2002_ROSCANS_2004

NCDENR
NORTH �OUNA 00-A TMMNT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANO NATURAL. R"OURO[3
FACILITY COMPLIANCE AUDIT REPORT
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
UNIT TYPE: (check all that 'apply to this audit with same Permit number
Lined
MS WLP
X
I LCID
YW
X
Transfer
Compost
SLAS
COUNTY: Cherokee
PERMIT NO.: 20-02
FII F TYPE r0MPI IANC E
Closed
MS WLF
HHW
White
goods
Incin
T&P
FIRM
CDLF
TireT&P/
Tire
Industrial
DEMO
SDTF
o ection
Mono i
Landfill
_
Date of Audit: 01/16/04
Date of Last Audit: 10/01 /03
FACILITY NAME AND ADDRESS:
Cherokee County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Highway 74
Marble, NC 28905
FACILITY CONTACT NAME AND PHONE NUMBER:
Robert Allen, Cherokee County Solid Waste Department
Telephone: [phone]
FACILITY CONTACT ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT):
Robert Allen, Director
Cherokee County Solid Waste Department
c/o Cherokee County Courthouse
75 Peachtree Street
Murphy, NC 28906
AUDIT PARTICIPANTS:
Jim Patterson, N.C. Solid Waste Section
Jeff Clark, Cherokee County Solid Waste Department
STATUS OF PERMIT:
Active — permit modification issued on May 19, 2003.
PURPOSE OF AUDIT:
Comprehensive audit of municipal solid waste landfill and inspection of scrap tire collection site and yard waste
facility.
NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS) (citation and explanation):
None
You are hereby advised that, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A-22, an administrative penalty of up to $5,000 per day may be assessed for each
violation of the Solid Waste Statute or Regulations. If the violation(s) noted here continue, you may be subject to enforcement actions
including penalties, injunction from operation of a solid waste management facility or a solid waste collection service and any such
further relief as may be necessary to achieve compliance with the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act and Rules.
STATUS OF PAST NOTED VIOLATIONS (List all noted last audit):
N/A

FACILITY COMPLIANCE AUDI j, REPORT
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Page 2 of 2
OTHER COMMENTS /SUGGESTIONS:
(1) Some litter needs picking up.
(2) Geo textile material over HDPE in leachate lagoon is coming apart gain. This needs repairing as soon as
possible.
ire records look good.
Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this audit report.
(signature) Phone: [phone].
Regional Representative
Distribution: original signed copy to facility -- signed copy to compliance officer — e-mail or copy to super
Delivered on : O1/27/04 by I I hand delivery I x I US Mail I I Certified No. !1
cc: Mark Poindexter
Brent Rockett

.rd: Regarding Odor Complaint]
Subject: [Fwd: Regarding Odor Complaint]
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:34:33 -0500
From: Mark Poindexter <[e-mail]>
To: Jim Patterson <[e-mail]>
FYI.
Subject: Regarding Odor Complaint
ate: a Mar .4U=65-GO
From: "JoAnne Huff' <[e-mail]>
To: "Mark Poindexter" <[e-mail]>
Dear Mr. Poindexter,
Attached is your letter responding to my complaint of last Oct 1,2003. 1 went to the landfill and picked up a copy of
the "Comprehensive Audit" . Mr. Patterson's response does not appear comprehensive to me. There is no
mention of the areas you stated were inspected. I have several neighbors who will attest to the fact that odors
emanate from the landfill and are intolerable at times. This is another example of a serious concern be passed
over. I think you would be a little more concerned if your children were forced to breathe tainted air and toxic
substances. Thank you for your time in hearing my concerns. J Huff
-MAPOOOO.PDF Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf
Li Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Field Operations Branch Head
Division of Waste Management -Solid Waste Section
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 3/11 /2004 8:44 AM

[Fwd: Cherokee Co Landfill Corrected message]
Subject: [Fwd: Cherokee Co Landfill Corrected message]
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:32:46 -0500
From: Mark Poindexter <[e-mail]>
To: Jim Patterson <[e-mail]>
FYI. I'll try to give you a call Thursday.
Subject: Cherokee Co Landfill Corrected message
Date: Wed,Mar -9500
From: "JoAnne Huff' <[e-mail]>
To: "Mark Poindexter" <[e-mail]>
Please disregard the previous message. Sent uncorrected version
Dear Mr. Poindexter,
Thank you for your timely response.. I would however like to clarify a few important points: (1) Regarding the T&P
Permit: I have a copy of the guidelines of the permit. In no way does the operation at the landfill meet the criteria
outlined in the permit.What exists at the landfill is two large piles of wood waste that has be collected over a five
year period. By the terms of the permit, wood waste are to be processed in a years time.Am I to understand that
even though the county had to obtain a for a permit and pay for it with taxpayer money, the landfill is not required
to comply with the rules if not economically feasible? Why have the permit at all? If your first assertion as to why
the waste was not processed is that the county did not have enough to make it feasible- then your second
statement - that it should take about an hour to grind makes no sense. By the estimate stated on the annual
report, there is 197.71TONS or 395,420 lbs. of waste located in the designated area. That should certainly take
more than one hour to grind. Who provides you with the info? (2) Regarding my second question: The Ten Year
Solid Waste Plan: Let me make myself perfectly clear- Mr. Patterson has never addressed any of my concerns
directly. All of my concerns are based on direct observation and the study of Solid Waste Regulations. With
regards to GS130A-309.09A (b)- The Cherokee County Ten Year Plan does not meet standards. There is no plan
of action to reduce the solid waste stream- no reduction at the source, no mandatory recycling. We still have a
number of uncontrolled, unmanned, dumpsites including the one at the landfill itself. There is no gate in the
evening after the staff leaves. Anyone can dump anything they choose including aluminum cans, computer
screens, fluorescent light fixtures, oil, pesticides, construction debris, furniture etc. Who is ultimately responsible
for reading these reports and enforcing the law? Is it just another exercise in bureaucracy?
With regard to Mr. Patterson: I had a meeting with Mr. Allen, Mr. Sullivan , Mr. Patterson, and several neighbors in
1998. Mr. Patterson told us at that time regarding GS130A-309 " the rules are there, but no one complies with
them. It is an impossible situation." Mr. Sullivan, who was the county's engineer and the representative building the
landfill, ( who filled out the reports) told me he was not required to inform the county on non-compliance issues- he
simply filled out the report based on information provided by the county and then submitted it to the state. The
original permit for locating the landfill in Marble was flawed, the Bird Management Plan does not fit the area ,and
the annual and ten year plan have questionable statistics. I question why taxpayers who are relying on the
integrity and credibility of supposed "experts" in the field of solid waste have to pay for reports that do meet
standards and why all of this is accepted by your department?
As we both know, there are consequences to health and environment for not properly handling and disposing of
toxic substances. Runoff from the landfill (and the dumpsites located nextto`t e river ) end up in the drinking
water. •
Thank you for hearing my concerns. Sincerely, JoAnne Huff RN
Field Operations Branch Head
Division of Waste Management -Solid Waste Section
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 3/11/2004 8:46 AM

'/r'
'~

s' NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor
't William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
February 20-0-4
Mr. Robert Allen
Cherokee County Solid Waste Director
75 Peachtree Street
Murphy, NC 28906
Re: Review of Responses of Design Hydrogeological Report — Phase 2
Cherokee County MSW Landfill — Permit # 20-02
Marble, NC
Dear Mr. Allen: 4
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the responses from the Design Hydrogeologic j:<.
Report for Phase 2 submitted by Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A. on'
December 17, 2003. There are some additional concerns.
There was nothing changed on Table 1 from the original report to the revisions. The
groundwater elevation at 24-hours for P2-61) still reads 1646.25 feet. Subtracting the top
of pipe (TOP) elevation (1665.4 feet) from the 24-hour reading (1646.25 feet), the result
is 19.15 feet below TOP. According to the filed log, the 24-hour water level is 19.15 feet
below ground surface (bgs). The 7-day groundwater elevation of 1643.25 feet is the
correct water level to get irle result of 22.15 feet below TOP. Also, there is a discrepancy
of the 24-hour water level for P2-1 between the boring and field logs and Table 1. The
boring and field logs states 35.63 feet bgs, while Table 1 states the water level at 37.22
feet bgs. The TOP water level was 40.19 feet both the field log and Table 1. This would
snake the stick-up height to be 4.56 feet. The surveyed stick-up height on the field log
states 2.976 feet. Correct these confusions.
The scale displayed on all the figures is stated backwards. It currently reads 1' (foot)
equals 60 " (inches) or other respected number. It should read 1" (inch) equals 60' (feet).
Correct and submit new figures.
The base grades were placed on Figures 5, 6 and 7 as requested. However, the elevations
associated with the base grades were not added. Put the elevation numbers with the base
grades and submit.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Oppor'wuni;y / Affc;na;ive faction Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

The seasonal high groyndwater elevation contours on Figure 6 do not extend toward P24
and P2-5D/S. There is groundwater elevation data for these wells. Why weren't these
wells included in the seasonal high calculations and contours? Use the groundwater
elevation data for these wills and submit new figure.
The seasonal high water level line on cross-section A -A' on Figure 8 does not extend to
P2-5D. Without this extension, it is hard to determine the required 4-foot separation
high line, it appears there is not a 4-foot separation between the base grades and seasonal
high groundwater at P24.
If there are any questions or comments concerning this letter and/or would like to
schedule a meeting, please feel free to call me at [phone] extension 346.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth R. Stewart
Hydrogeologist
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Cc: Jim Coffey — Section Chief, DWM-Solid Waste Section
Sherri Coghill — Engineer, DWM-Solid Waste Section
Jim Barber — Permitting Branch Head, DWM-Solid Waste Section
Jim Patterson — Waste Management Specialist, Asheville Regional Office
Kohei Yoshida — Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A.

AN i
NCDENR
'-' MVED
_ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
June 30, 2004
Mr. Robert Allen, Director
Cherokee County Solid Waste Department
75 Peachtree Street
Murphy, NC 28906
RE: Assessment Monitoring Requirements at the Cherokee County Lined Landfill (Permit # 20-02)
Dear Mr. Allen:
Water quality monitoring data from the Cherokee County lined landfill have documented the presence of
Appendix I contaminants in monitoring wells MW-6S and MW-61) at concentrations exceeding NCAC 2L
groundwater standards. In response, and allowed by 15A NCAC 13B .1633, efforts were made by the
county to determine if a source other than the landfill was responsible for the contamination. The results of
the assessment activities were submitted in the June 2004 report, Initial Groundwater Assessment,
Cherokee County Subtitle D Landfill. The assessment activities and report were completed by Municipal
Engineering Services Company, P.A. (MESCO) on behalf of Cherokee County.
Unfortunately the assessment activities did not provide evidence that a source other than the landfill was
responsible for the contaminant release found wells MW-6S and MW-61). Consequently, Cherokee County
must begin an assessment -monitoring program that includes complying with all of the requirements of Rule
.1634. Assessment monitoring is required whenever contaminants are detected at concentrations
statistically greater than background levels or exceed groundwater standards. -
Thank you for you cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], extension
257.
Sin erely,
Larry Rose
Environmental Compliance
Solid Waste Section
cc: Mark Poindexter — Head, Field Operations Branch
Brent Rockett — Westem.District Supervisor
Jim Patterson — Waste Management Specialist
Sherri Coghilll — Environmental Engineer
Jonathan Pfohl - MESCO
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://Viastenotnc.org
An Equal op; or4uni;y t Affu rnaGve Action Employer— Prnled on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper