NCD980602163_19800121_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Warren County v State - Interrogatories-OCR

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMO TO:
FROM:
RE:
~hltt nf ~ortlf a!arolina
~tpadmtnt nf Jlustict
P. o. Box 628
RALEIGH
27602
21 January 1980
Bob Adams, 0. W. Strickland, Bill Myers , Frank Vick,
Burley Mitchell and Dave Kelly
W. A. Raney, Jr.~
Special Deputy Attorney General
Warren County v. State -Interrogatories
Attached is a copy of interrogatories served upon me in
the above-referenced matter. Please read these carefully and
be prepared to discuss the questions which are within your
knowledge or expertise.
I have attached the EPA support document referred to in
question number one so that you will have it available.
I would like to meet on January 29, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. in
the Crime Control Library on the second floor of the Archdale
Building. If you cannot attend at that time please give me a
call at -5725.
If there are others who you feel would be helpful in
formulating the answers to these questions please ask them
to attend. I anticipate that the meeting with take approx-
imatel y an hour t o an hour and a half.
/dw
encl.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH DIVISION NORTH CAR OLINA
WARREN COUNTY, )
)
Plaintiff , )
)
v. )
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
et al. , )
)
Defendants. )
)
No. 79-560-CIV-5 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
! /\ r,l 1 1. 1980
ENVIROr::,1ENTAL PROTECTION SECTION
PLAINTIFF'S INTERRQm00,9IES TO
DEFENDANTS STATE OF NORTH CARO-
LINA AND BURLEY B. MITCHELL.
Defendants State of North Carolina and Burley B. Mitchell
are requested to answer the following interrogatories within the
manner and time provided by Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Proce-
dure:
1. In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that you have
filed on page 26 you estimate that it would cost $12,000 ,000.00 to
dispose of the PCB contaminated soil in a chemical landfill in
Alabama. Please set forth all of your calculations and assumptions
on the basis of which this figure was produced. If you disagree
with the estimate set forth in the Environmental Protection Agency
Support Documents for Proposed PCB Disposal and ~1arking Regulations,
page 20, filed with this court, that transportation costs of PCB
mater ials to a chemical landfill will average two cents per pound,
se~ forth fully your basis for disagreement, and provide all data
(including, but not be ing limited to, mathematical computations,
all vehicle costs, any contractor proposals that were received,
data fr01t1 comparab le transportation) relied upon t.o support. your
estimate. In answer to this interroga tory, you should also in-
clude the following:
(a) The quantity of PCB contaminated materials to be trans-
ported;
(b) The fee or other charge that would b e imposed by the
landf ill operator for disposing of the naterial, including, any
estimate, schedule o f fees , and othe r infor~a tion receive d from
- 1 -
St-11TH, PATTERSON, FoLu N, CuRTIS, JAMES & HARKAVY
ATTORNEYS ANO COUNSELLORS AT LAW
the operator;
(c) The estimated number of truckloads of material that
wo uld be carried from North Carolina to Alabama, and the amount
of naterial that would be carried by each truck .
2. Describe in detail how you propose to spread and blend
the various clays from the Warren County site into a clay that
would provide you with t he required characteristics, as discussed
on pages 8 and 9 of the March 5, 1979, Report of Soil and
Material Engineers, Inc., which is set forth as document A-6
in the documents filed by defendant John C. White in this action.
A general answer to this interrogatory will not suffice. It
is essential that a step-by-step desc ription of the proced ures
and equipment to be used, and the method of testing or otherwise
determining the quality of the mixed product, be set forth .
3. Give all of your reasons for rejecting the PCB d isposal
site in Chatham County, that was described on page 24 A of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please do not limit your
answer to a statement that the site was not available. If you
conten d that the site was not available , state fully all r easons
for its unavailability, including why it could not have b een
obtained by exercising the power of eminent domain.
4. What efforts, if any, were made by defendants to find
a PCB disposal s ite, where the dominant soil type or a substa ntial
part of the available soil, would h~ve been of a montmorillonite clay?
5. If you have not already done s o in answer to interrogatory
n o. 1, please provide your calculations for determining both the
cubic yards and tons of PCB cont~minated material to be trans-
ported. If the volume differs from that obtained by multiplying
30" X 3" X 210.97 miles , please explain why t his i s so.
Re spectfully (~u~t;~/7
. /' . . /
L,,v'\.t/l_\ -.-,. -
Attorney for P laint iff
Norman B. Smith
Smith, Patterson, Follin ,
Curtis, James & Ha rkavy
704 Southeastern Building
Greensboro, N. C. 27401
~>MITH , PATTERSON, FOLLIN,CURTIS,JAMES & HARKAVY Telephone: [phone]
ATTO RNEYS ANO COU NSELLO RS AT LAW
-2 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Norman B. Smith, attorney for Plaintiff ___________ ,
in the above-entitl ed action, do hereby certify that I have
Plaintiff's Interrogatories to served a copy of the foreqoiug Defendants State of North Carolin~rITrrr-------------
Burley B. Mitchell ---------------------o n opposing counsel
of record at the last address knm•:n t o me , by placing said
document in an envelope wi th first-clas s postage affixed,
and by depositing said envelop e in t he ~-s. Post Office
in Greensboro, North Carolina, this /0 d ay of J a nuary ________ ,
1980 ----, said envelope being addre ssed a s f o l lo~s:
Mr. William A. Raney
Special Deputy Attorney Gene ral
N. c. Department o f Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, N. C. 27602
Mr. Neill M. Ross
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 186
Lillington, N. C. 27546
Mr. Thomas C. Manning
Assistant U. S. Attorney
Post Office Box 26897
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
SMITH, PATTERSON, FOLL! N 'CURTIS, JAMES & H ARKAVY
A TTOR~IEYS AND COUN$ELLORS AT LAW
I_'/ _I
Attorney for Plaintiff
No rman B. Smith
Smith, Patters o n, Follin,
Curt is, James & Harkavy
704 Southeastern Building
Greensboro, N. C. 27401
Telephone: [phone]
•
differs from option 2 only in that it allows the continued disposal of
fluorescent light ballasts in chemical waste landfill s. I
The disposal requirements after July l, 1979, are summarized
;
in Table 6 for each of these three options. The disposal requirements are
expected to decrease by about 7 percent per year. Only 5 percent of the
PCBs presently in use will still be in use 42 years from now.
The effect of the vario us options on the disposal of the PCBs
is summarized in Table 7.
Chemical Waste Landfill Costs
There are sixteen landfill s ites in the U.S. which hav e been
identified as secure or chemical waste landfills by the Offi ce of Solid
(~. Waste, EPA. A preliminary survey shows that fifteen of the l andfills
will accept PCB-contaminated solid was te such as capacitors and trans-
former internals. However, some of the sites in California serve only a
limited locale. The sixteen sites are scattered throughout the co untry:
ni ne Class 1 landfill sites in California~ one in Idaho; one in Il linois;
one in Missouri; one in Nevada; two in New York; and one in Texas. These
landfills range in size from 32 acres to 890 acres, \<Jith most estimating
operating lifetimes greater th an 10 years . There are no Class 1 landfills
in Puerto Rico or any other American possessions or territories.
Costs for disposal in chemical waste landfi l ls are highly variable
depending on location and area serviced. Landfills in California are
county operated to service specific nearby locales; they impose relatively
low charges plus additional state fees. Sites which service a number of
I
17
st•tes typically charge from Sl.00 to 510.00 per cubic foot of material
disposed, excluding freight or State fees. The lower costs are l~rgely
. I
found in California and the West where climate and soil type allow
location of Class l landfill sites close to the counties which are serv iced.
The facilities in the East service .the Eastern States and parts of Canada,
and must provide impermeable liners and more stringent monitoring and
leachate controls, thus making disposal more expensive.
During 1978, 275 million pounds of capacitors and miscellaneous
equipment at 150 pounds per cubic foot, and 22.8 million pounds of trans-
formers at 100 pounds per cubic foot may require disposal in chemical
waste landfills. This amounts to 1,830,000 cubic feet of landfill
capacity necessary for capacitor disposal and 228,000 cubic feet for
transformer disposal. These requirements will drop as lan d disposal of -~
capacitors is phased out during 1979.
Total costs for chemical waste landfill in 1978 are estimated at
2,058,000 cubic feet x $3.00 per cubic foot= $6.17 ~ill ion, plus trans-
portation costs of S0.02 per pound (400 mile average trip) x 298 mill i on
lbs= SS.96 million. The total chemical waste landfill disposa l c~sts
will be $12.13 million. However, this method of disposal is currently
specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) voluntary
standard for PCBs ~ and is employed by most utilities and large indus -
trial users. Thus, as much as 50 million lbs of equipment might be
disposed of in chemical waste landfills, even if this regulation were not
promulgated. The additional costs incurred by the proposed regulation for
20
,
/
chemical waste landfill therefore will be less than $10 million in 1978, $6 mil-
lfon in 1979, a~d abo~t _one million dollars per year thereafter
1
under options
1 and 2, since only transformers and conta iners (such as empty drums) ·will
I
be authorized for chemical waste landfill disposal after July l; 1979.
This projected demand for chemical waste landfill is not expect~d to have
a significant effect on either the availability or price of such service.
Under option 3, chemical waste landfill would be required by an
additional 393,000 cubic feet of fluorescent light capacitors, increasing
the chemical waste landfill costs to about S2.2 million per year.
Liquid Incinera t ion
Most ?CB-containing liquids are currently disposed of by inciner-,
ation. The major incinerators operated by Monsanto and the Genera l Electric Co.
will cease operation before 1978.
Chem-rrol has a patented process of disposal of PCBs by mixing
PCB liquids with waste solvents and other hydrocarbons and using th e
mixture as a fuel in cement kilns for the manufacture of special cernen ts.11
A report on the burning of PCBs in a cement kiln of the St. Lawrence
Cement Co ., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, is encouraging, in that it ha s
been demonstrated that the waste liquid PCBs can be completely destroyed
(greater than 99.99% destruction efficiency) while , at the same time, th e
HCl liberated in the destruction reaction neutralizes undesirable excess
alkali in the cement product. This liquid PCB waste destruction approach
shows great promise and a survey is being made by Versar to determine the
potential use of this process in the United States.
21