NCD980602163_19960125_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Science Advisor Scope of Work-OCR

01/25/1995 01:53 9192572504 EELC FERRUCCI □ PAGE 01
........ ____ .......
To : Dollie Burwell rJ;,J:/
From: Ken Ferruccio-1.Y·
Data: January 25, 1996
Subject: Science Advisor Scope of Work -PCB Landfill
Because of responsibilities relating to a change in my schedule, I won't be able to
meet with you and Daria this afternoon to tally the votes regarding distribution of labor.
However. I want to put on the record that I was invited to participate in this process .
I would like to share some concerns about the document titled Science
Advisor Scope of Work -PCB Landfill:
(1) The scope of work should begin with:C,3 --that is. it should begin with
where we were one year ago: identifying and recommending alternative
appropriate and feasible technologies for detoxification of the landfill . Although I
understand from Henry that the sequence is flexible, to begin the scope of work
With the studies and evaluations on the first page gives the impression that
paralysis by analysis will be used to delay or even circumvent detoxification.
(2) Activities, studies, evaluations (I, 1 and 2) should be concurrent
with detoxification if possible. Certainly, hydrogeological studies. if needed,
should be concurrent with detoxification. While I understand that the scientists
will advise us concerning such issues. concurrence when possible should be
expHcitly stated as a preference because it is my understanding that
hydrogeologiocal studies would neither expedite nor facilitate cleanup. nor would
they be definitive because there would be no way to tall about the flow of
contaminants through fractures in bedrock. We have neither time nor money
to waste on hydrogeological studies that will neither facilitate nor expedite
cleanup but simply delay the detoxification process unless concurrent with it.
We have dioxins in groundwater above the federal maximum contamination
level.
Furthermore, needless studies would enable the state to go data shopping and
conclude that conflicting data concerning groundwater contamination do not
justify spending the money to detoxify the site. This would be a significant loss
for Warren County and for justice loving people everywhere. A defeat in Warren
woUld destabilize the environmental justice economy, a predominantly black
economy, and make it very difficult, perhaps impossible, to continue the work
of environmental justice. Yet, this scope of work as written threatens to do
precisely that. As Warren County goes, so goes the justice economy. If the
justice community continues to tolerate the shameful delays that continue to
preclude detoxification of the Warren County PCB/ Dioxin landfill. the landfill
will gradually sink into the groundwater. and with it, whatever credibility the
01 /25/1996 01:53 .. 9192572604 EELC FERRUCCI□ PAGE 02
justice community has earned. If we dismiss a credible and economically viable
environmental justice community, we must dismiss also a credible and effective
opposition to the proposed nuclear waste landfill intended to be sited along the
Wake/ Chatham border, and we must dismiss the possibility of a credible and
economically viable oppositton to the model for waste expansion and injustice
inundating this state and nation. The environmental justice community might just
as well pack up and go h(lme if it does not begin to put pressure on the state
to accelerate the cleanup, if it tolerates anything tess than tne restoration of the
environment to what it was before the forced siting of 1982 and the liberation of
Warren County from the discriminatory and segregational implications of that
Stting and the devastating impact the siting has had on Warren County.
This soope of work as written is no friend to Warren County, and it is no friend to
the environmental justice community. I cannot and will not endorse it as written
because the strategy is transparent: to delay and to undermine the detoxification
objective.
(3) Concerning pumping er, 2C ), the pumping system is a mess. The landfill
would need to be opened and a new system installed. Even if the new
system would work, pumping in perpetuity would be necessary because
water would continue to infiltrate the landfill. But the main argument for
making pumping concurrent with detoxification is that if the state can
make a case that it has pumped out the 1.5 million gallons of water prior to
detoxification, It is very unlikely that the legislators will appropriate money for
detoxification, Dismiss the crisis and you dlamlaa the rationale for the
Howea • Ferrucclo framework and the orlglnaj purpose of the
committee -namely, to serve as a mechanism for resolving the crlaia
within the framework, a framework centering on detoxification.
(4) Concerrnng bench scales/ pilot studies ( r. 3, e ), since what works in a lab
doaS not necessarily work in the natural environment, an off-site pilot / bench
__.e detoxification t.chnology study would be a waste of time and
money, yleldlng worthless knowledge because It would need to be
replicated In the natural environment on site. It would simply buy the
state more time. Furthermore, tranaportlng the contamlnanta off-site
would violate the Howea / Ferrucclo framework and would therefore
have the mo•t aerloua Implications.
To summarize:
( 1) The scope of work should begin with:l; 3: identifying and recommending
alternative and appropriate and feasible technologies for
detoxification of the landfill.
(2) The scope of work should explicity state that hydrogeological
studies, if needed, are to be concurrent with detoxification.
01 /25/1995 01:53 9192572504 EELC FERRUCCI□
f ,.
(3) The scope of work should explicitly state that pumping (if pumping is
even possible) be concurrent with detoxification.
(4) The scope of work should explicitly state that pilot/bench scale studies
are to be done on-site and that no contaminants are to be removed from
the site.
PAGE 03
Finally, given the political realities, it was perhaps inevitable that the committee
process would involve nuancos, subtleties, ambiguities and complexities involving
issues pertaining to law.
With no disrespect to any member of this committee, I want to make it clear for the
record that the entire decision-making process to choose a science advisor raises
serious questions pertaining to law and that perhaps the only way to remedy the
problem is to void the current contracting process and to reissue the RFP. This
statement reflects the opinion of legal counsel and is also a way of limiting my legal
liability.
Copies: Working Group Subcommittee on Scope of Work and Related Matters.
William L. Meyer