2002_ROSCANS_1997

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Permit Amendment (Phase 2): February 19, 2004
Page 1
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
FACILITY PERMIT
CHEROKEE COUNTY
is hereby issued a PERMIT to CONSTRUCT a
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY
located on US Highway 129/74/19 near NC Highway 141, Marble, North Carolina in accordance
with Article 9, Chapter 130A, of the General Statutes of North Carolina and all rules promulgated
thereunder and subject to the conditions set forth in this permit. Deeds for properties included in
the facility boundary are recorded in the Cherokee County Public Registry at Book 743, Page 193.
James C. Coffey, Chief
Solid Waste Section

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Permit Amendment (Phase 2): February 19, 2004
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Approved. Documents
PART I: GENERAL FACILITY
1. MSWLF Facility Permit To Construct, Phase 1, Marble, North Carolina dated
November 1996, as revised, prepared by Municipal Engineering.
2. Design Hydrogeologic Study, Phase 1, Cherokee County, Subtitle D Lined Landfill,
dated November 1996 - Revised March 10, 1997, prepared by Municipal
Engineering.
PART II: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
3. MSWLF Facility Permit To Construct, Phase 1, Marble, North Carolina dated .
November 1996, as revised, prepared by Municipal Engineering.
4. Design Hydrogeologic Study, Phase 1, Cherokee County, Subtitle D Lined Landfill,
dated November 1996 Revised March 10, 1997, prepared by Municipal
Engineering.
5. MSWLF Facility Permit to Construct, Phase 2, Cherokee County, Marble , North
Carolina, prepared by Municipal Engineering Service, PA, dated August 2003,
revised December 10, 2003 and January 19, 2004.
6. Design Hydrogeologic Study, Cherokee County Landfill, Phase 2, Marble North
Carolina, prepared by Municipal Engineering Services, PA, received May 6, 2003,
revised December 17, 2003 and February 17, 2004.
PART III: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS LANDFILL
PART V: YARD WASTE
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING FACILITIES

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Permit Amendment (Phase 2): February 19, 2004
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 2
Conditions of Permit to Construct
PART I: GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS
1. This permit shall be effective upon compliance with 15A NCAC 13B .0204 and when the
certified copy with the page, book number, date of recordation, and Register's seal is
returned to the Solid Waste Section (Section).
2. This permit approves the Facility Plan which in accordance with 15 NCAC 13B .1619
defines the comprehensive development of the facility including the total municipal solid
waste landfill capacity, the municipal solid waste stream, all on site solid waste
management facilities and related facility infrastructure.
The approved plans are described in Attachment 1, "Approved Documents". Where
discrepancies may exist, the most recent approved submittal and Conditions of Permit
shall govern.
3. The facility has an anticipated total capacity of approximately 1,127,936 cubic yards
consistent with the approved final contours. Construction of cells within each phase and
subsequent phases shall be in accordance with the Division approved plans.
4. The landfill is permitted to receive solid waste as defined in North Carolina General
Statute Article 9 Chapter 130A-290(a)(35) generated within Cherokee County, Clay County,
Graham County, and Swain County, except where prohibited by North Carolina General
Statutes Article 9 of Chapter 130A, and rules adopted by the Commission for Health
Services.
The owner or operator of a municipal solid waste management facility that is owned or
operated by a unit of local government shall not knowingly dispose of any type or form of
municipal solid waste that is generated within the boundaries of a unit of local
government that by ordinance:
(1) Prohibits generators or collectors of municipal solid waste from disposing of
that type or form of municipal solid waste.
(2) Requires generators or collectors of municipal solid waste to recycle that
type or form of solid waste.
5. This facility is subject to the requirements of all applicable sections of the most recent
version of the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, 15A NCAC 13B and the
specific conditions contained herein.

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Permit Amendment (Phase 2): February 19, 2004
Page 4
6. This facility shall conform to the specific conditions set forth in this permit and the
7. This facility permit is issued under the criteria set forth in 15A NCAC 13B.1603(a)(1). Any
facility changes that effect these criteria may require a new permit.
8. Cherokee County shall submit an amendment to this permit pursuant to 15A NCAC
13B.1603(a)(2) for any subsequent phase of development.
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
9. Cherokee County shall conduct a pre -construction meeting, on -site, prior to initiating
construction of any unit at the site and shall notify the Solid Waste Section 10 days prior
to said meeting.
10. Construction of all solid waste management units within this facility shall be in accordance
with the pertinent approved plans and only for those phases of development approved for
construction as described in Attachment 1, "Approved Documents".
11. Additional conditions and revisions of the approved documents or changes during
construction of any landfill unit require approval by the North Carolina Solid Waste
Section.
12. Any modifications in sedimentation and erosion control activities require approval by the
Land Quality Section. The Section shall be notified of any sedimentation and erosion
control modifications.
FACILITY PRE -OPERATIVE CONDITIONS
13. Prior to receiving waste at any unit, cell, or phase of this facility, a Permit to Operate,
must be obtained from the Solid Waste Section in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0201(b).
14. The following requirements shall be met prior to waste disposal for any unit, cell, or phase
of this facility:
1. Site preparation shalt be in accordance with the approved plans, and the
conditions specified herein.
2. Site inspection shall be made by a representative of the Solid Waste Section.

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Permit Amendment (Phase 2): February 19, 2004
Page 5
3. Prior to waste disposal for any unit, a pre -operative meeting shall be held on -site
with key landfill personnel and representatives of the Solid Waste Section.
4. Financial Assurance, as required by 15A NCAC 13B.1628, shall be in place.
PART II: MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILL UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PRE -OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
15. Ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations shall be sampled for
the Appendix I constituent list prior to issuing the Permit to Operate.
CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
16. The owner's geologist shalt examine the cell excavation and note any pertinent geologic
features exposed during the construction process and shall notify the Solid Waste Section
Hydrogeologist of these findings prior to the placement of any liner materials.
17. The owner's geologist shall be in the field to supervise all well installations. Any
modifications to the approved water quality monitoring plan require approval by the
Section Hydrogeologist. Documentation of all changes to the approved plan shall be
submitted with the welt construction records.
18. For each monitoring well constructed, a well construction record, well schematic, boring
log and a description of well development activities shall be submitted to the Section
within 30 days upon wet( completion.
PART III: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART V: YARD WASTE UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

CHEROKEE CO Ulf% TY
201 Peachtree Street
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
[phone] • Fax [phone]
Commissioners County Manager
Charles W. Laney Richard L. Honeycutt
Eugene Morrow County Attorney
George Postell R. Scott Lindsay
December 31, 1997
Mr. Mike Wilson
Wilson Air, LLC
PO Box 575
Murphy, NC 28906
Dear Mr. Wilson:
As a part of our new landfill operations plan, Cherokee County has incorporated a bird
management plan to abate nuisances of birds at the landfill that might affect aircraft using
the Andrews -Murphy airport.
If bird strikes or near misses are encountered by aircraft near the airport or landfill we
would ask that you notify us in writing of the specifics of the incident. Please include the
following:
Aircraft
Pilot and Phone number
Date and time of incident
Type of bird
Location of incident
Description of incident
Cherokee County will operate the landfill to minimize the attraction to birds. Lf incidents
do occur, then we will go further as recommended in the bird management plan.
Should you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Honeycutt
County Manager
cc: Board of Commissioners

Tim Patterson, Solid Waste Division (Asheville)
Robert Allen, Solid Waste Director
Tim Coffey, Solid Waste Division (Raleigh)
Bill Sessoms, Solid Waste Division (Raleigh)

L C' 41)� / KX-<JCPC--
" NORTH C, ,ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
L� ; �iwt �0.T7erSavV November 5, 1997
JAMES B. HUNTJR':'.'...-i:ii ::
Mr. Scotty Morgan
Office of Senator Lauch Faircloth
,�o,�r; Federal Building, Room 251
RY;>€ > 151 Patton Avenue
...........
Asheville NC 28801
Sincerely,
l
Wayne McDevitt
Secretary
WMcD/alc
Enclosures
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]VWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.US/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health cnd Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
November 5, 1997
Ms. Anna M. Rieff
Burnt Branch Overlook Association
# 1 Burnt Branch Overlook
Marble, NC 28905
Dear Ms. Rieff:
Your letters to Governor James B. Hunt Jr. and former Secretary
Jonathan B. Howes regarding the Cherokee County landfill being constructed
in Marble were referred to me for response. Mr. William Sessoms and I also
received letters from you.
Many of the concerns noted in your correspondence are procedural or
local government issues that will have to be addressed at the local level. Some
may be addressed by other government agencies. I can only respond to those
issues that fall within the rules and regulations of the Division of Waste
Management.
In your correspondence, you expressed concern about the size of the
Cherokee County landfill facility. State regulations do not restrict a landfill
facility to a maximum area. The decision on the overall size and projected life
of a facility is a local one made by the applicant. In the case of Cherokee
County, as with most landfills, the projected facility will be constructed in
phases. The initial "Permit to Construct" approves the overall facility and
construction of the first phase, which will have an approximate life of five
years. Amendments to the permit must be obtained to allow construction and
operation of subsequent phases. ,
. You also inquired about public meetings. State regulations require the
local government to hold at least one public meeting to inform interested
parties of the proposed landfill facility. According to documentation submitted
by Cherokee County, a public meeting was properly advertised and held on
August 29, 1994.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Ms. Anna M. Rieff
Page 2
November 5, 1997
In your letter, you questioned the issuance of a permit without having
requirements regarding a recycling program. The state encourages waste
reduction and recycling; however, the regulations governing the issuance of a
Permit to Construct do not link the permit to recycling programs. Since
Cherokee County submitted the appropriate information, plans, and
documents required for a permit, the Permit to Construct was issued.
You inquired about safeguards to ensure that there is no illegal dumping
of hazardous materials. Certain hazardous and other wastes are banned from
disposal in municipal solid waste landfills. These landfills must have an
operations plan in place to attempt to detect and reject banned materials.
Municipal solid waste landfills that allow such materials to be disposed in their
facilities are subject to citation and civil penalties issued by the state Division
of Waste Management.
The anticipated life of the entire Cherokee County landfill facility is
projected to be about 32 years. This projection is based upon current waste
receipts at the existing landfill and is subject to seasonal variability and
potential increases due to population growth. An aggressive waste reduction
and recycling program might decrease the flow into the facility, resulting in a
different total life for the landfill.
I appreciate you interest in solid waste management issues and hope
that my responses address some of your concerns.
Sincerely,
William L. Meyer
Director
cc: Governor James B. Hunt Jr.
DENR Secretary Wayne McDevitt
William Sessoms

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RALEIGH 27603-8001
October 31, 1997
Ms. Anna M. Rieff
Burnt Branch Overlook Association
# 1 Burnt Branch Overlook
Marble, NC 28905
Dear Ms. Rieff:
Thank you for your letter concerning the landfill under construction in Marble,
North Carolina.
The Division of Waste Management in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources is the state agency responsible for permitting and regulating
municipal solid waste landfills in North Carolina. I have referred your letter to the
division for response.
If you have any additional questions concerning the regulation of solid waste
landfills, please contact Mr. William L. Meyer, director of the Division of Waste
Management, at 919-733-4996.
My warmest personal regards
Sincerely,
James B. Hunt Jr.
JBH/wlm
cc: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Waste Management
CJ

State of North Carolina
MICHAEL F. EASLEY I)e1)drtinerll of JUSTiee Reply to: Daniel C. Oakley
ATTORNEY GENERAL 111. 0. 13OX 629 Environmental Division
RALEIGH epdoak o mail.jus.state.nc.us
[phone]
2 7 602 0629 [phone] (Fax)
September 22, 1997 '
Ms. Anna M. Rieff
Burnt Branch Overlook Association
91 Burnt Branch Overlook
Marble, North Carolina 28905
Re: Your letter dated September 3, 1997
Dear Ms. Rieff:
Thank you for your letter dated September 3, 1997 which Attorney General Michael F. Easley
referred to me for response. I am aware that you have provided this information directly to DENR
and that the Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section, is in the process of preparing a
response to your concerns regarding the solid waste issues that y_ou have raised. The Environmental
Division of the Attorney General's Office advises that agency on legal matters, and we will be
working with them on the response.
I appreciate your concerns regarding the siting of a landfill in the community of Marble, however,
you should refer this matter to the local district attorney if you believe that criminal violations of
North Carolina law have occurred in the process of acquiring land for the landfill.
You may also wish to consider whether to initiate a private civil lawsuit in this matter. However,
you will need to consult a private attorney in this regard as members of the Attorney General's staff
are only authorized to provide legal opinions or advice to public officials. We are not authorized to
provide legal opinions or advice to private citizens or organizations.
Very truly yours,
J(�, 0-kL-�,
Daniel C. Oakley
Senior Deputy Attorney General
DCO/cn
cc: Hampton Dellinger
Dexter Matthews
Pero

BURNT BRANCH OVERLOOK ASSOCIAI SON
#1 BURNT BRANCH OVERLOOK 1 MARBLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28905
Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone] r
The Honorable Lauch Faircloth
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Faircloth
�2Z z�Zq��
SEP 1997
RECEIVED '
DiV. Of
Environmental
Health
�1g �P Jl�r.i1 2: 27
The residents of Cherokee County, North Carolina, are opposed to a landfill under construction
on an 85.84 acre tract, commonly known as the West property. It is located on U.S. Hwy 19/29174, in the
community of Marble, North Carolina. Based on findings, we request your assistance with the following:
1. That a State Attorney review our concerns, and be assigned to represent the taxpayers of
Cherokee County;
2. If irregularities have occurred, that an injunction be placed on the construction of the Marble
landsite until a full investigation has been conducted;
3. That representatives from the DEHNER and NC Department of Solid Waste review our solid
waste problems and assist Cherokee County in establishing a workable plan that will bring the County in
compliance with the mandates of NC Statutes on Solid Waste Disposal; and,
4. A full audit of Cherokee County public funds be conducted by the NC Department of
Revenue, utilizing an auditor from outside Cherokee County; dating from inception of the landfill
construction and purcnase of property.
Your assistance will be very much appreciated. Please feel free to contact us should you require
additional information
Enclosures: (1)
areas of Concern
(2)
Report on Landfill
(3)
Deed of Trust
(4)
Warranty Deed
(5)
Swid Waste Management Annual Report for 1996
(6)
NC Statutes 153A-40, 160A-20
(7)
NC General Warranty Deed
(8)
Indenture between State of NC & County of Cherokee
(9)
NC Deed of Trust between County & Mr. West
(10)
2 rierokee County Budget Message for 1997 & 1998

1. Mr. West's parcel of land, identified as 77-00-80-00039770-39665, had a
total of 63 acres of cow pasture land. When he offered the parcel for sale (Feb 94) to
the County, his offer was for eighty (80) acres @ $10,000.00 per acre. In June 1995, a
survey conducted by Jeffrey B. Weatherly indicated the parcel to be 85.84 acres. Why
the discrepancies? Were taxes paid on the whole parcel, or just 63 acres?
2. How did the parcel, valued at $1,000.00 per acre, become worth $10,000.00
-e? When the countv buvs acreaoe at $10.000.00 per acre, would it not be in
their best interest to know just how big the parcel is?
3. Mr. West never requested a down payment on his original offer, why did the
Cherokee County Commissioners give him a deposit of $25,000.00? When was this
money paid to Mr. West? Why did the Commissioners keep this information to
themselves until financing of the next proposal had taken placeSeptember 03, 1995'
4. All during negotiations, the County Commissioners referred to the parcel as
being 78 acres, with only thirty acres usable; there was also mention that the property
consisted of 80 acres. No mention was made of 85.84 acres until the purchase was
final.
5. Why did the County need such a large parcel if they only planned to build a
5.5 acre landfill?
6. At no time did any of the Commissioners question this acquisition in a public
forum.
7. When the papers were filed at the courthouse, why were there no notary
seals or tax stamps? Staff at the Registrar of Deeds office stated that this was very
irregular.
8. Was this a legal filing?
9. Does the County own the land or does it still belong to Mr. West and family?
10. Would it not be a conflict of interest to be a County Commissioner and also
to be Mr. West's attorney, as was the case with Nolan Smith?
11. Is the State or County owed money for taxes by Mr. West and family?
12. Would it be legal to construct a landfill financed by Mr. West and family?
13. Would the contract with the engineering company which is building the
landfill be null and void if, in fact there were discrepancies in the purchase of the land
for the landfill?

Page 2
14. Can the County afford to build the landfill without help from other counties?
15. Did the Commissioners overstep their authority by committing taxpayers to a
project, without holding public meetings where residents are informed and could voice
their opinions?
16. Why was the contract for sale written to finance only $765,000.00 instead of
$850,000.00? Why, in the contract file at the courthouse, is there no mention of the
down payment of $25,000.00 and $60,000.00?
17. How did County officials know how much tax was owed, and how much was
paid? Isn't it the case, that actual cost paid is assessed by tax stamps? Why are there
no tax stamps on these documents?
18. How is the County able to operate a solid waste program if it does not meet
the mandates of NC law?
19. Why are landfill permits issued if the County has no workable solid waste
disposable or recycling plan, and none planned for the future?
20. Is the added landfill tax legal if not assessed on all persons dumping
garbage in the landfill; moreover, never voted on by County residents? This is taxation
without representation.
21. What safeguards are in place to ensure that there is no illegal dumping of
hazardous materials?
22. What is the real lifespan of the landfill without proper controls in terms of
material dumped?
23. What is the real cost of this landfill in terms of taxpayers' dollars; has an
official audit ever been conducted on this entire transaction?
24. Why isn't more attention being paid to educating the community on the
benefits of recycling; and placement of recycling containers next to trash bins?

This is a request for assistance from your office. The following report is made
available to you and your staff, it outlines the problems associated with the construction
of the Cherokee County, Marble, NC landfill. Residents of the area fought the
construction of this landfill site, but were hindered at every step by County
Commissioners elected to work in behalf of their constituents. In most cases,
issues were not allowed to be on the agenda. The landfill issue was simply bulldozed
through with no regard to public outcry. The record of how the land was sold and
purchased fo-r-this landfill site appears to have many improper procedures associated
with it. There appears to have been misuse of public tax dollars in the construction of
this landfill site. There were secret meetings held by the Commissioners discussing the
landfill, when there is a law prohibiting such closed meetings. As of this present date,
construction is underway with no regard to residents surrounding the landfill site.
Noise, dust, and loss of substantial money by owners of real estate overlooking this
landfill are the results. Many of the individuals who own homes that overlook the site
are retired and have their life savings tied up in their homes. There is little likelihood
that they will be able to sell their homes because of the landfill. We, as affected and
concerned residents of Marble, NC, ask your assistance in investigating the funding
and building of this landfill site, located in a residential area. It seems that local public
officials have already made up their mind as to whose side they are on, and it is not the
citizens who are most affected. Your assistance in this matter will be most appreciated.
The following material was researched in the Cherokee Scout newspapers,
dated from 1992 through 1997, and/or at the Cherokee County Court House, Murphy,
NC. It is presented as a record of probable improper conduct by the Commissioners
involved in this landfill proposition. And would lead any prudent person to at least
investigate the legal aspects of the process used to fund and build this landfill in a
residential and state designated scenic area.
Persons involved: Former Cherokee County Commissioners Nolan Smith, Bob Gibson,
Ab Graves, Bill Green, former County Town Manager, Commissioner George Postell,
and former Commissioner Charles Laney, Commissioner Eugene Morrow, County
Manager Rick Honeycutt, County Attomey Scott Lindsay, and Herman West and family.
—1994- An 85.84 Acre Parcel of land, owned by the Herman West family, was
offered for sale to the Cherokee County, at a value of $10,000.00 per acre. (NOTE: it
is interesting that the Registrar of Deeds, also documented in the Cherokee Scout
newspaper in 1988, described this same parcel of land as a cow pasture and valued at
only $1,000.00 per acre). Latest research conducted at the Office of Registrar of
Deeds reflects that, in actuality, the West parcel of land [Identifier No.
77-00-80-00039770-39665) was originally noted as being only 63 acres, at a value of

Landfill Site
Page 2
$1,000.00 per acre. It is also interesting to note that just prior to the landfill deal, a new
survey conducted on this property, on June 20, 1995, reflected the land encompassed
85.84 acres vice 63 acres. -Nevertheless, this parcel of land was purchased by
Cherokee County at $10,000.00 per acre. As you will note below, in February of 1994
prior to the June 20 fi995-survey)-the-Herman West family -gave -the -Coon y a six
month option to purchase their "80 acre" land site (vice 63 acres, valued at $1,000.00
per acre, as was registered at the Court House), for use as the new landfill site.
—February 1994: The Herman West family gave Former Commissioners Smith,
Graves, and Gibson, a six month option to purchase the 80 acre land site for possible
use as the new landfill.
—March 1994: Commissioners move $24,810.00 out of contingency fund for
landfill purposes; $11,310.00 moved to landfill outlay fund; $9,810.00 for gravel and
roadwork to recycling center at facility; $2,500.00 for contract services; $2,500.00 for
supplies; $8,500.00 for equipment repairs.
—March 9, 1994: First public statement that the landfill currently in use was
unlined and must be closed by October 6, 1996. (Note: there is an urgency to find a
new landfill site or another way to dispose of solid waste.)
Clay and Graham Counties landfill will be full by April 1994. Paul Jordan, Clay
County Chairman of Tri-County Solid Waste Authority, stated: "The authority has an
option to purchase a new landfill site in Cherokee County and is awaiting State officials
to perform boring tests. Second option is to export solid waste to another county or
state; this would be one of the better options." Jordan said that a new landfill would
cost $3 million, plus $50.00 per ton to operate.
Cherokee County, Georgia would accept solid waste at $26.10 per ton if the
County hauls it there. If Georgia were to handle the transportation, it would charge an
additional $12.00 per ton. North Carolina already exports to Virginia and South
Carolina.
Jordan states that it will be expensive to build a new landfill and close down old
landfills in Clay, Cherokee, and Graham Counties.
--June 12, 1990-: $60,000.00 given to West as down payment on property.
—June 15, 1994: $12.2 million budget proposed for upcoming year, to include
$308,186.00 for debt service, $150,000.00 to renovate the courthouse, with the Landfill

Landfill Site
Page 3
remainder earmarked for the new landfill. County lists short term debt. The $60,000.00
paid to Herman West and family had not been budgeted. Beginning next fiscal year,
July 96/97, cost will run around $103,939.00 per year for the next ten years, or
1,039.39 .00 1.4 million).
—June 22, 1994: Bond increased from $10 to $11 million.
—July 27, 1994: First steps taken to commence new landfill. It was stated at the
Commission Meeting: "Current five year permit for the landfill runs out on October 6,
1996. (Note: that is when the old landfill had to close, by law, because it was an
unlined landfill and did not meet the new standards of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR]. "By 1996, a 2' cap of concrete and clay was
to cover the existing landfill, topped with an 18' layer of soil. Grass will be planted and
the site can never be used for any sort of development that entails closed buildings. In
conjunction with the closure, Clay, Graham and Cherokee counties will enter into
contract agreements. There will be a $36.00 per ton tipping fee, plus handling costs.
(Note: As of, August 28, 1997, the landfill is still being used.)
Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority was founded. All three counties
were to share in the cost.
Four possible sites for the new landfill were considered:
1. Fairview Road
2. Panther Top
3. Caney Creek
4. Peachtree
The only option discussed was Fairview Road (78 acres, with only 30 of those
being usable.)
West offered the County a six month option to purchase his land, at $10,000.00
per acre. If this option was not exercised, the price would then escalate to $11,000.00
per acre.
Commissioner Jordan stated: "Permits may only be granted for landfills for five
years each time. In theory, he added, the county should be into its third year of
dumping refuse into the first cell while work on the second cell is initiated."
Proposal by the Municipal Engineering, Garner, NC:

Landfill Site
Page 4
—Cost of first cell stated to be approximately 2.5 million:
a. $250.000.00/Engineering;
b. $1.8 million/Actual construction cost; and,
c. $100,000.00/Upgrade pump station
The $2.5 million does not include land cost estimated to be at $850,000 paic
over ten years, with an addition of 7% interest; or, an annual sum of approximately
$122,000.00: That would bring the cost to $3.385 million (per cell). The funding to be
obtained by an obligation bond, 5 years at 7%.
If the principal amounted to 2.5 million (minus cost of the land), the annual '
payments would run approximately $572,450.00. Additional land cost, $122,000.00.
Total preliminary cost, $694,450.00.
It should be noted that this amount does not include the following:
1. Annual operational costs
2. Purchase of equipment for landfill
3. Pan loader, trash compactor [$750,000.00]
4. Six man personnel [$146,224.00]
Additionally, there would be other necessary costs for materials such as fuel and
manual operations which would total $466,244.00.
Total annual estimated cost would be $1,160,694.00.
At the Commissioners meetings, there was never mention of how many cells
were to be built, only that the new plan would start with a 5.5 acre cell, consisting of a
life span of 3-5 years.
(Note: If, as was stated during one of the Commissioner's meetings that only 30 acres
would be usable (a smaller landfill than the old landfill which consisted of 40 acres),
then it would be logical to expect about five (5) cells, costing $2.3 million each or $27.5
million over 25 years [or sooner since the area is growing at an unprecedented rate].
The total cost of the entire project was never discussed. The Commissioners had, on
several occasions, used the $3 million dollar figure.
Factors in cost of operations include land cost of $1.4 million, plus the cost to
close the old landfill.

Landfill Site
Page 5
Commissioner Jordan was appointed "Recycling Coordinator_" A binding
agreement between counties stipulated how much each county would pay on a yearly
basis for maintenance and construction based on population usage: Cherokee County
- 58%; Graham and Clay Counties 21 06 each—.Fundsto-be obtained -by obliga i—on
bonds.
In August of 1994, Cherokee County residents voiced objections to the landfill.
Fifty residents attended a Commissioners' meeting questioning why a landfill was to be
built (1) next to the Valley River; a pristine trout river flowing into TVA lakes; (2) in one
of the most picturesque sites in the county, a marked scenic highway in North Carolina;
(3) so very near to the airport... birds of prey, possible bird strikes of aircraft [Note:
Military and/or Air National Guard conduct regular training missions around this area].
Why were the residents of Marble not given a chance to vote on such a decision which
effects every aspect of their lives, not to mention reduction of property values, noise
and air pollution?
The Commissioners simply told residents that those subjects could not be
discussed. The only subject to be discussed was the actual building of the landfill.
—October 1, 1994: A new law is passed and goes into effect which requires
open meetings regarding use of public land.
—October 12, 1994: Commissioner Gibson states at a public meeting: "We
haven't bought any land and we haven't sold any land." Tri-Country Solid Waste
Authority stated that purchase of property was not in their jurisdiction. This refers to
offer made by the Herman West family.
—October 12, 1994: Copy of "Study Plan" was sent to NC State Government.
—October 26, 1994, Birds of prey create problems with airport due to landfill
being so close. FAA recommends that Cherokee County hold off regarding purchase
of property designated for land iil. FAA stated: "Due to the valley location and it's
restricted flight paths, most arrivals and departures will pass over or very near the
proposed landfill. There apparently -is a serious question of whether the existing site
(subject landfill property) can be safely continued and expanded complying with
Federal regulations. Therefore, we strongly urge Cherokee County not to take any
irreversible action or commit irretrievable resources to this project until a determination
can be made."

Landfill Site
Page 6
—October 1994: The offer made by the Heenan West family expires. A new
offer is proposed:
Option 1: $10,000.00 per acre; no down payment; ten year payback
period @ 7% interest, with the West's holding the mortgage.
If option is not taken within a six month period, the price
would escalate to $11,000.00 per acre. This offer also
expired.
Option 2: 20% down payment, or $170,000.00 to be financed over six
years, at $11,000.00 per acre with 7% interest and loan
financed by West.
—October 1994: Tri-County Solid Waste Authority announces that they are just
an advisory board and are not authorized to purchase land. No inter -county agreement
had been signed; therefore, they cannot be liable for any debt. All tests and permits
had been filed under the Tri-County Solid Waste Authority. If Cherokee County wants
to pursue an application process, they must begin anew.
November 2, 1994: Commissioners sought permit to kill birds of prey around
proposed landfill. (Permit was later denied.)
—November 16, 1994: Graham and Clay Counties pull out of the landfill deal.
County Manager Bill Green publicly states that Cherokee County will not proceed with
this endeavor. Commissioner Crisp from Graham County states other alternatives
which should be studied. Commissioner Jordan, from Clay County, said money for the
West land deal was not budgeted so they would also jointly withdraw. Commissioner
Gibson once again reiterates that no money for the landfill changed hands.
—November 23, 1994: Final meeting of outgoing Commissioners Nolan Smith,
Graves, and Gibson.
—November 29, 1994: Unannounced meeting is held by the three outgoing
Commissioners. Herman West approaches the Commissioners. He says that since the
other counties backed out of the deal, he will now go with the first offer he receives. A
vote is taken. Gibson votes NO. Graves states that a lot of money was spent and
simply thrown away. Graves votes YES. Smith votes YES. The County Attomey was
out of town and did not attend the meeting. Please refer to NC Statutes 160A-20 and
153A-40.

Landfill Site
Page 7
(NOTE: At this time, Nolan Smith is an Attorney -at -Law practicing in Murphy, NC;
therefore, there appears to be a conflict of interest for Nolan Smith to vote on a land
deal from which his family would profit. Furthermore, being an attorney, Smith should
have been aware of this personal conflict. Nolan Smith was also a County
Commissioner and Mr. West's personal attorney, representing Mr. West in the land
deal. There is also some question as to whether this meeting was legal; since as of
October 1, 1994 a new law required that all meetings regarding use of land must be
held open and the public allowed to voice their opinions. It would appear that this
closed, secret meeting was held for the sole purpose of keeping Mr. West's land deal
alive. Herman West also owns a land clearing and construction company. He owned
the land, could certainly handle the financing, and was capable of building the landfill.
On the face of it, there was a great opportunity to profit at the taxpayers' expense, with
no input from the taxpayers).
—December 7, 1994: First meeting of new Commissioners held. Laney, Morrow,
and Postell. They questioned the legality of the 11/29/94 meeting. Requested the
County Attorney to give his opinion. New Commissioners decided they would ponder
the options available. They would look at the Swain County and hauling garbage. Bill
Green said that although the other counties pulled out of the landfill deal, their final
intentions were not certain.
Note: There is evidence that $25,000.00 of County Tax money had been paid to
Herman Weston his first offer regarding the land deal; however, that offer did not
require an earnest fee. This appears to be an illegal use of taxpayer money; it had not
budgeted; and, for several months the Commissioners assured our citizens, over and
over, that no money had changed hands.
The new Commissioners state:
—1. The $25,000.00 directly paid to Mr. West will be subtracted from the down
payment of $85,000.00, should the county proceed with the deal.
--2. If the county backs out, Mr. West will be allowed to retain the money.
(Commissioners state that this is because West kept the land off the market while
testing was conducted. These decisions were all taken without public knowledge or
permission.)
—3. If the property is unsuitable, West could return the money, but would not be
required to do so.

Landfill Site
Page 8
—December 28, 1994: Phillips & Jordan offer to build landfill at no cost to
counties. Commissioner Jordan wants to look into the cost of hauling garbage. It
—April 5, 1995: Bill Green hands out packets on Marble landfill site.
—June-7, 1995: Commissioners approve purchase of West property. Rick
Honeycutt says that the land may be used for a transfer site or not used at all; however,
that would be okay. (Note: The Commissioners overstepped their authority by
committing taxpayer money to buy a tract of land that would cost approximately $1.4
million dollars over a ten year period.)
The Commissioners said plans for the landfill were on hold. Honeycutt said they
would ask for an extension to use the current landfill until 1998. (Note: Back in March,
when told that the present landfill had to close by October 6, 1996, no mention was
made that an extension was possible. It was made to sound as though immediate
action must be taken.) Honeycutt stated that he wanted more time to study the landfill
project.
Then, the subject of the existing landfill came up. Roger West, son of Herman
West, had a piece of property on State Hwy 19/29 and comer of St. Rd 141 at the
center of Marble. Commissioners were told that soil testing had been done and that the
soil was good for — and final cover at the existing landfill. There was a proposal to
expand the current landfill. Honeycutt said it would cost the county $978,000.00 to
purchase the dirt from other sources, and that Roger West would give us the dirt at no
cost. Please document Mr. Honeycutt's cost estimate for dirt —approximately $1 million.
(Note: Leveling his property on those comers would enhance the value of Mr. West's
property at taxpayers' expense since County personnel would handle hauling the dirt.)
—August 1995: Commissioners request loan in the amount of $765,000.00 to
purchase an 85 acre parcel of land in Marble. (Note: Who did they ask for this
money? Herman West?
—October 4, 1995: Honeycutt meeting was held between landfill supervisor
Robert Allen and State Representative Wayne Sullivan to discuss permit extension on
existing landfill, as by April 1996 present life of landfill expires. Recycling was
discussed. Solid waste shipping also discussed. Sullivan was to obtain facts and
report them at the next Commissioners' meeting.
—November 8, 1995: NOTE. Free Dirt. County spends $40,000.00 to haul dirt
three miles from Hwy 141/19/29 ,Roger West's' land, to old landfill. Approximately

Landfill Site
Page 9
$1.00 per cubic foot. Commissioners state they asked for a loan in August to buy the
85 acre landfill site in Marble. They stated that this new site would save money hauling
was approved. Honeycutt said that they didn't have the new parcel when they needed
the dirt. (Note: The West family, once again, profited on the dirt which the County
Commissioners purchased from Roger West...
The Board of Commissioners do not contest subject plan, although it is
contested by outside agencies, i.e., the Tri-County Waste Authority, the FAA, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the residents of Marble. The Commissioners
do not appear to working on behalf of all their constituents, just a few who profited
handsomely.
Questions: Was the loan to the county for the land purchase given by West and held in
trust by West and family?
Why does the deed for the land sale by West to the County NOUNOT
contain Tax Stamps and Seals that are required of all sales of real estate? Did West
pay taxes on this sale?
What is the real cost of the landfill to taxpayers and to those who own
land surrounding the landfill? Who really benefited from this landfill? Certainly not the
residents of Marble, NC.
—January 31, 1996: Cherokee County Commissioners set a February 19
deadline to decide whether Clay and Graham County would participate in a new
landfill. Decision might determine the outcome of Cherokee County's plan to build the
new landfill. Graham and Clay Counties would be expected to commit to the new
landfill at their February 5th meeting. Paul Jordan, Clay County, stated that they might
follow suite, but were also exploring other possibilities.
"We can't afford to have it (a new landfill) dumped in our laps, " said Charles Laney.
Chairman of Cherokee County Commissioners. "If the other counties can't be in it, we
need to know right now. It would definitely be easier if all three counties participated,"
stated Laney.
In June, Cherokee County paid more than $800,000.00 for an 80 acre tract in Marble,
ostensibly the site for a new landfill. Construction, alone, will cost $2.5 million.
Engineers estimate annual operating cost expenses at $851,751.00. Should Clay and
Graham decide to seek other options, Cherokee might consider hauling its garbage out

Landfill Site
Page 10
of the area. County Manager, Rick Honeycutt, said: "If all three counties are not
involved, we might look to see if hauling is more feasible."
In 1994, the State set a drop dead rate of October 6, 1996 on the Cherokee County
landfill. The mandate required that Cherokee, Clay, and Graham counties be dumping
into a new "lined" landfill by that date. Cherokee County requested extensions to use
the current landfill; new date for closure of old landfill was set at January 1, 1998.
By the November 14, 1995 meeting of all three counties, Graham and Clay counties
had decided not to support the new Cherokee County landfill.
On December 5, 1995, new Commissioners took office, including some new
Commissioners from Clay and Graham counties; the tone of proceeding jointly
changed. The new Commissioners seemed to want to go forward with the landfill plan.
"I feel comfortable staying with Cherokee County," said Dale Wiggins, Graham County
Manager and Commission ^ ;ember. He also stated: "I don't foresee us going
anywhere else. The economics are something we must consider. We have to lay out a
lot of money (to build a landfill in Graham), and I don't think we could find a suitable
site."
Graham will vote on February 5, 1996; Clay County must decide before the deadline.
Said Jordan: We're not going to build a landfill and I don't know if hauling is an option.
We would like to satisfy ourselves by researching our options. I feel like we owe it to
our constituency."
If all three counties were not yet unified on a new landfill, the three Commission Boards
were steadfast on one issue ... all wanted to tie future county leaders to whatever
decision was made. In the event that all three counties forged ahead together, then all
would sign a long-term contract, legally binding each to the landfill. Said Laney. " We
need to draw up a contract to commit all three counties for the long term so that it can't
be changed." "Landfill construction would begin early next year, if the counties give
the go ahead," stated Wayne Sullivan.
—February 7, 1996: Waste disposal increases in the State. "Economic growth in
NC appears to be an important factor in the increasing amount of waste disposed,"
stated Meyer, Director of Solid Waste Management. 8.7% in Cherokee County.
--March 6, 1996: Cherokee residents recycle less than 1 % of trash.
Commissioners worried over local recycling to be less than 1 % of county trash
recycled. Commissioner George Postell said he had received some complaints about

Landfill Site
Page 11
the recycling center in Andrews. These complaints centered around the messiness at
the facility and lack of lighting during the evenings. The county provides two manned
Shopping Center. Facilities are manned from 0800 hours until noon, on Mondays
through Fridays. Also, there is an unmanned center at Hiawassee Dam School which
contains bins for recyclables. The Cherokee County Manager said that he would look
into the Andrews situation and have the problems corrected. Honeycutt also gave a
brief update on local recycling efforts. He said the county had applied for a $25,000.00
grant which, if obtained, would pay for more recycling trailers like the one at the school;
this would make recycling more accessible to the rest of the County. It was stated that
the grant would be awarded in June 1996. Honeycutt added that the extension office
was helping with overall recycling efforts, mainly dealing with petroleum containers and
pesticides. It was noted that recycling companies take only high-grade plastics and
that is a big problem, including the amount leftover. They have to be sorted by Landfill
color and number, which takes a considerable amount of time. The centers were
established in July of 1993, under the 1989 NC Solid Waste disposal Improvement Act.
Local government was required to reduce its solid waste. NC law also requires that
local government participate in source reduction through recycling and reduction of
waste.
—April 3, 1996: Landfill options is topic of Commissioners' session. Cherokee
County Commissioners continue their Monday evening meeting until Tuesday
afternoon, at 15:30 hours. At that meeting, the Board was scheduled to discuss the
local landfill situation. Among the topics to be discussed were, whether Clay and
Graham Counties would continue disposing their waste into the Cherokee County
landfill and future plans concerning expansion of local facility.
—April 10, 1996: Clay Commissioners reject the Cherokee landfill deal.
Cherokee and Graham Counties will enter into an agreement concerning the long-term
use of the new landfill to be built in Marble. Officials of Clay County opted out of the
ten year proposal.
Both Clay and Graham Counties had until April 1 to decide. Cherokee County
Manager Rick Honeycutt stated: "We needed to know from each county their intentions
concerning garbage disposal on a long-term basis so that we, in turn, could know how
big a cell we must build." Honeycutt also stated that the engineering estimates (based
on annual garbage volume received from each county) determined that a 5 and 1/2
acre lined cell would be needed for the disposal of Cherokee County waste.
Approximately 1 and 1/2 acre per cell would be needed for the disposal of Graham
County's trash, plus a 1 acre lined cell for Clay County. Cost to turn the land into a

Landfill Site
Page 12
fully lined EPA Agency approved waste disposal cell was estimated by engineers at
approximately $300,000.00 per acre. According to engineering estimates construction
for an eight acre landfill cell, which would serve the three counties, would cost about
$2.5 million. The life of the cell would be approximately ten years. H—o—n—ey—cuff said that
it might last longer if disposal of the garbage in the landfill was decreased. He
additionally stated: "That's why we must seriously look at recycling and composting as
other viable methods of garbage disposal. The less thrown in, the longer it will last."
—April 10, 1996: Honeycutt and Graham County sent a letter of intention to
County Commissioners for a ten year contract. Graham County said that, after the ten
year contract expired, they would probably look into constructing its own landfill.
During the April Meeting, Clay County said they would forego the agreement with
Cherokee County for the following reasons:
1. Cherokee County wanted Clay county to be responsible for ensuring
commercial haulers paid their tipping fees at the landfill;
2. Clay County Commissioner, Chairman Paul Jordan, said that several
haulers had been dumping at the Cherokee landfill, and due to delinquent fees, had
been turned away. Clay County Commissioners said they should not be held
responsible to those fees.
3. Clay County Commissioners also said that they rejected the landfill
proposal because they wanted to put some money up front to help finance the new
landfill; instead, Cherokee County wanted a ten-year contract specifying a definite flow
of funds from Clay County for the trash disposal. During the April 11 meeting (????) ,
the price of disposal quoted by Cherokee County was higher than that offered by
contractors to haul Clay County's trash to an outside site, Cherokee County charged
$50.00 per ton, plus a $125.00 hauling fee. At previous Clay County meetings,
representatives of Sanifill offered to haul, and dispose of garbage, for only $38.00 per
ton. The regular meeting of the Cherokee County Commissioners, usually held on
Mondays, was carried over to a 'Special Meeting" on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, at 1530
hours. They voted to hire Municipal Engineering Service to design and oversee
construction and state permits for a new landfill, with cost not to exceed $200,000.00
(design, engineering, and permit costs).
--April 10, 1996: Cherokee County must have new landfill ready to operate by
January 1, 1998. The state agreed to extend the life of the present landfill until that
date. Original date for closure of old landfill had been October 6, 1996. The new

Landfill Site
Page 13
landfill will be located next to the current facility in Marble. In June, Cherokee County
Commissioners voted to buy, approximately, an 80 acre tract to be used as the new
landfill site at a cost of $800,00.00. Payments were to be made over a ten-year period
at 7%. Cherokee County also paid an initial $80,000.00 downpayment. Since then,
reported Honeycutt, the County has paid one annual installment of $103,938.00 to the
Herman West family. He also noted that, yearly operational costs of the new landfill
are expectedto reach between $800,000.00 and $850,000.00.
—March 5, 1997: Graham County decides to keep trash in their county.
$100,000.00 was too high a price to dump in the Cherokee County landfill. Graham
County asks for a five year contract, while they can look at a landfill space of their own.
As noted by reporters, if Graham County pulls out of the landfill deal, Commissioners
have the choice of selling some of the land and making a smaller profit. Laney
originally requested a ten year contract so that Graham would not back out. Cherokee
and Graham were to meet the following Wednesday to discuss the agreement
—March 12, 1997: Cherokee and Graham Counties landfill deal goes full stream
ahead. Graham officials agree to go along if their attorneys can work out a contract.
Honeycutt says that the Commissioners will proceed with construction plans and the
approved financing for the landfill.
—March 17, 1997: Mandatory pre -bidding on construction is to take place, on
March 24, 1996, at the landfill site. Commissioners will select contracting agency by
April 15, 1997. Wayne Sullivan stated that, ideally, a general contractor would be most
experienced in laying clay ... then he would sub -contract out. Total construction time
was estimated at five months. Contractors would allow 180 days. Late days would
cost $500.00 per day.
Commissioners approve a special obligation bond for financing, not to exceed $3.5
million. They agree to sell bonds at a private sale and approve the Sanford Holshouser
Law Firm as bond attorney. Under the bond, Commissioners have to obligate fees to
repay the loan. These would be collected by the County, not to exceed $707,000.00;
but, according to Honeycutt, at least $550,000.00. The resolution stated that the
obligated revenues would include:
1. Net solid waste system receipts from all systems revenue
2. Ambulance Fees
3. Health Department Fees
4. Any county revenue which could be deemed as obligated revenue

Landfill Site
Page 14
According to the bidding contract, 14 items were included:
1. Mobilization and demobilization
2. Clearing and grubbing, 14 acres
3. Erosion Control (lump sum)
4. Seeding and mulching, 15 acres
5. Cohesive soil liner, 306,700 sq.ft.
6. 60 mil. flexible membrane liner
7. Protective cover, 306,700 sq.fL
8. 6" Leachate collection system
9. 1950 sq.ft. 8" leachate system, 2,650 ft.
10. Pump station with 3' force main (lump sum)
11. Leachate lagoon (lump sum)
12. Existing landfill closure, 14 acres
13. Site work consisting of excavation, compacting tests, waste disposal,
berm construction (lump sum)
14. 30' wide access road, to include 2" 1-2 surface 1010 ft. and a 20 ft. access
road. 2,450 ft.
—April 30, 1997: Graham County rejects latest landfill proposal. Cherokee
County will go head with plan for smaller landfill in Marble. Graham County will go on
its own way.
—August 1-997: construction of new landfill begins with open burning of debris.
Engineering report on the landfill states that it will accept asbestos, animal carcasses;
although they say they will not accept hazardous waste, presently there are no controls
to ascertain what is being dumped in the landfill. We feel that methane, gas and
asbestos fibers would be detrimental to human health. Additionally the building of this
landfill is to go on indefinitely. Residents on ridges above landfill are subjected to
smoke pollution --two had to seek medical help for respiratory distress syndrome and
asthma. Windows could not be opened because of smoldering debris. Work
commences at dawn and there is constant noise from dawn until dark. Residents are
unable to sleep because of loud noises from construction and trucks. Residents are
under considerable duress, seven (7) days per week. It appears that landfill workers
do not take a day off. Residents are being exposed to noise and air pollution
everyday. It is causing medical difficulties for area residents. To date construction
continues.
Your assistance is requested and required. Considerable harm is being done to
residents of this area and to their economic well being. Your attention to this matter is

Landfill Site
Page 15
appreciated. You may contact the undersigned regarding any questions you may have
regarding -this -request. - -
SIGNED BY CHEROKEE COUNTY RESIDENTS, on September 3, 1997:
Lcll�

TO: Zvw c---: c-j
DATE:
SUBJECT:
­5 t-zz-
,
-T'V
From:
'W 2M,
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Printed on Recycled Papei

June 20, 1997
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division Waste Management
401 Overland Road Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
We, the undersigned, want to register with this department, our opposition to locating the new landfill in
Cherokee County as planned by the County Commissioners at this time. Following is a list of some of our
concerns regarding this landfill as it affects Cherokee County.
1. It would be an eyesore on an official Scenic Highway.
2. It would be an eyesore to anyone flying into the Andrews -Murphy Airport.
3. Due to it's proximity to the landfill, the probability is great that the landfill would pollute the Valley
River.
4. Potential danger to aircraft movement at the airport due to the number of vultures attracted by the
landfill,
5. Cost to Cherokee County now that Graham and Clay County have withdrawn from the support and use
of this new landfill. Taxes would no doubt be raised considerably.
j
6. Degradation of property value of the surrounding area. This is a fairly densely populated area. Land
farther removed from homes is available in the county in abundance. The highways leading to the current
landfill now are littered with trash from the dump trucks on their trip to the landfill.
7. There are alternative means of disposal... most of them far more cost effective than this proposed
landfill and much more environmentally friendly.
We sincerely hope this department will give our concerns serious consideration before granting approval
for this landfill.
Address
el
4C
N �A),
ma/1 l l� Cr �0

Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Page -2- (for continuing signatures)
Name
A�r� oj &nc)-'�' ,
!' ti 0� 405
Address
June 20, 1997
3 (.. ,
Z) A CC
� � C
11 S-4EF-v Y nth I9 Dfi,
ke, / y.<!�,
P9,

June 20, 1997
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
DiA . r�4`raste Manag€m nt
401 Overland Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
We, the undersigned, want to register with this department, our opposition to locating the new landfill in
Cherokee County as planned by the County Commissioners at this time. Following is a list of some of our
concerns regarding this landfill as it affects Cherokee County.
1. It wouid be an eyesore on an official Scenic Highway.
2. It would be an eyesore to anyone flying into the Andrews -Murphy Airport.
3. Due to it's proximity to the landfill, the probability is great that the landfill would pollute the Valley
River.
4. Potential danger to aircraft movement at the airport due to the number of vultures attracted by the
landfill.
5. Cost to Cherokee County now that Graham and Clay County have withdrawn from the support and use
of this new landfill. Taxes would no doubt be raised considerably.
6. Degradation of property value of the surrounding area. This is a fairly densely populated area. Land
farther removed from homes is available in the county in abundance. The highways leading to the current
landfill now are littered with trash from the dump trucks on their trip to the landfill.
7. There are alternative means of disposal... most of them far more cost effective than this proposed
landfill and much more environmentally friendly.
We sincerely hope this department will give our concerns serious consideration before granting approval
for this landfill.
Address
1( If ii t< r'/
(( (i Ir 1_ I I k.

Department of Environment, Health and June 20, 1997
Natural Resources
Page -2- (for continuing signatures)
Name
Address
Yv\ I��.S Vv 19SS Cv,

UPHOUSE
ANC �905
Dept. of Environment Health
& Natural Resources
Div. Waste Management
401 Overland Rd. Ste. 150
Raleigh NC 27605
����-%J�`���'3`�-�+'�'+ 1�11111{tllti{ff�iltt{Il?71}131tii4t?{F�f{titt{
itlffll„f!?Ilt,llfll}illlllt111
-Y,L
l�jJ"`�.. (+h�l-).ten✓J_T vV�.liY ""sy� �w-i

BURNT BRANCH OVERLOOK ASSOCIATION
s�♦
#1 BURNT BRANCH OVERLOOK 1 MARBLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28905
Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]
Mr. William D. Sessoms, PE
Division of Solid Waste Management
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHNR
S E P 19 1997
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
September 03, 1997
Dear Mr. Sessoms:
The residents of Cherokee County, North Carolina, are opposed to a landfill under construction
on an 85.84 acre tract, commonly known as the West property. It is located on U.S. Hwy 19/29/74, in the
community of Marble, North Carolina. Based on findings, we request your assistance with the following:
1. That a State Attorney review our concerns, and be assigned to represent the taxpayers of
Cherokee County;
2. If irregularities have occurred, that an injunction be placed on the construction of the Marble
landsite until a full investigation has been conducted;
3. That representatives from the DEHNER and NC Department of Solid Waste review our solid
waste problems and assist Cherokee County in establishing a workable plan that will bring the County in
compliance with the mandates of NC Statutes on Solid Waste Disposal; and,
4. A full audit of Cherokee County public funds be conducted by the NC Department of
Revenue, utilizing an auditor from outside Cherokee County; dating from inception of the landfill
construction and purchase of property.
Your assistance will be very much appreciated. Please feel free to contact us should you require
additional information.
Enclosures: (1)
Areas of Concern
(2)
Report on Landfill
(3)
Deed of Trust
(4)
Warranty Deed
(5)
Solid Waste Management Annual Report for 1996
(6)
NC Statutes 153A-40, 160A-20
(7)
NC General Warranty Deed
(8)
Indenture between State of NC & County of Cherokee
(9)
NC Deed of Trust between County & Mr. West
(10)
Cherokee County Budget Message for 1997 & 1998

1
1. Mr. West's parcel of land, identified as 77-00-80-00039770-39665, had a
total of 63 acres of cow pasture land. When he offered the parcel for sale (Feb 94) to
the County, his offer was for eighty (80) acres @ $10,000.00 per acre. In June 1995, a
survey conducted by Jeffrey B. Weatherly indicated the parcel to be 85.84 acres. Why
the discrepancies? Were taxes paid on the whole parcel, or just 63 acres?
per acre? When the county buys acreage at $10,000.00 per acre, would it not be in
their best interest to know just how big the parcel is?
3. Mr. West never requested a down payment on his original offer; why did the
Cherokee County Commissioners give him a deposit of $25,000.00? When was this
money paid, to Mr. West? Why did the Commissioners keep this information to
themselves1until financing of the next proposal had taken placeSeptember 03, 1995
4. All during negotiations, the County Commissioners referred to the parcel as
being 78 acres, with only thirty acres usable; there was also mention that the property
consisted of 80 acres. No mention was made of 85.84 acres until the purchase was
final.
5. Why did the County need such a large parcel if they only planned to build a
5.5 acre landfill?
6. At no time did any of the Commissioners question this acquisition in a public
forum.
7. When the papers were filed at the courthouse, why were there no notary
seals or tax stamps? Staff at the Registrar of Deeds office stated that this was very
irregular.
8. Was this a legal filing?
9. Does the County own the land or does it still belong to Mr. West and family?
10. Would it not be a conflict of interest to be a County Commissioner and also
to be Mr. West's attorney, as was the case with Nolan Smith?
11. Is the State or County owed money for taxes by Mr. West and family?
12. Would it be legal to construct a landfill financed by Mr. West and family?
13. Would the contract with the engineering company which is building the
landfill be null and void if, in fact there were discrepancies in the purchase of the land
for the landfill?

Page 2
14. Can the County afford to build the landfill without help from other counties?
15. Did the Commissioners overstep their authority by committing taxpayers to a
project, without holding public meetings where residents are informed and could voice
16. Why was the contract for sale written to finance only $765,000.00 instead of
$850,000.00? Why, in the contract file at the courthouse, is there no mention of the
down payment of $25,000.00 and $60,000.00?
17. How did County officials know how much tax was owed, and how much was
paid? Isn't it the case, that actual cost paid is assessed by tax stamps? Why are there
no tax stamps on these documents?
18. How is the County able to operate a solid waste program if it does not meet
the mandates of NC law?
19. Why are landfill permits issued if the County has no workable solid waste
disposable or recycling plan, and none planned for the future?
20. Is the added landfill tax legal if not assessed on all persons dumping
garbage in the landfill; moreover, never voted on by County residents? This is taxation
without representation.
21. What safeguards are in place to ensure that there is no illegal dumping of
hazardous materials?
22. What is the real lifespan of the landfill without proper controls in terms of
material dumped?
23. What is the real cost of this landfill in terms of taxpayers' dollars; has an
official audit ever been conducted on this entire transaction?
24. Why isn't more attention being paid to educating the community on the
benefits of recycling; and placement of recycling containers next to trash bins?

REPORT ON THE MARBLE, NC LANDFILL SITE
This is a request for assistance from your office. The following report is made
available to you and your staff; it outlines the problems associated with the construction
of the Cherokee County, Marble, NC landfill. Residents of the area fought the
construction of this landfill site, but were hindered at every step by County
discussion at commissioners' meetings was restricted —health and property values
issues were not allowed to be on the agenda. The landfill issue was simply bulldozed
through with no regard to public outcry. The record of how the land was sold and
purchased forthis landfill site appears to have many improper procedures associated
with it. There appears to have been misuse of public tax dollars in the construction of
this landfill site. There were secret meetings held by the Commissioners discussing the
landfill, when there is a law prohibiting such closed meetings. As of this present date,
construction is underway with no regard to residents surrounding the landfill site.
Noise, dust, and loss of substantial money by owners of real estate overlooking this
landfill are the results. Many of the individuals who own homes that overlook the site
are retired and have their life savings tied up in their homes. There is little likelihood
that they will be able to sell their homes because of the landfill. We, as affected and
concerned residents of Marble, NC, ask your assistance in investigating the funding
and building of this landfill site, located in a residential area. It seems that local public
officials have already made up their mind as to whose side they are on, and it is not the
citizens who are most affected. Your assistance in this matter will be most appreciated.
The following material was researched in the Cherokee Scout newspapers,
dated from 1992 through 1997, and/or at the Cherokee County Court House, Murphy,
NC. It is presented as a record of probable improper conduct by the Commissioners
involved in this landfill proposition. And would lead any prudent person to at least
investigate the legal aspects of the process used to fund and build this landfill in a
residential and state designated scenic area.
Persons involved: Former Cherokee County Commissioners Nolan Smith, Bob Gibson,
Ab Graves, Bill Green, former County Town Manager, Commissioner George Postell,
and former Commissioner Charles Laney, Commissioner Eugene Morrow, County
Manager Rick Honeycutt, County Attorney Scott Lindsay, and Herman West and family.
- 1994: An 85.84 Acre Parcel of land, owned by the Herman West family, was
offered for sale to the Cherokee County, at a value of $10,000.00 per acre. (NOTE: it
is interesting that the Registrar of Deeds, also documented in the Cherokee Scout
newspaper in 1988, described this same parcel of land as a cow pasture and valued at
only $1,000.00 per acre). Latest research conducted at the Office of Registrar of
Deeds reflects that, in actuality, the West parcel of land (Identifier No.
77-00-80-00039770-39665) was originally noted as being only 63 acres, at a value of

Landfill Site
Page 2
$1,000.00 per acre. It is also interesting to note that just prior to the landfill deal, a new
survey conducted on this property, on June 20, 1995, reflected the land encompassed
85.84 acres vice 63 acres. Nevertheless, this parcel of land was purchased by
[prior to the June 20, 1995 survey) the Herman West family gave the County a six
month option to purchase their "80 acre" land site (vice 63 acres, valued at $1,000.00
per acre, as was registered at the Court House), for use as the new landfill site.
--February 1994: The Herman West family gave Former Commissioners Smith,
Graves, and Gibson, a six month option to purchase the 80 acre land site for possible
use as the new landfill.
--March 1994: Commissioners move $24,810.00 out of contingency fund for
landfill purposes; $11,310.00 moved to landfill outlay fund; $9,810.00 for gravel and
roadwork to recycling center at facility; $2,500.00 for contract services; $2,500.00 for
supplies; $8,500.00 for equipment repairs.
--March 9, 1994: First public statement that the landfill currently in use was
unlined and must be closed by October 6, 1996. (Note: there is an urgency to find a
new landfill site or another way to dispose of solid waste.)
Clay and Graham Counties landfill will be full by April 1994. Paul Jordan, Clay
County Chairman of Tri-County Solid Waste Authority, stated: "The authority has an
option to purchase a new landfill site in Cherokee County and is awaiting State officials
to perform boring tests. Second option is to export solid waste to another county or
state; this would be one of the better options." Jordan said that a new landfill would
cost $3 million, plus $50.00 per ton to operate.
Cherokee County, Georgia would accept solid waste at $26.10 per ton if the
County hauls it there. If Georgia were to handle the transportation, it would charge an
additional $12.00 per ton. North Carolina already exports to Virginia and South
Carolina.
Jordan states that it will be expensive to build a new landfill and close down old
landfills in Clay, Cherokee, and Graham Counties.
--June 12, 1994: $60,000.00 given to West as down payment on property. ,
-t
--June 15, 1994: $12.2 million budget proposed for upcoming year, to include
$308,186.00 for debt service, $150,000.00 to renovate the courthouse, with the Landfill

Landfill Site
Page 3
remainder earmarked for the new landfill. County lists short term debt. The $60,000.00
uuiy yo/ut , uubt wui run arouna z�-i u,�,yjy.uu per year for the next ten years, or
$1,039,390.00 ($1.4 million).
--June 22, 1994: Bond increased from $10 to $11 million.
--July 27, 1994: First steps taken to commence new landfill. It was stated at the
Commissior'l Meeting: "Current five year permit for the landfill runs out on October 6,
1996. (Note: that is when the old landfill had to close, by law, because it was an
unlined landfill and did not meet the new standards of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources [DEHNR]. "By 1996, a 2' cap of concrete and clay was
to cover the existing landfill, topped with an 18" layer of soil. Grass will be planted and
the site can never be used for any sort of development that entails closed buildings. In
conjunction with the closure, Clay, Graham and Cherokee counties will enter into
contract agreements. There will be a $36.00 per ton tipping fee, plus handling costs.
(Note: As of, August 28, 1997, the landfill is still being used.)
Tri-County Solid Waste Management Authority was founded. All three counties
were to share in the cost.
Four possible sites for the new landfill were considered:
1. Fairview Road
2. Panther Top
3. Caney Creek
4. Peachtree
The only option discussed was Fairview Road (78 acres, with only 30 of those
being usable.)
West offered the County a six month option to purchase his land, at $10,000.00
per acre. If this option was not exercised, the price would then escalate to $11,000.00
per acre.
Commissioner Jordan stated: "Permits may only be granted for landfills for five
years each time. In theory, he added, the county should be into its third year of
dumping refuse into the first cell while work on the second cell is initiated."
Proposal by the Municipal Engineering, Garner, NC:

Landfill Site
Page 4
--Cost of first cell stated to be approximately 2.5 million:
a. $250.000.00/Engineering;
b. $1.8 million/Actual construction cost; and,
The $2.5 million does not include land cost estimated to be at $850,000 paid
over ten years, with an addition of 7% interest; or, an annual sum of approximately
$122,000.00. "That would bring the cost to $3.385 million (per cell). The funding to be
obtained by an obligation bond, 5 years at 7%.
If the principal amounted to 2.5 million (minus cost of the land), the annual
payments would run approximately $572,450.00. Additional land cost, $122,000.00.
Total preliminary cost, $694,450.00.
It should be noted that this amount does not include the following:
1. Annual operational costs
2. Purchase of equipment for landfill
3. Pan loader, trash compactor [$750,000.00]
4. Six man personnel [$146,224.00]
Additionally, there would be other necessary costs for materials such as fuel and
manual operations which would total $466,244.00.
Total annual estimated cost would be $1,160,694.00.
At the Commissioners meetings, there was never mention of how many cells
were to be built, only that the new plan would start with a 5.5 acre cell, consisting of a
life span of 3-5 years.
(Note: If, as was stated during one of the Commissioner's meetings that only 30 acres
would be usable (a smaller landfill than the old landfill which consisted of 40 acres),
then it would be logical to expect about five (5) cells, costing $2.3 million each or $27.5
million over 25 years [or sooner since the area is growing at an unprecedented rate].
The total cost of the entire project was never discussed. The Commissioners had, on
several occasions, used the $3 million dollar figure.
Factors in cost of operations include land cost of $1.4 million, plus the cost to
close the old landfill.

Landfill Site
Page 5
Commissioner Jordan was appointed "Recycling Coordinator." A binding
agreement between counties stipulated now much each cQun_ty_\ALo- LcLp-ay on a_�LeatLy-
asis or maintenance an cons ruc ion ased on population usage: Cherokee oun y
- 58%, Graham and Clay Counties 21 % each. Funds to be obtained by obligation
bonds.
In August of 1994, Cherokee County residents voiced objections to the landfill.
Fifty residents attended a Commissioners' meeting questioning why a landfill was to be
built (1) next to the Valley River, a pristine trout river flowing into TVA lakes; (2) in one
of the most picturesque sites in the county, a marked scenic highway in North Carolina,
(3) so very near to the airport... birds of prey, possible bird strikes of aircraft [Note. -
Military and/or Air National Guard conduct regular training missions around this area].
Why were the residents of Marble not given a chance to vote on such a decision which
effects every aspect of their lives, not to mention reduction of property values, noise
and air pollution?
The Commissioners simply told residents that those subjects could not be
discussed. The only subject to be discussed was the actual building of the landfill.
--October 1, 1994: A new law is passed and goes into effect which requires
open meetings regarding use of public land.
--October 12, 1994: Commissioner Gibson states at a public meeting: "We
haven't bought any land and we haven't sold any land." Tri-Country Solid Waste
Authority stated that purchase of property was not in their jurisdiction. This refers to
offer made by the Herman West family.
--October 12, 1994: Copy of "Study Plan" was sent to NC State Government.
--October 26, 1994, Birds of prey create problems with airport due to landfill
being so close. FAA recommends that Cherokee County hold off regarding purchase
of property designated for landfill. FAA stated: "Due to the valley location and it's
restricted flight paths, most arrivals and departures will pass over or very near the
proposed landfill. There apparently is a serious question of whether the existing site
(subject landfill property) can be safely continued and expanded complying with
Federal regulations. Therefore, we strongly urge Cherokee County not to take any
irreversible action or commit irretrievable resources to this project until a determination
can be made."

Landfill Site
Page 6
--October 1994: The offer made by the Herman West family expires. A new
Option 1: $10,000.00 per acre; no down payment; ten year payback
period @ 7% interest, with the West's holding the mortgage.
If option is not taken within a six month period, the price
would escalate to $11,000.00 per acre. This offer also
expired.
Option 2: 20% down payment, or $170,000.00 to be financed over six
years, at $11,000.00 per acre with 7% interest and loan
financed by West.
--October 1994: Tri-County Solid Waste Authority announces that they are just
an advisory board and are not authorized to purchase land. No inter -county agreement
had been signed; therefore, they cannot be liable for any debt. All tests and permits
had been filed under the Tri-County Solid Waste Authority. If Cherokee County wants
to pursue an application process, they must begin anew.
--November 2, 1994: Commissioners sought permit to kill birds of prey around
proposed landfill. (Permit was later denied.)
--November 16, 1994: Graham and Clay Counties pull out of the landfill deal.
County Manager Bill Green publicly states that Cherokee County will not proceed with
this endeavor. Commissioner Crisp from Graham County states other alternatives
which should be studied. Commissioner Jordan, from Clay County, said money for the
West land deal was not budgeted so they would also jointly withdraw. Commissioner
Gibson once again reiterates that no money for the landfill changed hands.
--November 23, 1994: Final meeting of outgoing Commissioners Nolan Smith,
Graves, and Gibson.
--November 29, 1994: Unannounced meeting is held by the three outgoing
Commissioners. Herman West approaches the Commissioners. He says that since the
other counties backed out of the deal, he will now go with the first offer he receives. A
vote is taken. Gibson votes NO. Graves states that a lot of money was spent and
simply thrown away. Graves votes YES. Smith votes YES. The County Attorney was
out of 1 awn and did not attend the meeting. Please refer to NC Statutes 160A-20 and
153A-' _).

Landfill Site
Page 7
(NOTE: At this time, Nolan Smith is an Attorney -at -Law practicing in Murphy, NC;
therefore, there appears to be a conflict of interest for Nolan Smith to vote on a land
deal from which his family would profit. Furthermore, being an attorney, Smith should
have been aware of this personal conflict. Nolan Smith was also a County
Commissioner and Mr. West's personal attorney, representing Mr. West in the land
deal. There is also some question as to whether this meeting was legal; since as of
October 1, 1994 a new law required that all meetings regarding use of land must be
held open and the public allowed to voice their opinions. It would appear that this
closed, secret meeting was held for the sole purpose of keeping Mr. West's land deal
alive. Herman West also owns a land clearing and construction company. He owned
the land, could certainly handle the financing, and was capable of building the landfill.
On the face of it, there was a great opportunity to profit at the taxpayers' expense, with
no input from the taxpayers).
--December 7, 1994: First meeting of new Commissioners held. Laney, Morrow,
and Postell. They questioned the legality of the 11/29/94 meeting. Requested the
County Attorney to give his opinion. New Commissioners decided they would ponder
the options available. They would look at the Swain County and hauling garbage. Bill
Green said that although the other counties pulled out of the landfill deal, their final
intentions were not certain.
Note: There is evidence that $25,000.00 of County Tax money had been paid to
Herman West on his first offer regarding the land deal; however, that offer did not
require an earnest fee. This appears to be an illegal use of taxpayer money; it had not
budgeted; and, for several months the Commissioners assured our citizens, over and
over, that no money had changed hands.
The new Commissioners state:
--1. The $25,000.00 directly paid to Mr. West will be subtracted from the down
payment of $85,000.00, should the county proceed with the deal.
--2. If the county backs out, Mr. West will be allowed to retain the money.
(Commissioners state that this is because West kept the land off the market while
testing was conducted. These decisions were all taken without public knowledge or
permission
--3. If the property is unsuitable, West could return the money, but would not be
required to do so.

Landfill Site
Page 8
--December 28, 1994: Phillips & Jordan offer to build landfill at no cost to
counties. Commissioner Jordan wants to look into the cost of hauling garbage. It
would be a better deal all three counties participated.
--April 5, 1995: Bill Green hands out packets on Marble landfill site.
--June 7, 1995: Commissioners approve purchase of West property. Rick
Honeycutt says that the land may be used for a transfer site or not used at all; however,
that would be okay. (Note: The Commissioners overstepped their authority by
committing taxpayer money to buy a tract of land that would cost approximately $1.4
million dollars over a ten year period.)
The Commissioners said plans for the landfill were on hold. Honeycutt said they
would ask for an extension to use the current landfill until 1998. (Note: Back in March,
when told that the present landfill had to close by October 6, 1996, no mention was
made that an extension was possible. It was made to sound as though immediate
action must be taken.) Honeycutt stated that he wanted more time to study the landfill
project.
Then, the subject of the existing landfill came up. Roger West, son of Herman
West, had a piece of property on State Hwy 19/29 and corner of St. Rd 141 at the
center of Marble. Commissioners were told that soil testing had been done and that the
soil was good for -- and final cover at the existing landfill. There was a proposal to
expand the current landfill. Honeycutt said it would cost the county $978,000.00 to
purchase the dirt from other sources, and that Roger West would give us the dirt at no
cost. Please document Mr. Honeycutt's cost estimate for dirt --approximately $1 million.
(Note: Leveling his property on those corners would enhance the value of Mr. West's
property at taxpayers' expense since County personnel would handle hauling the dirt.)
--August 1995: Commissioners request loan in the amount of $765,000.00 to
purchase an 85 acre parcel of land in Marble. (Note: Who did they ask for this
money? Herman West?
--October 4, 1995: Honeycutt meeting was held between landfill supervisor
Robert Allen and State Representative Wayne Sullivan to discuss permit extension on
existing landfill, as by April 1996 present life of landfill expires. Recycling was
discussed. Solid waste shipping also discussed. Sullivan was to obtain facts and
report them at the next Commissioners' meeting.
--November 8, 1995: NOTE. Free Dirt. County spends $40,000.00 to haul dirt
three miles from Hwy 141/19/29 Roger West's' land, to old landfill. Approximately

Landfill Site
Page 9
$1.00 per cubic foot. Commissioners state they asked for a loan in August to buy the
dirt. The county started hauling dirt in July before plans for expanding the old landfill
was approved. Honeycutt said that they didn't have the new parcel when they needed
the dirt. (Note: The West family, once again, profited on the dirt which the County
Commissioners purchased from Roger West...
The Board of Commissioners do not contest subject plan, although it is
contested by outside agencies, i.e., the Tri-County Waste Authority, the FAA, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the residents of Marble. The Commissioners
do not appear to working on behalf of all their constituents, just a few who profited
handsomely.
Questions: Was the loan to the county for the land purchase given by West and held in
trust by West and family?
Why does the deed for the land sale by West to the County NOT/NOT
contain Tax Stamps and Seals that are required of all sales of real estate? Did West
pay taxes on this sale?
What is the real cost of the landfill to taxpayers and to those who own
land surrounding the landfill? Who really benefited from this landfill? Certainly not the
residents of Marble, NC.
--January 31, 1996: Cherokee County Commissioners set a February 19
deadline to decide whether Clay and Graham County would participate in a new
landfill. Decision might determine the outcome of Cherokee County's plan to build the
new landfill. Graham and Clay Counties would be expected to commit to the new
landfill at their February 5th meeting. Paul Jordan, Clay County, stated that they might
follow suite, but were also exploring other possibilities.
"We can't afford to have it (a new landfill) dumped in our laps, " said Charles Laney,
Chairman of Cherokee County Commissioners. "If the other counties can't be in it, we
need to know right now. It would definitely be easier if all three counties participated,"
stated Laney.
In June, Cherokee County paid more than $800,000.00 for an 80 acre tract in Marble,
ostensibly the site for a new landfill. Construction, alone, will cost $2.5 million.
Engineers estimate annual operating cost expenses at $851,751.00. Should Clay and
Graham decide to seek other options, Cherokee might consider hauling its garbage out

Landfill Site
Page 10
of the area. County Manager, Rick Honeycutt, said: "If all three counties are not
4wolyim rl , t Io_ol-to-see-if-hauling-is-more feasible."
In 1994, the State set a drop dead rate of October 6, 1996 on the Cherokee County
landfill. The mandate required that Cherokee, Clay, and Graham counties be dumping
into a new "lined" landfill by that date. Cherokee County requested extensions to use
the current landfill; new date for closure of old landfill was set at January 1, 1998.
By the November 14, 1995 meeting of all three counties, Graham and Clay counties
had decided not to support the new Cherokee County landfill.
On December 5, 1995, new Commissioners took office, including some new
Commissioners from Clay and Graham counties; the tone of proceeding jointly
changed. The new Commissioners seemed to want to go forward with the landfill plan.
"I feel comfortable staying with Cherokee County," said Dale Wiggins, Graham County
Manager and Commission member. He also stated: "I don't foresee us going
anywhere else. The economics are something we must consider. We have to lay out a
lot of money (to build a landfill in Graham), and I don't think we could find a suitable
site."
Graham will vote on February 5, 1996; Clay County must decide before the deadline.
Said Jordan- We're not going to build a landfill and I don't know if hauling is an option.
We would like to satisfy ourselves by researching our options. I feel like we owe it to
our constituency."
If all three counties were not yet unified on a new landfill, the three Commission Boards
were steadfast on one issue ... all wanted to tie future county leaders to whatever
decision was made. In the event that all three counties forged ahead together, then all
would sign a long-term contract, legally binding each to the landfill. Said Laney- " We
need to draw up a contract to commit all three counties for the long term so that it can't
be changed." "Landfill construction would begin early next year, if the counties give
the go ahead," stated Wayne Sullivan.
--February 7, 1996: Waste disposal increases in the State. "Economic growth in
NC appears to be an important factor in the increasing amount of waste disposed,"
stated Meyer, Director of Solid Waste Management. 8.7% in Cherokee County.
--March 6, 1996.- Cherokee residents recycle less than 1 % of trash.
Commissioners worried over local recycling to be less than 1 % of county trash
recycled. Commissioner George Postell said he had received some complaints about

Landfill Site
Page 11
the recycling center in Andrews. These complaints centered around the messiness at
the fac-itity-a d-Gack-of4ghting-dur-ing-the-evening--s T-he-coun-ty-pfovides-two-m-anned—
recycling centers: (1) The facility in Andrews; and (2) the Murphy unit by Valley Village
Shopping Center. Facilities are manned from 0800 hours until noon, on Mondays
through Fridays. Also, there is an unmanned center at Hiawassee Dam School which
contains bins for recyclables. The Cherokee County Manager said that he would look
into the Andrews situation and have the problems corrected. Honeycutt also gave a
brief update on local recycling efforts. He said the county had applied for a $25,000.00
grant which; if obtained, would pay for more recycling trailers like the one at the school;
this would make recycling more accessible to the rest of the County. It was stated that
the grant would be awarded in June 1996. Honeycutt added that the extension office
was helping with overall recycling efforts, mainly dealing with petroleum containers and
pesticides. It was noted that recycling companies take only high-grade plastics and
that is a big problem, including the amount leftover. They have to be sorted by Landfill
color and number, which takes a considerable amount of time. The centers were
established in July of 1993, under the 1989 NC Solid Waste disposal Improvement Act.
Local government was required to reduce its solid waste. NC law also requires that
local government participate in source reduction through recycling and reduction of
waste.
--April 3, 1996: Landfill options is topic of Commissioners' session. Cherokee
County Commissioners continue their Monday evening meeting until Tuesday
afternoon, at 15:30 hours. At that meeting, the Board was scheduled to discuss the
local landfill situation. Among the topics to be discussed were, whether Clay and
Graham Counties would continue disposing their waste into the Cherokee County
landfill and future plans concerning expansion of local facility.
--April 10, 1996: Clay Commissioners reject the Cherokee landfill deal.
Cherokee and Graham Counties will enter into an agreement concerning the long-term
use of the new landfill to be built in Marble. Officials of Clay County opted out of the
ten year proposal.
Both Clay and Graham Counties had until April 1 to decide. Cherokee County
Manager Rick Honeycutt stated: "We needed to know from each county their intentions
concerning garbage disposal on a long-term basis so that we, in turn, could know how
big a cell we must build." Honeycutt also stated that the engineering estimates (based
on annual garbage volume received from each county) determined that a 5 and 1 /2
acre lined cell would be needed for the disposal of Cherokee County waste.
Approximately 1 and 1 /2 acre per cell would be needed for the disposal of Graham
County's trash, plus a 1 acre lined cell for Clay County. Cost to turn the land into a

Landfill Site
Page 12
fully lined EPA Agency approved waste disposal cell was estimated by engineers at
for an eight acre landfill cell, which would serve the three counties, would cost about
$2.5 million. The life of the cell would be approximately ten years. Honeycutt said that
it might last longer if disposal of the garbage in the landfill was decreased. He
additionally stated: "That's why we must seriously look at recycling and composting as
other viable methods of garbage disposal. The less thrown in, the longer it will last."
--April 10, 1996: Honeycutt and Graham County sent a letter of intention to
County Commissioners for a ten year contract. Graham County said that, after the ten
year contract expired, they would probably look into constructing its own landfill.
During the April Meeting, Clay County said they would forego the agreement with
Cherokee County for the following reasons:
1. Cherokee County wanted Clay county to be responsible for ensuring
commercial haulers paid their tipping fees at the landfill;
2. Clay County Commissioner, Chairman Paul Jordan, said that several
haulers had been dumping at the Cherokee landfill, and due to delinquent fees, had
been turned away. Clay County Commissioners said they should not be held
responsible to those fees.
3. Clay County Commissioners also said that they rejected the landfill
proposal because they wanted to put some money up front to help finance the new
landfill; instead, Cherokee County wanted a ten-year contract specifying a definite flow
of funds from Clay County for the trash disposal. During the April 11 meeting (????) ,
the price of disposal quoted by Cherokee County was higher than that offered by
contractors to haul Clay County's trash to an outside site, Cherokee County charged
$50.00 per ton, plus a $125.00 hauling fee. At previous Clay County meetings,
representatives of Sanifill offered to haul, and dispose of garbage, for only $38.00 per
ton. The regular meeting of the Cherokee County Commissioners, usually held on
Mondays, was carried over to a "Special Meeting" on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, at 1530
hours. They voted to hire Municipal Engineering Service to design and oversee
construction and state permits for a new landfill, with cost not to exceed $200,000.00
(design, engineering, and permit costs).
--April 10, 1996: Cherokee County must have new landfill ready to operate by
January 1, 1998. The state agreed to extend the life of the present landfill until that
date. Original date for closure of old landfill had been October 6, 1996. The new

Landfill Site
Page 13
landfill will be located next to the current facility in Marble. In June, Cherokee County
idnU1111 site dL a cusL car -Pauu,uu.uu. rayments were to oe mace over a ten-year perioc
at 7%. Cherokee County also paid an initial $80,000.00 downpayment. Since then,
reported Honeycutt, the County has paid one annual installment of $103,938.00 to the
Herman West family. He also noted that, yearly operational costs of the new landfill
are expected to reach between $800,000.00 and $850,000.00.
--March 5, 1997: Graham County decides to keep trash in their county.
$100,000.00 was too high a price to dump in the Cherokee County landfill. Graham
County asks for a five year contract, while they can look at a landfill space of their own.
As noted by reporters, if Graham County pulls out of the landfill deal, Commissioners
have the choice of selling some of the land and making a smaller profit. Laney
originally requested a ten year contract so that Graham would not back out. Cherokee
and Graham were to meet the following Wednesday to discuss the agreement.
--March 12, 1997: Cherokee and Graham Counties landfill deal goes full stream
ahead. Graham officials agree to go along if their attorneys can work out a contract.
Honeycutt says that the Commissioners will proceed with construction plans and the
approved financing for the landfill.
--March 17, 1997: Mandatory pre -bidding on construction is to take place, on
March 24, 1996, at the landfill site. Commissioners will select contracting agency by
April 15, 1997. Wayne Sullivan stated that, ideally, a general contractor would be most
experienced in laying clay ... then he would sub -contract out. Total construction time
was estimated at five months. Contractors would allow 180 days. Late days would
cost $500.00 per day.
Commissioners approve a special obligation bond for financing, not to exceed $3.5
million. They agree to sell bonds at a private sale and approve the Sanford Holshouser
Law Firm as bond attorney. Under the bond, Commissioners have to obligate fees to
repay the loan. These would be collected by the County, not to exceed $707,000.00;
but, according to Honeycutt, at least $550,000.00. The resolution stated that the
obligated revenues would include:
1. Net solid waste system receipts from all systems revenue
2. Ambulance Fees
3. Health Department Fees
4. Any county revenue which could be deemed as obligated revenue

Landfill Site
Page 14
According to the bidding contract, 14 items were included:
2. Clearing and grubbing, 14 acres
3. Erosion Control (lump sum)
4. Seeding and mulching, 15 acres
5. Cohesive soil liner, 306,700 sq.ft.
6. 60 mil. flexible membrane liner
7. Protective cover, 306,700 sq.ft.
8. 6" Leachate collection system
9. 1950 sq.ft. 8" leachate system, 2,650 ft.
10. Pump station with 3" force main (lump sum)
11. Leachate lagoon (lump sum)
12. Existing landfill closure, 14 acres
13. Site work consisting of excavation, compacting tests, waste disposal,
berm construction (lump sum)
14. 30' wide access road, to include 2" 1-2 surface 1010 ft. and a 20 ft. access
road. 2,450 ft.
--April 30, 1997: Graham County rejects latest landfill proposal. Cherokee
County will go head with plan for smaller landfill in Marble. Graham County will go on
its own way.
--August 1997: construction of new landfill begins with open burning of debris.
Engineering report on the landfill states that it will accept asbestos, animal carcasses;
although they say they will not accept hazardous waste, presently there are no controls
to ascertain what is being dumped in the landfill. We feel that methane, gas and
asbestos fibers would be detrimental to human health. Additionally the building of this
landfill is to go on indefinitely. Residents on ridges above landfill are subjected to
smoke pollution --two had to seek medical help for respiratory distress syndrome and
asthma. Windows could not be opened because of smoldering debris. Work
commences at dawn and there is constant noise from dawn until dark. Residents are
unable to sleep because of loud noises from construction and trucks. Residents are
under considerable duress, seven (7) days per week. It appears that landfill workers
do not take a day off. Residents are being exposed to noise and air pollution
everyday. It is causing medical difficulties for area residents. To date construction
continues.
Your assistance is requested and required. Considerable harm is being done to
residents of this area and to their economic well being. Your attention to this matter is

Landfill Site
Page 15
regarding this request.
SIGNED BY CHEROKEE COUNTY RESIDENTS, on September 3, 1997:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
Richard L. Honeycutt
Cherokee County Manager
201 Peachtree Street
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. a-i EHNR
SEP-81997
Winston-Falem
Regional Office
IDEHNFR
Seotember 4, 1997
RE: Status Of The Permit Application for a MSWLF for Cherokee County
Dear Mr. Honeycutt:
This letter is being sent to all current applicants for permits to construct a municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) who anticipate commencement of landfill operations prior to
January 1 , 1998. Experience has demonstrated that at least six months is required to
construct a lined MSWLF, assuming good weather during construction. Consequently, if
your MSWLF was not under construction by July 1, 1997, you should prepare a
contingency plan to transfer your waste to a lined MSWLF or a Waste -To -Energy facility.
Rule .0103(i) of the solid waste management rules, requires that after January 1,
1998, all active municipal solid waste landfills shall be equipped with liners, leachate
collection systems, and final cover systems as specified in the Section .1600 rules. As you
are aware, the issue of extending the 1998 deadline has been discussed in almost every
public forum over the last several years. In the interest of providing a full and open
discussion of the issue, the Division of Waste Management proposed, on two separate
occasions, rule revisions which would extend the 1998 deadline. In both cases, the
environmental community, local governments who have already made plans to meet the
deadline, and the waste management industry opposed any change in the deadline. Based
on this opposition and the lack of a compelling reason to change a rule that protects the
public health and environment and is economically feasible, the Division recommended on
both occasions that the Commission for Health Services not adopt the proposed rule
changes.
It is the purpose of this letter to reiterate to the referenced permit applicant that
regardless of the status of their permit application for a lined MSWLF, operation of an
unlined MSWLF past the 1998 deadline is a violation of solid waste rules subject to
administrative penalty and/or injunction and that a contingency plan for transfer of MSW
should be prepared.
P.O. Box 29603, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-9603 Telephone [phone]% FAX [phone]
An Equal Oppxtunity Affumalive Action Ernp'oyer 50% Recycled / 1 VY. PostLonsumer Papzr

Richard Honeycutt
September 4, 199
Page 2
The attached memorandum entitled " Closure Considerations For Unlined Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills" should provide guidance for the closure of your unlined landfill,
transfer of MSW to a regional facility and the management of non -transferred waste. If
there are any questions regarding the status of your permit application, please contact Jim
Coffey @ [phone], extension 255.
Sincerely,
Dextef R. Matthews, Chief
Solid Waste Section
cc: William Meyer
Mike Kelly
Jim Coffey
William Sessoms
Julian Foscue
Jim Patterson
Jimmy Woodie, PE - Municipal Engineering
CASESSO MS\PROJ ECTS\CHEROKEE\PTC\NOTIFY98. W PD

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
July 15, 1997
Richard L. Honeycutt
Cherokee County Manager
201 Peachtree Street
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
Re: Cherokee County MSWLF
Permit Review
Mr. Honeycutt:
Ns1�15'l6177�,+
�ti ©
1,00
no
RECEIVED As
SWS-WSRO C
e•
EHNR
Enclosed please find a Solid Waste Permit and Certified Copy of the Solid Waste
Permit for the above referenced landfill.
This permit approves the facility plan and construction of Phase 1 as shown on the
approved plans.
As per Attachment 2, Part 1, Condition Number 1, the certified copy of the permit
must be recorded with the Register of Deeds and returned to William D. Sessoms, Solid
Waste Section.
If you have any questions or require any other assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact the Regional Waste Management Specialist, Mr. Jim Patterson at [phone]
extension 209 or this office at [phone] extension 266.
Thank you,
William D. Sessoms, PE
copy: Jim Coffey - DWM
Matt Gamble, PG - DWM
Jim Patterson - DWM
Western Area Engineer - DWM
Julian Foscue - DWM
Jimmy Woodie, PE - Municipal Engineering
Central Files
AffA
P.O. Box 27687, �® 40 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1ia
Division of Waste Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L Meyer, Director
FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Page 1
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
FACILITY PERMIT
CHEROKEE COUNTY
is hereby issued a PERMIT to CONSTRUCT a
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY
located on US Highway 129/74/19 near NC Highway 141, Marble, North Carolina in
accordance with Article 9, Chapter 130A, of the General Statutes of North Carolina and all
rules promulgated thereunder and subject to the conditions set forth in this permit. The facility
is located and described by the legal description of the site or the property map contained
within the approved application.
es C. Coffey, Super s
rmitting Branch
Solid Waste Section
P.O. Box 27687, may® FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 f An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 2
onsv-of Permit to-Gon
PART I: GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS
1. This permit shall be effective upon compliance with 15A NCAC 13B .0204 and when
the certified copy with the page, book number, date of recordation, and Register's seal
is returned to the Solid Waste Section (Section).
2. This permit approves the Facility Plan which in accordance with 15 NCAC 13B .1619
defines the comprehensive development of the facility including the total municipal
solid waste landfill capacity, the municipal solid waste stream, all on site solid waste
management facilities and related facility infrastructure.
The approved plans are described in Attachment 1, "Approved Documents". Where
discrepancies may exist, the most recent approved submittal and Conditions of Permit
shall govern.
3. The facility has an anticipated total municipal solid waste disposal capacity of
approximately 1,127,936 cubic yards consistent with the approved final contours.
Construction of cells within each phase and subsequent phases shall be in accordance
with the Division approved plans.
4. The landfill is permitted to receive solid waste as defined in North Carolina General
Statute Article 9 Chapter 130A-290(a)(35) generated within Cherokee County, Clay
County, Graham County, and Swain County, except where prohibited by North Carolina
General Statutes Article 9 of Chapter 130A, and rules adopted by the Commission for
Health Services.
The owner or operator of a municipal solid waste management facility that is owned
or operated by a unit of local government shall not knowingly dispose of any type or
form of municipal solid waste that is generated within the boundaries of a unit of local
government that by ordinance:
(1) Prohibits generators or collectors of municipal solid waste from disposing
of that type or form of municipal solid waste.
(2) Requires generators or collectors of municipal solid waste to recycle that
type or form of solid waste.
5. This facility is subject to the requirements of all applicable sections of the most recent
version of the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, 15A NCAC 13B and the
specific conditions contained herein.

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Page 4
6. This facility shall conform to the specific conditions set forth in this permit and the
provisions of 15A NCAC 13B .1604(b)(2).
7. This facility permit is issued under the criteria set forth in 15A NCAC 13B.1603(a)(1).
Any facility changes that effect these criteria may require a new permit.
8. Cherokee County shall submit an amendment to this permit pursuant to 15A NCAC
1 3B. 1 603(a)(2) for any subsequent phase of development.
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
9. Cherokee County shall conduct a pre -construction meeting, on -site, prior to initiating
construction of any unit at the site and shall notify the Solid Waste Section 10 days
prior to said meeting.
10. Construction of all solid waste management units within this facility shall be in
accordance with the pertinent approved plans and only for those phases of
development approved for construction as described in Attachment 1, "Approved
Documents".
11. Additional conditions and revisions of the approved documents or changes during
construction of any landfill unit require approval by the North Carolina Solid Waste
Section.
12. Any modifications in sedimentation and erosion control activities require approval by
the Land Quality Section. The Section shall be notified of any sedimentation and
erosion control modifications.
FACILITY PRE -OPERATIVE CONDITIONS
13. Prior to receiving waste at any unit, cell, or phase of this facility, a Permit to Operate,
must be obtained from the Solid Waste Section in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B
.0201(b).
14. The following requirements shall be met prior to waste disposal for any unit, cell, or
phase of this facility:
a. Site preparation shall be in accordance with the approved plans, and the
conditions specified herein.
b. Site inspection shall be made by a representative of the Solid Waste Section.
C. Prior to waste disposal for any unit, a pre -operative meeting shall be held on -site
with key landfill personnel and representatives of the Solid Waste Section.

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: July 15, 1997
Page 5
d. Financial Assurance, as required by 15A NCAC 1313.1628, shall be in place.
PART II: MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILL UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PRE -OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1. Ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations shall be sampled
for the Appendix I constituent list prior to issuing the Permit to Operate.
CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
2. The owner's geologist shall examine the cell excavation and note any pertinent geologic
features exposed during the construction process and shall notify the Solid Waste
Section Hydrogeologist of these findings prior to the placement of any liner materials.
3. The owner's geologist shall be in the field to supervise all well installations. Any
modifications to the approved water quality monitoring plan require approval by the
Section Hydrogeologist. Documentation of all changes to the approved plan shall be
submitted with the well construction records.
4. For each monitoring well constructed, a well construction record, well schematic,
boring log and a description of well development activities shall be submitted to the
Section within 30 days upon well completion.
PART III: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART V: YARD WASTE UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
CASESSO MS\PROJECTS\CHEROKEE\2002-1.PTC

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B, Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
FACT SHEET
PERMIT NUMBER: 20-02
FACILITY: Cherokee County Solid Waste Management Facility
COUNTY: Cherokee
CITY: Marble, North Carolina
OWNER: Cherokee County
201 Peachtree Street
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
[phone]
OPERATOR: Cherokee County
201 Peachtree Street
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
[phone]
DESCRIPTION
A draft Solid Waste Permit, Part 1 - Permit to Construct, and Part 2 - Permit
to Operate, has been prepared by the Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste
Section (Division) for the proposed Cherokee County Municipal Solid Waste
Management Facility. The Division has determined that the facility plan, engineering
plan, construction quality assurance plan, operation plan, closure and post -closure
plan, and water quality monitoring plan, as identified in the application, satisfy the
requirements and intent of North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, codified
as 15A NCAC 13B Section .1600.
The proposed Cherokee County Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility
will be owned and operated by Cherokee County. The proposed facility will be
located near Marble on US Highway 129/74/19 near the intersection with NC
Highway 141.
The facility encompasses a total of 106 acres which will ultimately consist of
5 phases. This permit approves the overall facility plan and construction of Phase 1
which covers approximately 7 acres plus related infrastructure.
The projected life of Phase 1 is 5.6 years. The entire facility is projected to
be developed over 31.8 years. Actual life expectancy of the facility will depend
upon waste receipts.
P.O. Box 27687, N�� FAX [phone]
Raleigh, Ncrth Carolina 2761 1-7687 -m�C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/ 100% post -consumer paper

Cherokee County Solid Waste Management Facility
Permit Number 20-02
Page Number 3
Written comments should be directed to:
William D. Sessoms, PE
N-orth-C-arolina-Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
401 Oberlin Road Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605-1350
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules provide for a public hearing. A
public hearing on the draft permit will be held Monday, July 1, 1997 at 7:00 PM, in
the Cherokee County Courtroom, 2nd floor, Cherokee County Courthouse, 201
Peachtree Street, Murphy, North Carolina. Any person may submit oral statements
by registering with the hearing officer at the meeting. Five (5) minutes will be
allotted per interested party. Related parties may not allot their time to one speaker.
Comments will only be accepted on the referenced draft permit. The hearing officer
may extend the oral comment period by so stating at the hearing. Written
statements and data concerning the draft permit may also be submitted to the
hearing officer. A tape recording or written transcript of the hearing will be
prepared and made available to the public.
NOTIFICATION OF DECISION
Persons wishing to receive notice of the final permit decision should make
their request known in writing to the Division contact.
C:\S ESSO MS\PROJECTS\CH ERO KEE\FACT-SHT.1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 1
A t r
CHEROKEE COUNTY
is hereby issued a PERMIT to CONSTRUCT a
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FACILITY
located on US Highway 129/74/19 near NC Highway 141, Marble, North Carolina in
accordance with Article 9, Chapter 130A, of the General Statutes of North Carolina and all
rules promulgated thereunder and subject to the conditions set forth in this permit. The facility
is located and described by the legal description of the site or the property map contained
within the approved application.
James C. Coffey, Supervisor
Permitting Branch
Solid Waste Section
P.O, Box 27687, FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 6Vf An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 ms 50% recycled/ 100% post -consumer paper

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
PART I: GENERAL FACILITY
MSWLF Facility Permit To Construct, Phase 1, Marble, North Carolina dated
November 1996, as revised, prepared by Municipal Engineering.
2. Design Hydrogeologic Study, Phase 1, Cherokee County, Subtitle D Lined
Landfill, dated November 1997 - Revised March 10, 1997, prepared by
Municipal Engineering.
PART II: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
3. MSWLF Facility Permit To Construct, Phase 1, Marble, North Carolina dated
November 1996, as revised, prepared by Municipal Engineering.
4. Design Hydrogeologic Study, Phase 1, Cherokee County, Subtitle D Lined
Landfill, dated November 1997 - Revised March 10, 1997, prepared by
Municipal Engineering.
PART III: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS LANDFILL
PART V: YARD WASTE
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING FACILITIES

L� FACILITY PERMIT N0: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 2
Conditions of. -P_er_mit_to Cons_tr���*
PART I: GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS
1. This permit shall be effective upon compliance with 15A NCAC 13B .0204 and when
the certified copy with the page, book number, date of recordation, and Register's seal
is returned to the Solid Waste Section (Section).
2. This permit approves the Facility Plan which in accordance with 15 NCAC 13B .1619
defines the comprehensive development of the facility including the total municipal
solid waste landfill capacity, the municipal solid waste stream, all on site solid waste
management facilities and related facility infrastructure.
3. The approved plans are described in Attachment 1, "Approved Documents". Where
discrepancies may exist, the most recent approved submittal and Conditions of Permit
shall govern.
4. The facility has an anticipated total municipal solid waste disposal capacity of
approximately 1,127,936 cubic yards consistent with the approved final contours.
Construction of cells within each phase and subsequent phases shall be in accordance
with the Division approved plans.
5. The landfill is permitted to receive solid waste as defined in 15A NCAC 13B .0101(36),
except where prohibited by North Carolina General Statutes Article 9 of Chapter 130A,
and rules adopted by the Commission for Health Services, generated within Cherokee
County, Clay County, Graham County, and Swain County, consistent with their local
government waste management plans.
6. This facility is subject to the requirements of all applicable sections of the most recent
version of the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, 15A NCAC 13B and the
specific conditions contained herein.
7. This facility shall conform to the specific conditions set forth in this permit and the
provisions of 15A NCAC 13B .1604(b)(2).
8. This facility permit is issued under the criteria set forth in 15A NCAC 13B.1603(a)(1).
Any facility changes that effect these criteria may require a new permit.
9. Cherokee County shall submit an amendment to this permit pursuant to 15A NCAC
13B.1603(a)(2) for any subsequent phase of development.
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS

<'!y FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 4
10. Cherokee County shall conduct a pre -construction meeting, on -site, prior to initiating
construction of any unit at the site and shall notify the Solid Waste Section 10 days
11. Construction of all solid waste management units within this facility shall be in
accordance with the pertinent approved plans and only for those phases of
development approved for construction as described in Attachment 1, "Approved
Documents".
12. Additional conditions and revisions of the approved documents or changes during
construction of any landfill unit require approval by the North Carolina Solid Waste
Section.
13. Any modifications in sedimentation and erosion control activities require approval by
the Land Quality Section. The Section shall be notified of any sedimentation and
erosion control modifications.
FACILITY PRE -OPERATIVE CONDITIONS
14. Prior to receiving waste at any unit, cell, or phase of this facility, a Permit to Operate,
must be obtained from the Solid Waste Section in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B
.0201(b).
15. The following requirements shall be met prior to waste disposal for any unit, cell, or
phase of this facility:
a. Site preparation shall be in accordance with the approved plans, and the
conditions specified herein.
b. Site inspection shall be made by a representative of the Solid Waste Section.
C. Prior to waste disposal for any unit, a pre -operative meeting shall be held on -site
with key landfill personnel and representatives of the Solid Waste Section.
d. Financial Assurance, as required by 15A NCAC 13B.1628, shall be in place.
PART II: MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILL UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PRE -OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
Ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations shall be sampled
for the Appendix I constituent list prior to issuing the Permit to Operate.
CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS

;_ FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
'� '-' Part 1 - Permit to Construct
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 5
2. The owner's geologist shall examine the cell excavation and note any pertinent geologic
features exposed during the construction process and shall notify the Solid Waste
Section Hydrogeologist of these findings prior to the placement of any liner materials.
3. The owner's geologist shall be in the field to supervise all well installations. Any
modifications to the approved water quality monitoring plan require approval by the
Section Hydrogeologist. Documentation of all changes to the approved plan shall be
submitted with the well construction records.
4. For each monitoring well constructed, a well construction record, well schematic,
boring log and a description of well development activities shall be submitted to the
Section within 30 days upon well completion.
PART III: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART V: YARD WASTE UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
CASES OMS\PROJECTS\CHERO KEE\2002-1.PTC

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 2 - Permit to Operate
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Approved Documents
PART I: GENERAL FACILITYL-JAP AFT
PART 11: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
1. Reserved for Construction Quality Assurance Documentation
PART III: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL CONDITIONS
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS LANDFILL CONDITIONS
PART V: YARD WASTE CONDITIONS
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING FACILITIES CONDITIONS

S
Cherokee County Solid Waste Management Facility
Permit Number 20-02
Page Number 2
The Municipal Solid Waste Landfill unit will be permitted to dispose of
household, industrial, and commercial solid waste. Hazardous or other banned
wastes such as yard waste and white goods are not approved for disposal. The
facility will accept waste generated within Cherokee County, Clay County, Graham
County, and Swain County.
The facility will have a waste capacity of approximately 1,127,936 cubic
yards, which corresponds to an approximate initial disposal rate of 18,480 tons of
waste per year.
PERMIT STRUCTURE
The draft permit is divided into two parts composed of Part 1 - Permit to
Construct, Attachment 1 - Approved Documents, Attachment 2 - General,
Construction, and Pre -operative Conditions, and Part 2 - Permit to Operate,
Attachment 3 - Approved Documents, Attachment 4 - General, Operation, and
Water Monitoring Conditions. A copy of the draft permit is attached.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules require that the public be
given a 45-day period to comment on the draft permit prepared by the NC Division
of Waste Management. This 45-day period will begin May 29, 1997 and end at 5
PM on July 14, 1997. The draft permit, permit application, or other related
information on file with the Division, is available for review by appointment from 9
AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday, at the Division of Waste Management, 401
Oberlin Road, Raleigh, North Carolina. All data submitted by the applicant is
available as part of the administrative record. For an appointment, contact the
Division at [phone] ext. 310. All file review appointments are subject to
availability of space and other file review appointments.
Persons wishing to comment on either the draft permit or permit conditions
should submit their comments, in writing, to the Division by 5 PM, July 7, 1997.
Comments should be typed or legibly printed and sent to the address shown below
and must include the permit number. All comments received within the 45-day
period will be considered in making the final determinations regarding the permit. A
final permit decision and responses to comments will be prepared soon after the
conclusion of the comment period.
DIVISION CONTACT

FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
F TPart 2 - Permit to Operate
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Conditions -of -Permit -to -Operate
PART I: GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS
1. This permit shall be reviewed, pursuant to 15A NCAC 1313.0201(e), five (5) years from
the issuance date of this permit to operate or the latest amendment.
2. In the event of conflicts between this Permit to Operate and previously issued
conditions, the conditions of this Permit to Operate shall supersede previously issued
conditions.
3. The solid waste management units within this facility shall conform to all operating
procedures described in the approved plans, 15A NCAC 1313, and the conditions
specified herein.
4. Additional conditions and revision of the approved documents or changes during the
operation of the landfill require approval by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section.
5. On or before August 1 of each year, the permittee shall report the amount of waste
received (in tons) at this facility and disposed of in the landfill units to the Solid Waste
Section, on forms prescribed by the Section. This report shall include the following
information:
a. The reporting period shall be for the previous year, beginning July 1 and ending
on June 30.
b. the amount of waste received and landfilled in tons, compiled on a monthly
basis by county or transfer station of origin and by specific waste type if
diverted to a specific unit within the permitted facility; and
C. The completed report shall be forwarded to the Regional Waste Management
Specialist for the facility. A copy of the completed report shall be forwarded to
the County Manager of each county from which waste was received.
6. Ground water quality at this facility is subject to the "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable To The Groundwater of North Carolina", 15A NCAC 2L. this
includes, but is not limited to, provisions for detection monitoring, assessment, and
corrective action.
PART II: MUNICIPAL LANDFILL UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS

,may j1-\ •a
FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 2 - Permit to Operate
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 4
1. This permit approves the operation of the municipal solid waste landfill unit as well as
the on -site environmental management and protection facilities as described in the
approve p ans.
2. This permit is for operational approval of a five year permitted disposal capacity of
approximately 199,808 cubic yards, consistent with the contours as shown in the
approved plans.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
3. Ground water monitoring at this unit shall be as prescribed by the appropriate
requirements of 15A NCAC 13B .1630-.1637 and the approved monitoring plan.
4. A readily accessible unobstructed path shall be cleared and maintained so that four-
wheel drive vehicles may access monitoring well locations at all times.
5. A field log book which details all development, sampling, repair, and all other pertinent
activities associated with each monitoring well and all sampling activities associated
with each surface water and leachate sampling location shall be kept as part of the
permanent facility record.
6. Records of all ground -water, surface water and leachate analytical data shall be kept
as part of the permanent facility record.
7. Ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations must be sampled
for Appendix I constituents at least semi-annually according to the specifications
outlined in the approved water quality monitoring plan and the current policies and
guidelines of the Section in effect at the time of sampling.
8. Reports of the analytical data for each water quality sampling event shall be submitted
to the Section within 60 days of the respective sampling event. Analytical data shall
be submitted in a manner prescribed by the Section.
9. The four independent samples which comprise the initial baseline sampling event shall
be collected from each ground water monitoring well and the report shall be submitted
to the Section within six months after issuance of the Permit to Operate.
10. Untreated leachate shall be sampled and analyzed at least semi-annually concurrently
with the ground and surface water sampling. The leachate shall be analyzed for all
Appendix I constituents, pH, specific conductance, BOD and COD, phosphate, nitrate,
and sulfate. Test results shall be submitted .to the Section along with ground and
surface water test results. In the event leachate is recirculated, additional leachate
sampling may be required.

' ` ! FACILITY PERMIT NO: 20-02
Part 2 - Permit to Operate
Date of Original Issue: to be determined
Page 5
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 1 . The landfill unit shall conform to all operating requirements described in the approved
plans, 15A NCAC 1313 .1626, and the conditions specified herein.
12. The use of alternative daily cover requires approval, prior to implementation, by the
Solid Waste Section. Requests for alternative daily cover approval must include a
comprehensive use and demonstration for the effectiveness plan developed according
to Section guidelines and consistent with the approved plan. Plans which are approved
by the Section will be incorporated into, and made a part of, the approved documents
found in Attachment 3.
13. The use of leachate recirculation as a leachate management tool requires approval, by
the Solid Waste Section, prior to implementation. Requests for leachate recirculation
approval must include a comprehensive management plan developed according to
Section guidelines and which is consistent with the approved operation plan. Plans
which are approved by the Section will be incorporated into, and made a part of, the
approved documents found in Attachment 3.
14. The MSWLF unit is permitted to co -dispose of wastewater treatment sludges generated
within the facility's approved service area, and subject to the terms and procedures of
the approved plan.
15. Closure or partial closure of any MSWLF unit shall be in accordance with the Closure
Plans described in the approved plans and 15A NCAC 13B .1629. Final Closure Plans
shall be submitted to the Division at least 90 days prior to implementation. Closure and
Post -closure plans, including financial instruments shall be updated annually pursuant
to 15A NCAC 13 B..1628.
PART 111: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART IV: LAND CLEARING AND INERT DEBRIS UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART V: YARD WASTE UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
PART VI: MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENT AND PROCESSING UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
CAS E SSO MS\PR OJ ECTS\C HERO KEE\2002-1. PTO

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Aria
FlaNAA
Division of Waste Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
Richard L. Honeycutt
Cherokee County Manager
201 Peachtree Street
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
Re: Proposed Cherokee County MSWLF
Permit Review
Mr. Honeycutt:
The Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section (Section) has completed
the review of responses received for the above referenced project. The following items
must be provided or addressed in order to continue the review process.
Revisions to the application must be made in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B
.1603(b).
.1619(e)(4)(B)(ii) HELP model data indicates head on the FML is in excess of 12-inches
under typical operating conditions for a significant amount of time. In addition, input
data includes grass cover during operation and run off slopes that may not reflect
accurate operating conditions. Provide demonstration that normal operating head on
the HDPE liner will not exceed the maximum allowable 12-inches.
Should Cherokee County wish to utilize leachate recirculation during the
operation of this facility. The effects of leachate recirculation must also be modeled
and demonstration made that normal operating head on the HDPE liner will not
exceed the maximum allowable 12-inches.
1619(e)(4)(D) Section 1 .5.4 states that the pumping system can be turned off
during emergencies. The report does not give any details as to emergency capacity.
For example, if leachate is stored in the active cell during an emergency, how much
capacity is available and what is that capacity related to available storage time.
Capacity storage should be based upon the maximum of 1 foot of head on the liner
requirement. If more appropriate, this information may be included in the engineering
portion of the document and referenced in this section.
.1620(d)(2) Comments regarding specific analysis and evaluations are presented under
rule reference .1624.
P.O. Box 27687, NvA)
FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/ 100% post -consumer paper

Permit Application
Initial Review
Page 2
.1620(d)(2)(D) Due to the proximity of trout streams, the set back distance to rivers
and streams was increased to 100 feet during the Site Study approval. Please refer
to the Site Suitability letter under Site Specific Requirements - Buffers, dated
January--4; 1-996.--REease-reflect the-correc-t information-in-Sec-tian--1-1.
Some drawings indicate a road and berm at the location of an archeology
site. Impact on this site and status of the site with respect to Historical Register
eligibility needs to be addressed.
.1620(d)(4) Please refer to the attached memorandum from Matt Gamble to Bill Sessoms,
dated April 7, 1997 for hydrogeology comments (attached).
.1621 Provide a detailed listing of responsible parties and their relationships. For
example; the CQA lab will have what specific responsibilities and will report directly
to which other party? Will the CQA lab have a technician and/or foreman on site at
all times or only as needed? Provide this type of information for all pertinent parties.
For each section of construction (eg: clay liner, sub -grade, FML, etc.), please
provide a summary table identifying all tests by name, ASTM or other appropriate
number or designation, required frequency, and acceptable range of results.
Include in the CQA plan a provision that "fold over" of the HDPE will not be
acceptable.
Provide information for the minimum acceptable experience of the various
construction, oversight, and testing parties.
.1624(b)(2) Provide a summary of the inputs and results for Section 2.2.3. Include in
narrative which assumptions were made and how they were determined. Summarize
the conclusions that were used for design evaluation.
The evaluation and design calculations presented in Section 2.2.6 were
generally well organized. Using this type of format (initial conditions/assumptions -
equations and calculations - results/conclusions) to present information in other
areas of design analysis documentation is recommended.
.1624(b)(3)(C) Revise Section 2.1.2 to reflect 100 foot separation established for
this site due to trout stream classification.
.1624(b)(4) Section 2.2.9 contains statements that the foundation and settlements have
been evaluated. Methods, assumptions, equations, and calculations with a
supporting explanation narrative supporting these conclusions must be presented
and documented. A format similar to the leachate collection calculations (Section
2.2.6) is recommended.

Permit Application
Initial Review
Page 3
Additional comments relating to vertical separation may be found the in the
memorandum from Matt Gamble to Bill Sessoms, dated April 7, 1997, attached.
.1624-(b}(-7-)--Seation-2-.2�4--and-2-.2-.9-provide-conclusion&-ind-is-acing that the-peftr-m- enee
of the sub -grade has been evaluated. Methods, assumptions, equations, and
calculations with a supporting explanation narrative supporting these conclusions
must be presented and documented. A format similar to the leachate collection
calculations (Section 2.2.6) is recommended.
.1624(b)(9)(B)(iii) Anchor trench tension design analysis, evaluation methods, and
calculations must presented and compared with manufacturers design allowable
tension. Provide the tension evaluations for the anchor trench design for both
construction and post construction (operational) conditions.
1624(b)(9)(B)(iv) Liner system stability analysis, evaluation methods, and calculations
must be presented. Thermal stress, self -weight stress, and stresses encountered
during placement of the protective cover should be evaluated. Evaluations should be
presented for both construction and post construction (operational) conditions.
While not specifically required under the rules, the Section highly
recommends that wind uplift during construction be evaluated to determine safe
minimum temporary loading (sandbag spacing).
1624(b)(12)(A)(ii) Provide permittivity calculations and particle retention demonstrations
for filter fabric surrounding the stone in the leachate collection system.
1625 Please be advised that recently enacted NSPS requirement under the Clean
Air Act will most likely apply to this facility. The North Carolina regulatory agency
responsible for implementation of these rules is the Division of Air Quality, Mr. John
Evans. There are requirements for monitoring and potential active collection of
landfill gas that may apply to this facility. Design of collection systems or operations
at this landfill that may be implemented to comply with these regulations must be
reflected in the permit documentation. Please contact the Division of Air Quality to
determine if any such design or procedures are needed at this time. If designs or
procedures are required, they must also be incorporated into this Permit Document.
Note in the Operations plan that the Section will be notified when any rain or
other event required storage of leachate or storm water in the cell. Initial verbal
notification is to be followed by written communication.
1625(b)(1)(F) 100 foot buffers to streams and drainage features must be
undisturbed in order to help protect trout classified streams.
1627(c)(1)(B) The proposed design contains the minimum 18-inches erosion control
layer. Since moisture content is a key component in the proper function of a clay

Permit Application
Initial Review
Page 4
barrier, is the proposed depth of erosion control sufficient to protect against
degradation of the clay cap due to freeze -thaw?
.1-62-&tb)tT) Cfesur-e c&&t estimate -does -not inc-lude-HDRE liner -a+nd-drainage-net.
Financial assurance mechanism documentation have been received (Section
8). The financial assurance documentation may need revision once the complete
closure cost estimate is finalized. If necessary, provide an updated financial
assurance mechanism.
1680(e)(4) Provide design and evaluation for top liner protection in the leachate pond.
Physical protection (puncture, animal, equipment, etc.) and environmental protection
(thermal, uv degradation, etc.) must be provided. The Section strongly recommends
a grout or concrete filled fabric overlay.
During the continuing review process, additional information may be required.
Should any additional information be required, you will be contacted by the Section.
If you have any questions or require any other assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact this office at [phone].
Thank you,
i
William D. Sessoms, PE
enclosure
copy: Jim Patterson - DWM
Wayne Greene - DWM
Jimmy Woody, PE - Municipal Engineering
C:\SESSO MS\PROJECTS\CHEROKEE\LETTER.18

State of North Carolina ,IT
Department of Environment,
R MAI
Health and Natural Resources 1 • a
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Governor p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
ril 7. 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Bill Sessoms, Engineer
Bobby Lutfy, Hydrogeologist
From: Matt Gamble A
Re: Review of Design Hydrogeologic Report
Cherokee County MSW Landfill, Phase I
The preliminary review of the above referenced report is complete. Several
revisions are needed. The Solid Waste Section (Section) needs clarification and
additional information in several areas. Specific comments are:
.1623(b)(1)(A) Additional information and/or evaluation is needed to meet the vertical
separation requirement. A complete explanation is included in the
comments on rule 1623(a)(7)(c).
.1623(a)(4)(E) The determination of effective porosity and groundwater flow velocity
need to be reevaluated. Values of effective porosity were estimated by
plotting the grains size distribution on a textural classification triangle.
The triangle expresses the relationship between grain size distribution
and specific yield in unconsolidated sediments. However, the grain size
scale used to classify the samples differs from that used in the triangle.
The scale used on the grain size distribution is one used by engineers
(ASTM Standards D442-63, D643-78), while that used on the textural
triangle is one often used by American geologists (a Modified
Wentworth Scale after Lane et. al, 1947 Trans. American Geophysical
Union v. 28. p. 936-938). The scales are only slightly different but it
does make small adjustment to the specific yield values obtained from
the triangle. Also, the source of the textural triangle is not referenced.
Because the estimates of effective porosity will change, so too will the
resulting groundwater flow velocities. Since groundwater flow can be
calculated a number of ways, the equation used to arrive at the flow
rate presented in the report needs to be detailed. Specific yield and
P.O. Box 27687, �y� FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Page 2
April7, 1997
Bill Sessoms
effective porosity are closely related properties, however they may not
be interchangeable. The rational for equating the two values should be
documented.
.1623(a)(6) The report describes the subsurface profile as consisting of three units.
A clayey silt, a sand silt/silty sand, and bedrock. These units are not all
shown on the geologic cross -sections. Each of these units should
appear on the cross -sections where relevant. It is understood that the
definition of the strata are based on limited data, however, some
interpretation must be included.
.1623(a)(7)(c) A more thorough evaluation of the long term seasonal high water table
is necessary. The high water table elevation was determined by
adding two feet to the May -June 1996 water levels. The highest water
table does not usually occur during these summer months. In fact, the
hydrograph for USGS well NC192, a water table well close to the site,
shows that the water table is usually highest around March. However,
the hydrograph does show a high water table in late summer 1991. If
the consultant believes that the May -June 1996 water levels are
similarly anomalous then supporting documentation should be
provided. In addition, the use of two feet as a buffer needs to be
supported. Simply adding two feet to all water levels may overlook the
natural variation in water table fluctuation with topography and geology.
Also, water table elevations collected in March 1997 are higher than
the predicted seasonal high plus 2' at P4, P7, and P15 and are nearly
equal to the predicted seasonal high (plus 2') at P5, P1-P2S, and P1-
P4S. This inconsistency between the predicted and actual water levels
suggests that the long term high water table elevation presented in the
report is incorrect.
1623(a)(7)(D) The precise layout of the facility should be accurate on all drawings
submitted in the Design Study. Some drawings include a road across
the Valley River flood plane toward the existing landfill. If this road is to
be built then several issues must be addressed. First, the road is
shown covering archeological site 31 CE601. The disturbance of this
site is inconsistent with the approved Site Study. From the Site Study,
a discussion about the potential importance of the many archeological
sites on the property and their inclusion in the National Registry of
Historic Places reads: "Additional testing would be necessary to clarify
their [archeological sites] National Register status and all disturbances
will be avoided pending resolution of their status". The status of
31 CE601 is not presented in the Design Study and will have to be

Page 3
April7, 1997
Bill Sessoms
defined if the county intends to build the road as shown. Second, how
will the construction of the road affect water movement during flood
events? As drawn, the road may block flow over a significant part of
the flood plane. The restriction of flood waters is generally not allowed.
Please have the county or their consultant provide accurate maps to
replace whichever set is incorrect. If the road is to be constructed, the
above issues will need to be addressed.
.1623(b)(2)(E) As stated earlier, the estimated long term seasonal high water table
elevation should be reevaluated.
1623(b)(3)(A)(ii)
The Section has the following comments about the Sampling and
Analysis Plan:
On page 4 the reference to a chart in the "Guidance Document" (the
North Carolina Water Quality Monitoring Guidance Document For Solid
Waste Facilities) is too vague. The chart should be referenced by page
number and/or table number. Preferably a copy of the chart would be
included in the presented document.
It is not clear which wells will be protected with plastic during sampling.
On p. 3. under the heading Groundwater Sampling - subheading
Preparation, the plan states that plastic sheeting will be placed on the
ground around each well during purging and sampling. Then on p. 4.
subheading Purging, it is suggested that this is only the case for deep
wells. Which wells will be purged and sampled with the plastic
protection needs to be clarified. Also, if the plastic is to be used on the
deep wells only, some guidance as to which wells should be
considered deep should be provided.
Also under the subheading Purging, three well volumes are indicated
as the amount of purging to be completed (unless purged dry before
then). Three well volumes is a minimum purge volume. Each well
should be purged until pH readings have stabilized. It is the
stabilization of pH that indicates that a well has been sufficiently purged
not the volume of water removed. This needs to be incorporated into
the sampling plan.
Under Sample Transport and Chain -of -Custody, a procedure of
recording of field instrument calibration should be included.

Page 4
April7, 1997
Bill Sessorns
The Sampling and Analysis Plan does not include a schedule for
establishing base line water quality data. The plan should be revised to
include a time table to obtain this required background data and a
schedule of semi-annual sampling. It should also be clarified that field
measurements of pH, Conductivity, etc., and groundwater flow must be
submitted along with the analytical results to the Division of Waste
Management.
The surface water sampling procedure suggests that the sample
container will be filled with the mouth of the jar in part above the water
surface. Such a procedure is inconsistent with the Guidance
Document. Item 3 in the Surface Water Monitoring section of the
Guidance Document states that the sample jar should be filled about
six inches below the water surface without the mouth of the jar
breaking the surface. If the author of the proposed sampling plan
believes there is technical merit to allowing this deviation from the
Guidance Document, please have them submit supporting information
for the Section to review.
Monitoring of the existing landfill has detected compounds in the
groundwater. It would be useful to have the wells that contain
contaminants depicted on the monitoring well layout map for the new
facility
Lastly, a copy of the NC Water Quality Monitoring Guidance Document
for Solid Waste Facilities is not included in Appendix A, as referenced
on p. 1 of the Sampling and Analysis Plan.

MEMO
TO:
DATE: 10 ; 5 / Z 7
SUBJECT: 'i"
C P)- ) I n � I rn+
wo 5 c tt.v2�- j'J-� }� ccJ C.kc 4'5- - �o
501 ra Gt, -s - f z�lct;rr
r y
Gas�yL,4r-L v-) �yn,�,lG / L, � C�j -f-ir -3
C*-�
f r
From: -1 Y' �1.��->� Pr5 n h - 5 ° C4d VY 7i-
�'"M�p� Carolina Department of Environment,
Northp
�, r •a= Health, and Natural Resources ea Printed on Recycled Paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
1DEHNR
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE-SECTIO
November 17, 1997
Ms. JoAnne B. Huff
No. 1 Burnt Branch Overlook
Marble, NC 28904
Dear Ms. Huff:
I am writing this letter to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated October 1,
1997, and to notify you that we will be reviewing the Cherokee County solid waste plan based
on requirements specified in North Carolina General Statute §130A-309.09A(b). We will take
your comments into account as we review this plan.
Thank you for your input.
Sincerely,
James E. Patterson
Waste Management Specialist
JEP:sb
cc: Bill Meyer
Julian Foscue
Phil Prete
Interchange Building, ;6 Voice 704-251-6208 FAX [phone]
59 Woodfin Place,Nv4F An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper