NCD980602163_19810128_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_PCB Meeting of January 7-OCR

'
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
~tab nf ~nrtlf d!arnlimt
~tpurtnumt of Wmdict
P. o. Box 629
RALEIGH
27602
28 January 1981 -···
Secretary Burley Mitchell, Dave Kelly, Jack Cozort,
Bob Adams, Page Benton, Ted Mew, John Freeman/Bill
Williams, Bill Myer, Barney O'Quinn/Frank Vick
W. A. Raney, Jr~ecial Deputy Attorney General
PCB Meeting of January 27
At the meeting of January 27, 1981 several matters were
discussed which can generally be lumped into three major topics:
(1) response to supplemental complaint by Warren County, (2)
settlement of Warren County suit, and (3) responsibility for
construction and operation of the landfill. I will attempt to
summarize the discussion, set forth decisions in which there
was a consensus, and set forth alternatives where there was no
c onsensus.
1. Response to Supplemental Complaint
There was a consensus that an addendum to the Final EIS
should be prepared to correct the oversight in failing to
specifically respond to the comments of Warren County. The
information n ecessary to respond to these comments, for the most
part has already been compiled. Th ere are certain comments
which could require additional computation, research and possible
testing in order to provide an absolutely airtight response. The
two comments which fall into this category are comment 2. (ground-
water elevation) and comment 3 and 6 (the possible contamination
of groundwater due to unexpected failure of the landfill). It
was felt that an ade quate response which would still be subject
to questioning could be prepared with existinq information. Some
of the other comments might require literature research and com-
putations, but would probably not require laboratory or field
research. The literature research and computations necessary
could require 40 to 60 hours of work.
' I Page Two
Afc~ tk7 ~~ r/ ft <(,Ju a,.µ
In a telephone conversation with Bill Myer he suggested a
meeting between himself and the design consultants in which they
would discuss their respective capabilities for responding to the
q uestions. After that meeting he would recommend whether he
could formulate all the responses or whether parts of the responses
could better be handled by the consultants.
In the meantime the responses or partial responses which can
be formulated relatively easily from existing material can proceed.
I have listed below comments and the persons who would most· 7<
logically be able to supply the responses. f!1t.!J.~9;'~~--;;-r >Ir LLAA-./.. ;<;-,o·o0 /tiD ./ ;r·,1<::omments on Draft EIS 3~~-a ---, F/2 3 .. 'If? . ,
\(j:1 lln-1 1. Site Selection -Bill Myer/Consultants ✓ ·
Ir'~ )/ 0 ;;i~ 2. Groundwater -Bill Myer/Division of Land Resources and
Division of Water Resources of DNRCD /Consultants
3. Landfill Design -Bill Myer/Consultants
4. Moisture Control -Bill Myer/Consultants
Al terna ti ve of Transport to Alabama -Frank Vick from
Answers to Interrogatories
Social and Economic Matters -Frank Vick from previous
r e sponses/additional information on a contingency plan
and the movement of PCB's from Bill Myer/Consulta nts
a)#'-'j J~1'ts ~
Comments on Final EIS @ ~ u>ruJ,\L.....
1. TSPP treatment -Bill Myer/Consultant
2. Montmorillonite layer -Bill Myer/Consultant .~
f 3. Design features -Bill Myer/Consultant
4. Economic and Social Factors if landfill failed -
Bill Myer/Consultant.
2. Settlement Possibilities
No consensus was reached on settleme nt possibilities. The
cost of the montmorillonite layer proposed by Warren County
should be estimated to determine the feasibility of settlement on
that basis. Bill Myer had previously looke d into this i s sue and
I suggest that he resurrect his informati on and inform me a s soon
as he •is able to supply an estimate. I will then discuss t h i s
with Secr etary Mitchell to determine whether to pursue settlement.
Settleme nt with Warren County would quickly remove the
greatest obstacle now existing, the injunction. There is a
possibility that an injunction would be s ought by landowne r s in
Page Three
the area if the Warren County case was settled . Without settle-
ment the litigation could drag out for months especially if
appeals were taken by Warren County . On the other hand the
litigation could be ended shortly after we file the addendum to
the Final EIS if the judge sets an e xpedited hearing. At the
least we are probably talking about three to four months from
now depending on how quickly the addendum can b e pre pared.
3. Responsibility for ·Construction Operation of the Landfill
It was the consensus of the group that the Sta t e should
contract for the construction and operation and closing of the
landfill. DOT would provide pickup and d e livery of the contami-
nated soil but its responsibility would e nd when the soil is
dumped out of the trucks. Further discussion will be necessary
to· determine whether construction of associated facilities such
as roads and wells should be done by the State or contracted out.
If any of the recipients of this memo have further suggestions
please contact me. I will await word from Bill Myer after his
meeting with the consultants on his sugge stion for response to the
Wa rren County comments. At that time a determination will be made
on the necessity for another meeting.
/ck