NCD980602163_19810902_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_DOJ memo re PCB Cleanup-OCR

• ..._, \ 7 ,.,.;~~~~ ._ .... ; ~ ~\ ih'.:J& >, '~;J;J;_g; ?/ c· ~ . ;/('?-.{t Erv tb, -~ ' RUFUS L. EDMISTEN ATTORNEY GENERAL ~hrlr nf ~nriq filarnlina ~£parimmt of J]ustic£ P. 0. Box 629 RALEIGH 27602 ./G-t.,,, Ro ~' 4, ,:~ OCT 2 1981 ~; MEMO TO: 1 October 1981 ~ j ~U'J' §,, ~4STE ~!>-~~,·· Burley Mitchell, Dave Kelly, Bob Jansen, Jack Cozort, Bob Adams, Page Benton, John Freeman, 0. W. Strickland, Bill Meyer, Barney O'Quinn, Frank Vick, Glenn Dunn, Al Cole, Blackwell Brogden, Chris Prather FROM: Bill Raney 1\u~ RE: PCB Cleanup As most of you know these are ongoing discussions between various State officials and U.S. EPA concerning the use of the Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1981) for cleaning up the PBC's dumped along North Carolina roadsides. A meeting was held with various State and EPA representatives to discuss issues and problems which might arise out of this process. The purpose of this memo is to acquaint the recipients with some of these issues and to initiate a meeting and a decision-making process which will answer the questions which have been ~pised. It is hoped that the end result will be a coordinatea and consistent position on the various issues that have arisen in various legal and administrative contexts. There are three basic legal proceedings ongoing which may be affected by the pursuit of Superfund grants: (1) Warren County v. North Carolina Twiddy v. North Carolina U.S. District Court ( 2) ( 3) Lan~don v. Hunt, et al -U.S. District Court State v. Wards and Burns -N. C. Superior Court A brief summary of each of the cases is as follows:
r , ·:, -2-Warren County and Twiddy These cases are essentially identical and were brought against the State to prevent the State from disposing of the contaminated dirt from the roadsides in a landfill in Warren County. The suit alleges several grounds the most significant of which is an allegation that the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the State is inadequate in various respects and that further studies and details of design are necessary. The State has argued that its EIS is adequate and that the proposed method of pickup and disposal is the best of all alternatives. This case is currently pending decision by Judge Britt on a motion by the State. Judge Britt could either rule in favor of the State, could rule that the matter must proceed to trial, or could rule that the State cannot proceed with the Warren County site at this time. Langdon This case was brought by a propery owner along one of the PCB dumping routes against various State and federal officials and private parties seeking damages, cleanup and civil prose-cution of the persons responsible for the spill. Arguments have been completed for over a year on a State's motion to dismiss. I do not believe the case will be actively pursued by the plaintiff but it must still be considered. Burns and Wards The State is the plaintiff in this case and is seeking damages and recovery of cleanup costs from the persons responsible for the dumping. I am not handling this case and by this memo am requesting that those who are handling the case be prepared to brief the attendees on its status as necessary. The State/EPA dicussions on the use of Superfund for PCB cleanup hav<:f identified several steps which EPA would generally follow for activation of the Superfund. First, the State and EPA will do a feasibility study as to how the best deal with the hazardous substance problem (in the case PCB spill). This procedure is to identify the method remedying in hazardous situations. In this case EPA has proposed to engage in sub-stantial additional sampling of the spill sites. Second, the State or EPA would design the facility or specify the action necessary to remedy the hazardous situation or would contract for design work. Third, the State or EPA would undertake the remedial work or would enter into contracts to have the work done.
,_ ~ -3-This is an extremely brief summary of the process included simply to give attendees a feeling for the procedure. More detail on the process can be supplied at the meeting by those who are knowledgeable. I believe the general question which must be answered in the near future is whether the State wishes to pursue the Superfund process to achieve cleanup of the PCB's. In addressing this overall question there are several factors which should be considered. Below are some of the factors. Attendees are encouraged to identify other factors and to circulate them to other attendees prior to the meeting. (1) What if any delay in cleanup will result from the use of the Superfund process? (2) Are delays justified on the basis of the cer-tainty of the State's recovering the cost of cleanup? (Approximately$ 2.5 million) (3) Are the first two steps of the Superfund process inconsistent with the State's position in the Warren County case? (4) Will the use of Superfund require the State to dismiss its lawsuit against Wards and Burns to recover cleanup costs and damages? Prior contacts have indicated that Wednesday, October 7 at 10:00 is the most generally available time for the meeting. I have reserved the conference room on the second floor of the Justice Building for the meeting. Please be prepared to discuss the current status of any portion of the PCB matter within your area of expertise. /ck i;.