NCD980602163_20010507_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_6 March 2001 Meeting with Congressional Delegration-OCR

DAVID PRICE
4TH DISTRICT
NORTH CAROLINA
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE _BUDGET
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
May 7, 2001
Ms. Patricia M. Backus PE, PCB Landfill Project Manager
Division of Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1646 Mail Service Ctr
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Dear Ms. Backus:
OFFICES:
2162 RAYBURN BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
[phone]
16 E. ROWAN STREET
SUITE 525
RALEIGH, NC 27609
(919) 789--8771
1777 FORDHAM BLVD.
SUITE 202
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514
[phone]
315 E. CHAPEL HILL STREET
SUITE 202
DURHAM, NC 27701
[phone]
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification and
Redevelopment Project.
I understand the pressing need for additional funding to detoxify the Warren County PCB landfill.
As you know, when I attempted to secure funding for this project through the fiscal year 2000
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appropriations bill, we discovered that landfill cleanup
projects are not earmarked in the bill.
I recently signed a letter circulated by Rep. Eva Clayton to EPA Administrator Christine Todd
Whitman asking for her assistance in locating agency funds in support of the detoxification effort.
I am hopeful that she will be able to assist North Carolina with this important project.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to stay in touch on this and other issues of ,
concern.
DP:dn
DAVID PRICE
Member of Congress
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 19, 2001
The Honorable Jesse A. Helms
U. S Senate
403 Dirkson Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3301
Dear Senator Helms:
Please accept our sincere tlumks for tl1e time and consideration given us by Wayne Boyles of your staff
during our visit to Washington on March 6. The topic of our meeting was tl1e Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification and Redevelopment Project.
During our discussion, we presented information to Wayne on tl1e status of tl1e project and tl1e critical need to
obtain $7.5 million by the latter part of this year in order to complete tile project. DENR and tl1e community
are pursuing all leads for public and private grants. We have found substantial support for redevelopment
after tl1e site is clean. However. we have found no support for tl1e actual soil treatment. State senators and
representatives for Warren County have indicated their support but this is a subst,mtial request in a year when
tl1e state is dealing witl1 a large deficit. By tl1e end of tl1is year the site will be ready for full-scale operation.
tJ1e ,mrk force will be trained m1d on tl1e job, and tl1e ability to detoxify proven by the treatment of landfill
soil. Wayne indicated tliat he ,mulct discuss tl1is with you and explore tl1e potential HUD/VA bill as a
possible source of funding. It ,mulct be anotJ1er tragedy if we have to stop before the site is fullv deto.\i:fied
due to tl1e lack of funds.
We also pointed out to Wayne tliat ten percent of the material came from property on Fort Bragg. Although
we have talked witJ1 tJ1e Pentagon during tile past two years about sharing in tl1e detoxification effort. tl1ey
continue to deny our requests.
While in Washington we also met witJ1 tile staff of Congresswoman Eva Clay1on. Congressman David Price.
and Senator Jolm Edwards. Congress,voman Clayton has indicated she will lead tJ1c effort among the Nortl1
Carolina congressional delegation. Because of the unusual situation we belieyc this effort will need tl1e
support of others in tJ1e delegation and request your support and assistance to Congrcss"·oman Cbvton in tJ1e
effort to obtain tJ1e needed funds.
Respectfully yours.
1 l~ --"i , ( , :~((S_> yJ d,:,_._,j li-i · ~~
~1ch~1cl A. Ke~1rector -· \ Patricia M. Backus. PE
Emergency and ·oisast:;r Response \ PCB Landfill Project Manager
\
.. __ j
cc: Darek Newby. Sandra Gardei. Wayne Boyles. Kathryn Marks
cc: Warren Count v Citizens Ad, isorY Board . .
H1-l-6 M<1il Service Ccnt<'r, Raleigh, North Carolinc1 27699-1646
Pho,w: <f19-733--l-9% \ FAX: 919-7"15-3605 \lnt<'rnct: ww,v.(•nr.slatc.nc.us
1\N H2UAI. l 1/'l'l )/nUNITY \ AFF/1,MATIVF Al .Tll lN FM l'l.l lYFI, -50"/, RFCYl :1 .!':I 1 / /O";, I 'l 1ST C(lNSUMF.R l'Al'ER
North Carolina
Deparhnent of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 19, 200 I
The Honorable David Price
U. S. House of Representatives
2162 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Price:
Please accept our sincere thanks for the time and consideration given us by Darek Ne,vby of your staff during
our visit to Washington on March 6. The topic of our meeting was the Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification and Redevelopment Project.
During our discussion, we presented information to Darek on the status of the project and the critical need to
obtain $7.5 million by the latter part of this year in order to complete the project. DENR and the community
are pursuing all leads for public and private grants. We have found substantial support for rede,·elopment
after the site is clean. However, we haYe found no support for the actual soil treatment. State senators and
representatives for Warren County have indicated their support but this is a substantial request in a year when
the state is dealing with a large deficit. By the end of this year the site will be ready for full-scale operation,
the work force will be trained and on the job, and the ability to detoxify proven by the treatment of lm1dfill
soil. Darek indicated that he had investigated funding for th.is project two years ago and knew that this project
does not fit into the usual funding authorities. It would be another tragedy to have to stop before the site is
fullv detoxified.
While in Wash.in1,>1:on we also met with the staff of Congresswoman Eva Clayton, Senator Jesse Helms. ,md
Senator Jolm Edwards. Congresswoman Cla:,1011 has indicated she will lead the effort m11ong tJ1e Nortl1
Carolina congressional delegation. Because of the unusual situation we believe this effort \\·ill need tJ1e
support of others in tJ1e delegation and request your support and assistance to Congr esswo1rnm Clayton in the
effort to obtain the needed funds.
Again. we appreciate the opportunity to talk ,,it11 Darek and thank you for your attention to tJ1is matter. If we
can be of assistance. please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectf-t1lly yours.
Patricia M. Backus. PE
PCB Landfill Project Manager
cc: Darek Newby. Sandra Gardei. Wayne Boyles, Katl1ryn Marks
cc: Warren Countv Citizens Ad, isory Board
Hi-tn Mail S(•rvice Ccnlcr, Rc1leigh, North C1rolinc1 27699-.lh-+6
Pho,w: 9·19-713-49% \ FAX: 9·19-7'15-3605 \Internet: www.l'11r.slc1lc.nc.us
AN H ~U A I. t ll'l'l W.TUNITY \ AFFll,MA TI VF Al 'Tl< lN Fl\1 1'1.l lYf-R -50",. t.:ECY< ·u:i l / I()" .. I'\ lST (( lNSUl\11-R l'Al'FR
North Carolina
Deparhnent of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 19,2001
The Honorable John Edwards
U.S. Senate
225 Dirksen Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Edwards:
_A¥:?'A -__ •;~~ :n, -s:i, .., ____ _
MCDEMR
Please accept our sincere thanks for the time and consideration given us by Kathryn Marks of your staff
during our visit to Washington on March 6. The topic of our meeting was the Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification and Redevelopment Project.
During our discussion. we presented information to Kathryn on the status of the project and the critical need
to obtain $7.5 million by the latter part of this year in order to complete the project. DENR and the
community are pursuing all leads for public and priYate grants. We have found substantial support for
redevelopment after the site is cle,m. However, we haYe found no support for the actual soil treatment. State
senators and representatives for Warren County have indicated their support but this is a substm1tial request
in a year when the state is dealing with a large deficit. By the end of this year the site will be ready for full-
scale operation, the work force will be trained and on the job, and the ability to detoxify proYen by the
treatment of landfill soil. Kathryn indicated that she would give some serious t11oughts about options for
funding and discuss tl1em wit11 you. It would be anotl1er tragedy if we ha ve to stop before tl1e site is fully
detoxified due to tl1e lack of funds.
We also pointed out to Kat11ryn t11at ten percent of t11e material came from property on Fort Bragg. Although
we have talked wit11 tl1e Pentagon during the past t,,·o years about sharing in t11e detoxification effort. they
continue to deny our requests.
While in Washington we also met witll tl1e staff of Congresswoman EYa Clayton. Congressman DaYid Price,
,md Senator Jesse Helms. Congresswoman Clayton has indicated she "·ill lead t11e effort among t11c North
Carolina congressional delega tion. Because of the unusual situation we believe this effort ,rill need tlie
support of others in tlie delegation and request your support and assist,mcc to Congresswoman ClaY!on in the
effort to obtain t11e needed funds.
Respectfully yours. _
•Li T (\\ (((\ 1)~ In.~·
~ti;·fo1~1\-_-Kell;. o-1~~~~--9-_ -->~ Patricia M. Backus. PE
Emergency and ·ois,1ster· Response \ PCB Landfill Project Manage r
' \ \., \
cc Darck Newby. Sand~:~·Gardei . .Yb!yne BJyics. Kat11ryn Marks
cc: Warren Countv Citizens AdYisory Board
16-16 Mui] St~rvicl' Center, Rall'igh, North C1roli11u 27699-16-16
Phone: [phone]% \ FAX: 919-Tl5-3605 \Internet: WWW.l)11r.slulP.nc.us
AN H.!UAI l )l'l'l llffU NID' \ A FFll-:ivlATIVF ACTll l N Ft\11 '1.l )YFR -50"/, lffCYCI .Ell / JO":, l'l lST Cl lN'.-->Ut\l Fl, l'Al'ER
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 19, 2001
The Honorable Eva Clayton
U. S. House of Representatives
2-l-1-0 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Clayton:
~A -·~ ---,,,;,-, ____ _
MCDEMR
Please accept our sincere thanks for the time and consideration given us by Sandra Gardei of your staff
during our visit to Washington on March 6. The topic of our meeting was the Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification and Redevelopment Project.
During our discussion, we presented information to Sandra on the status of the project m1d the critic a I need to
obtain $7.5 million by the latter part of this year in order to complete the project. DENR and the community
are pursuing all leads for public a11d priYate grants. We hm:e found substantial support for rede\·elopment
after the site is clean. However. we haYe found no support for the actual soil treatment. State senators and
representatives for Warren County have indicated their support but this is a substantial request in a year when
the state is dealing with a large deficit. By the end of this year the site will be ready for full-scale operation,
the \\"Ork force \viii be trained and on the _job, m1d the ability to detoxify proven by the treatment of landfill
so il. It would be another tragedy to ha\'e to stop before the site is fully detoxified.
Sandra indicated that she had worked with hazardous waste at one time m1d could understand our difficulties.
She also said that you were interested in the project. Since then, Dollie Burwell of your North Carolina staff
has indicated that you ha\'e offered to le.id the effort among our congressional delegati on in Washington. We
certainly appreciate that. Because of the unusual situation we will be asking that others of the North Carolina
delegation support m1d assist you in the effort to obtain the needed funds.
Aga in. we appreciate the opportunity to talk with Sandra and th,mk you for your attention to this matter. If
,, e can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
ft'C:'1:~.~ 1}~~~~. ;&~c~
tvlichael A. Kellv. Director \ Patricia M. Backus. PE
Emergencv ,md D~~'~s_ter Response \ PCB Landfill Project Manager
cc Dacck Nrn~y. Sand,a Ga,d,L WarnJ,oylcs, Kathry·n Mmks
cc Warren County Citizens Ad\·isory-B6ard
H14h Mui[ S<•rvicc Center, Raleigh, North Caroli_na 27699-1h-t6
Pho1w: 9·I9-7?,3--t9% \ FAX: 919-TIS-%05 \lntcrnd: www.<~nr.stdl<~.rn .us
AN 1-<~UAI \11'1'( l l-:TUN ID' \ Af-"f-"11,MATI VF At"Tl\ll\J Hv11'L\ l'\'FR -Sll'.',", RFCYCl.l-1 l / Ill"., I'< l~T \"\ lN~Ui\11-:1.: l'ArER
March 8, 2001
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
On Tuesday, March 6, 2001, Pat Backus and Mike Kelly, along with Jill Raynor
from the Governor's office in Washington, met with staff from some of the North
Carolina congressional representatives. The purpose of the meetings was to provide
updates for the congressional staff on the PCB landfill detoxification project and the
urgency for additional funds to complete the project.
Staff members were presented with update summaries and budget sheets . They
also received information on the BCD process and ideas for potential sources of money.
There were two primary goals we wanted to achieve: 1) Ensure that everyone was aware
of the c1itical time line we are on and that with the Phase I contract in place, we had to
have the balance of the funds this fall to continue the project and get completed; 2) We
wanted the staff to understand that this project does not fit into a lot of the typical
environmental molds (Brownfields, Superfund, etc.), and that the EPA had been
supportive, they did not have a category from which funds could be drawn to supp01t this
project; therefore, it is imperative that we seek out other funding options, such as parks,
Department of the Interior, re-development, etc., and to stay away from the "landfill"
stigma.
The following is a re-cap of the meetings:
Representative Clayton's office:
Sandra Gardei, legislative assistant:
Sandra is relatively new with the congresswoman's staff She listened to our
briefing and said that she knows that Mrs. Clayton is very interested in the project. She
indicated that she would discuss with Mrs. Clayton and see what strategy they could
come up with to find some of the money.
(It is suggested that since Mrs. Clayton is the lead person from the WaITen County
area, citizens w1ite letters to her office asking for her to be the champion of the project;
all the congressional staff people indicated that they would be supportive of the
Congresswoman's initiatives.)
Representative Price's office:
Darek Newby:
Darek was not very optimistic. He indicated that two years ago they had looked
into a number of funding mechanisms without success. He will discuss with Mr. P1ice,
but did not paint a very good picture for us. He did indicate their willingness to make
f I calls and open doors at any agencies or departments where we were trying to solicit
funds, ifwe just let them know.
Senator Helm's office:
Wayne Boyles:
Wayne was the most encouraging staff person we visited with. He listened
intently and took a lot of notes, asking questions and making statements of suppo1t. He
promised to discuss with the senator and indicated that they may look at the VA/HUD
bills for a way to include the funds we need. We also specifically discussed the
military's part in the landfill, and that our discussions in the past with the DOD had not
been very fruitful. However, if someone like the senator suggests that they participate,
they may be a little more f01thcoming.
Senator Edwards' office:
Kathryn Marks:
Kathryn agreed to speak with the senator and other folks in the office to see what
suggestions they could come up with on funding the project. She promised to give the
project some serious thought and that the senator's office would be supportive of the
effmts if someone takes the lead.
Contaminated Soil I Mix with sodium bicarbonate ~ O ao o-oOC> oao nl"'lhrir Warren County PCB Detoxification Process Using Base Catalyzed Decomposition I Contaminated Vapors .-----.fl n ~ Clean Process ~ Vent Gas Filters VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM • Condensed • Water Mix with dehalogenation chemicals ! Mixture ! Condensed liquids with PCBs ----------~ LIQUID REACTOR 1 ► disposed of, or Non-Contact Flue Gas INDIRECT HEATED THERMAL DESORBER 'u\,,j~.~ ),j\,,Jttd Heat mixture at 800 -1000°F WATER TREATMENT 1 Clean water to rehydrate soil Collect and test decontaminated soil Heat mixture at 650°F PCB's dechlorinated to non-toxic biphenyls ----,►-Returnto landfilll area recycled, off-site
0 EB 6 0 © 0 ,/1 ,•••-Vr I ---.. .1 \ •• •• ,, ,,----/ ----'.. _.,,, . ,----' I •'jl°\ ••• •••• • \ I •• \ \ .. ,· .. . \ ~• \ I ~• I l •,' 1 \ -I I I \ I I ~--' \ I \ ' \. I ____________________ ,,, V ;-· I I \~ 6 Gh_\\, ~ "'' . ' ' I I I I \ I \ I ...,........... / ...................... ~' ........... _, JI, ,,,,,,,· surface water (new) surface water (existing) soil/sediment monitoring wells existing monitoring wells leachate samples I I I I I I I I I I I ,' ,,, I I I ' I I I I ... ---.... ' ,... ........ ' I \ I I \ I I \ I I \ I I I I I I I I ~\I \ 'e I ,,--............. J I ' ' ' ' I I I ,---~ I , , , I , , I I ' ' ,, ~--I '· l ' I I , I ' ' I ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ____ ,-,-------___ ... _._,.. PCB LANDF/~L ~,~ \ co 0°'-0 ,-, ', ......... ,,-....... _ '\ ,, , "JQ) I ',, / --1 .... __ , I I ,,_ --,,_ --................. -~ .......... _________ , __ .,,.,----------------....... , \ ' ' I , ~------------; --, , ...... ., I ' , -----,, I , I I I , , -, , , , ' , ' ' ' I I \ ' \ ,,,' ', \ , I , \ \ I l I ' I , , /( \ ', ' \
BACKGROUND:
NCDENR
Department of Enviro11111ent a11d Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
D. E. Be11to11, Cltief Deputy Secretary
March 7, 2001
STATUS OF THE PCB LANDFILL
DETOXIFICATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WARREN COUNTY, NC
In the late 1970's over 30,000 thousand gallons ofoil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were illegally
sprayed along approximately 210 miles of state roadways. Listed as a Superfund site by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the roadsides were excavated and the contaminated soils disposed in a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) permitted
landfill built in Warren County. Residents and civil rights leaders vehemently protested the construction of tl1e PCB Landfill.
These protests are considered the "watershed event" which brought the issue of environmental justice to the national level.
In 1982, Governor James B. Hunt Jr. made a commitment to the people of Warren County tliat if appropriate and feasible
technology became available, the state would explore detoxification of the landfill. In 1995, $1 million was appropriated to study
detoxification technologies.
Warren County citizens and members of various environmental organizations were invited to join state employees in a
joint partnership to assess the condition of the landfill and explore detoxification. The group was designated tl1e Warren County
PCB Working Group (WG).
DETOXIFICATION STUDIES:
With staff of tl1e Division of Waste Management (DWM), independent science advisors, and the WG, an extensive site
investigation was performed. It included the installation of additional monitoring wells, boring into the landfill to extract soils for
testing, and bench scale detoxification studies.
Twelve different technologies were considered. Two technologies, Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) and Gas Phase
Chemical Reduction, were found to be appropriate and potentially feasible for the Warren County Landfill. Following vigorous
testing and using stringent guidelines and treatment goals for both PCBs and dioxin, it was determined that BCD was the best
technology for the detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
The BCD process utilizes non-incineration chemical reactions to detoxify the PCBs and dioxins/furans in the
contaniinated soils. Chlorine atoms are chemically removed from the PCB and dioxin/furan molecules, and replaced with
hydrogen, to form biphenyls, which are non-hazardous. Treated soil is returned to the landfill and organics are recycled or
disposed off site as a non-hazardous waste.
With the selection ofa detoxification technology the mission of the WG was fulfilled. In August of 1999 the group was
reestablished as the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) with a new mission to continue the efforts to detoxify the landfill and to serve
as a liaison between the state and the community at-large.
DESIGN ACTIVITIES:
A Phase II, Preliniinary Draft Design Plan based on the BCD detoxification studies estimated the maximum cost for the
entire project to be under $24 million. In 1998, an additional $2 million was appropriated to begin the detoxification effort using
BCD. In 1999, a chemical/environmental engineer was hired by the DWM to be the project manager and a contract for a Phase III
Final Design was issued.
Detoxiftcatio1t a11d Redeve/,opme11t Project-Warren County, NC
Several meetings were held with EPA TSCA personnel in Atlanta (Region IV) and Washington, DC (Headquarters) to
solicit input on the final design and to outline permitting requirements for the detoxification. The final design package was
completed in March of 2000. In addition to design drawings and technical specifications, the package included a Community
Outreach and Involvement Plan to ensure that residents and local business have an opportunity to receive fmancial benefits from
the detoxification project
CURRENT FUNDING:
In 1999, an additional $1 million was appropriated and $7 million made available to match federal funds for the
detoxification effort. However, because of the tremendous relief effort needed after Hurricane Floyd, approximately $1.4 million
of previously appropriated funds were reverted to the state budget Efforts to obtain federal matching funds were also suspended
in deference to Hurricane Floyd needs.
In August of 2000, the EPA offered several in-kind services to aid in the detoxification of the landfill. Their offer
included technical and analytical assistance to obtain the TSCA permit needed for the BCD process and the waiving of the federal
portion of the BCD licensing fee. This assistance was valued at over $500,000. In September, the Office of State Budget
indicated these services qualify as federal funding thus making available the $7 million reserved for the project.
This funding, while significant, is not enough to cover the entire cost of the detoxification, therefore, a two-phased
approach is being used to implement the project. Phase I includes site preparation, equipment mobilization, performance and
permit demonstrations, and the treatment of a limited amount of contaminated material from the landfill. Phase II completes the
detoxification, demobilizes the equipment, and restores the site to a condition ready for development. Both phases also include
tasks to develop a plan for the future use of the site.
The project was competitively bid and awarded to the lowest bidder, the IT Corporation, at cost of $13.5 M. Phase I can
be contracted now, but an additional $7.5 million will be needed by the fall of 2001 to continue to Phase II. Monies have been
reserved to close, recap, and restore the landfill to TSCA requirements should Phase II not be funded. Additional funding from
state and federal sources is being sought.
CONTRACTS:
Patrick Barnes was hired in June of 2000 as a Technical Community Advisor. His job includes assisting in identifying
local resources that could be utilized by the detoxification contractor, starting the community newsletter, providing support to
small, local subcontractors in their participation on the project, and providing other support services of a technical nature requested
by the community. (For this project ''local" has been defined as Warren, Franklin, Halifax, Vance, and Granville counties.) The
"Community/Contractor Open Forum" which was held in October and attended by approximately 125 citizens, potential
subcontractors, and detoxification contractors and the ''Local Resources Guide" are examples of work funded through his contract.
An oversight consultant to represent the state's interests during the detoxification was hired in November. Earth Tech,
which will use resources from their Raleigh, Greenville, SC, and Richmond, VA offices, was selected from a field of ten firms.
The selection by the State Building Commission followed state guidelines for the contracting of engineering services and also
included input from the DWM and CAB. Earth Tech's primary objective is to ensure that the final design is accurately interpreted
and adhered to during construction and implementation. Earth Tech's initial task was to prepare the bid package that was issued in
late November.
The detoxification contractor was recently selected following state guidelines for construction projects. Potential
contractors were first qualified based on state construction and engineering licensing requirements, the ability of their company to
obtain required insurance and performance bonding, the safety record of their companies, and their experience with similar
remediation projects. Only those firms that qualified were allowed to bid on the project.
The public bid opening was held on December 22, 2000 at the Warren County Courthouse. The apparent low bidder was
the IT Corporation. After certification of the bids and completion of required Minority Business Participation forms, the State
Construction Office awarded the contract to IT Corporation on January 30. Execution of the contract was completed on March 2
and the official start date has been set for March 12, 2001.
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROJECT CONTACT:
Michael A. Kelly, Director ofDENR Disaster and Emergency Response [phone]
Pat Backus, PCB Landfill Project Manager [phone] ext. 308
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
D. E. Benton, Chief Deputy Secretary
February 15, 2001
STATUS OF FUNDING FOR THE PCB LANDFILL
DETOXIFICATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WARREN COUNTY, NC
Since 1995, the State of North Carolina has made available $11 million for the Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification Project. These funds came from a variety of sources: appropriations, a transfer from the White Goods account, and
a set aside from reversion monies. In December 1999, $1.44 million was taken from the PCB landfill fund and used as part of the
Hurricane Floyd Relief package. The state has also been provided with $570,274 as a share of the settlement between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the estate of the responsible party.
Expenses for the Detoxification Project
SOURCE OF FUNDS/ COMMITMENTS TOTAL DOLLARS AVAILABLE/
USED/NEEDED
Legislative monies provided since 1995 $11 ,000,000
Estimated value of EPA In Kind Services to be used during life of project $ 500,000
Estate settlement, funds available from EPA through Department of Justice $ 570,274
Total funds/ services originally committed to project since 1995 $12,070,274
Money transferred to Hurricane Floyd Relief Fund, December 1999 ($ 1,439,450)
Total funds/ services available $10,630,824
Assessment oflandfill and detoxification pilot studies ($1,474,792) Completed
Project Expenses (DENR oversight, landfill maintenance, equipment, ($ 85,758) Completed
monitoring)
Subtotal available as of November 1, 2000 $ 9,070,274
Phase I detoxification contracts ( oversight, design build, permit, technical ($7,738,233) Contracted
support)
EPA In-Kind Services provided during life of project ($ 500,000) Available
Project commitments and contingencies (includes contingency for Phase 11) ($1,342,931 )
Phase II (design, build, treatment contract cost) ($ 6,923,800) Contract price
(This is the bid contract price; to be signed when funds are available.)
Total estimate of the detoxification project, Phase I and Phase II $16,504,964
FUNDS NEEDED TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR ($ 7,434,690) Need 11/01
PHASE II AND TO COMPLETE THE DETOXIFICATION
The current cost is based on a bid received by the contractor to continue the decontamination of soil directly from Phase I
into Phase II. The current contracts for oversight and detoxification include a contingency so tl1at if funds for Phase II are not
secured by November 1, 2001, a new cap will be placed on the landfill and the contractor's equipment removed. If tile balance of
the funds needed to complete Phase II are not received by November 1, 2001, significant additional costs will be incurred to
remove the cap, re-mobilize and perform another demonstration pilot, and then to de-mobilize after work is completed.
······················································································································································-·•·-··········································-•······•···············································•········•···•··•·······················7
BACKGROUND:
Detoxification and Redevelopment Project -Warren County, NC
March 7, 2001
STATUS OF THE PCB LANDFILL
DETOXIFICATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WARREN COUNTY, NC
,. on e -P°'J c:.
ve VS (OV)
In the late 1970s over 30,000 gallons of oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were illegally sprayed
along approximately 210 miles of state roadways. Listed as a Superfund site by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the roadsides were excavated and the contaminated soils disposed in a Toxic Substances Control Act.(TSCA) pennitted landfill
built in Warren County. Residents and civil rights leaders vehemently protested the construction of the PCB Landfill. These
protests are considered the "watershed event" that brought the issue of environmental justice to the national level.
Governor James B. Hunt Jr. made a commitment to the people of Warren County in 1982 that if appropriate and feasible
technology became available, the state would explore detoxification of the landfill. In 1995, $1 million was appropriated to study
detoxification technologies. Warren County citizens and members of various environmental organizations were invited to join
state employees in a joint partnership to assess the condition of the landfill and explore detoxification. The group was designated
the Warren County PCB Working Group (WG), and later became the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB).
DETOXIFICATION STUDIES:
With staff of the Division of Waste Management (DWM), independent science advisors, and the WG, an extensive site
investigation was performed. It included the installation of additional monitoring wells, boring into the landfill to extract soils for
testing, and bench scale detoxification studies. Twelve different technologies were considered. Following vigorous testing and
using stringent guidelines and treatment goals for both PCBs and dioxin, it was determined that Base Catalyzed Decomposition
(BCD) was the best technology for the detoxification of the PCB Landfill. The BCD process utilizes non-incineration chemical
reactions to detoxify the PCBs and dioxins/furans in the contaminated soils. Chlorine atoms are chemically removed from the
PCB and diox:in/furan molecules, and replaced with hydrogen, to form biphenyls, which are non-hazardous. Treated soil is
returned to the landfill and organics are recycled or disposed off site as a non-hazardous waste.
CURRENT FUNDING:
In 1999, an additional $1 million was appropriated and $7 million made available to match federal funds for the
detoxification effort. The EPA offered several in-kind services to aid in the detoxification of the landfill in August 2000. Its offer
included technical and analytical assistance to obtain the TSCA pennit needed for the BCD process and the waiving of the federal
portion of the BCD licensing fee. This assistance was valued at more than $500,000. In September, the Office of State Budget
indicated these services qualify as federal funding, thus making available the $7 million reserved for the project.
This funding, while significant, is not enough to cover the entire cost of the detoxification; therefore, a two-phased
approach is being used to implement the project. Phase I includes site preparation, equipment mobilization, performance and
pennit demonstrations, and the treatment of a limited amount of contaminated material from the landfill. Phase II completes the
detoxification, demobilizes the equipment, and restores the site to a condition ready for development. Both phases also include
tasks to develop a plan for the future use of the site. An additional $7.5 million will be needed by November 1, 2001, to contract
and complete Phase II. The project could then be completed in October 2002, which is the 20th anniversary of the landfill.
CONTRACTS:
A Technical Community Advisor was hired in June 2000. An oversight consultant to represent the state's
interests during the detoxification was hired in November. Earth Tech, which will use resources from their Raleigh, Greenville,
SC, and Richmond, VA offices, was selected from a field of 10 firms. The detoxification contractor was recently selected
following state guidelines for construction projects. The public bid opening was held on December 22, 2000 at the Warren
County Courthouse. The apparent low bidder was the IT Corporation. After certification of the bids and completion of required
Minority Business Participation forms, the State Construction Office awarded the contract to IT Corporation on January 30.
Execution of the contract was completed on March 2 and the official start date has been set for March 12, 2001.
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROJECT CONTACT:
Michael A. Kelly, Director ofDENR Disaster and Emergency Response (91 9) 715-3644
Pat Backus, PCB Landfill Project Manager [phone] ext. 308
t a. I /( I (\ c\ e ,:")' , ' -, ~
_, <j I Y () ; -, -( J '.:::) E:' ( (1 ' ~ 1·
·::.,
STATUSOFTHEPCBLANDFILL
DETOXIFICATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WARREN COUNTY, NC
February 15, 2001
BACKGROUND:
I -,, I ; \ ,·, c,
*** Late 1970s over 30,000 gallons of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were illegally
sprayed along 210 miles of state roadways.
*** Designated as a Superfund site, the roadways were cleaned up in 1982 and the
materials placed in a landfill in Warren County.
*** The local opposition is said to be the "watershed event" that brought environmental
justice to the national level.
DETOXIFICATION STUDIES:
*** Governor James B. Hunt Jr., in 1982, made a promise to Warren County to pursue
detoxification of the landfill if the technology became available.
*** In 1997 following an extensive site evaluation and evaluations of treatment
technologies, Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) was chosen for the landfill.
*** BCD is a non-incineration chemical reaction technology that destroys the PCBs,
dioxins and furans in the contaminated soils .
CURRENT FUNDING:
* * * In 1999, $1 million was appropriated and $7 million made available for match of
federal funds .
*** EPA offered in-kind services to aid in the detoxification estimated to be wmth
$500,000.
*** The project was separated into two phases and will move forward with the cmTent
available funds . An additional $7.5 million will be needed to continue with Phase II.
CONTRACTS:
*** A technical community advisor was hired in June 2000.
*** EARTH TECH, an environmental engineering fitm, was hired in November to serve
as the oversight contractor.
*** A public bid opening was held on December 22, 2000, and IT Corporation, the
apparent low bidder for the detoxification, was awarded a contract on January 30, 2001
by the State Construction Office for detoxification of the landfill.
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROJECT CONTACT:
Michael A. Kelly, DENR 919-715-3644
Pat Backus, PCB Landfill Project Manager 919-733-4996, ext. 308
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA 542-F-96-004
April 1996
&EPA A Citizen's Guide to
Chemical Dehalogenation
Technology Innovation Office Technology Fact Sheet
What is chemical dehalogenation?
Chemical dehalogenation is a chemical process to re-
move halogens (usually chlorine) from a chemical con-
taminant, rendering it less hazardous. Halogens are a
class of chemical elements that include chlorine, bro-
mine, iodine, and fluorine. Polychlorinated biphenyls
are halogenated compounds that once were used in high
voltage electrical transformers because they conducted
heat well while being fire resistant and good electrical
insulators. In addition, halogenated compounds are
used to produce pesticides because their addition
causes the toxicity needed to control pests. Haloge-
nated compounds also are commonly used in water
treatment, swimming pool chemicals, and plastic piping
and textile production. The chemical dehalogenation
process can be used on common halogenated contami-
nants such as PCBs and dioxins which are usually
found in soil and oils.
How does it work?
There are two common versions of the chemical
dehalogenation process in use: glycolate dehalogen-
ation and the base-catalyzed decomposition process.
Glycolate Dehalogenation
Glycolate dehalogenation makes use of a chemical re-
agent called APEG. APEG consists of two parts: an
alkali metal hydroxide (the "A" in APEG) and
polyethylene glycol (PEG), a substance similar to anti-
freeze. Sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide are
two common alkali metal hydroxides. Potassium poly-
ethylene glycolate is the most common APEG reagent.
The process consists of mixing and heating the con-
taminated soils with the APEG reagent. Du1ing heat-
ing, the alkali metal hydroxide reacts with the halogen
from the contaminant to fonn a non-toxic salt; and the
PEG takes the location in the PCB molecule formerly
occupied by the halogen making it less hazardous.
The glycolate dehalogenation process consists of five
steps: preparation, reaction, separation, washing, and
dewatering (Figure 1). During the preparation step, the
contaminated waste (soil, for example) is excavated
and sifted to remove debris and large objects such as
boulders and logs. Next, in the reaction step, the con-
taminated soils and the APEG reagent are blended in a
large container called a reactor, mixed, and heated for
four hours.
Vapors resulting from the heating process are col-
lected. The vapor is separated into water and the gas-
eous contaminants by means of a condenser. The
water can be used during a later step in the process and
the gaseous contaminants are passed through activated
carbon filters to capture the contaminant.
A Quick Look at Chemical Dehalogenation
• Used to treat halogenated aromatic organic contaminants, particularly PCBs and dioxins.
• Chemically converts toxic materials to less toxic or non-toxic materials.
• Involves heating and physically mixing contaminated soils with chemical reagents.
• Is a transportable technology that can be brought to the site.
y Printed on Recycled Paper
~
The soil-APEG mixture, after treatment in the reactor,
goes to the separator, where the APEG reagent is sepa-
rated from the soil and recycled for future use in the
system. The treated soil contains products of the treat-
ment which are less toxic chemicals resulting from the
dehalogenation reaction. These new chemical products
are a non-toxic salt and a less toxic, partially
dehalogenated organic compound.
The soil passes from the separation step to a washer,
where the water collected in the earlier reaction step is
added. The last traces of residual APEG reagent are
extracted from the soil and recycled. The soil proceeds
to a dewatering phase where the water and soil are
separated. The water is treated to remove contami-
nants before discharge to a municipal water treatment
system, a receiving stream, or other appropriate dis-
charge areas. The soil is retested for contaminant con-
centrations. If it still contains contaminants above
targeted treatment concentrations, it is recycled
through the process or put into an environmentally safe
landfill; if the soil is clean, it can be returned to its
original location on the site.
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
A second type of chemical dehalogenation, the base-
catalyzed decomposition (BCD) process, was devel-
oped by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as
a clean, inexpensive way to remediate liquids, sludge,
soil, and sediment contaminated with chlorinated
organic compounds, especially PCBs, pesticides, some
herbicides and dioxins.
In the BCD process (Figure 2 on page 3), contaminated
soil is excavated and screened to remove debris and
large particles, then crushed and mixed with sodium bi-
carbonate at roughly one part sodium bicarbonate to
ten parts soil. This mixture is heated in a reactor. The
heat separates the halogenated compounds from the
soil by evaporation. The soil left behind is removed
from the reactor and can be returned to the site. The
contaminated gases, condensed into a liquid form, pass
into a liquid-phase reactor. The dehalogenation reac-
tion occurs when several chemicals including sodium
hydroxide (a base) are mixed with the condensed con-
taminants and heated in the reactor. The resulting liq-
uid mixture can be incinerated or treated by other
technologies and recycled. The BCD process elimi-
nates the need to remove the reactants from the treated
soil as in the glycolate dehalogenation process.
The BCD process components are easily transported
and safely operated. The process employs off-the-shelf
equipment and requires less time and space to mobi-
li ze, set up, and take down than an incinerator-which
is a common alternative treatment for PCB-contami-
nated wastes.
Figure 1
The Glycolate Dehalogenation Process
Emissions
( ( ( Vapors ~-·· Contaminated l Soil
i :::G
Debris
Mix with
APEG
reagent l Recycled
Reagent
- 2 -
Emissions Control
(Activated Carbon)
Treated
Emissions
Collect Decontaminated
Soils
I i
Further
Testing and
Treatment if
Necessary
What Is An Innovative Treatment Technology?
Treatment technologies are processes applied to hazardous waste or contaminated materials to permanently alter their
condition through chemical, biological, or physical means. Treatment technologies are able to alter, by destroying or
changing, contaminated materials so that they are less hazardous or are no longer hazardous. This may be done by
reducing the amount of contaminated material, by recovering or removing a component that gives the material its
hazardous properties or by immobilizing the waste. Innovative treatment technologies are those that have been tested,
selected, or used for treatment of hazardous waste or contaminated materials but still lack well-documented cost and
performance data under a variety of operating conditions.
Why consider chemical dehalogenation?
Dehalogenation can be an effective process for remov-
ing halogens from hazardous organic compounds, such
as dioxins, furans, PCBs, and certain chlorinated pesti-
cides. The treatment time is short, energy require-
ments are moderate, and operation and maintenance
costs are relatively low. The technology can be
brought to the site, so hazardous wastes do not have to
be transported.
Will dehalogenation work at every site?
Characteristics of the contaminated material that inter-
fere with the effectiveness of chemical dehalogenation
are high clay or water content, acidity, or high natural
organic content of the soil. Glycolate dehalogenation is
not designed for large waste volumes or wastes with
concentrations of chlorinated contaminants above 5%.
Since contaminated soil must be excavated and
screened before treatment, there must be sufficient
space at the site to conduct this pretreatment process.
Where is dehalogenation being used?
Some Superfund sites where chemical dehalogenation
has been selected as a treatment method are listed in
Table 1 on page 4. The BCD process also has been
used by the Navy at a Public Works Center in Guam to
treat PCB-contaminated soil. The BCD process was
successful at meeting EPA' s cleanup goals for the soil.
Figure 2
Contaminated
Soil
The Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process
l
Mix with
dehalogenation
chemicals
Condense
contaminated
vapors
t
Collect
contaminated
vapors
t
Solids
Reactor
Heat mixture
at 600-800°F
l
Heat mixture at
650°F.
Contaminants
dehalogenated.
____,..
! Mix with sodium
bicarbonate
Collect
decontaminated
soil
Debris
-3 -
Mixture
disposed of or
recycled off-site
Table 1
Examples of Superfund Sites Using Chemical Dehalogenation*
Name of Site Status** Process Contaminants
Wide Beach Development, NY Completed Glycolate dehalogenation Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Myers Property, NJ In design BCD Semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), pesticides
Saunders Supply Co., VA In design To be determined SVOCs, dioxins
For a listing of Superfund sites at which innovative treatment technologies have been used or selected for use,
contact NCEPI at the address in the box below for a copy of the document entitled Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Annual Status Report (7th Ed.), EPA 542-R-95-008. Additional information about the sites listed
in the Annual Status Report is available in database format. The database can be downloaded free of charge from
EPA's Cleanup Information bulletin board (CLU-IN). Call CLU-IN at 301-589-8366 (modem). CLU-IN's help line is
301-589-8368. The database also is available for purchase on diskettes. Contact NCEPI for details.
• Not all waste types and site conditions are comparable. Each site must be individually investigated and tested.
Engineering and scientific judgment must be used to determine if a technology is appropriate for a site.
** As of August 1995
For More Information
The publications listed below can be ordered free of charge by calling NCEPI at 513-489-8190 or faxing your request
to 513-489-8695. If NCEPI is out of stock of a document, you may be directed to other sources. Write to NCEPI at:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
• Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation: A
Bibliography of EPA Information Sources, January 1995, EPA 542-B-95-001 . A bibliography of EPA
publications about innovative treatment technologies.
• Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology Resource Guide, September 1994, EPA 542-B-94-008. A bibliography
of publications about chemical dehalogenation and other innovative treatment technologies.
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment, September 1990, EPA 540-2-90-015.
• SITE Program Technology Profiles (7th Ed.), November 1994, EPA 540-R-94-526.
NOTICE: This fact sheet is intended solely as general guidance and information. It is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any
party in litigation with the United States. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice.
-4 -