driers remove acid gases. Limestone or caustic solution
added to the combustor loop removes acid gases in the CFB.
Incineration, primarily off-site, has been selected or used as the
remedial action at more than 150 Superfund sites. Incineration is
subject to a series of technology-specific regulations, including the
following federal requirements: CAA (air emissions), TSCA (PCB
517198 1:40 PM
"'.2; Incineration
Appiicahiiity:
Limitations:
Data Needs:
Performance Data: ·
Cost:
.· 2 oO
nnp:11p1p~s.<:-U~f::$.:,ttJ\;.',;\_l)lf/::)\.,\,UVlnf"T _ ..:.../.IL~IJ.I'
treatment and ct1sposai), .KC.KA (.nazarctous waste generation,
treatment, storage, and disposal), NP DES ( discharge to surface
waters). and NCA (noise).
Incineration is used to remediate soils contaminated with expiosives
and hazardous wastes, particulariy chlorinated hydrocarbons. PCBs,
and dioxins.
Factors that xp.ay limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Only one off-site incinerator is permitted to burn PCBs and
dioxms. .
• There are specific reed size and materials handling requirements
that can impact applicability or cost at s~i:6c sites.
• Heavy metals can produce a bottom ash tl1at"requires·-····· --~· ·
stabilization.
• Volatile heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, mercury, and
arsenic, leave the combustion unit with the flue gases and
require the installation of gas cleaning systems for removal.
• Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream, such as
chlorine or sulfur, forming more volatile and toxic compounds
than the original species. Such compounds are likely to be
short-lived reaction intermediates that can be destroyed in a
caustic quench.
• ~oa•· ana' Ot' ·\, .. ~ c-_~ t ____ ----,1+.!...,.,... --.:-• .... '"'h-.r i--h~t ~an ..., lUill p a551=.u IUuu ll..lW 1uc:1uug 1-'"'llll a.:,11-..;,-, LIJ.U.< '-'HU
attack the brick lining and form a sticky particulate that fouls
gas ducts.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection
2.2.1 (Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition
to identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, infonnation
necessary for engineering thermal systems to specific applications
includes soil moisture content and classification (no sieve analysis is
n.~essary), ·the soil fusion temperature, and the soil heating w:Juc.
If an off-site incinerator is used, the potential risk of transporting the
hazardous waste through the community must be considered.
Approximately 20 commercial RCRA-pennitted hazardous waste
incinerators and approximately IO transportable high temperature
units are operating. The commercial unns are large capacity rotary
kilns with afterburners and sophisticated air pollution control systems.
Soil treatment costs at off-site incinerators range fr.om $220 to $1 , l 00
per metric ton ($200 to $1 ;000 per ton) of soil~ including all project
costs. Mobile units that can be operaied on-site will reduce soil
transportation costs. Soils contaminated with PCBs or dioxins cost
$1 ,650 to $6,600 per metric ton ($1,500 to $6,000 per ton) to
incinerate. t ,I{,,//;, ft...e foJkf l!.-€
tf) yf~ 7 5/7/9~ l:40 Pl-
-.--· ........ -~ ......
References:
· · ··. Site Information:
3 of5
EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA,
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, EPN530-SW-88-018.
EPA, 1988. Experience in Incineration Applicable to Super.fund Site
Remediation, EPA, RREL and Center for Environmental Research
Information, EP N625/9-88/008.
EPA, 1988. Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Ansvvers,
EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, EPN530/SW-88/018.
EPA, 1990. Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatmenr,
Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC,
EPN540/2-90/0l4.
EPA, 1988. Shirco Infrared Incineration, EPA RREL,-series -ineludes
Technology Evaluation Peake Oil, EPA/540/5-88/002a; Technology
Evaluation RoSe TowTIBhip, EPA/540/5-89/007a; Tedmo1ogy
Evaluation Rose Township Vol. II, EPN540/5-89/007b,
PB89-16791 0; Applications Analysis~ EP A/540/S5-89/01 0;
Technology Demonstration Summary~ EPA/540/S5-89/007;
Demonstration Bulletin, EP N540/ MS-88/002; and Technology
Evaluation Report Peake Oil Vol. II~ EP A/540/5-88/002B1
PB89-116024.
EPA, 1989. American Combustion Oxygen Enhanced Incineration,
EPA RREL, series include Technology Evaluation,
EPN540/5-89/008; Applications _A_11.a!ysis, EPA/540/.A.5-89/008;
Technoiogy Demonstration Summary, EP Ai540/S5-89/008; and
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MS-89/008.
EPA, 1992. Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor McCall Super.fund
Site, EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-92/001 ;
Demonstration Bulletin, EP N540/MR-92/001.
EPA, 1993. X-TRAX .Model JOO Thermal Desorption System
Chemical Waste Management, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EP A/540/MR-93/502.
Noland, J.W., et al.~ 1984. Task 2: Incineration Test of Explosives
Contaminated.Soils at Savanna Army Depot Activity, Final Report.
Savanna Illinois, USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-CR 84277.
5f7/9g l :40 PM
Post-Ir Fax Note
To
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mike Kelly
Joel Hirschhorn and
Working Group Co-Chairs
Patrick Barnes, P. G.
April 17, 1998
Fax#
Format for ERC Presentation
7671 Da.te 4
Based on my notes from our last meeting (March 26th) an outline of our proposed ERC
presentation was to be jointly developed by today.
Assuming a 30-minute presentation I recommend the following general structure:
Duration Topic Speaker
5 Min. History of Facility and the Promise Dollie Burwell -·
4 Min. Overview of $1 Million Expenditure Mike Kelly or Bill Meyer
8 Min. Integrity of the Facility Pat Barnes
8Min. Detoxification Technology Selection Joel Hirschhorn
Process and Results
5 Min. Funding Request, Economic Benefit and Henry Lancaster
Schedule for Implementation
We also need to discuss the general look of the presentation, our theme, and how we will bridge
the various speakers.
As requested, I have contacted Dr. Daly to see if the South Warren Elementary students can
provide colorful ''Detoxify Now" posters as a back drop.
Maybe Doris can set up a conference call within the next few days so we can discuss these
issues.
PAB/psg/M7MK
fax
Date J;'fyf 12.
Number of pages including cover sheet
Phone 'YJo/-f~~-f9$
Fax Phone /-e(f'-£/ S: _ zqOS:
CC:
REMARKS:
I
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
3655 Maguire Blvd. Suite 150
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone [phone]
Fax Phone [phone]
D FYI O See Attached O Urgent O For your review O Reply ASAP D Please comment
/1{1ie
µ 1
w~ t/4~5,e/ 1efa/~. <Jo d~i~
h:f/z.__1 .Z-~ 1/ µl/'/4 '/0 ~7:
bv~~s~~)
-P)'¼ 'ff' tdJA 5 {tJ/5) -:5 o if
of4!z;:;!6/2 -~1tk.. f Pie r✓✓1/vc 1«-{, ,~ )-?e<>f-f
,~--::3s,ooo -a ✓~ r( a;,nli -f'cl'o/4
~ I _#6',:POO ~fat,,.,u)b I -,
,..., -----.;.. '7,:)y/7(~,:;,,(e;-o/./+ x-;;,_06 X ~ ~ /; )/4_ .
..BF A Environmental Consultants = ~ Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM BFA #95-017.01
TO: Steve Detwiler
ETG Environmental, Inc.
FROM:
~ DATE:
SUBJECT: Warren County PCB Landfill
Preliminary Design Report Review Comments
1. J Purpose and Ob;ectives
Following the pattern already established: the detoxification projects should be let in a
Design/Build fom1at. The Design/Build Team will include the following components:
• System Design
• Technology
• Construction
• Minority Business Utilization
• Public Relations
A conceptual Project Organizational Chart is provided as Figure 1. l .
Please add the followiog text or something similar.
1.2 Sc:ope of Work
2.1
1. Working area site work -stormwater management, sediment containment and
control, grading, pad construction, etc., -should be listed as a preliminary design area
to be addressed.
Site Description/Background
1. Location map should be included.
2. Landfill cross section description should reference drawing 70809-PD3 (pg. 5).
3. 60 inch clay liner permeability should be noted -at least design permeability should
be referenced.
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
I
j
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 1998
Page 2
2. 3 Selection of BCD Process
2.6
3.1
1. Preclusion of thennal destruction methods (i.e., incineration) should be noted.
Regulatory Overview
1 . It should be noted that the required treatment standards are more restrictive than
Federal/State standards.
Purpose
1. First paragraph, 61n line should read ''professional expenence and eiting of
compliance with Federal and State regulations.
2. List of-conceptual drawings lists "Site Preparation Plan", but there wasn't a drawing
provided.
3. Suggest indicating drawing# in parenthesis after each drawing title, i.e.:
• Existing Conditions Plan (#70809 -PDO)
Permitting Plan
1. Listing of "Permit, License or Certification'' should provide more inforn1ation such
as:
a. Agency responsible for issuing pennit.
b. Relevant site functions covered in permit~ i.e., is "Earth Disturbance Pem1it"
required for any/all site work or only relevant to contaminated earth removal from
landfill cell.
c. "Certification Report" -to whom and what is being certified?
3. 3. 2 Site Preparation Plan
1. Size of ''clean soil staging area" should be noted. Drawing indicates ± 15 days
storage capacity -Report should state storage capacity required based on
anticipated lab turnaround time (i.e., what is it?) and backfilling operations.
2. Size of "oversize material stockpile" area should be noted. Will this area also be
roofed?
3. Has the prevailing wind direction been considered in the site layout?
3.3. 3 lnfrastructure/Utilitiq Plan
1. Is electrical power supply adjacent to site sufficient for treatment facilities'
needs?
2. -Is available water supply sufficient?
3. How will domestic wastewater needs be met?
4. How and where will the road be monitored for contamination?
HFA
.. '
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 1998
Page 3
3.5 Excavation Plan
1. Page 19, first bullet -it is stated that the water will be held in the pond to the north .
Will the pond be lined?
2. Page 20, how will stormwater entering the excavation be minimized?
3. Page 22, 2nd paragraph -what method will be used to perfom1 decontamination
oversize material?
4. Page 23 , 1st paragraph -stockpiled contaminated soil should be covered v.ith tarp to
prevent wind-blown erosion.
3. 6. 3 Treatment Plan {or PCB Contaminated Soils
1. Process flow diagram showing the following should be provided:
a. Process flow and all sidestreams
b. Unit design through -puts and unit sizing
c. Side stream treatment
d. All related emissions from the process including:
• afr
• solids/soil
• water
2. Size of process treatment area site should be noted. Will this site be concrete pad
or geomembrane lined soil?
3. Water treatment system concerns.
a. How will sand filter backwash be handled?
b. UV oxidation process -will ozone serve as oxidation agent?
c. Is system intended to be sized to handle construction run-off water? (i.e., is
this the "wastewater treatment system" discussed in Stonnwater Management
Plan?)
3.6.8 Stormwater Management Plan
1. Preliminary design criteria and construction water containment sump volumes
should be provided.
3. 7.2 Decontamination
1. Please describe proposed water treatment system mentioned at the end of page 46 .
5. 2 Estimated Costs
1 . I suggest the cost table be more detailed in order to provide a better basis of economic
feasibility. I recommend the following: ·
BFA
...... ~ ff -----
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 1998
Page 4
• Final Design, etc.
• Mobilization
• Site Prep
• Set up
• Start-up/Perf. Demo
• Excavation
• Soil Treatment
• Water Treatment
• Back Fill
• Reclamation
• Decon., Dismantle, Demob.
TOTAL
'
2. A low (5% -10%) project contingency may be prndent to cover vanous project
unknowns such as additional investigations and soil treatment.
Recornmended Text
4. Community Involvement
"Maximizing community involvement at all project levels is considered to be critical to
the actual and perceived success of the detoxification project.
The Joint State PCB Landfill Working Group has forged a new direction for collaborative
efforts in an Enviromnental Justice community and we assume will continue that effort
tlu-ough successful detoxification."
4. 4.1 Community Oversight/Funding
'
We recommend that the proposed CAB be replaced by the Joint Warren County
State PCB Landfill Working Group.
Replace 2nd paragraph with:
"Community oversight will be facilitated through the Working Group which is the
current structure to handle such. matters. The Working Group will continue to be
advised on an as-needed basis by independent Science Advisors. Approximately
$50,000 should be included for this effort.
-The organizational structure for community outreach "viii be as indicated in
Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The Design/Build Teams' public relations member will be
lo
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 1998
Page 5
responsible for ensuring that all stakeholders are apprised of the project's status,
goals, objectives and needs.
The Public Relations lead will report directly to the Program Manager and the
Working Group. The State's access to the project's Public Relations personnel
will be through the Working Group.
The dissemination of all monthly project status reports and quarterly newsletters
will be the responsibility of the Team's Public Relations Manager. This
individual could work for the Design/Build Team and be hired directly from local
talent; or be hired as a Subconsultant.
The community outreach will include substantial utilization of local and minority
ven_pors, suppliers and Subconsultants. It will be the responsibility of the MBE
Coordinator to ensure maximum economic impact through Subcontracting Thi s
team member will report directly to the Design/Build Program Manager and the
Working Group"
Drawing 70809-PDJ
1. ''Clean drainage" along west bank of landfill is subject to contamination from Yehicular
traffic as noted on drawing ➔ suggest construction of access roads with culve11s for landfill
to treatment area traffic.
2. BCD treatment area and contaminated soil holding areas should be concrete pads, not soil
with geomembrane liner.
3. Process fuel tanks should be located closer to access road to improve fuel delivery truck
access.
4. Site plan should provide storage area for gasoline/diesel for heavy equipment. Area should
include secondary containment. Where will equipment maintenance be performed?
Drawinf;J 70809-PDJ
1. Contaminated soil stockpile area should have concrete pad.
2. Toe of contaminated stockpile should be± 1 minimum from toe of containment be.nn.
3. Contaminated soil stockpile should have tarp cover to prevent windblown emissions.
4. Utilitv line trench section~ depth of compacted bedding around pipe not shown.
BFA
GENERAL PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Program J\'lanagen1ent Design DENR Design/Build Team \Vorking Group and Science AdYisors Technolog)' Construction 1\-Unority Business Utilization B~A ...
-MINORITY BUSINESS UTILIZATION STRUCTURE .Joint State PCB Landfill ,vorking Group Design Build Team Program l\.1anager PR Team l\.1ember • • Team l\.Unority Business Utilization l\if e1n her National l\1inoritY Suppliers Development Council •' Resources i\finority Contractors Group State Certified Suppliers/Vendors Local Contractors
-INFORMATION Dl~EMINATION STRUCTURE Joint State PCB Landfill \Vorking Group Design/Build Team Public Relations Manager Design/Build Team Program l\ifanager Local/State ~ledia National l\fedia and Environmental Groups Local Political Leaders State and National Political Representatives • Job Placement Groups • \Velfare to Work • Labor Pools Church and Civic Organizations Schools and Job Training Groups
i!f
I II I
'\ • ~ I I .
I
/
I
Ii I ' \ I \ \ \
\ '1
" I /: i '.i
I ~ 1 ... ·
·11
~ ~~
.-f~, .
~~\ "' -;:' . :
I
i
I I
I I !
"~
⇒
I
\ I I ' : I I I I I I / I / I I : I I 1.1 1 I I I I
\ !' : / I I
\ / /(:
\i I I I
• '· I I
: \/
• • -~ I
I .;
; I \_
'I I I
l I '
I. I I
I i I I
I I I
I I I
i \ I
I i \
·,I \
.-· I .-· I .. .:::::.. __ \ ---.:::-\ -· ,, I V : . ,,, ., / / I , . i· / /' ( . ' ,,,J I I I I I I I t _ I I I I i "1 ' I I ." I I . I I • I " . /
I 1,1 '-+-'+~-t-:li I EJI
I I
i I I . ) °'\ I I I I ; I i i I i' l " I I
1
1
1 " '-
I ;
I 1 / I
! l I '
1 l1:1
I i •,
..,.,
I 81:'
I I
.
!, .• . I
I I I
.•.• I
I
I I
I -i:o_---:---1 , ·. \
~--!..--r-ir '
I I
: I I '
I
I I '
I I ; I \
-..-+n~rr 1 . 1 1
I I . I I
I ' ' ·,1 \ , ! ,
1i I
'. I
\ \ I
\ .p I
I T
I j )
I I I
I
---;.-~,, ,I • \/
, ! , I 1
1 I
____.:~--1 /
i ).
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
·,
/
-...
, I I
I
I
' i
i ,·
!, ] ff' 8 ; t ~ !i1j / ~ J li1i0 :f1~ C"'-> oJ~ / ~ !Bf J j£0. <., / i · "'t::, ~~§ ~ / r-.1 '-Of Q Q Oc.,<., t: ..,,, a / -. 1 ~~c >: 8 / ♦ f; "'l 0 /:✓ ~ / q G , ... f,/ )( "ti 1, f .., / f l:10 .•.,, "< 1<1' ,,. "-<o .,,61 ~~ 81:!o: ' "' ~ 1 j l
-~ ~ . -.... .. -..._11,.,__ -------..... ---------------~. -/ -,:\ -' -··------':::! ~ . 4:--. -···-.. -( ~ ·:C==,--=~ -\ /~~ \ '::::::,, /'::) ',, I '~, // '' ,, '', \ '·1!... ',~, " ,,-\' I I \ \ ::-"f:r \'~ \\. Po,,o \ \ \~ '$-f-J.:'""' \\ I I \\ / I \\ I I \\ / / \\ /,, \\ ,,,, \\ L / ~ "!-,~&-',~,.... --::.~., ...... ,.:t-,.-::..-=.-=..--, '-'-'-"\ / ---------·----------... _ --_/ L -/_.·-------:.:::f~-==-~~=-------------/ -----~ -----------.-· ---• --nic.l'ID 1--. -___ <:t£A,, p ~ "'1H %%<Piu: -,,, .. ~,.'CC C,,p Ptt£Sw,,/"AJJy 13 ll<Jt.r SP,q (SQ. SEcno,,)___/ 30 cY IN -.,,LLJ~ ~ Cu:::>:)/ .,.,--_,,.,,. :x -'/ --/ u_,,,_/. c, -_,/7'-.-, ~ I ~c .::) /!--,,,,~ ... -& _-:·i, -Ad~,_.,·~_ '/ ), · ... r~. r:.:..., 1--~l.'-""' -~~1L-1i BT '\ e;... ... '\ '\ '\ / / / '\ '\ .+·__. / / ~ ~ "t.i: ) -A, I ---·-_;;.· _---~-1-~~:~~~=-~ -\=:~f ;~~ -~ -I • / ~~r= -r== , .,.,.; r-!" r -~ ~ -_:; \. /,,,t_ -i:-. .i-! l,1 ____,;=:::. •• ------· -/ / Bco 1'>1£An,O/r/. r~trr?. . ARCA ,. s:r C.('L ·) ~~~-· ""~ r011 ~ AAc..---/ / cewr....._.l'IDso.. ARCA I 0,000 SI'. 2.3QJ eo>:.O,,.l't)""<D2-... ~ """Roci. / II C£0wo.a,,.,;£ -~~ (~Al!CA) / :_ I Ill• \ \ \ \ l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I ~\ I E:: ·. I I I \I ~-·+ (~Al!CA) • I ~ .... TOl.,,o. --·=I.Jl<a I \_ . ~~"""°' I 'Dq , ~ -r ~--., ~ ~-. . ~ -"'-'-'-~~ _, ~-✓~---,~-----tf-1-. -/ ... ~ . -< c '-'"'-·· ..-:-<<er f/l....t..<.<. '-· o C--ccz .. _,_.., ~., _...,_ ----==== -';~~!'::/ ~-------·----·~ J _.'. ~. ----~, ~ras·,J .... c~+,ay' ·s;cJ1,,.~~.Jr r~t1:/r e_ fr() L/1 S IO~ J ~ ffJ/ltiJ'ff f'O U1 S /,pS :___----[__,, S I -7 Ii: 1---< Ci I ff'r, C.... /.~·.;;,, ~ i{ ~:;~,7;}1(/i> 4.,,-.... "'-'i. i' -.::~;,.! j;/ , ~~"; ()~~l ~TOI &ob,ll>n:,, ~~ ~TOI ..,._,,,, SEC!JRm, Ftl,q; \ \ \_ snr °"'w«:r "°"' \ \ \ ♦ ICF !(AisER ~ "'~ --....,, -.,,, 0.._!t.-~2-. , ... ST,4T[ O, NORn; CA.Ro, WAARo, COUt,(]y PCB t.AADF]u_ ETC ¾RONIJf:NTAj_ INC. llnliTJfS/IN~ucn.,Rf/ SUPPQ,rr PL>.N •v ~, r I I
~------VEGETATION /--,,..,1---12" TOPSOIL -->+---12" nLL F --= I 24· a.AY -~ .. ---~ SHED ROOF SHED ROOF SUPPORT------, AND FOUNDATION 't. 't_ STORl.4WA TER DITCH -'t_ STORl.4WATER RU>lOIT BERM 17 FT. 'MOE ACCESS ROAD . I Q(ISTING PERll.40ER -~ L """ rn, '" =om ---.ce "°'-: ~ STAlfltD CH: Ot/2.4/M 1'\.0T SICAL..l..: 1-1 ~50); O/b0/00 't_ CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF DIVERSION BERl.4 TO DIRECT CONSTRUCTION RUNDIT TO SUl.4P §3 r ~ f' (} J ____ SIX INCHES OF COl.4PACTED fV-~ SLAG/AGGREGATE ABOVE _ Q ( \e,, AND BENEATH SMUY LAYER -----=-I' {) J /cl 1 + + + + + + + + + I V c-h. l + + + + + + + + ~-+ + + + + + + + + I ( :> 10 + ~+ + • + + + + + + + + + + + + + + . ,r; ....f' + + + + + + + + +\ + + , +++++++++ ~· ~\ ++++++++++++\ • • • • • • • • ---+---SOILS ....,TH El.EVA TED a ,N' vQ . • EXCAVATED SOIL~· •1· "-.--+---12" nLL CONTAINl.4ENT BERl.4 I ri· L ~~:: :: --GROUND SURFACE L/S O sfZJffL ~ ~~ /OUTFALL hc,..,-./r c-+ I ,'i EROSION :::.-{~ _; PROTECTION )?1~ ·-~ ====-••••••••• rio )Vo' •••••••••••• , + + + + + + + + + , I'-~ 0 12· + + + + + + + • + . + + + + + + + + + + + LEVELS OF PCB• J' -1{'-+ + + -tf'ROl.4 PCB LANDnLL + + •,~ + + + + + + + + + ~ V \ + + + + + + + + + I♦ + (3:~(ESl~:t{~:~-~::N:ABRIC w1_ss,>' TL·.~~·-·~ ~r-*,,.~. --------I X n.Yl' • ., , L ··-v Cr-(!I 5e2rJ I,...-,,() ,J PREPARED SUBGRADE so· a.AY ; ({'( r . GEOll.4El.4BRANE I Cv-'ti 1 : 611/ SAFETY LA YER. TO A VOID ACCIDENT Al TEARING OF GEOll.4£!,IBRANE SECTION CONTAMINATED SOIL HOLDING AREA -~' 1 · 15e 6' f d,j c I:-p; I e. n,c,-/R 0.G / K' h 6U Id be_ // r; Ifni,._) -f'o,·a~ 1,X' cf I / b).d\i?..0,0~).J ~::~PVC GEOl.4£!,IBRANE /' NOT TO SCALE ~ ~~ ' •· 9° SAND ·•. ,.---~--PREPARED SUBGRADE SECTION ¥_ Y-,,,~ I I . l EXISTING PERll.4ffiR --=• '" "' ~,= tJ.Pr"" ' .,. ... ~ '"' \ ', SECTION ACCESS ROAD FOR HAUL VEHICLES STONE OR AGGREGATE NOT TO SCALE A:~~~r:ifcp ~ ~-,\.. ~ -;;' .,·'"i:.·,'-·~·"··--/4,._.,:-'. -v~ t ·•.i ;;, -{ ".;} -~.,; ;,V ct_ STORl.4WA TER DITCH 't_ STORl.4WA TER RUNOFF BERl.4 17 n. 'MOE ACCESS ROAD 't_ CONSTRUCTION RUNOIT DIVERSION BERM {PROJECTED) CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF SUl.4P CBDS_S__SECTION OF EXISTING Fl_CB LANDFILL NOT TO SCALE l~~:~:m:--; -C)h I '~1 ; I (2 REO'D) TO COLLECT CONSTRUCTION RUNOff FROl.4 ACCESS ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF LANDFll..L EARTH nLL BERl.4 ~------VEGETATION ~//,~ s· TOPSOIL 18° CLAY ------------------• --+--TREATED SOILS ;_:;:,~~~~;~'.~;I:~;~;~~~:;:±;~;'.i;,i~: :1 :.l ~:~ ABRIC so· CLAY '.--1----12• FILL ---30 l.41l PVC GEOl.4EMBRANE t. '·"·'·;\:;;_ ';;_,i:_t;:J g· SAND SECTION CROSS SECTION OF• PROPOSED COMPLETED LANDFILL NOT TO SCALE BURIED UTlUTY IMRKING TAPE 8°-12"1 -I 30· (1.41N.) COl.4PACTED AGGREGATE BEDDING/BACKnLL W.TERIAL ·, (Dpt1; nor sAo...,) SECTION ' COl.4PACTED SOIL B>,CKnL.L W.TERIAL GROUND SURFACE EXCAVATE SIDESLOPES AS VERTICAL AS POSSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE OSHA REGULATIONS ? UJILITY LINE TRENCHING NOT TO SCALE NOTE: ELECTRICAL AND WATER LINES SHAU. BE INSTALLED IN SEPAAATE TRENCHES AT LEAST 10· APART. ~ PREPARED SUBGRA0£/ / / -----l----z---_ CONSISTING OF nLL __ _ LINC: ROAD BASE GEOl.4El.4BRANE WITH GEOl.4£!,IBRANE nLTER f ABRIC 'ONE OR AGGREGATE r: /,,,," :::;--~-;~~ • ~ • .,..~.., -<.>,. -~ SECTION CONSTRUCTION SUMP NOT TD SCALE g· COl.4PACTED AGGREGATE ~ !.':<'7:N::>"tl'-">~'-'O"tl'-'<nl~'-'O'tA:,"\,'o;& _T~~ GEOTEXTILE L' PREPARED SUBGR>.OE ♦ICFKAISER SECTION "CLEAN" ACCESS ROAD -PARKING AREA NOT TO SCALE SCALL •s SHO""' I -= BY: 0-'TL JAl-4. 29. 1998 ORA.WN BY: 0. [\. CHECKED BY: P .J! STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL ETG ENVIRONMENTAL. INC. SECTIONS (/r HO. 3015,~ SH([T NUMS(R OAAWIHC HUWB(R 70809-PC
I Environmental Education http:Jl~.eng.clemson.edulRe ... h.()pportulities/on_Educat.html
1 of 1
;..,.,
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Proposals from school districts, educational institutions and other nonprofits for grants to support
environmental education projects should be postmarked to the Environmental Protection Agency by
February 21.
This program seeks to increase public knowledge about environmental issues. and to provide the public
with the skills ( critical thinking, problem-solving, etc.) needed to make informed, responsible decisions.
"Environmental education does not," EPA noted, "advocate a particular viewpoint or course of action."
Examples of potential projects include but are not limited to: (1) designing, demonstrating or
disseminating environmental curricula (use of existing curricula is preferred); (2) designing and
demonstrating field techniques, including assessing environmental and ecological conditions or specific
environmental issues or problems; (3) training teachers or related personnel; (4) fostering international
cooperation in addressing environmental issues in America, Mexico and/or Canada; (5) educating low
income and culturally diverse audiences about environmental issues; and ( 6) educating the public about
environmental issues in their communities through community-based organizations or through print, film,
broadcast or other media. ·
Grants can range up to $250,000, but is% of all awarded funds will be for grants of $5,000 or less; thus
most awards by far will be $5,000 or less. In FY 1996, over 350 proposals were received; only nine were
funded, the largest being for $145,000.
For more program information, including detailed application guidelines, refer to the December 10
Federal Register, p. 65106-17. More information is also available on the Web at:
"http://www.nceet.snre.umich.edu/grant.html". The EPA contact person for proposals requesting more
than $25,000 is George Walker at [phone]; for those requesting less than $25,000, it is Maria
Pirie at [phone].
For information on non-EPA grant programs on environmental education, request copies of "Grant
Funding For Your Environmental Education Program" (available @ $5) from: North American
Association for Environmental Education, Publications and Member Services, P.O. Box 400, Troy, Ohio
45373.
02/05/98 17:53:14
~1Au_f-
~c-✓I~
;-~-
--.
'.,,,,
\
fax
··.-~ ~;.;a~\! \
ri\\~ 1~ }~~~ B~rnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
;--·, 3655 Maguire Blvd. Suite 150
........ ---~:-•·t Orlando, Florida 32803
Date
Number of pages including cover sheet
To:
Phone
Fax Phone
CC :
J)ErlNk:' _i
From:
,~ 01
Phone [phone]
Fax Phone [phone]
REMARKS:
0 FYI [3""';ee Attached O Urgent D For your review D Reply ASAP D Please comment
, t )lcnse c a\\ me af'-W' ~OL'-f-C\.i ieuJ
"tl\t.S'
BF A Environmental Consultants
Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Working Group
, FROM: Patrick A. Barnes, P.G.
DATE: August 29, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of the Warren County Bench Scale Test Report
Submitted by ETG Environmental, Inc. and
ELI Eco Logic Inc.
BFA #95-017
BFA reviewed the two referenced pilot scale reports using the follov.ing fonnat:
l. Form and Content: The documents were reviewed to determine if the prosecution format and
technical content was consistent v.~th the requirements of the RFP and industry standards.
2. Consistency: The documents were reviewed for internal consistency.
3 RFP Criteria: They were reviewed in light of the criteria outlined in the State's RFP. A
memorandum summarizing the results of that review is attached.
4. Scoring: Finally, a point system was established for each of the major criteria as outlined in
Section 2.5 of the RFP as follows:
a) PCB and Dioxin Removal
b) Quality of Phase I Test Report
c) Ability to Provide Full Scale Equipment
d) Safety and Reliability
The scoring is detailed as follows:
TOTAL
ETG
30
10
15
20
75
Ecologic
30
5
15
lQ
60
40 Points
15 Points
20 Points
25 Points
Based on the above, we recommend proceeding to Phase II with the ETG team.
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
()ffir.~ /.dn7\ AO~LARm~ • l=,;iv f.dil7\ ~o~.1 i:l-,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Barnes, P.G.
FROM:· Ted Hortenstine, P.E. ~
DA TE: August 28, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of the Warren County Pilot Scale Test Report
Submitted by ETG Environmental, Inc. and
ELI Eco Logic Inc.
BFA #95-01 7
The reports were reviewed based on the selection criteria presented in the Request for Propos~1l
(RFP). A discussion of each of the five selection criteria as stated in paragraph 2.1.4 is provid ed
as follows :
a) The Ability to Meet Phase I Criteria (Section 2.5) as Demonstrated through Phase I Test
Data:
1) PCB and Dioxin Removal Performance -In general, both processes demonstrated the
ability to treat the contaminated soil to the levels requested (Total PCB less than 20 ppb )
for Total PCB's. Eco Logic expressed concern that the level of treatment could not be
demonstrated for Dioxin TEQ due to the detection limits achievable for soil samples
using method 8290. Reported values for Eco Logic were ND (non-detectable) for two
runs and 380 ppt for one of the runs. The 380 ppt wa5 attributed to low temperatures
during Run 2. ETG Environmental, Inc. did not express any concerns regarding detection
limjts. ETG Dioxin TEQ values ranged from ND to 2.96 ppt.
Eco Logic was able to demonstrate compliance with PCB emissions at the exhaust (gas)
stack. However, they were unable to demonstrate compliance with the Dioxin TEQ
emission performance requirement. Eco Logic attributed this problem to sample size and
analytical detection limits. ETG Environmental, Inc. did not meet the stated performance
at the exhaust stack. They did report compliance based on an EPA dispersion model
(Screen 3) which predicts air pollutant concentrations within a certain distance (200 fr.
was used).
2) General: Based on th.is review, ETG Environmental, Inc. appears to have a slight edge on
soil treatment perfonnance. Overall, it appears that each process can meet the treatment
performance requirements ·with slight modifications in the full-scale unit or ·with a slight
relaxation of performance requirements.
MEMORANDUM
August 28 , l 997
Page 2
b) The Quality of the Phase I Test Report:
1) Format: Neither company adhered to the format required by paragraph ;.7.2 of the R.FP .
111e report submitted by ETG Environmental, Inc. seemed to follow the requested format
more closely than the Eco Logic report.
2) General: The report submitted by ETG Environmental, Inc. \vas easier to follow.
Information was presented in a more concise manner. Strictly based on the quality of
each report, the ETG Environmental, Inc. was a better report.
c) TI1e Abilitv of the Vendor to Provide Full-Scale Equipment at th~ __ ylarren Cotmty PCB
Landfill Site:
Although ETG Environmental, Inc. discussed the capabilities of their full-scale units, no
statements were made concerning availability of these units. A phone conversation ·with Mr.
Steven Det'.viler of ETG Environmental, Inc. con.finned that an existing treatment unit could
be relocated, or that a new treatment unit could be constructed depending on the timing of . .
the project. A maximum period of six months would be necessary prior to start-up.
Eco Logic discussed their situation in detail. They are in the same situation as ETCi
Environmental, Inc. Either an existing unit could be relocated or a new unit could be
constructed. They would also need up to six months pri.or to start-up.
d) The Ability of the Vendor to Provide a Safe, Reliable and Cost-Effective Full Scale
Application of the Selected Technologv at the Warren Landfill:
1) Safety: Neither company addressed the issue of safety as it relates to the full-scal e
system. Based on the review of the reports, the system proposed by ETG Environmental,
Inc. appears to be inherently safer than the system proposed by Eco Logic due to the
follo-..ving reasons:
• The ETG Environmental, Inc. system operates at 600 -650° F, while the Eco Logic
system operates at 800 -900 ° C (1,472-1,652° F).
• The ETG Environmental, Inc. system operates under vacuum conditions which
minimizes system leaks or discharges. The Eco Logic system operates at ambient
pressures.
• The ETG Environmental, Inc. system does not appear to introduce any potentially
explosive materials while the Eco Logic system utilizes hydrogen gas.
MEMORANDUM
August 28, 1997
Page 3
The above observations were based on infonnation contained in the report. Since no full-
scale safety data was presented by either firm, additional data should be requested to
substantiate or refute these observations.
2) Reliability: Neither compan.y addressed the issue of full-scale system reliability. Due to
the complexity of each of the systems, no observations could be made to compare each of
the systems. Additional information should be requested from each company.
3) Cost Effectiveness: Minimal information was provided by each company concerning
cost effectiveness. An economic comparison of the two systems cannot be made w1less
more substantial cost data is provided.
e) The Qualitv and Cost of the Proposal for Providing Phase II Services:
Not Applicable: Proposals for providing Phase II services will be submitted after acceptance
of the Phase I reports.
TH/psg/8-181-'B
I ~
I l l
ME!\IORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Workina Group (Strategy Meeting Attendees)
Patrick A. Barnes, P.G. ~
February 2, 1998
I ,,.
SUBJECT: General Outline for the Development of Various Strate&r Components
As requested of me during Saturday's Strategy Session the following is a general outline of the
broad topics that each strateay component should include.
1. Introduction -What is the program and why is it necessary?
2. Goals and Objectives -Discuss the overall goal and the objectives necessary to achieve it.
3. Program Approach • How the program will be implemented should be discussed in a stl!p
by step fashion.
4. Implementation Schedule -How long will it take to implement the program approach? A
timeline should be given for each task in the program approach.
5. Manpower and Cost Requirements -What are the manpower needs and associated costs of
implementing the program approach?
6. Roles and Responsibilities -The program should include a section on who will do what -
not just individuals, but also what organization we are asking to participate.
If you feel other items should be included please feel free to do so.
3655 M.gutre Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando Florida 32803
Offir.A [phone] • Fax [phone]
BF A Environmental Consultants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Detwiler
Mike Kelly
Joel Hirschom d
FROM: Patrick A. Barnes, P.G. ,. ~~-
DATE: November 12, 1997
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE NOVEMBER
14 PHASE II DESIGN MEETING
In addition to the topics mentioned in Joel's memo dated November 12, 1997 the Phase II
design team should be prepared to discuss the following detoxification site design
concerns:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Area required for project implementation including site layout and work zones
Site operations and logistics --..s 116 / t Q v ,fr't, (,\J :· :cc ,..,,r?.. i ry
Construction of contamination reduction facilities if necessary /
Temporary storage facilities
Other potential temporary and permanent horizontal and vertical construction
Storm.water management /
• Ponds
• Need for infrastructure
, ':;1.iitSJL~ lf ~v-J-
Phasing of fill removal and clean fill placement
Detailed estimates of quantities to be removed in each phase
9. Site plan showing anticipated final topography of each cell as it is closed
~ fJl'I J Drv-w (.is;. ·:_,1'.r,c{JJd _. 2.l c).
10. Permits necessary -local, state and federal ·
St--((~
Jv\.o ..,__ ', \-c:, ..,.. ', ~
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando . Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fa x [phone]
b-L/
;,1;_ I)~
f1c.--r r·~ October 21, 1997 ............................................................................... by FA.'X
To: Mike Kelly
From: Joel Hirschhorn and Patrick Barnes
We regret that your office did not inform us or the Worl-.ing Group that in early August you
contracted Environmental Efficiency to pe:rform au evaluation of a ponion of the dioxin/furan tes1
results obtained for the PCB Landfill site investigation. Because we have just received your
contractor report we now make certain requests.
We request that your office officially submit the contractor report prepared fo1 your office by
Eu\ iroumental Efficiency to the appropriate official at Southwest Laboratory of Oklahoma, the
laboratory that the state contracted with for the dioxin testing used in the PCB Landfill
in"\estigation, and request that Southv\·est prepare a \\11.tten technical response to your contractor
report Specifically, we request that you ask Southwest to address the follov.ing issues:
1. Did the analysis of Environmental Efficiency fairly and comprehensiYely address all of th e
testing for dioxins/furaus conducted by Sonth\\est"
2 (A) Does Southwest believe that the Region JV guidance uocL1IDent used b) Envirollllleutal
Efficiency represents generally accepted and applied EPA procedures used by Southwest0 (B)
Are there any specific differences between the Region IV guidance and other applicable EPA
guidance used by Soutb"\-est? (C) Would South·,vest have used different testing procedures if the
state had requested compliance with the Region IV guidance9
3. Are there any technical issues, findings, inte1rretations, or conclusion s presented in the
Environmental Efficiency repo1t that Southwest disagrees with, or ·wishes to discuss or amplify
on°
4 . To what extent do the findings and conclusions given by Environmental Efficiency apply to
dioxins/furaus other than the ones examined by Em,ironmental Efficiency?
5. After considering the Environ.mental Efficiency report, does Southwest --..v:ish to moctif)· any of
its previously submitted data and reports provided to the state?
Would you please request that Southwest provide responses as soon as possible.
Please provide us vvith copies of your request to South\vest and any reply by them. \Vould you
also provide us with some description of the procedure used to select Environmental Efficiency.
the scope of work used by the state, the competing firms considered, and all bids received .from
competing firms. Has Environmental Efficiency provided previous contractor services to the
Division of Waste Management?
cc: Working Group Technical Committee
· BF A Environmental Consultants
===2~ =2=t=~a=====~
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Kelley and the Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P.G., Science Advisor
DATE: October 15, 1997
SUBJECT: Water in the Landfill
BFA #95-017.01
The purpose of this memo is to clearly state my position coocerrung the water in U1e landfill . As
you know, in my opinion, the site investigation and data analysis performed strongly indicates
that water is both entering the landfill through the upper liner system and leaving the facility
through the bottom liner system. Moreover, this is supported by the results of the analytical
testing of two wells adjacent to the facility (lA and 5D) which both indicate the presence of
dioxins. The period of record reviewed indicates that leakage out of the facility has been
occurring for at least the last 5 years. This means the potential exists that a substantial area of
impact exists immediately beneath the landfill. The soil or groundwater immediately beneath the
facility was not tested. Although the severity of the impact beneath the landfill is unknown, it is
known that the existence of approximately 15 feet of water in the landfill acts as a driving force
for continued releases.
I realize that the desire exists to keep the facility in as poor a condition as possible to strengthen
the case for detoxification, however, it is more important that prudent steps to protec.t the
environment be made whenever possible and as quickly as possible. Moreover, no temporary
measure could ever take the place of the long-term detoxification solution. The need for
detoxification must be able to stand on its own, which I feel it clearly can.
· I therefore strongly recommend that the Working Group formally ask the State to proceed
irnmedia1ely with a program to safely and effectively remove the water from the facility . I have
analyzed the geotechnical data on the landfill contents and can assist in the design of an
extraction system,
·-----··-··
Po11t-1r Fax Nole 7671 Oate
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fa)( [phone]
J);d _ .. ,
' -p--.:> E"" · ~ p..-:A. E~vironmental Consultants
fi,/ ,Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
fo1# .,I~ 1 yir((~ MEMORANDUM
(A.'j)S
TO: Mike Kelly and The Working Group
FROM: Pat Barnes, Science Advisor
DATE: June 13 , 1997
SUBJECT: Review of Landfill CAP Evaluation
I have reviewed the June 5, 1997 report from S&ME evaluating the Landfill Cap System and
disagree with the statement that the PVC liner "appears to be in fair condition". My points of
concern and questions for S&ME are summarized below:
1. S&ME states that the specifications of original PVC liner was not available for comparison. I
am concerned that by comparing the test results given in Table 2 to a "typical 10-mil PVC"
liner, we may not be comparing apples to apples. Can a range of values be provided for
various types of 10-mil PVC liners available so that a more detailed comparison of test results
can be made?
2. I am uncertain how the PVC liner condition could be considered fair if the seams showed root
penetration along "several seam sections". Root penetration means the PVC liner has failed
and if it has failed I'm not sure its condition should be considered fair.
3. As mentioned, pinholes were present in PVC Sample B-1 . This was obvious to everyone
present during the field activities as well. Was an effort made by S&ME to quantify the
density of the pinholes using a light table? This method is much more accurate than the use of
sunlight in the field. A light table may have yield pinholes in Sample B-2 as well .
4. In the field I observed at least one hole in the PVC liner which was approximately 1/2 inch in
diameter. This hole was not mentioned in the S&ME report. The hole was obviously not
caused by the excavation process because it had roots growing through it. It was either
missed by S&ME or considered a pinhole. Both of which I find hard to believe.
5. I recall that the condition of the liner was documented in the field with photographs. Were
more detailed pictures taken in the laboratory as a part of the analysis? If so, can copies with
descriptive text be provided. I feel that this could be of tremendous value to Working Group
members who were not present for the excavation activities.
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
,,.
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 1997
Page 2
6. Portions of the PVC liner in the north excavation were severely wrinkled and significant
depressions in the surface of the PVC liner were present in the south excavation. The
depressions appeared to be made by a track hoe prior to placement of the PVC liner. The
S&ME report does not address whether or not this condition of the top liner may result in
increase potential loss of integrity.
7. As I mentioned in a previous memorandum to the Working Group, a portion of the PVC liner
seam at the south excavation (B-2) appeared to contain no adhesive. This matter was not
discussed by S&ME.
8. With respect to the integrity of the liner system, the conclusions of the report are not as
definitive as they should be. Especially, given the obvious poor condition of the PVC liner as
observed by several in the field .
If, as suggested by Joel, there is an earlier draft to this report submitted to the State, I too would
like to review it. Changes to the report in moving from draft to final could possibly explain the
contradiction between the first and the second sentences of the final paragraph of page 8. I fail to
understand how the PVC liner condition could be considered fair if it is breached "along several
seam sections".
PAB/psg/6-l JWGJ.doc
cc : Joel Hirschhorn
BFA ===:: ::::
Post-Ir Fax Note 7671
Fax#
TO : Mike Kelly and The Working Group
FROM: Pat Barnes, Science Advisor
DATE June 13 , 1997
SUBJECT: Review of Landfill CAP Evaluation
I have reviewed the June 5, 1997 report from S&:ME evaluating the Landfill Cap System and
disagree with the statement that the PVC liner "appears to be in fair condition". My points of
concern and questions for S&ME are summarized below:
l . S&ME states that the specifications of original PVC liner was not available for comparison. I
am concerned that by comparing the test results given in Table 2 to a "typical 10-mil PVC"
liner, we may not be comparing apples to apples. Can a range of values be provided for
various types of I 0-mil PVC liners available so that a more detailed comparison of test results
can be made?
2 . I am uncertain how the PVC liner condition could be considered fair if the seams showed root
penetration along "several seam sections". Root penetration means the PVC liner has failed
and if it has failed I'm not sure its condition should be considered fair.
3. As mentioned, pinholes were present in PVC Sample B-J . This was obvious to everyone
present during the field activities as well. Was an effort made by S&ME to quantify the
density of the pinholes using a light table9 This method is much more accurate than the use of
sunlight in the field. A light table may have yield pinholes in Sample B-2 as well.
4. In the field I observed at least one hole in the PVC liner which was approximately J /2 inch in
diameter. This hole was not mentioned in the S&ME report. The hole was obviously not
caused by the excavation process because it had roots growing through it. It was either
missed by S&.ME or considered a pinhole. Both of which I find hard to believe
5. I recall that the condition of the liner was documented in the field with photographs. Were
more detailed pictures taken in the laboratory as a part of the analysis? If so, can copies with
descriptive text be provided. I feel that this could be of tremendous value to Working Group
members who were not present for the excavation activities
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
MEMORANDUM
June 13 , 1997
Page 2
6. Portions of the PVC liner in the north excavation were severely wrinkled and significant
depressions in the surface of the PVC liner were present in the south excavation. The
depressions appeared to be made by a track hoe prior to placement of the PVC liner The
S&ME report does not address whether or not this condition of the top liner may result in
increase potential loss of integrity.
7. As I mentioned in a previous memorandum to the Working Group, a portion of the PVC liner
seam at the south excavation (B-2) appeared to contain no adhesive This matter was not
discussed by S&ME.
8. With respect to the integrity of the liner system, the conclusions of the report are not as
definitive as they should be. Especially, given the obvious poor condition of the PVC liner as
observed by several in the field .
If, as suggested by Joel, there is an earlier draft to thi~ report submitted to the State, I too would
like to review it. Changes to the report in moving from draft to final could possibly explain the
contradiction between the first and the second sentences of the final paragraph of page 8. I fail to
understand how the PVC liner condition could be considered fair if it is breached "along several
seam sections".
PA.8 psg 6-HWOJ.dc>c
cc: Joel Hirschhorn
.BFA Environmental Consultants
Barnes,· Ferland and Associates, Inc.
DRAFT MEMOJ,lANDUM
TO:
FROM:·
DATE:
Dollie Burwell and Working Group
Patrick Barnes, Science Advisor
May 22, 1997
SUBJECT: Background Community Data Collection
BFA #95-017
Dollie, I strongly recommend that the Working Group begin an effort to formally gauge the
opinions of the community as it relates to the PCB Landfill.
This information is an important first step in preparing for comprehensive community
involvement. The data collection can be accomplished with a simple survey form which would be
distributed by mail, at community centers and churches. The survey will ask questions such as:
• How close do you live to the landfill?
• How long have you lived in the area?
• On a scale of I to I 0, how do you feel about the landfill being in your community?
• How do you rate your interest in learning more about PCBs and the PCB landfill?
• Would you attend a community forum to discuss recent developments in our understanding of
the PCB landfill?
I don't believe the Working Group has formally established a community outreach committee.
My working with such a sub-group is discussed in my scope of services. Please let me know if
you agree with the need to move forward formally with the project's community involvement
component.
PAB!psgl5-22DB2.doc
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office ( 407) 896-8608 • Fax ( 407) 896-1822
I •
I
I I
Poet-It-Fa,: Note 7671
Tn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Kelly and
PCB Landfill Working Group
FROM: Patrick A. Barnes, Science Advisor
DATE : May 12, 1997
SUBJECT: Questions Concerning Recently Receh,ed Landfill & Area Te1t Data
As discussed during our May 8, 1997 Working Group Meeting, there are several questions and
comments which I have concerning the above referenced laboratory data.
1. The analytical data reported by the State laboratory are all recorded by hand. Although there
is nothing inherently wrong with this, it undoubtedly could result in transcription errors. How
much of the data being reported by the .State is actually being manually derived from strip
chart recorders? ·
2. In addition to the identification number assigned by the Science Advisors, the State assigned
two sets of additional numbers. l believe that Hus introduces other sources of possible
transcription errors.
3. The detection levels for several of the v()latiles and semi-volatiles are much higher than those
standardly used by commercial labs and in many cases higher than the North Carolina
Standard for Ground Water (GA or GSA (Tl SA: 02L.0202)). Some examples are :
Standard Detection Limit
Benzene
Chlordane
T etrachloroethylene (PCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Vinyl Chloride
t ppb
.027 ppb
.7 ppb
2.8 ppb
.015 ppb
s ppb
2 ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb
IO ppb
4 Some pesticides are not reponed, including DDT. Others such as heptachlor, heKachloro-
benzene and chlorodane are reported sometimes and sometimes not. It was my understanding
that pesticides and herbicides would be run and reported consistently for all analytes, for the
identified samples
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax (407) 896·1822
,I - .
I
MEMORANDUM
May 12, 1997
Page 2
S. We were not given any QNQC data or summaries for any of the State's results . Does the lab
have such things as method blanks, internal control standard recovery, matrix spike or
laboratory duplicate infom1ation.
6. The results of the air monitoring presented at the Working Group meeting indicate the
presence of Arochlor 1242, 1254 and 1260 at at least one of the locations on the facility, near
the area of evaluation. Although no other monitors apparently registered PCBs including
those in the excavation, the re~ults are indicative of what would be expected for this facility
design and correlate well with the other data gathered thus far .
PAB/p.,f.15-12MK I.doc
.BFA =-= = =-
March 27, 1997
To Mike Kelly, Working Group and Joel Hirschhorn
From Pat Barnes
SUBJECT: Pilot Scale Testing Proposals from ETG and Eco Logic
As we discussed by phone and after reviewing both proposals, I believe the prices are high I
think the primary reason the prices are elevated is the prior understanding of the vendors that they
were competing in a limited field.
Although Eco Logic took a more comprehensive approach with their proposal preparation, they
neglected to include the preparation of a report at the conclusion of the pilot testing Such a
document is imponant to discuss the efficiency of the testing and the suitability of the waste
streams to be recycled for alternative uses. They also did not include a line item for coordination
\vith the State and the science advisors. Both of these items were included by ETG It is possible
that Eco Logic plans on performing these services but neglected to break them out on their cost
itemization. However the Eco Logic's proposal did attempt to address community involvement,
a.n issue which in my mind should be a major point of focus by the working group for all future
work acti\'ities related to the Landfill.
By including Guild fncorporated as a subconsultant to work on behalf of the community, they
have at least recognized that this is not just a technical project.
My major point of concern stems from the Phase I costs outlined in the ETG proposal These
costs are the subject of Joel's March 27, 1997 fax . ETG has included $26,000 in their proposal to
upgntde their equipment. This should be unacceptable unless upon completion of the project the
equipment ( or separately functioning portions thereof) will become the property of the State.
The other questionable line item is $23,400 for equipment rental. I cannot understand how a
rental cost of $23,400 could be accrued in a 2 week period. The State should request further
details on this line item.
The Phase Il costs presented by both firms are also higher than one \VOuld expect given the stated
product delivery time, It is important to note that the Eco Logic team proposes to perform a 60~-i:,
preliminary design document. This appears to be a more substantial effort than that proposed by
ETG. However, because both values are comparable and because there were only two
respondents, the Stat.e's hands are somewhat tied.
3655 Maguire Boulevard· Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
Recommendations:
I . Have ETG remove the cost of equipment upgrades.
2 Have ETG provide supplier verified equipment rental costs.
1 Verif)1 that Eco Logic will provide a testing report at the conclusion of pilot testing.
4. Request an hourly cost breakdown for Phase II activities from both proposers.
:i Inform both respondents that the State reserves the right to negotiate a final Phase 11 price
proposal separately prior to Notice to Proceed with those activities.
6_ After all avenues have been exhausted and even if no, or only limited, concessions have been
made, [ recommend that the State proceed quickly with Phase I contract awards to both
companies This recommendation is based on the fact that both companies appear to be
technically qualified and the fact that time is of the essence on this most important objective of the
Working Group
BFA
~
PCB l.1.ll]Rk I Nl3 C3RCIUF' Fax:[phone] Mar 4 '97 10 :45 P.01
PCB Landfill Working Group / Tec~~~--C~ttee
, ,,<.Y .,,,.,, . .-/ /. ,</' ~-_<...-/
Pat Barnes, Science Advisor /·:;::.y· k_:--:.:.:~~_.,
i \...-------
DATE: March 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Status of Landfill Work Activities 2/20 through 2/28/97
Monitorin1 Well Drillin&
Groundwater monitoring wells continued to be installed at a steady pace. The focus shifted
from the off-site or background wells to the well located in the gorge ( draw) features. The
drilling activities demonstrated how irregular the depth to bedrock is at the landfill site. The
following is a summary of the approximate depth to rock below landsurface for the landfill
locations drilled this past week. Approximate water levels during drilling is also given_
Monitoring Welb Depth to Rock AP.~roximate water level
MW-6 59' 25'
NW-8 16' below bedrock
MW-9 19 1/2' 10'
MW-10 761 2 1/21
"MW-7 461 25'
MW-3A 65' 20'
MW-4A 40 1/2' 17'
This varied depth to rock underscores the importance of implementing a comprehensive
drilling program prior to landfill facility siting. Drilling will continue next week on the
monitoring wells closest to the landfill_
Because it is not always easy to predict groundwater flow, it is important that the
monitoring network be as comprehensive as possible. Therefore, upon further review of the
site topography, I strongly recommend the installation of two additional monitoring wells
directly adjacent to the landfill. The wells will be located near the northwest and comers
of the landfill. I have discussed this e~ensively with Mike Kelly and he has agreed to it.
PCB WORKING GROUP Fax :[phone] Mar 4 '97 10 :46 P.02
Liner Inspection
S&ME and their subcontractors removed portions of the 10-.mil PVC liner for integrity testing
on Friday. The procedure used generally included cleaning the surface of the 10-mil liner,
cutting it with a utility knife, removing the liner material to be tested and replacing it with a
20-mil patch. The patch was installed by solvent welding. (Note this is of parti.cular interest
because air monitors used during the liner operations are likely to detect vapors from the
solvent compound.)
After the liner was cleared, cut and removed, it became very apparent that it contained several
breaches. I saw several holes in the liner. Most were very small pin holes. However, the liner
also contained a failed seam. The seam failure was evident by extensive root growth through
it and beneath it. The liner removed from the north excavation appeared to be in worse
condition. However, both had obvious signs of significant failure. In fact, portions of the
seam exposed on the south excavation appeared to contain no adhesive.
The observations made are consistent with normal means of liner failure and support the
hydrologic data analyzed previously, which indicate that water is entering the landfill facility.
The contractors completed their patching work by solvent welding the liner material to the
PVC well casing. A geotextile material will be placed over the liner prior to backfilling of the
excavation.
Backfill of the excavation is scheduled to occur:-Monday, March 3, 1997.
I recommend that the integrity of the liner be a topic of discussion at the next Working Group
meeting.
Analytical Sampling
The sampling event has been rescheduled to occur during the week of March 10, 1997. Craig
Brown with the EPA, has postponed their planned March 17th event and instead will plan on
performing a separate sampling event only if the results of the March I 0th event warrant it.
The EPA will still be present for the State1s sampling event and plans on splitting 20% of the
samples.
As discussed in the last Technical Committee phone conference, I have informed Mike that we
would like to include analysis of pesticides and herbicides in the monitoring wells and landfill
soil samples.
Mike and I will meet this week to determine the location of additional sediment samples.
MEMORANDUM
TO : Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes (Science Advisor)
DATE : February 20, 1997
SUB.JECT: Status or Work Activities at the PCB Landfill
(February 13th through February 19th)
BFA #95-017
As you know, several of the long awaited work activities began last Wednesday . The following is
a general update of what has occurred thus far.
Wells
A total of four groundwater monitoring wells have been installed. Three background (off-site)
monitoring wells and one of the gorge wells. Both the Austin well was completed and
Sommerville off-site wells were completed to top of rock which was approximatety 43 feet and 42
feet below land surface, respectively. The Davis well was completed to 35 feet. We terminated
above rock at this location. Upon further review, I recommend that the Sommerville location not
b~ analyzed because of trash identitled in a near-by gorge. The State concurred and has made
arrangements to use adjacent property to the west.
The gorge well number 6 which is located to the south of the facility was completed today to a
depth of approximately 60 feet . The driller will continue to construct the wells in the draw
(gorge) features and the ott:..site wells prior to moving directly adjacent to the landfill.
The welJs have been going in at a rate of approximately one per day.
Ambient Air
The State finalized the ambient air monitoring at about noon on Monday. Because of the need to
move forward w.ith the landfill drilling, the decision to halt ambient air monitoring wa.c; made
jointly by Joel and my~elf H'nwr:vc-.r, it i~ important to n.ote that some of the air samplr-, did not
reach the targeted 1500 liter volume.
The air monitors were repositioned (moved in closer) to monitor for potential releases associated
with the landfill drilling.
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
Analytical Sampling
The major sampling event is scheduled for the first week in March; however, to help determine if
the equipment used by the drillers to install the wells is being cleaned properly, a rinseate sample
blank was collected on Tuesday. A soil sample from the water table interface from one of the
background wells was also collected. As called for by the Working Group, I was responsible for
sample labeling. The samples will be held and analyzed concurrent with those collected in March.
Landfill Drilling
Joel was on-site for the soil sampling to characterize the physical condition of the material in the
landfill which occurred Tuesday morning. The samples did not appear nearly as saturated as we
had envisioned they would; however, after the well was installed the saturated thickness in the
landfill was measured to be about 12 to 13 feet which is in line with what we have seen from
measurements both in the central vent and the leachate access pipe.
The contractors were apparently able to obtain the material for bench scale testing without
problems .
P A,81p1g/2· 201tv / .doc
.BFA ~:n== -
~ ..BFA Environmental Consultants
and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mike Kelly
Working Group
Pat Barnes ..
DATE: February 10, 1997
BFA#95-017
SUBJECT: Proposed S&ME Work Plan for Landfill Liner Testing/Soil Removal
and Water Recovery Well Installation ...
Mike, as we discussed, please have S&ME add the following to their proposed work plan.
1. Exact procedures which will be used to obtain soil for testing. Will the soil be collected off of
the auger flights or with large diameter samplers placed inside the Hollow Stem Augers
(HS As), or, does S&ME Plan to spin the augers until enough material reaches the surface?
Because our goal is to obtain relatively undisturbed material, I recommend the use of either
large diameter solid stem augers (SSAs), or large volume samplers with HSAs. With SSAs, a
continuous vertical profile of the material within the landfill can be obtained with minimum
disturbance of the material. Depending on the outside diameter of the flights, successive
passes into and out of the landfill may be required. Over spinning to bring material up is not
recommended. It is best to slowly tum the augers in to the full depth ( determined by prior
sampling, as outlined in the Work Plan) and then upon their removal simply take off the soil
needed for analysis.
If HSTs are used for soil removal, material can be obtained both with large diameter samplers
placed inside the augers and as with SSAs, from the flights upon removal. Once again,
overspinning is not recommended because it will alter the water content of the soil.
2. Soil volume calculations for the selected method. Please include the estimated volume of soil
contained on the string of augers proposed to be used.
Include a procedure for recovery well design. Screen slot size and filter pack selection should
be based on the results of sieve analysis from the anticipated screen interval.
PAB/psg/2-JOMKJ.doc
cc: Joel Hirschhorn
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
, r~' , ~ft~;-;,.BFA Environmental Consultants
'i '/'-''; t
fjy, Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Kelly
Working Group
FROM: Pat Barnes, Science Advisor 1
DATE: January 29, 1997
SUBJECT: Comments to Final Draft of Bench Scale RFP
BFA #95-017
It is good to see that things are finally moving along quickly. With respect to the subject RFP, the
ranking system would be nice because it would help us to obtain more comparable bids
However, it is not necessary and given that the State has written a fairly tight package, I
recommend proceeding without it.
The affirmative action language is very weak and does not do justice to the history of this project.
I recognize, however, that it is the standard language. I recommend that you personally contact
the Co-chairs of the Working Group to discuss this issue.
PAB!psgll-29MKI.doc
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office ( 407) 896-8608 • Fax ( 407) 896-1822
..BF A Environmental Consultants ---Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
i\lEMORANDUM
TO
FROM:
DATE:
Working Group
Patrick Burnes, Science Advisor
January 24, 1997
BFA #95 -017
SUD.JECT: Comments Concerning EPA Letters to Bill Meyer dated 12/19/96
and the Working Group Co-Chairs dated 1/6/97
Please incorporate the following thoughts in the Working Group's proposed response to the
recent EPA letters :
I. 111 addition to the p1 oposed review of landfill operational records we would like Lhe EP ,\ to
review the documents detailing the analyses performed by our Science Advisors
2. The December l 9th letter indicates that a review of EPA files has already been performed.
What in that review prompted the proposed collection of groundwater samples? Both the
Science Advisors and the State agree that the current groundwater monitoring net'>;ork is not
suflicient to detect possible releases. It is good that the EPA wishes to collect additional
groundwater samples, however, it would be more beneficial if new locations were selected to
supplement the existing ones. The Worl<lng Group welcomes the collection of grab samples
which could easily be obtained from surface water in the gorge features near the landfill or of
sediment in depositional areas/surface water flow choke points.
3 The Working Group wishes to have at least one of our Science Advisors present during the
proposed EPA sampling.
Poat-It' Fa)( Note 7671 Dale I
To
Co/Dept. co.
PhOne • Pho~ I
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
DRAFT
[Doris here is what I recommend sending]
LETTER TO ELLIOTT LAWS
Dear Mr. Laws:
The Working Group received a letter from John Cunningham, dated January 6, 1997, apparently
in response to our previous letter to you that requested your office to examine various policy
related issues concerning the Warren County PCB Landfill .
We are disappointed in the response from Mr. Cunningham, which takes the position that EPA
Region 4 will be addressing our concerns. When we originally wrote to you we also wrote to
John Hankinson, Region 4 Administrator, but expected Region 4 to address our request for a
comprehensive fregulatory complianceaudit, not to make the Superfund policy determinations we
asked you to examine.
· The December 20, 1996 letter sent by Mr. Hankinson to the Working Group, in fact, does n.Q1
make a commitment to address the policy related issues we raised in our request to EPA
Headquarters.
We remain concerned that Region 4's activities will not thoroughly or expeditiously address our
Superfind poHcy related issues. These are not strictly speaking compliance issues for the state of
North Carolina in its conduct as owner and operator of the PCB Landfill. In our original letter to
you we raised several illustrative questions relating to the central question of whether the PCB
Landfill is a Superfund site. These types of questions have much more to do with the activites
and decisions of EPA, than with the state of North Carolina. We tried to explain in our original
letter to you our understanding that legal documents semed to have imposed National
Contingency Plan requirements on the state for the PCB landfill and that together with the
CERCLNSuperfund funding provided for the construction of the landfill seemed to indicate that
the PCB Landfill had status equivalent to a National Priorities List site as which a remedial action
have been taken .
This remains the core question the Working Group wants EPA to answer. We want to know
whether this community has a right to expect the full range of benefits offered by the
CERCLA/Superfund statute and program.
IfEPA Headquarters is ducking this request and handling it off to Region 4, then we want Region
4 to explicitly communicate its commitment to resolving our questions. Nor does this community,
already the victim of environmental racism more than the benefactor of environmental justice,
expect to wait for a Jong time for offical EPA responses to our reasonalbe questions.
Thank you for your personal consideration.
/4-or~-!s ~~ ~ ffi~
~ tAl_f_M_ .·
-~o f,r;._ cl',_,j ~sAAQI~ -~_d, 1<23-'77
/4{_ . f ~ddn<A ~~7 -,j:~«f,,,~ /'L f rL
;mfj (n r'M au ~1,rx,,,
-~o fr,;., ~ 4J'j -ddd. 1-;11-97
/4L-: J1 d~ n--;fFP .s
-~o r/<_;y,__ # ~t'.Y· kd, /-,;l/-o/7
~--t?~_,_~ ,,f ,z-1)_,_ c{ft/
-~o c/, ~ O:J dl~c/;/2o-n-, -da:f ~c . 1-,;J.d--9?
.,u_ .· f(rr' r _,bd)-?,a /4'!J -;--_,,,17fa-,!vrlL-i7 ol,o/
-1~0 t.,,;µ /2&-~ -da:f ...<d'.'. /--23-97
AL-: .bfo~.L {2,-i ,J~r717 f,..,_ /c::0 vrads
I •
I "': c \ -\ Mt_ It dt.."~~k f ~ 1~1J1
...
}y, \--::J:IF A Env!f?nmental £o~sul~
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Kelly
Working Group
Joel Hirschhorn
FROM: Pat Barnes
DATE: January 23, 1997
SUBJECT: Proposed Air Sampling for PCB Impacts
To formalize what we discussed Tuesday, prior to the Working Group meeting, I feel that more
focus should be given to the need for immediate sediment samples. As you know, the air is a very
dynamic media and the results of any analysis performed, unless positive, will be inconclusive.
Moreover, a negative sample will yield no new information on potential past releases. Perhaps the
best reason for performing air analysis now is to begin to establish a baseline of air quality data
within the vicinity of the landfill, which will be a very valuable tool for future impact assessments.
With that in mind, it is therefore very important that the locations and analytical approach
established today be well thought out and as comprehensive as possible, because future changes
to the plan, unless additive, should be minimal.
In our conversation, I recommended, and you concurred, that an additional location be added to
cover potential discharges in the vicinity of the leachate treatment systems. Like the main gas
vent, the septic tank vaults and effluent discharge line have a direct connection to the landfill
waste material. It may be prudent that the lids to the concrete vaults be redesigned to be air tight
or fitted with gaskets to minimize the potential for PCB vapor discharges. A filter may also be
necessary on the effluent outlet pipe, or any other gas release point of the treatment system.
Concern over the environmental impact of past releases at this point can be best addressed by the
collection of sediment samples at surface water flow choke points. There should be several such
areas within close proximity of the facility.
Mike, you have agreed that this effort makes good sense, however you suggested that it be
addressed as a part of the full sampling. Since well drilling will not begin until early next month,
and because samples will not be collected until after the new wells are installed, which is likely 3 0
to 45 days later, I recommend that we consider collecting sediment samples concurrent with the
proposed air samples. The locations can be selected after one field day's work within the coming
week.
Please give me a call to discuss this matter.
PAB/psgll-23MKJ.doc
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office ( 407) 896-8608 • Fax ( 407) 896-1822
January 23, 1997 .................................................................... by FAX (2 pages)
To: Mike Kelly
Working Group
Pat Barnes
From: Joel Hirschhorn
Re: Recommendations 1egarcling state's plan for testing for PCB air emissions
To follow up on ow· discussions last Tuesday, I offer the following recommendations for on.site
testing by the state.
1. Your office should follow the recommendation by Laura Butler in her memos of December 23,
1996 and January 10, 1997 that the Science Advisors be given the opportunity to provide
oversight of tl,e a.ir monitoring your office performs or has performed for it.
2. The vo.1u.tne of air samples taken for the purpose of measwing PCB levels should be at least
1500 cubic meters. I emphasize that it is sample volume not the velocity of the sampler that is
most important with respect to obtaining low detection limits.
3. The sampling method used should provide the capability of measuring both PCB vapors and
PCDs attached to particnlates. It should also include a means for verifying the extent to which
breakthrough of sorne PCB vapors may have occurred with respect to the collection medjum.
4. The analytical methods used should be capable ofidentifying the full range of PCB congeners.
5. The test results should be provided in terms of total PCB concentrations, as well as in terms of
at least three Aroclou (1260, 1254, and 1242).
6. The test results should be l'e:portcd in texms of PCB vapor concentrations as well as particulate
pl,ase .levels.
7. The combiuatiou of sample size and analytical methods should result in a capability to reliably
detect and report PCB levels as low as 0.1 nanograms per cubic meter vapor, and 0.01 nanograms
per cubic meter particulate phase.
8. l11e sampling and testing protocol should include several .field and lab blanks, as well as spiked
samples to determine recovery rates.
9. Accurate, complete, and reliable meteorological data should be obtained for all air S8.JllI)lcs so
that ambient conditions are known over the entire period of time that air samples are collected.
1
Changes in wind direction relative to sampling location. are particularly important. Obviously,
sampliug events should be bused in favor oflocations and times when the locations are downwind
of the landfill.
10. Soil or sediment samples taken for PCB analysis should be in locations that c.an reasonably be
considered places with PCB air releases may have been deposited . .
11. All PCB laboratory test results and documents diould be provided simultaneously to tl1e
Science Advisors and the state.
12. Any public statement by the state concerning the test resuJts must pay explicit atteutio.n to the
possibility of current fat.se negative findings with ,espect to PCB levels that might have been
higher at previous times and at past or futwe periods when ambJent temperatures ate higher.
13. A number of samples collected primarily for measuring methane levels should also iuclude
sufficient air sarnples for testing for PCB levels.
2
January 22, 1997
To: Mike Kelly, Working Group, Pat Barnes
Fmm: Joel Hiischhom
Re: Rf P for technology testing/preliminary design
LIKE THE PREVIOUS DRAFT I REVIEWED, nns DRAFT IS TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE AND TIIE STATE SHOULD NOT PROCEED WITH ISSUING THIS RFP
UNTIL A VERSION IS PREPARED TIIAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ME AND THAT I CAN
RECOMMEND 10 THE WORKING GROUP.
Here are my co.mmeuts and recommendations for the draft faxed to me today:
2.0.5 Conect language to read '' ... are app.ropriate and potentially feasible ... " My point is that
the technology assessment/screening already performed has addressed the issue of approp.tiate
folly and this should not be invoked as something 1equiring verification through bench-scale
testing. Also, this .is the section that ought to include a refe1ence to some type of appendix
document that supports the selection of the two technologies noted. Attached is the documeut
that I recommend usiug.
2.0. 7 The language should be conected to read " ... testing on representative waste or
contaminated soil matetials from the PCB landfill." ·
2.1.1 The language for Phase II should be corrected to read " ... use of the detoxification.
technology selected o.o. the basis of Phase 1 results to .... "
2.1 .4 · Add, nfler first sentence: "It is anticipated that the Phase II contract will be awarded
v-.ithiu 30 days of obtaining the final Phase I Test Report."
2.2. l Delete "appropruteness and." \ ·',
2.2.2 Delete fust sentence. The language in second senteo.ce ~houJd be corrected to read "The
pn:limiaary goal for .... '' . '
2.2 .3 U~e fom1er first sentence of2.2.2, changing Appropriateness to Feasibility, and use as fir~1
sentence here. Modify new secmld sentence as "Feasibility will also be detemJined .... '1
2.3. l Add some language " ..... effectively, reli.ably, and safely .... "
2.3.4 Add: "1be technical and economic implications and equipment necessaty fol dewatering in
the fuJJ scale detoxification of the landfill must also be thoroughly discussed."
1
2.3.6 Add: " .... facilities, possibly during some of the actual bench-scale testing."
2.4 .1 Add: "111e degree to which materials handling aod dewatering can be minimized in foll
scale detoxification at the landfill is an evaluation criterion for judging the overall effectiveness
pc1formance of the technology in Phase I and for selecting one Phase I vendor for pro~·iuing
Phase 11 services. 11
2.4.2 Correct language: " .... are present m ppq to ppb concentrations. 11
2. 6.1 Moclify language: " ... for obtaining and presenting test data ... ''
2.6.3 Add: "The implications of varying perfornwi.ce for reliability for fuU sea.le use of the
tech.nolc,gy must be discussed."
2.8.3 For (fJ, add: " ..... including onsite and o.ffsite monitoring and testing for PCB air emissions
as vapors and particulates."
2.8.4 Improve language: '' ... several meetings (probably at least fow-) in No11l1 Carolina . "
2.8.5 Conect language in .first sentence; " ... no later than 75 days ... "
2.10.2 Add: " ... disposa~ preferably ht a pre-proposal submission prior to or at the pre-proposal
conference."
2. 10. 3 Add at beginning of fast sentence: "H necessary, .... "
2.11..5 lnsclt: " ... key personnel. .. "
2. 11 . 6 If this Iauguage was not used in the three pre\ious RF.Ps, then this section should be fully
deleted.
2.11. 7, 2.11.8, 2.11. 9 These sections should be .fully deleted, because they are w.wecessary,
inapp1opriate, and overly burdensome.
2.11 . l O Improve language in second of three points: " ...... for risk communication, prnvision of
techoical information for nonprofessional audiences, and community relations ." De.let~ third point
altogether.
2.12.3 This is redundant and unnecesS8.I}' and should be fully deleted.
2. 124 This section seems to introduce a totaUy new key work product. other than. the fiu3l Test
Repo1t from .Phase I and the final .Preliminary Design Report .fro.m Phase II and, therefore, is
2
.. '
inappropriate, unnecessary and overly burdensome. It must be fully deleted.
2. 12. 5 This section ( which contains only six of the nine evaluation criteria in the Su1,erfund
program) is unnecessa11\ overly bwdensome and mould be fully deleted. Such cdteri~ are used
when comparntive evaluatio.ns of alternative remedial options are made, and when a specific one
of the options is selected and justified. Such analyses and justifications are not part of what the
vendors are being asked to do in Phase I and II. This section should be fully deleted!
2. 13 As I have ah-eacly discussed, this entire projected schedule is unacceptably long. In
paiticular, 2. 13.4 needs to be addressed NOW and a more expeditious appi:oa,h obtained from
EPA l want to obtain a determination by EPA that all BCD licensees and the Eco Logic
technology is fully acceptable for the Phase I testing.
2.13. 7 is an \mclear statement, because it is not stated what the recommendation is for. Is
it fox the Phase II contractor? If so, then still more time is necessary for co.nducting Phase 11,
which puts the entire schedule proposed by the state at more than a year!
techdp4. doc
3
..
Appendix for technology RFP
EXFLANATION OF SELECflON OF'IWO DETOXIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES
A detailed technology screening, evaluation, assessment and comparative analysis has been
performed for tl,e W~rren County PCB Landfill. All but two treatment technologies were
screened out. Ouly .Base Catalyzed Deco.Jl1)0sition (BCD) and Gas Phase Chemical .Reduction
technology were found to be appropriate and potentially feasible.
The 01iginal use of the term detoxification technology by the state of North Carolina implies th:1t
technologies that are considered cleanup or remedial technologies but that do not by themselves
detoxify PCBs are not 11ppropriate for the Warren. County situation. Potential feasibility has bad
to be demonsuated through prior successful full scale use of a technology for PCB detoxification
work.
All forms of containment technology such as caps and subsurface barrier walls have beeo ruled
out as being inappropriate.
All forros of separation technologies that do not actually detoxify through treatment have been ·
ruled out. TI•ese include, for example, thermal desorption, solvent extraction, soil washing, and
soil vapor extiaction.
All forms of stabilization/solidification have been eliminated as inappropriate, because they have
not been thorough.ly prnven to actually and permanently destroy PCB molecules, rendering them
penrtanently nontoxic.
Any use of high temperature incineration has been ruled out as being inappropriate because of ils
potential for causing harmful toxic air emissions and its long history of being deemed
unacceptable by c.ommunities, especially when used in locations close to residential areas.
All fonns of biotreatment or bioremediation have been screened out on the basis of insufficient
prnven effectiveness. For many years various forms ofbiotreatment have been pursued for PCB
cleanups. The coucJusioo has been reached that biotreatment ;snot yet proven effecili·e and
reliable enough for full scale use either as an in situ or ex situ technology, in aerobic or anaerobic
form or some combination. of them, for the Warren County application ..
Jn situ vitrification has been sc.teened out because of insufficient full scale application. Thjs
technology has been under extensive development for many years, chiefly within tbe DOE system.
While so roe people have viewed this technology as a variant of incineration, chiefly because it
employs very high temperatures. it usually is considered as a unique technology. Bwied wastes
can be heated to m.elt all materials and form a vitreous or glassy material. The process thennally
destroys organic contaminants and an extensive offgas, air pollution control system is used.
luterestiugly, in October 1995 EPA granted Geosafe a National TSCA Operating Permit for the
1
. '
n.atiomvtde treatment of PCB& within a large number of prescribed circumstauces, inclllding
n1axiruwn average conccutrations of 14,700 ppm md maximum hot spot concentratiou.s of 17,860
ppm TI1.e company obtained Ws regulatory permit on the basis of a site demonstration that
achieved various performance criteria, including six nines destruction. and removal efficieucy arid
less than 2 ppm PCB& in vitrified product. No detectable dioxins/flmin.s were found in offgases.
But the demonstratio1J was not on in situ wastes similar to the Warren Co\Dlty situation. This
technology must be con.sidered detoxification, and it offers the comparative advantage of being
inuinsically applicable for in situ treatment, avoidin.g the need for excavatio.n of materials. In
theory, the techoology could be applied directly to the Warren County Landfill, perhaps '\\ithout
dewatering the site, although the site's location would pose significant problem for using the
extensive equipment. lhe conclusion has been reached that this technology is not acceptable or
feasible for the Warren County application, and that it could not be suitably evaluated through
bench-scale testing.
Because the objective is to select a detoxification technology that has already been proven
effective for PCB detoxification thrnugh full scale, commercial use, and that will be demoustrated
effective for full scaJe aJJplication at the Warren County PCB Landfill on the basfa of bench-scale
testing of site contaminated soils, no technology that bas not yet been fully deployed in a full scale
detoxification of PCB wastes will be considered appropriate and potentially effective for thls
application. No technology that exists only as a research or developmental technology is deemed
appropriate and potentially feasible for this application and, therefore, for bench-scale testiug.
2
State of North Carolina
1 Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MIKE KELLY\
UPDATE ON Rf P'S
January 21, 1997
The following is the current status of Requests for Proposals:
1. MONITORING WELLS: The contract for monitoring wells is being sent to Environmental
Investigations at a cost of $69,615. They can be ready to start digging within two weeks of
signing the contract, and based on my conversation with them we should be putting the wells
down by mid-February.
2. DIOXIN FURAN TESTING: The contract will be awarded to Southwest Laboratories of
Oklahoma at a cost of $28,560. They have a representative in the Raleigh area that will
participate in the sampling event and take custody of the samples. I will speak with them in the
next couple of days to finalize the time frames.
3. BORE HOLE/EXCAVATION WELLS: It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded to
S&ME at a cost of $38,576. I anticipate working closely with them in the next few days to begin
submitting the necessary documents to EPA for approval. I have spoken with EPA this morning
and they will try to expedite the permitting of this activity.
4. BENCH SCALE PILOT STUDY: On January 2, Joel Hirschhorn submitted his plan for this
RFP, which we put into the state format. There has been an initial review of our first draft and
the second draft is available for review. Contracts and purchasing is also involved in this loop to
help expedite the RFP. EPA has supplied a list of their approved vendors for BCD. The RFP
will state that only BCD and gas phase chemical reduction technology will be considered. We
should have this RFP finalized next week and anticipate getting it out by February l. As of
today, we have not set up the schedule of events to coincide with this study.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/lOo/o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
MEMORANDUM:
January 21, 1997
Er'A a a lAcsrm aw a
DEHNR
TO: WARREN COUNTY PCB WORKING GROUP
FROM: MIKE KELLY
SUBJECT: ACTIVITIES AT THE LANDFILL
Attached are copies of an overview on three planned activities the Division of Waste
Management plans for the next couple of months at the PCB landfill:
1) AIR MONITORING
2) METHANE GAS MONITORING
3) WEATHER STATION INSTALLATION
As discussed with this group last month, we had planned to do some air monitoring at the
landfill the week of January 6th; however, we were unable to get the materials to the science
advisors quickly enough to allow them to review it in as great as detail as they wished. As of
now, we have not rescheduled this event, but hopefully will get it done in the next 3-4 weeks. A
copy of the protocol is attached and we have incorporated many of the suggestions from Joel
Hirschhorn, and plan to include an additional sampling site in the sand filter bed based on a
recommendation from Patrick Barnes. Patrick also suggested that we do additional sediment
samples in the area, which we will incorporate in the major sampling event we hope to conduct
next month.
We also are gridding off the area of the landfill to check for methane leaks in the liner of
the landfill. This testing will be ropart of our check on the integrity of the top liner and provide
us with safety information to be utilized in the digging and well construction in the landfill.
We are likewise working on the installation of a weather station at the landfill to record
and provide us real time data to be used in a variety of ways as we push towards detoxification of
the landfill. .
All of these events will be done exclusively by Division personnel and with Division
funds. Participation by members of the Working Group and science advisors is welcome.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/ 1()% post-consumer paper
PROJECT:
I,ROJECT PARTICIPANTS:
PROJECT DATE:
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:
Methane gas monitoring as a measure of liner integrity
on the Warren County PCB Landfill
Larry Rose
Wendy Peacock
Bill Sessoms
Open
Gases, primarily methane, are being generated from microbial decomposition of vegetative
matter in the PCB Landfill. Methane concentrations of 5% the lower explosive limit, LEL, of
the air vent gases have been measured. The presence and flow of methane indicates that the gas
pressure in the landfill cell is greater than ambient pressure. The PVC liner was designed to
contain gases and provide venting only through the existing air vent. If the PVC liner system is
functioning as designed, there should be no gas leakage through the liner. Methane measurements
can indicate the status ofliner integrity. If methane is measured, then the source and cause can be
determined and options for remediation proposed. The purpose of the project is to implement
methane monitoring as a means of determining surfidal liner integrity
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The PCB waste disposal site in Warren County as-built plans are by Sverdrup & Parcel of 1981
and will be used to identity the landfill disposal cell. During the week ofJanuary 13-17 the staff
will establish baselines on the landfill site. These baselines will be used to locate grid patterns on
the surface of the landfill cell at some future date.
For proposed methane testing the landfill surface will be marked with temporary wire flags on a
50 foot grid interval. This will provide between 50 to 80 methane sampling sites.
At each of the sampling sites, a sliding hammer probe will be used to drive a three-fourths inch
diameter by twelve inch deep void space in the landfill topsoil layer. The void space will be
plugged with a rubber stopper for 12 hours to allow accumulation of methane. After the 12 hour
accumulation the void space will be sampled for methane with a infrared gas analyzer.
The gas analyzer is a Landtec GA90 model. The analyzer has an internal vacuum pump to
extract gas from the void space through a flexible hose into a detection chamber. An infrared
beam is projected into the chamber and through the gas. The gas concentration is determined by
the degree of absorption of the infrared beam at the detector. An internal microprocessor
calculates gas concentration and the result is displayed as a digital readout on the instrument. Gas
concentrations are measured and displayed as percent by volume, parts per million and lower
explosive limits (LEL). The instrument can also measure CO2, 02, and Static Pressure. The range
and resolution for methane concentrations are:
Range: 0-100% CH4
0-60% CO2
0-25% 02
Resolution:, 0.1 %
0.1%
0.1%
The readouts will be logged at each grid location. Grid locations that indicate methane will be
used for further investigations. The grid spacing will be reduced to 5 feet intervals around the
initial grid location for additional methane monitoring. If no methane is detected the grid spacing
will be reduced to 1 foot intervals. This process will identify specific areas of leakage, If methane
is detected at the 5 foot grid intervals a second, third or more 5 foot intervals will be monitored to
identify the area of leakage.
All methane monitoring results will be presented to the Working Group for discussion and
recommendations. Oversight of this project by the Working Group is welcome.
c:wpfiles/pcblflmisc/ gas-mon. pro
. I
State of Norfh Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
WIiiiam L. Meyer, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 17, 1997
To: Mike Kelly
FROM: Bill Sessoms
Wendy Peacock
Larry Rose
REF: PCB Landfill
6-·rA
n •· ~,LU A
DEHNR
We have established baselines at the PCB landfill to facilitate obtaining gas samples.
The outline provided by Bill Meyer was generally followed.
The end risers of the irrigation system were used to establish: a centerline. Using this
centerline, stakes were placed at 238-f eet from the center vent. Corner stakes were set
116-feet at 90-degrees from the centerline. To aid in re-establishing these points, stakes
were set at the fence in line with the corner stakes. Appropriate measurements to these
stakes were recorded.
Flags were set at 50-foot intervals along the exterior baselines established by the
four staked corners. The intervals were measured from the centerline stakes in the east-
west axis and from the south end in the north-south axis.
These baselines yield 55 to 77 sampling locations depending if the north-south axis
baseline points are utilized.
Two sketches are attached showing the layout that was established.
C:\SESSOMS\PROJECTS\MISC\PCBMEMO. 1
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
. ' A LANJTEC
W!/. i if,r lANDFlll CDNTRDl TECHNOIOGIU ,.....
I oi::-Z
....-Providing Environmental Compliance Solutions for Landfill Gas Management. (BOO) LANDTEC Nationwide.
A LANJTEC
fi_P :g:; I (W LANDFILL CDNTRDL llCHNDLDGIEI ....,....
,,. Providing Environmental Compliance Solutions far tandfi/1 Gas Management. (BOO} LANOTEC Nationwide.
PROJECT:
PROJECT PARTIClP ANTS:
PROJECT DATE:
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:
Meteorological Station at Warren.County PCB Landfill
Ed Mussier, P.E.
Open
Provide site specific rainfall, temperature, barometric pressure for monitoring landfill
environment. Site specific data for evaluating recharge and discharge events including response
of groundwater monitoring wells. This data will also be valuable during detoxification of the
landfill.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
It is proposed that instrumentation be installed for continuous monitoring of ambient conditions,
internal and external, at the PCB landfill. The proposed equipment would be a weather station
consisting of an ambient temperature probe, barometer, and tipping bucket rain gauge. Readings
would be collected by a CR 1 OX date logger. The data logger is battery powered and the
information may be down loaded into laptop computers for transport to the office. It is proposed
to install the data logger and power supply in the existing maintenance shed, with the measuring
devices located outside and attached to the shed.
To monitor the conditions in the landfill it is proposed to install vibrating wire strips piezometers
in the leachate line and the measuring tube in the gas vent. These devices measure the internal
temperature of the landfill, the internal pressure, and the water level in the monitoring points. The
data can be collected continuously and is stored in the same data collection device described
above. The line from the instrument in the air vent will be run under the sod layer of the cap, to
prevent damage from routine maintenance of the landfill.
The Division currently owns a weather station. It is proposed that the data recorder, barometer,
and rain gauge from this station was borrowed. Additional equipment will need to be purchased
by the division.
The following is the equipment proposed for use at the landfill:
1 Campbell Scientific CRI OX data recorder
l Campbell Scientific A VW4 4-Channel Vibrating Wire Interface
l Met One Instruments 8" 370-Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge (0.10 inch sensitive)
l Met One Instruments 26/32-1 Barometric Pressure Sensor
l Met One, Campbell Scientific, or equivalent, temperature probe and radiation shield
2 Slope Indicator VS Piezometer (vibrating wire strip) (0-50psi water sensitive) plus
associated signal cables
2 24 amp/hr jell cell rechargeable batteries, battery trickle charger (Sears or equivalent),
miscellaneous cable, alligator clips, wire etc. [Available locally]
All data will be submitted to the Working Group on a monthly basis. The frequency of reporting
may be changed if needed by the Working Group. The Working Group is welcome to oversight
this project. · · '
c:wpfiles/pcbWmisc/met-sta.pro
• ,I . ! ···f·
, ! I.· ,i,
,I •,
... fi.
' .. ·
'l t .
. ' f i.•
.. , ! \ .
,. 1·
State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
r4f•;h
• a zl.ca,mas a
DEHNR
January 17, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Mike Kelly
Deputy Director
Division of Waste Management
From: Pierre Lauffer e;;{J
Health and saVr c!oordinator
Re: PCB Landfill Sampling/R.A. Hite's Study Review
I read R.A. Hite's study titled, "Long-Term Measurements of Atmospheric Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the
Vicinity of Superfund Dumps," and I generally have concluded that there is really no problem at all in
addressing Joe Hirschorn's concerns regarding our sampling strategy for monitoring ambient air conditions
at the PCB landfill, Warren County.
If Dr. Hirschorn wishes the Division of Waste Management to have the samples analyzed for the congeners of
PCUs (ic. dichlorobcnzene, etc.) as well as for PCBs, we can easily perform that monitoring at a cost that not
much above the current cost projections. Dr. Hirschorn also stated that the analysis in Hite's study was much
more sensitive than the EPA methods of 1982. While this is correct, we will not be employing those sampling
methods and analysis as we will be employing sampling and analysis methods of 1997.
For example, at that time, the typical procedure was to employ polyurethane foam (PUF) filters with a filter
head containing glass-fiber filters. The procedure required the sampler to manually load the PUF into the
filter. This process presented many quality control/quality assessment issues. Today the sampling
procedures for PCUs state that ORBO-60 tubes are to be used in combination with glass-fiber filter
cartridges. The ORIJO-60 tube is, in fact, a manufacturer loaded PUF filter combined with norisil filter
plugs. ORBO-60 tubes consist of two 30/48 mesh norisil sections. The first section is proceeded by glass wool
and contains JOO mg and the backup section contains 50 mg. There are two PUF sections: between the norisil
sections and artcr the norisil backup section. These filter tubes will be manifolded to glass-fiber filter
cartridge heads as required under NIOSH sampling and analysis methods.
There was also a concern by Dr. Hirschorn regarding the air-now volume rate we will be employing as part
of our study. The now rate is according to NIOSH sampling method #5503. We could increase that air-now
to as high as 5 liters/minute (air now volumes of 2.5-5.0 liters/minute are considered high volumes), but we
would not be sampling according to any established sampling methods now recognized, but using a study
done by a nationally recognized professional. The sensitivity of Hite's study is also not a major problem. The
laboratory we picked for the analysis is an American Industrial Hygiene Association accredited laboratory
and is subject to the quality control and analysis sensitivity requirements for such accreditation.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10"/o post-consumer paper
... ·1:
SAMPLING PLAN SUMMARY FOR:
MEASUREl\tlENT OF FUGITIVE ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS OF
POL YCHLORINATED IlIPHENYLS FROM THE PCB LANDFILL
WARREN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
·I ,, ..
I .; .
Sampling Plan Date: January 9, 1997
Sampling Plan Preparer: Pierre Lauffer
Project Participants:
Health and Safety Coordinator · .: , :
Division of Waste Management ,.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Pierre Lauffer, HWS-Health and Safety Coordinator (Project Manager and Sampler)
John Kirby, HWS-Environmental Chemist (Project Chemist and Sampler)
Projected Sampling Dates: February, 1997
Site History:
Between June, 1978 and August, 1978, over 30,000 gallons ofindustrial waste material identified
as polychorinated biphenyls (Arochlor 1260 and 1262) were discharged deliberately along the
shoulders of approximately 210 miles of North Carolina highways. In June, 1979, EPA approved
a tract ofland (previously 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 Toxic 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 (ppm), averaging about 350 ppm (1), based on 1994 subsurface soil sampling
results (these were retrieved from the bottom of the vent).,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
PCBs are a family of aromatic compounds consisting of two benzene nuclei bonded with
two or more chlorine molecules. The PCBs of concern in this study (the type existing in the
landfill) are the Aroclors.
Aroclors are characterized by four digit numbers. The first two (the number 12) indicate
that the mixture consists of biphenyls. The second two digits state the percentage by weight of
chlorine in the mi xture (2). · ·
They tend to be colorless to light yellow oily substances with a specific gravity of 1.4-1.5
(3). Due to their stability and nonconductive properties, PCBs had many industrial uses including
use as insulation coating in electrical capacitors. PCBs possess, as a whole, high open cup
flashpoints (348-356° F.-Aroclor 1242, none for Aroclor 1254 and 1260), but do readily distill at
temperatures above 325°F. The distillation range for Arodor 1242 is 325-366°F; for Aroclor
1254, 365-390°F; Aroclor 1260, 385-420°F (4).
Toxic effects from exposure to PCBs in human include chloracne, pigmentation of skin
and nails, excessive eye discharge and swelling of eyelids, and gastrointestinal disturbances. PCBs
are considered carcinogenic (5).
Because of their high toxicity, detrimental harm to the environment and stable molecular
structure (structure remains intact in the environment for long periods of time) PCB manufacture
was discontinued in 1976.
Objective:
The objective of th.is study is to determine if there are uncontrolled PCB emissions
originating from the Warren County PCB Landfill. This study will involve.ambient air sampling
to determine if PCB contaminated air particulate matter and vaporized PCB (Aroclors 1242,
1254, and 1260) emissions are present. Retrieved samples will be analyzed by an independent
American Industrial Hygiene Association accredited laboratory. Southern Testing and Research
Laboratories, Inc. of Wilson, North Carolina has been selected for conducting the sample analysis.
The results of the analysis will be submitted directly to the workgroup and DWM. A risk
assessment will be requested from the DEHNR Epidemology Division to determine if the PCB
emissions (if found) are a risk to the surrounding community. · ·
Materials and Methods:
Air sampling will be performed with low-volume (L V) and high-volume (HV) constant
air-flow sampling systems. The components of the sampling systems consists of battery operated
constant air-flow pumps (L V or HV) (Gilair Pump by Gilian™, Models: Gilair3(L V) and
Gilair5(HV)), 13 mm Gelman Swinney filter cartridges with 13mm, lµm pore-sized glass fiber
filters manifolded to ORBOm-60 100/SOmg, 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 glass fiber filters will be precleaned prior to loading filter cartridges by
the North Carolina Public Health Laboratory and loaded at the laboratory by laboratory
personnel. The sampling head will consist of glass fiber filter cartridge followed by the florisil
tube. The two will be manifolded together by tubing. The purpose for this sampling system is to;
I) catch any possible PCB contaminated particulates from the air, 2) to filter PCBs which may
have vaporized. This system will then be manifolded to the sampling pump with plastic tubing.
There will be five sampling periods of five hours. The sampling sessions will begin at
roughly 10:00am, 3:00pm, 8:00pm, 1:00am, 6:00am. Each sampling period will be separated by
one day. The reason for this delay between sampling events is to provide time to recharge the air-
flow pumps (they require 16 hours of recharge time). Each sampling period will consist of seven
air-flow pumps and sampling units. One unit will be located inside the vent on top of the landfill.
Two more units will be located 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 unit will be located 200 meters straight downwind from the vent. The air-flow
rate will be calibrated to NIOSH guidelines. NIOSH Sampling Method #5503: Sampling for
Polychlorobiphenyls states that air-flow rate should be 50-200cc per minute. The flow-rate per
unit will correspond to its distance from the vent-the further the pump is from the vent, the
greater its flow-rate. Another sampling unit will be located 200 meters upwind and will act as a
background sampler. Approximately fifty samples will be obtained. Prior to each sampling event,
the wind direction and temperature will be indicated by a portable weather station established on
the east side of the landfill.
Funding from the DWM operations budget rather than the PCB detoxification budget will be used
for this project.
NOTE: Please see attached diagram of the landfill showing sampling locations and a copy
of the NIOSH lab procedure.
c:wpfiles/pcbUi'misc/sarnplere. wpd
------------
r-----------------·-·-------·---------------·•
l.,_ -------------------.. -·-·-·-·•-•-· ...... --------·--
----------------------------_ ---31 -i --------
···-·-----:···-·-_____________________________ /R3~ _jJ..;_, --------
, ... -... -----------------'------------------:=3 ... .,~5~5Q~'--===========~~ -----------. -----------·-----·----
.. ---------. --~--::~ ~ ➔-.S ~JV ---.--."=·-.. , fl -~.-------. ------------------------------k&"" :' ~ ... ~ -----,
. -------. -~-~-----------. ~=--_ ------~---···----··-~-----1· --
. ····\_ -.. .. --.. -··-------... -
l--···(Jh \ -------: '------. I:_ -;., --
....;.....~ ) .Sl;L:..P -·-: -.. --. ---~ ..... --,-c=-. -_J.----------u ---v ~ -----~ -----
, <. ____ Jf5S_::5 7 ---, G :r.< --· ➔ ---
~ S--ttv~t ... :1".J. ~ -(; C. ~ II I ~<.L:i.~--~ 1\1
' ___ , ... ,: -~ ---~--
···--·--·-···-. ·----------------. --. ·····-···-----------·--·---------· ------···-------. ····-· .. --·. ·-····-·
BF A Environmental Consultants
==::: ~ ===:::::::::~-== Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mike Kelly, Deputy Director d/'J
Pat Barnes, Science Advisor ~
January 16, 1997
Status of Background Monitoring Well for PCB Landfill
BFA#95-017
Can you please provide an update on the above referenced subject? Were you able to get
clearance from the three property owners in the regions discussed? If so, please provide a map
showing the proposed general background well locations, the actual locations will be field
determined.
Thank you.
PAB/psgll -1 6MKJ.doc
cc: Working Group
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
f (_,C, :-Tit-::-'/(-< I~ r( ~f/ ~If c~(le-/ /-''l ,,,
; BF A Environmental Consultants
Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM BFA#95-017
TO:
FROM:
DATE: January 15, 1997
SUBJECT: Draft RFP for Bench Scale Testing
I have reviewed the referenced RFP as well as a draft project description/scope of work
developed by Joel. The SOW is in agreement with the detailed discussion which he and I have
had with the Working Group concerning a two phase bench scale testing/ preliminary design
implementation for this effort.
This approach was developed strictly as a time and potentially cost saving measure. From reading
the draft RFP, it does not appear that the State is in full agreement with key components of that
approach. I would like to echo the technical concerns raised about the draft RFP.
I would also like to make the following recommendations:
1. Include criteria for evaluation of Phase I of the proposals.
2. Include an evaluation and scoring system for each major component of the RFP. This will
allow the respondants to focus on the more important areas .
3. Scoring system should establish weights for both technical and non-technical components of
the proposal.
4. Given the social and political nature of this project and the racial make-up of the surrounding
community, I strongly recommend the establishment of Affirmative Action evaluation
criterion. These criterion could take three forms :
a. Contractors could be asked to complete a form delineating the racial make-up of their
professional work force. The forms will be provided. Bonus points can be given to those
technically qualified firms with a diverse work force.
3655 Maguire Boulevard • Suite 150 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
I'
i :MEMORANDUM
January 15, 1997
Page 2
b. Firms which subcontract technical components of the scope of work or agree to
incorporate a mentoring relationship with an African American owned firm for this project
will also receive bonus points.
c. Technically qualified minority businesses which submit as the prime contractor or as a
joint venture with a majority owned firm and agree to subcontract to other minority firms
portions of the work, will be awarded the maximum amount of bonus points.
The bonus points should be approximately 15 to 25% of the maximum total score.
It may be necessary for us to meet to discuss these issues as well as those mentioned earlier.
Please contact me to discuss these matters.
PAB/psgll-15PWJ.doc
.BFA ::::::: =
General
PCB LANDFILL HYDROLOGY AND
LINER LEAKAGE
By: Patrick A. Barnes, P.G.
PCB Landfill Working Group Science Advisor
In March, 1983 , shortly following construction, the State reported that a significant amount of
water had entered the landfill as a result of storm water events wmch had occurred during the
construction process (September -November, 1982). By June, I 983, the State had removed
S,000 gallons of water through the leachate collection system. It is unclear whether the 5,000
gallons removed represented all the water thought to be in the landfill at that time or not Over
several subsequent years the State continued to remove small amounts of leachate through a
largely inoperable collection system. Based on available data, the total leachate quantity removed
is approximately 8,000 gallons. In 1993, the State reported that the landfill contained
approximately 13. 5 feet of water based on water level measurements made in the leachate
collection system.
The increase stress on the bottom liner system coupled with several other complicating factors has
apparently resulted in a breach of the bottom liner integrity. Additionally, either through normal
wear, manufacturing defects or improper installation the upper composite liner of the landfill also
appears to be breached
Liner Desi,m
Recent studies performed by Lee and Schroeder show that the composite liner system similar to
that designed by the State for this facility has high leakage rates associated with it. The study
evaluated six liner designs using the HELP model and found the most effective system included a
drainage layer, followed by a synthetic liner, a low penneability soil layer, and additional drainage
layer, synthetic liner, followed by a final soil layer. It concluded that composite liners where the
synthetic liner is not in direct contact with the compacted clay layer are more likely to fail . The
PCB landfill bottom liner system includes one foot of fill between the synthetic liner and the
compacted clay layer.
I
The initial siting report indicates that the State made use of on-site clay materials in construction
of the clay liners. AJthough this material would have been substantially reworked and compacted,
the fa ct that this material comprised a portion of a thick section of material which was weathered
in place implies that over time it will tend to form cracks and avenues for percolation
The 30 mjJ synthetic bottom liner was severely damaged by vandalism during the early phases of
construction. Some of these holes are depicted in pictures I through 12. Given the substantial
nature of the vandalism, the State should have probably considered placing an additional synthetic
liner above the damaged one rather than patching the damaged liner.
95-017
L~tcgrildoc
-1-
The top liner system includes a synthetic PVC liner in direct contact with a low permeability soil
layer; however, the PVC liner is very thin ( l 0 mils) this, in addition to the numerous problems
which could arise from during manufacturing and installation, are reasons to suspect possible
failure. Problems during construction (see pictures 1 through 12) may have also contributed to a
loss of integrity .
Rainfall Occurrence
The monthly rainfall amounts for Warren County (AJcola) were reviewed to characterize its
relationship to the monitoring well hydrographs and the leakage level fluctuations. The graph
shows that the area receives a significant amount of rain consistently throughout the year with
peaks in early spring and early summer. Rainfall for Alcola for the past four years is given on
Figure l. The peaks align quite well with the peaks in the water table hydrograph showing that
precipitation recharges quite readily within the landfill area. This is panicularly inte..-esting
because low penneability of the native clays was a significant factor in the State's decision to
select the Warren County site. Based on review of"this data it is apparent that, although the
onsite clays have very low laboratory permeabilities, the effective permeability of those same
sediments is actually much much higher.
The average rainfall per year for the Warren County area is approximately 45 inches. The area
received approximately 9 inches of rain during the months of September, October and November.
1982. The period of time attributed to water inflow by the State. The 9 inches does approximate
the 13 feet of water initially reported by the State. In 1995, which was a wet year, the average
rainfall increased by over 10 inches, to 56 inches. Consistent with liner leakage, this increase in
rainfall was also ultimately represented in a rise in landfill water level.
J..,/onitoring Well Hydrograph
The obvious source of this rapid groundwater recharge is secondary porosity such as cracks in the
native silty sand and clay layers. The effective recharge of precipitation as analyzed by at least a
one year hydrograph is a necessary first step in the hydrogeologic evaluation of potential landfill
sites, and was apparently not performed by the State prior to site selection. As would be
expected, the rainfall variations match very well with the monitoring well hydrographs particularly
for monitoring wells 2, 3 and 4. MW-1 appears to be partially plugged and does not respond in
phase with the other wells.
Generally, it appears that significant rainfall events wruch occur during the early spring and late
fall directly translates to a rise in groundwater levels while large rainfall events which occur during
summer months go largely unnoticed in the groundwater system . This is due to the much higher
evaporation which occurs during the summer months. The increase in evaporation in summer
months is a very important part of the hydraulic cycle and as will be discussed later, plays an
important role in the landfill water level hydrograph and the proposed leakage dynamics .
Another very interesting aspect of the monitoring well hydrosraphs when compared to both the
landfill water level and the precipitation amount&, is that the general trend of the wells is towards
9,.0,1
lntcgnldoc
-2-
decreasing water levels, while both precipitation and landfill water levels are increasing The
concurrent rise in rainfall amount and landfill water levels strongly indicates that precipitation and
thus leakage is controlling the landfill' s water level.
Landfill Water Level Hydrograph
As would be expected in a lined landfill, the peaks in landfill water level do not align with that of
rainfall, instead they are shifted into the future on the leachate level graph (Figure 2). Although
this behavior is slightly masked for several smaller peaks, the highest rainfall months recorded,
March, 1993, 1994 and 1995 are consistently followed by peaks in the landfill water level six
months later in September. A second peak in rainfall in June, 1995 is once again followed by a
very high landfill water level peak six month's later in December. This regular pattern could not
be coincidental. It obviously represents the period of time it takes water to travel through the top
liner system eventually reaching the landfill water table.
With the exception of the six month shift in the hydrograph, the landfill water level is behaving as
would be expected for any natural system in direct connection with the emironment. It has a
water balance as would be expected for any flow basin . This is particularly disturbing because the
system was engineered to remain isolated from surface and groundwater influences. More
importantly, perhaps, as will be discussed later is that the landfill water level has consistently rose
during the period of record. ·
Leakage Dpiamiq
The various components of the landfill water level hydrograph can be explained as follows :
1. Quickly following large rainfaU events the two foot layer of top soil becomes saturated and
small amounts of rainfall seep through improperly seamed or worn areas of the upper
synthetic liner. The majority of leakage through the upper liner probably occurs during
periods of low evaporation when the soil above the liner can remain saturated for much longer
periods following rainfall events. This increase in water level increases the threat to the
environment by increasing the pressure on the bottom liner.
2. Percolalion then occurs through the clay portions of the liner. Both by granular conveyance
and th.rough cracks this process takes approximately six months and is the major component in
the offset between the landfill water level rise and monitoring well hydrograph rise.
3. Flow continues downward through the unsaturated landfill contents.
4 Typically, during the months of July though November, the water level within the landfill rises
as a result of the leakage which occurred across the top liner during December through June.
Significant leakage through the top liner does not occur within these months (July-
November).
95-017
lntcgrit.doc
-3-
5. The resultant increase in pressure on the bottom liner attributed to the water level rise results
in leakage across that composite liner (primarily during December through June) which
subsequently decreases the water level within the landfill.
6. As Figure 2 indicates, the cycle repeats itself; however for the period of record more water
enters than leaves the system, i.e., Qin>Qout. Although for several months at a time the
reverse is true Qout>Qin.
Delared Rise
As discussed, the rise in water levels within the landfill is approximately six months out of phase
with the monitoring well hydrographs and rainfall data. This delay is primarily due to the effective
permeability of the 10 mil PVC and 2 ft. thick clay top liner. It is believed that precipitation seeps
readily through the 10 mil PVC liner via openings due to manufacture defects, improper seaming
and installation and/or normal wear. Once under, this potential leakage water is protected from
evaporation and can seep through the clay under condition of saturated flow, or through a system
of fractures within the clay.
Using the groundwater velocity equation the leakage rate across the 24" clay layer can be
estimated as follows :
V=Kl
8
V • Velocity (length/day)
K = Penneability (length/day)
I -Gradient (ft/ft)
8 = Porosity (unitless)
K = I 0·7 cm/sec
l=dh= l=I
dL 2
8 = .03 (Todd)
V = l0-7qn/sec{l} = 3.33 -6/cm • 1 inch • 86.400 sec .
. 03 sec . 2.54/cm day
V = .113 3 in. • 180 days .. 20 inches
day 6 months 6 months
This fits very well with the approximate thickness of the clay top liner (24 '') indicati11g that even
with a conservative permeability value (the one used by the State for the intact clay layer) water
can be transferred as shown by the hydrograph within an approximate 6 month period.
leaka~e Rate
Each season for the four yellrs of record there is a rise in water level of approximately 12 inches
followed by a drop of about 11 inches. This cyclical pattern has resulted in a net increase in water
9,-01,
lnt.cgrit.doc
-4-
level over the period of approximately I foot . Because of improper documentation and reporting
early on, it is difficult to say how much of the total volume of water present in the landfill
originated from storm events and improper stormwater management.
However, we have already established that the effective permeability of the clay will allow
transmission of water across it with the assumption that rain water readily passes through the
synthetic Liller through breaches. ·
It is assumed that the landfill materials have an average effective porosity (specific yield) of 5% or
. 05 . The approximate 1 0 inch fluctuation observed over a six month period can be attributed to
approximately 1/2 inch of leakage through the liner systems. For the period of record the landfill
area ex.petienced over 45 inches of rain per year, one-half of an inch of leakage represents only _
1 % of the total rainfall .
Volume oflandfill
The volume of the landfill can be approximated by calculating the area of a plane midway between
the top and base of the landfill and multiplying it by the height. The mid point is equivalent to the
average of the top area and the area of the base.
Top Area= 240' x 475' = 114,000 ft.2
Bottom Area= 100' x 300' = 30,000 ft.2
Mid Point,,,, 144,000/2 = 72,000 ft.2
Volume= 72,000 ft.2 x 22 ft .,..
~ 1,584,000 fl.3
i·olume of Water
The volume of initial water in the landfill can be calculated using the same general procedure and
substituting the thickness (22 ft.) of the landfill material with the height of the l3 fl. water
column. as follows :
9S--O 17
lnltgrjldoc
Top Area (at Water Surface)= 400' x 175' ""70,000 ft.2
Bottom Area= 100' x 300' =-30,000 ft.2
Mid Point= 100,000 ft .2/2 = 50,000 ft.2
Volume ""50,000 ft.2 x 13 ft.
= 650,000 ft.~ x 7.58 gal
ft.)
= 4,862,000 gals. , .05 (specific yield)
= 243, l 00 gals.
-S-
The base elevation of the landfill is 320' MSL. If the initial height of water in the landfill was 13
feet as reported by the State, that would equate to an elevation of approximately 333 ft . In
February, 1996 the average elevation was approximately 2.5 ft. higher at 335.S ft . MSL Since
the water in the landfill was first reported, there has been an increase in the amount of water in the
landfill by approximately 2.5 ft.
The current volume of water (Nov., 1996) in the landfill based on the historical rise in water level
is estimated to be approximately 320,000 gal. (this includes an additional .2' of water level rise
between February and November) which represents an increase of 77,000 gallons over the t 4 yea,
landfill life or an average net increase of approximately 5,500 gallons per year.
If it is assumed that during periods of landfill water level rise only very small amounts of water is
being discharged; and if it is assumed that during periods of falling water levels that only slight
amounts of new leakage is coming in, then the annual inflow and outflow of water to and from the
landfill can be approximated as seen on Table 1.
Because of the shape of the landfill it is necessary once again to use an average area to estimate
inflow and outflow The surface area used is that of the landfill at elevation 335 ft. MSL The
estimated 3,000 gallon net incre11se in landfill water matches fairly well with the 5,500 gallon
amount estimated based on the 2. 5 ft. rise in water levels over the life of the facility, especially
given that the State's initial height estimate was a rough estimate.
Di1char2e
Table I
Estimate Water Balance
Last 3 l' ean of Data
· .ruse: •ndiF111i tr{l~¢h~-
· ·y,.r1 teaf~: · Y.~~r 3
Annual
J\yel".age Leakage
: lnch~s Volumt
Q Out 9 12 12 11 .0 25,965 gallons
Leakage (.45) (.60) (.60) (55) (.55 in) --
Q In 12 10 15 12.4 29,033 gallons
Leakage (60) (.5) (.75) ( 615) (.615 in.)
Note: The decimal given in the parentheses is the amount of leakage either in or out of the
landfilJ which is required for the observed rise and fall in landfill water level (the number
immediately above it).
95--017
lnttgrit.doc
-6-
Construction Pt'ocess
It appears that the Contractors involved in the construction of the PCB Landfill were faced with
several problems which could have compromised the integrity of the landfill from a very early
date, not the least of which was weather and vandalism. We were unable to obtain copies of the
field construction logs; however, pictures 1 through 12 show some of the construction I elated
problems. They were obtained from the State's files.
As can be seen, the landfill was largely unprotected from precipitation which resulted in a
significant inflow of rain water. Additionally, the top soil material appears to have been
inappropriately selected and/or compacted which resulted in exposure of the top synthetic liner
The pressure build-up below the PVC top liner as shown in the attached pictures is strong
evidence for the existence of fractures in the upper clay layer. These fractures would represent
one avenue for possible downward leakage of precipitation.
The pictures also shows the vandalism discussed which may have also played a key role in the lo:i.is
of lower liner integrity. It is uncertain why this liner was not replaced instead of repaired by the
State contractors.
System Design & Leachate Management
The landfill system appears to be improperly designed in two key areas.
1. Top Liner System
Pictures 11 and 12 show significant ripples in the top soil across the landfill surface. In
several areas, these ripples resulted in the exposure of the PVC liner. These features may
represent areas where surface water could pond and enhance percolation. The top liner
should have been designed to minimize slumping and potential water ponding,
2. Leachate Collection System
The leachate collection system which the State has indicated is largely inoperable, can only
pump very small volumes at any given time and is improperly designed . A significant prnblem
with the system design is the apparent absence of a perforated pipe extraction system. In
order to effectively remove water from the silty soils present in the landfill, a much more
extensive system of leachate collection encompassing a significant portion of the bottom area
should have been employed.
The soil present within the landfill originated on road shoulders throughout the State, typical
road shoulder material is designed for stability meaning it is usually very poorly sorted . This
does not appear to have been a consideration in the system design
95-017
touigril. doc
-7-
Monitoring
The State is currently in gross non-compliance with the TSCA monitoring requirements. No
samples have been collected and analyzed from any of the four groundwater monitoring wells or
four surface water stations since July, 1994. Based on documents reviewed dated June, 1983 and
on the State· s Operational Plan environmental samples were to be collected twice per year until
otherwise stated by the EPA regional Administrator. The State has missed four consecutive
sampling events
Of particular concern to me is that the site only contains four monitoring wells which in my view
are not only improperly located but also poorly designed. The surface water stations selected also
appear to be dictated more by accessibility than environmental science.
The State was very much aware of the site hydrology and in fact used it heavily in the selection
process. In the 1980 Environmental Impact Statement the landfill site's drainage is described as
being controlled by six major draws around the landfill site. Given that statement, it is difficult to
understand why no monitoring wells were placed directly at the head of any of these features.
Also, after spending a significant amount of time in the field inspecting the hydrology of the 5ite l
find it incredible that no surface water samples have been collected at the several contact springs
which surround the site. These features represent the most likely points of origination for any
discharge which might result from the landfill bottom liner.
Additionally, based on discussion with State staff, it appears that the stream sediment samples are
being collected at the same locations as ithe water samples (approximately mid -stream). Given
that this is not the most likely location for sedimentation to occur, it is doubtful that they are
indicative of the potential impact from the landfill .
Discussion
The graph shows the fluctuation of water level as measured in the leachate access pipe and the
central vent observation well. The rise and fall of this water level was thought by the State to be
directly related to the heating and cooling of the landfill materials. We agree that heating and
cooling may result in some fluctuation; however, the heating and cooling process in a system with
very little organics (less than 2%) should not result in a long-term increase in water levels a.s
shown by the green line. Moreover, the frequency of the peaks and valleys align very well with
that of the monitoring well hydro graphs. In our opinion, this is a strong indication that the landfill
is functioning as a natural system that is receiving and releasing water. This pattern is not in
phase (the peaks of the water in the wells don't match with the peaks of the water in the landfill)
with the surrounding area because it takes the water several months · to flow through the
composite liners . The delayed yield shown is roughly analogous to that which you would expect
in a semi-confined, two aquifer system. It is the result of the time it takes water to seep through
the upper composite liner . For the period of record, it appears to be fairly constant; however, it is
important to note that the rate of leakage will increase over time. The leakage rate is directly
related to the permeability of that material, flaw~ in the liner system resulting from pinholes and
9}.Ql7
lntegtit.doc:
-8-
holes formed during seam welding, manufacturing defects and vandalism Another potential
source of failure is stress cracking or brittle fracture.
The average increase of the water level by approximately 1 foot over the four year period of
record is in line with seepage rates used by the USEPA for flexible membrane liners and
represents approximately 1/2 inch of leakage per year. It is our opinion that this increase is a
good indication that water is seeping into the landfill. The fact that the increase is not a steady
incline but varies seasonally is an indication that the system is also discharging water through the
bottom liner. There is a net increase in the landfill water level because more enters than leaves the
system.
In summary, if no new leakage water was entering the system the water level would remain fla1,
and if no water was leaving the system the water levels would not decrease then increase in a
cyclical pattern.
9,-011
lntcgrit doc
-9-
RAINFALL (inches) 0 ~ t1I CJ) -0 Nov-92 Jan-93 Mar-93 May-93 ~ z ;;a £
(T, J.il-93 :;o
s m z Q s~p-93 ;:;.. 0 ::J'
IJ'I 0 l Nov-93 C: :T z ::,
~ 0
Q. JM-94 -< a,
~ ~ ""I (ll Mar-94 "C' -iil z r,, "T1 (ti
~-May-94 > 3 r-~-r I/! Jul-94 0 5 <O ~ 0 ...
:::, Sep-94 > (")
0 -► 3 "2.. Nov-94 :;o ltt ~ 0
~ 0 Q) Jan-95 s; s
<O Ill
(/) C Mar-95 <0 ► (1)
0. O> -I ni May-95 -0 z Ju!-95 -·
Sep-95
Nov-95
Jan-96
State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
AVA
DEHNR
December 3, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Barnes, Science Advisor
Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group
FROM: DWM Staff for the Joint Warren County/State PCB
Landfill Working Group
SUBJECT: BF A 12/2/96 Memorandum Air Emissions of PCB
and Associated Health Risk
Please provide scientific and epidemiological substantiation for BF A's statements that, with
respect to the Warren County PCB Landfill, "so-called landfill represents potentially significant
health risks" and the State's "apparent disregard for the safety of the citizens of Afton". Please
also provide any data on air quality modeling or other technical basis for the statement that the
"PCBs which have been deposited by air emissions may have accumulated in these surface
drainage features and thus may still present a threat to the environment." It would also be helpful
to the staff if BF A submitted the qualifications, expertise and experience of personnel providing
the statements and response to our request.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/l()"lo post-consumer paper
fax
Date
Number of pages Including cover sheet
To:
IZ( t
Phone
Cj' ,, ..--. / Fax Phone I' J-T / ') _ 5 C, 0 ~
CC:
REMARKS:
Barnes. Ferland and Associates, Inc.
3535 Lawton Road Suite 111
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone ( 407) 896-8608
Fax Phone [phone]
D Urgent D For your review O Reply ASAP D Please comment
jZ,t rf-(
11r0~ /Li,/;--4,J
bid ·~U-t_ t dcl ~ 4 Ccj,__x
~r~µ
~:~ #r-
BID FORM
SUPPLEMENTAL DRILLING .INVESTIGATIONS
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
I ,/
Item # Description
1.
2.
Mobilization/Demobilization
Indemnification
7" Hollow Stem Auger w/SPT
\....o.V •
Provide and Install 2" Stainless
Steel Well Casing and Grout
Provide and Install 2" Stainless
Steel Well Screen and Filter Pack
Well Development
2-1/2 Ft. Protective Cover
w/ Well Cap & Lock & 4'x4'
Concrete Pad
Containerize Development &
Slug Test Water for Temporary
On-Site Storage
Possible Fractured Rock Drilling
6 x 6 x: 6 Fence Enclosure
Provide Full-time Qualified
Field Geologist
r4. l.J, Develop Final Report including
Analysis of Slug Test Data
5.
I
Est. Qty
1
l
L.S.
L.S.
EA.
EA
750 L.F.
750 . L.F.
160 L.F
16 HR.
16 EA.
16 55 Gal
:Omm
120
3
--HR
If£
Unit Pnce
--
., -
BID FORM
SUPPLEMENTAL DRILLING INVESTIGATIONS
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Item# Description Est. Qty Unit Unit Price Total
1. Mobilization/Demobilization 1 L.S.
2. Indemnification 1 L.S.
3. Equipment/Decontamination 16 EA.
4. 7"O.D. Hollow Stem Auger 750 L.F.
w/SPT
5. Provide and Install 2" Stainless 750 L.F.
Steel Well Casing and Gout
6. Provide and Install 2" Stainless 160 L.F.
Steel Well Screen and Filter Pack
7. Well Development 16 HR.
8. 2-1 /2 Ft. Protective Cover
w/Well Cap & Lock & 4'x4'
Concrete Pad 16 EA
9. Containerized Development & 16 55Gal
Slug Test Water for Temporary Dru
On-Site Storage
10. Possible Fractured Rock Drilling 120 L.F.
11 . Provide Full-Time Qualified HR
Field Geologist
12. Develop Final Repost Including HR
Analysis of Slug Test Data
* Total Estimated Project Cost:
~· . ~
BF A Environmental Consultants _, -m as -= nu r wrnz..te= Barn••• Ferland and Associate•. Inc.
MEMORANDUM BFA #95-0l7
TO Working Group Members
FROM Patrick A. Barnes, P.G.
Science Advisor
DATE October31, 1996
SrBJECT: Joel Hinchhorn Memos dated 10/24/96 and 10/29/96
Although I originally intended not to ) the purpose of this memo is to provide the Working Group
with a formal response to Mr . Hirschhom's rather emotional and inflammatory memos related to
my personal activities· and iotentions with regard to the evaluation and detoxification of the PCB
landfiU
My g~nera! observation is that 1\ilr. Hirschhorn has an egocentric petccption of the current
activities His conclusion that the Working Group, State and my persona! actiyjties and objectives
are steeped in conspiracy to avoid any responsibility or action to achieve dcto~catio11 of the
landfill contents 1s completely inaccurate. While claims of his professional experience art made
throughout these memo5, I p,;rsonally find their content and tone highly unprofo;sional, counter-
productive to the project, and extremely self-serving .
Jn response to Mr. Hirschhom's ,oncems regarding my meeting with Senator Ballance and
Congresswoman Clayton, the only meeting l have hitd with these individuals was on October 22
during my last v,sit Dollie Burwell invited me to the election office to meet the Senator and
Congresswoman and our discussion involved m)· profcuional ba.i;kgrnund and a general overview
of the work: being performed on the project. The opinions expressed by the individuals wcr~ just
that, individual opinions, and did not constitute a "co-option'' or "marupulation"' by che
government As my scope of services. with the Working Group includes political liaison , I felt.
and still feel , that the opponunity to meet political body representatives was proper and in
complianc.e with my project responsibilities. However, no 11ttempt w11:s made to develop a plan or
strategy to 1;oopt or manipulate the Working Group or seek Federal project funding. I personally
fee i that Mr Hirschhorn's comments and insinuations do the Working Group and myself a
tremendous di:1xrvice
With regard to the Science Advisor selection process, I am very awa~ of the high Je..,el of
complexitie:'j which arise from the potentially complicating goals and objectives of the working
members; however, I am somewhat confused by Mr. Hirschhorn's volatile, contradictory and.
once again. egocentric tirade. Fir:stly, it is my understanding that both Mr Hirschhorn and myself
The Hollister Bu ildinij • 3635 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlendo. Florido J280J
· Office (407} 896-8608 · Fex [phone]
OOOT-lSC-616 :XE~
✓
MEMORANDUM
October 3 l, 1996
Page 2
were selected as Science Advisors because our professional expertise was complementary and
provided the Working Group with comprehensive expertise to address all the landfill and
detoxification issues When I was asked by Mr Lancaster whether I could work with Mr
Hirschhorn in a dual Science Advisor arrangement) I responded in the affirmative ba.sed on m,
pen;i:ption that we offered complementary p,ofessional expertise. I, in no way, felt manipulated
nor felt that the question belied a "hidden agenda!) In fact, in numerous consultant selection
processes that I have been involved in, the ability to work with staff or an entity's already existir.g
consultants is a common selection criteria and question asked during presentation The point of
such a question is simply to ensure that a consultant has the opportunity to state his/her objections
to such an arrangement and/or point out potential problems that could arise .
Mr . Hirschhorn states that when presented with this question he answered "yes" but would have
answered "no" if he had known that by doing so he would have been selected as the sole Science
Advisor He also states that he has "several important reasons'' for obje(;ting to the dual Science
Advisor arrangement I am somewhat confused by his logic in that when he was given an
opportunity to object to the dual Science Advisor arrangement and provide his ''several impcrtant
reasons" for such, he failed to do it In fact , he states that he would have made the objections
only if he knew that by doing so, he would be selected as the sole Science Advisor In other
words, given the opportunity to milki:: his case for the selec:tion as the Science Advisor. he chose
to forgo it and accept a duaJ Science Advisor arransement Now, instead oftaking respomibility
for his own decision, he blames the State. cloaking it in a conspiracy to manipulate the Work ing
Group.
As your Science Advisor, it is my responsibility to present the technical facts related to the project
as I see them In summary, some of those facts as they relate to rny area of experti5e are
The State has knowingly placed an inadequate amount of groundwater and surface water
monitoring locations around the landfill;
2. The monitoring wells which are present are inadequately designed to detect discharges,;
3. The landfill leachate system wa.s not properly designed,
4 The bottom landfill liner design is among those composite liners with the highest failu re rate;
S. The fractured rock :;y:itcm at the site can result m enhanced groundwater tlow;
6 The State has delayed submittal of key project documents to the Working Group for action ;
7 The State is not in compliance with the TSCA monitoring requirements, and,
8. The landfill is appa.rently taking on and discharging water
The Hollister Building • )535 Lawton Raad• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32603
Office (407) 896•8608 • Fax[phone]
£:O 'd SS:9t 96 , t£ lJO OOOT-LSZ-616 :Xe~ d~Jd9 9NI~d0~ 8Jd
-•
MEMORANDUM
October 3 I. l 996
Page 3
As a licensed Professional Geologist and as President of a li,ensed Engineering and Geological
Services firm, misrepresentation of data or unethical behavior can easily result in rcvocat1cm of my
license to pr11ctice. It is for this reason that my conclusions must be strongly justified .
For the record, I would like to pledge the following :
1. I will continue to represent the facts of the project as I see them to the Working Gro;.ip m an
independent manner.
2. Twill never allow anyone to alter my opinion of the facts with unsupported claims.
3. l will never reson to slander of any individuals involved in this project as a means of
accomplishing my services as Science Advisor and the ultimate objective of total
detoxification in an expeditious manner.
In closing, the role of the Science Advisor is to analyze the data, and form conclusions and
recommendations as a re:,ult of that analysis in an independent manner, I feel that I have fulfilled
that role in an objective and professional manner and find the insinuations of being coopted and
manipulated by the State personally offensive In fact, much of my work has been adversarial to
the State's position.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Working Group with my perspective on the isrnes
raised by Mr Hirschhorn and trust we can put it behind us and maintain our focus on the several
landfill issues at hand
i'.,(I#•p1g• J 0-J I WCil.drJc
The ~olli1ter Bvilding • 353!i Lawton Roeo • Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
l70 'd OOOT-lSl-616:XE~
.BF A Environ~ental Consu,ltants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
Post-ir Fax Note
TO: Bill Meyer
FRO.M: Pat Barnes~
DATE October 30, t 996
BFA #95-0 17.00
7671 Data (l
From
Co.
Phon<J #
Fax 11
SUBJECT: Response to Memo from Joel Hirschhorn about Selection of Soil Extractioo
Contractor
Before negotiations, CDM should provide their detailed itemization of .estimated cost so t.hat
specific areas can be better targeted for modification by the State.
I disagree with eliminating the electrical leak detection The RFP includes top liner assessment
and this appears to be a comprehensive way of accomplishing that. Before we der.ermine if it is
cost prohibitive we need to have CDM itemize its cost Generally speaking, su1iace geophysical
methods such as this are very cost effective.
Bill, please also inquire of CDM if their drilling subcontractor would consider replacing the
proposed t 0-mil plastic containment system with a bermed steel pan. A steel pan will provide a
much better working surface.
cc: Technical Committee
The Hollister Building• 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
...
BF A Environmental Consultants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM BFA #95-017.00
Post-it" Fax Note 7671 Date
TO: Bill Meyer From
Pat8arnes ~ FROM:
Co.
Fax II
DATE: October 30, 1996
SUBJECT: Response to Memo from Joel Hirschhorn about Selection of Soil Extraction
Contractor
Before negotiations, CDM should provide their detailed itemization of estimated cost so that
specific areas can be better targeted for modification by the State.
l disagree with eliminating the electrical leak detection. The RFP includes top liner assessment
and this appears to be a comprehensive way of accomplishing that. Before we determine if it is
cost prohibitive we need to have CDM itemize its cost Generally speaking, su1iace geophysical
methods such as this are very cost effective.
Bill, please also inquire of CDM if their drilling subcontractor would consider replacing the
proposed 10-mil plastic containment system with a bermed steel pan A steel pan will provide a
much better working surface.
cc. Technical Committee
10/30/96
Patrick,
*Called 12:20 and left short message (got cut off)
*Agree with first sentence
*Not aware of Joel's memo
*Agree with second sentence
>'<Agree with last sentence with attempt to get better
Containment ie metal vs. plastic -we can always add/change this in
contract if not in proposal
Bill
The Hollister Building• 3535 Lawton Road· Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office ( 407) 896-8608 • Fax ( 407) 896-1822
FROM 9 1971~360~ SOLID WASTE DI U
'
~
ate of Not Carbllno ; epQrtmen of Env.lrQnment, : eoln, ~nd aturQI Resourcet
OMslon of Solid Waste Monogement :
I
Jomea B. Hunt. Jr,, Governor
Jonathon 8. HQw•s, Se'.er•t ory
Wllllorn L. Meyer, Director
~morandum
To: Doris Strickland
From: Bill Meyer
Subject: R.PP re1pqn1e for "ExcaJation, Handlins, and Storage, of;PC contaminated soils
from the Warren County~CB Landflll1' :
Enclosed are the rankings for the~our respondents to tho RFP. Tho nkini wu performed
independently by Joel Hirschhorn and Pat ck Barnes (Science Advisors for the CB Working Group)
and the Division. Thero wu consensus t .at COM would bo the selected res ondcnt. However, all
parties were concerned with .the coat of CD M's proposal.
' It i1 the Division's undcmandini t~t once tho mpondon;a have aubml proposals that only
personnel in the Department of Adminljation, Division of Purchue and C tract,
i_nay contact or neaotiatcrwith respond-('·
The DMtion would like to suggett that the appropriate ageney consi er options to address
coat concerns. One option is to send· a toqucst to all respondents roquirina itemization of cost in
aeeordan~ with (a) throuah (k) of aoc1ion 2.2.1. This could be accompl shed bofon, the tinaJ
respondent aclection wu made (May ·the Division do thla?).
P.O. 80,c 27687,
Ro1elgh . North CorolJno 27611-7687
Voice, 919-733-4996
MEMORANDUM
TO: To PCB Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P. G., Science Advisor
DATE: October 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Amendment to the monitoring well installation RFP
I recommend that the Drilling RFP dated September 18, 1996 be amended as follows to include
the following language:
1. The diameter of the proposed wells will be 4 inches I. D.
2. The proposed wells will be constructed of type 316L stainless steel.
3. The depths used for bidding purposes shall be 45' for the shallow wells and 90' for
the deep wells.
4. If necessary the contractor will attempt to drill past potential shallow obstructions
a minimum of three times.
5. The supplemental sampling plan be included as a working plan for the RFP.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PCB Landfill Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P. G., Science Advisor
DATE: October 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Amendments to the Draft Sampling Plan Dated, October 2, 1996
It is my opinion that the referenced plan should be amended by the following list of items:
1. Include a table of contents identifying all components of the plan including
figures, tables, and appendices.
2. Include the jointly agreed to supplemental sampling and testing plan
developed by BF A as an appendix. This is needed to provide critical
support to the proposed new testing locations.
3. SECTION ENTITLED "FIELD SAMPLING OVER VIEW"
a. Include a description of the project background, as previously agreed to so that
the Plan will function as stand alone document.
b. Identify who will be the site manager, safety officer, and the
individual disciplinary task leaders.
c. Last sentence of the oversight paragraph, change "a site safety
briefing" to a daily site safety briefing.
d. Amend safety plan to include safety issues associated with drilling
activities.
e. Change "History of the Site" section of the safety plan to reflect
recent analytical data.
f Add definition as to what constitutes being "involved" as described in
the final sentence of the first page.
g. Include a site plan showing the conceptual layout of exclusion zones
and safe zones.
h. Define "crucial elements" as mentioned in the third paragraph of the
second page.
4. SECTION ENTITLED "ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS AND QUALITY
ASSURANCE"
a. Clarify apparent contradiction in paragraph entitled "Blank Samples." Paragraph
states that equipment rinseate blanks will be prepared to check decontamination
procedures then two sentences later the text states that equipment rinseate
blanks will not be needed.
b. Under Chain of Custody subsection, item number one, change shipment to
delivery.
c. Include a copy of the sample analysis request and receipt of samples form
indicated under item number two and three.
d. Critical portions of each of the standards referenced should be included as an
appendix to this plan.
e. At the end of this section add the following :
Reporting Procedure-Every laboratory asked in this eff(?rt will be instructed not
to provide any data, preliminary or final, verbally or in writing t the State unless
the same information is provided simultaneously to both Science Advisors.
5. SECTION ENTITLED "LANDFILL CONTENT SAMPLES"
a. Immediately after "Purpose" include a reference to the location of the samples.
b. Change the phrase "a soil sample needs to be taken" to "will be taken."
c. Under "Field Sampling Method" include an appendix reference to all necessary
equipment and procedures.
d. Under "Sampling Pers<?nnel Requirements" describe the proposed "air sampling."
e. Under "Field Equipment Required' include a table listing all necessary equipment.
f Under "Quality Assurance" add a general description of the anticipated
laboratory QNQC. For examole what quantity of matrix spikes and matrix spike
duplicates are anticipated.
6. SECTION ENTITLED "LANDFILL LEACHATE SAMPLES"
a. Include field sampling location immediately after "Purpose."
b. Third sentence under "Field Sampling Method." What is considered a sufficient
sample?
c. Under "Field Equipment Required," we may want to consider dedicated
samples:$,
7. SECTION ENTITLED "GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PLAN"
A. Include "Field sampling locations" immediately after "Purpose."
b. Add the word representative before samples in the first sentence of the
"Purpose" subsection.
c. Under second sentence of "Field Sampling Method," after "Purge the Well" add
"field test for equilibration using pH temperature and specific conductance.
Add more specific reference to EPA SOPs, i.e., what page number, what paragraph.
Also tie to an appendix of this document. The second to last paragraph of "Field
Sampling Methods" needs to include a decontamination procedure for submersible
pump.
Under "Field Equipment Required" State proposed procedure to ensure integrity of
samples.
8. SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
a. Move subsection on field sampling location to just below "Purpose."
b. Under "Field Sampling Location" add the following :
the exact location of stream and sediment samples will be determined in
the field by the Science Advisors.
Add one additional sediment sample location to be collected at the confluence of
Richneck Creek and the Unnamed Tributary.
9. SECTION ENTITLED "SEDIMENTATION BASIN SUBSTRATE
SAMPLES"
a. Move "Field Sampling Locations" to directly after "Purpose."
10. SECTION ENTITLED "CARBON FILTRATION BED SAMPLES"
a. Move "Field Sampling Locations" to directly after "Purpose."
11 . ADD SECTION ENTITLED "TEST BORING SOIL SAMPLES" and
appropriate sampling _and testing procedures .
. FIGURES
a. Add a site location map.
b. Add a smaller scale approximately l" = 50' site map.
TABLES 1 and 2
a. Add test boring analysis for two horizons at each new location adjacent to
the landfill i.e., MWIA, MW5, and MW7 and each of the background
wells.
b. Add sediment sample at the confluence ofRichneck and The
Unnamed Tributary.
~ f>cB
(;J(}
Bill, (so,~ e,.:Jw.e/2~10 10-23-96
Bid Evaluation
I looked at each of the criteria as listed in the RFP. I assigned a 1 to 4 value based on what I thought was
best or worst of the 4 plans. The final scores are as follows:
CDM with 70
S&ME with 61
Triangle with 60
Patterson with 49
Other observations:
PATTERSON
Patterson just falls short in too many areas and besides they are not the lowest bidder.
TRIANGLE
Triangle was the cheapest and was almost second in the scoring. It lacks some key points like:
* No surveying of boreholes
* Only 2 boreholes planned
* No contingency plan or monitoring plan for releases
It DOES include a provision for a Work Plan which might be used to beef up those areas not addressed in
the bid. Maybe the cheapest one can work if we can tailor the work plan to address those weak areas of
the bid. Experience does not appear to be as good as CDM or S&ME.
CDM
CDM I think has the best design with 4 boreholes but it was the second most expensive. CDM also
seemed to have the best experience including work with PCBs. The H&SP and Work Plan will need to be
developed which will give an extra element of control. In addition to visual inspection and sampling of
the liner and clay, they also include an electronic leak detection plan to completely check upper liner
integrity which none of the others do.
S&ME
S&ME was the most expensive but only had 2 boreholes. It has an extensive QA/QC section but seems to
include a lot of unnecessary sampling and analytical tasks. They did not specifically address the issue of
wet & dry soils or how they were to be blended. S&ME probably has the best design with the steel
containment tray for contamination and to protect the landfill liner. They do however appear to be using
full sized drill rigs where the other companies are using lighter weight rigs to protect the integrity of the
top liner. Of course S&ME had a very good experience record.
This was not included in the RFP but no one proposed any air monitoring in their bids. I think this would
be a good thing for someone to do when this work actually starts. This will supply some data to show if
any airborne contamination was released.
Bid Evaluation
Excavation, handling, and storage of PCB contaminated soils
from the Warren County PCB Landfill
Scale = 1 to 4 ( 4 is the best, 1 in the worst)
RFP
Crit. Patterson
2.2. la 3 (3 boreholes)
2.2.1 b 3 (survey)
2.2. lc 2 (manually mixed)
2.2. ld 3 (low press veh.)
(plastic/boot)
( repair liner)
2.2. le 2 (visual/3 samples)
Triangle
2 (2 boreholes)
2 (1 sample/ft)
4 (free drain)
3 (low press veh.)
(plywood/plastic)
(repair liner)
2 (visual/2 samples)
2.2.1 f 3 (plastic/absorbants) 2 (plastic)
2.2.1 g 2 (minimal/no figs) 2 (minimal/no figs)
2.2. lh 3 (outline) 2 (H&SP TBD)
2.2.1 i I (infiltration only) 3 (6" well/collar)
2.2. lj 2 (Pre-decon/plastic) 3 (Work Plan TBD)
2.2.lk NA NA
2.2.2a 2 (manually mixed) 4 (free drain)
2.2.2b 2 (manually mixed) 4 (proportioned)
2.2.2c 1 (plastic/boot) 3 (plywood/plastic)
2.2.2d 1 (no mon. plan) 1 (no mon. plan)
2.2.2e 3 (adequate) 3 (adequate)
2.2.2f 3 (outline) 2 (H&SP TBD)
2.2.2g 2 3 (Work Plan TBD)
2.2.2h NA NA
(Sub-Section 2.2.3 deleted)
2.3.l (See above)
2.3.2 (See above)
2.3.3 (Deleted)
2.3.4 ,., ($47,000) 4 ($28,700) .)
2.4. l 2 (some) 2 (some)
2.4.2 (see 2.3.4)
2.4.3 1 (not stated) 3 (T&C form)
2.4.4 I 2
2.4.5 4 4
Total 49 60
CDM S&ME
4 (4 boreholes) 2 (2 boreholes)
3 (survey) 4 (survey/samples)
3 (pour off drum) 1 (not stated)
3 (light vehicle) 2 ( drill rig)
(plastic/gravel) (steel pan/plastic)
(repair liner) (repair liner)
4 (visual/4 samples) 3 (visual/2 samples)
( electric leak detect)
3 (plastic/absorbants) 4 (steel pan/plastic)
3 (better/ldiagram) 4 (best w/ diagrams)
2 (H&SP TBD) 2 (H&SP TBD)
3 (4" well/collar) 3 (6" well/collar)
3 (Work Plan TBD) 4 (QA/QC Plan)
NA extra sampling
3 (pour off drum) 1 (not stated)
4 (proportioned) I (not stated)
3 (plastic/gravel) 4 ( steel pan/plastic)
3 ( contig. plan) 3 (mon. plan)
3 (adequate) 3 (adequate)
2 (H&SP TBD) 2 (H&SP TBD)
3 (Work Plan TBD) ...,
.)
NA NA
2 ($83,000) ($99,502)
4 (landfills/PCBs) 3 (landfills)
4 4
4 ...,
.)
4 4
70 61
lVIEMORANDUl\tl
TO: To PCB Working Group
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P. G., Science Advisor
DATE: October 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Amendment tot
I recommend that the Drilling RFP dated September 18, 1996 be amended as follows to include
the following language:
1. The diameter of the proposed wells will be 4 inches I. D.
2. The proposed wells will be constructed of type 316L stainless steel.
3. The depths used for bidding purposes shall be 45' for the shallow wells and 90' for
the deep wells.
4. If necessary the contractor will attempt to drill past potential shallow obstructions
a minimum of three times.
5. The supplemental sampling plan be included as a working plan for the RFP.
:B,F A Environmental Consultants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Technical Committee
FROM: Patrick Barnes, P.G., Science Advisor
DATE: October 21, 1996
SUBJECT: Potential Source of Water in the Landfill
BFA #95-017
The attached figure is a hydrograph showing water levels in and immediately around the PCB
Landfill for a 3 year period. The bottom four lines represent the water levels in the monitoring
wells MW-1 through 4 which are generally situated east, north, west and south of the landfill,
respectively.
Hydrographs are very useful in determining how water levels change with the season and by
assessing how the individual monitoring points ·relate to each other, the general direction of flow
can be ascertained. :
As can be seen, with the exception of MW-2 which appears to be in the predominant down
gradient direction, groundwater flow is largely radial. Specifically, as it relates to the region
covered by MW-1, 3 and 4.
Typically, well water levels peak in the months of March, April and May, and are at their lowest
in the months of October, November, December and January. This cyclical pattern of raising and
falling water levels is typical of natural groundwater systems. It is for this reason that we have
stated in previous documents that MW-I, which has not responded to recent increases in water
levels, has apparently failed.
The graph at the top of the attached figure represents the fluctuation of water level as measured in
the leachate access pipe and the central vent observation well . The rise and fall of this water level
was thought by the State to be directly related to the heating and cooling of the landfill materials.
We agree that heating and cooling may result in some fluctuation; however, the heating and
cooling process in a system with very little organics (less than 2%) should not result in a long-
term increase in water levels as shown by the green line. Moreover, the frequency of the peaks
and valleys align very well with that of the monitoring well hydrographs. In our opinion, this is a
strong indication that the landfill is functioning as a natural system that is receiving and releasing
water. This pattern is not in phase (the peaks of the water in the wells don't match with the peaks
of the water in the landfill) with the surrounding area because it takes the water several months to
flow through the composite liners. The delayed yield shown is very similar to that which you
The Hollister Building• 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
,.,,.TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
·-October 21 , 1996
Page 2
would expect in a semi-confined, two aquifer system. It is the result of the time it takes water to
seep through the upper composite liner. For the period of record, it appears to be fairly constant;
however, it is important to note that the rate of leakage will increase over time. The leakage rate
is directly related to the permeability of that material, flaws in the liner system resulting from
pinholes and holes formed during seam welding (Banaparte and Gross, "Field Behavior of
Double-liner Systems"). Another potential source of failure is stress cracking or brittle fracture
(Lee and Jones, Municipal Solid Waste Management In-lined, "Dry Bomb" Landfills).
The average increase of the water level by approximately I foot over the four year period of
record is in line with seepage rates used by the USEP A for flexible membrane liners. It is our
opinion that this increase is a good indication that water may be seeping into the landfill . The fact
that the increase is not a steady incline but varies seasonally is an indication that the system is also
discharging water through the bottom liner. There is a net increase in the landfill water level
because more enters than.leaves the system.
Additional data such as monthly precipitation and average temperatures will be collected and
reviewed; however, it is not anticipated that the information will change the general conclusion.
In summary, if no water was entering the system given the low percentag_e of organic material the
water level would remain flat, and if no water was leaving the system the water levels would not
decrease then increase in a cyclical pattern.
PAB/psgl10-2JTCJ.doc
The Hollister Building • 3535 Lawton Road • Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office(407)896-8608• Fax[phone]
T'""
J~nes-Lee and Lee, 1993 "Groundwater Pollution by Municipal Landfills: Leachate Composition,
Detection and Water Quality Significance."
While the latter paper focuses on municipal solid waste landfills, similar issues arise and
situations occur for hazardous waste landfills. Whether lead or some other hazardous/deleterious
chemical is in a "dry tomb" type municipal solid waste landfill or "dry tomb" type hazardous
waste landfill does not, for many constituents, affect the overall period of time that the constituent
will be hazardous in that type of landfill.
Deficiencies in Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Systems
While typically landfill applicants and their consultants assert that the groundwater
monitoring system for a landfill will detect groundwater pollution by landfill leachate before
widespread pollution occurs, in fact, when critically examined, it can be readily ascertained that
the proposed groundwater monitoring system will not be effective in detecting pollution of
_groundwater by landfill leachate before widespread pollution occurs. Dr. Cherry (1990) of the
University of Waterloo was the first to point out that typical groundwater monitoring systems
involving vertical monitoring wells spaced at buodreds of feet apart around a landfill have a low
probability of detecting leachate leakage from the · tandfi11 that can pollute groundwater before
widespread pollution occurs. -
Dr. Jones-Lee and the author published a review article on this topic in which they have
utilized Cherry's findings to point out that minimum Subtitle C (hazardous waste) and D
(municipal solid waste) landfills that utilize typical vertical monitoring wells will not be reliable
for monitoring landfill pollution of groundwaters by the landfill before widespread pollution
occurs (Lee and Jones-Lee, "A Groundwater Protection Strategy for Lined Landfills," 1994b).
J:!!is situation is easily understood by the fact that the initial leakage through the flexih~
membrane liner of the composite liner for a minimum design Subtitle C landfill or the equiyalent,
can initially leak through holes, rips. tears or points of deterioration within the flexible membrane
~ Such leaks will produce finger plumes of limited dimensions compared to the spacing of
_ groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater monitoring wells of the type typically used will have
zones of capture of about one foot on each side of the well. -
The senior author has found that. many landfill applicants space the primary groundwater
monitoring wells at about 400 feet apart at the down groundwater gradient edge of the waste
management unit. This means that the finger-like leachate plumes produced from the initial
leakage through the flexible membrane liner of a landfill could readily fail to be detected by the
monitoring wells. There is a space of about 398 feet between the monitoring we))s through-which
the finger plumes of leachate. which could be on the order of a few feet wide at the location of
the monitoring wells, could pass and never he detected.
The deficiencies in groundwater monitoring in lined landfills are not new. In addition to
the reports by Cherry (1990), Parsons in Davis (1992) discussed these issues in an ASTM
19
z 0 -I m -I ::::T ui' ::!1 <O C cil ui' C" Q) (/) (I) C. 0 :::, ~ Q) -(I) ., (I) < ~ C. Q) -Q) -0 0 < C: (I) C. C" '< -::::T (I) (/) -Q) -(I) I v.,,, §J s ~ ~ c=;) t s: ! + s: ::E N + s: ::E w f s: ::E 1,. f r s: ! + < m z -l ~ 6 0 N <D Ul 6 0 MONITORING WELL ELEVATION (FT) w 0 0 6 0 w 0 Ul 6 0 11/24/92 I ■ I I. ll,.J 12/23/92 · 1/26/93 2/26/93 -3/26/93 ... 4/23/93 ·•· 5/20/93 ·• 5/21/93 ... 6/25/93 ·•· 7/23/93 · 8/30/93 ·• 9/27/93 · 10/22/93 -11 /18/93 -11/19/93 12/17/93 1/25/94 ·• 2/24/94 3/25/94 -1 4/28/94 ·i 5/18/94 5/19/94 · c 6/27/94 · )> -l m 7/28/94 8/26/94 -9/26/94 · 10/24/94 · 11/13/94 · 11/16/94 · 12/19/94 1/25/95 · 2/23/95 1· 3/29/95 -4/27/95 ... 5/24/95 · 5/25/95 · 6/22/95 -7/21/95 8/28/95 ·• I 9/25/95 -10/24/95 · 11/20/95 ·• 12/20/95 ·• 1/26/96 · 2/23/96 ., w N .i,.. 6 0 w N OJ 6 0 w N OJ 6 0 w w 0 6 0 w w N 6 0 ~ 0 6 0 w ~ 6 0 ELEVATION LMW-1 & VENT (FT) ~ Ul 8 w w OJ 6 0 ~ 8 w w OJ 6 0 G) ;;o 0 C: z 0 "ti :E (") )> OJ -I r m l> ;;o z mo r ::!! mr <r )> -I 0 z (/) ,. \ . t . . •
October 15, 1996
Note
TO: Patrick Barnes
FROM:
Joel Hirschhorn /
Mike Kelly \\Ji~-
SUBJECT: RFP'S FOR EXCAVATION HANDLING AT PCB LANDFILL
Enclosed are three proposals for the handling of soils at the PCB landfill. We are also
sending one copy to the Committee. Please note that on the one from Soil & Material Engineers
are copies of pages which should be inserted into their proposal. These corrected pages were
received on Monday, the 14th. The new pages have been inserted into our copy and the
Comminee's copy, but I left them out of yours so that you can see exactly what changes were
made, and why, in case there were any questions on them.
Thanks.
State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
AVA
DEHNR
October 14, 1996
To:
From:
Science Advisors Joel Hirschhorn, Patrick Barnes
BillMey~
Subject: RFPs, Schedules, Processes
♦ The responses to the RFP for providing soil materials from the landfill to vendors bench
scale investigations were due October 11, 1996. We received four responses.
♦ The Division will Federal Express copies to each science advisor on October 14, 1996.
Please provide recommendations for evaluation, review and selection process as deemed
appropriate. Please provide a schedule for the process.
The RFP fot constructing additional groundwater monitoring wells was forwarded on September 20,
1996. Please provide comments and recommendations in order for the Division to prepare final draft
for consideration of Science Advisors/Technical Committee/Working Group. Any recommendations
on process and schedules for the final draft would be appreciated.
Before the new sampling plan can be implemented, the contract for new monitoring wells must be in
place. Any delay in the RFP for construction of monitoring wells will delay sampling. After
the RFP for new monitoring wells is finalized by Science Advisorsffechnical Committee/Working
Group/State, approximately two weeks will be required to advertise and notice potential contractors.
This notice period will include a date for pre-bid conference and site visit.
After the pre-bid conference and site visit, approximately thirty days will be required for potential
contractors to submit final design (any recommendations at this time for response would be
appreciated). The contractor design selection by the Science Advisors/Technical Committee/
Working Group/State may require at least two weeks. If this process and schedule is accurate, it will
take approximately eight weeks before a contract is implemented. Any suggestions for accelerating
this process would be appreciated.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996 l:£M2d•Mmta
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Oct.14, 1996
RFPs, Schedules, Processes
pg. 2
The Division intends to issue a sole source contract to Triangle Labs (RTP) for dioxin analysis. We
can defend the basis for a sole source contract: only Dioxin Lab in North Carolina; access if
question/problems occur; access for lab certification staff of State to review all processes, equipment
and procedures. However, there is some risk involved. Due to the anticipated amount of the
contract, competing labs may challenge the sole source award. While this is not anticipated, and we
can successfully defend the contract, it will cause a delay if challenged. The option is to advertise up
front and select the service from a more competitive process. This will add some time to selecting
a contract lab. Any suggestions, comments, or recommendations would be appreciated.
BF A Environmental Consultants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Bill Meyer
Pat Barnes, P. G.
September 30, 1996
Requested Response to Peer Review Comments
Received 9/24/96
BFA#95-017
I was under the impression that the proposed supplemental sampling and testing activities had
already been agreed to by both the State (our July 3, 1996 meeting) and the Working Group (our
August 27, 1996 meeting).
I don't believe the project schedule will be best served by addressing the S&ME peer review
~ comments, in particular, at this stage. Moreover, It is difficult to respond comprehensively to
these comments when I don't know the peer review ground rules. For example, I am uncertain
which of the three drafts I submitted to the State was peer reviewed and if the individuals
performing the peer review were also given all the background data which we have.
We (the Science Advisors and the Working Group Technical Committee) are puzzled as to why
the State submitted their April 26, 1995 proposal for comparative review, especially when the
basis for the current proposal was jointly agreed to.
It is my opinion that these issues should be addressed prior to a formal response, hopefully that
will occur at our next meeting.
PAB/psg/9-30WM2.doc
cc: Technical Committee
The Hollister Building • 3535 Lawton Road · Suite 111 • O rlando. Florida 32803
O ffi ce [phone] • Fax [phone]
!-'-------//-~~~.._______.:.__~~-1:if~~--
1-:-------~~~~~~~-
j.:__---~~~~~~'£.L_~ _ ___.&'.'H,.(...__~~~-~clf,ll w.d cs~-7_ , 7).
~e . '!T7. o 7 ". .;:i,~ 'i_ d.1
+-----~64-~=-~~~~u.:k~v~~~_L_:_~A.~f_,L/...:~~i ~ ~~~ -6..<
!lt-6/1 ~ v~ kA&t~ ~rn. /£"' ::;-
-+-----1-L-,__,_,....;t, w,,t/ n•-l74d-lzt .,,,,.,Jd /Jd W( .a:;...L -p;;,,_.
. ,J? =,H,~ di~~~· ---
~----\~~~~~~ 1~ ~ ~
-,-,---~--~-u~ 1--o, 2 2 -~-257
7
------------
w-le~ le vef ( f-.&-/) !J~ l.w f., I of
q-2.V ,,-1b
C.i,r I Y1 s '." -
IJ!I,(. wtt.L we"' l,v~l,I.,.
..J_ 2. .J_ I/ i,C,<,1T -
;u v, -h M
I .JZ'f, '1 j' 1 I I ,
.JLIJ, '!'I ~.2.~l2. , 1._2Z, <iZ. .JS7,o 1 ' --
. t./!>, I..J ✓ :JS'.S~, I ~ 2o, o; 1 2-1(, -t/1. ::z.3.S3 ;2/,o 2.
'1-:1, -a' • 1/3, () 1/ J~-. '19 ..2'-/. z. ~ ~I, 1/, ~o.l'Z
z. :2., -r, 'l,'5 () 2 ..Jl/,t,t:J 23.58 21.Jq 2D, Y,'
t-:z_~ 'tf/, 'f 3. 2.S' ..J~.~6 2 2 ,Fo 2,t), 71, ;;o , 7S
~-.J/ ... qt, 't?. t,,tf ..,J.3.9,3 2:2. ID .,2{),/~
~-2,-t[, '-I 'I, 2~ ..J'I. 43 ,.2 /, 1G, It:/. 9~ .t.o. ?9
J.-2~ -'fl;_ ':LY.., 10 f_S, '2.5" 2.J ''l'i /1, 72-~/. If
2-::2.:3-1b L/S,b'2,. 3b,!;o 2.2 .7~ /9.2~ z.0,(,3
L-:2~-q_~ ':f_~,2f sz. 3t..L ,2. lj_, L_/_ 0. 2Q.~~ ?(), 9S-
-•----•H<•--•---
12.-20-C,~ ~~.(,'j_ 3 '1, ~() J..'-1, 'i~ 2-/• 98 20.~1 --· ------
II-'2.() -9$" L/S, Lfrg 38,Z..O .2.5, 3 (:. ~/. 'l) '20,.Zg'
IC-2'[-Cje; 'iS,3i-/ 3 8', 3 'f ,U,/0 :z.,,i;,.g 2 D, 3?
£-z~-g_K Y:_5".L<t 3_ g_ 12. .2,, 3 0 23. (,o
9-2.~.,,qs 45,D'-/ 3 7. 7 r./ 2s,Cl'6 J..3,3t,
7• '2..J-15 41.f. ~z J6,% :J..S: b'{ .22,<4. 2D,1/ 3
f-22-'f6 ':/__'-/.?'-J,. '1_1. 2 L/. '::i. "i 2.2.12 1.0.12
s--i.'-L-'15" . 'fl,I.G.<i 3,. ~o ;_"3_,18 :2-/S"/ ,20, 7-S'
't-:l.'/-,~ . l{'-{, ~ 2,,,. 0 '-t ... .t.3." 'll, O 6 2.0, ,1
--3-2.'l-'1~ 44. 'S'-1 ..u.s:o 1-:i..Gf (, :Z,O,'·(d 20. ,s:
~-23-~~ '1':J.. z, J2. Lfl,L ~'j. 1':f_ .2. r;."J_L/ 21, "tZ..
/-25--95 ~'4-, 02. .JZ5C :;.sl 1 (::, :J,,2,0(p ,-0,70
kJ.-/H' /4.v./{feci) 6e-l•w -1'/° -f c~.;-:J 9-2.t/,,-'1 (,, .. .. ---
w~/1.. Vt LL t.(Jt«..L ~JU..
I 2 .3 -'I U~,vi
I I I z! I 12.-'f-"11,,/ Lf3.," ..J7. '3 'I 2S. 2 2'2, 2.,). t, ,,,.
II-II,-f'-/ 43. 2~ J,.~g 2.S, J'Z.. zz, 9~ /7, g-'t:
0 .. 2.1/--'I c.f :l 'I ,<f I, ,2.Z, '2.'-f ~ (,,. 9,. 17, 7,
2 ,S°D .JS: 2-'-/.t-lo :2./, ~ I s*
2, oi 3C. t> 2.3,72 2.J, 3 g / g, C8 *
? ? 7 ? ? ,
" -2.1 ... 'ft../ . ''$ .'3o .2,.,, '1, 13
S-ll-4 2,ZO 20. ts I • 0 le,
oc:, 2l' ,03 F l,
V -,7'0 20,
··------~----· -✓
~--&,. i '52.
···----~-
00 ~, 0 0 2(..
1z-r1-'i'2 .s G. '3c ,.. 0 G. ;z.o gr,_
-/~ -'l3 ·"~ 5: g a.. , z.. .:l • 7
,70 '.5': 3~ • 17... 2/, -
'2-~ :J'r, G.'-J.:3,(&, :2./ ,/ 2..
J '/f, ;22, j'-/ 2.1) ,SL{
.-23-'=rj 0 ~(, .J).,£90 /,SL ,S''i
4u.~o .2 20, 5"" /'1, g~
s-20-,~ 31,I fg ,lb
4/, g $" t....! 0 /7, '$ 6
.J-1.t--Cf 42,75 '?2.?? /'1, ~l> 12. ~__z.
~{.--1:3 43.30 JJ.~t..f 2o,Cf5 19.o'/
I ,2,-q3 ':i.3, 7..,L • .J'f,'1'-21,.32,. 12.'i'f
.
w~I~,/ l~vf•.,/(~e-e--f) !,..<lw /4f -f c:-!1 0
f / I' I h-23-~2' 43,72 .'JS,11'& 12.(,Ct, 2P, o4
II-1-1.f-i-z. f/:l.6'l ,3S',1~ 2.3. "3'7 20,5"8
/()_ 2-7..-.,, 2-43, I./" 25'",., '{ 2,, 'f 2/, CJ~ ......
9-.2.tf-'11-43. 3 'i ..J'S. to 1..3,'t~ -zo.90
¥-fi-'l"l., 'f3. 2o 3'1,e,o 1.3, o 'i :Zb I "ft-
1-'30..g~ 43,0 '-I .,J'-/. '-1 </ 2.2.~, /tf. 9t,
Vuv, Wlll
l-eac.~at-t €.(ev,'t')~ .,
-$1.A.'M P f, ft. Me.a f t.AV'tJ" pc\~-
.. .z.i -I,
()()
44 I '2,q
,2-20 -S" <,8
I -, O I
'-11, 13
1-?...I --'-15, i.1
43.7
I I -I • q'
1-21.-qy
/'J.-11-n
I I -/'f .. 9 3
,~ .. J.2. """93
j'-Z?.-'[3
<l -3& ~q,3
7-23-9?,
{, , '2.~ 4)
5'-~,-:53
4 .. 2-3,1;,
j-)'2 .. 'f3
2-2., .. q3
I -2,--t;:1,
I
4S',1:£'.3
4 3,'2-I
Lf 2,l,O
'-tY.to
4:4, ~1
4k .e; ~
4:5'.'2S
'-/1,.0'2.
44, 'i (,
4'f.l2-
4:1.. 't'-f
42.. ,&fl,
'fl. ·'f 1.
'-/2. ,z..
'-/2.,,
L/3,2.1
1-eac.l..af--t E.{e1.1,1')n,...
-$u.'I,.,>. p f I ft. i'-1.~a j' t.AV'I_J {)t> .. .J--
l...eae.~ • f{. £. { e 1.1, t) r.,._ .,
-s .... lM P r, f" M.e.d,. t..A n :J pe>\ ..J--
¢lea1,ne01io11 ,leu·:rh~
4S. otj I
12,-2.3-1'.J'.2.
I I -IZ..-'ft, 'IS,' 2.
10· "l 7.-t.:f t.. 4~-. l.f 2.-
'l-2,Cf-1~ LfS.o o
'£-2-15--qz... 45,o'$
7, Jb -'1;_ '(3.11-
t -2, .qz 'f'2 ,S&./
s-2q_e12 ... 41 '2.5'
LI -z.q-'f)~ 'I I, 31 ·--. -. ·-·---· -· ------------.. ------···-.----. -. -
1-2?-'ff1.... 42. tl,.
_,, ____ . --. ----~ ~-··--·-. ----~--------
1..-21-ti'L 4Z, ti
1-'<l-'1'2. t../l/,41
11
l1--1 .. -.:,1 . tl'l.,O I.
I" ia -qf w".<,4-'2..
lc.rJ-qi 4.1 '1-o
_ti,. 1n -q I 4.~ :n
1-?/_ .,q/ ' 42 2.,
7-f-q, lit.I ~q
(,-27-91 : '-/P,i5
4_ 2!l--'f t ''" '11
I
I /·
I
. NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID \-V ASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
I ; I I i I i I I !
I i i I
i I I I
I !
I I I
I i ! ; !
I I ! I I I
i i i i .: \ I I I I i i i I ! !
! i I
I
i ! :,
i I
I I
! i
I
I
' !
i :---r-i I !
!
fl l j / I f ,,. I jl I r I i t 11 I I V 7i / I i
I : ! ' / ______ ,
35ti., ~-: ! ! ! ! L<J.J-~ ~e.;
i !
I
1"1 I•! !
i !
I i ! j w J_ V ,1, i ; --~----t--,---:----t-~----+-~..__,_.-+---"--+--'----'------l---'--l.--'--.;__-1
-r I '
j !
-··-i . -~,--,·
I I f
' ' ----,---'---'----,---'----'----'---I
i l !
l I i ;
_, /.,/i i I I i !
i l ' . 1F1 ! T I I I i ! I
l !
I ! ! i I I
Project Title:
By : )(4
L E Ac.lM Tc levEt.---?cB L F
Date: ro(,jt,,;-
Checked By: $:i/lA
Sheet _l__ of _l_
Date: 10 /1,, /c;J,,,, 1 I
:
i I
I! l i ! I
i i !
D rtvJ"I'\ ~~ ,: -£d }1t.i_!1/e-y
--~,0 (~e~
----·-·-· .. •··· .. -
fax
.
Number of pages including cover sheet
Pnone
Fax Phone
CC:
REMARKS:
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
3535 Lawton Road Suite 111
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone [phone]
Fax Phone [phone]
D Urgent O For your review O Reply ASAP O Please comment
'~ .:-..-~~.,_::, ~~~"-"\\.EAC-f1..Xt$ ~ f -+-I l--=-I -r----·. r I I 1 1 1 --~-~t-=--1------_r_____ ·r--'----~-:.! 1LEACHATElccES~WATlRLEV~L ·---~-,--~--~--------:~---~~ -±¥ + 1 J WIJ!llEN couNn f'Ctl tANDftU l 1 -------------· • ---[= ----,.--i-------------+----__ ,_ -·f-----· ---+---l---1 ------1--~--,-i--1 I I I ~ I ---1-------~-~ ·-----r--. --D,.Ut I -~I F•931 l.lo<-93I "4><-931 1.!ortl Joo.t)j Jul-93 A~ S.,..93I 0<1-YJ Na,-S~j O.C•tl J,._.9.~_,.94 M•-~• Ao•S• u.-,-~• Jun$4I Jul-94 .<~-~ s,..~O<:t·9• ltNATERl..f•·e. 1 13.UJ 13_591 1:usr 13.•fl 11•• 1a.01 tl.sa 1•.23~, •. 561 1•.J2 1•.~e~_ 13.95 ,.·i;'--1Jss 1l.H 13&1 1J.jSI 1•~ i<.BJI I ---1----¼----+--1----+---"'I-----+----+---r-1 •--1----i---='---=cl-__.___,i___~--=---i LEACHATE SYSTEM WATER LEVEL ,.;.; I -----------------. , Ji~ r-·---___.,..,----12.S ~-------------------l---+---+----;---1---/ 1• s .,.., '' "~ 13 S •st 1J ----~----il 5 --~: i, .. :i'" : -~~ t~ , .. "~ .:l"' I -~~~] L==l=--=t=-~I ·--·-·,-----r-----,-----·--.---~ -, U-t:i '-:it ill i.~ c:;l~:;:~ a~ .. ~i;~ ,z ~:::: ---~-!----+----~-I t I I I J_ I I I WARA LtVa :~r~:~:=~?:=~~-~= ,u ~-----------------,t:~Ir-1:ij..: ~~ wt:~t:;:""")t:~1.;._~ ~: ~~:. r~,.r;i,. , ... ..,.
,, •
PCB Landfill Measurements
The foUov..'ing water level and well depth measurements were taken on October 5, 1995 by Larry Rose,
hydrologic technician with the State's Solid Waste Section, and Bob Glaser.
Well# :MW-1 MW-2 :MW-3 MW-4 Landfill Well
Measuring
Point Elevation 343.99 329.98 325.12 322.82 357.67
(ft)
Well Depth l below ·.: ·.· ;fMeasutjpg 51.88 46.86 40.80 38.48
Point (ft)
Static Water
Level below
Measuring 45.23 38.25 26.38 23.48 20.43*
Point (ft)
Water Table 298.76 291.73 298.74 299.34
Elevation (ft)
Water Level
Elevation in 337.24
Landfill
•measurement made on July 21, 1995
The elevation of the bottom of the leachate collection system is approximately 321 feet above mean sea
level.
H:\BOB-G\G-BAJN2.WPD
:! ~-~:
\{\: ,-\ .,
.. ---·---------------···-----------
_____ , _____ •·•·-------·-··------·-····--
' ., I fl
. ,I '
RECOR0 OF
COMMUNICATION
0 F'HONe CAll O 0ISCUSSION
0 OTHER (SF'EClfYJ
FIELD TRIP D CONFERENCE
TO: fROM: CATE
10 -24 ~9
flME
$1JMMAlcY OF COMMUNICATION ..
Cl ~'v..\ \~~1t:.1J....~ \~ ~'f.\"":;..,...,i..\~ \IC:.l-,..lT ?' pt:: -l:).,;. 1c..!=-l•-l!uS \:iL8-JL"l~oj
c~ Vi;z1..n-P\ ~"E C..Q..."P-\~", ,a.µ;n ,o-p o'I=! l-\'-f-J f'\f'E-
t ----·· -r
-1.1&
.,L
"'!;\A.\o ... \ 2.\' "3 '<:_ _,
c..~\,)h..l..,,.Y 'P(..~ Lc-. .... 1 'OF=\\-!.__. ~-,,.~
l
~~kl2l--l.'
~ p, p.. -~
~
--·-----~------------------------------~--------; CuNc;ll)StQNS, .4CTIO~I T AKl':N QI, 11eQUIIU:O
: • \.\""L.~ I '2.1, ~~i"a.~
::. \"2.l&-,1'1
:. \J;.:l.,.)"r lc:1,;>fl.-!)J<.._ =-\Z.~,\9 -4 .z. 1
.... 12.1,12.
I • r
11 INFOIIMA TION COPtlS
TO,
! -•~: i:?~.:,o '-A 1.,~sD'::-~-v _,.,~ ~.101-?1: I<\?.;\.:,_..,.
EPA Ferm t:l'.l0-6 (7-72) F"c'l.1:-"f\-,\"'=> .,__;,"'l""l;. .
~.H\.4 RF~ \'2.t.:.,l'i-l\7S
-::.12A4l
I
. \~~"-..:T 4-k\ 1~~
•. ~ .
' ;>·:~!: \'.i),\, ':':',, :.1~t,, •"ti' ·'·. •,, ,,: ;, ·:,if/ ,·~~1.,·, ',, .. ,.I,
0
~;t :.. !..
µiv
~
~ ,...
f ._,,
I • 0 • □
~ :J-( "' l: i
'ii t !) ! e,I i r f
I J C" f -z.. "' I ,.,.
:D <n ; ,.., C"'l :< ► r .. ~
-" -c::!:: 'c ~;i;,-S! U:> a: ::r::, -= --lr-r"T'1 n, >,Z
::.c: s c:-, ,, = ~ ;:, ,.. ~~§ ,., ~ <=I r-::z; = C, .-~ 7'i -<
~ ij -
'
J
0 'ii :t .1 E. ri:.. -..D -I ~ ~
• 'e-• w Jk
~
,
0
~;1
:t f.
f!!~
" f ... ~
~ tf 'i! C7 E. 'Tl
l f
~ \ •
\,N
:i ;
,:.
0 (_a~ 11'1.'IO ') .
C:J (E.L"' 11D.O-Sl
0 (a .. 1u,o;') 1
I D l!iL" l'ZJ,H)
■(a1o 1-t..t~-;i I 0 (E.!..' 1-zi.sa)
0
0 (a.• J'ZJ.5$) r-1t
(~ r~ 0 (EL•l~."I{.) ,,
"' f ~ f~ /7<
TO:
RECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
0 PHONe CAlL
0 OTHER (SPECIFY)
FROM:
0 01SCUSSION 0 FIHD TRIP 0 CONFERENCE
(Recctd of item thecked above)
DATE
TIME i ----•·-·--·--------------..L------------------'---------I -~l SUIIJ!-:CI
I I ·s u_M_M_AR_Y_O_f _C_O_M_M_UN_\_C:A_T_IC-N--------------------------------------1,
.... ,
-1 :rB
l Liz-·,! ;.
s.c,o
-------_fl' 7?
v,co
....... ••.
I
..L
--~---. -·------...........
··-•
-··------·---------------------------------------~
CONCLUSIONS, ACTIO~I rAl(fN OR REOUIREO
INl'QlltMJI.TION COPUlS
TO:
EPA Form IJ00-6 (7·7'i)
L_ ___ .. \IC
) i \\
i i
I ..,._.,. ~:·. '=·
;. \ :--...
.::---
I, I
_r
""
! ~ G)
8 iii _,:;;
Cl ~
....
t--" (!) r-,..
.!!:! 0 z
)( . ro u...
"-i 0 ~ Q.
Scope of Work• Part II Monitorins We11s
2 O Ba~k~ound on Warren County PCB Landfill
..
~ u.
..
~ =-C: £ )( ni l.L
2.0.1 The State ofNonh Carolina (State) own• and maintain11 • clotod (July 1983)
polyehlorinated biphenyl (PCB) chemical waste landflll permitted in
aC00rdanoe with the Toxic Substance Control Act. (TSCA) and 40 CPR Part
761.
2.0.2 The PCB landfill I• located on the Eut aid• of SR 1604 approximately 1. S to
2.0 mile, ft-om the intenection of SR 1604 and US 401 South, 2·3 miles
from Warrenton, North Carolina.
2.0.3 The State ii committed to detoxtflcation of the PCB landflH utilizing
appropriate and fea.ible te~hnoloi)'.
2,0.4 The State hu e1tabli1hed a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill
2.0,5
2.0.6
2.0.7
WorJdna Group (Working Group) to evaluate ttchnoloaiot and tukt
aSIOCiated with the deto,dfication of the tandflll.
The Warren County PCB Landfill hu four (4) existing monltorina wells
designated aa MW-1. MW•2, MW-3. and MW-4 looated api,ro"imatoly east,
north, west and south re1poctively from the fenced ln area orthe landfill.
These are 1hown on Pi8Urt 1 ofthia RFP .
The purpose ofthe RPP i• to construct addhlonal aroundwatet monitoring
wells ln order to detormlne any extent or dfil'et of contamination external to
the landfill. Any contaminated soil material and/or aroundwater may require
detoxification in addition to the landflll ~~•• which may effect ,, A-D c; '( ~ ~ -
tochnoJosy and tcale of deto><iflcation eft'~ ~ ;v -~ ~-
Oraanic contamination will be determined by the leytavailable analytical ~
method• for trace orsnaica . Decontamination 0f1l1 equipment and devices
utilized in the construction of the well, is enential.
2. 1 Con~ptuaJ dealan oonalderationa for the monltorin, wells.
Z.1.1 Tho location and identification of the new monitorina wells required per this m are as described below and aro ahown in Figure 1.
Woll m # Dull Losatino
MW-JA Shallow Rut of tho landflll ~25' ~om the foncetlne
MW-J8 Deep Batt of the landfill ""25' from the fenc.Hno
MW-JA Deep Weat of the landtltl -2S1 &om the fenceUne
MW-4A Deep South of the landfill ~25' from th& f'encellne
--
~
P. 4
IIDIBIA\~1f
MW-5
MW-SA
MW-6
'MW•7
MW-7A
MW-8
'MW-9
MW•lO
Shallow
Deep
Dffp
Shallow
Doep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Northeast aorner of tho landflll -2S' ft-om the fenoeline
Northealt comer of the.Jandfill -25' from the fcncellne
In the 80Utheut draw u 1hown in Figure 1
Southwest comer of the landfill -2S' from the
fenceline
Southweat comer of the landfllt -25' ftom the
ftncelinc
In the northeast draw u shown in Piprc l
In tho northem draw •• ahown in Fiauro l
In the wos,ern draw u lhown ln Fisuro 1
2.1.2 The ahallow well• are to be tcreenod in the upper 10 feet of the aquifer .
2.1.3 All deep well, are to be drilJed to augtt refuaal ( 100 blows por foot). The
deep wells are to be screened from auaer refusal el8Vation to IO feet above
auaer ref\aaal. NOTS: Woll, MW-8, MW-9, and MW-to are to be handled
llightly differently a1 desoribed ln Section 2 .1.4
2.1,4 Welti MW-8, MW-9, MW-10 are to be drilled to auaer refu,aJ (sreater than
100 blow, per foot), lf1hero is a greater than lO foot saturated r.one above
auaer refu.al then 2 neated wells will be inatalled at that location, All nellted
wells will be screened u followa:
• The duper well, will be screened from auger refusal elevation to an
olcvatlon 10 feet above the auger refusal.
~ The ,hallow well• will be 1creened in the upper 10 roet of the aquifer.
2. I. S The monitoring wells are to be constructed in accordance with the following
requirements.
The relevant aection1 pertaiftin, to monitoring wells 11 contained in
TitlelSA North Carolina Administrative Code Subehapter 2C •
"Well Ccmstruetion Standards".
The US Environmental Protootion Agency. Region 4,
"Environmental lnvo&tigatlon, Standard Operating Procedurea and
Quality Assurance Manual" (May 1996) or equivalent,
Applicable ASTM 1tandards.
2.1.6 Deai9n or appropriate 1lu1 and/or pumpins teat, on ,elected well,.
2.1.? A!l well, are to be con1tructed with ltalnleaa ateel caaina and 1tainle11 steel ....... ! ~
f''~~ {_1-y;e ,JtLj
FAX COVER SHEET
PHONE:
PHONE: 73,.3-4996
COMMENTS:~ \.D-z___ Y\Q.,Lcj ~ D:\Q~ ~
c::h~.w X)O,,.o..e__C) CiY:c ?~& JU,,'.)2\v,,.F~
~cl \>0\CA~~r,7:D~
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:_,_)_,_()~_
DATE SENT: ~ cf-'-I c--..Cf (._p
♦S&ME
September 20, 1996
Mr. Patrick Watters
State of North Carolina
DEHNR -Division of Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Reference: Peer Review of the Warren County PCB Landfill Materials
Dear Mr. Watters:
---,rr-~-.~~· ?.,.,-l'tr" ,'c.k... u.)
t&/ I/ f}U,·rv'
The CEC/PENC Groundwater Subcommittee has completed our review of the referenced
information provided to us. We had two firms of our committee r:nembers respond to our
request: S&ME, Inc. and GEi, Inc. Rather than combine the comments by these firms, I
have elected to attach their reviews to this letter.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide peer review to you on this important project. If
we can be of further service, please call us.
Sincerely,
Groundwater Subcommittee Chair
cc: Mr. William Meyer
Director, Division of Waste Management
Mr. Donald F. Carter, P.E.
CEC/PENC Environmental Committee
S&ME, Inc. 3100 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604, [phone], Fox [phone]
Mailing address: P.O. 13ox 58069, Raleigh, North Carolina 27658-8069
-·-
September 20, 1996
Ms. Ann M. Borden
S&ME, Inc.
3100 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
Reference: Review of Warren County PCB Landfill groundwater issues
Dear Ann:
A review of the information that the State has provided has lead to the following comments
and recommendations on the proposals.
NOTES FROM REVIEW OF WARREN COUNTY LANDFILL PROPOSALS
COMMENTS:
1. Drawings in Packet #2 show monitoring well MW-1 off center of the ridgeline,
possibly at the very head of a swale. The BFA figures show the well just
about on the ridgeline. The actual location could strongly affect
interpretation of existing and future ground-water data and projection of the
potentiometric surface.
2. The modelling results in Packet #3 are clearly not representative of the
potentiometric surface due to insufficient data points. If monitoring well MW-
1 is indeed off-center of the ridgeline and near the head of a swale, much of
the apparent inconsistency of the data could be explained.
S&ME. Inc. J100 Spring Forest Rood. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. [phone]. Fax [phone]
Mailing address: P.O. Box 58069, Raleigh. North Carolina 27658-8069
Ms. Ann M. Borden
September 20, 1996
3. DSWM's proposal is to install deep wells to pair up with shallow wells MW-2
and MW-3, and to install two other well pairs on the northeast of the landfill,
very close to the edge of the landfill. Believe that the deep wells at MW-2
and MW-3 are merited and will be needed but the location of the new well
pairs puts too much credence on the existing landfill mapping. Groundwater
flow, particularly shallow, around the landfill needs to be better defined.
4. George Bain's comments are that the four existing wells at the site appear
to be functioning properly and that groundwater flow needs to be better
defined both laterally and vertically. He suggests a new deep well at MW-4
and three upgradient shallow wells upgradient of the site. He refers to a
Figure 1 and a Sverdrop and Purcell drawing which are not in the packet so
don't know exactly where he has in mind. Bain suggests constructing a new
potentiometric map with the new shallow wells first, then installing the two
new well pairs. Agree. We disagree on some details of discussion but agree
as to scope and approach. Would like to see Bain's proposed well locations.
5. BFA goes into quite a bit of discussion and depth of analysis. However, I
believe their plan goes beyond a reasonable extension of the existing data
and relies to a great extent on supposition, using generic geologic and
topographic data and interpretation to try to cover all contingencies.
Overall, their reasoning based on these principles is sound, except that I do not agree with
their projection of the water table. BFA's proposal projects that the water table is mounded
2
Ms. Ann M. Borden
September 20, 1996
beneath the unit and slopes away radially. However, using the principle that the water
table is a subdued reflection of the topographic surface (a principle that they reference and
rely on), the projected water table beneath site before construction of the unit would fall off
to the north, south and west from the north, since the unit was built on a ridge but not at
the crest of the ridge. According to the topographic mapping, the crest of the ridge is
located slightly east of the unit. Rather than a mound, there would be a slight gradient
originally under the site from east to west. Since the water table is recharged from surface
infiltration and the unit prevents infiltration in its footprint, the reduced recharge would result
in a slightly lower water table under the unit, increasing the gradient from the east to the
unit. This would slightly increase the gradient from the east part of the ridge to the unit and
a very slight decrease in gradient from the unit to the west. The :result is a flattening of the
water table, not a mound.
Some specific comments to the BFA report:
Do not see a need at this time for PCB/dioxin analysis of soil samples above the
water table.
Agree with installation of well pairs 1 (A,8), 5(A), and ?(A). May ultimately need
5(8) and 7(8) but not yet demonstrated, so I list them as "maybe's". Do need a
shallow well on the west side as well.
3
Ms. Ann M. Borden
September 20, 1996
Rather than put in deep wells at existing wells MW-3 and MW-4 and label them
MW-3A and MW-4A, all deep wells should have the same nomenclature system;
that is, the deep wells should be "B" wells and the shallow "A" wells, as BFA
suggests for new well pairs.
Do not believe that new wells MW-8 or MW-6 are justified at this time. If MW-6
were installed, it should be located further up the draw.
Do not like background wells on another ridge. Don't see the need for 3
background wells on that ridge. Believe that further analysis will show that
upgradient well is possible to the east of the unit on the· same ridge.
With the choice, would prefer several slug tests in this regime, rather than one
pump test.
During drilling of test borings for new wells MW-1, MW-5, and MW-7, soils should
be sampled from surface, not wait until get to base elevation of unit.
BFA questions function of existing well MW-1, since it seems very stable over time.
Yet Bain looked at same data and states that all wells appear to be quite functional.
Need more info, such as how does the well recharge when bailed for sampling?
4
Ms. Ann M. Borden
September 20, 1996
MY RECOMMENDATIONS:
I believe that we have to learn how groundwater is flowing in the immediate vicinity of the
unit first, then we can extend the system based on that understanding, historical records
from the existing wells, and understanding of the site geology and topography.
My recommendation is to install a shallow well at the approximate mid-point of the four
sides of the unit. Deep wells should be installed paired with the new shallow well along the
eastern side of the unit and at existing wells MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4. This system of new
wells will establish three well rows radiating from the pair along the eastern edge of the unit
in the direction of the three main swales to the west of the eastern ridge.
It will also provide a set of four deep wells covering the same area.
Water level readings will have to be modelled to evaluate groundwater flow directions
around the unit. This should not be done with a simple contouring program but be
modelled in light of existing topographic and geologic conditions. After this modelling is
complete, an analysis can be done to evaluate whether additional wells are needed (and
where) and which wells should be sampled.
If there is any further discussion, I am available at 872-2660.
Sincerely,
S&ME,l~c.
~-
Ernie Parker, P.E., .G.
Vice President
5
GE I Consultants, Inc.
September 16, 1996
Ms. Ann M. Borden
S&ME,Inc.
3100 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: Peer Review of Work Plan Materials
Warren County PCB Landfill
Dear Ann:
7721 Six Forks Road
Suite 1.16
Raleigh, NC 27615,5014
919·676·0665
In reply to your letter to Steve Whiteside dated September 4, 1996, the following are comments
on the materials you provided on the Warren County PCB Landfill. I have combined my
comments on the State's plan with those on the Barnes, Ferland and Associates plan to facilitate
comparisons.
Comments of George L. Bain (October 19, 1995 letter)
• I agree that the direction of growidwater flow in the area of the landfill cannot be
adequately evaluated with the existing well network. Additional monitoring wells are
needed for this purpose. Evaluation using groundwater-level data from the existing wells
and the new wells may reconcile the apparent contradiction between the State's
interpretation of the direction of shallow groundwater flow (to the north and northeast)
and the surface topography of the site, which drains generally radially from the landfill.
• I have not located "Sheet 3, Sverdrup & Parcel, 8/12/81" cited in item 2 of the
Recommended Alternate Plan. Consequently, I am not able to comment on the
recommendations.
State Draft Workplanfor Upgrading the Ground Water Monitoring System at the PCB Landfill
(April 26, 1995) and Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc. 's PCB Landfill Supplemental Site
Investigation Plan (Summer I 996)
• The BF A plan refers to ''the existing Sampling Plan dated July 12, 1994." I believe this
plan was not included in the materials provided. Consequently, I may not have the full
context of the work proposed by BF A. I am offering comments based on my
widerstanding of the situation from the materials provided.
C' ... mcmd, NH Winchester, MA Chic:ai,:o. IL Enj!lt:woml. CO C'..arlsbad, CA S:;,.n Fnmdset1, C'..A
Ms. Ann M. Borden September 16, 1996
• The basis for the State's plan appears to differ from that of the BFA plan in the
interpretation of the probable direction of shallow groundwater flow from the landfill.
The BFA plan appears to emphasize the general assumptions that ''the natural water table
in this area should be a subdued expression of the surface topography" and "recharge to
the mowid, or groundwater reservoir, occurs by downward infiltration through the
unsaturated zone to the water table, where the infiltrating fluid becomes groundwater."
The State appears to place considerable emphasis on its interpretation of a
north/northeast direction of groundwater flow, based on repeated measurement of
groundwater levels in the four existing monitoring wells. While it is reasonable for BF A
to make its assumptions in the absence of other information, the State has accumulated
groundwater monitoring data that appear to contradict the assumptions. While not an
objective stated in the BF A plan. the BF A plan would provide data that would enable a
more comprehensive evaluation of groundwater flow. The State's plan would not
evaluate this apparent contradiction.
• In addition to information on groundwater flow, the new monitoring wells will provide
additional information on groW1dwater quality. Both the State's plan and BFA's plan
appear to locate monitoring wells for both early detection of releases from the landfill
and for detection of migration at some distance from the landfill. Again, the well
locations per the State's plan appear to be based on the interpretation of a north/northeast
direction of groundwater flow, and BF A's well locations are based on the assumption of
radial groundwater flow, with emphasis on surface drainage cL.--aws. Because of the larger
number of wells in the BF A plan and their strategic placement in the most likely paths
of groundwater flow, the BF A plan is more likely to detect releases from the landfill than
the State's plan.
• Parts of the narrative in the BF A plan are confusing and should be clarified. Certain
sentences or phrases may also need to be edited.
On page 5-3, the third paragraph begins with a comment about flow in fractured
rock (apparently incorporating one of George Bain's comments). But the "deep"
wells are to be installed within the weathered rock. While the comment may be
valid, it could cause confusion about the distinctions among rock, weathered
rock, and saprolite.
On page 5-3, third paragraph, two sentences assert knowledge of the site
hydro geology; they appear to be statements of general principals of hydrogeology
rather than what is known about the site: "The orientation of the draw features
which surround the site is directed by fractures. Enhanced directional
groundwater flow will occur along these fractures." I doubt that the
understanding of the site would support these statements as facts.
Ms. Ann M. Borden .. -:,-September 16, 1996
On page 5-3, third and fourth paragraphs, the term "intercept" is used where it
appears that the term "intersect" is intended.
On page 5-4, first paragraph, reference is made to identifying contaminants in
groundwater at background locations. Are contaminants other than PCBs and
dioxin a concern for this site? If not, I question whether analysis for a range of
parameters is warranted.
Because it is more comprehensive, the BFA plan will also be more costly to implement. Given
the concern about the accumulation of infiltration water in the landfill cell and the resulting
concern about the effect on groundwater quality, the cost of the more comprehensive plan
appears to be warranted for the situation. The BF A plan provides a higher probability of early
detection of a release from the landfill. Also, I have some concern that the State's plan depends
on the interpretation of the direction of groundwater flow based on water levels in only four
monitoring wells; if there are components of shallow groundwater flow in directions other than
north and northeast, work conducted under BFA's plan is more likely to observe these
components than the work under the State's plan.
I would be glad to discuss my comments with you or with the State.
Sincerely,
GEi CONSULT ANTS, INC.
~7t-~
Kevin R. Boyer, P.E.
Environmental Division Manager
KRB:cf
c: Steve Whiteside
ACTIUIT Y REPORT(TX)
~)9.24.1996 ?Ci .... -·
9197 153605 SOLID WAST E DIU
DATE TI ME DURAT I ON REMO TE ID MOD E PAGES RE SULT
09 .20 13: 4 9 00' 00 " 971501 66 G3 0 I NT ERR UPT
09 .20 13:50 00' 00" 97 1 50 1 66 G3 0 I NTE RRU PT
09 .20 13 :5 2 01 ' 4 4 " 84078961822 G3 3 0 . K .
09 .20 14 : 0 4 00' 28" 9 103424021 ECM 1 0 . K .
0'3 . 20 14 :07 0 1 '33 " 830 1949 1237 ECM 3 0 . K.
~t 9 . 20 1 4 : 1 1 0 1 '04 " 9197 150 166 ECM 1 0 . K .
09.20 14: 23 00 ' 46 " 704 8 68 564 2 ECM 1 0. K .
09 .20 15 :37 0 2 1 16 JJ 7039349740 ECM 3 0 . K ,
09 .23 08 :42 00' 00·'' 9469996 7 G3 0 I NT ERRUP T
09 .23 08 :43 00' 00" 94699967 G3 0 I NTE RRUP T
09 .23 08 :43 00' 00" 94699967 G3 0 I NTE RRIJ F'T
09 .23 08 :43 03' 26" 9 4699967 ECM 6 0. K .
09 .23 1 0 : 1 4 0 1 ' 1 3" 704 522 0063 ECM 2 0 . K .
09 .23 10 :50 00 ' 00" 99199549932 G3 0 N.G.25
09 .23 10 : 5 2 00 ' 48" 9 19 95 4 9 932 ECM 1 0 . K.
09 .23 11 : 39 00 ' 00" 98344564 G3 0 fL G. 20
09 .23 1 1 : 4 1 00' 41 " 834 4564 G3 1 0 . K.
09.23 1 2 : 1 4 00' 00" 7332 178 G3 0 IN TE RR UPT
09 .23 1 2 : 1 5 00' 00 " 4892499 G3 0 INTERRUPT
09 .23 12 : 16 01 J 57 11 9194892499 G3 3 0 . K .
09 .23 1 2 : 1 9 00 1 28 11 919 7153060 ECM 1 0 . K .
09 .23 12 : 32 01'58 11 493 5272 ECM 3 0 . K .
09 .23 13 :43 0 1 '03 " 9 19 715 0588 G3 2 0 . K .
09 .23 1 4 : 1 0 00 ' 00 " 8513865 1930 133 0 IN TE RRU PT
09 .24 08:04 07 1 55 11 830 19 491237 ECM 14 0 . K .
0 '3. 2 4 09 :03 03, 55 11 83019491237 EC:-1 7 N.G .39
09.24 0 9 : 15 06 J 15 11 84'0~ _. -------
09 .24 09 :27 00' 00" 82026247875 G3 0 N. G. 25
09 .24 09 :27 00' 00" 82026247875 133 0 IN TE RRU PT
09 .24 09 :28 00 ' 46 '·' 8202624 7875 ECM 1 0. K .
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Potential respondents
FROM: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
SUBJECT: Monitoring Wells for the Warren County PCB landfill
The Division of Solid Waste Management (Division) has drafted a request for proposals
(RFP) for work on the Warren County PCB landfill.
The scope of work is generally defined in the enclosed RFP. However, there may be
other issues or elements that should be included in the RFP. A pre-bid meetin2 is scheduled
for AT 8:30AM AT 401 OBERLIN ROAD, RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA 27605 IN CONFERENCE ROOMS fl/VD ~{'7:€: u1s11SC~(,{t£/..J
4T /,' 67:) PM ·
The Division realizes that this is short notice, however, due to the potential cost and
resources needed to provide data on the landfill, the Division has determined that feedback from
potential respondents at a pre-bid meeting is the most effective means of addressing questions on
the project.
The Division is looking forward to working with respondents on the PCB landfill.
Participation in the pre-bid conference is a pre-requisite for consideration of bid proposals.
I
Scope of Work -Part II Monitoring Wells
2.0 Background on Warren County PCB Landfill
2.0.1 The State ofNorth Carolina (State) owns and maintains a closed (July 1983)
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) chemical waste landfill permitted in
accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and 40 CFR Part
761.
2.0.2 The PCB landfill is located on the East side of SR 1604 approximately 1.5 to
2. 0 miles from the intersection of SR 1604 and US 401 South, 2-3 miles
from Warrenton, North Carolina.
2.0.3 The State is committed to detoxification of the PCB landfill utilizing
appropriate and feasible technology.
2.0.4 The State has established a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill
Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate technologies and tasks
associated with the detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.5 The Warren County PCB Landfill has four (4) existing monitoring wells
designated as MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4 located approximately east,
north, west and south respectively from the fenced in area of the landfill.
These are shown on Figure 1 of this RFP.
2.0.6 The purpose of the RFP is to construct additional groundwater monitoring
wells in order to determine any extent or degree of contamination external to
the landfill. Any contaminated soil material and/or groundwater may require
detoxification in addition to the landfill contents which may effect
technology and scale of detoxification effotts.
2.0. 7 Organic contamination will be determined by the least available analytical
methods for trace orgnaics. Decontamination of all equipment and devices
utilized in the construction of the wells is essential.
2.1 Conceptual design considerations for the monitoring wells.
2.1.1 The location and identification of the new monitoring wells required per this
RFP are as described below and are shown in Figure 1.
Well ID # ~ Location
MW-IA Shallow East of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
MW-lB
MW-3A
MW-4A
Deep
Deep
Deep
East of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
West of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
South of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
MW-5 Shallow
MW-SA Deep
Northeast comer of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
Northeast comer of the.landfill ~25' from the fenceline
In the southeast draw as shown in Figure 1 MW-6 Deep
MW-7 Shallow Southwest comer of the landfill ~25' from the
fenceline
MW-7A Deep Southwest comer of the landfill ~25' from the
fenceline
MW-8 Deep
MW-9 Deep
MW-10 Deep
In the northeast draw as shown in Figure 1
In the northern draw as shown in Figure 1
In the western draw as shown in Figure 1
2.1.2 The shallow wells are to be screened in the upper 10 feet of the aquifer.
2.1.3 All deep wells are to be drilled to auger refusal ( 100 blows per foot). The
deep wells are to be screened from auger refusal elevation to 10 feet above
auger refusal. NOTE: Wells MW-8, MW-9, and MW-10 are to be handled
slightly differently as described in Section 2.1.4
2.1.4 Wells MW-8, MW-9, MW-10 are to be drilled to auger refusal (greater than
100 blows per foot). If there is a greater than 30 foot saturated zone above
auger refusal then 2 nested wells will be installed at that location. All nested
wells will be screened as follows :
The deeper wells will be screened from auger refusal elevation to an
elevation 10 feet above the auger refusal.
The shallow wells will be screened in the upper 10 feet of the aquifer.
2.1.5 The monitoring wells are to be constructed in accordance with the following
requirements.
The relevant sections pertaining to monitoring wells as contained in
Titlel5A North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 2C -
"Well Construction Standards".
The US Environmental Protection Agency -Region 4,
"Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual" (May 1996) or equivalent.
Applicable ASTM standards.
2.1.6 Design of appropriate slug and/or pumping tests on selected wells.
2.1. 7 All wells are to be constructed with stainless steel casing and stainless steel
screen.
2.1.8 All drill cuttings are to be containerized in 55 gallon drums.
2.2 Deliverables
2.2.1 Bid options are to be submitted for:
-Mobilization
-Decontamination
-Materials
-Drilling
-Slug and/or pumping tests
-Cost per foot and total cost based on adherence to the EPA Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual noted in 2.2.5 of this
RFP.
-Cost per foot and total cost with alternatives to the EPA Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual that are equivalent.
2.3 Criteria for selection of respondent
2.3.0 Appropriate design and technology proposed
2.3.1 Demonstrated experience and qualifications for landfill project with emphasis
on North Carolina projects.
2.3.2 Cost ofbid option submittals
2.3 .3 Financial capacity for assurance of performance and environmental
impairment protection.
2.3.4 Past performance with respect to working relationships with clients and
compliance with project cost, schedules and management of change orders
resulting from unanticipated activities.
2.3.5 Capability and commitment to work with the Department and citizens
working group.
2.6 Process for selection of respondent
2.6.1 RFP sent to approximately 40 companies that have experience in working on
landfill projects in North Carolina.
2.6.2 PRE-BID CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT:
401 OBERLIN ROAD,
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, 27605
IN CONFERENCE ROOMS ON AT 8:30 AM.
Technical presentation by DWM staff, respond to questions and provide
specific data needed for project. Members of the joint State/Warren County
Working Group will be encouraged to participate in the pre-bid conference.
(Attending pre-bid conference will be a prerequisite for consideration of bid
proposals).
2.6.3 A bid response date will be established at the pre-bid conference.
2.6.4 All respondents subrnittals will be reviewed and a selection of at least 3
proposals will be submitted for review to the Working Group. The Working
Group may request a presentation from the 3 selected proposals.
2.6.5 The Working Group will make a recommendation to the Department for
final selection of a contractor.
2.6.6 The Division of Solid Waste Management will draft a contract and negotiate
with the selected contractor.
2. 7 File information is available for review. Respondents should contact Pat Williamson, at
[phone], ext. 337 for a schedule of file reviews.
2.8 Attachments
2.8.1 Monitoring well location map -Figure 1
2.8.2 Location/vicinity maps -Figures 2 and 3
2.8.3 Two 3.5" diskettes of the US EPA Region IV "Environmental Investigations
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (May 1996)
I
... ;i-1. 3 ~ 5 n ::r ', , I I ' ,, \ ' I I • • . •
' I I ' ,
I I I ' I I ,
I ·,... ,, ----
-.. \,;I u i,., c::r, u n ,, 3 ~ J C/1 I» ?$. ~ n C/1 ~-[ :r s· R R ID 0 ii' OQ I ,. s· §' ~ ! • OQ ,, if if ! a ':2. §. ti' =' tl to ~-,, = -! OQ C/1 ! s· e, ii;'" "-
---\
I I I E.
'
,-
\ ' I ' I I I I I I
I I
, \
' ', ', ... ,
'
... , I --.. ••••• .. , ,..-----
\, .
', _,,' ......... , ... ____ ,,,,,,
W AIUlEN coumY PCB LANDFI1J. Srt'E
-------..... @ . --,·
•
>
z
z
-
).-·
I .~
,,/ \
~ ." n
0
C
z
~ .
,
)
)
\\ ' r'
J
•
.
'f-
#t ◄ ,1' ' I ~ .. "'
Scope of W~k .. Part ll Monhorins Wei,
2.0 B~ound on Warr., County PCB undftll
2.1
2.0.J Tht State of North Carolina (State) own, and maintain• a doMd (July 1983)
potychtori111ted biphtnyl (PCB) chemical waett l1ndfill ,,.,-mlttod ln
IKIOOrdanct with the ToKic SublWICO ConU'OI Act. (TSCA) and 40 CPR Part
761.
l . 0.2 Th• PCB landfill 11 loc1ted on tht But aide of SR 1604 approximately 1. 5 to
2. 0 milel tom the intenection of SR 1604 and US 40 I Sou,h, 2~3 mile,
ft'om Warrenton. Nol1h Carolina.
2.0.3 The State It committed to detoxltlcalion ofthtPCB landftl utllldng
appropriate and f'Bulbl1 tKhnolo9Y.
2,0.4 The State hu tttabll1hed I Joint Warren County/Sttte PCB Landfill
Warldna Group (Worldn1 Oroup) to ,valuate ttchnoloaltt and tuk•
moolated Yilth the detol(Jflcatlon of the landftll.
2,0.S The Warren County PC& Landftll hu four (if) e>dttlna monltorln1 well,
dellgnated u MW~t, MW•2, MW.3. and MW•41ooated appro"imattly eatt,
north, wett and eouth retpectiveJ)' fl'om the fenced in area ortht landflU.
Thelt Ill 1hown on Pl,ur, J or tNI RFP.
2.0.6 The purpo" or the JUPP II to conatruot addltlonal aroundwetet monltorinJ
wen, In order to dettrmll\e any extent or depN or oontamlnatlon o,cternal to
the landDU. Any rontmiriattd 10II material and/or 1roundwattt may require
dttoitifieation In addJllon to the landflll ~~ll wheoh may cft'e<,t ,...u,<; r ~ · -<
tochnoloaY•nd IClleofdeto><ifteatlonene ~ f'V .~~ ti'
2.0.1 Oraanic contamination wiU be determined 1,y the lout avaUable 1n1lyticaJ ~
method• fbr trace orsnalc1. Deoontaminatlon c,fliiequlpment and device•
utilized in the con1trualon of the well• le e,aendal .
Co~tual dllip oon,ideratlona for tht monltorina well,.
l . l , l The location and Identification of die new monitoring wwl11 required per thl1
k1P are .. de.crtbed btlow and are lhown in Fiaure I .
Wal m 4f Dlcldl w.as1on
MW-lA Shallow l!ul or the landftll -2,• &orn the ftn~llne
MW• I 8 Deep IHt of the landfill ""25' ft'om the fenceline
MW•3A Deep Welt of the landfill ... 2,• ftom the fencolfne
MW-i4A Deep South of the landfill -2S' &om the hnceUne
MW-S
MW-SA
•MW-6
--'MW-7
MW-7A
. MW-I
'MW-9
: MW-10
~-
ShaUow
Deep
Deep
Shallow
DNp
Deep
Dtep
DNp
Northeall oomcr of the landflll -25' fl-om the f'tnoeline
Nonhe11t comer of1h1,1andft11-25' fl-om the r~lne
In the 10uth1Ut draw u lhown In Plaure I
South""8t corner of the landf\11 ~2S' ftom the
f'e11ccllne
Southwett comer of the landflll .. 25• f\'om the
tencellne
In the northeut draw u 1hown In Piprc, I
In tho nonhem draw .. ,hown In Pipe 1
In tht Wt1tem draw M lhown in Pil\lrt I
2.1.2 The lh1Uow well• are to ba 1CN1eT1ed In the upper JD fMt of the aq11if'er.
2.1.J AH deep wen, are 10 be drilled to auger rtft&aal ( 100 blow• por foot). The
deep w.tl11 aro to be screened ft-om auaer ret\laal eltv,tion to IO feet above
auaer rtfulll. NOTB: Well1 MW-I, M\V .. 9, and MW•IO •~ to bo handled
.U1htly dln-ently H dnorlbed ln section 2.1.it
2.1.◄ Weft, MW4, MW-9, MW-10.,. to bt drilled to qer refttaal (lrt1ter than
100 blow, Pft foot). lfehere la a 1reat1r than 30 foot 11tul'lted r.one abo\'e
ai1or re"1tll then 2 ne,ted welte will be installed at that location. All netted
well, wlU be aeened II followa:
~
The deeper well, will be weened from auger ret\lHI elevation to an
elevation 10 feet ebovt the aupr ref\a11I.
11111 1h1llow well, wUI be •crooned in the upper JO feet of the aquifer,
2. J .S Tho monitorins well• are to be con,tn,ettd in 1000,dance with the followina
requirtmenta.
2. J .6
2. 1.'1
• The relevant NCtion1 perta!nin, to monltorins well• 11 contained i\
Thl,UA North Carolina Admlnl1tratlve Code Subch1pttr 2C •
"Well Conltniction Stand&rda".
The US Environmental Protection ~ • Region 4.
"Environmental lnv11tl911ion, Standard Operatlns Procedurea and
Quality Atsuranet Mm11t• (May 1996) or equivalent.
Applicablt ASTM 1t1nd1rd1.
Detfan of approprlatt alu1 ,~or pumpina teat• on aelected wetl,.
AJI well, 11• to bo conatruc1 td with ltllnlNt lteel cutna and ,tainleu steel
acreen. / ~
,f''~~ {_17/e 3l~L-)
I .,..
~;.
~~/-s
{!) ~58 c!)/ '-f/e /0-/4AJ~ frr &a.~t/nf<r1-_
;;:,olald ~lder5 ca-~e --ne ~a,~ fable/
-rztg ~;; lrd-C.-frr 7hz. I ( r::uJ c/;,,-Ma/ 1)'
11, e /dcl 6-f!d41~s~ a~~ f -1-o h
«d //llA-f te-~-/ ro/(! ye/ btJ_Y I u y a I-~ /' '
-/!1r.ee (3) d;1evlJ d,:j•acVtf-/a:,,..;{,"'5.
{P ~Y b;cfdf;,iy /v>po5~s ~{!_ ~=-4v-
-5/u.l( as>vfife ~ ~ve,rc,.,J,e de~ °{{'
~<pf~ c;;d..all~ wel/2a,,4'
9v~f /H ~/7 ?U3/ls.
"
FROM HC DEHNR SOLID ~ASTE SECTION 733-4810
Scope ofW~k .. Part II Monitorina Wells
2.0 BM::k ... ound on Warren County PCB Landfill
2.0.1 Tho State of North C!arollna (State) own• and maintain• • cloled (July 1983)
polychlorinatod biphonyl (PCB) chemi"' watte landfill i,ermitted in
accordance with the Toxic Subttance Control Act. (TSCA) and 40 CPR Part
761.
2. 0.2 The PCB landfill i1 located on the East aide of SR 1604 approximttely 1. 5 to
2.0 miJea ft-om tho intersection of SR 1604 and US 401 South, 2-3 miles
from Warronton. North Carolina.
2.0J The State is committed to deioxitloadon of the PCB landfill utilizing
appropriate and feuible technoloi)'.
2,0.4 The State hu c1tabli1hed a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill
Working Oroup (Workina Group) to evaluate technoloaie1 and tuka
as,ociated with the deto>tifleatlon of the landfill.
2.0.s Th11 Wan-en County PCB Landft11 hu four (4') exl1ting monltorina well•
de1ignatod as MW•l, MW•2, MW-3. and MW•4 looated appro"imatoly east,
nonh, west and 110uth respectively &om the fenced in area of the landflll.
Thieu are ,hown on Fiaure 1 of thia RFP.
P . 3
2.0.6 Tho purpose of the llFP is to con,ttu,;:t additional around water monitorins
well, in order to dettrmlne any extent or de,rte or contamination external to
the landftU. Any contaminated 1011 material and/or aroundwater may require
2.0.7
dotoxiflcation in addition to the landflll ~~ta which may effect ,. .w<; '( ~ ~
teehnoloSY and ~1• of deto,dfiQatiort eff'e ~ ,v ,~ s--<-'
Oraanic contamination will be determined by tho lean,1vailable analytical ~
method• for trace orgnaica, Decontamination ofiii equipmentind device,
utilized in the oonstru~ion of tho wens is enential.
2. I Con~ptuaJ do1ia,, oon1ider&tion1 for the monltorina wells.
2, l. J Tho location and identification of the ntw monltorlna wells requlred per this
R1'P are •• described below and are 1hown in Figure I . w•m• Dl&2'11 ~loo
MW-lA Shallow BNt of the landtlll -25' ft-om tho f'oncollne
MW-JB Deep Batt of'tho landfill "'25' &om the fencelinc
MW-lA Deep Weat ofthe landftll-15' ftom the fenceline
MW•4A Deep South of the landfill ~25' ft-om the feneeUne
,, F~OM NC DEHH R SOLI D WASTE SE CTION 73!-•aie •
MW .. S
MW-SA
• MW-6
---'MW-7
Shatlow
Deep
Deep
Shallow
Deep
°"P Deep
Doep
Northeaat oomor of the landflll '""251 ft'OM tho tenoc,Une
Northtalt corner ofthe.Jandflll •2!' from the foncellne
In the eoutheut draw u ahown in Plgure l
Southwest comer of the landfill ~251 ftom the
tenceline
Southwest comer of the landflll ~1S' from ,he
f'enceHnc
ln the notthealt draw u shown in Pipro l
In the northern draw u 1hown in Fiauro l
In the western draw II ahown in Fiaure 1
2.1.2 The shallow well• are to be screened in the upper IO feet of the aquifer.
2.1.3 All deep well, are to be drilled to auser rttl&aal ( JOO blows per foot). The
deep wells are to be screened from auaer refuaal elevation to l 0 teot above
auacr refbaaJ. NOTB: Wel11 MW-8. MWP9, and MW•tO are to be handled
lllghtly dlft«ently aa described in Section 2.1.4
2.1,4 Woll, MW-8, MW .. 9, MW•IO are to be drilled to auser refuaal (sreater than
JOO blow• per foot), If there l1 a greater than lO foot saturatod zone above
auaor refi.aaat then 2 noatod wells will be installed at that location . All nested
well, wlll be acroened u follows:
~
The deeper well• will be screened ft-om auger refusal elevation to an
elevation 10 feot abovo tho aupr retinal.
The ,hallow welt, will be acreened in the upper l O feet of the aquifer.
2 .1. S The monitoring wen, are to be constructed in accordance with the tollowina
requirtment1.
.. Th, rele,,oant sections pertainlnJ to monitoring wells II contained in
Title 15A North Carolina Admlni1tratlve Code Subchaptcr 2C ..
"Woll Cr::mstruction Standarda".
The US Environmental Protection Apncy. Region 4,
''Bnvironmontal Invoatisations Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Alsuranc:e Manual• (May 1996) or equivalent.
Applicable ASTM standards.
2. 1.6 Dealan or appropriate 1lu1 and/or pumpina t01t1 on eelected well,.
2.1.7 AU wolls ere to be con1tructed with stainless stool casina and stainle,s steel
ocr .. n. / ~
f ,r~~ ( T"!f7e .3-!'2 __ ,__LJ_.__._
-..... ----·· ---·----
-/)
11
# {!) ~5{: i>/ '-fl e /d~A /iaf' ft> y cfMU/ v-., -, .
;:;,ola W jM-v/ c/er; c1::,, ~e, --/1 e t,{la,/4,,---fabk
-/'11e t:£'11/yd<--fay 7)a.l ~ t7A df,,e.Jtt¢ ~
--n /'&(cl G-&/o7rsf-a~r7 f 1-o
I u € T?t / . /-v
tf(c/vd,,t,(te,_ btd. /T~Ycl ~Ytuf a 1--~/7
-/Zlr~ (3) c/;i&:,,IJ df/acMf-/~J"i,,5.
{P ~r b;cldlt'tf fvr7{)5,,a_-s --Me ~~~
-5 k I I a >> v ftf e avi c>. ve,,, <A-J-f! de ,,vft, °(("
-f< pf~ ,;;d.a//4.-.r w-el/2~
90 {fe-e f / M l}e.e,/ µei/s
FROM NC DEMNR 50LID WRSTE SECTION 733-4810
---
-~
MW•S
MW•SA
. MW--6
'MW-7
MW-7A
MW-8
1 MW•9
MW-JO
Shatlow
Deep
Offp
Shallow
Deep
Dup
Deep
Deep
Northeaat. oomer of the landflll ""2S' fl'om the fonoeli"-·
Northealt corner of the.Jandf111 .. 25' from the fertoeline
In the aoutheut draw u 1hown in Ftaure l
Southwest corner of the landftll .... 2s1 from the
fenceHne
Southwest comer of the landflll ~251 from the
feneeline
In tho northealt draw u 1hown in Fipro l
ln the northern draw u ahown in Piauro 1
In the wost.em draw u lhown in Figure I
2.1.2 The shallow wella ire to he acreoned in the upper 1 O f'etl of the aquifer.
2.1.3 All deep wells are to be drUled to auger rtf\aaal ( 100 blows per foot). The
deep well, arc to be screened from auacr refusal elevation to l 0 feet above
auacr refuaal. NOTB: WollsMW-8, MW~9, and MW•lO are to be handled
slightly differently 11 desoribod in Section 2.1 .4
2.1.4 Wells MW-8, MW-9, MW-10 are to bo drilled to augcrreftaaat (greater than
JOO blow• per foot). If there ia a greater than 30 foot 1aturatod ione above
auaer rtfus&l then 2 neated wens will be installed at that location. All nested
well, will be acreened aa follows:
The deeper wella will be &oreened from auger refusal elevation to an
elevation 10 ft!ot above the auger refusal.
~ The shallow wells will be aorccned in the upper 10 feet of the aquifer.
2.1.S The monitoring wells are to be constructed in aceordanoe with the fotlowina
roquirtments.
Tho role\Jant NOtiona pertalnin1, to monitoring well1 11 contained in
Title15A North Carolina Admlnl1tr1tlve Code Subchapter 2C •
"Well Construction Standard111 ,
The US Envin,nmental Protection Aacncy • Region 4,
''Environmental Inve1tl9ation1 Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manu1l 11 (May 1996) or equivalent,
Applicable ASTM standards.
2.1.6 Deaian or appropriate ,lu1 and/or pumpina teat• on ,elected Well,.
2.1.7 AH wolla are to be con1tructed with stainless steel easina and stainless steel
O<teOn. I ~
f 1
'~~ (17/e !,l6t-)
I . 1vrP-h
(!) ~5c? 0/ '-/I e. /d-/41iJ;; t,,. 8«Ct?VJ/Jf,(,y/;_
;70£-/ed ~lclers .a-~e -tie wa~ -0rbk ./
The u' n fr~ PY '5Aa-l ( t7--r:J c:/;,,-~a/~
t1, € /de! G-&4;,S~ a~r; -1-o
«clt/(//,,fte ~-//~~,/ bc,Yi~f a I-~/7 lo
ftuee (3) c;/11t:0IJ ctcj'acbtf-/~;{"115.
{P ;t,-, 6;ddtMy /vff7()5e-s: --/4e a¼k,:Xc,_k-v
.-s Ju,./ I a S<;u ftf e ~ c>i ve-ru-)-f! de/ft-, r
1"< pf~ c;;MII~ w-e!/4~
9J cf-a f / M ,!Je.e./ aei/s .
DIVISION OF · · . WASTE MANAGEMENT
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX NUMBER: lf D ]-35 ~-/ 8 &°'-. PHONE:
FAX NUMBER: 715-3605 PHONE: [phone] ~.~,
COMMENTS ';-f b ~ ~ S 4 , OJ d) 2-0 pan d .e .oJ:o
"d ~-~-\l -Sl.i:lliJV ti@. .
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:--=-3"""'-----
DATE SENT: 9-dD ~7 (_p
Lf
0TOTe ur 1\Jorrn L-urouna Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management ,-Ai-,~
a sn ,.----• James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director DEHNR
· VV<:::: ~ 'S\.\)1\-~e..D I,).;) L~ ff'~~ ~ 't)~fL~ F~ FMk))
5 3 ~u.t,:ffl~ OEcl.~~ °\=)\~~ ~'5 ~~~ D.2.12. srlfrE=
G\i\6<C,,~\J oi ~~ A.)Sc ~~ P\ u ~c:iT ~l..)n ~ ~
\)OL,\J.,W'c,, ~ ~~ (~'h-! "t{lf:£,5 ~ ~C..l'l"l'DN)jLtJJ7'1L
1 1-tE:. "\:)\:SPf:.ie.R \le:.00C::12..y ?h ~cs \S ~~ 'ti~ D1u&-o~
Y..l{(L -Cc: ~6hNc/01rc:;;cTJ>i~ SoL\D W~lG:= ~~ s-~Tt
• Vvlc: rt~ p~~'fcS:b f2 RJ ~ .... ~~C'trt),-)J\-'--rna.o tl'Vl1-\ ~ ()..X::LLS
( E~co;~) --s:Cf)~ d w~) -1 f-~ rwu.-e.& ~
~"' MODI~~ ·tl"\--.S / / f-1}/\-f f.JtLG-~ I ·:~ (!l) .~ ~
Cl lo~"' w~ ~ /Tc:ct4 (J)n\m1/j!:t ~
· 'lii6tl.E:. ww.lJ fuc ~IV\<=-E:f,;e61.C'f' : "" et)m6, ,D, v<-, ~
ut t}l.}1Vh ~ ~ M l\'.W/1, uW &-6 Q ,d._ s~ 0-> 1 ,I,._ {JJ ..S11" b:..
tJ ~ \ 1:i /\J r\-0\\--"'-.. lJ.JCU S, -if>t1ti <S ~ ~ ~~
· Wt: Atlt Jn!YjtFY/Nv--<9~ S/rrrjJ½ jJ~ l'f1t.1J /fa,pe fe h~
4 H/(,M, DIM/-f ~fov 'fM., f/~ 1//eeh:., / J/)(,S~ }t;JC'
-Jo fL~ ~ f,n A--~b h ~ r~ JJ/<=c-~
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27 611-7 687
Voice 919-733-4996
• Vl/tct., v~ T/ll~UUs -i s-h!/4:--~s ·
• Wtll u5f-tll-l~~ ~ /.UAS-lJM1d czJ 'fv p*"'1f'U~1
ll£C,U~ 'S,lh,,~UJ 2>"'-$Ju. ~ j:JMUI.IJ ef S~
(1)/4ilt1 f ~ -1i}v & C, ~ rJ / _RAN
• wlt<.i L,(S€-6'7/f s;,pJ?o,_, Lt;~;f/4,.J { h #~
pM,i1UA~ ~v Yi-ht CfM j1t,u/.aj
~~w~.., s: ~ ~
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/1 O"/o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
September 18, 1996
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Respondents to February 16, 1996 RFP
FROM: William L Meyer, Director
Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT: Excavation, handling, storage of PCB contaminated soils from Warren County
PCB Landfill
Each of you participated in a pre-bid meeting and site visit on Friday, February 16, 1996
concerning a proposal for excavation, handling, and storage of PCB contaminated soils from the
Warren County Landfill.
Since the February 16, 1996 meeting, the Working Group has hired new science advisors.
The science advisors have developed a new Master Plan for selection of detoxification
technologies. One major change is for bench-scale treatability studies rather than pilot scale field
studies. This requires a modification in scale and processes for excavation, handling, and storage
of contaminated soils. The maximum volume needed for bench-scale will be four 55 gallon
drums. This volume would provide for both immediate treatability studies and for contingency for
any future additional studies.
The following are specific modifications to the request for proposals:
Sub-section 2.2.1 Excavation
This section heading is modified to read: Design for multiple six inch to 12 inch
cased extraction bore holes (wells). The minimum number of wells shall be two
with a maximum number of four. The amount of excavated materials shall be 24
to 28 cubic feet or four 55 gallon containers with at least one half cubic foot of
head space.
Sub-section elements A through K are retained and not modified.
Sub-section 2.2.2 Handling of Excavated Materials
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
September 18, 1996
Excavation, Handling, Storage of PCB Contaminated Soils from Warren County Landfill
Page 2
This section is not modified; however, it should be noted that the design should be
based on placement of excavated materials into four 55 gallon containers.
Sub-Section 2.2.2 Storage of Excavated Materials
This section is delected. The state will provide all containers, devices or structures
for storage of PCB contaminated soils.
Sub-section 2.3 Deliverables
Sub-section 2.3.3 Storage design and implementation process is deleted.
Deliverables 2.3.2, 2.2.2 and 2.3.4 are retained and not modified.
All remaining sections are not modified.
The division is requesting that all respondents submit a response:by October 11, 1996. If
any additional information or clarification is required, please contact Pat Williamson or Bill Meyer
at 919/733-4996.
c:\wpfdes\pcblf\rfpmodif.mem
BF A Environmental Consultants
. .z..:._;... ====~=~=~ Barnes, Ferland and Associa·tes, Inc.
MEMO.RANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE :
BillMeyer &
Pat Barnes 'ff
September 13, 1996
Post-it• Fax Note
BFA #95-017
7671 Oat
Phone ii
SUBJECT: Performance ofLandrdl Inspection and Collection of Water Levels
It is recommended that the State (if they have not already done so) quickly perform an inspection
of the PCB landfill facility and collect a round of water levels from the existing monitoring wells
as well as inside the landfill. This inspection is critical and necessary to address community
concerns relative to possible detrimental effects from the recent hurricane (Fran). Please repon
the result5 of this inspection within the next week.
Also, please pro\iide the elevation (reference to MSL) for the access pon used in measuring the
landfill water level.
?-~1-1~
jtJL/7
The Hollister Building· 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando. Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
08/19/1996 15:18 4078%1822 BARt'-lES FERLAHD ASSOC PAGE 01
..... :;.
-.BFA-~~v~~~rn:~n.~t-~I d~n-sultants
Barnes, Ferland an_d ,ll_ssoc_iates,
. . MEMORANOlJJ\i'r :_
FROM:
•, .:.·· --·
....... , .. -:. '"' , ... :_, -
·-·DA'fE:· :~ August] tl996 -·=----
«""
,-sun.JEC:T! -~·-st~t~~-of -Re~isj~~s to ~uppleme·ntal Sampl~ng -Plan-and . Related M au~rs ___ ·.' ----.
. " --,. ...... . --".:!!:.-=-
···,
-'. ~ Since 'fie last spoke,) h~~e pe-l6rmed t.he following :
_-----_. . ' --.-;..,_-_ .... -----·-. · .. ,.,-
··,~-dded Reginnal Ffydrogeol◊gf Section t~ Plan and .tied ·it·t;o_th toJh~Wcal hydrogeofr~gy a))d ,.:
the j)roposed wellJoc;iti Q!fs·.· -_ -__ -. _ -:
. -. . ···~-...... --· " .. • "' -~ ··--
'2 .. Ad(i~(i-tfiiie'.(3) g'~ologic i.:r9~sjections through the landfill area terfuinating at the J)roposed_:-·-·.::
welt locations .. Because -·of-the lack of subsutface data (e.g:, · strike ·and dip of the sapr6lite -':: -. -" .
-zone), s~v-eral _as~tlmpficnis. a1i made. However) the water le\/el gradierit infonnaiton~ inake.s-· =----. ii .
... the crnss--s~ctfon~till yery u_~efuL ... ... . . • ---· . ---
'3 Obtained"ii fuJ(cop/ofthep 1?-w EPA, May, 1996 SOPs.-1·--~m tising th~m -_ex!ens"jv.~ly tcY--~ _
tnodify the drilling pro~edures and well design sections_ I don't think procedures afr Q<::0e"ded _:. -
fr)r areas which: ~wetlap with the July, 1994 Sampling Plan: For example, in describing t.he .. · ~-
--•. protocol for surface water-sampling l reference both the July Plan an't:1 the EPA ·soPs.-Piease---· ~---
_ let _ine-kncrw if ytju sugge~t otherwise. ---.. . .. ----········· .
Federal_ Express~ci_ copies (hartl copy and on disk) of site map with s~tnp(c iocatioQi as we-ll
the drafl cross-sect.io,is. -to Hol:>-Glaser' s attention . These items ire .draft and I am lo()King fr'ir.::. ..
yourjnput a_s"s~o!'! as pos~ible.
--s: . I l,av~ i~:11 friessages :r6{Bob:Glaser, his yoicc mail indicates he is either Qfl vacation or in tlf('': "
field _ P_lease httvfhiin call lTie _When he gets back i_n. J want to m~ke su~e--·~e ag1'ee on what--:-:
-airecti_on to Jake the· Pia~ iti and .that we are not duplicating efforts.---
•·.· Also, please t'et r11e know tl1e $tat(!~ of our July 15th :i~voice . As you kn9,;v, cash-flow is criti~al t()
... -~:c a srna..11 fli'mi . ····. -.:-
-. .. P)case give me a ~~Jrfodf!_y,'.ifJ~osl ib]e_
--~-" --..
:: ... --·· ---:-..: .;_-
. T~e Hoilist~/su;tldi~g -/J$35 Lawton Road. suite 111 • o~i and6, Flqrida:32803
Offfc_e (~0_7) 896-8608 • Fax [phone]~2" -..
--
I
To: The ~_,.~ Adv4sors ;
From: cal Com~ ittee
Oats: A 1956 i
S!Jbjeet: ! Commitee Meeting
2) The re eomm·
report h
the state'
beappt
nd the Technical Commntee had a confat"ence call on Au~ 7th and
s 118C8S~ry to focus your attention on the following:
I I .
work appr~v&d by the Technical Committee and the Working Group.
I
. technotogles and vendors that was due on June :14th. T1'e Teehnfcal
not yet r~ this report nor an explanation concerning why tne
... -~n submi~ed. Other due dates have not been met as w.ff. lf"dudlng
tcry testl~ and the fietd sampling and testing draft which needs to
the Workiry9 Group.
I
3) VJae!dy pt · ess repo~ based on the scope of work . You agreed to prov!de these
reperts. TI'\ls eement 0¢Urred two months ago, yet the Techn!Cal Committee has
yet to recaive prcg,~ report based on the entire scope and 'scheduie of work.
4) The nv
.which co
decisk,n i
tha !andf!I
lar.drffl ls
an on--slt
17, 1993
framework which has informed the Workfng Group sir.cs 1SS3. and
to intorm tie Working Group, makes it dear that 'the det~xtficatlOn
based on' technical feasibility. risk as~ent, and on the f8d 1t1at
Ing. Detoll'.Jficatlon is net connngent upon proving'. or disproving that the
. Toe flve-boint framework also makes it c,ear that the goat Is to find
n to the ctisis (Enciosures: Memorar.dum to Jonathan 8. Howes. Mav
from Jonathan B. Howes. May 21. 1993). ,
i
5) Th9 Wooc,1 Group will beet on August V . The Techn!cal Committee needs to
meat with yo ore the ~eeHng bocausa the Technical Committee needs to
make rscom~n-rmtions to:tt,e full committee. The Technical Committee would
triarafora Ike have a conf4)(8ncs call with you the week before 1tie August 27th
meeting, prgf ly on Wednesday, August 21 ; Thursday, August .22: or Friday. August
23. YO\Jr pre e at the ~ust 27th meeting would be appreciated.
Enc!esura: Of Work, Memorancum. Letter I
I I
-PCB LANDFILL SUPPLEMENTAL
SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l.O BACKGROUND
2.0 PURPOSE
3.0 SITE SETTING AND HYDROGEOLOGY
4.0 SITE LOGISTICS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Site Access
Work Zones
Site Control
Der.ontamination Facilities
Field Decontamination Procedures
5 0 SUPPLEMENT AL INVESTIGATIONS
5 1 Landfill System
5 2 Groundwater/Soils
5.2.1 Locations
5.2.2 Drilling Procedures
5.2.3 Monitoring Well Design/Testing Procedures
5.3 Surface Water
5.4 Stream Sediments
5. 5 Surface Geophysics
6.0 ANALYTICAL TESTING
6.1 Matrices and Analy1es
6.2 QA/QC
7.0 REPORTING
95-017 00
SIPTOC.DOC
' \ 1 ' \ I,' ·~ .• I " : .\ \ ~ u " ' -L~ j I ; l ;; : L:J UJ
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INVESTIGA TJON PLAN
1.0 Background
D S? ! ) j; ;, !.I
The State of North Carolina owns and maintains a closed landfill containing PCB-contaminated
soils. This landfill is permitted under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). This landfill is
"inyl and clay lined and contains approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soi.ls (24 feet thick)
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The landfill is located on a 142-acre tract
ofland located just off State Road 1604 in Warren County. the containment area or landfill cell is
enclosed by a fence occupying approximately 3. 8 acres (Figure 1 ).
2.0 Purpose
Barnes. Ferland and Associates, Inc. (BFA) has developed the foliowing "Supplemental Site
Investigation Plan'' ("Plan) to acquire more detailed information fOi detennining the environmental
impact associated with the landfill and for planning the scope of the remedial design program
The objectives of this Plan are to determine the:
c Geological setting including definition of soil and rock types, permeable and confining
layers, fractures and faults. hydraulic properties and potential contamination pathways;
o Direction and rate of groundwater and surface water flows and seasonal water table
variations;
• Location and extent (both vertical and horizontal) of soil and groundwater contamination
at discrete intervals;
• Quality of surtace water where it first appears from the ground water system in each of
the major draws surrounding the site; and,
• Quality of stream ;sediment in areas \Vherc sedimentation is most likely to occur.
These objectives can be achieved through a phased data collection program involving upgrading
the monitoring network, additional sampling and testing, and surficial geophysics if required.
In February, 1995 the State developed a proposal to update the existing groundwater monitoring
netv,.-ork by installing three deep monitoring wells and one additional shallow monitoring well. In
October of 1995 the plan was reviewed by George Bain, P.G., who also recommended additional
spatial coverage both in shallow and deep zones. Mr. Bain's review also emphasized the difficulty
of developing a groundwater monitoring system to detect the migration of contaminants 111
fractured rock.
95.0[7,0()
n-.--saip.doc
-1-
'. '
ti \
' ...
We agree with the recommendations of both the State and Mc Bain, and have incorporated their
c()ncerns into the scope of this investigation.
3.0 Site Setting and Hydrogcology
The l 42 acre site is near the nose of a NE trending ridge, whose general elevations are greater
than 3.30 feet (NGVD). Part of the approximately 4-acre fill area are within the 340 feet (NGVD)
contour ,vhich forms a small local closed high on the nose of the ridge. Su1face drainage to
Richneck Creek to the N"\V/NINE and E and to an unnamed tributary to the S/SE.
The site is underlain by a related sequence of mica schists, according to the North Carolina
Geological Survey and the lJSGS report "Geology and Ground-Water Resources in the Raleigh
.¾ea, NC''. Rocks that compose th.is complex of mica schists exhibit layering, but attitude and
composition of individual zones cannot be observed in the site area because of deep weathering
Data from auger hoies at the site indicate the following general sequence of weathered strata:
Land surface to 10-20 feet -Red-brown micaccous fine sandy clay; 10-20 feet to bottom of hole
(max depth about 40 feet) -Brown rnicaceous sandy clay to sandy silt to clayey.
The above materials are thoroughly decomposed native rock; formed in place by chemical
weathering and characterized by preservarion of structures that were present in the unweathered
rock . These materials are also referred to as "residual soils".
The exact depth to partialiy weathered rock or to fresh bedrock is not known at the site. Partially
weathered rock, as used herein, refers to the zone between thoroughly weathered residual soiis
above to fresh bedrock below. The term saprolite is often applied to this zone. For the sake of
consistency with other documents prepared for this landfill, we have also used the tem1 saprolitc
to refer to that zone . Permeability in saprolite zone has been enhanced by fracture/weathering
processes, and it is commonJy the most permeable zone in the vertical section. This enhanced
penneability is oft.en e:xploited by seating well casing within or immediately below the partially
weathered zone. The water table com..monly occurs in the overlying residual soils but may occur
or fluctuate within the saprolite. Because of its higher transmissivity, this zone should be
considered an avenue to transmit contaminants.
The natural water table in this area should be a subdued expression of the surface topography:
that is, mounded under the ridge with highest gradients toward the topographically iow areas in
gf:neral K and S directions and lower gradients to the E/NE. Height of this mound, which
represents the water table, would depend on such factors as vertical and lateral permeability of the
residual soils/saprolitic materials; distance to points of natural discharge; and duration and
magnitude of recharge events. A smaller mound related to the closed 340 feet contour may occur
under part of the site area.
Recharge to the mound, or groundwater reservoir, occurs by downward infiltration through the
unsaturated zone to the water table, where the infiltrating fluid becomes groundwater. General
circulation of groundwater in this environment is downward from the water table to the zone of
partially weathered bedrock, then laterally to points of areas of eventual discharge (usually
9~-0!7.00
nt:,s.:iip.do~
-2-
7/18/96
streams or springs under natural conditions). Deeper circulation belo\v the partially we.athered
zone is usually limited by rapidly decreasing occurrence of interconnected fractures ~~th depth in
underlying fresh bedrock. Thus the most commonly expected groundwater flow path is
predominately downward from the water table to the sapmlite .zone, then predominantly in the
lateral direction to discharge areas. Discharge has been observed as would be expected emerging
from the walls of the major draws in the saprolite zone. Deviations in this idealized flow path may
occur related to inhomogeneities in the residual soils. In layered strata, as an example, differences
in permeability may result in lateral flow components beginning to predominate above the
saprolirc zone, thus resulting in shortening the groundwater flow path and discharge to contact
springs on the adjacent valley wall above the panially weathered rock.
Thus, in summation. this is a very localized groundwater flow system in that all recharge to the
mound underlying the ridge occurs from infiltration from the ridge. and most discharge occurs to
adjacent valleys of Richneck Creek and its unnamed tributary. Deep circulation within the
bedrock to eventual discharge in more distant areas is not expected. The most probable fiow path
for ground\vater is downward to the partially weathered zone, then predominantly in lateral
direction to the nearby discharge areas. This idealized flow path may be. in part short circuited
by inhomogeneities in the materials above the panially weathered zone, in which case discharge
would occur at higher elevations in the adjacent valleys.
4.0 Site Logistics
4. 1 Site Access
4.2 J-Jlork Zones
4.3 Site Control
4.4 Decontamination Facilities
4. 5 Field Decontamination Procedures
5.0 Supplemental In:vestigations
Additi0nal sample collection is needed to comply with the regulatory requirements and to obtain
current data for planning remedial activities. The supplemental sampling generally involves
sarnpling and analyses of groundwater. surface water and sediment from existing stations and
several additional locations (Figure l ). All sampling and testing procedures should be conducted
in accordance with the existing Sampling Plan (Appendix 1). Table 1 is a summary of all
proposed sampling points by matrix. It also includes the type of analysis proposed. ·
93-017.00
OC!l-qip.doc
-3-
7118:%
I
I '"" .. r , r.,"\ {M ~ I :• ! '; , l.J I
: ;: I : ., ~
L.'.:'.J !_i u Lnl .r lJ
5.1 Landfill System
It is important that some continuity with the pre"ious analysis be maintained to establish
trends whenever possible, The establishment of trends is critical to our ability to determine
the real potential threat associated vvith mi,gration of contaminants. lt is particularly
important that locations which tested above detection .levels be reanalyzed. Repeat the first
round (July, J 994) for all locations and corresponding rnatrices (see Table l) excluding so il
samples collected on the landfill cap, which correspond to the landfill system
These locations include the leachate inlet and outlet, the settling pond overflow pipe base,
soil at the center of the pond and the discharge pipe outlet. A sample of the landfill contents
will also be collected from the central gas vent . It is particularly imponant to continue to
regularly analyze the landfill contents, which will enable continued evaluation of natural
biodcgradation.
Procedures to be followed in the collection of those samples outlined are in Appendix A.
Further analysis of landfill cap materials is not warranted because it was properly addressed
pre\~Ously and there is no mechanism for it to be contaminated. Reanalysis of J\lf\.V-1 is not
recommended because the well screens appear to be plugged , This is discussed in more
detail lateL
5.2 Groundwater/Soils
95-017.00
n~;sip.doc
5.2, 1 Locations
Two additional deep groundwater samples from wells adjacent to MW-3 and l\fW-4 .
These wells will yield samples from the weathered rock (saprolite) zone , These wells
which will be designated MW-3A and 3B are important to establish the vertical flow
component at key existing locations. The new hydraulic and groundwater quality data
will be compared to that of the existing wel.ls at those locations Comparison of these
data will give us an indication of the relative transmissivity of each zone and how much of
the recent recharge reaches the saprolite zone.
Water table and ~aprolite zone groundwater samples will also be obtained at locations
directly northwest, south and east of the landfill within 25 feet of the landfill footprint,
These three clusters of wells which will be designated MW-1A,B> MW-SA,B and l\1\V-7,
7 A are critical to the establishment of a proper flow net for the immediate vicinity of the
landfi!L They \Vill also yield key water quality data from areas directly adjacent to the
landfill in the currently anticipated flow paths.
Groundwater samples will also be collect~d in the three major draws located to the north,
northeast and northwest of the landfill and in the one major draw located to the
southeast
-4-
1118196
c:-:,
i I ·~
\I.S-017.00
o=ip.(IQ.;
I ,
As discussed in Site Hydrogeology, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a
monitoring nenvork which will capture l 00~,.o of the flow in a fractured rock system
These four wells are positioned to minimize the guess work. The orientation of the draw
features which surround the site is dictated by fractures (see Figure _). Enhanced
directional groundwater flow will occur along these fractures. By locating monitoring
wells within these features we have an extremely high probability of detecting
groundwater flow as it leaves the landfill site.
Of the seven draw features identified on Figure __j it appears that five intersect the filled
area. Because of the uncenainty of flow patterns leading to these draws, it is important
that they be monitored with wells located at approximately the 3 00 ft. to 31 O ft.
elevation. Proposed monitoring wells M\V-6, J\.ffi'-8, MW-9 and MW-10 are positioned
to intercept groundwater flow along these features.
With the exception of VOCs, surface water collected v.rithin these draw features should
have the same quality characteristics as that of the groundwater; however, the monitoring
wells are needed so that samples may still be collected during low flow periods.
Background groundwater samples from three wells located outside of the landfill
groundwater and surface water flow system are also proposed. At least one of these
\veils will be screened at the \vater table. The other two will be screened within the
saorolite zone. The wells will be designated BG-1, 2 and 3. Tnese background 1.vells will
l -' '-
enable proper technical review of data collected at the remaining locations. by allowing
us to filter oui the contaminants which might exist within the groundwater outside of the
influences of the landfill .
Monitoring well sample collection procedures are outlined in Appendix A.
5.2.2 Dri])jng .Procedures
The environmental drilling will be accomplished by the Hollow Stem Auger drilling
method. Soil samples ·will be collected using split spoon samplers. All samples will be
handled in accordance with Appendix A.
It is anticipated that nine (9) borings will be performed; one at each proposed well
location. At least four of the borings will be used as a lithology test boring, complete
·with continuous sampling to competent rock. The soil will be closely classified to
identify geologic, not engineering, properties. The soil samples from the test boring at
locations l, 5 and 7 (Figure 3) will be collected from below the base of the landfill and
above the water table in the silty clay strata (about 30 feet deep), within the sandy silt
strata (about 50 feet deep) and within the saprolite zone (about 60-90 feet deep). Soil
will be collected in the remaining five borings at five-feet intervals or change in lithology.
It is recommended one soil sample from each test boring will be analyzed . All auger
flights and split spoons will be thoroughly decontaminated before use and between
borings.
-5-'. '
7/18/96
; : I '.
87/18/1996 14:22 ~;-:;GE
95-017.00
m,-ssi ;,. ,.kx,
'' : --,
L~ R : i : ~· ' ' ( L.'.:'.) j :! i II '--'W
5.2.3 Morutoring Well Design/Testing Prncedures
Currently only four monitor wells exist at this site. Figure 4 shows that the water level in
MW-2 is consistently lower than the other wells and that the highest water level varies
seasonally in M\V-1, 3 and 4. However, review of the data provided indicates the MW-1
has failed to respond to changes in water levels since approximately December, 1994 and
prior to that consistently lagged the other wells. This may be the result of a plugged well
screen, but underscores the importance of having a proper weU design in order to collect
representative environmental data .
Since the landfill lies on a ridge crest, f,rround water is expected to flow radially outward
from the site . All of the proposed wells will assist better defining the direction of ground
water flow. They will be surveyed and static water levels measured in addition to
existing well measurements. This informati on will be used to better define the water table
contours, tlow direction and gradient at the site.
Each of the proposed well clusters would include two wells installed adjacent to one
another and screened at different intervals. Within each cluster one well should be
screened at the water table but to capture the seasonally !cw water elevation and the
other should be screened \Vithin the saprolite zone irnmediately above the bedrock
surface. A11 new permanent monitor wells should then be sampled and tested in
accordance \¥ith the attached Sampling Plan.
A.II field work shall be conducted in conformance with accepted engineering and geologic
practices as well as the Groundwater Section 's Guidelines for the Investigation and
Remediation of Soils and Groundwater and the Hazardous Waste Section's Sample
Collection Guidance Document. Well installation shall be in conformance with the North
Carolina Well Construction Standards. A site safety plan shall be developed and
followed by all field personnel. All appropriate decontamination procedures documented
in the references above shall be followed .
During the installation of each boring/well. a qualified hydrogeologist shall be present and
a boring log coru.pieted for each well . Split spoon samples shall be collected at each
change in lithology and where there has been a significant change in the
penetration/drilling resistance. Soil cuttings shall be containerized until the analyses of
ground water samples have been received from the laboratory. At such time, the
appropriate disposal option shall be selected.
Each well shall be constructed: a) in accordance \.'vith the attached diagram ; b) in
conformance with the State's well construction standards; and c) to be capable of
yielding a ground water sample representative of the ground water quality at that
location. The well casing and screen shall be constructed of 2 inch diameter PVC The
manufactured well screen shall be sized appropriately, according to the soil type. Each
well shall be completed with a 10 foot well screen. The annular space from the bottom of
·,
-6-
71)8/96
o:::
u
5. 4 Stream Sediment
Four stream sediment samples are proposed along Richneck Creek and the unnamed
tributary. The locations were selected to detem1ine what impact to stream sediments may
originate from the upstream areas of Rkhneck Creek, both above and belO\v SR-1604,
therefore allowing the road's effects to be filtered out, as well as to determine the quality of
')5-017 ii!)
n;:ssip.<lc,c
-7-
07/18/1996 07 :55 4078%1822 BARNES FERLAND ASSOC
PCB LANDFILL SUPPLEMENTAL
SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CON'l'ENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND
2.0 PURPOSE
3.0 SITE SETTING Ai'lD HYDROGEOLOGY
4.0 SITE LOGISTICS
4.1 Site Access
4.2 Work Zones
4.3 Site Control
4.4 Decontamination Facilities ~
4.5 Field .Decontamination Procedures
SUPPLEI'vfENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
5.1 Landfill System <5 ;z. l.l0ce£:N
5.2 Groundwater/Soils <-1 .., (:1(:;c/J
;) 1 'Z,.. I • (..,o 5 .2 1 Drilling Procedures --s:y
5.0
5.22 Monjtoring Well Design
5.2.3 Testing Procedures
5. 3 Surface Water
5.4 Sediments
5. 5 Surface Geophysics
6.0 ANALYTICAL TESTING
6, l Matrices and Analytes
6.2 QA/QC
7.0 REPORTING
BFA~Dune
BFA))one
BF.AJ)one
BFA,170% Cornplete
DWA1 or Joel H. ?
BF4,,,Done
PAGE 01
.BF A Environmental Consultants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PCB Landfill Working Group
(Technology Group)
FROM: Patrick A. Barnes, P.G.
Science Advisor
COPIES: Joel Hirschhorn
DATE: July 9, 1996
SUBJECT: Project Status Report
BFA#95-017
On July l st I had a detailed conversation with Senator Frank Ballance about the status of the PCB
Landfill. The Senator was very appreciative of the update and indicated that the situation was
still on his radar screen. We set a tentative meeting date for the fourth week in July to discuss
specifics. I recommend that key members of the Working Group be present.
Related to the Supplemental Field Sampling and Testing Plan I have performed the following:
• Coordinated sample locations with the State.
• Obtained and reviewed cost information from analytical laboratories.
• Analyzed information on the site's hydrogeology.
• Developed a conceptual model of the groundwater flow system in preparation for July 3rd
meeting with the State.
Both Joel Hirschhorn and I attended the July 3rd meeting with State technical staff personnel to
discuss the proposed Supplemental Field Sampling and Testing Plan.
In general, discussions centered around the following topics:
• Inadequacy of the prevous work performed:
• Number and location of monitoring wells near the landfill and in the draws.
• The need for and proposed locations of additional surface water and sediment samples.
• Number and location of background monitoring wells.
• Criteria for determining clustered locations.
• Type of analysis for the different matrices to be tested.
• Pros and Cons of split sampling.
• The need to justify all testing efforts and costs.
• Responsibility and lime table for plan development.
Formal meeting minutes will be prepared by the State.
P AB/psg/7-9PCB.doc
The Hollister Building• 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office ( 407) 896~8608 • Fax ( 407) 896-1822
07/03/1995 14:41 ,.
fax
Date
i
40781351B22
Nurnber of pages including cover sheet
To:
-----------------.
Ptwne
Fax Phone
CC:
REMARKS:
Barnes, Ferland and Associates. Inc.
3535 Lawton Road Suite 111
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone
Fax Phone
_(407) 896-8608
[phone]
0 Urgent O For your review O Reply ASAP O P!ease comment
/ -f·
07/09/1995 14:41
'
407:3'::H:,1822
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
PCB Landfill Vil or king Group
(Teclmology Group)
Patrick A Barnes, P.G.
Science Advisor
COPIES: Joel Hirschhorn
DATE: July 9, 1996
SlJBJECT: Project Status Repo11
BAFNES FERLAND ASSOC F'AGE 02
BFA #95-017
Since our June 26 conference, I have performed va1ious activities related to the Supplemental
Field Sampling and Testing Plan .
l. Coordinate sample locations with the State.
2. Obt.ain and review cost information from analytical laboratories.
3. Analyze infonnation on the site's hydrogeology.
4 Develop conceptual model of the groundwater flow system m preparation for July 3rd
meeting with the State.
Both Joel Hirschhorn and I attended the July 3rd meeting with State t.echnical staff personnel to
discuss the proposed Supplemental Field Sampling and Testing Plan. The following is a general
summary of the major points discussed and decisions reached, as I understand them.
• Afonitoring vVells
lt was agreed that four monitoring locations in the draws (gorge features) would be sufficient
t.o assess what impact the landfill might have on the quality of groundwater leaving the area.
Each location may contain two wells if greater than 30 feet of saturated strata exists above
bedrock.
Three clusters of two monitoring wells each were proposed for the northeast corner,
southvJest corner and the east side of the landfill . The wells will monitor groundwater near
the water table and in the weathered rock .zone immediately above bedrock.
lt was agreed that deep wells should be added to current monitoring locations MW-3 and
MW-4.
....
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 1996
Page 2
• Swface iVater Samples
..
It \Vas agreed that the surface water analysis in the gorge features would duplicate those of the
proposed monitoring wells for the parameters of concern, and thus would be largely
redundant. Surface water locations were added south of the site and upstream from the
current Richneck Creek upstream location. Additionally, the unnarned tributary downstream
sample was :relocated to a position closer to the landfill.
• Ad.di1ional Stream Sediment Samples
It was agreed that stream sediment samples should be collected at two locations; where the
two no11h-south trending gorges meet Richneck Creek and the unnamed tributary.
respectively.
It was agreed that the monitoring well network should include three background locations
ouiside of the site's drainage system. It was proposed that these wells be located northeast,
northwest and southwest of the site.
,,, Parameters
lt was agreed that the suite of analysis pe,fonned previously is sufficient; however, detection
limits would be increased for cenain analytes. It was also agreed that not all locations would
require the full suite of parameters. A table will be developed by Joel identifying what analysis
will be performed where.
Because the sampling event would invo.lve several different matrices and be performed over
several days, numerous sarnple blanks would be required. An approach to combine and thus
rninimize these blanks was discussed. The State will prepare a sumrnary table with that
information.
It was generally agreed that the quality assurance and data confidence achieved by split
samples may be also achieved by allowing the Science Advisors to select laboratories, retrieve
data directly and independently determine sample designation .
Finally, it was agreed that the final product should be for joint State/Science Advisor
s1gnat.ure . A final draft will be submitted by July 17, 1996.