NCD980602163_19990215_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Ken Ferruccio correspondence, 1993 - 1999-OCR

~-• l
Zcf
?J:I3.
?J~·
r;µs February 1 S, 1999
To: /11,iff 4/y (~19 J 7tS--J6tJS
From: Ken Ferruccio ~~
···~
Subject: Relponse to NC Deputy Director of Hazardous Waste Dfvbdoo -
l)e,paty Director Mike Kelly's February ~• letter ~onctrJiDK
C'Olttthuous pumping of water out of state,, PCB/Dioxin landfill
Number of Eaacs: 7
This cover page ( l)
Resporme to I<:elly's letter (3)
Kelly's letter (t2) ·
Heman Clark's letter to Governor Jim Hunt ( l)
' .
To: Mike Kelty, Deputy Director of NC Hazardous Waste Division
From: Ken Ferruccio 'Jt}
CC : Govemor Jim Hunt, Members of the PCB Working Group , Independent Scientists,
News Media
Subject: Response to your Febmary 5th letter concerning continuous pumping of water
out of the state's PCBVdioxin landfill
. ···--n-:---. Tn your kttcr of 5 Febh1ary, you state your intention to install low velocity ptnnps, a
filtering system and a leachate holding tank and begin continuous pumping of water out
of the landfill.~
r.ontlnuou~ pumping before full-scale detoxification would have very serious
implication!! h~nu1e:tt would provide the state with a rationale for circumventing
detoxlt'kath.>n.
A !though as you state in your letter, "Pumping the water out of the landfill has never been
used (hy the state las an alternative m detoxification,·• the tmth is that Heman Clark
(North Carolina's secretary of crime control and public safety during the PCB civil -rights
demonstrations of 198'2 and in charge of the PCB cleanup) advised in his letter (June 6,
1994) to Governor Jim Hunt that the logical ba~is for detoxification be removed by
having the w~ter pumped out of the landfill. In his ktter, Clark refers to detoxification
as" ... a shameful waste of much tax money."
So although the state has not yet puhlicly stated an intention to use pumping as an
alternative t(1 detoxification, it is a matter ofpub!ic record that a fom1er official of the
Hunt administration has proposed to Governor Hunt that he do so.
For the PCB Working Group to approve continuous pumping before full-scale
detoxification would he to prntect and promote the vested interests of the principal
responsible parties (the state. EPA, the Department of the Anny --Fort Bragg) against th~
interests of the people of Warren County.
Furthrn1T1nre, contfouous pumping before frill-scale detoxification would violale ! 993
understandings and preconditfrms not only for pumping, but for resolving the crisis
through a Working Grbup. Your letter alleges thi:1t walt:r removal is needed before the on-
site detoxification process begins (page 2, paragraph 2). However, the simultaneity ('.>f
p,H~p~_g .and __ deto,cifictttion was a precondition stated in my Jun e 18, 1993 , memo to John
Humpfo-ey, then. NC DfEHNR official :
One 1,1sfiect of yesterday's conversMion needs clarification. It concerns
the temporal relationship between pumping the contaminated water
ot.1t of the landfill and detoxifying the landfill in its entirety.
Page 2
J f pumping water from the landfi 11 is understood as a nccessarv
function of a comprehensive detoxification mcthodol(.)gy that ~ould
neutralize the landfill in its entirety and if the simultaneity of
detoxification and pumping is implicit. on~ re.quiring the ·otJ1er, l
cannot at this time anticipate a c0nflict concerning this matter
However, if pumping the water from the landfill is under$tood to be
~1 f remediahle] process that would precede appropriating funds for
detoxification, that would precede a contractual relationship with
a corporation for detoxifying the landfill in its entirety, that would
precedt the actual initiation of det0xifying the landfill in its entirety,
ond that had as its objective merely the decontunination of the water
and sediment , we would hnve serious problems at that point in our
negotiations.
So even hefore the PCB Working Group was formed , the understanding was that
pumping and full -,s,~lle. detoxification would occur simultaneously , Either the state will
honor this under~nmding, or it will not Tt cannot h;wr. it ambiguously both ways as your
letter would have it _
Your letter alleges that water removal h('fore deto xification is needed (page 2. paragru ph
2), hut then 5t:lt~s that th e actual detoxification process is beginning (page 2. paragraph
5) To resolve th is ambiguity concerning the temporal relationship between wal er
removal and detoxification is simply to acknowl edge that water removal is not
detoxification.
Thi::-amhiguowi nature of your letter conceming the temporal relat ionship between water
removal and c1etmdtication is understandable beraust~ of th e serious implications of
beginning continuous pumping before full -scale detoxification.
In a June 10, l 997; press statement, Deborah and 1 cautwn ed Governor Hunt and hi s
administration cnnceming an EP . .A./state attempt to pump hefore detoxification.
Dr. Joel Hirschhnm, then one of the independent scientists for the PCB Working Group ,
'c'xpt~'i~9 hi t corn:em that ..... Taking what I call Bann -Aid actions, such as ck-watering
the landfill and fixing the leachate collectinn pumping system, would in my opinion
constit11te an acti<m making eventual full-scale landfill dcroxification highly unlikel y"
(June 13, 1997, memo to PCB Working Group).
ln vnur letter .. ym1 tefor to mv May 17. 1993, statement to Secretary Howes and tn what -.. ~ ..
you intr.rr,ret H'l my main concern that nn adequate filtration system he used for pumping
Page 3
Actually, my May 17; 1993, statement to Howes proposed a rationale and 5-point
framework expressing several main concerns . Not the least important concern was
expressed as follows:
The attempt to initiate this (pumping] process before a
disinterested scientific assessment of risks has been explained
and consented to (by citizens) will be resisted.
The Working Group is controlled by local, state, and federally affiliated Hunt democrats
promoting the ve~ted interests of the principal responsihle parties (Governor Jim Hunt,
the state of North Carnlina, EPA, and Fort Bragg) against the interests oflocal citizens.
Until the Working Group functions through ,m open . honest democratic process with
local citize,, stakeholder~ making d(:cisions with the advice of truly inck1>cndent
scientists, reconcrnation through the Working Group is impossible. To quote PCB
Working Group member Jim Warren. "The WG (Working Group] has operated \'cry
inefficiently for a lo·ng time, and without any sort of democratic process" (Memo to
Dollie Burwell, December 11. 1998).
Tn your letter, Mike, you asked for our support. Deborah and I will neither participate in,
nor will we endorse, what has become clearly an undemocratic process.
The trends nnw are very serious because continuous pumping before full-scak
detoxification means continuous conflict. This conflict is likely to effect significant
changes in the political status quo here in Warren connty and b~yond.
·.
... ,
·~: ' ;4,J,J ~~·1 :?
. ! (, ' ◄ L
~ ,-9~~ t· ,, ; t :' ' l .:~
., ~ '
t 1 t
.1 ,:,'.' i -~-i-~ ·, H .·i
i:'1:.·
~-•:ltt•-t.
. ·• ~.,,o ··
~ '
· ...
·,, . .:.
• . -~~I
,-~. .. -,·
.Mr. and Mrs. Ken Ferruccio
Route l, 'Box I 6JJ
Norlina, NC 27563
~ar ·Keri and Deborah :
NORTH CA"°Llf(A ¢,EFtAJIITMENT OF
ENVlftONMENT AND . NATUftAL Rl!SOURCES
DrvtlllON o.-WASTE MANAGEMl!NT
Fehniarv 5, I 999
I wanted to take a minute to update vou on the current stafos of the PCB lan<lfill
prb:reet,; is neither of you were at th~ last coupk of meeting~. ·
As vou may have heard , we have hired a full time t>n)!incer. Ms. Patricia Backu.s 10
· spc~ti\ead ~vents with the PCB landfill detoxificatior~ She wiJI devote all of her,
trrne towarci the l"nrltill and cietoxifkaticm.
Yestc,rd·ay, we met with ETG to discuss a Phas~~ Ill contract and scope of work.
We wtlfbe negotiating a C(Hllract with ETG for thi s work. Jim WarTen was
prttsentfdr part of the meeting, and DollyHun.vdl for most ofth~ day. Patrick
Brttnes-wa.s present as well . Patri ck ha s been discussing options with ETG that
W()U-1-d 1tllow AF A to take the leading role in thl! engineenng itsp~cti; of the pr'oj~ct
We are ahm exploring the feasibility nf hiwing certain derivera,ble items, such as site
preparation, lining of the stormwater ret ention pond, etc .. put into the Phase Ill
contract, ~d allowing ETG to bid out, help us ~elect a contractor. and oversee the
const\"Uction of these phases of the project . thus efficiently using the current
avtita'hfe funds .
l also wanted to discuss our \VOrk on the EPA non-cornrjli:rnce (1l"der. EPA ha<:
grv-en _us• reprieve on puning a cap cm the landfilt in light Clf"thetietoxifl'catlo))
· pr('te~~ We ~till need to me-rt nnr prrmit rt?:qt1ireh1ent to pump w:1ter out nfthc•
farfflfilt · As you know, we do monthly monitoring of the landfill , and at that time .
puttip·the 'availablt! water out of the leachate collection system arid put it through
the sand tilter bed and carbon filter system We tak e water samples of the inflw~nt
an41 effluent and test for PCBs.
ln fh~· near f'i . .1tt1re. it is our intention to install low velocity pumps, a filtering
~y!rtem and a leachate holding tank, at1d hegin continuous pumping 6f the wa.r.er
out of the1 lnmffill Pat Backus and I ,viii he meeting with EPA ltller this month rP
di~u~ our plans.
401 O·WIIIL.IN 1111141:1, lftJTTS 190, ft-'L«ICIH, NC Z7e!OS
.. NO .... , •• .,.lt_,. ••• tirA,1Ce1e-7t'4Hlt10!1
Aw ••i:1.&1 n,---,...,.tM,"f!VIA .. •••u.•'"'-'_. &r-.,..., .. , •-••-~-.,..,., _,....,....,_, --~ .. -~ .._ _ _,,_ --··· -. ·
t Ken and Deborah Pemlcdio
, Februa.:ry5. 1999 t ~ Page 2
l
i I am certainly a.wa~ of your position on this issue, ,ind therefore ask that you share with me ymir
f specific concern!' Hi otdtrthat we may work to resolve them Pumping the water out of the
t lnntfFdl lt11~ 'H~-•~ Wttl by u ... a:r; mt alt,·rnativ,t to r/etox?fici1tion., yet ir can be beneficial tn ! the BCD procei,a. ·
f The Jimdlflt ftW' tll., tn#t will ,wt come from any rnonie~ a !located to the detoxf'tication project
; The proces5 tbr wAfer removal will be very slow because the water content of the landfill is at or
1 above the flt-Id captkity of the soil and would not be practical to begin once we start the on-site
: c1etoxificattnn proces, •... The system would also be in the way of the soil excaY.ation
. t I think we wouldai1 -t Hetter if the entire fonding for detoxification was "in the,bank. '' but we
·~ must t:ontinue t~, w:ork together with what we have Points of disagreement need to be discussed ,
; 1rnd your true concerns brought to the table. I hope that we can discuss your concerns and reach
f an agreement . ·. ~ ...
f •· : l ln Ken's Mtey 17., f~Jl, ltjter to Secretary Howes. t.he main concern was verification that a
1 filtering gystem ad~uately removed PCBs prior to spray i1Tigating water back 011 the landfill Wt!
'have lats nfdata' t'Hat ._,,m c-.onfirm this based 011 what \ve have heeh doing during the pa~t several
~ 'yean1 A nt,,· fy~~1 mil be far superior to the current one , and include a hofding tank that can
~ he tested prior to any d'i-!crnvge . If you have additional con cerns, please sha.re them with me l . .
~ We need your ~upport~ hut we atso need to move forward . We plan , as directed by the EPA, tn
t begin remtw;ng -..vatcr from the landfill I am certainly willing to work \Vith you to re solve your
{. concerns, butt canriot rgnore or stop processes just hecause you ITTi~Y disagree with them . The
~: (lctuaf drlo:dftt'llh'bn prMess is heginni ng. You bot h have worked long a.nd hard to help get tn
~ thi s point. Although we are not where we want to he. we are th e clm,est we have ever been
·~ Let's work tcrgetheno get it finished'
j .. , rook forw•I t<f1ieattigrrhnf yoii
\ '
~. ~
Delly;D~U.
Henry L--$t41t •
Warren Coin1ty PCB files
~-· ~· _.,,.__.::...u..-
Michael A. Kelly. CHMM, RE
Deputy Director ------
(
.,,,..~-,.,,,,-··--
'--.. .._______J __ _
>i<( ·t.w£·: t¼ ~1'
--l
~W'A
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GoVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
WILLIAM L. MEYER
DIRECTOR
Mr. and Mrs. Ken Ferruccio
Route 2, Box 1631
Norlina, NC 27563
Dear Ken and Deborah:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
February 5, I 999
I wanted to take a minute to update you on the current status of the PCB landfill
projects as neither of you were at the last couple of meetings.
As you may have heard, we have hired a full time engineer, Ms. Patricia Backus, to
spearhead events with the PCB landfill detoxification. She will devote all of her
time toward the landfill and detoxification.
Yesterday, we met with ETG to discuss a Phase III contract and scope of work.
We will be negotiating a contract with ETG for this work. Jim Warren was
present for part of the meeting, and Dolly Burwell for most of the day. Patrick
Barnes was present as well. Patrick has been discussing options with ETG that
would allow BF A to take the leading role in the engineering aspects of the project.
We are also exploring the feasibility of having certain deliverable items, such as site
preparation, lining of the stormwater retention pond, etc., put into the Phase III
contract, and allowing ETG to bid out, help us select a contractor, and oversee the
construction of these phases of the project, thus efficiently using the current
available funds.
I also wanted to discuss our work on the EPA non-compliance order. EPA has
given us a reprieve on putting a cap on the landfill in light of the detoxification
process. We still need to meet our permit requirement to pump water out of the
landfill. As you know, we do monthly monitoring of the landfill, and at that time,
pump the available water out of the leachate collection system and put it through
the sand filter bed and carbon filter system. We take water samples of the influent
and eflluent and test for PCBs.
In the near future, it is our intention to install low velocity pumps, a filtering
system and a leachate holding tank, and begin continuous pumping of the water
out of the landfill. Pat Backus and I will be meeting with EPA later this month to
discuss our plans.
401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER· 50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Ken and Deborah Ferruccio
February 5, 1999
Page 2
I am certainly aware of your position on this issue, and therefore ask that you share with me your
specific concerns in order that we may work to resolve them. Pumping the water out of the
lam!fi/1 has never been use,/ by us as an alternative to detoxification, yet it can be beneficial to
the BCD process.
The.funding.for this task will not come from any monies allocated to the detoxification project.
The process for water removal will be very slow because the water content of the landfill is at or
above the field capacity of the soil and would not be practical to begin once we start the on-site
detoxification process. The system would also be in the way of the soil excavation.
I think we would all feel better if the entire funding for detoxification was "in the bank," but we
must continue to work together with what we have. Points of disagreement need to be discussed,
and your true concerns brought to the table. I hope that we can discuss your concerns and reach
an agreement.
ln Ken's May 17, 1993, letter to Secretary Howes, the main concern was verification that a
filtering system adequately removed PCBs prior to spray irrigating water back on the landfill. We
have lots of data that will confirm this based on what we have been doing during the past several
years. A new system will be far superior to the current one, and include a holding tank that can
be tested prior to any discharge. If you have additional concerns, please share them with me.
We need your support, but we also need to move forward We plan, as directed by the EPA, to
begin removing water from the landfill. I am certainly willing to work with you to resolve your
concerns, but I cannot ignore or stop processes just because you may disagree with them. The
actual detox(fication process is beginning. You both have worked long and hard to help get to
this point. Although we are not where we want to be, we are the closest we have ever been.
Let's work together to get it finished I
I look forward to hearing from you.
CC Dolly Burwell
Henry Lancaster
Warren County PCB files
Michael A. Kelly, CHMM, RE
Deputy Director
10/20/1997 14 :35 '31 '325721:,04 CHAPEL9JLJTHERNLIGHTS F'A(:iE Dl
October 20, 1997 f '0~
Warren PCB Landfill: Is Pumping Instead of Detoxifying a Done Deaf?
In a June 6, 1994 letter to Governor Jim Hunt from Heman R Clark, who served as
Hunt's $9Cretary of crime control and public sat ety during the 1982/83 PCB lsndfilf
protest movements, Clark states that detoxification would be a ushameful waste of
much tix money" and for not much money the state could end logical opposttton to the
landfill $imply by pumping the water OL!t of it Clark 's letter is significant becau~e for
both tt"M!t state and the EPA. pumping continues to be central, detoxification peripheral
based tn contingencies.
In fact, tlark's letter may be even more significant than former Assistant Secretary of
Crime Control and Public Safety David Kelly's December 1978 statement that "pl.blic
sentim.,-rt would not deter the state's . plan to purchase private land in Warren
Countt [for a PCB landfill]. Although this was the statement that impeffed hundreds of
Warren: citizens to attend the EPA Public Hearing on January 4, 1979, KeHy was simply
being hbnest publicly telling the truth PCB burial in Warren County was a done deal
Clark's latter, however, was meant to be a private statement to Hunt on how he could
get oufot his detoxification promise Both statements show a rush to decision-making
withouf'regard for facts, without regard for scientific and technological truth, and
withoufregard for tha expression of public sentiment through democratic machantsms.
Becausle Clark's letter contains what continues to be the emphasis of EPA and stme
orflcialS (pumping}, it is worth quoting·
Our P.C.B. [sic] landfill in Warren County won't go away
Now the "protestors" are saying we broke our promise to
"detoxify" (which would be a shameful waste of much tax money).
I do think you should consider having the water pumped out
of the landfill . . . There have been no leaks but we can't say there
never will be. It may not be a dangerous condition but
it sounds bad. For a relatively small appropriation, the dehydranon
can be done. Bill Meyer [.] the highly competent chief of (the] Solid Waste
Management Section, knows exactly what needs to be done As long as
the water remains inside the liner, the protesters have a logical basi! to
continue their expert agitation . If there is anyway [sic} I can help tn
explaining this need to the General Assembly, please let me know
Kelly's .r,ubllc statement implied that the burial of PCBs in Warren County was a done
deal, at least as early as December, 1978. However, it took EPA and the state tour
years 1b rewrite regulations needed to legally justify the approval ot the PCB landfill
and to use torce to open it in 1982.
It remains to be seen if pumping instead of detoxifying is yet another done deal, a deal
jettlsoring Into tne past Hunt's promise to detoxify. leaving Warren w ithout a future B ut
no deaf is done until it's done. Make a difference. Attend the PCB Working Group1s
Community Meeting at the Warrenton Courthouu, Nov. 1, •t 1 :00 p.m.
~(~~
Ken~to
To : Jim Warren (Copies [through Doris]: Science Advisors ; Working Group)
From: Ken Ferruccio ).Q_
Date November, 17 1 ~6
Subject: November 16th memo
The essence of your memo seems to be your concern that the committee
work as a team. I can only say that recent events have indicated to me that
the committee can function and realize its will even when communications
are suspended.
Concerning the news conference, I consider it a great success. I want to commend
Doris for working late at the office to see to It that virtually every major
news outlet In North Carolina had access to the actual analyses of the
science advisors and the conclusions that they would state at the
conference. These materials along with a summary follow-up statement
helped to make the conference a success.
I want to assure you that with the exception of Stuart Leavenworth of The New§ and
Observer, every outlet that covered the story was spoken to from this end. While I did
not talk with Leavenworth , I did talk with Martha Waggoner of the Associated Press
who assured me that the materials had been received . I would like to state for the
record my conviction that what brought the press to the conference was
not 11th hour lobbying with the press, but the fact that the press knew
ahead of time the concluslons the scientists would state and that had It
not been for Doris, there would have been no emplrlcal data to convince
the press of the significance of the conference and therefore little
motivation for the press to give It the coverage they did. The press moves
by facts. Doris sent the facts, and that's why we were able to put the story
on the front pages of The Warren Record and The Dally Herald.
why the television media covered It, and why the Associated Press ran
the story statewide, even though we were competing for press coverage
at the same time with other major stories, even though Doris because of
unforeseen events had to act at the eleventh hour, and even though the
conference was held following a three-day hollday weekend.
Assessment: State papers tended to spin toward the state, local papers,
toward the citizens. T. V. media tended to spin toward Warren County. A
good conference was had by all.
Concerning the telephone conference call, there was to have been one, possibly two.
The first was Dollie's initiative and was to include only the co-chairs. However, on the
Monday before the press conference. Pat, Joel, and I felt that all members participating
in the press conference should have a chance to plan together, so under my initiative a
telephone conference call was set up for this purpose as well. I had wanted this
telephone conference call to be scheduled as early in the week as possible for
obvious reasons. But the telephone conference was initially scheduled as late as
Memo to Jim Warren, Page 2
Thursday, then was rescheduled for Friday at 4:30. p.m . and was again rescheduled
on Friday for 6: 00 p.m. My understanding was that the rescheduling was needed to
accommodate Henry Lancaster. Although Dollie and Henry did not participate in the
telephone conference, I assumed through Doris that all was well because as late as
Thursday, the telephone conference was being rescheduled and Dollie (or Doris for
her) had arranged to chair this conference.
To say that Dollie chose not to participate because of Deborah is inconsistent with
what I know to be true about Dollie's public commitment to the principle of
inclusiveness concerning matters of environmental justice. The co-chairs will
continue to be committed to this principle.
I cannot respond to other issues you ra ise in your memo because I do not have
firsthand information and because some of your statements seem ambiguous, unclear,
and. frankly, irrelevant.
Although I was unable to attend the press conference, I was very moved to witness
on video tape Joel and Pat stating their conclusions as Science .A..dvisors to the Joint
PCB Working Group and exercising their right to freedom of conscience and of
speech. We received numerous phone calls from people about the obvious integrity.of
these scientists, and on November 13th I faxed to both of them the following statement:
Your courage and integrity at the conference were truly
inspirational. You deserve the highest admiration and
respect from the people of Warren County and from
justice-loving people everywhere. It is an honor to have
an opportunity to work with you.
The Warren Record accurately quotes me as stating the following:
Having resisted this landfill since its proposal in December
of 1978, the citizens are now committed more than ever to returning
The Warren County site to what it was before the forced siting of the
landfill in 1982.
In this spirit of unity and common purpose, let us move forward together and
achieve our objectives for the people of Warren County. The people of Warren County
are not interested in the multiplicity of interpretations concerning events. They
expect us to work together to achieve detoxification. It is obviously in the best interest
of the citizens of Warren County and of the state that we do so in a responsible way.
But let us also give credit where credit is due and commend Doris Fleetwood for a job
exceptionally well done.
For efforts on behalf of the state, see my memo to BIii Meyer, 11 /11 /96.
/.?e£1Zrd ~ of" /57£~: kd'. ~ /Sr /Yo/.12.J 4'4#-J
<fk~;D~u?~~/4(} ~-#I--
To : Jim Warren (Copies [through Doris]: Science Advisors; Working Group)
From : Ken Ferruccio
Date November, 17 1996
Subject: November 16th memo
The essence of your memo seems to be your concern that the committee
work as a team . I can only say that recent events have indicated to me that
the committee can function and realize its will even when communications
are suspended.
Concerning the news conference, I consider it a great success. I want to commend
Doris for working late at the office to see to It that virtually every major
news outlet In North Carolina had access to the actual analyses of the
science advisors and the conclusions that they would state at the
conference. These materials along with a summary follow-up statement
helped to make the conference a success.
I want to assure you that with the exception of Stuart Leavenworth of The News and
Observer, every outlet that covered the story was spoken to from this end. While I did
not talk with Leavenworth, I did talk with Martha Waggoner of the Associated Press
who assured me that the materials had been received. I would like to state for the
record my conviction that what brought the press to the conference was
not 11th hour lobbying with the press, but the fact that the press knew
ahead of time the conclusions the scientists would state and that had It
not been for Doris, there would have been no empirical data to convince
the press of the significance of the conference and therefore flttle
motivation for the press to give It the coverage they did. The press moves
by facts. Doris sent the facts, and that's why we were able to put the story
on the front pages of The Warren Record and The Dally Herald.
why the televlslon media covered It, and why the Associated Press ran
the story statewide, even though we were competing for press coverage
at the same time with other major stories, even though Dorf a because of
unforeseen events had to act at the eleventh hour, and even though the
conference was held followlng· a three•day holiday weekend.
Assessment: State papers tended to spin toward the state, local papers,
toward the citizens. T. V. media tended to spin toward Warren County. A
good conference was had by all.
Concerning the telephone conference call , there was to have been one, possibly two.
The first was Dollie's initiative and was to include only the co-chairs. However, on the
Monday before the press conference , Pat, Joel, and I felt that all members participating
in the press conference should have a chance to plan together, so under my initiative a
t~lept1ur1e conference call was set up for this purpose as well. I nad wanteo tnts
telephone conference call to be scheduled as early in the week as possible for
obvious reasons But the telephone conference was initially scheduled for as late as
To: John Humphrey
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
From: Ken Ferruccio J<:f-.
Ecumenical Environmental Leadership Coalition
(National Episcopal Church Coalition For Human Needs Grant Director)
Subject: Clarification: Detoxification/Pumping
Date: 6/18/93
One aspect of yesterday's conversation needs clarification. It concerns the tern poral
relationship between pumping the contaminated water out of the landfill
and detoxifying the landfill in its entirety.
If pumping water from the landfill is understood as a necessary function of a
comprehensive detoxification methodology that would neutralize the landfill in its
entirety, and if the simultaneity of detoxification and pumping is implicit, one requiring
the other, I cannot at this time anticipate a conflict concerning this matter.
However, if pumping the water from the landfill is understood to be a remedial process
that would precede appropriating funds for detoxification, that would precede a
contractual relationship with a corporation for detoxifying the landfill in its entirety,
that would precede the actual initiation of detoxifying the landfill in its entirety, and
that had as its objective merely the decontamination of the water and
sediment, we would have serious problems at that point in our
negotiations.
Our research, including EPA's own statements pertaining to the inevitable failure of
landfill liners, has led us to the conclusion that the cap has been leaking since day
one, that the bottom liner has to have been leaching all along, that the monitoring
system is not adequate to ensure detection of leachate prior to groundwater
contamination, and that instead of being considered a "fail-safe system" should
be considered a " lucky-to-detect-leakage system." We have already talked to the
most authoritative sources, and they have confirmed these conclusions. While we
recognize the necessity of trying to establish a base line, we must agree with
Billie Elmore's eloquent statement published through the Associated Press across
the state, "Detoxify the damn thing." And don't let cost-effectiveness deter the
detoxification process because $1 o to $20 million dollars to solve this crisis will
be more cost-effective politically and environmentally than a full-scale civil rights
movement will be.
..
I
I
I
To: Martha Waggoner, Associated Press ;J(j--
From: Ken Ferruccio, Ecumenical Environmental Leadership Coalition [phone]
Subject: PCB Crisis
Date: 6/15/93
In our conversation on Monday, 6/14, you asked why the PCB crisis has not been more
embarrassing for Governor Hunt. Presently, the only thing standing in the way of a
civil rights movement is a mutually agreed upon 5-point framework (informed by a
rationale consistent with principles of waste reduction and equity) to resolve the PCB
crisis. If the state abandons its commitment to working within this framework, a civil
rights movement is inevitable ( For the 5-point framework see Enclosure A, pp 3+4).
The 5-point framework and the rationale that informs it was completed and dated May
17 and faxed to Secretary Jonathan Howes on Tuesday morning, May 18. as a
memorandum. Immediately after faxing, we released it to the news media of North
Carolina. I read the memorandum to Secretary Howes at the meeting here in Warren
County on May 24th and added to the memorandum the civil rights implications
concerning not only the PCB crisis, but also concerning the intention to site massive
solid waste landfills of the same design as the PCB landfill throughout the state and
nation under Sub-D regulations. (For the civil rights implications concerning the PCB
crisis and concerning siting solid waste landfills under Sub-D regulations, see
Enclosure A, pp 4 and 5).
Martha, the following is the chronological sequence of events that led to
the five-point framework. If you review the chronology of events and
relate them as indicated to Enclosures A, B, and C, you'll understand
why Governor Hunt has not yet been more embarrassed by the PCB
crisis and what is needed to preclude his further embarrassment by yet
another civil rights movement.
May 14, Friday
Radio news stated that the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources had
announced that there were 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water trapped in the
Warren County PCB landfill, water that required pumping. Debbie Crane of the
Department of Natural Resources called ·me late afternoon about the PCB crisis.
I told Debbie to make it clear to Secretary Howes that the state do nothing until after a
meeting with us here in Warren County to explain the plan. Debbie said a meeting
was being planned for Wednesday (May 19). I said that we were having a solid waste
meeting on that date and that another date would be preferable. My understanding
was that the date would be changed and that the implication was that we would be
informed of the change.
May 15, Saturday
The News and Observer covered the PCB crisis. explaining the state's plan.
The Herald Sun also covered the story.
May 16, Sunday
I began drafting my response to the state's plan to Secretary Howes. My focus:
Incompatibility of the plan with principles of waste reduction and equity.
May 17, Monday
On Monday late afternoon I was informed that a meeting had been held here
in Warren County involving Secretary Howes, Debbie Crane, our local health
director, and others. I had received no notice about this meeting. I completed revisions
of my statement to Secretary Howes and decided to fax it to him on Tuesday morning
as a memorandum and to release it to the news media immediately after faxing.
May 18, Tuesday
My memorandum was faxed to Secretary Howes in the morning and immediately
after faxing, released to the news media.
Late afternoon. Debbie Crane called informing me that another meeting
was scheduled for May 24th. She said my faxed statement hadn't been received.
A few minutes later John Humphrey called, policy director for Secretary Howes.
He said the fax had been received and that he wished to discuss the 5-point
framework. John wanted to know if we could consider the 5 conditions in terms of a
priority sequence. I said they should not be understood sequentially or hierarchically
but as interrelated facets of a complex situation. We talked for what seemed to be well
over an hour. I mentioned the sacrificial implications of the PCB siting, what it had
meant in human terms, and what it had meant to Warren County. I told him I'd go all the
way on this. I said, "You're not talking to someone who has to pay the mortgage every
month or somebody worried about a job." I said I'd wait for my contract at Halifax
Community College to expire (May 29th) before going active, but that doesn't mean
the state should rush into things as they did in 1982. We're going to be around a long
time. We live here. I said, "We're in a mine field here, John, you and I and Secretary
Howes, and all of us, and we've got to walk hand-in-hand very cautiously so that
nobody trips a wire." I said I'd stick to my conditions. I said I didn't care if the whole
county, if everyone went the other way. I found out in 1978 that if one person believes
something is important, then it's important. I referred to the fragile strip of land along
the Warren/ Franklin border, the area of the PCB landfill, and expressed concerns
about waste expansion and inequity. I told John that I felt no ill will toward Hunt, but I
did stress that Hunt is a waste expansionist, that he wrote the legislative framework
to establish the infrastructure for waste expansion and inequity in North Carolina in
order to solicit waste from other states and from overseas and referred to Hunt's Waste
Management Act of 1981 . I said we'd never accept the preemptive powers of that
Act. I discussed them and referred to the Act as the Waste Expansion Inequity Act.
I said it was based on a rationale for selective human sacrifice. I said what is needed
is a Waste Reduction Equity Act. John said that efforts are underway to repeal some
aspects of the Waste Management Act. I said the Waste Management Act represents a
tyranny of executive power concerning the siting issue and asked, "What's the use
of a siting model when you've got to obliterate the folks to site?" John asked if I'd
read United Church of Christ's history about Warren County and the PCB problem.
I said I'd written the rationale and objectives for the United Church of Christ grant
that helped fund the environmental justice movement at the suggestion of Reverend
Bill Land and others, but that I had not read the history. I said that United Church
should be commended for writing the history, but that we would no doubt write the
definitive history because we have all the inside stuff. Finally, I stressed the need
to keep communication channels open. I said if we had had open communications
with the state, I probably would not have had to send my memorandum to
Secretary Howes to the media and that I wouldn't have to be talking with the state
through the media, but that the media would be essential to keeping things open
anyway. I asked John if he understood our conversations to be confidential. He said,
"no."
May 19, Wednesday
John called me at my office (Halifax Community College) about 11 :20 a.m . We
discussed what the nature of the May 24th meeting should be. We decided
it should be an informational meeting involving public comments and moving
toward some kind of committee through which things could be worked out
within the 5-point framework. John assured me that there would be no sudden activity
at the site, that the attempt would be to reach a resolution within the 5-point framework
by working through a committee. I said my wife Deborah and I would have to be
involved in everything. John agreed. John called again at 2: p.m. He said Bill Meyer
at the meeting would explain the situation concerning the PCB landfill and what
options were available, followed by public comments. John also listed the officials
who would be attending the meeting and noted that Secretary Howes would attend
but would not run the meeting. John said that Secretary Howes would fax a letter
to me tomorrow, Thursday, May 20th, stating that he agrees in principle on all
five points.
May 20, Thursday
Letter did not arrive.
May 21, Friday
Letter did not arrive. Deborah said channel 11 had called. They had
received the memorandum I'd sent to Secretary Howes.
May 24, Monday
John called my office shortly after 11: a.m. He said the letter from Secretary Howes had
been completed and would be faxed to the Warren Record today. I insisted to John that
no unreasonable time constraints be placed upon public comments that evening
at the meeting in the Warren County courthouse at 7:p.m. John agreed. I told him
that I would read my memorandum to Secretary Howes, then translate it into
a common language (the language of civil rights), and ,finally, propose a mechanism
through which to attempt a resolution within the 5-point framework. I read this proposal
(See Enclosure A, pp 5+6) over the phone to John. The letter from Secretary Howes,
dated May 21, proposing a" first-of-its-kind joint advisory committee," and addressing
each of the conditions mentioned in the 5-point framework, was faxed to the Warren
Record at approximately 4:30 p.m on May 24th, too late for us to see it before the
meeting. However, after the meeting, John handed me the original letter (Enclosure B).
May 28, Friday
John Humphrey called at almost 5: p.m. Said samples would be taken maybe week
after next. Maybe ten per well for a couple of weeks. Wanted to know if we
wanted split samples on all or some of the wells. He also asked us to choose
our scientist. I said we needed to talk with Billie Elmore, Executive
Director/Coordinator of North Carolina Waste Awareness Reduction Network (NC-
WARN). Billie had agreed earlier in the day to serve on t11e joint advisory committee. I
made it clear that Billie would need to be central. John indicated that there wouldn't be .
a problem.
June 1, Tuesday
Billie called about 3:15 p.m. to suggest we consider a scientist recommended by
EPA official Bill Sanjour. Concerning independent testing of well water, Billie
suggested a contact who recommended Pauline Ewald.
We were not able to establish communication with John from June 7 through
June 11, so on Friday, June11, I faxed the enclosed memorandum to John, with copies
to Governor Hunt; Secretary Howes, DEHNR; Robert W. Estill, Episcopal
Bishop of North Carolina, and the news media (Enclosure C). John called me on the
following day, Saturday, June 12, to discuss concerns mentioned in my Friday, June
11th memorandum to him: members of the joint advisory committee,
split samples, an independent scientist to evaluate detoxification, etc.
June 14, Monday
Martha Waggoner of the Associated Press called. Asked why the 500,000 to
1 million gallons of water hasn't proven to be more embarrassing to
Governor Hunt. She had heard that the reason was Steve Leviticus~ I indicated
that to my knowledge Steve wasn't involved. I then called back and gave Martha
' . .
a more comprehensive explanation based on what I did know.
June 14, Monday (continued)
I called Pauline Ewald and told her I would fax to her a copy of my June 11
memorandum to John Humphrey (since the first paragraph referred to her and certain
aspects of the memorandum were based on my conversations with her) and that she
should then submit a resume and proposal concerning testing well water in close
proximity to the PCB landfill. She agreed. I called her again about 5: p.m. and
suggested that she consider a proposal, not only for the testing of wells, but for serving
as independent science adviser concerning detoxification evaluation, etc. She agreed.
June 15, Tuesday
Joel Hirschhorn, who had been recommended to be the independent science adviser
for the proposed joint advisory committee, called and I suggested that he fax a resume
and proposal to John Humphrey and to us. Pauline·s proposal arrived this morning,
Joel's, this afternoon.
Margaret, I'll send this package to you tomorrow, June 16, since I've been working on it
most of the afternoon and since it is now 9:30 p.m. Thank you for your interest.
Please call as needed. I'll stay close to you and keep you abreast of things as they
continue to develop.
To: Jonathan Howes: Secretary of Environment, Health and Natural Resources jP..d-
From: Ken Ferruccio: Ecumenical/Environmental Leadership Coalition, Director 'V
Subject: Response to State PCB Plan: Conditions, pp 3+4
Date: 5/17 /93
For Immediate Press Release (919-257-2604)
I assume you've been briefed on the complexity of the issues, specifically,
from the historical perspective, and more specifically from the perspective
of Warren County and the targeted communities.
Certainly, we of Warren County understand the historical perspectives. We should.
We lived them, helped to create them. and gave them a language, And it was this
language that ignited the spark, that lit the fuse, that blew the powder keg in 1982
and again in 1983. The light and heat from those explosions fused forever concepts
that for too long had been kept apart: environmental justice, environmental civil rights.
So when the dust clears, and when the history of the environmental/civil rights
movement is written. it will begin with Warren County, and with the language that
Warren County created in response to events from 1978 through 1982, in response
to events of 1983, and, more recently, in response to events of 1992, when Lickskillet,
a poor, black community, three miles downstream from the PCB landfill, was targeted
for a 1000 -1500 -acre-regional solid waste landfill.
We had to remind public officials advocating that siting, that Warren wrote the book on
opposing sitings. We had to remind them that in 1982, and again in 1983, members of
three races, blacks, whites, and Indians carried a cross here and were sacrificed in
defense of principles universal to all people, places and times -to all races, colors,
classes and creeds.
We had to remind them that that sacrifice changed the way we see the world, that it
was the spark that ignited a revolution, that it was a major, a lasting historical
achievement, or, as EPA calls it, the watershed. We had to remind them that it
was the beginning of a pilgrimage of conscience, a pilgrimage of activism that
would go on forever. And therefore in this deeper, in this more profound and
eternal sense, everything concerning siting since 1982 is a footnote to Warren County.
And now, here we are again, continuing the pilgrimage under the
authority, not only of the county and of the state, but also under the
authority of the National Episcopal Church, under the authority of
the National Council of Churches. and, ultimately, under the authority of
God, and supported by ecumenical and environmental leaders throughout
this state and nation. And our responsibility together now is to formulate the
best language in response to this PCB crisis, to formulate the best, the most
environmentally sound and equitable solution for everyone.
(I)
We are deeply disturbed about the PCB crisis here and about the trends
this crisis represents throughout our state, our nation, and our world. The Afton
crisis symbolizes the prevailing model for economic/industrial development:
the model for waste expansion and inequity. The goal of this expansion/
inequity model is to establish a massive waste management infrastructure to
solicit waste from other states and from overseas.This model is informed by a rationale
for selective human sacrifice because it requires for its implementation
the transformation of targeted communities into sacrifice zones by toxic, hazardous,
and nuclear waste facilities , and by massive solid waste management
facilities. The model requires the gradual. but inevitable extinction of the
targeted community by t11e preemption of its civil rights.
Afton, Warren County, symbolizes the loss of just about everything that the 13th and
14th amendment rights are meant to protect. The 1982 siting put Rosa Parks in
the back of the bus once again, and now the bus is self-destructing.
The Waste Management Act of 1981 and the Sub-0 regulations continue to
perpetuate the rationale for selective human sacrifice. And so I think, Secretary
Howse, you can understand why we must continue to resist these sitings, to resist
them absolutely, and the trends that they represent, and why we cannot permit trucks
loaded with solid waste or PCB waste to enter or leave our borders. Our waste
management problem, and our PCB crisis must be resolved, but must be resolved
locally.
Afton symbolizes also a crisis within the soul of the state, and this crisis must also be
resolved. The crisis involves the two diametrically opposed and conflicting
models for economicflndustrial development struggling to control the soul
of North Carolina: the model for waste expansion and inequity, and the model
for waste reduction and equity. These are not false polarities. These are not false
choices. They are true choices. They are profoundly ethical choices.
EPA siting regulations, Governor Hunt's Waste Management Act of 1981,
and Sub-D regulations are the reverse of what is needed for waste reduction
and equity:
(1) Instead of siting to solicit waste, we should be reducing and
preventing waste to preclude sitings.
(2) Instead of preempting rights to sacrifice communities, we
should be reaffirming rights to preserve communities.
(3) Instead of sacrificing the few for the many, we should be creating
and preserving quality settings for every community.
(4) Instead of preempting the significance of public hearings, they
should be the corner stone of our democracy.
(2.)
(5) Instead of exclusiveness in decision-making, inclusiveness.
The prevailing model undermines the fundamental premises for a sound theology,
for a sound democracy, and for a sound ecology. It leaves us ultimately without
God, without freedom, and without a planet. It is a self-destructive model, a suicidal
model. It is a model for social disintegration, informed by a rationale for selective
human sacrifice. These are our concerns from the more global perspective.
Turning now to our local crisis, we need to resolve it within a framework
compatible with the principles of waste reduction and equity. These are the
bottom lines:
(1) The proposed Band-Aid approach is unacceptable. It's only
a stopgap measure. Our objective must be to restore the
ecological status of Afton to what it was before the siting
and to restore its property values, by creating the
reality and the perception that Afton is a very fine and safe place
to live so that the people of Afton and of Warren County will
be able to move forward once again to a safe and prosperous
future. We need therefore to explore the option of on-site
detoxification. assessing costs, risks, etc. In other words, we need to
help Governor Hunt keep all promises made in his 1982 letter to the
people of Warren County.
(2) If our research indicates that on-site detoxification is not presently
a viable option, then. after on-site stabilization, future activity
at the site must involve monitoring and maintenance only.
Repeating the 1992 attempt to take advantage of the sacrifice
area by expanding from the foothold will be resisted.
(3) The solution must be restricted to the site. The solution
must not include an expansion of the present site, nor in any way
transcend its present borders. Expansion will be resisted.
(4) The trucking initiative must be precluded. Under no condition
will trucks loaded with PCBs leave the borders of the PCB
landfill. Such an attempt will be met with the most serious
forms of resistance.
(5) We will need to be convinced by disinterested scientists that
the filtering process will extract the PCBs from the 500,000
to one million gallons of contaminated water that
the state is planning to spray all over the site. The attempt to
(3)
initiate this process before a disinterested scientific assessment
of risks has been explained and consented to will be resisted.
If the above conditions can be met, we can move forward together.
Finally, when your people come to Warren County, tell them that in 1982, three races
carried a cross together in the poor and predominantly black community of Afton,
here in Warren County, and that here, together, they were sacrificed. Tell them,
therefore, to come with reverence and with awe. Tell them that in 1982, in Warren
County , North Carolina, blacks, whites, and Indians transcended a history that had
divided them and came together in brotherhood and love, and that from their sacrifice
emerged new hope for a new history, informed not by a rationale for selective human
sacrifice, but by the universal brotherhood of man. Tell them to come as pilgrims on a
pilgrimage, because all this land is holy land, all this ground is holy ground.
Secretary Howse, that concludes my memorandum to you. And now I would like to
translate what I have said into the language of the people: What we have out
there, folks, in the poor black community of Afton ,is a bus. Now I know it doesn't look
like a bus. It's not supposed to look like a bus. It's supposed to look like a landfill.
But I'm telling you, it's a bus. And the bus is self-destructing. And I'm telling you that
one of our neighbors is on that bus. And her name is Rosa Parks. I know Rosa Parks.
Rosa Parks is a friend of mine. But instead of trying to get Rosa Parks off the bus,
and keep her off the bus, we're getting ready to build a whole fleet of buses, just like
that one, and getting ready to fuel them with the high octane of Sub-D regulations.
And then we're going to drive those buses into the poor black and other poor minority
communities, put the poor folks in the buses, and then wait for the buses to self-
destruct, just like we did in Afton.
These are the big buses; these are the massive solid waste buses, containing toxic
and hazardous waste; these are the 800 acre buses, the 1000 acre buses, the
1500 acre buses. These are the buses that will contaminate the groundwater of the
poor black and other minority communities.
How long? Not long.
1 n December of 1978, I was 36 years old, when I told the state of North Carolina that it
would be due process first, then civil disobedience if the state attempted to bury PCBs
in the poor and predominantly black community of Afton.
How long? Not long.
In 1982, I was 40 years old when as a last resort we had here the largest nonviolent
civil disobedience in the south since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. marched through
Alabama, according to the Duke Chronicle, and when I was arrested 8 times.
How long? Not Long.
in 1983 I was 41 years old when I began the second civil rights movement
in response to the state's plan to spray 750,000 gallons of PCB-contaminated
water all over the site and fasted 18 days in the Warren County jail.
How long? Not long.
Before I was 42 I'd been arrested 9 times on this issue.
How long? Not long.
In 1992, I was 50 years old, when I cautioned the local, state, and federal government
that the attempt to site a 1000-1500 acre landfill three miles downstream from
the PCB landfill in the poor, black community of Lickskillet would be met with the
most serious forms of resistance.
And now, It's 1993, and I'm 51, and I'm telling you again that the bus is self-
destructing. And that we're getting ready to build a whole fleet of buses
just like this one, with the same self-destructive mechanisms. and fuel them up
with Sub-0 , and drive them into the poor minority communities.
And then we're going to put all the poor folks inside with Rosa Parks, and wait
for the buses to self-destruct. Estimated time of departure: October 9, 1993.
How long? Not long. Because the high octane of Sub-0 regulations, the high octane
of The Waste Management Act of 1981, and the high octane of the philosophy
of waste expansion and inequity is the same high octane that drives the rationale
for selective human sacrifice, the same high octane for discriminatory and
segregational sitings.
But like the sun through the foliage on a green day, I know my way. I'm not going
to follow the Sub-0 regulations; I'm not going to follow the Waste Management
Act of 1981; I'm not going to follow the rationale for selective human sacrifice,
because I can't accept this rationale. I couldn't accept it in 1978 when I was 36; I
couldn't accept it in 1982, when I was 40: I couldn't accept it in
1983, when I was 41; I couldn't accept it in 1992, when I was 50, and I cannot
accept it in 1993 at 51. And I will never accept it, because to accept selective
human sacrifice is to perpetuate it and to encourage it.
Now I would like to suggest a process through which I believe we can work together
toward a resolution to the problem. There will be a Director for Research,
Planning, and Communications in your office, Secretary Howes, whose sole
responsibility will be to deal with this issue. And that same research, planning, and
communication process will be coordinated from this end by Deborah and me,
(5)
and by others who would like to participate as well as by those who may need to
participate because of their official positions.
Communications between your office and my office must be open and fluid. Obviously,
you'll decide who the Director of Research, Planning, and Communication will be
at your end, but we will expect someone with the following characteristics: An
open and flexible mind that can
(1) assimilate information quickly
(2) evaluate information from interdisciplinary and multidimensional
perspectives and within the context of criteria and objectives
compatible with the 5-point framework, and in accordance with
principles of waste reduction and equity.
(3) contradistinguish what is central from what is peripheral, especially,
concerning the needs of the Afton community.
(4) Communicate information clearly, concisely, and accurately.
A committee will be needed consisting of various experts, and we'll
need to formulate an acceptable plan together. When we think we've got
a plan compatible with the 5-point framework, we 'll have a town meeting
and present it.
• ~_. ,,;~~ -Lt<:1j...lUI 11,101 11 u1 c, ,vii u111 , 1cill,
· /Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr .• Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
May 21, 1993
Mr. Ken Ferruccio
Ecumenical/Environmental Leadership Coalition
Warrenton, North Carolina ·
Dear Mr. Ferruccio:
Thank you for your memorandum of Monday, May 17, rega~ding the
PCB landfill in Warren County.
As you know, the St-'3 te i s very concerned about potential
breaches of the landfill liner that might occur because of the
estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of water which has collected
in the bottom of the landfill. We want the sol1Jtion to this
problem to be worked out jointly with citizens. Therefore, we have
contacted local citizens and officials about the problem: we have
set up opportunities for broad public input; and we will create a
first-of-its-kind joint advisory committee comprised of local
citizens and State officials to develop a process by which the
water can be removed.
In your memorandum about this matter you raised five specific
concern• which I would like to respond to.
First, the State stands by its comrni tment tc-detoxify the
landfill once a process is developed that will do so without posing
a greater risk to citizens than the landfill itself. In 1984, a
State advisory committee examined options for deto~ification and
determined no feasible process yet existed. I have directed
Departmental stat! to work with citizens again to determine if new
technology has been developed which wo~ld effectively detoxify the
Warren County landfill.
Second, the State has no intention of expanding the current
landfill. Moreover, legislation was passed in l98J which prohibits
the construction of any PCB or other hazardous ·-,aste landfill
within 25 miles of the existing Warren County PCB landfill. You
also raised concerns about the siting of reg ionc1l sol id waste
landfills in Warren County. Local go~ernments in North Carolina
have total responsibility for siting solid waste landfills. The
State is only involved through permitting such faciliti~s based
upon established environmental regulations. Prohibitions on siting
a solid waste landfill would have to be don~ through the
legislature.
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 91~1-7JJ-4Q8.d
M EQVOI Oppo,1\Tllly AHltma11ve Action Emoloy&1 60"" recycled/10"" poJ1-coNumer paper
(7)
. . '
,:-.-L~//
,,,. Third, the State's goal is to find an on-site solution to the
problem of water in the landfill. We are very sensitive to the
concern• ot Warren County citizens that ,PCB waste t::om the Warren
County landfill not be transferred to another community, especially
to one that is rural, relatively poor, and predomin;~ntly African-
American, Native American, or Hispanic.
' We -havo a ~trong desire to avoid s~ch a transfer as wel 1. Our
Hazardous· Waste Section staff have identified an on-site means to
handle the water to be pumped out of the 1 and f i 11 which they
believe will protect public health and safety. As o! yet, however,
no technically feasible means to handle on-site the sediment that
will be pumped out with the water ha~. been identifietj~• A principal
goal of the joint advisory committee will be to reviaw the proposed
solution for on-site handl'ing of the water and to determine it' an
on-site solution for the sediment can be identified so that off-
site options will not have to be exercised.
. .
Fourth, once again, the State pre~ers not to truck any waste
ott-site, and therefore will be working .with citizens to identify
an on-site soluti~n that will preclude the need for material to be
removed trom the site. ·
Fifth, we are eager for outside review of the entire process.
The purpose ot the joint advisory committee will be to bring
citizens and the State together to devel~p, monitor, and review the
process by which the water will be removed from the landfill,
Additional outside review would be welcome.
I will be at the public meeting r~garding the landfill which
we have set up tor 7 p.m. on Monday night at the Warren county
Courthouse. I look forward to seeing you there.
_,.
To: John Humphrey, Policy Director
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
cc: James B. Hunt, Jr.
Governor of North Carolina
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
DEHNR
Robert W. Estill
Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina J/--L-
From: Ken Ferruccio, Ecumenical Environmental Leadership Coalition l}'(T ·
Subject: Technical Assistance Concerning PCB Crisis
Date: 6/11 /93
For Immediate Press Release
I've had extensive conversations with Pauline Ewald, President,
Environmental Compliance Organization (ECO), 106 Robinson
St., Ashland, VA 23005 (tel.: [phone]). She has a degree in environmental
engineering and law. Her firm will test designated wells in close proximity to the
PCB landfill for PCBs and dioxins the last week of June. She estimates
that full-scans for PCBs and dioxins will cost from $1500-1700 per sample
and $55. per person per hour. It should take a day or two at the most to
collect the samples. we want approximately 12 to 15 wells tested. Debbie Crane
said yesterday that funding for independent samples couldn't come from the Waste
Management Board's community assistance funds because those funds are being
transferred to another program, but that several other sources are available.
We feel that this independent testing is necessary because reliable conclusions
concerning the relative safety of well water tested cannot be extrapolated from the
sample parameters chosen by the state (PCBs only, unless tests for other
contaminants are specifically requested by the citizens) and because
it's obviously advantageous to the state to prove that the dump is not leaching.
Many contaminants other than PCBs are likely to have been included in the 10,000
truckloads of PCB-contaminated soil because it was extracted from 21 o miles of
highway shoulders possibly exposed to hydrocarbons, lead, etc. A comprehensive
full-scan would involve testing for 3500 different contaminants. But, most important,
it's irresponsible, and probably criminal, that the state is leaving it up to ordinary
citizens to know what other possible contaminants they should ask to have their wells
tested for. The state is privy to the fact that testing for dioxins is essential because the
environment acts on PCBs producing dioxins through heat and through the interaction
of PCBs with soils, and to the fact that dioxin is often a side-contaminant of transformer
oil because of the manufacturing process, and to the fact that the landfill contains
transformer oil laced with PCBs and mixed with soils possibly containing other
contaminants as well.
Particularly disadvantageous to the state would be for it to discover dioxins in the wells
because such a discovery would magnify the problem one thousandfold, the risk to
human life and wildlife from dioxin being one thousandfold more than from PCBs.
Since there is presently no place to dispose of dioxins, what would the state do with
them if it found them? Of course, dioxins can't be found if not included in the sample
parameters. Another advantage of not testing for dioxins is cost-effectiveness. Testing
for dioxins is expensive: $1,000 or more per sample. This is the kind of thinking that
informs the rationale for selective human sacrifice on which the philosophy of waste
expansion and inequity is predicated, the prevailing economic/industrial orientation
of the state.
What is needed, of course, is the most comprehensive and aggressively technological
approach available. The sample parameters chosen by the state indicate that
the state is not interested in quantifying what the health risks really are. Not doing
full-scans (testing for the full range of possible contaminants, or, at the very least,
for dioxins as well as for PCBs) is understandable, not only because of the reasons
stated, but also because the state, under the previous Hunt administration, spent
$514, 375. 71 to construct the PCB landfill; almost one million dollars worth of force
to site it: and another $2.8 million dollars from Superfund for cleanup and more. It's
therefore quite understandable why the Hunt administration is trying to make a virtue
of parsimony regarding the testing of Afton's wells after having spent so much money
and so many years trying to destroy them .
However, if the state really wants to help us, let us know by Wednesday of next week
whether funds will be appropriated for independent testing of wells during the last
week of June. We do regret that the state agreed to split-samples of wells and then
began testing before providing funds needed for us to exercise the alleged option.
Let us know also if the state is still planning to have a joint advisory committee, as
there are several people ( local, state, and national) who have expressed a
willingness to serve on the committee and to work within the 5-point framework
agreed upon. We also need to know if the state is still planning to appropriate funds
for a scientist to represent our interests. EPA official William Sanjour and
NC-Warn Coordinator/Director Billie Elmore have recommended a person we'll
be talking with on Monday. I believe Bill Meyer and the folks up there know him well.
We will continue to try to work with you. However, since you have not returned our
calls for several days, we have begun to wonder whether a more recent policy
of incommunicado has superseded the earlier public commitment to work with us
to resolve the PCB landfill crisis. Under no condition will communications be
terminated at this end, but we will continue to seek other channels of communication
when we cannot get through to you.
I must say that I have been particularly impressed with you and continue to believe
that we have established an atmosphere of trust and good will. I will not deny that at
times I become frustrated because of the lack of communication. Although I continue to
be informed by a healthy skepticism concerning the Hunt administration on this
particular issue because of the history, I continue to hope that perhaps a new
era of enlightenment is dawning in North Carolina regarding matters pertaining to
the environmental waste management crisis as related to economic/industrial
development.
If the state really wants to work with us, John, there will be no need for face-saving
political maneuverings and empty promises meant to delay the inevitable --namely,
a resolution consistent with the principles of waste reduction and equity. We are
committed to such a resolution and are prepared to work in good faith with the state to
achieve it. Of course, the state can fall back to the old policy of incommunicado, of
bad faith, deception, and breaches of law, and, ultimately, of following the principle of
doing what it wants to do through force. But such an approach reflects an old world
leadership that can't think, or that refuses to think, any other way; an old world
leadership that should have retired years ago; an old world leadership that helped
create the revolution that revealed its obsolescence; an old world leadership that
continues to rule like the light from a star already extinct. Which light will you follow,
John?
To: John Humphrey
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
From: Ken Ferruccio }(j-.
Ecumenical Environmental Leadership Coalition
(National Episcopal Church Coalition For Human Needs Grant Director)
Subject: Clarification: Detoxification/Pumping
Date: 6/18/93
One aspect of yesterday's conversation needs clarification. It concerns the temporal
relationship between pumping the contaminated water out of the landfill
and detoxifying the landfill in its entirety.
If pumping water from the landfill is understood as a necessary function of a
comprehensive detoxification methodology that would neutralize the landfill in its
entirety, and if the simultaneity of detoxification and pumping is implicit, one requiring
the other, I cannot at this time anticipate a conflict concerning this matter.
However, if pumping the water from the landfill is understood to be a remedial process
that would precede appropriating funds for detoxification, that would precede a
· contractual relationship with a corporation for detoxifying the landfill in its entirety,
that would precede the actual initiation of detoxifying the landfill in its entirety, and
that had as its objective merely the decontamination of the water and
sediment, we would have serious problems at that point in our
negotiations.
Our research, including EPA's own statements pertaining to the inevitable failure of
landfill liners, has led us to the conclusion that the cap has been leaking since day
one, that the bottom liner has to have been leaching all along, that the monitoring
system is not adequate to ensure detection of leachate prior to groundwater
contamination, and that instead of being considered a "fail-safe system" should
be considered a" lucky-to-detect-leakage system." We have already talked to the
most authoritative sources, and they have confirmed these conclusions. While we
recognize the necessity of trying to establish a base line, we must agree with
Billie Elmore's eloquent statement published through the Associated Press across
the state, "Detoxify the damn thing." And don't let cost-effectiveness deter the
detoxification process because $1 O to $20 million dollars to solve this crisis will
be more cost-effective politically and environmentally than a full-scale civil rights
movement will be.
. ,J
To: Jonathan Howes: Secretary of Environment, Health and Natural Resources jP..d-
From: Ken Ferruccio: Ecumenical/Environmental Leadership Coalition, Director f\j
Subject: Response to State PCB Plan: Conditions, pp 3+4
Date: 5/17 /93
For Immediate Press Release (919-257-2604)
I assume you've been briefed on the complexity of the issues, specifically,
from the historical perspective, and more specifically from the perspective
of Warren County and the targeted communities.
Certainly, we of Warren County understand the historical perspectives. We should.
We lived them, helped to create them, and gave them a language, And it was this
language that ignited the spark, that lit the fuse, that blew the powder keg in 1982
and again in 1983. The light and heat from those explosions fused forever concepts
that for too long had been kept apart: environmental justice, environmental civil rights.
So when the dust clears, and when the history of the environmental/civil rights
movement is written, it will begin with Warren County, and with the language that
Warren County created in response to events from 1978 through 1982, in response
to events of 1983, and, more recently, in response to events of 1992, when Lickskillet,
a poor, black community, three miles downstream from the PCB landfill, was targeted
for a 1000 -1500 -acre-regional solid waste landfill.
We had to remind public officials advocating that siting, that Warren wrote the book on
· opposing sitings. We had to remind them that in 1982, and again in 1983, members of
three races, blacks, whites, and Indians carried a cross here and were sacrificed in
defense of principles universal to all people, places and times -to all races, colors,
classes and creeds.
We had to remind them that that sacrifice changed the way we see the world, that it
was the spark that ignited a revolution, that it was a major, a lasting historical
achievement, or, as EPA calls it, the watershed. We had to remind them that it
was the beginning of a pilgrimage of conscience, a pilgrimage of activism that
would go on forever. And therefore in this deeper, in this more profound and
eternal sense, everything concerning siting since 1982 is a footnote to Warren County.
And now , here we are again, continuing the pilgrimage under the
authority, not only of the county and of the state, but also under the
authority of the National Episcopal Church, under the authority of
the National Council of Churches, and, ultimately, under the authority of
God, and supported by ecumenical and environmental leaders throughout
this state and nation. And our responsibility together now is to formulate the
best language in response to this PCB crisis, to formulate the best, the most
environmentally sound and equitable solution for everyone.
(I)
We are deeply disturbed about the PCB crisis here and about the trends
this crisis represents throughout our state, our nation, and our world. The Afton
crisis symbolizes the prevailing model for economic/industrial development:
the model for waste expansion and inequity. The goal of this expansion/
inequity model is to establish a massive waste management infrastructure to
solicit waste from other states and from overseas.This model is informed by a rationale
for selective human sacrifice because it requires for its implementation
the transformation of targeted communities into sacrifice zones by toxic, hazardous,
and nuclear waste facilities , and by massive solid waste management
facilities. The model requires the gradual, but inevitable extinction of the
targeted community by the preemption of its civil rights.
Afton, Warren County, symbolizes the loss of just about everything that the 13th and
14th amendment rights are meant to protect. The 1982 siting put Rosa Parks in
the back of the bus once again, and now the bus is self-destructing.
The Waste Management Act of 1981 and the Sub-0 regulations continue to
perpetuate the rationale for selective human sacrifice. And so I think, Secretary
Howse, you can understand why we must continue to resist these sitings, to resist
them absolutely, and the trends that they represent, and why we cannot permit trucks
loaded with solid waste or PCB waste to enter or leave our borde.rs. Our waste
management problem, and our PCB crisis must be resolved, but must be resolved
locally.
Afton symbolizes also a crisis within the soul of the state, and this crisis must also be
resolved. The crisis involves the two diametrically opposed and conflicting
models for economic/industrial development struggling to control the soul
of North Carolina: the model for waste expansion and inequity, and the model
for waste reduction and equity. These are not false polarities. These are not false
choices. They are true choices. They are profoundly ethical choices.
EPA siting regulations, Governor Hunt's Waste Management Act of 1981,
and Sub-D regulations are the reverse of what is needed for waste reduction
and equity:
(1) Instead of siting to solicit waste, we should be reducing and
preventing waste to preclude sitings.
(2) Instead of preempting rights to sacrifice communities, we
should be reaffirming rights to preserve communities.
(3) Instead of sacrificing the few for the many, we should be creating
and preserving quality settings for every community.
(4) Instead of preempting the significance of public hearings, they
should be the corner stone of our democracy.
(2.)
(5) Instead of exclusiveness in decision-making, inclusiveness.
The prevailing model undermines the fundamental premises for a sound theology,
for a sound democracy, and for a sound ecology. It leaves us ultimately without
God, without freedom, and without a planet. It is a self-destructive model, a suicidal
model. It is a model for social disintegration, informed by a rationale for selective
human sacrifice. These are our concerns from the more global perspective.
Turning now to our local crisis, we need to resolve it within a framework
compatible with the principles of waste reduction and equity. These are the
bottom lines:
(1) The proposed Band-Aid approach is unacceptable. It's only
a stopgap measure. Our objective must be to restore the
ecological status of Afton to what it was before the siting
and to restore its property values, by creating the
reality and the perception that Afton is a very fine and safe place
to live so that the people of Afton and of Warren County will
be able to move forward once again to a safe and prosperous
future. We need therefore to explore the option of on-site
detoxification, assessing costs, risks, etc. In other words, we need to
help Governor Hunt keep all promises made in his 1982 letter to the
people of Warren County.
(2) If our research indicates that on-site detoxification is not presently
a viable option, then, after on-site stabilization, future activity
at the site must involve monitoring and maintenance only.
Repeating the 1992 attempt to take advantage of the sacrifice
area by expanding from the foothold will be resisted.
(3) The solution must be restricted to the site. The solution
must not include an expansion of the present site, nor in any way
transcend its present borders. Expansion will be resisted.
(4) The trucking initiative must be precluded. Under no condition
will trucks loaded with PCBs leave the borders of the PCB
landfill. Such an attempt will be met with the most serious
forms of resistance.
(5) We will need to be convinced by disinterested scientists that
the filtering process will extract the PCBs from the 500,000
to one million gallons of contaminated water that
the state is planning to spray all over the site. The attempt to
(3)
initiate this process before a disinterested scientific assessment
of risks has been explained and consented to will be resisted.
If the above conditions can be met, we can move forward together.
Finally, when your people come to Warren County, tell them that in 1982, three races
carried a cross together in the poor and predominantly black community of Afton,
here in Warren County, and that here, together, they were sacrificed. Tell them,
therefore, to come with reverence and with awe. Tell them that in 1982, in Warren
County , North Carolina, blacks, whites, and Indians transcended a history that had
divided them and came together in brotherhood and love, and that from their sacrifice
emerged new hope for a new history, informed not by a rationale for selective human
sacrifice, but by the universal brotherhood of man. Tell them to come as pilgrims on a
pilgrimage, because all this land is holy land, all this ground is holy ground.
Secretary Howse, that concludes my memorandum to you. And now I would like to
translate what I have said into the language of the people: What we have out
there, folks, in the poor black community of Afton ,is a bus. Now I know it doesn't look
like a bus. It's not supposed to look like a bus. It's supposed to look like a landfill.
But I'm telling you, it's a bus. And the bus is self-destructing. And I'm telling you that
one of our neighbors is on that bus. And her name is Rosa Parks. I know Rosa Parks.
· Rosa Parks is a friend of mine. But instead of trying to get Rosa Parks off the bus,
and keep her off the bus, we're getting ready to build a whole fleet of buses, just like
that one, and getting ready to fuel them with the high octane of Sub-D regulations.
And then we're going to drive those buses into the poor black and other poor minority
communities, put the poor folks in the buses, and then wait for the buses to self-
destruct, just like we did in Afton.
These are the big buses; these are the massive solid waste buses, containing toxic
and hazardous waste; these are the 800 acre buses, the 1000 acre buses, the
1500 acre buses. These are the buses that will contaminate the groundwater of the
poor black and other minority communities.
How long? Not long.
1 n December of 1978, I was 36 years old, when I told the state of North Carolina that it
would be due process first, then civil disobedience if the state attempted to bury PCBs
in the poor and predominantly black community of Afton.
How long? Not long.
In 1982, I was 40 years old when as a last resort we had here the largest nonviolent
civil disobedience in the south since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. marched through
Alabama, according to the Duke Chronicle, and when I was arrested 8 times.
How long? Not Long.
in 1983 I was 41 years old when I began the second civil rights movement
in response to the state's plan to spray 750,000 gallons of PCB-contaminated
water all over the site and fasted 18 days in the Warren County jail.
How long? Not long.
Before I was 42 I'd been arrested 9 times on this issue.
How long? Not long.
In 1992, I was 50 years old, when I cautioned the local, state, and federal government
that the attempt to site a 1000-1500 acre landfill three miles downstream from
the PCB landfill in the poor, black community of Lickskillet would be met with the
most serious forms of resistance.
And now, It's 1993, and I'm 51, and I'm telling you again that the bus is self-
destructing. And that we're getting ready to build a whole fleet of buses
just like this one, with the same self-destructive mechanisms. and fuel them up
with Sub-0 , and drive them into the poor minority communities. _:
And then we're going to put all the poor folks inside with Rosa Parks, and wait
. for the buses to self-destruct. Estimated time of departure: October 9, 1993.
How long? Not long. Because the high octane of Sub-D regulations, the high octane
of The Waste Management Act of 1981 , and the high octane of the philosophy
of waste expansion and inequity is the same high octane that drives the rationale
for selective human sacrifice, the same high octane for discriminatory and
segregational sitings.
But like the sun through the foliage on a green day, I know my way. I'm not going
to follow the Sub-D regulations; I'm not going to follow the Waste Management
Act of 1981; I'm not going to follow the rationale for selective human sacrifice,
because I can't accept this rationale. I couldn't accept it in 1978 when I was 36; I
couldn't accept it in 1982, when I was 40; I couldn't accept it in
1983, when I was 41; I couldn't accept it in 1992, when I was 50, and I cannot
accept it in 1993 at 51. And I will never accept it, because to accept selective
human sacrifice is to perpetuate it and to encourage it.
Now I would like to suggest a process through which I believe we can work together
toward a resolution to the problem. There will be a Director for Research,
Planning, and Communications in your office, Secretary Howes, whose sole
responsibility will be to deal with this issue. And that same research, planning, and
communication process will be coordinated from this end by Deborah and me,
(5)
and by others who would like to participate as well as by those who may need to
participate because of their official positions.
Communications between your office and my office must be open and fluid . Obviously,
you'll decide who the Director of Research, Planning, and Communication will be
at your end, but we will expect someone with the following characteristics: An
open and flexible mind that can
(1) assimilate information quickly
(2) evaluate information from interdisciplinary and multidimensional
perspectives and within the context of criteria and objectives
compatible with the 5-point framework, and in accordance with
principles of waste reduction and equity.
(3) contradistinguish what is central from what is peripheral, especially,
concerning the needs of the Afton community.
(4) Communicate information clearly, concisely, and accurately.
A committee will be needed consisting of various experts, and w,e'II
need to formulate an acceptable plan together. When we think we've got
a plan compatible with the 5-point framework. we'll have a town meeting
and present it.