NCD980602163_20001221_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_2000 Correspondence-OCR

PCB Landfill Check
Subject: PCB Landfill Check
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:29 :19 -0500
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: "Rose, Larry" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Kelly, Mike" <MIKE [e-mail]>, "Meyer, Bill" <[e-mail]>
I of I
Larry,
On my way back from a meeting in Warrenton yesterday, I swung by the
landfill and checked the water levels , compressor, etc . I noticed that
the vent pipe in the center of the landfill was off . It was the
strangest thing . The vent pipe is attached to the landfill pipe with a
screw coupling, yet there was no break or damage to the vent pipe or
coupling . The 1 " pipe that extends into the 3 " vent pipe was broken at
the level of the coupling. The only thing that makes sense is that the
vent pipe and landfill pipe were not screwed together or only on the
last thread and that the wind knocked it over and broke the 1 " pipe. It
was getting dark and I did not have the tools to repair the 1 " pipe . I
simply screwed the 3 " vent pipe back on .
The vent was intact when we last visited on December 5th . Both fence
gates were secure when I arrived. If this damage was done by someone ,
they would have had to climb the fence to get inside . I did see a
hunter leaving when I arrived and another one (I think) sitting in his
truck as the road chain when I left, but I doubt they would have done
anything. I know some of the bidders have made trips to the landfill
site recently . They did not have any keys so they could not have done
anything unless they climbed the fence also . I will ask them if they saw
anything unusual.
(Of course there is always the tornado that could have landed on top of
the landfill and twisted the pipe off . Mike understands this
phenomenon . )
Unless you have any other suggestions, all I think we can do is
document what I f ound and fix the pipe .
Pat Backus <pat. [e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Waste Management/ PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
12/21/2000 10:3 7 AM
,
..,
WARREN COUNTY
PCB DETOXIFICATION-REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
720 RIDGEWAY STREET
WARRENTON, N.C. 27589
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Pat Backus
FROM: Robin Green, Secretary
DATE: November 20, 2000
Number of pages (including cover sheet) 3
rn·d
WARREN COUNTY PCB
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
DETOXIFICATION-REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Do/tie H. i:lurwe/1, Chair
J 1m Warren, 1 Sf Vice Chair
Daria Holcomb, 2nd Vice Charr
November 20, 2000
Mr. John Hankinson
720 Ridgeway Street
Warrenton, N.C. 27589
Phone [phone] -Fax 252•257-1000
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Federal Center
61 F orsytch Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Dear Mr. Hankinson:
On March 15, 1 999, we received a letter from you dated March 11, 1999 in which you made a
commitment of $75,000.00 per year for the life of the Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification
Project. Following several conversations with Region 4 staff members, we submitted our application
on May 21 , 1999. Since that time, we have had numerous conversations with different members of
the staff regarding the content and format of our application. We have diligently responded to all
requests from staff members including the rewriting of certain sections of the application.
_ __ • _,. ... .,. ••. .,. •· r e•~ ,,,.,.. ·.,. ·• ••·
During the past 18 months, we have been led to believe on several occasions that things would be
finalized in only a matter of weeks. Yet, to date, we have no conclusive indication that the funding
is still available, or if and when any funds will be forthcoming. We feel that because of the length of
time that has passed and the inconsistencies in the information we have received, we need to meet
with you in person as soon as possible.
Mr. Hankinson, your commitment of $75,000.00 per year for the duration of this project ·early in the
process enabled us as a community to move forward with confident to secure $8 million from the
l 999 North Carolina General Assembly and $500, 000.00 in kind services from the FederafEP A.
You should know, however, that unti l we receive funds for the activities outlined in your letter of
committee to us, our community outreach and involvement efforts are at a virtual standstill .
dnOdS SNI~dO~ 8Jd
We would like very much to meet with you before Christmas regarding this matter. I, along with one
other member of the community are prepared to come to Atlanta to meet with you Please provide
us with a couple of dates that you may be available for such a meeting.
Thanks for your past support and commitment. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
~ /2 /lvvu:J..J1/
Dollie B. Burwell, Chair
Citizens Advisory Committee
cc: Brian Holtzclaw
Margaret Crowe
917: 9T 00, 02: t\ON dn1Jd9 9N Dfd□rll 8Jd
4APT-TS
Deborah F erruccio
Rt. 2, Box 163-J
Norlina, NC 27563
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
NOV 1 4 20CO
Dear Ms. Ferruccio:
Thank you for your October 30, 2000, letter concerning the Warren County
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Landfill detoxification project. You expressed interest in the
estimated time-frame for review and approval of a PCB disposal application, including the on-site
demonstration test. You also asked if we could provide an approximation of the project cost.
In order to answer your first question we shall list the key steps in the review/approval
process and provide an estimate of the time to complete each step and then an overall estimate of
the time-frame from receipt of application to full operation authorization. Please note that these
projections are estimates and optimistic ones at that. However, we do believe they can be
achieved if North Carolina and their contractors continue to work closely with the U.S .
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PCB program staff
EPA understands that North Carolina has pre-qualified three PCB treatment/disposal
service providers. We expect that North Carolina will select a PCB treatment/disposal contractor
by the end of December 2000. By May 2001 , we expect the treatment/disposal contractor to
submit its PCB disposal application to the Agency. Typically, it takes a motivated applicant about
three to six months to address all of the Agency's comments and concerns. During the
application review period, we assume the contractor will begin site preparations at the landfill and
begin to assemble the treatment/disposal system. By end of December 2001, and following public
notice, we would expect to issue an approval to conduct shake-down testing and the
demonstration test. The shake-down testing allows the contractor to adjust and optimize
operational parameters (e.g., soil feed rate, temperature, batch size, etc.) in preparation for the
demonstration test. After a month or two of shake-down operation we would expect the
contractor to be ready to run the demonstration test in February or March 2002. The
demonstration test should take about a week to l O days. In th_e meantime we would begin to
review data that was collected during the shake-down period and use that information as a basis
for issuing an interim approval to operate. We expect it would take another six months to prepare
and review the demonstration test report. Assuming all went well, at that point we would prepare
and public notice a draft approval for full operation. Allowing for public participation and
finalizing the approval we would expect to issue a final approval somewhere around the end of the
year 2002.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Racyclad/Racyclabla • Printed w~h Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
2
The above milestones and schedules reflect about an 18-month time span between EPA' s
receipt of the application and issuance of the final approval. However, if the testing performed
during the shake-down period indicates that the contractor is meeting state and federal treatment
standards and that any system emissions are within acceptable limits, EPA would allow the
contractor to continue operating the treatment/disposal system under an interim approval from
completion of the demonstration test through issuance of the final approval. Therefore, it is
possible that the Warren County PCB Landfill treatment/disposal system could be operating on a
routine basis in as little as 12 months.
Regarding your question on project cost, EPA is unable to provide a meaningful cost
estimate at this time. Pat Backus od,1ike Kelly of North Carolina's Division.of Waste
Management should be able to provide you with a pretty good estimate of the cost to complete
the project following the selection of the treatment/disposal contractor around the end of this
year.
Should you have any further questions on this project, please contact Craig Brown of the
EPA Region 4 staff at [phone] or brown.craig(a!epa.gov.
cc: Pat Backus, NCDWM
Sincerely,
Winston A Smith
Director
Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division
[f-"d: Re·,;:sed release]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: Revised release]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17 :46: 13 -0400
From: Chrystal Bartlett <[e-mail]>
To: BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>
I spoke with Don Reuter today about the revisions you suggested on the
press release and talking points . I also mentioned the "watch for this
"anticipated questions you describe. Don sent this revised press
release (attached, but I am unsure if it is "approved" or if they may
change further ). I DO know the media alert goes out Wed at noon (unless
they change that, too!) so if y ou have revision ideas, that would
probably act as some sort of deadline. Reuter also asked that I revise
the talking points on two quotes "the state and community remain
committed" and "an important and significant first step toward
detoxification". I just emailed them to him moments ago. Once I know
everything is final, I'll get you hard copies for the files.
Turns out I couldn't find Pat Backus or James Shiffer, only to find out
(after 5) that they had been meeting downstairs this afternoon! Go
figure. James is happy (but confused re: BCD) so I am happy. Poor Pat
is probably exhausted as I remember the time and care she spent
explaining it to me! She's a good explainer but thick heads make hard
going.
Subject: Revised release
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:59:42 -0400
From: Don Reuter <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Chrystal Bartlett <[e-mail]>
is attached .
. ············································································································································································································································ ................................................................................................................................ ,.... . ..................................................... .
Don Reuter <don.reuter(a),ncmail.net>
Director of Public Affairs
NCDENR
Chrystal Bartlett <chrystal.bartlett(q1ncmail.net>
10/25/2000 8:30 AM
., "' James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Bill Holman, Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: IMMEDIATE
Date: October 26, 2000
Contact: Chrystal Bartlett, 919/733-4996, ext. 425
Distribution: Targeted
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RELEASES $7 MILLION
FOR WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL DETOXIFICATION
WARRENTON -In response to a match of federal in-kind services, the N. C. General Assembly has
released $7 million in appropriations to be used for detoxification of the Warren County PCB Landfill, the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced today.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies' contributions include providing assistance valued at
$500,000 to help the site obtain the necessary Toxic Substance Control Act permit. The EPA also waived its
share of the required technology-licensing fee, a sum of $48,750, and donated it to the project. The total of
$548,750 was deemed sufficient to meet the federal match the 1999 General Assembly required before releasing
the funds.
The Warren County PCB Landfill, created to hold PCB contaminated soils that resulted from illegal
dumping, was met with fierce community opposition. In 1982, Governor Hunt made a commitment to Warren
County citizens that the state would push for detoxification when appropriate and feasible technology became
available.
Using a $1 million appropriation awarded in 1995, the Warren County PCB Working Group, a team of
local citizens established to work with the state on the project, explored a variety of detoxification technologies
before choosing a method called base catalyzed decomposition (BCD), a process proven at several other projects.
Legislation passed by the 1998 General Assembly appropriated $2 million to begin the detoxification process.
The final design contract was awarded in 1999. In 2000, the DENR's Division of Waste Management began
soliciting qualified firms to bid on the detoxification project and an oversight contractor was selected. While the
$7 million appropriation is not sufficient to complete the detoxification project, Warren County's community
leaders and the state remain committed to helping procure the funding it requires.
Governor Hunt has made finding the necessary funds to detoxify the landfill a priority before he leaves
office.
"By continuing to work with the community, the General Assembly and the federal government, we are
making great headway in cleaning up the PCB Landfill in Warren County," DENR Secretary Bill Holman said at
a meeting of the working group in Warren County today. "Today, we celebrate our on-going effort to fulfill
Governor Hunt's commitment to the people of Warren County."
Office of Public Affairs
Phone: [phone]
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
-more-
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Don Reuter, Director
FAX [phone]
don. reuter(a:ncmail.net
T \
-2-
"This is definitely another step in the right direction," said Dollie Burwell, who spearheaded much of the
local opposition to the landfill and now chairs the community group, which re-named itself the Warren County
Advisory Board in 1999. "Every step we take we get one step closer to reaching the dream of detoxification of
the landfill and the even larger dream of redevelopment of the site."
The Warren County PCB landfill is located northeast of Raleigh, near the town of Warrenton.
Community opposition to its location has been described as the beginning of the "environmental justice"
movement.
Office of Public Affairs
Phone: [phone]
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
###
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Don Reuter, Director
FAX [phone]
don. reuter(cv,ncmail .net
...
. James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
"-""'1'"'rt ~ .... ,'""'-..._1,.1 .. r.,•.,.1'•••·•..-.......,., 1.\t~
CnVlr-C..'t">f4LI•~ _.,.,.~ ,.:: .... n,u.L ~aJt.>;Jl'f(.;Lt.,
Bill Holman, Secretary
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Release: IMMEDIATE
Date: October 26, 2000
Contact: Chrystal Bartlett, 919/733-4996, ext. 425
Distribution: Targeted
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RELEASES $7 MILLION
FOR WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL DETOXIFICATION
WARRENTON -In response to a match of federal in-kind services, the N. C. General Assefu61f 1ias
released $7 million in appropriations to be used for detoxification of the Warren County PCB Landfill, the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced today.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies' contributions include providing assistance valued at
$500,000 to help the site obtain the necessary Toxic Substance Control Act permit. The EPA also waived its
share of the required technology-licensing fee, a sum of $48,750, and donated it to the project. The total of
$548,750 was deemed sufficient to meet the federal match the 1999 General Assembly required before releasing
the funds.
The Warren County PCB Landfill, created to hold PCB contaminated soils that resulted from illegal
dumping, was met with fierce community opposition. In 1982, Governor Hunt made a commitment to Warren
County citizens that the state would push for detoxification when appropriate and feasible technology became
available.
Using a $1 million appropriation awarded in 1995, the Warren County PCB Working Group, a team of
local citizens established to work with the state on the project, explored a variety of detoxification technologies
before choosing a method called base catalyzed decomposition (BCD), a process proven at several other projects.
Legislation passed by the 1998 General Assembly appropriated $2 million to begin the detoxification process. The
final design contract was awarded in 1999. In 2000, the DENR's Division of Waste Management began soliciting
qualified firms to bid on the detoxification project and an oversight contractor was selected. While the $7 million
appropriation is not sufficient to complete the detoxification project, Warren County's community leaders and the
state remain committed to helping procure the funding it requires.
Governor Hunt has made finding the necessary funds to detoxify the landfill a priority before he leaves
office.
"By continuing to work with the community, the General Assembly and the federal government, we are
making great headway in cleaning up the PCB Landfill in Warren County," DENR Secretary Bill Holman said at a
meeting of the working group in Warren County today. "Today, we celebrate our on-going effort to fulfill
Governor Hunt's commitment to the people of Warren County."
Office of Public Affairs
Phone: [phone]
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
-more-
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Don Reuter, Director
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
-2-
"This is definitely another step in the right direction," said Dollie Burwell, who spearheaded much of the
local opposition to the landfill and now chairs the community group, which re-named itself the Warren County
Advisory Board in 1999. "Every step we take we get one step closer to reaching the dream of detoxification of the
landfill and the even larger dream of redevelopment of the site."
The Warren County PCB landfill is located northeast of Raleigh, near the town of Warrenton. Community
opposition to its location has been described as the beginning of the "environmental justice" movement.
Office of Public Affairs
Phone: [phone]
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
###
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Don Reuter, Director
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
..
.,.
JAMES B . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
WILLIAM L. MEYER
DIRECTOft
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 18, 2000
Mr. John Brooks
Vice President
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1400 Weston Way
P.O. Box 2653
West Cllester, PA 19380-1499
Re: PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
RFQ for Design/Build Contractor
Dear Mr. Brooks:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
We have reviewed the pre-qualification statements submitted by interested contractors on October
6,2000.
We find that the following comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc.
♦ Roy F. Weston, Inc.
♦ IT Corporation
The following was found not to comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ RMT North Carolina, Inc.
Sincerely,
Patricia M. Backus, PE
PCB Landfill Project Manager
Cc: Mr. Bill Meyer
Mr. Mike Kelly
Mr. Speros Fleggas, State Construction Office
Warren County PCB Landfill Citiz.ens Advisory Board
UJJW .. , ....
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE I 50, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/I 0o/o POST-CONSUMER PAPER
!l,'i
J4MES B . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BIL.L. HOL.M4N
5ECRET4RY
I,
' ' ;
WIL.LIAM L . MEYER
DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 18, 2000
Mr. Luke A Frantz, PE
President and CEO
WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc.
221 Hobbs Street, Suite 108
Tampa, FL 33619
Re: PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
RFQ for Design/Build Contractor
Dear Mr. Frantz:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
We have reviewed the pre-qualification statements submitted by interested contractors on October
6,2000.
We find that the following comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc.
♦ Roy F. Weston, Inc.
♦ IT Corporation
The following was found not to comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ RMT North Carolina, Inc.
Sincerely,
\:/JtLti:~k&kJ
Patricia M. Backus, PE
PCB Landfill Project Manager
Cc: Mr. Bill Meyer
Mr. Mike Kelly
Mr. Speros Fleggas, State Construction Office
Warren County PCB Landfill Otizens Advisory Board
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RAL.EIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / 4F-FIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
1,
I : I;_.
1\"C ..... .._:-,,,:,-_.,, • .,, ••..•.• "" . . . .
"' 4 • ~-' . .. .
JAMES B . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
. SECRETARY
r
WILLIAM L: MEYER
DIRECTOR
... ., ....... -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 18, 2000
Mr. John H. Duffey
Director of Business Development
IT Corporation
11560 Great Oaks Way, Suite 500
Alpharetta, GA 30022-2424
Re: PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
RFQ for Design/Build Contractor
Dear John:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
We have reviewed the pre-qualification statements submitted by interested contractors on October
6,2000.
We find that the following comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc.
♦ Roy F. Weston, Inc.
♦ IT Corporation
The following was found not to comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ RMT North Carolina, Inc.
Sincerely,
~~fijc~-
Patricia M. Backus, PE
PCB Landfill Project Manager
Cc: Mr. Bill Meyer
Mr. Mike Kelly
Mr. Speros Fleggas, State Construction Office
Warren County PCB Landfill Citiz.ens Advisory Board
6 11 --·--·-1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699·1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE I SO, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE 919-733•4996 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • 50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
r ~ ~--~~~ ·~\ r::~
► f
t ' r t
' .JAMES B. HUNT JII.
-· GOVEIINOR
·. 811-L HOLMAN
. 1 • SECRETAIIY
r
t
t
I'
'i
WILL1AM L MEYEII
.. ~.· -~~;;:2
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 18, 2000
Mr. David White
RMT North Carolina, Inc.
100 Vm:taeBoulevard
Grec:oville, SC 29607-3825
Re: PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
RPQ for Design/Build C.On1ractor
Dear Mr. White:
DMSION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
We have reviewed the Jl'c-qualification statements submitted by interested contractors on October
6,2000.
We find that the following comply with the specific prequalification aiteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for 1he Detoxification of the Warren
C.Ounty PCB Landfill Using the Base Cataly7.ed Decomposition Process."
♦ WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc.
♦ Roy F. Weston, Inc.
♦ IT Corporation
The following was found not to comply with the specific prequalification criteria as outlined in the
"Request for Qualifications for a Design/Build Contractor for the Detoxification of the Warren
C.Ounty PCB Landfill Using the Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process."
♦ RMT North Carolina, Inc.
Patricia M. Backus, PE
PCB Landfill Project Manager
Cc: Mr. Bill Meyer
Mr. Mike Kelly
Mr. Speros Fleggas, State C.Onstruction Office
Warrm C.Ounty PCB Landfill Otiz.ens Advisory Board
DH MM·MM1M
IS•S MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761111-1646
401 OaERLIN ROAD, SUITE 1150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone]•411118 FAX [phone]·3605
AN EQUAL OP'..aRTUNITY I AP'P'IRMATIVE ACTION EMP'LOYER • 150% RECYCLED/I 0% P'OST-CONSUMER P'AP'ER
JAMES 8 . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
WILLIAM L. MEYER
DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 31, 2000
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
John Brooks
Vice President
1400 Weston Way, P.O. Box 2653
West Cllester, PA 19380
Dear Mr. Brooks:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
As you are aware, the Request for Proposal (RFP) or bid package for the PCB Landfill
Detoxification Project was not released on October 23 as was stated in the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ). This did not happen because of delays in negotiating our oversight services
contract with Earth Tech. These delays were the state's fault. Fortunately Earth Tech is now on
board.
Earth Tech and staff from the Division of Waste Management will be reviewing the Phase II Final
Design one more time to identify any issues that need to be addressed in the RFP. You have a
copy of the design and probably have specific questions about the design or contracting issues. In
order to improve our RFP, I am requesting that you proceed in submitting questions or concerns.
Questions should be submitted to me in writing .. We will try to address as many of these issues
as possible in the RFP, however, there will still be an opportunity for further questions after the
RFP is issued.
One item on the schedule shown in the RFQ that we would like to keep is the meeting on
November 9. The meeting will be held in Warrenton followed by a site visit to the landfill. At the
meeting we will address some of the questions and allow for further input. The visit to the landfill
will be considered the mandatory site visit A mandatory pre-bid meeting will still be held after
the RFP is issued. More details for the meeting and site visit will be supplied later this week
The revised schedule for the RFP is as follows.
ACTIVITY WHEN
Mandatory site visit (Warren County) November 9, 2000
Review RFP with CAB November 21, 2000
Issue RFP November 27, 2000
Mandatory pre-bid meeting (Raleigh) December 7,2000
Closing date for RFP December 22,2000
Public Bid Opening (Warren County) December 22,2000
Please provide a list of attendees from your firm by November 7 for planning purposes. If there
are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
y?~~hJ -~
Patricia M. Backus, P.E.
PCB Landfill Project Manager
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699·1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 1 SO, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE 919·733-4996 FAX 919•71 5·3605
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • 50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST·CONSUMER PAPER
Patricia M. Backus, PE
Division of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone] ext. 308
Fax: [phone]
Fax
To: John Brooks
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Re: Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification -
RFP Schedule and Site Visit
NCDENR
From: Pat Backus
Pages: 2
Date: October 31, 2000
CC: Carlton Dudding
91'1 -I/~ 2 ·-&9tJ/
□ Urgent 0 For Review □ Please Comment □ Please Reply □ Please Recycle
• Comments:
Attached is a copy of a letter I am sending you by USPS concerning the site visit and new RFP
schedule.
If there are any questions, please call.
Thanks.
I :
JA.MES 8 . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
'' WILLIAM L; MEYER
DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 31, 2000
WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc.
Luke A. Frantz, P .E.
President and CEO
221 Hobbs Street, Suite 108
Tampa, FL 33619
Dear Mr. Frantz:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
As you are aware, the Request for Proposal (RFP) or bid package for the PCB Landfill
Detoxification Project was not released on Octobt2' 23 as was stated in the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ). This did not happen because of delays in negotiating our oversight services
contract with Earth Tech. These delays were the state's fault. Fortunately Earth Tech is now on
board.
Earth Tech and staff from the Division of Waste Management will be reviewing the Phase II Final
Design one more time to identify any issues that need to be addressed in the RFP. You have a
copy of the design and probably have specific questions about the design or contracting issues. In
order to improve our RFP, I am requesting that you proceed in submitting questions or concerns.
Questions should be submitted to me in writing .. We will try to address as many of these issues
as possible in the RFP, however, there will still be an opportunity for further questions aftcr the
RFP is issued.
One item on the schedule shown in the RFQ that we would like to keep is the meeting on
November 9. The meeting will be held in Warrenton followed by a site visit to the landfill. At the
meeting we will address some of the questions and allow for further input The visit to the landfill
will be considered the mandatory site visit A mandatory pre-bid meeting will still be held after
the RFP is issued. More details for the meeting and site visit will be supplied later this week.
The revised schedule for the RFP is as follows.
ACTIVITY WHEN
Mandatory site visit (Warren County) November 9, 2000
Review RFP with CAB November 21, 2000
Issue RFP November 27, 2000
Mandatory pre-bid meeting (Raleigh) December 7,2000
Closing date for RFP December 22,2000
Public Bid Opening (Warren County) December 22,2000
Please provide a list of attendees from your firm by November 7 for planning purposes. If there
are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Patricia M. Backus, P.E.
PCB Landfill Project Manager
1646 MAI L SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLI NA 27699-1 646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE I 50, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/I Oo/o POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Patricia M. Backus, PE
Division of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone] ext. 308
Fax: [phone]
Fax
To: Luke A. Frantz, P.E.
WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc.
Fax: 813684q177
Phone: [phone]
Re: Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification -
RFP Schedule and Site Visit
NCDENR
From: Pat Backus
Pages: 2
Date: October 31 , 2000
CC: Joe Gunn ~
□ Urgent 0 For Review □ Please Comment □ Please Reply □ Please Recycle
• Comments:
Attached is a copy of a letter I am sending you by USPS concerning the site visit and new RFP
schedule.
If there are any questions, please call.
Thanks.
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
.
I/ :.·
WILLIAM L. MEYER
DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 31, 2000
IT Corporation
John H. Duffey
Director of Business Development
11560 Great Oaks Way, Suite 500
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Dear Mr. Duffey:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
As you are aware, the Request for Proposal (RFP) or bid package for the PCB Landfill
Detoxification Project was not released on October 23 as was stated in the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ). This did not happen because of delays in negotiating our oversight services
contract with Earth Tech. These delays were the state's fault Fortunately Earth Tech is now on
board.
Earth Tech and staff from the Division of Waste Management will be reviewing the Phase II Final
Design one more time to identify any issues that need to be addressed in the RFP. You have a
copy of the design and probably have specific questions about the design or contracting issues. In
order to improve our RFP, I am requesting that you proceed in submitting questions or concerns.
Questions should be submitted to me in writing .. We will try to address as many of these issues
as possible in the RFP, however, there will still be an opportunity for further questions after the
RFP is issued.
One item on the schedule shown in the RFQ that we would like to keep is the meeting on
November 9. The meeting will be held in Warrenton followed by a site visit to the landfill. At the
meeting we will address some of the questions and allow for further input The visit to the landfill
will be considered the mandatory site visit A mandatory pre-bid meeting will still be held after
the RFP is issued. More details for the meeting and site visit will be supplied later this week.
The revised schedule for the RFP is as follows.
ACTIVITY WHEN
Mandatory site visit (Warren County) November 9, 2000
Review RFP with CAB November 21, 2000
Issue RFP November 27, 2000
Mandatory pre-bid meeting (Raleigh) December 7,2000
Closing date for RFP December 22,2000
Public Bid Opening (Warren County) December 22,2000
Please provide a list of attendees from your firm by November 7 for planning purposes. If there
are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
y)~~ln -~
Patricia M. Backus, P.E.
PCB Landfill Project Manager
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699·1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE 9 I 9•733·4996 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • 50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Patricia M. Backus, PE
Division of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone] ext. 308
Fax: [phone]
Fax
To: John H. Duffey
IT Corporation
'I It r-,
Fax: 770777~
Phone: [phone]
Re: Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification -
RFP Schedule and Site Visit
NCDENR
From: Pat Backus
Pages: 2
Date: October 31, 2000
CC:
□ Urgent 0 For Review □ Please Comment □ Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Attached is a copy of a letter I am sending you by USPS concerning the site visit and new RFP
schedule.
If there are any questions, please call.
Thanks.
DATE
10 .27
10 .27
.. ,.1.0.27
10 .27
10.27
10.27
10.27
1 0 .27
10.27
10 . 2 7
I 10. 2 7
) I':,,. I 11
I Ll~-·-~~.·:· ___ ~---· ------·
10. 2 7
..... 1.0 .. 2 7
10.27
10.27
10. 2 7
10. 3 ,:1
10. 3 0
10.30
10.31
10. 3 1
10. 31
1 0.31
10 . 31
10 .31
10.31
10. 31
10. 31
10.31
10. 3 1
ACTIUITY REPOR T(TX)
10.31.2000 13:36
919 7153605 SOL ID WAS TE DIV
TIME DURATION REMOTE ID MODE PAGES RESULT
08 :49 00 ' 31 " ECM 1 0 . K.
08 : 51 00' 34" ECM 1 0. K.
08 :56 00 ' 34" 1 704 795 0008 ECM 1 0 . K.
10 : 0 7 0 2' 3 1" 91923 13531 63 4 0 . K.
1 0 : 1 4 00' 00" 87 084568480 6 3 0 INTERRUPT
1 0: 16 00'24" 708 4568480 ECM 1 0. K.
10: 1 7 00 '00 " 87084568480 63 0 INTE RRUPT
1 0: 18 00' 00" 87084568480 63 0 INTERRUPT
1 0: 19 00' 00" 87084568480 63 0 INTERRUPT
10:20 00' 00" 87 08 4568480 63 0 INTERR UP T
10:20 00' 00" 87084568480 63 0 INTERRUPT
10: 2 1 00 '46" 7084568480 ECM 2 0. K.
10.:..5.0 .. 00'45" .91.~7153.0.60 . 83 .. 2 0. K.
12:35 00' 34" 919 560 0643 ECM 1 0. K.
1 4 : 1 1 03' 11" 83367282980 63 5 0. K .
14 : 16 01' 30" 919 715 2668 ECM 3 0. K.
10 : 19 00} 27)) 9197790054 ECM 1 0. K.
13 :27 01' 18" 609 767 2760 G3 2 0. K.
13 :50 00' 4 7" 9197153060 133 2 0. K.
07:37 00' 23" 97158493 EC M 1 0 . K .
1 1 : 1 9 01 '26" 9 19 767 6815 ECM 2 0. K .
11 : 4 1 00 ' 2 5 " 919 767 6815 ECM 1 0 . K .
1 3 : 21 00 ' 00" 87077779545 63 0 INTERRUPT
13 :22 01'03" 87707778 169 ECM 1 INTERRUPT
13:24 00 ' 4 8" 87707778169 ECM 2 0. K .
13:27 00' 48" 87707778169 ECM 2 0. K . V
13: 2 9 00 ' 00" 88136 843177 63 0 INTERRUPT
13: 30 00' 4 7" 8136849177 ECM 2 0. K . v /
13 :32 00' 4 8" 6 10 70 1 3126 ECM 2 0. K. V
13:34 00'48° 919 462 6901 ECM 2 0. K. I,'
./
V
~
·······································································································································································································r···.•·····················
MEMORANDUM (' ~ ~ I,:;. .,, c:i":::.,. ···························································································································································································1 t.!············ <' \ ······•·.
In \--_;•.) .·
DATE:
TO:
CC:
FROM:
RE:
,, . ,.
OCTOBER 13, 2000 '
SPEROS FLEGGAS, P.E.
DIRECTOR, STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
MIKE KELLY, ED MUSSLER, BILL SESSOMS, DOLLIE BURWELL, BILL MEYER
PATBACKU~
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR DETOXIFICATION CONTRACTOR
The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a design/build contractor for the detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill was advertised in the State Purchase Directory from September 15 to October 6. On
the closing date I received responses from the following firms : IT Corporation, RMT North Carolina, Roy
F. Weston, and WRS Infrastructure and Environment.
On October 12 a review team consisted of Mike Kelly, Ed Mussler, Bill Sessoms, and myself of the
Division of Waste Management and Dollie Burwell of the Warren County PCB Landfill Citizens Advisory
Board met to evaluate the responses based on the requirements set forth in the RFQ. We were extremely
impressed with the information provided by three of the respondents. The quality of their responses made
the review process easier and gave a level of comfort that the low bidder of the three will have the expertise
and experience needed for this job.
Based on the information provided, the firms deemed responsive and qualified by the review team were IT
Corporation, Roy F. Weston, and WRS Infrastructure and Environment. The review sheets for all four
firms are attached. Please review this information and advise if any further consideration is needed.
Thanks
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
Qualifications Review Forms
PROJECT
FIRM
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
IT Corporation of North Carolina, Inc.
CONTACT PERSON
PHONE
ADDRESS
John Duffey, Director of Business Development
770-663-1470
E-MAIL
1000 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 1
Morrisville, NC 27500-9291
[e-mail]
1. Was all requested information included?
ITEM YES NO
Letter of Interest ✓
Provider of Design/Engineering Services ✓
Provider of Construction Services ✓
Provider of Treatment Services ✓
Contact Information ✓
Nature of Business ✓
Financial statement ✓
Evidence of bonding capacity ✓
Any claims, lawsuits, or judgments ✓
Environment, health, and safety record ✓
Experience ✓
Project proposal ✓
Obtained and reviewed design ✓
Addenda acknowledgement ✓
• Designer/Engineer -IT Corporation
• Construction -IT Corporation
• Treatment -Midwest Soil Remediation
• Bonding -$300M+
2. Does respondent have required licenses?
LICENSE YES NO
Engineering ✓
General Contractors ✓
3. Does respondent have the experience requested?
AREA OF EXPERIENCE YES NO
Site preparation ✓
Construction of facilities ✓
Mobilization of equipment at soil ✓
remediation sites
Management of combined efforts of ✓
design, construction, and remediation (i.e.
design-build type project)
Experience with remediation projects ✓
involving at least 30,000 cubic yards of
soil
Experience with the solid or liquid phase ✓
BCD process
Knowledge of TSCA regulations ✓
Knowledge of PCB analytical methods ✓
Experience with design of thermal ✓
remediation projects
Experience in obtaining a TSCA permit ✓
for a thermal treatment process
Experience in obtaining other required ✓
permits ( especially in North Carolina)
Experience in remedial design ( can be non ✓
thermal)
Experience in using community resources ✓
and working cooperatively with site
owners and community
Experience in completing projects on time ✓
and within budget
4. Does project proposal include the information requested?
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL YES NO
Organization and management plan ✓
Key personnel ✓
Experience working as a team ✓
ES&H ✓
Community participation ✓
Site layout and process equipment ✓
Explanation of differences from Phase III ✓
Design
Project schedule ✓
5. Does block process flow diagram reflect the process specifications in the Phase III
Design?
PROCESS ELEMENTS YES NO
Indirect thermal desorption ✓
Use of BCD process ✓
Equivalent gas treatment system ✓
Finished in two years or less ✓
6. Qualified?
YES
PROJECT
FIRM
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
CONTACT PERSON
PHONE
ADDRESS
John Brooks, Vice-President
610-701-3088
1400 Weston Way
P. 0. Box 2653
E-MAIL
West Chester, PA 19380-1499
[e-mail]
1. Was all requested information included?
ITEM YES
Letter of Interest ✓
Provider of Design/Engineering Services ✓
Provider of Construction Services ✓
Provider of Treatment Services ✓
Contact Information ✓
Nature of Business ✓
Financial statemen,t ✓
Evidence of bonding capacity ✓
Any claims, lawsuits, or judgments ✓
Environment, health, and safety record ✓
Experience ✓
Project proposal ✓
Obtained and reviewed design ✓
Addenda acknowledgement ✓
• Designer/Engineer-Roy F. Weston
• Construction-Roy F. Weston
• Treatment-Envir-0-Process Technologies
• Bonding -$1 OOM+
2. Does respondent have required licenses?
LICENSE YES
Engineering ✓
General Contractors *
NO
NO
* Will provide by time of contract execution as allowed in addenda.
3. Does respondent have the experience requested?
AREA OF EXPERIENCE YES NO
Site preparation ✓
Construction of facilities ✓
Mobilization of equipment at soil ✓
remediation sites
Management of combined efforts of ✓
design, construction, and remediation (i .e.
design-build type project) ·
Experience with remediation projects ✓
involving at least 30,000 cubic yards of
soil
Experience with the solid or liquid phase ✓
BCD process
Knowledge of TSCA regulations ✓
Knowledge of PCB analytical methods ✓
Experience with design of thermal ✓
remediation projects
Experience in obtaining a TSCA permit ✓
for a thermal treatment process
Experience in obtaining other required ✓
permits (especially in North Carolina)
Experience in remedial design ( can be non ✓
thermal)
Experience in using community resources ✓
and working cooperatively with site
owners and community
Experience in completing projects on time ✓
and within budget
4. Does project proposal include the information requested?
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL YES NO
Organization and-management plan ✓
Key personnel ✓
Experience working as a team ✓
ES&H ✓
Community participation ✓
Site layout and process equipment ✓
Explanation of differences from Phase III ✓
Design
Project schedule ✓
5. Does block process flow diagram reflect the process specifications in the Phase III
Design?
PROCESS ELEMENTS YES NO
Indirect thermal desorption ✓
Use of BCD process ✓
Equivalent gas treatment system ✓
Finished in two years or less ✓
6. Qualified?
YES
PROJECT
FIRM
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc.
CONTACT PERSON
PHONE
ADDRESS
Luke A. Frantz, P.E., President and CEO
813-684-4400
E-MAIL
221 Hobbs Street, Suite 108
Tampa, FL 33619
[e-mail]
1. Was all requested information included?
ITEM YES
Letter of Interest ✓
Provider of Design/Engineering Services ✓
Provider of Construction Services ✓
Provider of Treatment Services ✓
Contact Information ✓
Nature of Business ✓
Financial statement ✓
Evidence of bonding capacity ✓
Any claims, lawsuits, or judgments ✓
Environment, health, and safety record ✓
Experience ✓
Project proposal ✓
Obtained and reviewed design ✓
Addenda acknowledgement ✓
NO
• Designer/Engineer -Arcadis Geraghty & Miller
• Construction -WRS
• Treatment -Environmental Chemical Corporation
• Bonding-$15M (single), $30M (aggregate)
2. Does respondent have required licenses?
LICENSE YES NO
Engineering ✓
General Contractors *
* Has a GC License but not with all requirements . This can be provided by the
time of contract execution as allowed in the addenda.
3. Does respondent have the experience requested?
AREA OF EXPERIENCE YES NO
Site preparation ✓
Construction of facilities ✓
Mobilization of equipment at soil ✓
remediation sites
Management of combined efforts of ✓
design, construction, and remediation (i.e.
design-build type project)
Experience with remediation projects ✓
involving at least 30,000 cubic yards of
soil
Experience with the solid or liquid phase ✓
BCD process
Knowledge of TSCA regulations ✓
Knowledge of PCB analytical methods ✓
Experience with design of thermal ✓
remediation projects
Experience in obtaining a TSCA permit ✓
for a thermal treatment process
Experience in obtaining other required ✓
permits (especially in North Carolina)
Experience in remedial design ( can be non ✓
thermal)
Experience in using community resources ✓
and working cooperatively with site
owners and community
Experience in completing projects on time ✓
and within budget
4. Does project proposal include the information requested?
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL YES NO
Organization and management plan ✓
Key personnel ✓
Experience working as a team ✓
ES&H ✓
Community participation ✓
Site layout and process equipment ✓
Explanation of differences from Phase III ✓
Design
Project schedule ✓
5. Does block process flow diagram reflect the process specifications in the Phase III
Design?
PROCESS ELEMENTS YES NO
Indirect thermal desorption ✓
Use of BCD process ✓
Equivalent gas treatment system ✓
Finished in two years or less ✓
6. Qualified?
YES
PROJECT
FIRM
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
RMT North Carolina, Inc.
David White
864-281-0030
CONTACT PERSON
PHONE
ADDRESS
E-MAIL
100 Verdae Boulevard
Greenville, SC 29607-3825
david. [e-mail]
1. Was all requested information included?
ITEM YES
Letter of Interest ✓
Provider of Design/Engineering Services ✓
Provider of Construction Services ✓
Provider of Treatment Services ✓
Contact Information ✓
Nature of Business ✓
Financial statement ✓
Evidence of bonding capacity ✓
Any claims, lawsuits, or judgments ✓
Environment, health, and safety record ✓
Experience ✓
Project proposal ✓
Obtained and reviewed design
Addenda acknowledgement
• Designer/Engineer -RMT
• Construction -RMT
• Treatment -United Eco Systems
NO
✓*
✓
• Bonding -$7M (single), $25M (maximum)-RMT
• Bonding -$50M -United Eco Systems
* A representative from United Eco Systems did purchase a copy of the
design on CDs but a statement acknowledging that was not included.
2. Does respondent have required licenses?
LICENSE YES NO
Engineering ✓
General Contractors *
* Has a GC License but not with all requirements. This can be provided by the
time of contract execution as allowed in the addenda.
3. Does respondent have the experience requested?
AREA OF EXPERIENCE YES NO
Site preparation ✓
Construction of facilities ✓
Mobilization of equipment at soil ✓
remediation sites
Management of combined efforts of ✓
design, construction, and remediation (i.e.
design-build type project)
Experience with remediation projects ✓
involving at least 30,000 cubic yards of
soil
Experience with the solid or liquid phase ✓
BCD process
Knowledge of TSCA regulations ✓
Knowledge of PCB analytical methods ✓
Experience with design of thermal ✓
remediation projects
Experience in obtaining a TSCA permit ✓
for a thermal treatment process
Experience in obtaining other required ✓
permits (especially in North Carolina)
Experience in remedial design ( can be non ✓
thermal)
Experience in using community resources ✓
and working cooperatively with site
owners and community
Experience in completing projects on time ✓
and within budget
The firm supplied a checklist indicating they had all the requested experience
except for the BCD process experience. However, in the judgment of the
evaluation team, their project information did not support their assertions.
4. Does project proposal include the information requested?
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL YES NO
Organization and management plan ✓
Key personnel ✓
Experience working as a team ✓
ES&H ✓
Community participation ✓•
Site layout and process equipment ✓
Explanation of differences from Phase III ✓
Design
Project schedule ✓
* A paragraph under this title was provided but was considered extremely poor
and not specific to the project. While words were provided, the evaluation team
felt it was not responsive to the community participation requirements of this
project.
A project schedule was included but was extremely limited and did not include
many important activities in the project.
5. Does block process flow diagram reflect the process specifications in the Phase III
Design?
PROCESS ELEMENTS YES NO
Indirect thermal desorption ✓
Use of BCD process ✓
Equivalent gas treatment system ✓
Finished in two years or less ✓
As noted in 4, explanations of the differences between the system they proposed
and the Phase III design were not provided. Based on the block flow diagram and
process description, the primary treatment unit they propose is a direct thermal
desorption system. The design specifications indicated in several places the
requirement for indirect thermal desorption. The secondary treatment unit is a
combustion unit. Based on the temperatures indicated it would be an incinerator.
Incineration was ruled out as technology for this project several years ago. The
process flow diagram does not indicate the use of the BCD technology as is
required by statute.
6. Qualified?
NO
~-~l~. ~r Mike K., in Warren Co.
Subject: my role, per Mike K., in Warren Co.
Date: Mon, 09Oct200010:56:15 -0400
From: Chrystal Bartlett <[e-mail]>
To: BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>,
BRENDA RIVERS <[e-mail]>
I spoke with Mike Mon AM. The notes are attached in msword.
1
·· ................................. ········ .. -·-······ ........... ·····-··························· ... ························································ .. ··········•······•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•···•· ·········· ... ····
Chrystal Bartlett <chrystal. bartlettgv,ncmail. net>
1 of 1 10/09/2000 11 :16 AM
_. .l
Attendance at warren co on 10/10/00 -check and see if car is available here and call you if it is.
My role in Warren County:Group
As little or as much as I would like. Pat W. and Bill M were the two "key" players and as Bill left, Mike
entered. Now, Pat B. has taken over several of the roles that were done in the past. As far as going and
participating, leave it up to Bill and see what he thinks I should do . Doesn't see a whole lot of benefit of
me going every time. We do the tape recorder and do the minutes and you know the level of scy. support
and the help they need up there, but thats up to them.
Cb - I do send the content to Robin altho it doesn't seem reflected in what she puts out. ...
lv1K -when we get the thing cranked up, you would need all the data to do press releases. Maybe go once
in a while to keep your name and face in with the crowd. As we get cranked up and it becomes a routine
thing, perhaps we can work with Patrick Barnes. And maybe the E.J. staffer also if that grant (?)goes
through(?). There's certainly no leadership role now, with Pat Backus there , so the presence of the PIO is
not as much a priority as perhaps it had been in the past.
Q -What about Dollie asking me to take minutes. Do you think she will feel deprived ?
lv1K -Don't think so, but we certainly can ask her.
CB -it sounds like the role is like what I do for other sections.
lv1K -As best I can tell, that would be right.
\V ARREN COUNTY
PCB DETOXIFICATION-REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
720 RJOGEWA Y STREET
WARRENTON, N.C. 27589
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Mike Kelly
FROM: Robin Green, Secretary
DATE: September 13 , 2000
Number of pages (including cover sheet) 2
ATTENTION: Mike Kelly
S£:6 00, £1 das dil0d9 SN Dk:l□r'I 8Jd
ATTENDANCE AT WARREN COUNTY PCB CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING
dr1Ckf l 9NI>kl□rri 8Jd
Re: RFQ -Warren County PCB Landfill
1 of2
Subject: Re: RFQ -Warren County PCB Landfill
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10 :36:43 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: Patrick Barnes <[e-mail]>, Mike Kelly <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>,
Cathy Kearney <[e-mail]>, Warren County PCB Landfill <[e-mail]>,
Henry Lancaster <[e-mail]>,
Sherri Evans Stanton <[e-mail]>,
Chrystal Bartlett <[e-mail]>,
Dollie Burwell <[e-mail]>, Daria Holcomb <[e-mail]>,
Diane Long <[e-mail]>, Jim Warren <[e-mail]>,
Nan Freeland <[e-mail]>, Jane Q Smith <[e-mail]>,
Eddie Wright <[e-mail]>,
Phaedra Pezzullo <[e-mail]>,
Dolan Simmons <[e-mail]>,
Laird Davison <[e-mail]>,
BILL SESSOMS <[e-mail]>,
"Edward F. Mussler, III, P.E." <[e-mail]>,
Dollie2 Burwell <dollie _ [e-mail]>,
"Cloonan, Jim11 <Jim_ [e-mail]>,
BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>
Sorry, the RFQ didn't get attached the first time.
Pat Backus wrote :
> Just to let you know ....
>
> The advertisement f or the Request for Qualifications for the Warren
> County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project was issued this morning. It
> can be viewed at the State Construction Office web site (
> ht:t:p: //~i.nt:erscope2. doa.. st:at:e.nc. 11.s lsco/ma.i.n. htm ) under "Advertisements
> for Architectural/Engineering Services". The actual RFQ is attached.
> (I h ope I got all the typos.) For those that did not attend the CAB
> meeting, the schedule for awarding the contract is on the first page of
> the RFQ.
>
> Believe it or not, I received seven requests for copies of the RFQ
> before noon .
,••·········································································································································································································································· '••···············"··•············ ................................................... ············ ...................... ······················ . ···············•··• : ................................................ ,. . . I .. .. . . . Name: RFQ-PCBLF Detox:doc ... , .............. ::
! 0RFO _ PCB LF Detox doc~ T~pe: Download File (application/msword): l -· l Encodmg: base64 j ! !Download Status: Not downloaded with message I
:~. ►-. :.· : : . >" ' ' ►' '•'•'•·•\. :-►-. :.· :•·•·•·•·•·•·•:•·•:•·•·•:•: . ►-;:4·. ' ' •: ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·•·•·•:•·•·•·•·•·•>"•>C•'•'•>"o>C•>· . • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '•'•"•>·•·•·.:-:,>·•·•.•·•>>:•::•·•·•>"•'•'.;.:,:-·•;•>>"•>"•·•:•:•:-<o<.::•>"•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•·•:•:•:•:•:•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•::
09/18/2000 10:46 AM
REQUEST FOR OUALIFICA TIONS
DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACTOR FOR THE DETOXIFICATION
OF THE WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
USING THE BASE CATALYZED DECOMPOSITION (BCD) PROCESS
This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) solicits information from firms interested in performing the
design/build contractual services described in the Scope of Work and Phase III -Final Design Warren County PCB
Landfill Detoxification Project. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division
of Waste Management (State) by this process is selecting contractors who will be eligible to respond to the Request
for Proposal (RFP) to detoxify the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated soil contained in the Warren
County PCB Landfill.
The design/builder ( detoxification contractor) may be a single firm capable of providing design, construction,
and remediation services with its own forces; a joint venture of an engineering firm, a construction firm, and a
remediation services firm; or an engineering firm, construction firm, or remediation services finn providing either
design, construction, or remediation services respectively, itself, and providing the other services through an
appropriate subagreement.
The selection of the detoxification contractor will be conducted using a two-phase process. In phase one, this
RFQ, the State is soliciting information from firms relating to their technical qualifications, experience with similar
projects, reputation with clients, financial strength, approach to implementing the project's requirements, and
organi:zational ability to provide the required design, construction, and remediation activities. A committee
composed of staff from the State Construction Office and the Division of Waste Management along with a
representative from the Warren County Community Advisory Board will review the information received. The
State wishes to select firms to advance to the next phase of the process based solely on the information obtained
from this RFQ. However, the State may request interviews with some or all of the respondents to answer questions
concerning their qualifications to facilitate the selection process.
Immediately following the selection, the firms identified will be provided with the RFP package. The package
will contain contract documents and specific instructions for the preparation of the proposal. The detoxification
contractor will be selected based on the lowest bid responsive to the RFP. Bids will be opened at a public bid
opening with the apparent low bidder announced. The State will review the opened bids for completeness and
responsiveness to the RFP. The final bid award will be announced shortly after this review. The State intends to
sign a contract and issue a notice to proceed within 60 days of the selection of the detoxification contractor.
Proposed Schedule for the Selection Process
ACTIVITY DATE
Issue RFQ September 15, 2000
Closing date for RFQ October 6, 2000
Review of qualifications October 9-20, 2000
Issue RFP October 23 , 2000
Last date for pre-bid questions November 2, 2000
Mandatory pre-bid meeting November 9, 2000
Closing date for RFP November 21, 2000
Public bid opening November 21, 2000
Part I
General
A. The project, "Detoxification of Warren County PCB Landfill", was given an exemption under G.S. 143-
135.26 for alternative contracting by the State Building Commission on April 25, 2000. The alternative
contracting method approved was the design-build method.
B. Send all responses using the format described in Part IV of this request directly to:
Patricia M. Backus, PE
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
C. Sealed packages will be received at the address specified until 4:00 p.m., October 6, 2000.
D. Refer technical inquiries to:
Patricia M. Backus, PE
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone] Ext. 308
E. All responses will be open for inspection and review by the Division of Waste Management, the State
Construction Office, the Warren County PCB Landfill Citizens Advisory Board, and the public. Trade
secrets and proprietary information provided cannot be safeguarded.
F. Telegraphic Offers: Telegraphic and facsimile information will not be considered; however, information
may be modified by such means if the modifications are received prior to the closing date and time and
provided a signed original follows within five business days.
G. Cost for Preparation: The State will not reimburse respondents for costs incurred in the preparation and
submission of a statement of qualifications.
H. Licenses: This RFQ references licenses that are required for this project. Contact information for some of
the licensing agencies is provided in this RFQ. Most of the websites mentioned contain excerpts from the
North Carolina General Statutes and/or Administration Code pertaining to their requirements and authority.
The Statues can be viewed from the North Carolina General Assembly website,
bttp:/iwww.ncga.state.nc.us/. The technical contact will support the respondents, if needed, in their efforts
to obtain licensing information. However, it is the respondent's responsibility to understand licensing
requirements, to contact the appropriate licensing boards if there are questions, and to ensure that
the respondent can legally provide the services they are offering.
I. Changes in detoxification contractor: Any change in a detoxification contractor, such a change in the
makeup of a joint venture, after prequalification will be considered a new, unqualified detoxification
contractor. The new detoxification contractor can request a review for requalification. The request must be
2
in writing with the signatures of all the parties involved. It should include a reason for the change and
include a new qualification package following the format listed in this RFQ. It must be submitted at least
two weeks prior to the RFP closing date. The State reserves the right to reject the new detoxification
contractor if in its opinion the contractor does not meet the qualifications of the previously qualified
detoxification contractor.
J. Documents: The following documents have been produced concerning the detoxification of the Warren
County PCB Landfill.
□ Phase I -Pilot Scale Test Report
Detoxification of Contaminated Soils Utilizing Base Catalyzed Decomposition
Warren County, North Carolina
□ Phase II -Preliminary Design Report
PCB Landfill Detoxification
Warren County, North Carolina
□ Phase III -Final Design Report and Drawings
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
Warren County, North Carolina
These documents are available to review or copy at the Division of Waste Management Solid Waste File
Room. The file access procedures for the division are in Attachment 1. The complete Phase III Final
Design will also available on CDs at a cost of $45. A statement indicating that a copy of the design has
been obtained and reviewed must be included in the response to this RFQ.
K. Site Visits: Visits to the Warren County PCB Landfill can be scheduled by contacting the technical
representative. The RFP will require a mandatory site visit.
L. Bonding: The project will require bid and performance bonding. The RFP will provide the details of this
requirement.
M. Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB) and Community Participation: The State will encourage and
require information documenting a "good faith" effort to include HUB and local businesses and individuals
in the detoxification project. The target HUB participation for state projects is 10%.
3
Part II
BACKGROUND OF PROJECT
A. History of the Detoxification Effort
In 1982 a landfill permitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was constructed in Warren
County, North Carolina. The pmpose of the landfill was to contain soil that had been contaminated by the illegal
spraying of liquids containing PCBs along 210 miles of road in North Carolina. The contaminated roadsides were
listed on the National Priorities List and the Warren County PCB Landfill was the selected remedy under the
Superfund. Many in the community felt that Warren County was the selected location because it had a
predominantly minority population and was one of the poorer counties in the state. Residents and civil rights leaders
vehemently protested the location of the landfill in Warren County. That community activism was considered the
"watershed event" that brought environmental justice to the national level.
The governor of North Carolina at the time, James B. Hunt, Jr., wrote a letter to the citizens promising that the
State would "push as hard as it can for detoxification of the landfill when and if the appropriate and feasible
technology is developed." A study conducted in the mid-1980s concluded that no such technology was available.
When Governor Hunt was re-elected in 1994, a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group (Working
Group) was established to study the status of the landfill and determine the feasibility of detoxification. The North
Carolina General Assembly appropriated $1 million for this pmpose. An extensive site assessment was conducted
in 1997 and detoxification technologies were researched and evaluated at the bench-scale. After Phase I -Pilot
Scale Testing using material from the landfill, the Working Group selected Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD)
as the best and safest process for the site. The process met the Working Group's treatment requirements plus
fulfilled the o~jectives to destroy the PCBs rather than just separating them from the soil and to conduct the
detoxification onsite to prevent contamination of other areas of the county.
The General Assembly supported the Working Group's selection when in Session Law 1998-212 it
incorporated a section that stated "based catalyzed decomposition (BCD) technology shall be used to detoxify
the landfill". It also stated "treatment standards for residual concentrations of contaminants remaining in
the soil shall be 200 parts per billion for PCBs and 200 parts per trillion toxicity equivalent concentration
(TEQ) for dioxins/furans."
A Phase II -Preliminary Design for the detoxification using the BCD process was completed in 1998 and
estimated the treatment and restoration cost at $14-20M. The General Assembly provided $8M in 1999 to be used
for the detoxification of the landfill. EPA has offered to provide in-kind services to support the TSCA permitting
process including sample collection and analysis and a waiver of the EPA portion of the BCD licensing. Additional
funding will be needed; however, the State can enter into a phase-funded contract based on the funds currently
available. (Note that the Davis-Bacon Act requires that each contract over $2,000 to which the United State is a
party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works will contain a clause setting forth
the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed. In addition to the Davis-
Bacon Act, prevailing wage provisions are included in approximately 60 statutes. If a construction project is funded
or assisted under one of these statutes, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions may apply to the project. All
federal funds for the detoxification project have not been identified. Information addressing this issue will be
included in the RFP.) Phase III -Final Design, which is a detailed combination of technical and performance
specifications for the project, was completed in March of 2000. The construction, treatment, and demobilization
elements of the detoxification project are expected to require 18-24 months.
The selection of a detoxification technology completed the mission of the Working Group. A new Citizens
Advisory Board (CAB) was established in 1999. Their mission is to work together with the State to complete
detoxification of the landfill. Their role includes serving as a liaison to the State on behalf of the Warren County
4
community, providing education and updates to the community about PCB Landfill issues, and developing
specifications for detoxification of the landfill and for the selection of a contractor.
The State has also selected an oversight contractor to advise the State and represent the State's interests during
the detoxification project. The oversight contractor will also perform perimeter air monitoring. Contract
negotiations with the firm are in progress.
B. Site Description
The State owns and maintains a closed landfill (July 1983) containing PCB-contaminated soils in Warren
County, North Carolina. This landfill is permitted under the TSCA and contains approximately 40,000 cubic yards
(60,000 tons) of contaminated soil. The soil came from the illegal disposal of PCB-contaminated liquids along
North Carolina roadsides.
The landfill is located on a 142-acre tract of land on the east side of SR 1604 approximately 1.5 to 2.0 miles
from the intersection of SR 1604 and US 401 , 2-3 miles south of Warrenton. The State owns approximately 19
acres of the tract and Warren County owns the remaining acreage surrounding the State's property. The
containment area of the landfill cell occupies approximate 3.8 acres and is enclosed by a fence. The county property
is undeveloped and land adjacent to the county property is either undeveloped or used for agricultural purposes.
The landfill surface dimension is approximately 300' x 550' with a depth of approximately 25 ' of
contaminated soil at the center of the landfill. The landfill has PVC and clay caps and liners and a dual leachate
collection system. No leachate has ever been detected in the lower system. Leachate from the upper system is
treated using sand and activated carbon filters before discharging to an 800,000 gallon unlined collection pond. A
spray irrigation (non-discharge) permit is maintained for the facility, so that any accumulated treated leachate can be
routed to an irrigation system installed along the crest of the landfill. This system has never been used because
significant accumulation has never been occurred. There is no existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit for the site. The unpaved entrance road is maintained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and was designed to handle large soil-laden dump trucks.
A large amount of water accumulated in the landfill due to heavy rainfalls during the filling of the landfill.
Leachate that collected in the sump was pumped once a month for many years but had little effect on the water level.
The water level eventually reached 13 to 14 feet. Over the past year and a half the State has been continuously
pumping leachate from the landfill and reduced the level to approximately three feet.
PCB-contaminated soils contained in the landfill have been physically characterized as coarse-grained, with
less than 30% passing through a #200 sieve. Their liquid limit and plasticity index is 25 and 8 respectively. Total
organic or humic content is less than 2%. The average concentration of PCBs is approximately 350 ppm with a
range of 150 to almost 900 ppm. The PCBs are a mixture of PCB congeners with approximately 61% Aroclor 1260,
27% Aroclor 1254, and 12% Aroclor 1242 by weight. Other chemicals such as chlorinated benzenes, furans, and
dioxins are present in ppq to ppb concentrations.
The existing TSCA permit requires that the State sample the leachate system monthly and the monitoring wells
surrounding the landfill, nearby surface water, and sediments in the nearby stream semi-annually. No PCBs have
been detected in these samples.
5
Part III
DETOXIFICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Phase III -Final Design included the following elements.
□ Completed site and area surveys
o Site layout and logistics
□ Soil material handling
□ Building, Structures, Parking and Personnel Support Areas
□ Infrastructure Improvements including improvements to access road and perimeter road and extension
of water service to the site
D Stormwater Management
□ Construction or assembly and setup of equipment
□ Excavation of the Landfill
□ PCB Soil Treatment and Process Design
□ Confirmation/Verification Sampling
□ Decontamination
□ Backfilling and Final Grading
□ Project Work Plans
• Community Involvement Plan
• Project Health and Safety Plan
• Performance Demonstration Plan
• Air Monitoring Plan (Note: the oversight contractor will perform perimeter air monitoring.)
• Site Operations Plan
• Quality Assurance Project Plan
• Final Verification/Confirmation Sampling Plan
• Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan
• Emergency Response Plan
The complete Phase III Final Design is available to review or copy at the Division of Waste Management Solid
Waste File Room. The file access procedures for the division are in Attachment 1. The design will also be available
on CD at a cost of $45. A statement indicating that a copy of the design has been obtained and reviewed must
be included in the response to this RFQ. The following briefly describes some of the work that will be needed
during the detoxification project.
1. Completion of Detoxification Project Design
The Phase III Final Design is a detailed combination of technical and performance specifications. However, not
all process drawings have been completed and a professional engineer has not sealed any of the drawings. The
detoxification contractor will be required to add design and shop drawings specific to their approach to the
detoxification project while meeting the requirements that will be set forth more in the Final Design, to have a
professional engineer review and seal the drawings, and to obtain permits.
In addition to experience, the entity that will be providing design professional services will have to be legally
qualified to provide engineering services in North Carolina as required by G.S. 89C. Information, guidance, and
applications can be obtained from the sources listed below. Applications for the licensure of businesses can be
downloaded from the Board's website.
6
North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors
310 West Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone:
Fax:
919-841-4000
919-841-4012
Internet web site: http://ww\v.ncbels.org
Linda Peace
Supervisor of Firm Li censure
Telephone: [phone] ext. 102
Ibpeace(ancbels. org
David Tuttle
Board Counsel
Telephone: [phone] ext. 111
dstuttl ('.1{pncbels. or,;;
2. BCD Licensing
As stated previously, the selected process for remediation of the site is BCD. The BCD process was invented
and patented by the U. S. Environment Protection Agency's (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL). (Information on the process and licensing can be obtained from George Huffman at U.S. EPN
NRMRL, 513-569-7431). In an effort to support this project and the use of BCD, EPA has offered to wave the EPA
portion (65%) of the licensing fee.
3. Community Outreach and Involvement
The State considers open communication with the community and use of community resources on this project
as an integral part to its success. Several efforts are already underway to provide accomplish this.
The Warren Family Institute (WFI) in Warrenton is anticipating funding of an environmental justice grant in
October from the EPA to provide a Community Involvement Coordinator and Job Developer. They will be
providing the majority of outreach efforts through newsletters, presentations to community groups, job skills
training, and identification of local resources. In the meantime, the State has hired a Technical Community Advisor
to start these efforts and to cross train the WFI personnel once their grant is received. While the detoxification
contractor will not be directing these efforts, they will be expected to work cooperatively with the State, the
oversight contractor, the CAB, and others in the community to support these efforts.
The detoxification contractor will be expected to use these resources and will be required to make a "good
faith" effort to use community resources for the project and to provide documentation of that effort.
4. Treatment Related Permits and Demonstration Testing
The detoxification treatment process will consist of several processing areas including a solid phase BCD
thermal desorption step, a liquid phase BCD reaction step, an air pollution control system, a process water treatment
system, and a stormwater process treatment system. In Phase I Pilot Testing, the process demonstrated its
capability to meet the stringent treatment requirements established by the Working Group of residual concentrations
of 200 parts per billion for PCBs and 200 parts per trillion TEQ for dioxins/furans. Other processing requirements
are that the concentration of contaminants in the air measured during excavation and processing at the property line
not exceed 8 x 10-4 micrograms per cubic meter PCBs and 5 x 10-8 micrograms per cubic meter TEQ for dioxins. It
7
is the goal of the State and the CAB that the property requires no further operations or maintenance after the
detoxification and that the property can be used to benefit the community.
The PCB Landfill is subject to TSCA regulations (40 CFR 761). Because the BCD process has not been
permitted under TSCA regulations, the detoxification contractor will be required to obtain a TSCA permit for the
treatment process through EPA Headquarters. The existing Warren County PCB Landfill permit will also require
modification and approval through Region IV to conduct the remediation. The detoxification contractor will be the
owner of the TSCA BCD process permit. The permit will be a national permit and last for five years. The State is
the owner of the TSCA landfill permit and will obtain the modification but may require assistance from the
detoxification contractor. The State has met and discussed permitting issues with Mr. Winston Lue and Mr. Hiroshi
Dodahara of the National Program Chemicals Division and Mr. Craig Brown of the Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Branch of Region IV.
The TSCA permitting process requires the submission of a detailed application describing the process and
demonstration testing with the equipment to prove the process meets the requirements set forth in the TSCA
regulations. The permit application will also include a request for approval to allow the shakedown of equipment
using landfill soil TSCA regulators will be onsite during the demonstration testing and will sample all output
streams including the process stack gas. EPA has offered to provide assistance through the Superfund Innovation
Technology Evaluation Program during the preparation of the permit application and the demonstration testing.
This assistance will include the analysis of samples that support efforts to obtain the TSCA permit.
In addition to TSCA, demonstration testing will also need to include testing requirement for State air permits
and to prove that the process can meet the more stringent treatment goals of the project as stated in the State law.
TSCA and North Carolina Division of Air Quality personnel have indicated they will work with the treatment firm
to resolve differences in stack design and stack testing requirements.
5. Site Preparation and Construction
Site preparation and construction activities include activities such as clearing and grubbing; construction and
installation of access roads, parking areas, fences, lighting, liners, erosion control structures, storm water system,
etc.; construction of pads, berms and sumps in the process operating areas according to the design; installation of
utilities, and construction and installation of facilities (e.g., trailers, material storage, showers, metal buildings, etc.).
Water is not currently available at the site necessitating the installation of an environmental 6-inch water line from
the county water line at SR 1604 to the site. Electric service will also need to be upgraded.
In addition to experience, the entity that will be providing construction services should present evidence of
qualifications to provide general construction services in North Carolina as required by G.S. 87. Based on the nature
of this project, an unlimited license will be required with unlimited classification or classification in the following
specialties: H (Grading and Excavating), S (Concrete Construction), PU (Fuel Distribution), PU (Water Lines and
Sewer Lines), S (Metal Erection). Information and applications can be obtained from the sources listed below.
Mailing Address: North Carolina Licensing Board for General Contractors
P. 0 . Box 17187
Courier Address:
Telephone:
FAX:
Raleigh, NC 27619
North Carolina Licensing Board for General Contractors
3739 National Drive, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27612
919 571-4183
919 571-4703
Internet web site: http://www.nclbgc.net
8
6. Equipment Mobilization, Startup, and Shakedown
Specific details are provided in the Phase III -Final Design. The Final Design estimated that equipment
mobilization would begin within 5-6 months after signing a contract. TSCA regulators have indicated that the
permit application could include testing of the equipment with contaminated soil. The Final Design also provided
an estimate that shakedown of equipment would be complete by 9-10 months after the signing of a contract. The
State wishes to meet or beat these estimates.
7. Processing of PCB Landfill Detoxification
Specific details concerning processing of soil and confirmation and verification sampling are provided in the
Phase III -Final Design. The Final Design estimated that remediation of the soil would require approximately one
year. Again, the State wishes to meet or best this estimate.
8. Decontamination and Demobilization, and Restoration of the site
The restoration/demobilization phase will include backfilling of material; decontamination, dismantlement, and
demobilization; and removal of the temporary structures from the site. Warren County would like to redevelop the
site for use by the community. One possibility is as a recreational area. However, a specific plan for this has not
been developed and the current restoration plan is to return the site to a grassy field condition. If the county does
develop a plan before completion of the detoxification, the State would like to restore the site to accommodate their
plan if project funds are available.
9. Project Closeout
• Participate in final review of project to ensure that all contra.ct requirements were completed.
• Review lien releases
• Approve final invoice
• Insure that all documentation and files are transferred to the State
• Prepare a final report documenting that all detoxification project requirements have been met
including a summary of all activities and data associated with the completion of the detoxification
9
Part IV
Response Information and Format
Each respondent to this RFQ should submit five copies of the requested information and follow the outline
listed below. Each copy should be in an individual 3-ring, 3-in or less binder. The respondent should try to limit
responses to supplying only the information requested using the format requested to facilitate evaluation of the
qualification.
A. Letter or Interest
A short narrative as to the respondent's interest, particular abilities and qualification related to this project.
Please limit this to two pages.
B. Title Page
The title page should include the following:
Statement of Qualifications
Design/Build Services
PCB Landfill Detoxification and Redevelopment Project
Warren County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
The State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
List name of firm(s) that would be supplying services and finn location. lf the response is for anything other that a
single firm providing design, construction, and remediation services please identify which finn responsible for each
of the three services and their location. If a teaming effort, also identify the name to be used to identify your team.
Closing date of request
C. Respondent Information Summary Section
(Note: If a single firm does not provide design, construction, and remediation services; provide the following
information for each firm.)
1. Respondent's Firm Name
Provide the legal firm name of the respondent.
2. Respondent's Legal Street Address and Mailing Address
Provide the firm's legal office street address and mailing address. If the contractor has a North Carolina
office that would be providing services, please provide this address also. Indicate a single address that
should be used for all future correspondence concerning this project.
3. Principal Contact's Telephone Number, Fax Number, and E-mail Address
Provide the daytime phone number including area code of the respondent's authorized contact with the
authority to bind the respondent and answer questions concerning the information provided. This should be
one person regardless of whether a single firm or a team of firms.
4. Nature of Business
Provide information describing the legal business entity, size, and organizational structure of the
respondent and length of time providing the services requested. Provide the year the firm was established
and any former contractor names.
5. Firm's Licenses
Provide licenses or other information reflecting the ability of the firm to do business in North Carolina and
to provide specialized services. This project requires that the firm providing design service be
licensing as an engineering firm in North Carolina and that the firm providing construction services
have a general contractors license in North Carolina.
6. Financial Statement
Provide a copy of your latest certified financial statement. (Note: Again, if a single firm does not provide
all design, construction, and remediation services; provide the information for each firm.)
Provide evidence of respondent's bonding capacity, current situation with regard to significant claims
and/or lawsuits, and any pending or outstanding judgements of any significant size.
D. Environment, Health, and Safety Record
1. Provide a brief overview of the firm's ES&H pro gram.
2. Provide the firm 's Ell.'Perience Modification Rate (EMR), Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Recordable, and Lost Workday rates for the previous three years.
3. Indicate whether the firm has received any citations from OSHA or other regulatory organizations during
the previous three years.
E. Experience on Similar Remediation Projects
1. Summary of experience/knowledge
The respondent should present information addressing the following list of experience/knowledge as an
indication of their ability to perform the services required for this project.
a. Experience in site preparation, construction of facilities, and mobilization of equipment at sites where
soil treatment was involved.
b. Relevant management experience for design, construction, and remediation that indicates
respondent's ability to manage the combined efforts of a design-build project
c. Experience with projects involving the treatment of at least 30,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated
with PCBs using thermal desorption.
d. Experience with the BCD process in either the solid or liquid phase.
e. Knowledge of TSCA regulations.
f. Knowledge of PCB analytical methods.
g. Experience in remedial design of thermal remediation processes.
h. Experience in obtaining a TSCA permit for a thermal treatment process.
i. Experience in obtaining other required permits (air, storm water, etc.), especially in North Carolina
j. Knowledge of TSCA regulations.
k. Knowledge of PCB analytical methods.
I. Experience in remedial design.
11
m. Experience in using community resources and working cooperatively with site owners and
community.
n. Ex'J)erience in completing projects on-time and within budget
2. Specific projects
Provide information on two specific projects that best illustrate the respondent's experience/knowledge to
provide the services required for this project based on list above. Make sure to include the following.
a. Project name and location
b. Specific participation in project (prime, treatment, oversight, construction, etc.)
c. Quantity of soil treated
d. Treatment goals
e. Actual treatment achieved
f. Regulatory requirements for the project
g. Data indicating the use of local residents, local suppliers, local subcontractors, and HUB-type firms
on the project.
h. Reference(s) to contact concerning the project. The respondent should contact the reference to verify
their availability and phone number.
F. Project Proposal
The Phase III -Final Design is a detailed combination of technical and performance specifications for the
project. In this section the respondent has the opportunity to provide information on how they would propose to
implement and complete the project. The information in this project proposal plus the specifications in the
Final Design will be considered the respondent's basis for bid if they are selected to participate in the RFP
stage. This section should include at a minimum the following.
1. Organization and Management Plan
Provide an organization chart to illustrate responsibilities and location of individuals and reporting and
lines of communication for the respondent. This section could include several charts to adequately cover
the three major services of this project: design, construction, and remediation. Add any additional
information to clarify the information manage the combined efforts of a design-build project.
2. Key Personnel
Identify key individuals that will be involved in providing services for this contract. Include short resumes
to identify the specific knowledge, experience and capability of the individuals to perform in the role
assigned. The resume should include the individual's education, licenses, and registrations plus examples
of similar projects where the individual held similar responsibilities.
3. Experience Working as a Team
Indicate the experience of the key personnel in working together on the similar projects.
4. ES&H
Provide basic information about your ES&H policies for this project and technical support that will be
available for this project. Identify initial and continuing training will be provided to individuals working on
the site and to emergency response personnel in the community. Explain how accidents and incidents are
investigated and resolved.
5. Community Participation
Indicate employment, services, and supplies that you would anticipate could be obtained from the local area
and those that cannot based on similar project experience.
12
6. Site Layout and Process Equipment
The Final Design does contain some performance driven specifications that allow limited flexibility in
equipment design. Provide a block flow diagram of your treatment process and a site layout indicating
material flow and equipment placement. The proposed diagram should reflect the specifications in the
Final Design and the required BCD process and not significantly differ from what is in the Final Design.
Describe major equipment items such the thermal desorber, components of the gas treatment system, the
liquid BCD treatment system, and components of the water treatment system. If any major equipment is
different from what is specified in the Final Design, ex'J)lain how it differs from the specification and why
the performance will be at least equivalent. If appropriate, ex'J)lain why the use of different equipment is
justified. If the proposed site layout is different from the Final Design, provide justification for the
difference.
7. Project Schedule
Present a project schedule that reflects the respondent's approach and ability to implement and complete
the project.
13
ATTACHMENT 1
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
File Access Procedures
The Division of Waste Management has four sections. The section names are: Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste,
Superfund and Underground Storage Tank (UST). The mailing address for the Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste and
Superfund files rooms is 401 Oberlin Road, Mail Service Center #1646, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646. The address for
the Underground Storage Tank file room is Parker-Lincoln Building, 2728 Capital Boulevard, Mail Service Center
#1637, Raleigh, NC 27699-1637.
The sections maintain separate file rooms to assist the public with requests to review files. Due to resource
limitations, however, we are unable to provide file search and copy services. You may wish to hire someone to
perform your search. A number of firms listed in your telephone directory 's yellow pages provide this service.
If you choose to use a copying service and/or file search firm, you must send a letter addressed to the
appropriate section's file room. The letter should include your name, firm name, address, telephone number and the
name of the company whose file you want reviewed. All fees for services rendered by the copying and/or file search
firm, including payment for file copies, must be handled directly between you and the firm.
Each file room can handle only one appointment at a time, so you should schedule your appointment with the
appropriate file room soon in order to gather the information within the time frame you desire. If you will be
visiting 401 Oberlin Road, you will need to get a visitor's pass and a parking pass from the receptionist in Suite 150.
The Parker-Lincoln Building does not require visitor or parking passes.
The reviewer should reserve a specific block of time when the appointment is made. If you need to access more
than one section's file room, you will need to make a separate appointment for each file room.
Specific files must be identified and requested at the time an appointment is made. If you need to know the
approximate thickness of these files for copying purposes, please ask the file room staff to check for you.
Anyone arriving at the file rooms without an appointment will be allowed to view files to the extent that time,
space, and staff supervision are available.
In the file rooms listed below, the first 25 copies that you make per request are free. There is a charge of
10 cents per page after the first 25 copies. Large-scale map copies are $3.00 each. Payment must be made at
the time you make your copies. Charges for $1 or less can be paid in cash; charges over $1 must be paid by
check There is a $20 service fee for all returned checks.
Hazardous Waste Section
For access to a specific Hazardous Waste Section (RCRA) file, the reviewer should send a letter, telephone
request (919/733-2178, ext. 311), or fax [phone]) to the Hazardous Waste Section File Room, Division of
Waste Management (see address above).
Solid Waste Section
For access to a specific Solid Waste Section file, the reviewer should send a letter, telephone request (919/73 3-
0692, ext. 310), or fax [phone]) to the Solid Waste Section File Room, Division of Waste Management (see
address above).
14
Superfund Section
For access to a specific Superfund Section file, the reviewer should send a letter, telephone request (919/733-
2801, ext. 328), or fax [phone]) to the Superfund Section File Room, Division of Waste Management (see
address above).
UST Section
For access to specific UST files, the reviewer should send a letter to the Underground Storage Tank Section,
Division of Waste Management (see address above); fax [phone]); or telephone request to the following:
compliance, 919/733-1308; incidents (spills, releases), 919/733-1315; or state trust fund, 919/733-1332.
15
Re: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Sampling]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Sampling]
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08 :22 :02 -0400
From: Harry Zinn <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Superfund Section
To: Sue Hodge <[e-mail]>, BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>,
MIKE KELLY <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>,
PAT BACKUS <[e-mail]>
The sampling planned for this event is to satisfy the semi-annual sampling
requirements by EPA for the permitting of the landfill. We have only
performed analysis for PCB's since fall of 1997 when we resumed the
semi-annual sampling. We have only sampled for dioxin during the inte nsive
sampling events in 1994 and in March 1997. It is my belief that analysis
for PCB's is all that is required for the permit. Additionally, dioxin
sample analysis is currently only done by one EPA contract laboratory and
must be scheduled months in advance .
Harry Zinn
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Superfund Section
[e-mail]
1 of 1 09/06/2000 9:19 AM
Warren County PCB Sampling
u NL~~ JV/Yr h ( mi~
I of I
f1 . --c; I _P . , -,.."·J Subject: Warren County PCB Sampling ,ih/\ I" vir
Date:Thu,31Aug200010:17:01-0400 -~ ;,Yi,. ,)Lflr-.J.u v, ·Q f ,
From: Harry Zinn <[e-mail]> 1/U v-' { ~--ft{{. "'v
Organization: NC DENR Superfund Section r I ( / II\ . r ~
To: BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>, t\ ....--1. ) \ y1fr" \
JILL BURTON <[e-mail]>, y ,o~' . , \)t,V\ .,Iv ~1Ju
1 BurrieBoshoff<[e-mail]>, ,,.t (J.l ~~~r-'t,,
JACK BUTLER <JACK.BUTLER@ncmaiLnet> t 1"' :'\ (}I' \r . r
Although we are only in August (just barely), October i s app;oachin~ o?#~);;· iV
rapidly. Fall col ors, cool days, the State Fair, and, oh yes, the 1 ~
semi-annual sampling event at Warren County. Once again I look for your ,,~ \f \
help in obtaining the necessary manpower (or woman power) t o protect the V" lit, ~,r,.i ~
c itizenry of our state from the perils o f PCB's. Already, the calendar is [XI N -
becoming clogged so please supply the names of your "volunteers" that would')( ft
be available for the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the weeks of October
2, 9 , or 23 (only one of the above will be needed). .
As always, that you f or your support. ~-\~1/l\
Harry Zinn \V
NC Department of Enviro nment and Natural Resources
Superfund Section
[e-mail]
08/31/2000 10:29 AM
1 NUI< I H ~Ut-'1:.1<1-UNLJ HUb 1 (. UU
•.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
AUG 11 XOO
OftFICl Cf
IOLD WASTE Nill l!iilRQllilC'I'
MIPONI!
HonorablD James B. Hunt. Jr.
Oovcmor, State of North <.:ar0lin11
Office ofthe Governor
-'20301 Mail Service Center
Aalcigh, NC 27699--0301
Dear Governor Hunt :
C)PTl0NAl ,oAM 19 (7«1)
FAX TRANSMITTAL
To
This letter conc:ema the propoied project to excavate and treat polychlorinatcd biphenyl
(PCB) wute ,u1Tcntl)' diaposcd in the Warrc:n Co1.1niy L1t1dfill, On May 16. 2000, you wrote
Ms . Cerol M .. Browner, Administrator of the U.S. Environmcniat Protection Agency (EPA),
rtq\lestins financial assistance tor the proJeCt, On July 5, 2000, Mr. John Hankinsvn, Jr., EPA
R'-eional Adminis:rator for Reaion IV in Atlanta. responded that althouah the proposed
deto)(ification project does not cunently meet the criteria for use of Superfund trust funds, EPA
wvuhl 1,;unti11ue to seaich fgr other soureoa of fui,ding.
5
As part of this iCarch, a member of my statl' recently met with officials from the North
Carolinl' Di"i~iM nf Wa~te Mnnaai!mcnt. EPA Region IV and EPA's Nlltionel R.isk ManaAemcnt
Rtstarch Laboratcry (NRMRL) to learn more about the proposed detoxification effort and to
assen th~ p01~nLi1sl fur fc:Jeral co1~h'ibutions. We arc awue of the $7 million oppropriotior. from
the State of North Carolina which will req1.1ire some federal ma:ching to make the funds
available .
We ha11c identified substantial fecl~ral contributions that we are prepared to make as in-
kint'. services. Toe largest of these can be providctl by ~valuating the chosen tc~hrlolcgy through
the Supcrfund lM~vative Tec!'u\ology Evaluation (SITE) program. This demonstration project
will Ullderwritc milch of &he work which is required to $ccure the nctcssr.ry operAtion~I ptrmi,
\.!nd~r the Toxic Sub;tance Control Act (TSCA). Use of the chosen ttt.:hno!oay -Bnui r.M,-ly1.ed
Dc-cc,mposition or BCD -at this site will allow 1n opportunity to test the process for the first time
tr full-scale on PC8 contaminate<l soil. The techno!o&y is or 1ntere~t because it pruvidts
alternative means for rno.naging residuals, The SITE contractor will prepare n Demonsmnion
Plan including Sampling ind Analysis, Quality Assurar.ce/Quality Control: and Heaith and
Saf.;:ty component£ which will ,lso satidy t~ n~d.s ofTSCA SITE wo~,1d be r~sponsihl~ fn:-
sample cot:eetion and laboratory analysis . The data wil~ be shared with tht technology v~ndor
wno would i::repare an~ submit the application for \he TSCA permit. Same initi.11 ~slinK will l,.:
-------
NORTH $1 IPERFUND ID: AUG 17'00 11:34 No.002 P.02
'I
2
necessary to secure a Rc:at7arch and Development pennit to operate on a limited scale prior to
issuing the full permit. The typical cost to secure this pcnnit is $50,000. The approximate cost
fo1 a tcc.hnology opeiotor to then secure the full permit is $450,000. Thcrefo~, b)' facllitAtina the
testini required under TSCA throu&h the SITE demonstration, we estimate that $~00,000 will be
saved on the state procwcmcnt.
Secondly. the BCD technology is licensed lhrouah EPA 1s NRMRL in Cincinnati. The
rec for ~e or BCP ~ $7.5 1000. It~ &&Mlted !or a year of operation with 6S ~"~nt going to the
lab Md 35 percent to the individuals who developed the proeess. The EPA Laboratory has
agreed to waive its share of the fee as o donarton to this project. This fee waivtrs will result in
direct uvings to tM atate in their procurerMnt.
Finally. we aie investi&atlng the possibility of O!u.inH cxi11LinM lhccm11l ucsorpliun
equipment available for use at the landfill site. The equipment, which includes two rotary
desorbers, air pollution control dcwices. a water treatment unh and spare pans, is becoming
.,_v~ilable as work is oompl,ted at a fund-lead Supemmd site ir1 Maryland. The current pltn lit
thut site is to complete treatment and then decontaminate and dismantle the units by the end of
Octo'ber. TI1e equipment could be held onslte 10 accommodate the Warren County ~rojcct, but
should be removed by the end oftht calender year. EPA would encourfige prospective bidders
for the detoxifi~,don project to assess the condition of the treatment units, and will strive to have
che equipment 11voilBblt fo!' that purpose. EPA is invacti;ating mechanisms: for trans:ftrrins the
equipment to the state ofNorth Carolina for use on the project. It is also neccssacy, however. to
rtcognize the panial interest of the state of Maryland. To the extent these issues arc resolved, the
e~uip:nent could be available to the detoxification vendor and would directly result in lower bids
for the project. The original purchase price of the equipment was about $3 million. Mnm:ing a
ten year service life and on~ rc1.r ol' openition At the bmd!ill, it would be reBOOnable to vo.lue this
contribution in a private sector eontext at approximately S300,000.
While we will continue to seek other opportunitits, we believe that these contributions
r~prtsent a aignitiee.nt federal mat~h. My staff and I would like to support this project in any way
we ca.n. It I ca., be of any funhcr asaiate.ncc, plco.,c do not he1ita.te to contact me ~t (202) 260
4610.
NORTH SUPERFUND ID: . .
111 '# ·ttl I
•
cc: William Holman, NCDENR
Michael Kelly, NCDENR
Warren CountY PCB Citizens Advisory Board
lohn Hankinson, EPA Reaion IV
Timothy Oppelt, NRMRL
AUG 17'00 11:34 No.002 P.03
1 NORTH SUPERFUND HJ : HU\J l ( -UU
UNrrED ITATES ENVIRONMENTAL PAOTECTrON AQINCY
WASH6NGTON, D.C. 20o1M
Honorable Eva M. Clayton
U.S. House or Representatives
Wachinacon. D.C. 20s I a
Uear Ms. Clayton :
AUG 16 m'.>
OFJ,IC( a,
tOl.10 WAITt Mt) IMIRQfNCY
fl!9'0NR
This htttcr concerns tht proposed project to excavate and treat polychlorinated biphenyl
(rCD) westc currently clbposcd in the WGl'l'en County umdfill. On Muy 12, 2000. you wrote
Ms. Carol M .. Browner, Administrator of the U.S. Environmentnl Protection Agency (EPA),
r:ques1iug financial assistance. We diseusicd the project by phone and I infonned you of my
r.ommitmt:l'lt tn lnt\k fnr r,m:i;ihle cnntribution, to the effort On July S, 2000. Mr. John
Hankinson, Jr., EPA Resionni Administrator for Reiinn lV in Atlanta, formRlJy responded that
a.llhuugb Lhc prupu»eu uc\ul\iticotiou paojcct docs not curt~ntl)' m~et the crheria tor use of
SJperfund trust funds, EPA would continue to search for other sources of funding.
As p.1%1 of t~1:1 ttarch, a mtmber of my staff rec~ntly met with offir.iAici frnm the North
Cnrolina Divi1ion of Wnste Management, EPA Region IV and EPA's Nation:il Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) to learn more about the proposed detoxl11cai1on
effort and to assess the potcnti1l for federal contributions. We are aware of the S7 million
appropriation from the State or North Carolina which will rcquirt some fedeial matching to make
,he funds ovo.iloble,
We have identified substantial federal contributions that we are prepared to make as in•
kind services . Thi.! lareest of these can be provided by tvaluatine tht chosen tcchnoloiY through
the Superfund lMC>vative Technology Ev1l1.uttil)n (SJTE) program. This demonstration project
wiU un1.krwriLc mu~h uf 1.hc: wurk wl1ich i.s ,cquiied t(I secure the necessary operationat permit
under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Use of the chosen technology-Base Cawlyzed
Decomposition or BCD -at thts site will allow Ill opportunity to test the process for the first time
at full-5cale on PCP contamir11t1d soil. The tech.ftolosy is of interest becau,e it providti
alternative mrans for managing residuals. The SJTF. Cl\ntractor will prepare a Demonstration
Ph1n jnch.ading Sampling and Analysis, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, and Health and
Saftt)' components which will also satisfy the needs of TSCA. SITE would be re,ponaible for
$ample collection and laboratory analysis . The data will be shared with the technology vendor
who would prepare and submit the opplic111ion for 1hc TSCA i,ern\it. Some initi~l te1atin9 will b11
ktcy~~•"llllf • t'llnCIO Wllh V.-it UII 11Uao 111111 on ,~ ~ t'"'6f I~ l"OIIOOfllUffllf)
NORTH SUPERFUND ID: AUG 17'00 11:35 No.002 P.05
neces!ttny to secure a Rcsoarc:h and Development permit to operate on a limited scale prior to
issuing the full permit. The typical cosi 10 accurc this pcnnit i11 S.50,000. The: appru1'unat1: CUliil
for a technology operatM to then secure the fuU permit is $4S0,000. Therefore, br rceiUtatina
the testing required under TSCA through the SITE demonSttetioo, w~~timate that SS00,000 will
be ioved on th~ stllte procurement.
Seconclly, the SCL> technolO&Y is licensed tbro~gb EPA's NRMRL in Cincinnati, The
fi'!P. for u~e C\f BCD is $75,000. It is arantcd for a year of operation with 65 percent aoina to the
lab and 35 percer,t tO the individuals who developed the process. The EPA Laboratory bas
agreed to waivll iL» »hia1c-ur lhc: fee as a donation to this p:-ojtct. _This fee woivcrs "ill result in
direct savings to the state in their procurement.
Finally, wear• invutiaatins the poasibility ofmalcina edttins ~rma.1 desorption
· equipment available for use at the landfill site. • Tnc: cq~ipment, which includes two rotary
desorbers, air pollution control devices, a water treatment \lnit and spare pnrt1, ls becoming
11vailablc as work is completed at a fund-lead Superfund iite in Maryland. The current plan at
that site is to complete treatment and then decontaminate and dismantle the units by the end of
Oclol>ei. The equipment could bt held onsire to accommodate th'-Warren County project, but
should be removed by tht end of th~ calender yecu. F..PA would encourage prospective bidders
for lhe detOKif,cation project to assess the condition of the treatment units, and will strive to have
lhe equipmtn1 iwailable for thnr J'llll'J"OC:P.. F.Pi\ i~ invei;tigatin2 mechanisms for transferrina the
equipment to the stttt of North CarolinA for use on the projtct. It is also .necessary, however, to
recognize the partial interest of the St.it~ uf Marylimtl. Tu Lhc: e~tcnl tht:st i~~u~i. an: ,es.olved, the
equipment could be available to the detoxification vendor and would directly result in lower bids
for the project. The original purchaie price of the equi?ment was ab~ut S3 million . Assumin& '1
ten yHr service lif1: and on• year of operation at the landfill, it would bt ,~asonabl~ to vnlue thi~
contribution in a privatt soctor context at approximately $300,000.
While we will continue to ·seek other opportunities, we believe that these contributions
represent a significant federal match. My staff and I would like to support this project in any
way we can. lf I can be of any furth,r a:ssistanec, please do noi hc1iuitc to contact mo Clt (202}
260-4610.
Timothy ,el~) le,,•
Assistant Administrator
Re: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Sampling]
1 of2
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Sampling]
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:10:11 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: Sue Hodge <[e-mail]>
The semiannual sampling is conducted to fulfill the requirements of the TSCA
permit. The permit does not require dioxin analysis. That's why it is not
included.
Dioxins are present with PCBs because they are a byproduct of the PCB
manufacturing process. Their concentration is much less than that of the
PCBs. I think we use the same theory that is used for bacteria in drinking
water (e.g. analysis for coliforms is used as an indicator of presence of
bacteria and analysis for individual bacteria is not performed unless the level
of coliforms indicates a problem). If PCBs aren't present, then dioxins
shouldn't be there. I am not familiar with dioxin chemistry and do not know
whether it is or is not correct to say that selective mass transfer of dioxins
into the aqueous phase could occur.
This is before my time, but I also thought that there was some questions about
or problems with the previous analyses. If you want to do sampling for
dioxins, I would recommend that it be done as a separate event and that some
sort of statistical approach be used. I think you need to take more than one
sample from each location and also need to continue dioxin sampling on some
sort of schedule to have anything meaningful.
Also, would you want a CLP or just an immunoassay screening? Hybrizyme
(started by folks from Ensys, located in RTP) is in a trial at Oak Ridge
evaluating an enhanced immunoassay method. I talked to Craig Brown a few
weeks ago and he mentioned he had visited Oak Ridge to see what they were
doing. He was pretty impressed and said they could get to low
concentrations. I also talked to Felecia Owen who is their Director of Sales
and Marketing (Mike knows her). I don't remember the details, but they are
trying to get it set up with some labs in the area. That might be a cheaper
option that would allow a more statistical approach. Then if a dioxin problem
is indicated, we could go back with a CLP analysis at the problem area. I
would have to get more information from Hybrizime to see if this would work.
Sue Hodge wrote:
>Dowe plan to include dioxins in this effort?
> If not why not? and would it be appropriate to ensure/prove that
> contaminants are/are not leaching from the landfill.
>
> Bill Meyer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Warren County PCB Sampling
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:17:01 -0400
> From: Harry Zinn <[e-mail]>
> Organization: NC DENR Superfund Section
> To: BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>,
> JILL BURTON <[e-mail]>,
> Burrie Boshoff <[e-mail]>,
> JACK BUTLER <[e-mail]>
>
> Although we are only in August (just barely), October is approaching
> rapidly. Fall colors, cool days, the State Fair, and, oh yes, the
> semi-annual sampling event at Warren County. Once again I look for your
> help in obtaining the necessary manpower (or woman power) to protect the
> citizenry of our state from the perils of PCB's. Already, the calendar is
> becoming clogged so please supply the names of your "volunteers" that would
> be available for the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the weeks of October
> 2, 9, or 23 (only one of the above will be needed).
> As always, that you for your support.
>
09/06/2000 9:17 AM
Re: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Sampling]
2 of2
> Harry Zinn
> NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> Superfund Section
> [e-mail]
,;, .... ,...... . ........................................................................................... ,.,,,.,,, ............................................................................ .
i Pat Backus <pat.backus(q),ncmail.net> : !}!~~~~~?~~~~~~~~ =~~~J~:'.=~~n~,oJ~t"
09/06/2000 9:17 AM
I of2
M'd: Warren County PCB Landfill -Oversight])
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Landfill -Oversight])
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:53 :46 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>
Oops, forgot you on the list. Wasn't sure whether you would be
interested or not.
: .............................................................................. ·············•••···· .
Subject: [Fwd: Warren County PCB Landfill -Oversight]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:41 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: Daria Holcomb <[e-mail]>, Dollie Burwell <[e-mail]>,
Henry Lancaster <[e-mail]>, Jim Warren <[e-mail]>,
Mike Kelly <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>, Nan Freeland <[e-mail]>,
Sherri Evans Stanton <Sherri.Evans. [e-mail]>,
Warren County PCB Landfill <[e-mail]>
Yes, it is a miracle. The oversight notice is out.
I talked briefly with Speros Fle ggas of State Construction about the
detoxification contract. He said we could d o everything but sign
contrac t without the match o r commitment o f a match in hand. However,
you have t o consider that the firms will be spending a l ot of time and
money to prepare responses and knowing that the state needs that
matching before it can sign a contract that might affect whether they
respond or not.
Anyway, hope this helps make your day better.
;___ ...... ····································•··· .
Subject: Warren County PCB Landfill -Oversight
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:32:49 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: PAT BACKUS <PA [e-mail]>
The notice for the Request for Qualifications for an oversight
contractor was p osted on the State Construction Office web site this
afternoon.
The logical way t o get to nav igate to the site is t o start at the
Division o f Purchase and Contract ( httn://www.doa.s tate .nc.us/PandC/
) . Then select "State Construction" under "IPS Bids". The oversight
no tice will be under the "Architec tural/Engineering Advertisements for
Services". The quick, illogical way is
httn://interscoce2.doa.state.nc.us/sco/aeads.htm.
As I have mentioned before, I can sent you the package electronically as
an attachment to an e-mail if you send me a nice note that indicates you
want a copy and give your name, company, phone ,etc .
Thanks
07/12/2000 3 :59 PM
8-u. -t rs It::-·r...-v e. r ':!_ C,·t-i·2/~·n's Gu..,·de +-o G'nv,·ro"rne.1-t_f Nea....lt-h &LA d ..SCL.Pe.tJ I.ss.ue_'3:. l,y /+,:,.Yon W, Ir:/.. c...vsky 2 Jl.~=,d U,,.-✓~n.•"'J Pr=s I 9'i.5-. PCI3s and DDT: Too Muell of a (~uod Tlli11~(? I. Which Regulations Governing PCIJ ltcsiducs i\tc• Ju'.;lillcd/ ---•-···-·----witll Leo Leve11s011 PolychlorinateJ biphenyls, or PCBs as they arc popular!)' calll'd, Wl'tT 011cc regarded as valuable industrial chemicals. First 1narketed i11 1929, l hey were used as fire-resistant insulators in electrical trallsforrncrs, capacilors, :111d i11dus-trial machinery aml as components of "carbonlcss" copy paper, 11aillts, and pesticides. PCBs were little known to the gC11cr;1I public u11til 1IH· 1970s, whc11 reports spread that PCB residues in the cnviru11111l'lll 111igl11 r;ti,c c:111u-r r:llc, anJ harm wild animal populations. In 1973 the Food and Drug Administration (FD/\) ,cl s1ric1 li1ni1, ()IJ allow able levels of PCB residues in food. In 1976 Congress ba1111cd the 1n;111uhctmc of PCBs, setting in motion a series of regulatory activities by the E11viron1nc11tal Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the cleanup of PCBs in soil and water and ordering the removal of PCBs from electrical equipn1e11t. Until the 1960s concern about PCBs was restricted 10 protec1ing the health of workers handling the chemicals. In the 1930s several reports were pulilished about widespread acnelike skin problems and occasional liver damage among workers exposed to l'CBs along with other chc111ic:1ls i11 po()rly vc111iL11nl envi-ronments. One fatal case of jaundice was reported. Wid1 illlpruved vrntiLition, the symptoms usually declined or disappearecl.1 In 1966 a Swedish biologist, Soren Jensen, looking for residues of I >DT a11d other pesticides in wildlife, used newly refined scientific instru111ents to discover PCBs stored in the fatty tissues of fish and fish-eating birds . .Je11srn sounded the alann that PCBs 111ight interfere with a11in1al rcprnductio11 and 111iglH lie carried far from their industrial sources in water or air without hrc;1ki11g dow11. He feared PCB rnixt11res would prove a 11101-c i111port;1111 ll11c,11 11, wild ,IHTic, ~ Reg11latiu11s Governing PCB Residues 39 than DDT, since they had been manufactured and released into the environ-ment in n111ch greater quantities.2 In 1968 over l,800 Japanese became sick after consuming rice oil contami-nated with ;111 industrial coolant containing PCBs. Victims suffered from skin eruptions c-1 !led chloracne, gastrointestinal problems, and nervous disorders. Sympto111, co11ti11ued for five years or longer for some patients.3 Some babies born to 1·ic1i111s had unusual dark brown skin pigmentation, though their growth p;1llerns appeared normal. The event became known as the Yusho oil disease episode. A similar mass poisoning involving PCB-tainted rice oil occurred in Taiwan i11 1979.4 The ric<' oil poi~<>11i11g~ appeared to show that PCB mixtures could be exceed-ingly to'<ic to ll!l111a11s. But by 1 '775 ~cientists determined that PCBs alone were al111mt cnt:1i11ly not the primary cause of the Yusho illness, for Yusho patients had s111aller concentrations of PCBs in their blood and fat than healthy workers who hamllcd PCBs. Instead, potent compounds called polychlorinated diben-zofura11s (l'CDFs) found both in the Yusho and Taiwan episodes were eventu-ally implicated as causing the illnesses.5 After Jcnsen 's alarm and the Yusho episode scientists began looking for PCB residues i11 the environment and found them widely distributed in stream and lake scdi11H·111s and i11 the fatty tissues of fish, fish-eating animals, and people.6 In the Hudson River, where two General Electric plants were estimated to have discharged at least thirty pounds per day of PCBs into the river for decades, fatty fish, such as salmon and trout, were routinely found to have 10-100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs in their flesh.7 There was no evidence that this level of PCBs w:1s hurting the fish, but scientists expressed concern about the poten-tial health effects rnt wildlife and people who regularly ate the fish.8 PCBs have low solubility in water and bind tightly to most types of soil and sediment.9 Although sediments in industrial waterways near factories using PCBs had been found to contain up to 1 percent PCBs, the maximum concen-trations found in water were about 3 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.0000003 percent.111 Because of the tendency of PCBs to bind to soil, most PCBs spilled on the ground or disposed of in landfills could be expected to remain in place, without entering waterways or wildlife.11 In 1970, after early studies showed animal reproductive problems associated with l'Cl\s, Mo11s:11110 C:orporation (the one major U.S. producer) announced that it would sell rite che111icals for use only i11 "closed systems," primarily capacitors and transformers, for which no equivalent fire-resistant replace-ments existed at the time. PCBs would disappear from pesticides, copying paper, most hydraulic fluids, inks, and paints, as old stocks of these materials were used up or discarded.12 In l 971 a11 animal counterpart to the Yusho incident was discovered after reproduction among breeder hens suddenly declined in a Holly Farms chicken facility. I lolly Lmns analyzed the feed and discovered about 150 ppm of
40 PCBs and DDT PCBs.13 The Department of Agriculture traced the contamination to leaking machinery in a North Carolina fish meal plant that had distributed at least sixteen tons of feed containing PCBs. Holly Farms volunlarily destroyed 77,000 contaminated chickens. As far as we can tell, the 1968 Yusho poisonings in Japan went unreported at the time by major U.S. news media.14 Three years later, after the Holly Farn,s affair, the leading weekly news magazines, Time and Newsweek, carried their first articles on the potential clangers of PCBs. Time's story, "The Menace of PCB," characterized PCBs as a "potent new threat to the environment." The story mentioned that PCBs had been found to cause liver damage in mice and fragile eggshells in birds. Only in the final par:igraph did Time's story say that there was no evidence that existing levels of J>Cl3s in the cnviro1t1t1c11t or food supply were dangerous to people.15 The Newsweek piece, "The PCB Crisis," contained more reports of poten-tially harmful effects on humans from PCBs, including what was apparently the first major published reference to the Yusho episode three years earlier. The article related that large doses of PCBs could be fatal and that lesser amounts were known to result in "acne, impaired vision, abdominal pains and liver ailments," along with "suspicions of genetic damage." Newsweek's writers did not compare these "large doses" and "lesser amounts" with the amounts generally consumed in foo<l;16 if they had, the situation might have seemed less of a "crisis." These articles were early examples of what would become a characteristic pattern for stories on PCBs: descriptions of the worst consequences of high-dose exposure, with little or no comparisons offered between toxic levels and the environmental concentrations people and animals were likely to encounter. By the early 1970s people knew that relatively small leaks of PCB mixtures from machinery directly into food and animal feed could harm humans and animals. 17 PCB residues were widely found in the fatty tissues of people and animals and in industrial riverbeds, but no one knew whether these residues would cause toxic effects. No epidemiological studies were available to provide evidence as to whether people exposed to PCBs (other than in the Yusho epi-sode) had suffered long-term health problems. Numerous animal research proj-ects were then launched to try to determine whether PCB levels found in the environment were dangerous. FDA Regulation of PCBs in Fish in 1973 After conducting a series of studies from 1970 to 1972, FDA scientists found traces of PCBs in many foods, with the largest concentrations in fish. The FDA estimated that American adults ate on average 4 millionths of a gram (micro-grams, µg) of PCBs per day,18 equivalent in weight to about l millionth of a teaspoon of salt. With the discovery that most Americans were regularly Regulations Governing PCB Residues 41 ingesting PCBs, the FDA came under increasing pressure to write regulations defining what level of PCB residues, if any, should be permissible in foods. After receiving comments on proposed regulations, the FDA enacted a regu-lation in 1973 defining a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 1 µg per kilogram of body weight per day (1 µg/kg/day), or about sixteen times the national average intake. This meant that FDA scientists believed that a 150-pound (70-kg) person could eat as much as 70 µg of PCBs every day without suffering ill effects. Of course someone weighing 100 pounds (45 kg) would reach the stan-dard after eating 45 µg per day. To reduce the probability that people would exceed the TD!, the FDA set maximum allowable PCB levels in fish of 5 ppm.19 Why <lid the FDA allow any residues, instead of banning the sale of fish with detectable PClls, as some environmental groups had suggested? The FDA concluded that a ban would not be in the best interests of the consumer: because small PCB residues were widely found in major waterways, such an action would have effectively banned commercial fishing in many areas, devas-tating individual fishermen and local economies, and raising some fish prices. Meanwhile, there was no evidence of a public health problem from occasional ingestion of very small amounts of PCBs. As the FDA's standard-setting docu-ment declared, a complete ban on PCB residues would "unnecessarily deprive the consumer of a portion of his food supply and disrupt the Nation's food distribution system. "20 It is worth noting that a 150-pound person who regularly ate fish contami-nated with PCBs at the legal limit of 5 ppm would probably exceed the FDA's TD! of I µg/kg/day. In 1984 the FDA decided that a stricter residue standard for fish could be met without undue hardship for the fishing industry, and the maximum tolerance for PCBs in fish was lowered to 2 ppm.21 How did the FDA conclude that allowing some traces of PCBs at the level of parts per million was unlikely to be a public health problem? FDA researchers used both animal data and early analysis of the Yusho episode. Animal studies reported that dogs and rats appeared to suffer no toxic effects when fed PCBs at a rate of 250-300 µg/kg/day, which is equivalent to about 250-300 times the standard the FDA developed for humans.22 The FDA also cited rough estimates that the smallest known PCB dose associated with symp-toms of poisoning in the Yusho incident was about 200 µg/kg/day over fifty days, for a total PCB intake of 10,000 µg/kg body weight over the period of exposure.2-1 If a person ate PCBs in food for a much longer period, say three years or roughly a thousand days, and the PCBs accumulated in the body, a diet of 10 µg/kg/day would result in the same total intake. If FDA researchers had known about the probable role of PCDFs in enhancing the toxicity of the Yusho PCBs, they might have concluded that even higher amounts of PCBs would be safe as long as PCDFs were not also present. But convincing evidence of the PCDF role was not available until 1981.24 The evidence used by the FDA in 1973 to establish a basis for regulating
42 PCBs and DDT PCBs was relatively straightforward. It <lid not rely 011 the elaborate anJ con-troversial statistical moJels of cancer risk later used by the EPA in determining PCB regulations. Lacking human evidence other than the Yusho episode, the FDA made an explicit attempt to set an allowable PCB intake that would not be too expensive for consumers and food producers anJ that would represent a limit at least a hundredfold less than what was then esti111ateJ to cause illness in animals.25 From our reading of the story, the FDA's actions were reasonable, given evidence that PCBs could pose a hazard in food if present in large enough quantities. The residue limits set by the FDA were achievable at a reasonable cost and were well below levels that would be expected to cause a significant health hazard, based on the evidence available. Nledia attention to PCBs dieJ down for a few years after the ani111al kcJ contamination episodes in 1971 but escalated in 1975 when state officials announced that salmon and bass containing more than the FDA tolerance level of 5 ppm were prevalent in industrial areas of the Hue.Ison River and the Great Lakes. New York Times stories referred to PCBs in the river as a "toxic peril."26 Scientists argued that since they took so long to break down in the environ-ment, all the PCBs produced would continue to accumulate and tllight cause environmental damage. Concerned groups began lobbying for a colllplete ban on PCB manufacturing as soon as a fire-resistant replacement was available for capacitors and transformers.27 When companies reported in 197 5 that they had developed effective, fire-resistant, and less toxic replacement fluids for capacitors and transforlllers,28 the stage was set for ceasing all manufacture of PCBs. In October 1976, three weeks before losing his office to Jimmy Carter, President Gerald R. Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which included the PCB ban. Section 6(e) of the act required the EPA to promulgate regulations that would phase out the use of PCBs except under "totally enclosed" conditions that "will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."29 It was up to the EPA to decide what disposal methods for PCBs in equipment and soil and what continuing uses of old equipment containing PCBs could be allowed under such legislative language. PCBs were now largely illegal. But in the doses and exposures involved were they Jangerous to ani111;1ls or people? Animal Studies New animal studies presented mixed findings. During the 1970s animal tests still showed PCBs to have a low short-term toxicity. Thanks to their low solu-bility in water, environmental concentrations in waterways were not sufficient to kill fish.30 Rats and mice could survive one-time closes of several grams of commercial PCB mixtures.11 But doses thousands of times smaller-in the range of milligrams per day-if fed to anilllals over an extended period of ";-!!';.•~· Reg11/atiu11s Guvemi11g PCB Residues 43 weeks or months, were found to cause liver damage and reproductive prob-lems.32 The animal experiments that became most prominent during debates over regulatory standards for PCB residues were those measuring cancer in rats and reproductive success in rhesus monkeys. In 1975 a study led by Public Health Service scientist Renate Kimbrough found that female rats fed 100 ppm Aroclor 1260 (a commercial PCB mixture containing 60 percent chlorine) every day for twenty-one months developed an increased number of liver tumors late in their lives compared with untreated animals.33 The liver tumors did not spread to other tissues nor shorten the lifespan of the treated rats. The 100 ppm level was equivalent to about 5,000 µg/kg/day, or about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by the FDA in 1973. The Kimbrough study would be frequently cited during the development of PCB policy as evidence that the chemicals posed a serious cancer risk. But little attention was paid to another interesting finding of the study: the treated rats actually had fewer reproductive-system cancers, making their overall cancer rate no higher than that of untreated rats.34 Could PCB exposure actually pre-vent some types of cancer? ln 1984 a German study led by Ekkehard Shaeffer echoed Kimbrough's mixed findings about PCBs and cancer: rats feel diets containing 100 ppm of commercial PCB over most of their lives had more liver tumors and observable liver damage at time of death than control rats, but again they had significantly fewer tumors of other tissues.15 ln fact, rats fed two different types of commer-cial mixtures had significantly lower overall cancer rates and better survival rates than the control rats on a diet without PCBs. The authors theorized that the reduced mortality and cancer rate might have been caused by "PCB-induced alterations in the immune system" (presumably one stimulating cancer-preventing or cancer-fighting capabilities).36 PCBs and Hum ans The most serious evidence of potential reproductive problems to humans from PCBs came from tests on rhesus monkeys. Eight females fed approximately 2.5 ppm of the 48-percent-chlorine Aroclor 1248 (equivalent to about 100 µg/kg/ day) developed facial swelling and acne within two months and had irregular menstrual cycles by four months. All eight monkeys conceived, but three had spontaneous abortions. The untreated animals had no spontaneous abortions or difficulty conceiving. Female monkeys on a diet of 5 ppm (200 µg/kg/day) Arcdor 1248 did worse, with two out of eight unable to conceive, and four out of the remaining six experiencing spontaneous abortions. Male rhesus monkeys on the diet of 200 µg/kg/day suffered no decline in fertility.37 The effects of PCBs on reproduction were not consistent across different monkey species. In a later anecdotal report squirrel monkeys appeared to
44 PCBs and DVT reproduce successfully in a PCB-contaminated environment where female rhesus monkeys had severe reproductive difficulties and other signs of PCB toxicity.38 The diet of 100 µg/kg/day PCBs that caused harmful effects in the rhesus monkeys was about 100 times greater than the 1973 FDA TOI and about 1,600 times more than the FD A's estimate in J 973 uf the average U.S. intake of PCBs. The monkey studies raised concern about pregnant women who regularly ate fish from industrial waters. A 150-pound pregnant woman would have to eat every day about 3 pounds of fish containing the FDA limit uf 5 ppm PCBs to match the diet of 0.1 mg/kg/day PCBs shown tu cause reproductive harm in the rhesus monkeys. There may be no one who actually cats that much fish, but our judgment is that the monkey diets were close enough tu possible human intakes of PCBs, and monkeys close enough to humans, to give pregnant women reason to avoid a daily diet of fish containing significant amounts of PCB residues. By the mid-1970s studies had generated information that various animal species could suffer liver toxicity, apparent hormone imbalances, liver cancer, and spontaneous abortions when fed high enough amounts of commercial PCB mixtures. Not enough epidemiological evidence in humans was yet available to evaluate whether people might be more or less susceptible than laboratory animals to the toxic effects of prolonged exposures to PCBs. The best evidence of PCB toxicity in humans appeared to be the Yusho epi-sode. But, as we noted earlier, Japanese researchers had made a puzzling dis-covery: Yusho victims with serious poisoning symptoms had lower amounts of PCBs in their blood than relatively healthy workers occupationally exposed to PCBs ( 1-12 ppb PCBs for a sample of twenty-five Yusho patients versus 60-920 ppb PCBs for a sample of twenty-three Japanese PCB production workers; two of the workers showed signs of skin problems).39 A plausible explanation for this anomaly was provided by the discovery, reported in 1975, that the rice oil contained not just PCBs but also unexpected amounts of much more toxic PCDFs, probably formed when PCBs were heated during the oil processing or later cooking. Sampling techniques for PCDFs in oil were not precise, but two different researchers estimated the concentration of total PCDFs in preserved samples of the original rice oil at roughly similar levels: 2 and 5 ppm. They could not estimate how many more PCDFs might have been formed during cooking with the rice oil.40 American commercial PCB mixtures were soon found to contain trace quan-tities of PCDFs-but at much lower relative concentrations than in Yusho oil. Whereas the ratio of total PCBs to total PCDFs in Yusho oil was estimated to be between 100:1 and 200:1, the equivalent ratio in commercial American PCB mixtures ranged from 500,000:1 to 1,000,000:1.41 The new information on Yusho had two major implications. Exposure to commercial PCB mixtures not containing concentrated levels of PCDFs was much less dangerous than Regulations Governing PCB Residues 45 originally thought from the Yusho incident. But heated PCB mixtures, such as smoke from transformers caught in a fire, might generate elevated levels of PCDFs and be more toxic than would be expected based on animal tests of unheated commercial PCB mixtures. After passage of the PCB ban by Congress in 1976, the EPA wrote a number of rules regulating the allowable uses and disposal of remaining equipment containing PCBs and the cleanup standards for PCB spills. The total cost of these rules, compared with replacing PCB electrical equipment gradually as it wore out, was estimated by the EPA to be over $700 million (in 1982 and 1985 dollars).42 In each of these instances there was little disagreement that some level of regulation was appropriate to prevent people and animals from coming into contact with large amounts of PCBs. The highest financial stakes and most bitter controversies came over the regulation of electrical equipment and soil containing small residues of PCBs. EPA Regulation of Capacitors and Transformers In 1979 the EPA issued a regulation designating all nonleaking capacitors and transformers other than railroad transformers as "totally enclosed," permitting utilities to continue to use them without major restrictions. This enclosure determination would have reduced the economic cost and disruption of the PCB ban, allowing utilities gradually to replace and dispose of their PCB equip-ment as it wore out.43 But this EPA regulation was successfully challenged in court by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which argued that electrical equipment can leak and therefore cannot be considered "totally enclosed." In 1982 the EPA issued new regulations requiring the removal of large PCB-containing capacitors in public areas and all PCB equipment that could potentially leak into food storage and processing areas.44 The limited removal of certain PCB capacitors and transformers was esti-mated by the EPA to cost $16 million and was relatively uncontroversial. The liability risk alone of one major PCB leak into food could easily be more expen-sive than the entire cost of the regulation. But the provision calling for the replacement of all large PCB capacitors from unfenced outdoor areas, carrying a cost estimated by the EPA at $140 million, caused greater protest from utility companies.45 Large capacitors are present on electricity distribution lines to regulate volt-ages. Almost all of them manufactured before 1978 used an average of 17 pounds of PCB mixtures as a fire-retardant insulator.46 Periodically, as a result of equipment failure, lightning, or sudden voltage surges, capacitors would explode, spraying their insulating fluid 10 feet or more. What were the reasons for requiring the early removal of these capacitors? In introducing the new regulations the EPA claimed that the rule would benefit
46 PCBs and DDT the environment by preventing the release of 572,000 pounds of PCB.47 That sounds like a large amount, yet according to EPA estimates the releases would come from some 34,000 different capacitors. In cases where the PCBs fell onto soil or other porous material, most would be absorbed where they fell. According to estimates used by the EPA, the likely evaporation of PCBs would be 0.2 percent per day, and movement into water would be at least 100 times less than that, so a 17-pound PCB spill would result in about 0.03 pounds (0.5 oz) of PCBs being volatilized per day, assuming no cleanup of the spill.48 How dangerous would it be if 0.5 oz of PCBs were to enter the atmosphere? Only a tiny fraction of the volatilized PCBs would actually be breathed in by people. In most cases PCBs from these spills would be outdoors, where diffu-sion would rapidly dilute the PCBs to nondetectablc levels anywhere other than directly above the spill. In the rare cases when a capacitor in a residential area might explode, sending PCBs through the open window of a house or car, the owners would probably clean up the oil and wash their hands. There would be human exposure to only a tiny fraction of the PCBs in the capacitors. If high enough heat occurs during capacitor explosions to form large quanti-ties of highly toxic PCDFs, then concern about incidental human exposure might be warranted. But even in this case it seems unlikely to us that the amount of PCDFs that would actually be breathed in or absorbed through the skin would be significant. The EPA did not report evidence about the composi-tion of exploded capacitor fluid in the preamble to the regulations. Reviews of PCB toxicity lack mention of any observed skin problems or other toxic effects on passers-by exposed to capacitor explosions.49 In summary, the projected $140.million expenditure for early removal of capacitors seems to have had the intended goal of preventing about 34,000 spills of PCB-containing fluids averaging 17 pounds of PCBs each, without supporting evidence that these small spills would result in human exposures to toxic concentrations of the chemicals. Two crucial decisions by the EPA concerning PCB concentrations appeared first in the 1979 draft regulations and survived to reappear in the 1982 rules. The EPA defined "PCB-contaminated" transformers as containing oil with between 50 and 500 ppm (0.005-0.05 percent) of the substance. "PCB-trans-formers" were defined as any containing more than 500 ppm (0.05 percent). Both categories of transformers required expensive special handling and dis-posal. According to EPA estimates, about 130,000, or 0.5 percent, of the 25 million or so transformers in service by the end of 1981 were filled with commercial PCB mixtures (containing about 50 percent PCBs).50 The other 99.5 percent were originally designed to contain cheaper (and less fire-resistant) mineral oil. About 10 percent, or 2.5 million, of the mineral oil transformers were esti-mated to contain small residues of PCBs of between 50 and 500 ppm (the "PCB-contaminated" category). These residues were introduced when the Regulations Goveming PCB Residues 47 transformers were drained and refilled by means of the same equipment used on PCB transformers. Utilities could not be sure which mineral oil transformers contained 50 ppm or more without testing fluid samples from each one. The 50 and 500 ppm cutoff levels chosen by the EPA persisted as stricter regulations on PCB-containing electrical equipment were promulgated during the 1980s. The EPA rejected arguments from the utility industry that risks from dilute concentrations of PCBs would be negligible and that regulations should be limited to mixtures containing at least 5,000 ppm (0.5 percent) PCBs.51 Choosing the 50 and 500 ppm levels for regulated transformers, rather than limiting the scope to equipment originally filled with PCB mixtures, had expen-sive consequences. Reclassifying PCB-filled transformers as non-PCB trans-formers by replacing the PCBs with alternative material required repeated flushing to eliminate the sticky residues. The EPA required that refilled trans-formers be put into service for three months and then resampled before they could be reclassified. Under EPA rules, malfunctioning PCB transformers could not be serviced, so many potentially repairable pieces of equipment had to be scrapped.52 Why did the EPA decide to treat mineral oil transformers containing a frac-tion of a percent of PCBs like PCB-filled transformers? The EPA argued that dilute PCBs in equipment could be dangerous. As a 1979 EPA document stated, "The Agency disagrees there are insufficient adverse health effects data to war-rant regulations [on electrical equipment] below 500 ppm. PCBs at levels below 500 ppm have been shown to cause a variety of adverse health effects in animals including malignant and benign tumors."53 The EPA's comparison of the concentrations of PCBs in electrical equipment to PCB dos~s fed to animals in laboratory experiments was completely inappro-priate. Yes, animals get sick when fed 500 ppm of PCBs over an extended time. But people would not be eating the PCBs in electrical equipment; they would be exposed indirectly-through breathing vapors or absorbing fluids on their skin from maintenance, disposal activities, spills, or fires. These routes of expo-sure would mean inhaling or ingesting only a tiny fraction of the PCBs present • in the equipment. The EPA argued that the total amount of PCBs in dilute mixtures spread among millions of pieces of equipment together represented enough chemicals to cause damage to "the environment," presumably by harming susceptible species of animals, plants, and microorganisms. The preamble to the 1979 reg-\llations stated that EPA set the lower cutoff level for "PCB-contaminated" equipment at 50 ppm rather than 500 ppm because 1 million additional pounds .. of PCBs would thus be controlled.54 ;;; . This "cumulative weight" argument implies that 1 pound of PCBs is as dan-gerous in a concentrated form as it is in dilute mixtures spread out among " · many pieces of equipment. Eventually, the argument goes, all of the PCBs will ,enter air or waterways, build up in animal tissues, and be a potential cause of
48 PCBs and DDT disease. What this argument ignores is that most dilute PCl3s spilled on soil or disposed of in landfills will remain attached to the soil, never being absorbed, inhaled, or ingested by any animal or plant. The less concentrated a PCl3 spill, the less likely that a significant amount will volatilize into air or be transported into groundwater or surface water.55 PCBs buried in landfills are not suspected to be a significant source of contamination of waterways, fish, or birds.56 It is unlikely that special handling and disposal of the dilute PCl3s in mineral oil transformers would make a discernible or significant difference in environ-mental PCB levels. Another argument used by the EPA to maintain regulations on dilute PCBs was that industry could afford the costs. The 1979 regulatory pre:irnblc stated, "No evidence was presented that indicated that industry is technologically or economically unable to comply with the more stringent st:111dard. "17 111 1982, when the agency refused industry requests to change the definition of "PCB-contaminated" transformers from 500 to 5,000 ppm, it explained: "Such an approach would result in unnecessary and avoidable exposure to PCBs since there is information in the rulemaking record that indicates that technology is available at reasonable cost to reduce the PCB concentration in transformers to below 500 ppm."58 The "information" was a background document pre-dicting that flushing transformers to reduce PCB concentrations below 500 ppm would cost about $25 per gallon of PCBs.59 In other words, to the EPA it seemed as though the PCB definition did not matter much: if it was inexpen-sive to reach the lower-level definition, why not do it? In fact, getting transformers to below 500 ppm turned out to be very expen-sive. A 1988 industry paper reported ·that retrof-illi11g a J ,000-kilowatt indus-trial PCB transformer containing 300 gallons of PCB fluid to meet the EPA's 500 ppm limit required at least two power outages and cost $55,000, or about $180 a gallon.60 This calculation represents about six ti111cs the EPA's 1982 estimate (adjusted for inflation).61 Treating transformers with 0.05 percent PCBs like pure PCB transformers may have prevented occasional exposures to dilute PCBs, but it added greatly to the volume of waste fluid that would require special, and expensive, handling and disposal. Meanwhile, no human or animal evidence suggested that transi-tory exposures to dilute PCBs were likely to be dangerous. The PCB regulations on electrical equipment were designed to protect against potential environmental and health risks, but little attention was given to the possibility that the regulations could themselves create risks, primarily to utility workers who would have to work near high-voltage equipment and high above ground to remove or test equipment. One early reader of this chapter recalled that a utility worker was killed by accidental exposure to high voltages while sampling a piece of equipment for PCBs to comply with EPA regulations. 62 Scientists were originally concerned about the dangers of PCBs accumulating Regulations Governing PCB Residues 49 and causing harm to wildlife and entering human food supplies through fish products from industrial waterways or from food-processing machinery. After PCDFs were implicated in the Yusho and Taiwan rice-oil poisonings, another threat was identified. What if PCBs in electrical equipment were heated in a structural fire and formed smoke containing PCDFs? Would the smoke be exceptionally toxic? Should special measures be taken to remove PCBs from inside buildings where fires might occur and people could be exposed to the smoke? The issue became more than hypothetical when on February 5, 1981, an electrical fire broke out in a state office building in Binghamton, New York, leading to what has probably been the most expensive cleanup operation ever for a single office building. The Binghamto11 fire caused the rupture of a transformer containing 180 gallons of concentrated PCBs. The heat of the fire vaporized the transformer fluid, releasing PCB-laden soot. When the soot was later analyzed it was found to contain about 2,000 ppm of PCDFs and 20 ppm of equivalently toxic poly-chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins (PCDDs), formed when PCBs and solvents in the transformer were heated by the fire. Luckily, the fire occurred at 5:30 A.M. when the building was unoccupied. Unluckily, the soot entered a ventilation --system and was spread into every corner of every floor of the building. State janitors immediately began cleaning up the building before administra-tors learned that PCDDs and PCDFs were present in the soot. Initially the janitors did not wear protective clothing and tracked soot from the state building into the adjacent city government building used as a staging area for the operation. One janitor was sent to the hospital with a rash on his face after working on the cleanup.61 The New York State Department of Health (DOH) faced the task of deciding when the building was "safe" to reoccupy. At the time there were no formal t safety standards for dioxins or furans in air or on surfaces, and developing a •· standard for the complex mixture present at the Binghamton building was a r, daunting task. DOH scientists decided to set cleanup standards by comparing the soot's toxic effects in animals with the toxic effects of a relatively well-' studied type of dioxin, 2,3, 7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD. Subse-: quently all concentrations of chemical mixtures in the Binghamton building ~1, were converted to TCDD equivalents.64 ' By 1983 DOH staff had measured the average toxicity of the air inside the i' building at about 14 picograms (trillionths of a gram, pg) of TCDD equivalents :. per cubic meter (m3), with considerable variation in different parts of the building.65 An advisory panel accepted a DOH recommendation that the f building not be reopened until the air in all areas contained less than 10 pg/m3 f of TCDD equivalents and all surfaces contained no more than 25 nanograms ~(billionths of a gram, ng) per square meter (m2). Using various assumptions ·: about air intake and absorption of chemicals, the DOH estimated that this · would restrict exposure of building occupants to TCDD equivalents about 500
50 PCBs nll(f DDT times less than the maximum amount of TCDD that rats had been observed to ingest without suffering harmful effects (adjusting for the difference in weight between rats and people).66 After the initial cleanup tiny amounts of chemicals continued to diffuse slowly from the building, keeping the internal air contamination above the DOH cleanup levels. The quickest way to reduce air contaminant levels would have been to pump clean air aggressively through the building, venting chem-ical residues to the outside, where they would have been immediately diluted to insignificant concentrations.67 Nevertheless, perhaps fearing local protest or potential liability, authorities decided to seal the building and place carbon filters on ventilation ducts, greatly slowing the process of removing contami-nated air. By 1988, seven years after the fire, all of the building had cleared reentry standards except the equipment room where the fire started, which still had chemical levels in air at about double the standard. Even though mainte-nance workers would not be working continuously in the equipment room, the DOH decided that the same standard should apply to all parts of the building.68 As of December 1991, three years of extensive work on the equipment room had still not brought the concentrations down to the DOH standard. More than ten years and $40 million in cleanup costs after the original fire, the building had not reopened.69 Numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the state by firefighters and cleanup workers exposed to the soot arc still pe11di11g. Did the cleanup need to be so expensive and prolonged? Our reading of the story is that the overall goals were reasonable, based on the animal evidence available at the time. However, it appears that the job could have been com-pleted more quickly and millions of taxpayer dollars saved without compro-mising public health if state officials had been allowed to vent the building air directly to the outside during the cleanup and to leave higher residues in the equipment room than in the continuously occupied areas. Responding to the Binghamton fire and other PCB episodes involving office buildings, the EPA published a regulation in 1985 that required replacing about 7,400 high-voltage PCB transformers in commercial buildings and adding new "electrical protection" adjustments and labels to the other 57,000 or so com-mercial PCB transformers. The EPA estimated the regulations were likely to prevent PCB transformers from being involved in about thirty-five commercial fires, at a cost of roughly $600 million.70 Many utilities agreed that removing concentrated PCBs from transformers inside commercial buildings made sense and had already began doing so before the EPA rule was finalized. But was it also worth worrying about tiny concen-trations of PCB residues, as the EPA regulations had demanded since 1979? While developing the "fire rule," EPA regulators never publicly considered one key change that could have made the rule much less expensive: relaxing the arbitrary definition that any transformer with more than 500 pprn PCBs repre-,. Regulations Governing PCB Residues 51 sented a "PCl3-transformer." Transformers originally filled with commercial PCB mixtures, such as those in the Binghamton fire, contained about 50 per-cent, or 500,000 ppm PCBs. Simply draining and refilling a pure PCB trans-former with replacement fire-resistant fluid could remove 95 percent of the PCBs, bringing the concentration down to about 2.5 percent or 25,000 ppm PCBs.71 Had the EPA allowed this level, what consequences would have resulted? Any fires that still occurred would contain at least 95 percent less PCBs and breakdown products than the pure PCB fires. How much money would have been saved by allowing dilute concentrations of PCBs to remain in commercial transformers? How much more quickly would utilities have been able to comply with the rule, perhaps avoiding the involvement of concentrated PCBs in new fires? 111 the EPA's Federal Register article on the regulation, the agency gave no indication that it had analyzed the risks and benefits of leaving dilute residues of PCBs in place.72 Just recently these regulations came close to home when the University of California at Berkeley was caught having not complied with all EPA rules regarding PCB transformers. The university agreed to pay a fine of $150,000 and to spend approximately $15 million to replace PCB transformers.73 That money, which will result in no benefits to health, could have paid for quite a few professors' salaries and even more graduate students' stipends. The most expensive PCB regulations governed how to deal with soil with PCB residues left over from leaking or discarded equipment. After 1980, EPA regional decisions and state regulations created widely varying procedures for cleaning up PCBs in soil. In some parts of the country soil removal was required only for PCB residues containing more than 50 ppm PCBs.74 In other areas, EPA regional offices or states required all detectable PCB residues to be removed. The stakes were enormous. In 1987 the EPA estimated that if all capacitor spills in the country had to be cleaned up to nondetectable levels, the cost would be anywhere from $100 million to over $2 billion annually; the estimate for a 50 ppm level was $42-80 million annually.75 In 1987 the EPA ratified an agreement negotiated by industry groups, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council to set a nationwide standard allowing 50 ppm residues in fenced electrical substa-:· tions and 10 ppm residues in residential areas (covered with 10 inches of clean soil). Industry had argued for higher residue limits but accepted the agreement ( as better than the status quo. The "compromise" was still very expensive, as f it left unchanged the hazardous waste disposal laws that require all soil · removed from PCB spills to be disposed of in special chemical waste landfills s,r hazardous waste incinerators. In addition, as of 1991, twenty-seven states continued to regulate PCBs under their own statutes, often with more stringent guidelines than the EPA compromise.76
52 PCBs and DDT The Dangers of PCB Residues in Soil How dangerous are parts-per-million concentrations of PCBs in soil? People can be exposed to PCBs in soil primarily by breathing in dust, getting dirt on food materials, and eating with dirty hands. Children who play outside are likely to absorb far more soil than adults relative to their body weight. According to recent estimates, an average 33-pound (15 kg) child playing all day in soil containing 10 ppm PCBs would end up absorbing about 0.6 µg of PCBs, for a total exposure of 0.00004 mg/kg/day.77 This is 2,500 times less than the daily diet that appeared to cause hormonal problems in pregnant rhesus monkeys (0.1 mg/kg/clay) and 125,000 times less than the daily diet associated with increased cancer incidence in two strains of rats (5 111g/kg/day). In reality, children would not play all day, every clay in contaminated soil, so they would have even smaller exposures. Under current regulations the cost of removing PCB residues, even from small sites, is enormous. To take just one example among many, Honolulu taxpayers faced a cost of over $1 million to clean up PCB residues in concrete at the construction site of a new police station.78 The highest concentration of PCBs found in the concrete was 33 ppm, or one half of one thousandth of a gram per pound of concrete.79 Setting a 10 ppm versus a 100 ppm standard for residential areas diverts many tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars of private and public money to cleanups that produce no likely health or environmental benefits. Banning the disposal in municipal landfills of soil containing more than 50 ppm PCBs seems equally overprotective. No one would ingest PCB soil that is inside a landfill, and once in the landfill the soil would quickly be mixed with thousands of tons of other material, resulting in a tremendous dilution of the original PCBs. Modern landfills are sited and constructed to avoid rapid migra-tion of the contents into ground or surface water. Most of the PCBs would remain tightly bound to soil particles. Thus we find no evidence to suggest that PCBs greatly diluted inside a modern landfill pose a health hazard to anything, human, animal, or plant. The Epidemiological Studies of the 1980s Those who developed PCB regulations imagined that small concentrations of PCBs posed a health threat, particularly with regard to increasing rates of cancer and reproductive problems. lf that were true, we would expect to see proportionately greater health problems among people exposed to higher amounts of PCBs on a daily basis. Epidemiological studies, however, have not provided a consistent picture of significant increases in illnesses among workers occupationally exposed to PCBs or of women who ate fish from waterways containing elevated levels of PCBs. r'#. pi. ~ Regulations Governing PCB Residues 53 Two major epidemiological studies done in the 1980s have assessed cancer rates among former capacitor workers, most of whom were exposed to PCBs on a daily basis for months or years. An Italian study of 2,000 workers exposed to PCBs between 1946 and 1970 reported significantly more cancers among males than expected ( 14 observed versus 2 expected), of which the largest increase was in gastrointestinal cancers. 80 Yet a government study of 2,500 workers employed in U.S. capacitor manufacturing plants since the 1940s found no increase in gastrointestinal cancers. In fact, this study showed a slightly lower number of total deaths and deaths specifically from cancer than would be expected on the basis of national statistics (295 deaths versus 318 expected; 62 deaths from cancer versus 80 expected).81 Both the Italian and American workers were exposed to other chemicals in addition to PCBs. Taken together, the Italian and American epidemiological studies do not provide con-clusive evidence about the effects of elevated human exposures to PCBs.82 In the 1980s three major studies examined the pregnancies and births of PCB-exposed women. In one study 242 Michigan women who regularly ate PCB-containing fish from Lake Michigan were compared with a control group of 71 women who never ate Lake Michigan fish.83 A second study compared a group of 200 women employed in capacitor manufacturing plants who worked with PCBs with 205 women who never had a job with direct exposure to PCBs.84 Both studies reported heavier PCB exposure to be associated with slightly shorter gestation periods and slightly smaller infants (though their weight was still above the national average). Reviewers of the studies noted that other possible factors affecting birth weight were not adequately accounted for to ensure that differences were caused by PCB exposure.85 A third study of women in North Carolina found no association between maternal PCB levels and birth weight.86 As in Lake Wobegon, everyone (exposed to PCBs or not) was above average. In follow-up reports neither the Michigan nor the North Carolina studies showed a correlation between length of breast-feeding by the higher PCB-exposed mothers and adverse outcomes in the children. The Michigan study found slightly lower scores on a short-term memory test among four-year-olds born to mothers with the highest PCB levels in breast milk. The North Carolina researchers did not report results related to memory tests but found slightly lower scores on motor-skills tests among children whose mothers had the highest PCB levels, though all differences disappeared by the time the children turned three or four years old.87 Reviewing these studies together, scientists have been reluctant to state firm conclusions about PCB toxicity to fetuses from maternal occupational, fish eating, or incidental PCB exposure.88 It still appears prudent for pregnant women to avoid regularly eating fish caught in waters known to contain high amounts of PCBs. Between 1968 and 1990 not a single article in the New York Times, the
54 PCBs and DDT Washington Post, or major news magazines carried an analysis of whether EPA regulations governing dilute PCBs were likely to provide public health or environmental benefits to counterbalance the enormous costs of complying with the regulations. Occasionally newspapers and magazines did report on PCB exposure issues in greater detail, usually at the end of articles on contami-nation scares or on inside pages. An example of a special effort by a major newspaper to place PCB-related cancer evidence in perspective was provided by San Francisco Chronicle science editor David Perlman after a fire in a city transformer vault. Titled "PCB-Cancer Controversy," the article states: "There is little clear evidence that the toxic chemical known as PCB can cause long-term serious illness to humans, although conflicting studies over many years have indicated that at least in laboratory rats the chemicals induce liver damage and perhaps liver cancers. Many human studies-some continuing for more than 20 years-have examined the effects of the compound 011 workers ... the most significant human effect positively identified has beeu a serious but usually temporary skin ailment."89 Two days after this page-six article appeared, PCDFs were found averaging 3 ppm in ash on the sidewalk grate above the transformer fire. The next clay the big, bold front-page headline in the Chronicle read: "New Chemical Peril from Highrise Fire."90 The paper had returned to the usual media practice of emphasizing peril over perspective. We are willing to believe that the FDA's early restrictions on PCBs in food were a prudent attempt to prevent potentially significant public exposures. Likewise, once PCB substitutes were available, the ban on PCB manufacturing may have been justified to cut off major new releases of PCBs and limit the production of highly toxic PCB by-products. But the subsequent regulations on dilute PCBs in soil and equipment seem to us far more stringent and expen-sive than necessary. Proponents of strict regulations used evidence about concentrated PCBs to condemn tiny residues. As a result, Americans had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars extra on utility bills and public and private cleanups to remove trace amounts of chemicals that could not have resulted in significant contamination of water, air, or food. In addition to their financial costs, the stringent regulations also created their own potential health risks-mental stress engendered in people warned about trace chemicals that were probably harmless, and potential accidents that could occur from the additional cleanups and testing required. Research should be undertaken not only on possible harm from chemicals but also on possible harm from regulation and cleanup. The environmental safety field needs to be made more symmetrical; there should be risk-risk (or double-entry) analysis: the harms reduced versus the harms created by a regulation. Already the alert citizen has important clues in distinguishing worse from better evidence. Look for other causes. If that advice seems a bit vague, try this: ls DDT a Clieinical of Ill Repute? 55 if X chemical is a reputed cause, compare levels in sick and healthy exposed individuals. If the healthy have equal amounts or more of the stuff in their bodies than the sick, look elsewhere. Look closely at animal evidence; if the doses used are much higher than human exposures, be skeptical. Use industrial (large, continuous) exposures as a guide; for if workers receiving huge doses over years remain healthy, the chances of tiny, fleeting exposures doing harm must be minuscule. If there ever was a chemical with a bad reputation, it is DDT, first made infamous by Rachel Carson. It may come as a surprise to all but the older generations to realize that DDT was once considered a savior. Truth and legend about DDT have figured so prominently in stories about harm from chemicals that the citizen risk detective must ask whether DDT deserves its reputation. II. Is DDT a Chemical of Ill Repute? wit/J Jesse Malkin When the insecticide DDT was introduced during World War II it was hailed as a miracle. It saved millions of lives by stopping the spread of insect-carried diseases; it increased crop yields, making produce more affordable; and it was an effective agent against pests that defoliated trees. After the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962, however, attention began to shift to DDT's potential for harm. It was learned that the chemical had spread to the corners of the globe and persisted long after application in soil. Worse, it was detected in the tissues of living creatures, where it seemed to pass up each link of the food chain in successively higher concentrations. Environmental-ists charged that the chemical damaged bird reproduction and posed a risk to the human race itself. The government reacted with panic, ordering a near-complete ban on DDT in 1972. Introduced as a symbol of life, DDT went down in the history books as a symbol of death. The allegations against DDT were repeated so often and stated with such passion that the public remains convinced of their validity. But once the unsub-., stantiated charges are separated from known facts, it becomes clear that the hazards posed by DDT were exaggerated. Moreover, people lost sight of the many benefits that DDT offered humanity, benefits that could not be produced by other, less maligned substances. Origins Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was first synthesized in Strasbourg in 1874 by a young chemistry student and again in 1939 by Paul Muller, a chemist
RE: Proposed Meeting with EPA
I ofl
Subject: RE: Proposed Meeting with EPA
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:18:45 -0400
From: Jim McCleskey <[e-mail]>
To: "'Henry Lancaster"' <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail], [e-mail],
Sherri.Evans. [e-mail]
Thanks Henry.
Also FYI all --I've just gotten a fax copy from Ann Lichtner (also faxed to
Bill Holman) of a May 25 response from Raymond Fatz of the Dept of the Army
to Gov Hunt on his May 16 letter to Army Secretary Louis Caldera, declining
Army participation in the cleanup costs on the same grounds that they
rejected our request last year.
-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Lancaster [mailto:H:Lancas,:@NCLM.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:25 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: Proposed Meeting with EPA
Their request does not strike me as being that complicated. A "match" is any
amount of money they are willing to commit to achieve the goals to the state
relative to the landfill. I think the project can be divided up to achieve
at least three goals: Detoxification of the landfill; use of an emerging
technology; site restoration to a viable community resource . That is a quick
response to your inquiry to turn the thinking caps warmed up.
>>> Pat Backus <[e-mail]> 06/14/00 0l:40PM >>>
I received a call from Phil Vorsatz of EPA Region IV today. Based on
some of the responses he has received, he said the meeting would
probably not occur until sometime in July.
I also talked with him about the purpose of the meeting. He said that
EPA HQ is receptive to looking for funding for the PCB Landfill
Detoxification Project but they are not sure where the money could or
should come from. One possible area they have brainstormed is funding
as a research project . The technology we plan to use, Base Catalyzed
Decomposition, was developed by EPA but has never been evaluated on a
large scale project such as ours. The EPA people that will be attending
this meeting want to ask s ome technical questions about our project to
help explore the research project avenue. While I thought my presence
at the meeting might not be necessary, Phil said I definitely need to be
there .
EPA still has the question about what constitutes matching. We really
do need something "offic ial" to give them. If s ome o ne can push that
issue to get a little priority, it would be wonderful. It's sort o f
embarrassing when someone with limited fund is interested in supplying
money and you can't give them a definitive response. I'm sure it would
help them in the funding search process also.
Phil said nothing about using the grant to Warren Family Institute as
matching. While that might be a way to release the $7M, I think EPA is
really trying to get money that could be related to the actual
tre atme nt .
They seem to want to use me as a contact either because of the need to
answer technical questions or maybe because I have less meetings than
you f o lks. I'll let you know when I have additional information .
06/15/2000 8:06 AM
Proposed Meeting with EPA
1 of 1
Subject: Proposed Meeting with EPA
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:40:09 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: Mike Kelly <l\1IKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>, Henry Lancaster <[e-mail]>,
Sherri Evans Stanton <[e-mail]>,
jmcclesk <[e-mail]>, Jane Q Smith <[e-mail]>,
BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>
I received a call from Phil Vorsatz of EPA Region IV today. Based on
some of the responses he has received, he said the meeting would
probably not occur until sometime in July.
I also talked with him about the purpose of the meeting. He said that
EPA HQ is receptive to looking for funding for the PCB Landfill
Detoxification Project but they are not sure where the money could or
should come from. One possible area they have brainstormed is funding
as a research project. The technology we plan to use, Base Catalyzed
Decomposition, was developed by EPA but has never been evaluated on a
large scale project such as ours. The EPA people that will be attending
this meeting want to ask some technical questions about our project to
help explore the research project avenue. While I thought my presence
at the meeting might not be necessary, Phil said I definitely need to be
there.
EPA still has the question about what constitutes matching. We really
do need something "official" to give them. If someone can push that
issue to get a little priority, it would be wonderful. It's sort of
embarrassing when someone with limited fund is interested in supplying
mo ney and you can't give them a definitive response. I'm sure it would
help them in the funding search process also.
Phil said nothing about using the grant t o Warren Family Institute as
matching. While that might be a way to release the $7M, I think EPA is
really trying to get money that could be related to the actual
treatment.
They seem to want to use me as a contact e ither because o f the need to
answer technical questions or maybe because I have less meetings than
you folks. I'll let you know when I have additional information.
:... .. .. ··········· ...................................................... ·
Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer
Division of Waste Management/ PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
06/14/2000 2:37 PM
FYI-Map
1 of 1
Subject: FYI -Map
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:09: 18 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>
Hopefully, the Kathy Eldridge issue is resolved . However, I am putting
a copy of the spill map in my file that shows what I observed near Bunn
yesterday (location of new water line, her house, elementary school,
high school, and other buried utilities) for reference.
Pat Backus <pat. [e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer
Division of Waste Management/ PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
06/09/2000 10:41 AM
JAMES B . HUNT JR.
GOVE RNOR
BILL HOL~AN
SE:CRETARY
..
W !LL!AM L: MEYER ...
DIRECTOR
·:--.~.=-·'"'-.. • .. -.. :::-· '.
\lrs. Kathy Eldridge
c:'o Bunn Baptist Church
205 East Jewett Avenue
P 0 . Box 144
Bunn. NC 27508
Dear Mrs. Eldrid2:e:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
May 26, 2000
I understand your concerns expressed to me on Wednesday . .\lay 2-1-. 2000
relative to potential exposure from PCB· s spilled on the roadside in the Bunn.
~orth Carolina area in Franklin Countv in 1978. Based on mv exnerie:1ce with --.
r:1e PCB sp ill. \vhich incl udes the time from Augus;: 1978 until the oresent time.
::-ie probability of any exposure of any ind ividuai to PCB from the sviii is as ci osc
,:; zero as humanly possible. Ti1e e:1tire response to the PCB spill a:1d uitimm::
:-emoval from the road side was based on protection or puo iic he::iith anci
:,::':ention of any future exposure. I \vould appreciate your consideration or the
r'ollo\ving facts relative to the PCB spill and remo\·ai as 2. means to e1:aiwire
;:-otential exposure to PCB ·s .
. ..\ll of the PCB snill areas were ac curatelv identified
The PCB spill \Vas clearly visible as a 2 to ..1 inch \\ide dar!-.: oiiy scre::k on
::1e road shoulder. Citizens in the area or the spills c:1lie~ lo cal and s;:are c riicials
:2 describe the location of spiil are::s . .\luitiple c:Junty. c:ty and state agencies
crove e\·ery road in all counties that rep orted PCB spills to id entify spill
lo cations. The Division of Waste 1'-fana gement is \·ery confident that al l the PCB
spill sites were identifi ed. This confidence is primarily based on citizens input
and their assistance re sulting fr om intensive publi city requesting their help to
locate all spill areas .
In addition, when the state removed the spi lls , the removal started in clean
areas above the starting point for the spill and continued past the en d point of th e
sp ill. This precaution resulted in 24 1 miles of road shoulder rem oval. \v-hich is 3 I
miles greater than the 210 miles of actual identified spill.
It is evident to the Division of Waste Management that every possible
PCB spill was identified and located and no area of PCB spill was excluded.
1646 MAI L SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699·1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SU !TE 1 50, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • 50% RECYCLEC/10o/o POST•C0NSUMER PAPER
Page 2
PCB Spill sites were measured and marked
State agencies physically measured the start and end points of all PCB
snills. The measured spill sites were plotted and marked on road maps for
perm anent identification. The DOT erected special metal. black on yellov,· ro ad
si gns stating "Cautio n PCB" at the starting point and end point of each spill site
.-\dditional signs were added to the middle of long sections of spill sites to ensu re
ad equate notice to th e publ ic.
PCB Soill Sites were srabiiized
In August I 978 . upon aci\·ic e of expen:s f,cm \"C State University. t:-:e
s,are applied acti vated carbon and asphalt tack o\·e:-all PCB spill sites. This \\c.S
con e to ensure that PCB ' s \\·e re immobilized and \•:ouic nor misrrate to ai, ai1c:
·.:;:ner media in order to reduce hazards to Dub iic he1it::. This action \,·as
-.:ons idered an interim act ion unrii ultimai:e manarre:ne:;t or t:ie PC E · s couici oe
ciererm ined
Chemical!\'. PCB ' s 2re cnaracteriz d b\· H':-: i:i!Iht bindirnz to minera l -~ . --
pa rticle surfaces. The very sm all particle size of the 2.Gi\·ated carbon pro\ ided
additi onal hi gh surface are1 material for PCB bi nding. The asp halt added a
.. \\ater proof' effect to the PCB -so il-carbon mi x;:ure A. combination of ti1 e
cJ.rbon-asphalt treatment and inherent insolub il ity and lo\, \·olari le nature of
PC B· s stabilized the PCB sp ill from I 97S until re:n o\·a! in Se;:iternber and
October of 198 2. Chemical and physical e··:a iuat;ors c:· rr.e S;:Jiil sites jus, !=fiOr t:·
:-e:noval in 198 2 ind icated that the srnb iiized PCB \'-2.S s,iii in place. The Di ,:isior.
of Waste Management is co nfident that all the physical and chemical ev idence
ciearly indicated that the stabilization process for the PCB's successfully fi xed the
lo cation of the spi ll from 1978 until it wa s removed in 1982
PCB Spill Removal
The PCB spill was measured to be 2 to 4 inches wide with average
infiltration of 1 to 2 inches in depth. The greatest depth of infiltration was 6
inches . The state determined, by practicing on non-co ntaminated sites, th at
removal of a 3 foot wide by 6 inch depth section would likely capture the PCB
spill. Additional efforts included a test removal of a 1 mile PCB spill
contaminated section. Pre-removal and post remova l chemical testing confirmed
that the test removal process captured the PCB spill. The fin al removal process
was initiated in September 1982 and completed in October 1982. All of the PCB
, . .. Page 3
spill sites were removed from the road shoulder. As a conservative measure all
removals were initiated in a clean zone immediately above the marked start of the
spill and removal at the marked end extended past the end point into a clean zone
This added approximately 30 miles to the remova l pro cess but gave an added
as surance of complete removal.
In summary: with the help of affected citizens. al l of the PCB spill sites
\\·e re identified; the PCB materials \Vere chemically anci physically stab ilized in
place with carbon and asphalt: and all the PCB spi lls areas \Vere rem oved The
srate is confident that all the evidence cleariv ind icates that am· thre:n of e:--,:oosu re . -.
from the spill is as close to zero as humanl y po ssib ie.
You have stated th at you have health probi ems an d that seHrai othe:-
individuals in the Bunn community have he ::dth probie:ns thar may be reia,ed m
e,oosure to PCB' s fr om the soi ii sire in the Bunn are:.. Due m the r:icts re iatei tc . .
::::: spi ll. stabilization. and remova l. it is highly unii ~e::, anci highiy ir.,urocao ie
::~:::r an y symptoms are caused or asso ciated \,·ith t~e PC B so(ii
In ad dition. ,·ou mav \,:am to conside r me r-0 110\i·rn!Z r;1on1ton ,1c: c~· ----
2e:sonr;e! in voked \.Vith the 2.cru2.l PC B soil] removai indicated no aci\·erse r:e::.:ri"i . .
efr'ect of PCB: no other comm unit\· am omr rhe ma:i,· c:mmuniti es ir, rne 2: ,=, r:-:i::: --.
spill area has realized or norir1ed the state of any e'-:i:Csure or adi·erse he::iitl,
sympto ms from the spi ll since rem oval. and the wcri-:e rs that con stru cted the
\\arer line in the sp ill are::i ne:ir Bunn ha\·e nor inci ic::::::ci a:<: symptcns
Th is also sup ports the persp ective th2t PCE · s ~-~oiTi t:-i e soi il co r.ot cr~·e: :i
:·:s :--: or· e,posure to anyo ne in the Bun n are:-,.
Ti1e Division of \Vas re \lana s2:emem does :-.c, ::ces,ion the fie: th;n \CU -. .
m:iy have health prob le ms and tha t other members or the Bunn communiry ma y
ha ve health problems. The Divisi on of Waste l'\.l amgement urges that you and
any other members of the Bunn community that hai·e health problems to seek
advice from your individual ph ysicians. If these physici ans jointl y or indi vidually
determine that your problems are related to chemic:il exposure then please ha\·e
the physician contact the state Health Department The state health agenc y has
experts in industrial hygiene. epidemiology and tox ico logy that are trained to
respond to legitimate complaints of chemical exp osure.
The Division of Waste Management un~erstands that you have attempted
to obtain assistance from a significant number of state and local agencies based
on potential exposure to PCB ' s from a recent construction of water lines in the
old PCB spill area. The Division of Waste Management understands that the state
and local agencies have not responded to your satisfaction. The Division of
Page 4
\Vaste Management is confident that the potential for exposure of any citizen in
the Bunn area from the PCB spill is highly improbable and therefore has not
responded to your request for sampling in the Bunn are:i The Oi\·ision of \\"aste
\Ianagement is aware that you may not believe any e1:idence or facts presemeci
by the Di vision and offers to open our files for your re\·ie\\: at your convenie:ice
Pl ease contact me if you \vould like the opporrunity to review· our fii-:s on ti1i _:,
issue.
··.\i...\L sh
:..),_ Rick Lamde,.-
;:.e:th Parron
P:it Backus
Rob in Smith
Don Reuter
Patti Arms
Judv Jefferies
\ favor. Citv of Bunn --
Resoecrrulh· . .
' ~
~-5/~v / \-\-iiiiam L \le':-:~. Direcrc:-
:::>i1:is:cn c~-\,.":::s,-: \L.::1:1!1:::ne:::
'.::'o unry ,\lzmager. C::·· .:~· t.u:-::-:
\larnie \\-inste:ici
A.ngie Callahan
C \\VPFILES'u\[EYER\eldridge.\\pd
Bill Meyer's conversation with Kathy Eldridge
May 24, 2000
Notes:
Soil has already been tested
PCB' s are not a problem in Bunn
No statistical/logical/reasonable basis to show PCB is now a problem
Will be glad to stand in front of WRAL and state that there is not a problem
Re-testing would be a waste of money
Already tested to prove no pcb 's were there, this has already been proved, has been taken care of
Told her to have someone to go ahead and test it if that's what she wanted to do
Have modified/widened road, physicians have not found any problems with road workers
Let physicians discuss with Epidemiology staff medical problems
Suggested to her that if it is a chemical exposure it is not from PCB exposure
Told her to go through Health Department
Probability of PCB' s there is absolutely zero
Will be glad to provide facts : what was done and when it was done
Picked up 6 times the volume of what standards told us of what concentration was
If citizens of Bunn want to participate in study, go to Epidemiology and request a study of
symptoms, there's a process/procedure that responds to these complaints
Would be helpful if physicians would make arrangements
Bill would be glad to talk to anyone
Our response is there are 200+ miles in other areas where pcb's were disposed.
Suggestion -bring names as a group to Epidemiology, or to Health Director
All names/address/symptoms were already provided??
Do what you feel is best
Ms . Eldridge stated we were not Christians
Obvious we are not doing what she would like to do .
Willing to listen any time.
Bill 's only expertise is PCB, no PCB's left at this particular site.
C:\ WPFI LES\PCBLF\MISC\notes5-24. wpd
[Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn PCB/Water Line Complaint]]]
1 of2
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn PCB/Water Line Complaint]]]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:07:44 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: BILL l\1EYER <BILL.l\[e-mail]>,
MIKE KELLY <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>
I thought the information that Ernie Fuller prepared was pretty through
so I sent a copy to Patti. This was her reply.
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn PCB/Water Line Complaint]]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:48:39 -0400
From: "ARMS PATRICIA" <[e-mail]>
Organization: BAH
To: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
FYI. When I got home Monday night, I had a message from Cathy Eldridge
telling me about an emergency town meeting that was call supposedly by
Senator Creech. Supposed attendees were Sen. Creech, Rep. Crawford, the
Mayor, Bunn Town Commissio ners, and Ms. Eldridge. In her message, Ms.
Eldridge invited me to attend. Unfortunately, I had a Bunn Outreach
meeting that same night, and didn't get to hear my messages until 9:30
p.m., after the meeting.
I don't know what transpired at the meeting, but if I hear anything,
I'll let you know.
As a side note, the boy that "fell on the dirt pile" and who developed a
"strange rash" referred to in Ernie Fuller's letter o f 5/16 was the boy
I saw on May 13. He was playing on a dirt pile at the Bunn Elementary
Sc hool, a good 2 miles fro m any of the pipeline construc tion, no where
near any past PCB spill. The boy also stated that he had been playing
with a dog while on the dirt pile, hugging him, and was o nly wearing a
tank t op. The rash I saw did not resemble chlo racne (as I understand it
to look ); there were no open sores, or pimple-type bumps. It looked a
l o t like what you might get from sand fleas, chiggers, o r heat rash -
s mall red bumps on his t o rso and chest . He said the itching would come
and go. The school nurse checked him out and concluded it was sand
fleas .
. .,. ,. ., ...... ., .. ,..,..,. .... ,. . ., .. ., ...... ,. ..... ,. ......... ., .............. ., ........ ., ......................... ,. . .,. ... , ..... ,. ......................... ,..,. ........................................................................... ., .. ., .. ,..,..,. ......... ., .. ., .. ,. ..... ,. .................... ., ...................................... ,. ............ ., ............... __, ___ ......... ., .............. ., .. ,..,. ......... ,,. ......... .,, ..................................................................... ·············• .... ············ ....................................................................................................................... .
Patti Arms <arms [e-mail]>
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Civil Market Team
•: ........................................................................ ···························•·······················. ...................................... ............... . . .... . .
05/17/2000 9:16 AM
{Fwd: {Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn Water Lines]]]
"'
I of3
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn Water Lines]]]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11 :00:42 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: BILL :MEYER <BILL.:[e-mail]>,
MIKE KELLY <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>
Sue forwarded the note to me and I sent a reply based on what I
absolutely know is the truth. Should have cc you, but forgot.
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn Water Lines])
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:58:47 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: Robin Smith <[e-mail]>, Linda Sewall <[e-mail]>
I am one of the many that Ms. Eldridge has contacted.
I spoke with Bill Meyer last week about it and he did not want for us
(DWM) to do any sampling. He felt that it was a health concern and that
epidemology should take the lead in any sampling related to health
issues.
Ms. Eldridge did ask for a map of the original spill sites which I sent
her on Friday. I also received a call from Ernie Fuller of DAQ
requesting a copy of map. He is going to pick it up today.
Ms. Eldridge's house in not located on NC 98 west or south of Bunn where
the original spill was located.
Bill Meyer also said that the spills were typically located on only one
side of the road. We do not know if that is the same side as where the
new water line is being installed. Jim Wisely of DWQ told me that the
water is on the north side of NC 98 going into Bunn from the west.
In addition, samples were taken about the cleanup and I am trying to
locate them in the archieves. However, it may be several days before I
can get access to them.
Subject: [Fwd: Bunn Water Lines]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10 :17:20 -0400
From: Sue Hodge <[e-mail]>
To: PAT BACKUS <PA [e-mail]>
Pat,
Heres a message from Robin Smith and then from A. Klimek Thought you
might be interested
Sue
......... -... -... -... -... -,. ..... ,. ..... ,. .................................................................................................................. ___ _. ..................................................................... ,. ............. ,. ............................................................................................................... __ _ ....................
Subject: Re: Bunn Water Lines
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:01 :59 -0400
From: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
To: Robin Smith <[e-mail]>
CC: Linda Sewall <[e-mail]>, Keith Overcash <[e-mail]>,
SUE HODGE <[e-mail]>, Pat Williamson <[e-mail]>,
Johanna Reese <[e-mail]>, Ernie Fuller <[e-mail]>
05/16/2000 11:12 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Bunn Water Lines]]]
2 of3
DAQ is not taking air samples of PCBs (to the best of my knowledge). We do
not have that capability. We have been intensively involved and Ernie and
Johanna have talked about what is being done. By way of this email, I am
asking Ernie to update everyone on what DAQ has been doing. We would be more
concerned if there were other complainants to back up her concerns, but have
not found any. She is calling numerous people and apparently feels she has a
mission to save people from this problem. Alan
Robin Smith wrote:
> I know many of you have been contacted by citizen in Bunn (Ms.
> Eldridge?) about possible health effects of installation of new water
> lines in areas that she believes are contaminated with PCBs. To make
> sure that everyone knows DENR's response to her concerns, would you let
> me know what if anything your Division is doing.
>
> I have been told that DAQ started taking some air samples late last
> week, but would appreciate confirmation of exactly what has been done.
>
> Please let me know if any other testing (i.e., soil sampling) is
> underway and the results of your staff's review of the maps of the PCB
> contamination in relation to the area where the water lines are being
> installed.
>
> I'll pass this information along to the Governor's Citizens Affairs
> Office. Thanks.
······························•••····································································································································•••····································································· · .............. ··················•····•·· .............................. , ... ,........ ··········· ....................................................... . ... .
Alan Klimek <Alan.Klirnek(a),ncmailnet>
Division of Air Quality
Environment and Natural Resources
Pat Backus <pat.backus(f4ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Division of Waste Management/ PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
05/16/200011:12AM
Bunn P(-Water Line Complaint I .
I of2
Subject: Bunn PCB/Water Line Complaint
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:04:33 -0400
From: Ernie Fuller <[e-mail]>
To: Robin W Smith <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, Linda Sewall <[e-mail]>,
Keith Overcash <Keith. [e-mail]>,
Pat Williamson <[e-mail]>,
Johanna Reese <[e-mail]>, SUE HODGE <[e-mail]>
I am pleased to update you on the Division of Air Quality's (DAQ's)
response to Ms. Cathy Eldridge's complaint concerning possible PCB
contaminated soil and the alleged contamination of Bunn's air quality
due to recent disruption of the roadway shoulders to lay new water lines
in and around Bunn, N.C. Before I give you the current status, let me
give you a very brief history of this complaint. Ms. Eldridge first
contacted me on May 10. She was concerned that the population of Bunn
was sick or dying due to contaminated air. She complained of people
with strange rashes, bronchitis, asthma, burning throats, itching hands
on children to the point that they,licked their hands all day to relieve
the itching. She had no knowledge of any particular pollutant that
might be a problem or any industry or other establishment which might be
polluting the town. She stated that she first noticed the sickness
within the congregation of the Baptist church which her husband
ministers and in the local elementary school. I immediately got in
touch with the Franklin County Health Department. Personnel there said
there was no problem to their knowledge. They had also been contacted
by Ms. Eldridge and referred her to DAQ. I also contacted the
principals or their spokesmen at the schools and found that no unusual
medical situations had been noticed there. Just the normal cases of
poison ivy, allergies, and colds. Nothing out of the ordinary.
On Thursday, May 11, Ms. Eldridge called my office several times to
demand that air sampling be performed by DAQ. She stated that she had
called the N.C. Department of Agriculture and was now convinced that the
pollution was coming from local farmers spraying herbicides on crops.
She asked the Dept. of Agri. for help, but they referred her to DAQ.
Somewhere during this process, she had also called the N.C. Division of
Epidemiology who initially referred her to DAQ.
Later on May 11, Ms. Eldridge spoke again with the Franklin County
Health Dept. where someone mentioned to her the PCB spill along roads in
the Bunn area which occurred many years ago. Again, she was referred
to DAQ. Her complaint now concerned the release of dust particles
contaminated with PCB from the roadsides around Bunn where water pipe
was being laid. She stated that a small boy fell down on the freshly
disturbed earth and quickly developed a very strange rash.
I have investigated the Bunn area and the excavations for the water
line. Some of the PCB spilled was along a stretch of N.C. Hwy 98 west
of Bunn. It is my recollection that soon after the spill the
contaminated soil was tilled and mixed with activated charcoal. In
theory the charcoal would "fix" the PCB and would stop any possible
leaching. Many samples were taken and I recall this seemed to be
working. Later the contaminated soils were removed to the Warren County
landfill and replaced with fresh, clean soil. Some of the water pipe
has recently been laid along this stretch of N.C. Hwy 98. That project
looks to be completed and the soils have been replaced over the pipe
and stabilized by being reseeded. Only the north side of N.C. Hwy 98
was contaminated, and only that portion between the roadway and side
ditches. While much of the water pipe work is within the previously
contaminated band of soil near the roadway, some of the water pipe wo rk
has actually been on the south side of the highway and some has been on
the far side of the ditches on the north side of the highway. No ne o f
this soil should have been initially contaminated. Currently there is
quite a bit of freshly exposed soil near the center of town on the south
side of N.C. Hwy 98 and on the road which passes the church. Ac cording
to a map I received from the Division of Waste Management, depicting
05/17/2000 7:45 AM
Bu7 PC41Water Line Complaint
2 of2
'
the contaminated r oadways around Bunn, none of this soil would have
been contaminated. Additionally, there was no PCB spilled near any of
the three schools in Bunn, and there are no current excavations along
roads leading to the schools.
According to Lori Cherry, with DAQ's Air Toxic Protection Branch, we do
not have the capability to sample and analyze ambient air for PCB's. I
have referred Ms. Eldridge to EPA f o r possible help. I also have not
been able to substantiate any unusual amount of sickness or death or
even unusual ambient air conditions such as odors or fumes. The
Franklin County Health Department, the Mayor's office, and the local
schools report that everything on the sickness front is fairly normal.
I do not have any plans to continue investigation of this complaint
unless evidence is presented to DAQ which warrants re-opening of the
case. It may be possible that the Div. of Waste Management could take
some soil samples to verify that no PCB contamination exists in the
soil. My latest conversation with Waste Management personnel indicates
that they do not plan to take any soil samples, but will try to find the
results of samples taken after the contaminated soils were removed,
nearly twenty years ago. We share Ms. Eldridge's concern about air
quality and the health of our citizens. If you have any specific
concerns , or if you have any suggestions as to how we can better serve
the citizens of Bunn, please d on't hesitate to contact me at (919)
571-4700. By this memo, you have my e-mail address. Thanks!!
05/17/2000 7:45 AM
Complaint from Cathy Eldridge s(,ltv r\ .~
Subject: Complaint from Cathy Eldridge '[ r u / t(}Y n() II
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:36:43 -0400 ~V' ~~,..,.
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]> (;')l.)J
To: MIKE KELLY <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>, ,
BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>,
Pat Williamson <[e-mail]>, James Wisely <[e-mail]>
I of I
I found out the following.
1 - A water line is being put in along NC 98 along the same section of
highway where PCBs were spilled. Bill mentioned that in most cases the
spills were only on one side of the road. I do not know whether the
water line is on the same side of the road as where the spills were.
Jim, please let me know what side of the road the water line is on.
2 - I do not know exactly where Cathy Eldridge lives or where the folks
she said are sick live. I did a reverse search on her phone number
which indicated that she lives east of Louisburg near the intersection
of Hwy 56 and and SR 1001 near Mapleville. That is about 10 miles from
Hwy 98. I will try to confirm her location tomorrow. This might
indicate it is not related to the PCB spills.
3 - I think she has the impression that PCBs can leach through water
pipe. Based on my understanding of the nature of PCBs, it's my gut
feeling that it would not happen. I will try to find reference material
to back that up. If she thinks it is in the water, then maybe her water
needed to be sampled.
This seems to me it seems like something that the epidemiologists should
follow up on. From my very basis knowledge of biostatistics from
college, it would seem that you would concentrate first on the affected
population and then trace back to a source rather than assuming the
source without any data connecting you to that source . Do you know
where this is supposed to go from here?
Pat Backus <pat.backus@~ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer
Division of Waste Management/ PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
05/12/2000 7:45 AM
More Info on Cathy Eldridge Questions
l of I
Subject: More Info on Cathy Eldridge Questions
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:29: 12 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: MIKE KELLY <MIKE.A.KELL [e-mail]>,
James Wisely <[e-mail]>, Pat Williamson <[e-mail]>,
BILL MEYER <[e-mail]>
I was talking to Patricia Davis this morning and found out that she
grew up in Bunn. (She said she was something like a native Bunnonian.)
We looked up the address in the phone book and found that Mrs. Eldridge
lives at 416 E. Jewett Ave. Patricia remembered the street name but
couldn't remember exactly where that was so she called one of her
friends. According to her friend, this address is on the east side of
town probably about a mile or two east of the intersection of NC Hwy 98
and 39 and near or a little north of SR 1609.
According to the spill maps, the spill in the Bunn area was on NC Hwy 98
starting at SR 1708 west of Bunn to NC Hwy 39 in Bunn (the major
crossroad in t own ). Then it started again 0 .2 mile NW of SR 1610 to the
Nash County line.
The near spill point to Mrs. Eldridge's house would be where it ended at
NC Hwy 98 and 39 which about a mile o r two away.
Patricia was familar with the new lines and spill but couldn't remember
which side of the road they were on. She is going to ask her friend in
Bunn.
Also, she said that the water is not is service yet. It is supposed to
go into service next week.
05/12/2000 12 :34 PM
Bunn Water Lines
1 ofl
Subject: Bunn Water Lines
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09: 10:32 -0400
From: Robin Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC -DENR
To: Linda Sewall <[e-mail]>, Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>,
Keith Overcash <[e-mail]>,
SUE HODGE <[e-mail]>
CC: Pat Williamson <[e-mail]>,
Johanna Reese <[e-mail]>
I know many of you have been contacted by citizen in Bunn (Ms.
Eldridge?) about possible health effects of installation of new water
lines in areas that she believes are contaminated with PCBs. To make
sure that everyone knows DENR's response to her concerns, would you let
me know what if anything your Division is doing.
I have been told that DAQ started taking some air samples late last
week, but would appreciate confirmation of exactly what has been done.
Please let me know if any other testing (i.e., soil sampling) is
underway and the results of your staff's review of the maps of the PCB
contamination in relation to the area where the water lines are being
installed.
I'll pass this information along to the Governor's Citizens Affairs
Office. Thanks.
05/16/2000 9:45 AM
I
M~MORANDUM
Mike Kelly
Pat Backus
FROM THE DESK OF
PATRICK A~-BARNES, P.G.
Patrick Barnes, P.G.
May 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Science Advisor
BF A #2000-12
)~:-y I didn't get rig ht back to you guys, our email got hit as so many others did.· I agree
. ·• :he newsletter printing cost. The budget number I used was based on work we are
,, :·ently doing for the FOOT. The difference may be I assumed multiple pages, eight
d sides and full color, as well as mailing. But there is no need for all of that I guess.
" thoughts were more toward a high end prod uct. Bl ack and white is okay but it will
, -2 much more than a single, double-sided page to adequately communicate the
: Jress of all the components of the project.
·; ~ proposal I submitted assumes that we are going to try and do what we S$id in the
· ~nm unity Outreach Plan, which is very comprehensive. It also assumes that the
, ,.ersight'' contractors' scope would be focused on ensuring project progress in
· :-s:ordance with the schedule and specifications, not addressing the needs or concerns
. : ~:1e community. The State only needs to have what is called a Resident Project
, ~:•resentative (or Engineer) for the construction phase.
· role will be to maximize the true involvement of the community while staying on
· · nedule and within the specifications. As the Science Advisor, my role is also to
•· -_-rn municate the results in a way that maintains a level of comfort by the community
.c:;,;,ut the work effort.
;_:,-;:e the detoxification contractor is hired, his goal wi ll be to make the highest profit in
?,'; :3hort a time as possible, we must keep that in mind.
c::•:ause work will be occurring around the clock and on weekends, I believe the one
\"·".'.:!ek per month on average for me to interface with the local subcontractors is probably
,~':s\!istic. It will be more on the front end and less on the back as Mike indicated, but as
,:-2 project moves forward conflict resolution, particularly with small local contractors
::::::::·1 be time consuming. The 40 hours assumes that I would continue to plaV: that role
=.s the local contractors are likely to come to me with problems. But this is not time lost
. .:;:;cause both the oversight and detoxification contractors would bid less if they know I
•:."! assist. This makes sense for several reasons the most important of which I have
I
ME MORANDUM
May 8, 2000
Pa ge 2
I
;3'r eady met with several contractors and vendors and currently get calls regularly on the
:::~atus of the project. I am also the very familiar with what we have been saying and
.,.,h at can be expected so you could blame me on this one! The number of hours can
-:,bably be lowered to 36/month.
; s•n willing to substantially decrease the hours in Task 7 if someone else would take
--':' !ead in prepe1·ation and dissemination of the newsletter. This task can be reduced
: _ l 6 hours from 32. Additionally, it is likely that the necessary correspondence with
=1 can be accomplished with 8 hours per month instead of 16 hours, given that we are
;~::.2,0 likely to discuss various issues during monthly and other meetings.
I re alize that the original budget was $200,000 for a Science Advisor, but that budget
. .::,urned th at the project would have what we th en called a Program Manager. The
· js for th is ro!e it was thought could come from the contingency or a portion . of each
. <. In essence, we replaced that concept with an Oversight Contractor to perform
, :struction management as it relates to meeting the technical requirements of the
· 0 c:ificati ons and a Science Advisor (I prefer Technical Community Advisor) to address
• : traditional Science Advisor role and to adm inister the implementation of the
·. < rn munity Outreach Plan.
:. ;:;;;ed on your concerns, the total hours have been adjusted to 124 hours from 152
1 • :J;Jrs per month. Based on my experience, I really don't think what has been discussed
.-::·: be properly implemented for less. The rate of $100/hr. does include al!
.• ~irninistrative costs .
. ::. I have indica:2d in the past I believe oversight is necessary but the scope must be
· -·y well definea so it compliments the other activities and meets the goals of the
. ,:all design.
-"t. to address your concern about my available tim e, I typically work 10 hours per day,
~-:fays per week and 4 hours on weekends . I will not have a problem meeting the now
; 24 hours/month estimated demand of this project, while still running BFA. Additional ly,
;c '7 eeded, I will ta ke a leave of absence from my BFA duties.
liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;..;.· :g"1!;!,., -----iGallliiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ______ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ______ llliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJ
To: PCB Citizens Advisory Board
From: Pat Backus
Date: May 3, 2000
Re: Landfill Monitoring
Below is the latest information available on the monitoring of leachate at the PCB Landfill.
Analytical Test Results
The March monthly samples were taken on March 24, 2000.
Influent = 0.0011 ppm PCB Effluent = <0.0001 ppm PCB
The April monthly samples were taken on April 5, 2000.
Influent = 0.0010 ppm PCB Effluent = <0.0001 ppm PCB
e .. .e
C 0 ..,
PCB Content of Influent and Effluent of Luchate r-tment Systlm
Warren County PCB Landfill
0.0015 t-----,----+---+----t-++---+---1-----+----<
i 0.0010 +--------<----+-----+-------------->-----+-....... --<
g
0 u
~
0.0000 +--------<----+-----+----+---+-------<>-----+----<
<SONA
Limit
o3/0619e 06/141!18 09/22198 12131/!le 041101!19 011191!19 10/271!19 02104/00 05/14/00
Date
..... ,nftuont -+-Effluent
Semi-annual Sampling
Groundwater wells, surface water, stream sediment, and leachate was sampled for PCBs on April 5
and 6 to fulfill the landfill's TSCA permit for the semiannual monitoring. The results are listed in the
following table.
Al,rll 5-6, 2000
Specific
PCBs Conductance
lnnm DH (umhos
Ground Water
1 <0.0001 5.85 141
1A <0.0001 ** -
2 <0.0001 5.91 96
3A <0.0001 6.11 104
5(deep; <0.0001 5.82 89
7(shallow; <0.0001 5.64 79
11 <0.0001 ** **
12 <0.0001 5.48 124
Surface Water
RCUS <0.0001 6.95 77
RCDS <0.0001 7.13 84
UTUS <0.0001 7.10 81
UTDS <0.0001 6.95 68
Sediment
RCUS <0.10
RCDS <0.10
UTUS <0.10
UTDS <0.10
Leachate
Influent 0.0010 6.90 1037
Effluen1 <0.0001 6.96 921
April 5-6, 2000
PCBs
(ppm
Pond Solls
Outlet 0.10
Mid 0.61
Center 0.20
FIiters
Sand 0.20
Above Sand 0.68
Carbon <0.1 0
RCUS -Richneck Creek Up Stream
RCDS -Richneck Creek Down Stream
UTUS -Unnamed Tributary Up Stream
UTDS -Unnamed Tributary Down Stream
** -Not enough sample to test
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 17, 2000
Pat Backus
Wendy Shepherd
Methane Monitoring at the PCB Landfill
Methane monitoring was conducted at the PCB Landfill located in Warren County on
Wednesday, April 5, 2000. Methane readings were taken using the LANDTEC GA-90 gas
analyzer. The GA-90 uses an infrared beam to analyze the amount of methane, carbon dioxide
and oxygen within landfill gas.
As the monitoring plan indicated 6 inch bore holes were placed into the landfill surface using a bar
punch probe. Each sample was taken in approximately 50-foot increments inside the landfill liner
boundary. The results and locations for the boreholes are located on the included pages.
Additional readings were taken at the previously installed gas/water monitoring wells also.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Monitoring began at 9:20 am, starting with the east-side of the landfill and ending with the west -
side.
The first borehole and sample was made approximately 116' feet from the east side of the pump
house. Then walking in a north/south -south/north manner readings were taken approximately
every 50 feet.
Sampling began on the east side with the first reading being made at the liner boundary. Walking
south, a reading was taken approximately every 50' until the south cell boundary line was reached
(East Side: Line A= EA). Starting from the last borehole in line A, moving 25' west, a second
line was established (EB). Again, boreholes were made roughly every 50' walking north towards
the pump house. This process continued for lines EC and ED. This same process was duplicated
on the West Side of the landfill, ending at the west-side liner boundary.
An additional set of readings was taken at the north and south well and at the center vent.
RESULTS
The temperature on the landfill ranged from 52°F in the morning to 65°F in the afternoon. Overall
weather conditions began cloudy but clear as the day progressed. Landfill conditions were
moderately wet.
All of the samples showed no amount of me~e escaping through the surface of the landfill. A
few of the samples gave a range of oxygen reading from 20.3 to 21 .4 along the surface. This
could be due to wet conditions on the landfill or calibration error.
Carbon Dioxide reading for Lines EA and EB were quite higher than other samples taken on the
landfill surface. Those samples were re-examined later in the day and a reading of O was found at
that time.
CONCLUSION
It has been noted, th_e temperature and barometric pressure inside the landfill influence methane
gas concentration. Both cell boundary and random surface testing have not shown any amount of
methane escaping through the landfill surface.
cc: Bill Meyer
Larry Rose
Code I Time I Date ICH4 % EAST IEA/1 9:37 04/05/2000 0 EA/2 9:40 04/05/2000 0 EA/3 9:42 04/05/2000 0 EA/4 9:44 04/05/2000 0 EB/1 9:45 04/05/2000 0 EB/2 9:48 04/05/2000 0 EB/3 9:50 04/05/2000 0 EB/4 9:52 04/05/2000 0 EC/1 9:54 04/05/2000 0 EC/2 9:56 04/05/2000 0 EC/3 9:59 04/05/2000 0 '. I IEC/4 10:00 04/05/2000 0 \ I I ED/1 10:01 04/05/2000 0 ED/2 10:04 04/05/2000 0 ED/3 10:06 04/05/2000 0 ED/4 10:09 04/05/2000 0 04/05/2000 0 04/05/2000 0 04/05/2000 0 EA/1 I 1 :33 I 04/05/2000 0 EB/4 I 1 :34 I 04/05/2000 I 01 , ' ~ CO2 02 Bal % % % 0 21 79 0.6 20.7 78.7 0.4 20.3 79.3 0.2 20.4 79.4 --0 21 79 0.1 20.7 79.2 0.2 16 83.8 2.2 17 80.8 -~ PCB Landfill 4/5/2000 Humidity "Hg 29.7 WEST 29.7 --··--··-29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 -·•·--1----0.8 20.3 78.9 0.7 20 79.3 29.7 ·--------------0 21.2 78.8 29.7 0 21.1 78.9 29.7 -----0 21.1 78.9 29.7 0 21.1 78.9 0 21.2 78.8 0 21.1 78.9I 29.7■ Code South 0 21.4 78.6 Center 0 21.4 78.6 North 0.7 19.7 79.6 0 21.4 78.6 -·--------·--------Code Time Date WA/1 10:11 04/05/2000 WA/2 10:14 04/05/2000 --------·--WA/3 10:16 04/05/2000 WA/4 10:19 04/05/2000 WB/1 10:21 04/05/2000 WB/2 10:23 04/05/2000 WB/3 10:26 04/05/2000 WB/4 10:28 04/05/2000 WB/5 10:31 04/05/2000 WC/1 10:35 04/05/2000 WC/2 10:37 04/05/2000 WC/3 10:39 04/05/2000 WC/4 10:40 04/05/2000 WC/5 10:42 04/05/2000 ---·--·--·-·--·-------------Time Date Well 1:39 04/05/2000 Vent 1:47 04/05/2000 Well 2:06 04/05/2000 --· --·----------------. 0121.i -·---------·-__ -----·1_ __ ·---78.6 --·------· ----· --1---·-CH4 CO2 02 Bal Humidity % % % % "Hg 0 0 21.2 78.8 29.7 0 0 21.2 78.8 29.7 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 0 0 21.4 79 29.7 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 0 0 21.1 78.9 29.7 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 CH4 CO2 02 Bal I Humidity % % % % l"Hg 0 0 21.4 78.6 5 2 19.6 73.4 1.2 1.2 20.2 77.4 --· --1---
*
*
*
South X
•
•
•
Appendix A
X
Center Vent
East
* Orginal Bore Hole
*
*
*
X North
•
•
•
To: PCB Corrmunity Advisory Board
From: Pat Backus
Data: May 30, 2000
Ra: Landfill Monitoring
Bek>w is the latest infonnation available on the monitoring of leachate at the PCB Landfill.
Leachate Pumping
The leachate removal rate has dropped to approximately 0.15 gpm. Adjustments to the pumping cyde
are being made in an attempt to increase the rate and reduce unnecessary wear on the compressor.
The cumulative amount of leachate removed from the landfill since pumping continuously is
approximately 119,000 gallons.
140,000
120,000
CONI'INUOUi LEACBA TE PUMPING AT WARREN COUNI'Y PCB LANDJIILL
C--•■latlvt M•■t R••owd
,..,, ---j; 100,000 ~
V l .. I
l
= i §
/ eo,ooo
60,000
_.,/ V
40,000
20,000
/ .../ _v~
,r'"
0 ,;I
2&-~ 1&-14-~ 03-..U 2&-..U 22· 16-11-0$, 3(). 2$-1&-13-O&-03-2&-23-17-
~ -· --~~~--~-~-··--Dale
Landfill Water Levels
Landfill water levels continue to drop. The latest measurements taken on May 19,2000 indicated a
water level of three and a half feet in the North and South wells. A graph of the water level in the South
well is shown below.
15
14
13
12
11
10
€ 8
I a i 7 i I
15
4
3
2
0
.. ·~ • •• --..
Wmr Level In South Well
Warren County PCB L■nclfln
• T •
• • ..
4
'-•• .•~ . .. It •
12101/86 03'31/97 07/29197 11/26197 03'211198 07/214/98 11121/98 03'21199 071111199 1111&'89 03'1!5100
Do•
Analytical Test Results
'
The May monthly samples were taken on May 19, 2000. The samples are in the state laboratory for
analysis.
The results from the air sampling inside of the leadlate sand filter are shown on the following page.
The sand filter was selected because it was felt that it would have the highest concentration of
contaminants -higher than the center landfill vent whidl has a carbon filter attached.
j
'
RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLING AT LEACHATE SAND FILTER
Sample no.
Pump no.
Beginning flow rate
Ending flow rate
Runtine
Average flow rate
Beginning tamp
Ending tamp
Reference tamp
Pressure
Reference pressure
Total volume of air
Chromium
Manganese
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Silver
Cadmium
Barium
Lead
NIOSH
NIOSH Limits
OSHA Limits
IDLH Limits
001727
13077
1218 cm3/min
1236 cm'3/min
240 min
45 F =
60 F =
68 F =
789.5 torr =
=
Metals
Date 41512000
= 1323 scm3/min
= 1304 scm3/min
1313 scm3/min
505 R
520 R
528 R
31 .08 in Hg
29.92 in Hg
315,209 scm3
Sample resuhs NIOSH IDLH
ug ug/scm3 mghn3 mghn3 Notes mghn3
0.3090 9.BOE-07 0.00098 0.500
0.0138 4.38E-08 0.00004 1.000
0.0420 1.33E-07 0.00013 1.000
0.4050 1.28E-06 0.00128 5.000 Zinc Oxide
0.0030 9.52E-09 0.00001 0.010 "OSHA
0.0090 2.B6E-08 0.00003 0.010
0.0160 5.0BE-08 0.00005 0.005 "OSHA
0.0170 5.39E-08 0.00005 0.500 Barium Nitrate
0.0500 1.59E-07 0.00016 0.100
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Part of US Department of Health and Human Services
It is responsible for recorrmending health and safety standards.
Recommended exposure limits are time-weighted average concentrations
for up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-hour week.
Time-weighted average concentrations that m.ist not be exceeded
during any Pr-hour work shift of a 40-hour week.
In-mediately Dangerous to Life or Health
The maxim.im concentration about which only a highly reliable breathing
apparatus providing maximum worker protection is pemitted. As a
safety margin, these limits were set to allow a worker the ability to escape
without loss of life or irreversible health effects and also consider the effect
of eye or respiratory irritation and other deleterious effects that would
prevent escape.
250
500
100
500
5
10
9
50
100
--•
RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLING AT LEACHATE SAND FILTER
Sample no.
Pump no.
Beginning flow rate
Ending flow rate
Runtime
Average flow rate
Beginning tamp
Ending tamp
Reference tamp
Pressure
Reference pressure
Total volume of air
PCB
NIOSH
NIOSH Limits
OSHA Limits
IDLH Limits
001725
15118
640 cm3/min
645 cm3/min
241 min
45 F =
60 F =
68 F =
789.5 torr =
=
PCBs
Date 4/512000
695 scm3/min
680 scm3/min
688 scm3/min
505 R
520 R
528 R
31 .08 in Hg
29.92 in Hg
165,751 scm3
Sample results NIOSH
ng ug/scm3 mahn3 mghn3
20 1.21E-07 0.00012 0.001
Notes
Less than
detection
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Part of US Department of Health and Human Services
It is responsible for reconmending health and safety standards.
IDLH
mghn3
5
Reconmended exposure limits are lime-weighted average concentrations
for up to a 1 ~hour workday during a 4~hour week.
Time-weighted average concentrations that rrust not be exceeded
during any 8-hour work shift of a ~hour week.
lnmediately Dangerous to Life or Health
The maxirrum concentration about which only a highly reliable breathing
apparatus providing rnaxirrum worker protection is permitted. As a
safety margin, these limits were set to allow a worker the ability to escape
without loss of life or irreversible health effects and also ex>nsider the effect
of eye or respiratory irritation and other deleterious effects that would
prevent escape.
RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLING AT LEACHATE SAND FILTER
Sample no.
Pump no.
Beginning flow rate
Ending flow rate
Runtime
Average flow rate
Beginning tamp
Ending tamp
Reference temp
Pressure
Reference pressure
Total volume of air
Hydrocarbons
(BP 36-126 C)
Hydrocarbons
(Aromatic)
Hydrocarbons
(Halogenated)
NIOSH
NIOSH Limits
OSHA Limits
IDLH Limits
001724
15118
Hydrocarbons
Date 41512000
640 cm3/mn = 695 scm3/mn
645 cm3/mn = 680 scm3/mn
241 mn
688 scm3/mn
45 F = 505 R
60 F = 520R
68 F = 528 R
789.5 torr = 31 .08 in Hg
= 29.92 in Hg
165751 scm3
Sample results NIOSH
mg mg/scm3 mg,rn3 mghn3
0.040 2.41E-07 0.2413
0.040 2.41E-07 0.2413
0.040 2.41E-07 0.2413
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Part of US Department of Health and Human Services
Notes
Less than
detection
Less than
detection
Less than
detection
It is responsible for recommending health and safety standards.
IDLH
mghn3
Recomrrended exposure limits are time-weighted average concentrations
for up to a 10-hour workday during a 4D-hour week.
Time-weighted average concentrations that rrust not be exceeded
during any 8-hour work shift of a 4D-hour week.
lrrmediately Dangerous to Life or Health
The maxirrum concentration about which only a highly reliable breathing
apparatus providing maxirrum worker protection is permtted. As a
safety margin, these limits were set to allow a worker the ability to escape
without loss of life or irreversible health effects and also consider the effect
of eye or respiratory irritation and other deleterious effects that would
prevent escape.
RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLING AT LEACHATE SAND FILTER
Sample no.
Pump no.
Beginning flow rate
Ending flow rate
Runtime
Average flow rate
Beginning temp
Ending temp
Reference tamp
Pressura
Referanca pressura
Total volume of air
Hydrocarbons
(BP 36-126 C)
Hydrocarbons
(Aromatic)
Hydrocarbons
(Halogenated)
NIOSH
NIOSH Limits
OSHA Limits
IDLHLimlts
001726
13077
Hydrocarbons
Date 41512000
1218 cm3/rnin =
1236 cm3/rnin =
240 min
45 F =
60 F =
68 F =
789.5 torr = =
Sample results
mg mg/scm3
0.040 1.27E-07
0.040 1.27E-07
0.040 1.27E-07
1323 scm3/rnin
1304 scm3/rnin
1313 scm3/rnin
505 R
520 R
528 R
31 .08 in Hg
29.92 in Hg
315,209 scm3
NIOSH
mann3 mghn3
0.1269
0.1269
0.1269
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Part of US Department of Health and Human Services
Notes
Less than
detection
Less than
detection
Less than
detection
It is responsible for recorrmending health and safety standards.
IDLH
mghn3
Recorrmended exposure limits are time-weighted average concentrations
for up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-hour week.
Time-weighted average concentrations that m.Jst not be exceeded
during any 8-hour work shift of a 40-hour week.
In-mediately Dangerous to Life or Health
The maxim.Jm concentration about which only a highly reliable breathing
apparatus providing maxim.Jm wot1ter protection is permitted. As a
safety margin, these limits were set to allow a worker the ability to escape
without loss of life or irreversible health effects and also consider the effect
of eye or respiratory irritation and other deleterious effects that would
prevent escape.
MEMO
DATE: April 17, 2000 I ,
TO: Pat Backus
/ ;'
' ; APR 2000
FROM: Wendy Shepherd
RE: Methane Monitoring at the PCB Landfill
Methane monitoring was conducted at the PCB Landfill located in Warren County on
Wednesday, April 5, 2000. Methane readings were taken using the LANDTEC GA-90 gas
analyzer. The GA-90 uses an infrared beam to analyze the amount of methane, carbon dioxide
and oxygen within landfill gas.
As the monitoring plan indicated 6 inch bore holes were placed into the landfill surface using a bar
punch probe. Each sample was taken in approximately 50-foot increments inside the landfill liner
boundary. The results and locations for the boreholes are located on the included pages.
Additional readings were taken at the previously installed gas/water monitoring wells also.
TESTING PROCEDURES
Monitoring began at 9:20 am, starting with the east-side of the landfill and ending with the west -
side.
The first borehole and sample was made approximately 116' feet from the east side of the pump
house. Then walking in a north/south -south/north manner readings were taken approximately
every 5 0 feet.
Sampling began on the east side with the first reading being made at the liner boundary. Walking
south, a reading was taken approximately every 50' until the south cell boundary line was reached
(East Side: Line A= EA). Starting from the last borehole in line A, moving 25' west, a second
line was established (EB). Again, boreholes were made roughly every 50' walking north towards
the pump house. This process continued for lines EC and ED. This same process was duplicated
on the West Side of the landfill, ending at the west-side liner boundary.
An additional set of readings was taken at the north and south well and at the center vent.
RESULTS
The temperature on the landfill ranged from 52°F in the morning to 65°F in the afternoon. Overall
weather conditions began cloudy but clear as the day progressed. Landfill conditions were
moderately wet.
II \
All of the samples showed no amount of methane escaping through the surface of the landfill. A
few of the samples gave a range of oxygen reading from 20. 3 to 21 . 4 along the surface. This
could be due to wet conditions on the landfill or calibration error.
Carbon Dioxide reading for Lines EA and EB were quite higher than other samples taken on the
landfill surface. Those samples were re-examined later in the day and a reading of O was found at
that time.
CONCLUSION
It has been noted, the temperature and barometric pressure inside the landfill influence methane
gas concentration. Both cell boundary and random surface testing have not shown any amount of
methane escaping through the landfill surface.
cc: Bill Meyer
Larry Rose
Code Time Date CH4 % EAST EA/1 9:37 04/05/2000 0 EA/2 9:40 04/05/2000 0 EA/3 9:42 04/05/2000 0 EA/4 9:44 04/05/2000 0 EB/1 9:45 04/05/2000 0 EB/2 9:48 04/05/2000 0 EB/3 9:50 04/05/2000 0 EB/4 9:52 04/05/2000 0 EC/1 9:54 04/05/2000 0 EC/2 9:56 04/05/2000 0 EC/3 9:59 04/05/2000 0 EC/4 10:00 04/05/2000 0 ED/1 10:01 04/05/2000 0 ED/2 10:04 04/05/2000 0 ED/3 10:06 04/05/2000 0 ED/4 10:09 04/05/2000 0 EA/4 1:27 04/05/2000 0 EA/3 1:30 04/05/2000 0 EA/2 1 :31 04/05/2000 0 EA/1 1:33 04/05/2000 0 EB/4 1:34 04/05/2000 0 CO2 02 % % 0 21 0.6 20.7 0.4 20.3 0.2 20.4 0 21 0.1 20.7 0.2 16 2.2 17 0.8 20.3 0.7 20 0 21.2 0 21.1 0 21.1 0 21.1 0 21.2 0 21.1 0 21.4 0 21.4 0.7 19.7 0 21.4 0 21.4 Bal % 79 78.7 79.3 79.4 79 79.2 83.8 80.8 78.9 79.3 78.8 78.9 78.9 78.9 78.8 78.9 78.6 78.6 79.6 78.6 78.6 PCB Landfill 4/5/2000 Humidity "Hg 29.7 WEST 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 Code South Center North Code Time Date CH4 CO2 02 Bal Humidity % % % % "Hg WA/1 10:11 04/05/2000 0 0 21.2 78.8 29.7 WA/2 10:14 04/05/2000 0 0 21.2 78.8 29.7 WA/3 10:16 04/05/2000 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 WA/4 10:19 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 WB/1 10:21 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 79 29.7 WB/2 10:23 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 WB/3 10:26 04/05/2000 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 WB/4 10:28 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 WB/5 10:31 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 WC/1 10:35 04/05/2000 0 0 21.1 78.9 29.7 WC/2 10:37 04/05/2000 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 WC/3 10:39 04/05/2000 0 0 21.3 78.7 29.7 WC/4 10:40 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 WC/5 10:42 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 29.7 CH4 CO2 02 Bal Humidity Time Date % % % % "Hg Well 1 :39 04/05/2000 0 0 21.4 78.6 Vent 1:47 04/05/2000 5 2 19.6 73.4 Well 2:06 04/05/2000 1.2 1.2 20.2 77.4
*
*
*
South X
*
*
*
Appendix A
X
Center Vent
East
* Orginal Bore Hole
*
*
*
X North
*
*
*
Jy-\,\
r·>}-3 WARREN COUNT Y
PCB DETOXlFICATION-HEDEVELOP~1E~T PROJ-ECT
CITIZENS ADVJSORY BOARD
720 RlOGEW AV STREE"f
WARRENTON, N.C. 27589
FAX CO VER SH EET
TO : fvfike Kelh
Pat Backus
Henry Lancaste r
Bill Holman
Sheri Evans Stanton
Pat Barnes
FROM: Robin Lee, Secretary
DATE April 1-t 2000
Number of pages (_includint'." co\'er sheer) :i
·-, -,,
·, ·,,,"
i ., . )~
·--
i j
!
I I
i j .. .J
!
t
i
f
' \ I
'
I
I ~
EllCIIOH'ZOOQi
Candidates
Forum
Slated
The Warren County Politi.
c al Action Committee is
hosting a Candidates Forum
on Sunday, April 16 from 5. 7
p.ro.
The forum will bt held at
the Warren County Court•
house.
All candidates have been
invited to attend.
Participating candidates
will be given three minutes in
which to address the audi-
ence, followeJ by a questicn
and answer period.
The public is encol!ragtd
10 attend.
:,earcn \.,UIII.IIIUC::t l!U I
Missing Castalia Mt11n
./ . . .
The W~nen County Sheriff's
Department is in,·estigating the
disappearance of twenty-year
old Craig Larnont Battles of
Castalia.
According to a representative
from the sheriffs department,
o n Saturday, April l, Battles
and Terry Lee Strickland were
involved in a car chase that
r;.su l te d in their vehicle
wrecking at the intersection of
Rout<;: 58 and state Route 1631.
Battks and Strickland fled
the scene into nearby woods.
Strickland surfaced the next
day, but Battles hasn't been
seen nor heard from since.
Sheriff Johnny Williams said
BJttles has not been in cont act
with his family since the
CRAIG LAMONT BATTLES
Anyone know :·. the
where;-: t•o u1s of BatI:it .,. asked
in ;;ident. !0 ':'.:):.:act the W;n: -::--unty
252• ::;rrickl and h:is since been S::1c-,iff's Dep,Htni;
arrested. 2:: i-3364.
PCB Advisory Board Questior;s
Involvement in Decision Maki~1g
r By JENNIFER LYNCH ::t design-build project RFP de. an in terest in seeing ; ; roject
T .·-•. • I
Editor vetopmrnt will be handled throug.h.
A-;; the PCB Citizens ?.d,·1-li:rough the state construction Wn ile there is :·: . 1 cur-
sory Board moq:s ..:l0ser t:, is-uffice rather tl.Jan purcba'>ing rent\y earmarked j._, .::-i.c:.ce
suing Requests for Prcpo:;:::ls and services. advisor going fonv:i:· '.3 :· .. rncs':;
community leaders f~ar they art One of the areas covered in company would st.-, ::; gain
being left out of the loop rela• rile RFP \Vill be specific: qualifi-more financi,dly by . .:..:ng on
tive to critical decision making. cations as defined by the state arrd being awardec.: ::.e nndti-
At lasr w~ek's meeting the and by the advisory board. million dollar project
group learned that state repre-According to Mike Kelly The group favor-:: working
sentatives have bad to conttr:d with the division of waste man-,,.,-jth Barnes but wi;: only be
with several "roadblocks'' -JI
.vhich the loc:!i group had n;)t
been previously appristd
While the issues in question
had been handled effectivt!_v,
local members expressed con-
cern ov er tb e rule they m..;.y ,J r
mav not play in Ihe stlecti,Jr:
process for !ht generJl contr:::c-
tor.
QuestiQns arose after DENR
represtntati\·e Pat Backu:s up -
dated the group on the currer:.t
status of RFP development.
Because tbe detoxificiition is
.---. ._ .. -. .,. ,l...,T r.-Jr J
ageroent, certain state guidelines
may prohi bit out-of.state con-
tr::ictors from bidding on the
project.
And here is where the prob-
lem lie s.
Pat Barnes with BFA Envi-
rcH:rnental ba.-:;td in Florida ha;;
had a lengthy association with
the advisory group, having
served as its science advisor
prior tO final project design.
Local members. have devel•
oped a certain level of trn5t with
Barnes, and he admittedly has
,.-.,,-.,,.-., T I _.-. .._ -__ -
?art of the equati;..· ';;hen it
comes time to mak::-. cmai de·
cis1J7 .
'.<dly to ld the :· "You
will be included ir, ; .,.-,JCess,
but what you wan:. ;--::. : .. not be
the way it goes."
ooard membe: _: ·i Hol -
c,)tnb rc:sponded. · do not
want to be elimir:2.: ~rom the:
orncess. H
• In otber busine:;"'. 1<.elly in-
formed the group t:-: :ne solid
w:iste tipping fe'c, _?rcviously
See PCB, pag _ ..:
T,-, • !
·a ·--,...·-•-'-7-.-.......-J~....,,~rlttf:ib 2 l\I"b,
was for a tu rn ,t!y Job at a
of $39,950. ·!. he board ha
,...,onina 1.;nr,st1~H1 ~cnoo, :::;.A.L:1.D. program ·sponsored
mock emergency last week wiU1 the Norlina Fire Department
and local EMTs participating.
quested more in!'ormation
previous props.il before
ing a final dt:c :icn. PCB
Continued from page 1
discussed was not popular with
()ther municipalities \vho had
expressed displea5ure at the
possibility ot' th e state mand.1c-
ing the fee .
Chairperson Dollie Burwell
asked if there ,vas a deadline for
securing the federal dollars re-
quired to releasi.: the funds cur-
rently earmJrked for de toxifi c:,:i-
tion.
Kelly repiied that !be group
s.hould focus le.s~ on a deadline
and more on their goal o~ ~t:•
curing the .!-~::l iric•n al monies
between nov,, and the fa ll v. hen
the group \VJn;s t(' h:1·:e a con-
::-Jct siirned.
He nry LJ.r:.c~s r:-~· · .. ~:r:. LJ;
League of i'dunicip::ilit1t ) i!l-
fo rm ed the group he !:ad out-
lir.ed a propo~:Jl f· · ··,.;:ress-
woman E\'t Cla\'tur: 1,. ,vi1ich
Don't trade it
r • -nanate 1t
When You Can', Breathe,
Nothing Else Matters"
f AMERICAN
LUNG
ASSOCIATION,
u Nortt,&-o,;.,.,
Call l ·888·300·LUNG (5864)
options were suggested for her
;1ssistance in securing fe deral
fu11ding.
Two agencies recommended
to be revisited were EPA and
tht Department of Defense.
Lanc,1skr said he feels Clay-
ton is in a good position to se-
cure funding.
He also said that a minimum
amount of federal funding
would trigger availability of
state money already set aside
A meeting date of April 20
was sci· for the group tu meC'r
with DENR Secret::iry Bill Ho!•
m:rn.
The mee ting will be htk ~: :?
r1 .m. at the John Gr.iha:11 S;1i .. •
i1:g loc:itc-d :it 3(17 r-,; :.iw,
Strrrt in Warrenton.
The next regul ar meeti r,,; of
the :0J,·i~1_;ry board will be .'-~::···
3 at ➔ p.I:1.
WEEKLY
Mayor G;,,,,,ner updatet
board on a ; ,ant applic,
0. L "C\Lnr ..... !nE!!K
FotA~,
. •,-<lMdo Mutual ln:c
-,.,'.)!!'ce:0-.,,Nil
Natp.,-Nrj· -, a ,og,:s1eroo !~
Health Tips ! New CalciL~~L (;andy
Neec ca!:1um but don't iike r.. ',~re are two I"(
Woody
--' .. / .... ,_,.,.
prc;jl' -·· ::vai1ab!e to incre:,· . ,c:~m intake
streng;r,en anc or:::tect your ~-: Both ar~ 5':
chewab;~ candies w:th the C( • . · , ·:v and taste
tatty. Each candy c::inta1~s 51 '· ·,, calcium, ab<
haft the ROA 1or adults, p,~s ·} :. ·;:.· D t::: aid cairn
absorpr1cn V!activ comes in ' · :, .. vors: milk ct-.~·
lale, mochaccina. and carme.. :;.,:· ;;t comes inch.:->
late and che::--,•. Check with yu
before tai.;1ng any vitamins.
.-:Jr:tor or pharrnz1
King, Pharm&clst
ulltALTlf'lIL EA~7'£R CARDS
CONTEMPOR.\RY A:"D
[.",$PJR.\l'i0NAL
BOYCE DF-UGS, INC
Prescriptic ~ 8oecialists
108 N. Main St., W: -···~to n, N.C. 27!
Of\l\' S.99 !!tt PHONE! :.:;:;7 -3449
l
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Contact: Robert L. Costello
Harding Lawson Associates Group, Inc.
303/293-6100
f-~tJ)f
MACTEC, INC.
Contact: Scott E. State, P.E.
MACTEC, Inc.
303/273-5038
For Immediate Release
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC.
AND MACTEC, INC. ANNOUNCE MERGER AGREEMENT
Harding Lawson Associates Group, Inc., headquartered in Denver, Colorado (NASDAQ:
HRDG) and privately-held MACTEC, Inc., headquartered in Golden, Colorado, today jointly
announced that they have entered into a definitive Merger Agreement providing for the
acquisition by MACTEC of all of the outstanding shares of Harding Lawson common stock at a
price of $11 . 50 per share. The Agreement is subject to certain conditions, including obtaining
the approval of the holders of at least the majority of the outstanding shares of common stock of
Harding Lawson.
The Board of Directors of Harding Lawson has unanimously approved the Merger
Agreement. CIBC World Markets Corp. is acting as financial advisor to Harding Lawson and
has rendered to the Board of Directors of Harding Lawson its opinion as to the fairness , from a
· financial point of view, to the holders of Harding Lawson common stock of the consideration to
be received by such holders in the transaction.
Robert L. Costello, Jr., Harding Lawson's President and Chief Executive Officer
commented on the merger, "This transaction will allow our stockholders to receive a substantial
premium over recent trading prices of our stock. Competitive issues related to the consolidation
in the engineering services industry are the key drivers in our decision to pursue this transaction.
Our clients are demanding a higher degree of responsiveness to their technical services needs .
This can be achieved more readily by bringing together a broader base of technical resources
giving our clients an expanded network of high quality professional and technical consulting
talent, and our employees gain greatly enhanced career opportunities."
Scott State, MACTEC's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer said, "Harding
Lawson represents a cornerstone merger opportunity for MACTEC and provides the essential
platform we need as we build MACTEC into one of the leading environmental engineering
services firms in our industry. The acquisition will double our annual revem.ies to nearly
$325,000,000 and will create a company with over 2,000 employees located in key cities
throughout the U.S . MACTEC is currently ranked number 26 among the nation's largest
environmental engineering firms and Harding Lawson ranks number 28 based on an Engineering
News Record industry survey."
, '
Harding Lawson will be filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Proxy
Statement for submission to its shareholders for use in connection with a Special Meeting of
Shareholders that will be scheduled for the purpose of approving the merger. That Proxy
Statement will fully describe the merger and should be carefully reviewed by Shareholders.
Harding Lawson Associates Group, Inc., headquartered in Denver, Colorado, provides a broad
range of infrastructure engineering, consulting and construction-related services to private sector
industrial and public sector governmental clients. The company operates through a network of
nearly 40 offices nationwide and currently employs over 1200 staff members.
MACTEC, Inc., established in 1975, has evolved into one of the country's leading environmental
professional services organizations providing major project support and leading-edge
technologies. Today it is a provider of environmental solutions for multiple government and
private clients through a network of over 40 offices.
##################
March 24, 2000
, '\
Memorandum MACTEC, Inc.
TO: All MACTEC/ESE Employees Date: March 24, 2000
FROM:Scott E. State, President & CEO
SUBJECT: Press Release
Today MACTEC has taken another step in our strategic vision of becoming one of the largest
diversified environmental and infrastructure engineering firms in the U.S. with the signing of a
definitive Merger Agreement with Harding Lawson Associates, Inc. (HLA). The transaction is
described in the attached press release that has been jointly transmitted to several med ia
sources by myself and Rob Costello, Chief Executive Officer of HLA. This opportunity would not
have been possible without the support of our investors and our lender, Paribas Merchant
Banking. We have structured this deal so that the company has very favorable leverage going
forward relative to other industry players. Th is will allow MACTEC to continue to execute our
long-term growth strategy.
HLA is one of the oldest and most respected names in the environmental and infrastructure
industry and it is an excellent addition to the growing MACTEC family. The combined company
will have sizable market share in the engineering & consulting, infrastructure, and nuclear
services segments of the industry. HLA is currently a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ
exchange. The result of this transaction will take HLA private through the merger of HLA with a
wholl y owned subsidiary MACTEC has formed to consummate the deal. Further information
about HLA is available on their web site at www.hardinq.com.
Completion of the merger requires approval of the shareholders of HLA, which is expected to
require at least two to three months. Initial integration strategies will be developed during this
period of time. We will issue additional information to all staff as this process moves forward.
Organizational structure for the combined entity has not been developed. My pledge to each of
you is that changes in the organization will not be made in a vacuum. Input from all key
operating elements will be solicited and the operating approach developed will be clearly
communicated to all staff when action plans are finalized. Since HLA is currently a public
company, certain restrictions apply to the release of information relative to the company and its
operational prospects. Adherence to these regulatory requirements may affect the information
that can be shared with everyone until after the deal closes. We will do our best to provide you
all available information.
I view this transaction to be a quantum leap forward for MACTEC just as the ESE acquisition was
last year. With the completion of this business combination MACTEC will have again doubled the
size of its operations and added another large complement of technically diverse staff. We will
have greatly enhanced geographical presence; obtained a complementary set of new clients, and
1
added capacity in our increasingly competitive markets. I believe these critical factors will allow
MACTEC to continue on our path forward with greater strength and depth of resources .
Please contact me directly if you have questions as this process moves ahead. I may not have
immediate answers to your inquiries but I will endeavor to be responsive to your needs.
Communications may also be limited in certain areas due to HLA's public company status. My
commitment to each member of our team is to be as open and honest as possible throughout the
process. If any of you wish to begin developing opportunities with HLA's staff, please coordinate
your contacts with Perry Campbell. Perry will assist you with obtaining the relevant point of
contact for HLA and insure that no regulatory requirements are violated.
Tha nk you for your efforts in making MACTEC a market leader. Our continu ed hard work allows
us to satisfy our clients and produce positive operating resu lts . The formula we have developed
:s a win ner and I commend each of you for your support of our mission.
Best regards,
SES/dm
ses0020
Attachment
2
®USAAirbill ~;~; 8145 9009 8102 Senders FedEx Account Number Senders pa., t, 8 o....c.k 11 .5 Name "' Company DEHNR 1043-9568-6 7.33-'{99~ Phone ( 91 'f I ll!lll!.alJJ )(]08 M-~ 401 OBERLIN RD STE 150 Citv RALEIGH Your Internal Billing Reference First 24 chlractlfl will IPPHf' on invoice. To Recipient's Name Company Addre~ WtenKltdelwttoP.O.boxesorP.O.ZIPcodes. ToiiOLD" ttfedb.locltion, prir<FtdEx-hffl. City P!ymvuH1 State NC ZIP 27605 r tH. Phone(~/D t 94!-'/700 /-1-,-I I /1eeb ''!J State PA ZIP NEW Peel and Stick FedEx USA Airbill See back for application instructions. Questions? Call 1•800•Go•FedEx"' (800-463-3339) Visit our w.b ■lte at www.hdex.com a. 4a Express Package Servic~ ,...,,_ ,.., iiolla . Deivtry eomnitm8't mty be lltirinlOffll lf'tH,. □ FedEx Priority Overnight FedEx Standard Overnight O FedEx First Overnight Nutbuli11111motrW!g Nu:tbulinns-.moor'I Ewieltl'IIIICltu....lllllnq doMrylO--0 FedEx20ay" D FedEx Expre~ Saver" " S.Condbu1ineudey Thinlbulinossdey •hdfxLlltlfflllltnatnailltlle -!!!!!!:oo.,,un,1,.,. 4b Express Freight Service ~-,., .... Dtherycomminre~ ... illllffl!I.,..._ D ~~tfreight" □ ~~z:ight □ f.:g~r.v Freight .f"'\ • Col tor Conlinnl1ion: 5 Packaging ·--lmitl!illl 0 FedEx Letter" 0 FedExPak* ri Other'Zi '1 ~~~ 6 Special Handling □~!:!= □!::',..~ DYlmigtlondfodfxlllay °"'"911"_,ZIPcodos toMC'IZIPcodu Does--~===-.... __ 1 __ 0 No O r:',!,..,,hod O ~-s,;pp.r', O.do-not -DlngtfOUI Goods tlmot be ahipped WI ftdEx pacbgi,o. □ &.rr.i~:UN1115--x-··_·_, -' .. D Cargo Aircraft Only 7 PaY!)18nt B~ --.AcclNo.wc..aClnlND.lloloW.-i ~er D Recipient D Third Party D Credit Card AcctNo.rlS1ctionl D Casl\"Check '1 wilbeb<lled. l'od&AcctNo. c..dllc..;No. TGIII Pac:bges Tollllw.iglll Tollll Declndlllluet $ ,00 tour liability is llmit8d10$1IXI unless you declare a highl,wkle. See backfurda!>is. r.dEx Usa Only By using lh~ Airbill you agree 1D the saMCe conditions on the back of this Airbifl and in our current Service Guide, including11mlslhatlimit our fiabif,ty. 0107110086 By signing you aulhorize us 1D deivlf1hil shipmentwilhoutobtlining a ,ignatura and ag<HlD indamnifyand hold us harmlesafrom any mulling claims.
JAMES 8 . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
WILLIAM L . MEYER
DIRECTOR
. ,,I. .• 7). ,,
NORT H CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
February 29, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mike Kelly
LarryRose cf'£-.
SUBJECT: PCB Landfill Leachate Field Parameter Measurements
The PCB Landfill monthly inspection this February was done on Friday February 25,
2000. In addition, the leachate pump was cleaned and reinstalled. The pump had
been removed at the beginning of winter to prevent possible damage from freezing
temperatures.
Usually samples ofleachate are collected on the inspection day. However, to help
insure that representative samples were collected, the pump was allowed to cycle for
a few days. To fulfill monthly sampling requirements, samples of influent and
effluent leachate were collected today and submitted to the lab for the analysis of
PCBs. The following measurements for pH and specific conductance were also
made:
influent leachate
effluent leachate
cc: Pat Backus
KELLY.WPD
pH
6.90 Units
6.78 Units
sp. cond.
1050 uMhos
723 uMhos
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 1 SO, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
~!" . .'.:$>''
NCDENR
JAMES 8 . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
WILLIAM L; MEYER_,
DIRECTOR_·
. .. -"~;;i;\f£}5·!i • t:..· / ,.,.,.
,,-:s:·
.l't'-,.
I•~•;,$;;~•
''
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF r&-7
, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Craig Brown
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Dear Mr. Brown:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
February 25, 2000
This letter is to notify you that operation of the leachate removal system at the Warren
County PCB Landfill was resumed today. As we mentioned in our meeting with you in January,
we did observe fluctuations in the water level in the landfill during the down time. However, the
fluctuations were similar to those that had been observed prior to installation of the automated
leachate pumping system and did not indicate a significant change in level.
With the resumption of leachate pumping, we will also return to more frequent
monitoring of the water level in the landfill and monthly sampling and analysis ofleachate. If you
have any further questions, please contact me at (9 19) 733-4996 ext. 308.
Copy: Mr. Bill Meyer
Mr. Mike Kelly
Mr. Larry Rose
Warren County PCB Landfill CAB
Sincerely,
Patricia M. Backus, PE
PCB Landfill Project Manager
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 1 SO, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EM Pl.OYER -50% RECYCLED/I Oo/o POST-CONSUMER PAPER
. I
--
PARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATOIHE-S; ··rNc.
2627 Northchase Parkway S.E.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Tuesday, February 01 , 2000
Mr. Bill Meyer
NC Div of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
Subject: Request To Be Included on Bidder's List
Dear Mr. Meyer:
· I wish to formally request that Paradigm Analytical Laboratories, Inc. be included on all future
request for proposals for the Superfund, or other NC DEHNR Environmental departments
requiring laboratory, or environmental testing for dioxins, furans, organics, (volatile organics,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), base/neutral/acid extractables, pesticides), or inorganic
contaminants.
Paradigm Analytical Laboratories, Inc is a small business environmental testing laboratory
located in Wilmington, North Carolina. We currently have existing contracts with NCDEHNR
(number 16-N20005), for laboratory analyses and we would like to provide analytical testing
in support of your environmental contracts.
In the event that you should require additional information, please contact me at 919-639-7303.
Again, thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Matt Burns
North Carolina Wastewater Certification #481
c~,1b
1j -,v~~RREN COUNTY
PCB DETOXIFIC.I\TION-REDEVELOP1\1ENT PROJECT
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
720 RIDGEWAY STREET
WARRENTON, N.C. 27589
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Mike Kelly
FROM : Robin Lee, Secretary
DATE: January 20, 2000
Nmnber of pages (including cover sheet) 3
To make you aware of this letter
lt:01 00, lZ UE[ 0001-lSZ-ZSC:XE ~
,,, .
WARREN COUNTY
PCB DETOXIFICATION-REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
720 Ridgeway Street
Warrenton, N.C. 27589
phone [phone] -fax [phone]
Dollie B, Burwell, Chair
Jim Warren. !st Vic-e Chair
Daria Holcomb, 2nd Vic~ Chair
January 20, 2000
The Honorable James B . Hunt
Governor of North Carolina
116 W . Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-8001
SUBJECT: Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification Project
Dear Governor Hunt:
I am w riting this letter to reiterate our appreciation for your commitment to the detoxification and
redevelopment project at the PCB Landfill in Warren County. We realize that much of your
attention and that of the rest of the state has been focused recently on the flood disaster in eastern
North Carolina. Please know that we appreciate the work you are doing there, and that our prayers
and sympathies are with those suffering from that tragedy.
We want to point out, however, that there is a very imponant process going on toward the remedy
of the Warren County tragedy which has plagued this community for many years. The work done
in this community by the state and local citizens and their allies has been fruitful ; we are now very
close to finalizing design for the detoxification process. All systems are moving very well toward
beginning the actual detoxification, and the related community participation aspect of the project are
coalescing just as well as planned.
as you know, the federal matching funds have not yet been approved. However, we understand from
DENR 's Sheri Evans-Stanton that the state money, although reduce by $1.4 million which has been
diverted to the immediate floo d relief need, is otherwise intact. Warren County citizens remain
concerned that unless immediate action is taken, the begirm:ing of construction activities will not occur
th.is year.
rn ·d 1£:0T 00, ll UE[ drl0d8 9N I >ld□P-1 8Jd
Honorable Governor James B. Hunt
January 20, 2000
Page 2
Numerous activities must be completed before actual detoxification can commence. Site preparation,
equipment delivery/set-up, permitting, and start up, are examples of some of these activities. We
were informed by the state consultants, ETG/BF A, that these activities require that a contract be
awarded by 3/1/00 if meaningful construction is to take place in 2000.
To that end, the ETG/BF A team has prepared a proposal which expedites the construction process
in a phase funded approach using the funds already committed to begin, instead of waiting for full
funding . That proposed approach has been presented to the State's Project Manager. The warren
County Citizens Advisory Board urges you and your office to support it as it is the only way to truly
meet the needs of all the project stakeholders.
Once again, we appreciate your commitment to us, most recently stated at our meeting with you in
July. During that meeting you indicated that even if federal monies are not approved you will ensure
that the State fulfills its commitment to Warren County before you leave office. We look forward
to joining you at the groundbreaking ceremony! Also, we look forward to receiving a response to this
letter from you very soon.
Sincerely,
ta.s~
Dollie B. Burwell, Chair
Warren County Detoxification and Redevelopment Advisory Committee
Cc: Senator Frank W. Ballance, Jr.
Rep Jones W. Crawford Jr.
Rep. Stanley H Fox
Congresswoman Eva M. Clayton
££:OT 00, LG uer OOOT-2.SC-C:Sc:X'E'.:J