NCD980602163_19850911_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Affidavit - Henry and William Twitty v. State of NC-OCR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WARREN
HENRY F. TWITTY and
WILLIAM TWITTY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
and HEMAN R. CLARK, Secretary
of the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Crime Control and
Public Safety,
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
NO. 83-CVS-117
A F F I D A V I T
THOMAS C. KARNOSKI, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am an Environmental Engineer in the Solid & Hazardous Waste
Management Branch, Environmental Health Section, Division of Health
Services, North Carolina Department of Human Resources. I have been
employed as an Environmental Engineer by the Department for the past
five years. I have received a Bachelor of Science degree and a Master
of Science degree from North Carolina State University in Biological
and Agricultural Engineering.
As an Environmental Engineer, I acted as a liaison between the
engineering consultant and officials of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State during construction of the Warren
County PCB landfill disposal facility. In that capacity it was my
responsibility to assure compliance with all EPA permit conditions re-
lating to this facility. It has been my responsibility during the post
closure and operation phases of the facility to assure that all environ-
mental monitoring and inspections are performed in accordance with EPA
permit conditions and EPA/State of North Carolina approved sampling
methodologies.
2.
It has been the responsibility of the Solid & Hazardous waste
Management Branch to inspect and monitor the Warren County PCB land-
fill or disposal facility which is located upon 19.317 acres designated
as "Landfill Parcel" on that certain map recorded in Map Book 18, page
4, Warren County Registry.
There is a leachate collection system designed to remove free
liquids from the PCB waste stored in the disposal facility and a
leachate detection system designed to indicate the presence of any
leachate that may migrate through the liners encasing the PCB waste
mass. See attachment No. 1 hereto. No free liquids have ever been
discovered in the leachate detection system and, thus, there has been
no migration of free liquids through the liners which totally encase
the PCB waste buried in the facility.
Liquids are removed from the leachate collection system on a
monthly basis. After treatment in the on-site treatment works, no
detectable levels of PCBs have ever been measured in said liquids.
Therefore, no harmful or dangerous levels of PCB contaminates have
been released into the environment from the disposal facility.
Leachate removed from the leachate collection system is pumped
into the treatment works where it is passed through an area containing
a sand filter and then through an area containing an activated carbon
filter. The effluent from the treatment works is discharged into an
on-site compacted clay lined surface impoundment. No detectable
levels of PCBs have been measured in the free liquid pumped into the
surface impoundment.
3.
In addition to the monthly monitoring of the leachate systems,
samples of groundwater, surface water and surface water sediments
have been taken and analysed every six months. These samples have
been taken from four (4) groundwater monitoring wells and four (4)
surface water and surface water sedimentation sampling points. The
location of said wells and sampling points were designated by the
EPA and are shown on the Attachment No. 2 hereto. All sampling and
analytical procedures rigidly follow United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and North Carolina Division of Health
Services methodologies.
Analyses conducted on all samplings of groundwater, surface
water and surface water sediments taken at the landfill site from
October 5, 1982, to the date of this affidavit conclusively establish
that there have been no harmful or dangerous releases of PCBs buried
in the disposal facility. Such analyses establish that no ground-
water, surface water or surface water sediments draining or being dis-
charged into Richneck Creek, or its tributaries from the PCB landfill
site, or the County owned buffer zone which completely surrounds the
disposal site, have been contaminated by detectable or harmful or
dangerous levels of PCBs buried in the site as alleged in the complaint
filed herein. Chemical analyses establish that no persons, animals
or crops or plants upon the lands of plaintiff have been exposed to
any detectable or harmful or dangerous levels of PCBs as a result of
the PCB waste buried in the disposal facility in question.
4.
The Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch has also con-
ducted chemical tests on water samples taken from numerous private
drinking water wells of private residents in the area of the landfill,
including wells of the plaintiffs, and such tests showed no detectable
levels of PCBs in the water from said wells. See Attachment No. 3
hereto.
The PCB disposal facility was constructed in accordance with
plans and specifications approved by the EPA. The site location was
chosen and the disposal facility~as engineered and designed in such
a manner as to minimize any possibility of harmful releases of PCBs
from the PCB waste buried in the facility.
The landfill site is situated on the crest of a hilltop.
U.S. Geological Survey Flood records establish that the 100 year
flood elevation is not more than eight (8) feet above the average
water level in R~chneck Creek and its tributaries. The landfill
facility is located approximately eighty (80) feet above the level
of Richneck Creek, and it is not subject to flooding.
Based upon groundwater elevation measurements made on May 23
and May 24, 1985, there is a separation of nineteen (19) feet between
the elevation of the groundwater beneath the landfill site and the
PCB waste stored therein. There is no realistic likelihood that
either groundwater or surface water will ever be contaminated by
PCB soils buried in the facility. The facility was engineered and
constructed with major emphasis on the protection of groundwater and
surface water from potential contamination.
5.
Artificial and compacted clay liners were constructed below
the landfill facility and along side slopes of the facility to pre-
vent hydraulic connection between groundwater and the PCB soils
stored in the landfill. Artificial and compacted clay liners were
also placed on top of the landfill to prevent infiltration of rain
or surface water. The artificial liners overlap and are sealed at
the seams. The top of the landfill was also sloped to prevent the
collection of any rain water on the surface of the landfill.
In addition, surface water infiltration is minimized and
surface water runoff is maximized by the topographic position of the
landfill facility, the clayey subsoils and side slopes of the ridge
on which the landfill facility is located. Recharge of groundwater
resulting from surface water infiltration and percolation is low.
Also, there are no significant fluctuationsin the water table eleva-
tions beneath the ridge occupied by the disposal site. There are
seven (7) natural draws located in a radial pattern around the fill
site which enhance surface water drainage around the fill area. See
Attachment No. 4 hereto. These natural drainage features together
with the relatively low retention and storage capacity of subsurface
soils and rock allow only a low potential for buildup of any signific-
ant hydraulic head or water table below the ridge. The potential for
mounding of groundwater below the site is further reduced by the
impermeable barriers constructed on the ridge crest as part of the
disposal facility.
6.
There is a six foot chain link fence with barbed wire topping
constructed approximately 200 feet from the perimeter of the disposal
pit to prevent unauthorized pe rsons and animals from entering the
site. The site is periodically inspected and maintained in a manner
to insure security and prevent hazardous conditions from developing.,
Plaintiffs allege in paragraph 6 of their Complaint that
"there is a substantial likelihood that groundwater which supplies
Rich Neck Creek ••• have or will become contaminated and dangerous
II . . . . No such contamination has occurred during the thirty-five
month period since PCBs were buried in the disposal facility. If
such contamination had occurred, it would have been revealed by the
analyses conducted by the Department of Human Resources on the
samples of groundwater, etc. taken at or near the disposal area.
Plaintiffs allege in paragraph 11 of their Complaint that the
disposal facility is designed in such a way that "large quantities
of water become trapped therein, overflow and enter Rich Neck Creek
along plaintiffs' land where the poisoned effluent enters plaintiffs'
land and poses a constant threat II . . . . The samples of groundwater,
surface water and surface water sediments analysed by the Department
over the past thirty-five month period of time clearly establish
that the artificial and clay liners encasing the PCB laden soils
buried in the disposal facility have been successful in preventing
the infiltration and exfiltration of water from the disposal facility
and in preventing hydraulic action between the PCB soils stored in
the facility and groundwater and surface water.
7.
Effluent samples taken from the leachate system treatment
works have shown no detectable, much less any harmful or dangerous,
levels of PCB in the leachate. Furthermore, the leachate collection
and removal system has allowed the successful removal of any leachate
as frequently as needed. There has been no overflow of effluent from
the disposal facility into Richneck Creek or its tributaries. If
any "poisoned effluent" as alleged by plaintiffs had "overflowed"
from the facility, it would have been detected in the groundwater
samples analysed by the Department.
All free liquids which have been removed from the leachate
collection system to date resulted from the accumulation of rain-
fall in the landfill facility prior to completion of the landfill
cap. After construction of the cap was completed, the PCB waste
stored in the facility became completely enveloped or encased by an
artificial liner sealed at all seams and a compacted clay liner which
preclude any infiltration of rain water or groundwater. Since no
water can enter the encased portion of the landfill facility, there
can be no "overflow" of free liquids from the landfill site into
streams or creeks bordering plaintiffs' land as alleged in the
Complaint. As pointed out hereinbefore no free liquids have been
discovered in the leachate detection system.
Plaintiffs allege in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, upon
information and belief, that" ••• shields, linings and coverings pro-
vided by defendants are not impervious to fire ••• ". While it is
true that an artificial liner is not impervious to fire when exposed
to open flames, there is no reasonable likelihood or probability that
8 .
the artificial liner installed in the PCB disposal facility could be
damaged by fire. The artificial liner over the top of the landfill
is buried two feet below the surface. There is one foot of bridging
material and one foot of top soil separating this liner from the
surface. In addition, the two foot compacted clay liner over the
top of the fill is impervious to fire. This clay liner is five feet
thick along the side slopes and under the bottom of the fill.
Although the EPA did not consider that the PCBs illegally
dumped along the sides of North Carolina highways in 1978 an imminent
threat to human health, the agency 's position was that any exposure
of man to PCBs is undesirable. EPA regulations required dis posal,
of PCBs in either a well designe d, ~onitored landfill or by incin-
eration. There were no incine rators in the United States a ppr oved
for PCB disposal at that time.
The State of North Carolina considered in-place treatment as
a possible alternative method of disposal. As a result of EPA lab
tests conducted to evaluate the safety of this alternative, the EPA
recommended in November of 1978 against in-place treatment and the
State began to look for suitable storage sites for disposal of PCB
laden soil materials. In face of severe opposition by both local
governments and residents, the State formally petitioned EPA to
reconsider its position against in-place treatment. A formal
petition was filed in January of 1979 asking EPA to amend its re-
gulations to permit alternative methods of handling the problem,
e.g. in-place treatment. See Attachment No. 5 hereto. The petition
9.
was published by EPA and comments solicited for ninety (90) days
from all concerned parties. In the interim the State was requested
by EPA to conduct two tests of an in-place treatment procedure
suggested by Dr. Jerome Weber of NCSU (i.e., mixing activated
charcoal with the contaminated soil). The tests were carried out
in both sandy loam and high-clay contents soils.
On the bases of (1) comments received by interested parties
outside EPA in response to the State's petition; (2) the results of
toxicological and environmental testing in connection with proposed
treatment; (3) lack of control over PCBs if left in place, and (4)
concern for long-term safety (migration via erosion and human
activities such as highway work), the EPA formally denied the
State's request for a rule change on June 4, 1979. See Attachment
No. 6 hereto. The State then resumed plans to remove PCB soils
from the roadsides to a secure landfill. The EPA approved concept-
ually the use of a State-owned site in Warren County. In late 1979
a draft Environment Impact Stateraent (EIS) was filed for use of the
Warren County site. The final EIS was filed in November of 1980.
See Attachment No. 7 hereto.
Use of the Warren County site was delayed by several court
actions, including one action instituted by the plaintiffs herein
and others. In May 21, 1982, the EPA issued a "Finding of No
Significant Impact". See Attachment No. 8 hereto. The landfill
was constructed and storage of the contaminated PCB soil was
completed in the final quarter of 1982.
. . 10.
'l'he disposal site desi9:n provides for stringent environmental
isolation ,:;,f the PC3 contaminated soil~ The PCB contarn.inatecl soil
is harmless and safe while properly storr::d within the landfill. 'I'he
storage of PCBs in the landfill site in question does not present a
reasonable probability of danger of contamination to plaintiffs,
their families, lands or crops. The facility does not present any
substantial .risk of injury to the ht~alth of plaintiffs, to public
health or the environment.
Further a.ff iant sayeth not.
'l'his the , / ''
..,,...,.•. day September, 1985.
Swor n to and subscribed to before
// me this the .LL_: day of September,
1985.
Notary Public
My Com.mission Expires: , , _;., .._,I-,:, ,· .. ~
'rHO.MAS C. I{ARNOSKI , APPIA.NT