NCD980602163_19810807_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Re Warren County v State-OCR

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMO
TO :
FROM:
RE:
~btfo of ~od4 ©arolina
~epadmetti of Jlustire
~
P. o. Box 629
RALEIGH
27602
Burley Mitchell , Bi ll Me ye r
Bill Raney ~
Warren County v. State
As you are aware the Warren County case is now in a posture
for final disposition by the Court. I have filed a motion for
summary judgment on the remaining cause of action and the
response to the motion has been filed by Warren County. Warren
County has also filed an affidavit to support their allegation
thatthe FEIS is deficient.
The affidavit continues to make the same charges as pre-
viously made that the EIS is deficient in certain respects.
As has been the case in the past the affidavit charges that the
suitability of the soil for the clay liner is not adequately
discussed in the EIS. I believe we will be well advised to
present a counter-affidavit which addresses the points made in
Dr. Mulchi's affidavit. We must be careful to frame the
affidavit s o that it is an e xplanation or more detailed analysis
of what already is contained in the FEIS and Supplement.
Otherwise we will be subject to the argument that we are acknow-
ledging deficiencies in the EIS and are attempting to amend the
EIS without following the appropriate procedures.
Any reply to Mulchi's affidavit is due on August 14. Bill
Meyer has provided most of the input into the EIS on soils
questions and probably has the greatest degree of expertise on
the EIS committee on the issues raised in Mucchi's affidavit.
For this reasons I suggest that Bill Meyer prepare a detailed
response. I will put it in appropriate form for filing with the Court.
I will assume that this can and will be accomplsihed by August
13. If there is any difficulty please contact me.
/ck
cc: PCB-EIS Committee
' l
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
NO. 79-560-CIV-5
WARREN COUNTY , )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plai ntiff,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
et al.,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES L. MULCHI
Charles L. Mulchi, being first duly swo rn, deposes and says :
1. My name is Charles L. Mulchi. My qualifications and experience
are set forth in a previous affidavit that I filed, part of the record
in this action.
2 . The comments of Warren County on the draft environmental impact
statement, dated January 29, 1980, are of my authorship. I am satisfied
that tl1e statements contained therein are true, and I incorporate the
comments as a part of this affidavit.
3. I have examined the addendum to the final environmental impact
statement published by the state defendants dated May 26, 1981.
4 . In light of the addendum, I reiterate the statements contained
in the comments of Warren County dated January 29, 1980. These are not
adequately rebutted by the addendum. In addition, I offer the following
further opinions about the project, in response to s tatements made in the
addendum:
a. The state defendants claim that th eir consultants used the
ASTM standards for engineering purposes in evaluating the soils at
the project site. Ghe ASTM standards for soils were developed to be
used for shallow, low load structures such as roads, dams , etc.;hence
,--1 : were not designed to be used in connection with chemical waste landfills.
Compliance with these standards does not assure the presence of an
adequate amount of clayey soil with acceptable characteristics, for the
construction of the soil liner of the landfill.
•.
b. The types and amounts of clay at the project site in Warren
County had the poorest physical prope rties one could specify f or
retaining chemicals, especially the property of surface an.>a which
is the primary criterion for retention of PCB and landfills.
c. The clay types found at the site have low surface areas and
low cation (or chemical) exchange capacities, which means that they
are poor absorbers of PCBs initially , and that they have very low
capacity to retain PCBs once chemical alterations begin to occur.
d . The addendum claims that there are no significant differences
-7
in permeability with respect to exceeding the EPA standard of 01 x 10
i.n the first four feet of soil below the surface. The addendum goes
on to conclude that no blending of materials would be necessary in order
to attain the required penneability limit. This conclusion is plainly
not true , since an actual inspection of the site and the taking of soil
borings at random confinn wide variations in clay layers within these
upper zones of the soil.
Sworn and subscribed before
me this d?J~_.cl''day of~
, 1981. -------
I·, , , j
,l ',''I t ' •
'1 \,' 1M>i Cdmmts.':ion Expires;
' ' '
',1 :}'.{'>_·~:__ 0~
-2-
...
CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE '
Plaintiff I, Norman B. Smith , attorney for ________________ ,
in the above-entitled action, do hereby certify that I have
served a :copy of the for~going Affidavit.of Charles Mulchi
-----------------------------on opposing counsel
of record at the last address known to me, by placing said document
..
in · a_n envelope with first-c lass postage affixed, and by depositing
·said envelope in the u. S~ Post Office in Greensboro, North Carolina, ,-., .
this---'"_·_?_· day of __ ._A_u_g_u_s_t_------~----·' 1981, said envelope heing
addressed ,: as follows: ' .
. Mr. W. A~ Raney , Jr.
-·. S:pe_ciai .p_epu ty. Attq_rney General
·Post Office Box 629 ·
Raleigh, No:i;th Carolina . 27602 ·
Mr. ;will iam w. Web~-
Assist~nt u ~ s. Attorney
Chiif~ -Ci~il Sect{on
Rao~ 17j4 ~ Main Justice Bldg .
. · 10th and P~nnsylyania ~v~., N.W.
Washingtcin~· b.C. 20510
Mr . Ne i 11 M .. Ros s
Attor_ney at Law
Post Office Box 186
tillington, Ncirth Carolina 27546
Mr . David~-Bu~nte , Jx.
Attorney
U .· S .. Department of Justice
·Room ·1734 ~.Main ·J:ustice Building
10th ~rid Penn$ylvania Ave., N;W .
. w~shirigton , D. c~ 20503
•
Attorney for Plaintiff
Norman B. Smith
Smith , Patterson, Follin , Curtis,
James and Harkavy
704 Southeastern ~uilding
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
'I'ele?hone : (919) 274-::~992
) ;
---:-:',
nH, PATTEnsor---,, FoLUN,CuFn1s,JAM Es & HARKAVY