HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-23-1993 - VII-A 1•
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No Vj[-A
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 23, 1993
SUBJECT: Access to Potential Landfill Sites
DEPARTMENT County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT
Reports on Landfill Site Advantages/ County Manager, ext 2300
Disadvantages (previously sent TELEPHONE NUMBER
under separate cover) Hillsborough 732-8181
Consultant' s Revised Site Testing Plan Chapel Hill 968-4501
Proposed Resolution Mebane 227-2031
Proposed Interlocal Agreement Durham 688-7331
NCGS 40A-11
PURPOSE: To discuss, as needed, reports prepared by County staff,
Chapel Hill town staff, and Joyce Engineering concerning advantages and
disadvantages of potential landfill sites; to consider a resolution and
interlocal agreement between Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro
and Chapel Hill that authorizes the Town of Chapel Hill to act on
behalf of the jurisdictions comprising the Landfill Owners ' Group in
exercising the statutory authority granted to each jurisdiction to
conduct testing of potential sites for a sanitary landfill.
BACKGROUND: The Landfill Search Committee has identified four
potential landfill sites - OC-2, OC-9, OC-11, and OC-17 - that will
require subsurface testing for further evaluation of the suitability of
each site. The results of this testing would permit development of
preliminary engineering plans and cost estimates. These would allow
the LSC to compare alternative sites along the lines of social
implications, capital and operating costs, and environmental effects.
The Board of Commissioners requested reports, through the Landfill
Owners ' Group, that would outline perceived advantages/disadvantages of
the potential landfill sites and an assessment of why or why not the
Landfill Search Committee had voted to maintain each site under active
consideration at this time. Staff prepared these reports, solicited
comments on them from LSC members, and submitted them for review and
approval to the LOG. At its March 11, 1993 meeting, the LOG received
the reports, found them satisfactory, and forwarded them for
consideration by each of the three governing bodies.
The next step in the landfill search process involves gaining access
to potential landfill sites to conduct physical testing of their
suitabilities for that purpose. The County has authority under GS 40A-
11 to enter upon lands specified for the purpose of making surveys,
borings, examinations and appraisals as may be necessary or expedient
in selecting a site for a future landfill. Property owners can receive
2
compensation for damages that occur as a result of required testing.
In response to concerns raised in summer 1992 about potential
damage from the digging of test pits, Joyce Engineering has prepared an
alternative, less intrusive site testing plan for the four sites that
remain under active consideration. This plan was reviewed by the LOG
at the March 1,1 meeting, found to be satisfactory, and forwarded to the
three governing bodies for their consideration.
If the Board of Commissioners finds the reports and the revised
testing plan suitable, staff recommends that the Board consider
adopting the attached resolution. It would authorize Orange County to
exercise its statutory authority under GS 40A-11 and authorize the
County Manager to sign the attached interlocal agreement allowing the
Town of Chapel Hill to carry out this activity on behalf of all three
jurisdictions. The Town of Chapel Hill adopted a resolution similar to
the one proposed here, on May 11, 1992 . The Town of Carrboro Board of
Aldermen has postponed consideration of a similar resolution pending
action by the Board of Commissioners.
RECOIO(ENDATION(S) : The Manager recommends that the Board discuss
the potential landfill site reports and testing plan, and consider
adopting the attached resolution.
1114110MMai i a 3
= --1111 NMI
UMW ■ VIM
Joyce Engineering,Inc.
4660 South Laburnum Ave.
Richmond,Virginia 23231
Tel (804)222-1182
Fax(804)222-1384
February 25, 1993
Mr. Gayle Wilson
Solid Waste Administrator
Town of Chapel Hill
Public Works Department
1099 Airport Road
Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27516
Dear Gayle:
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LANDFILL SI'Z'E SEARCH, ORANGE REGIONAL LANDFILL
JEI PROJECT NO. 229.00 /TASK 44
As you requested, we have updated the scope of services, schedule and budget for the
preliminary geotechnical investigation from our April 13, 1992, letter to reflect the omission of the
test pits from the proposed field work. The test pits were omitted in accordance with the request of
the LOG in order to minimize disturbances to the sites during the field work. The primary
purpose of the test pits was to log the near surface soils in detail and select representative soil
samples for laboratory testing. The detailed logging of the soil and the clear view of the contacts
between the soil strata that the test pits yield would result in a more representative estimate of the
volume of borrow soil for liner and cover materials. By removing the test pits from the revised
scope of work, the following two items will not be able to be completed during the field work:
• detailed logging of the soil strata
• selection of representative soil samples from a specific soil strata
The information that would result from these two items are critical to the evaluation of the sites.
Consequently, in order to maintain a comparable level of investigation without the test pits,
additional sampling has been included in the soil test borings. The revised scope of work includes:
• continuous sampling using a split-spoon sampler from a depth
ranging from ground surface to 20 feet, in order to obtain a more
detailed view of the soil strata; and
• shallow composite samples collected from the auger flite as the
auger is advanced, in order to obtain soil samples for laboratory
testing from specific ranges of depth in the soil.
Ars,J Printed on recycled paper
4
Mr. Gayle Wilson
Page 2
February 25, 1993
This will provide comparable data to the test pits although the test pits yield superior information at
a lower cost.
In addition to this increased sampling in the test borings, the following have also been
added to the revised scope of work:
(1) Additional borings at site OC-2 to better define the groundwater divide between
Cane Creek Reservoir and the potential active landfill area;
(2) Additional time for the initial site reconnaissance by the entire project team
(including principals and project managers) to address requests for their direct
involvement throughout the field work;
(3) Additional time for coordination of access of the drill rig on each site with the land
owners; and
(4) Grouting of all soil borings to allow for abandonment of each boring in accordance
with the North Carolina well abandonment regulations.
This package presents the revised scope of work, budgets, estimated time to complete the
work, and a discussion of our concerns in relationship to site access, clearing, site restoration and
security issues, and lists the deliverables from this phase in the project. If you have any questions
or need additional information,please contact Leonard Joyce or John Robins at (804) 222-1182.
We look forward to continuing to serve the Landfill Owners Group on this important project.
Sincerely,
631
John C. Robins, P.E. ( �
Project Engineer
L. E. Joyce, J . P.E.
Project Manager
dlk
Enclosures
■won
IIIIMINEGMBHIEMEDMIE
rr�rr
,. _
5
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Landfill Site Search
Orange Regional Landfill
Purpose of Work
The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical investigation is to obtain sufficient data on the
subsurface conditions at each candidate site in order to: (1)evaluate the presence of fatal flaws,
and (2) use the subsurface data in the engineering evaluation of the candidate sites that will be
completed in the next task of this project.
Scope of Work
The preliminary geotechnical investigation will include field exploration of the subsurface
conditions at sites OC-2, OC-9, OC-1 i, and OC-17, laboratory testing of selected soil samples and
an evaluation of the subsurface conditions which will be summarized in a report. The scope of
work is divided into the following items:
• Site Access and Reconnaissance - We anticipate walking the site with the land
owners to discuss access roads, disturbance due to the drilling vehicles, and
clearing requirements. Regarding clearing, the preferred method will be clearing by
hand, though some road cutting may be appropriate or necessary in certain
circumstances. This clearing can be done by the Landfill Owners Group (LOG)
staff or by the drilling subcontractor on a time and expense basis. Site restoration
may vary between sites, depending on the prevailing site conditions. We would
recommend a diligent restoration effort, where appropriate, but we do not anticipate
stump/log/brush removal or replanting of trees. Again, the LOG staff may be
involved in this work to minimize contracted services or they can be.provided as
needed by our subconsultants or their subcontractor on a time and expense basis. It
is anticipated for this cost estimate that the LOG staff will be responsible for the
bulk of the clearing and restoration work and that the subcontractor will be
responsible for incidentals associated with clearing and cleaning of the site only. If
the subcontractor is required to complete this task, the rate for clearing and cleaning
will be $100.00 per hour.
We anticipate that access will be provided without delay by each property owner at
the time of the initial arrival of the drill rig and that the drill rig will be allowed to be
left on site throughout the drilling operations. Any additional work or expenses
required due to security of the field personnel or equipment (e.g.,daily removal of
the drill rig) will be provided on a time and expense basis.
1
suabiaidima
111~11111/ Elam
0 Printed on recycled paper
6
Site reconnaissance by the Joyce Engineering, Inc. (JEI)project manager and
project engineer and the Bain, Palmer and Associates, Inc. (BPA) project manager
and field geologists will be made initially to coordinate site access, meet with land
owners, and to reconnoiter the topography,vegetation and other significant features
for use in the planning of the geotechnical investigation and in the engineering
evaluation in the next task of the project (outside the current scope of work).
Additionally, a second day of project engineer time has been allocated in order to
coordinate the access of the drill rig on each site with the land owners. Again,if
more time is required to coordinate access to each site, then this will be provided on
a time and expense basis.
• Wetlands Identification - During the site reconnaissance of the candidate sites, a
wetlands specialist will perform a walkover of each site through the lowlying areas
to preliminarily identify the presence and general extent of the wetlands. Derailed
mapping of the wetlands boundaries are not anticipated at this time due to the
extensive cost of this level of work. However, the preliminary identification of the
wetlands will allow for ranking of the sites during the engineering evaluation of the
sites.
• Geologic Reconnaissance- An initial geologic reconnaissance of each site will be
made during the initial site reconnaissance meeting. Additional geologic
reconnaissance work will also be completed after this initial site visit. The geologic
reconnaissance will include mapping of any significant geologic features such as
outcrops, boulders or dikes. Streambeds will be walked to evaluate whether there
are wet weather features.
• Field Exploration Program - The field exploration program will consist of auger
borings, soil sampling and water level measurements. A minimum data base of 41
auger holes, 41 water table measurements, 22 shallow borehole composite
samples, and 10 deep borehole composite samples is necessary to characterize
these sites in sufficient detail to weigh their relative suitability. Table One lists the
field explorations proposed for each site:
Table One
PROPOSED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Number of Number of Deep
Number of Number of Shallow Borehole Borehole
SITE Boreholes Water Level Composite Composite
Measurements Samples Samples
OC-2 12 12 5 1
OC-9 9 9 5 2
OC-11 10-14 10-14 6-8 3
OC-17 10 10 6 3
2 __ Mow
4*31:141112CHll:W:N
Twenty-two to twenty-four of the auger borings will be sampled continuously in
the upper 20 feet of the subsurface and at five foot intervals thereafter. Shallow
composite samples will be taken from the auger f ites as the auger is advanced
from 0 to 10 feet below the ground surface. Additionally, deep composite samples
will be taken at deeper intervals in two or three selected soil test borings. It is
estimated for this proposal that the borings will range between 40 and 60 feet in
depth based on groundwater and bedrock conditions encountered. All borings will
be logged by a qualified geologist who will determine the depth of the borings
during drilling operations. Water level readings will be taken at the completion of
the drilling operations and after 24 hours, upon completion.
• Survey of Boring Locations - Land surveying will be utilized to locate the borings
on the site and determine the elevations of the ground surface at each boring.
Additionally, any significant geologic features found during the geologic
reconnaissance or wetlands found during the site reconnaissance will be located
• Soil Laboratory Testing- Selected soil samples from each site will be submitted to
the soil laboratory for evaluation of index and engineering properties. The index
tests will be used to clarify the soils and will include grain size distribution, natural
moisture content, and Attenberg Limits. The engineering properties tests will be
used to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soil for use in the design and
construction of the proposed landfill; these tests will include the Standard Proctor
tests (density) and remodeled permeability tests.
• Preliminary Geotechnical Report- Once the field and laboratory work is
completed, the subsurface conditions will be evaluated to formulate preliminary
conclusions concerning the following items:
• depth to bedrock
• depth to groundwater
• groundwater flow directions
• soil utilization as liner material
• soil utilization as cover material
• engineering properties of on-site soils
This evaluation will be used to determine the presence of fatal flaws for each site.
Additionally, this preliminary evaluation will be used in the preliminary engineering
evaluation of each site that will be completed in the next task of this project.
Ranking of the sites is not anticipated to be completed in the preliminary
geotechnical report unless a fatal flaw or other significant disadvantage is
encountered on a site. Rankings will be established once the preliminary
engineering evaluation is completed.
Since we do not anticipate a ranking to result directly from the geotechnical work,
we do not anticipate a formal presentation of this report to the LSC at the
completion of this geotechnical work although copies will be made available to the
3 NAMMAIrdisa
__
/r■r�7y,,��y���,�
«Printed on recycled paper
8
LOG staff for distribution. Consequently, we have not made provisions for
meetings with the LSC for presentation of the results of the geotechnical work.
We do intend, however, to submit the geotechnical investigation report with the
final engineering evaluation report and to present the engineering findings formally
to the LSC in a meeting.
Task Budget
Invoicing for the investigation will be based on the actual quantity of services provided.
Based on the previously described scope of services and Task 11.4 of our contract, we estimate that
the total cost of this investigation will range from $103,840.00 to$121,840.00 The range of the
estimated cost for each site is presented below:
Table Two
TASK BUDGET*
SITE RANGE OF ESTIMATED COSTS
OC-2 $ 30,960.00 to $ 34,960.00
OC-9 $ 22,960.00 to $ 25,960.00
OC-11 $ 24,960.00 to $ 32,960.00
OC-17 $ 24,960.00 to $ 27,960.00
Totals $103,840.00 to $121,840.00
*The prices quoted herein are for exploration of all four sites. If the scope
decreases, the drilling costs will increase as follows:
• Exploration limited to one site 15% increase in unit prices
• Exploration limited to two sites 10% increase in unit prices
• Exploration limited to three sites 5% increase in unit prices
We recommend setting a budget of$122,000 for this work, and we agree not to exceed this budget
without your prior authorization. However, as discussed in the Site Access section above, there
are several non-technical issues that may require additional time or services above our stated scope.
This additional time or services would likely result in exceeding the budget of$122,000.00. We
anticipate dealing with these non-technical issues, if they arise, in cooperation with you and your
staff in order to minimize costs.
• Budget Increases - The increases reflected in this budget when compared to the
cost estimate submitted in April 1992 are due to the following items:
4 __
w
..muiror
MEMEMEMEIMINEE
9
- Additional time has been budgeted to allow for more on-site time
by the project managers and project engineers due to the high
visibility and scrutiny this project receives.
- Three additional boreholes were added to the OC-2
investigations to help define the location of the
groundwater divide between Cane Creek Reservoir
and the potential active landfill area.
- Estimated costs for grouting all boreholes in accordance with NC
well abandonment regulations have been included in this estimate.
- Procuring bulk samples of subsurface materials for
laboratory analyses with drill rigs is significantly
more expensive than procuring suitable samples with
backhoes as originally proposed.
Schedule
Once we have received authorization, we will commence initiating the project immediately.
The first step will include obtaining permits and notifying the land owners for permission to access
their lands. This step may require between four and six weeks to complete in order to allow
sufficient time for the land owners to respond. Once access is granted, the site reconnaissance and
drilling operations can be begun. The field work will require between 6 and 10 weeks to complete.
While the field work is underway, the soil laboratory work will be begun. This will require an
additional two to four weeks after the completion of the field work. And finally, once all field and
laboratory work are completed, the report will be developed. This will require another two to four
weeks. The entire project from authorization to proceed to delivery of the final report will require
between four to five months. This assumes no significant delays due to access to the sites or
security issues.
5 ■41111Mt/sa
INOMEMEMEMEINE
0 Printed on recycled paper
10
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF ORANGE COUNTY' S
AUTHORITY TO ENTER UPON PRIVATE LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONDUCTING SURVEYS, BORINGS, EXAMINATIONS AND APPRAISALS TO
ASSIST IN THE SELECTION OF A SITE FOR A NEW LANDFILL TO SERVE
ORANGE COUNTY AND APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THAT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Orange County is a member of the Landfill Owners '
Group and is a part owner of the present Orange County
Landfill ; and,
WHEREAS, Orange County and the two other owners of the
present landfill, the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of
Carrboro, have appointed a citizens ' Landfill Site Search
Committee to consider sites for a new landfill for Orange
County; and,
WHEREAS, the owners of the Orange County Landfill have
appointed representatives to the Landfill Owners ' Group which
is considering issues related to the operation of the present
landfill and possible location of a site for a future
landfill; and,
WHEREAS, as part of the process of evaluating potential sites
for a future landfill for Orange County, it is necessary to
enter upon properties which have been identified as possible
sites for a future landfill ; and,
WHEREAS, under North Carolina law (N.C.G.S. 40A-ll) , Orange
County, as an agency with the authority to exercise the power
of eminent domain, may enter upon lands for the purpose of
making surveys, borings, examinations and appraisals as may
be necessary or expedient in carrying out and performing its
powers of eminent domain, specifically in this case to select
a site for a sanitary landfill to serve Orange County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners that the Board hereby approves the exercise of
the County' s authority under G.S . 40A-11, to enter upon the
lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein, for the purpose of making surveys, borings,
examinations and appraisals as may be necessary or expedient
in selecting a site for a future landfill to serve Orange
County;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners
authorizes the County Manager to execute the attached
interlocal agreement on behalf of Orange County with the
other owners of the Orange County Landfill, whereby the Town
of Chapel Hill is designated to exercise said authority on
behalf of Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel
Hill , and ratifies said agreement.
i 11
EXHIBIT "A
;ITE OC-2
,OT I(Acres) Land Owner Address
;.23 .3 (1.Oac) Thomas York Teer 8222 Stanford Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
;.23 .3A (1.0ac) SAME AS ABOVE
).23 .13 (1.37ac) Leta Cheek Teer 822 Stanford Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
3 . 23.14 (1.02ac) SAME AS ABOVE
3.23 .15 (223 .3ac) Teer Farms Inc. 8222 Stanford Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
3.26.1 (49. 18ac) Alease P. Wilson 2521 Azalea Dr.
Durham, NC 27703
. 3 (9.23ac) John J. & Helene A. Dixon 4915 Airport Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
12
;1...4 0C-9
# (Acres) Land owner Address
1. 2.10 ( 65. 35ac) Helen N. & Leroy J. Miller 2506 NC 57
Hillsborough, NC 27278
1
thjf p e 3 - 3
Off 13
0c-11
.OT # ( Acres) Land Owner Address
3.8. 31 ( 13 .61ac) Nancy J.& Ronald R. Beauvais Route 4, Box 508
Hillsborough,NC 27278
i.8. 31A ( 47 .00ac) Alex Watkins Heirs Route 4, Box 678
Hillsborough, NC 27278
;. 8. 32 ( 93 .02ac) Dathene Hawkins, et al. 7107 Wilkerson Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
3.8. 328 (1.79ac) Agne; & Warren S. Sun ey, Sr. 122 Occoneechee St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5 . 8 . 32E ( 2.83ac) Wanda & Warren s. Summey, Jr. 2701 Miller Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5_8.36 ( 4.51ac) Harold V. & Barbara Suisney Route 4, Box 468
Hillsborough, NC 27278
3.13 .1 ( 35.12ac) Laura Louise Watkins 1312 New Sharon Church Rd.
& Alex Watkins Heirs Hillsborough NC 27278
5.131B (16.0ac) Laura Louise Watkins & 1312 New Sharon Church
Alex Watkins Heirs Hillsborough, NC 2727,
3.13 .1A (55.23ac) Billy W. & Carolyn F. 607 Watts Street
Sprinkle Durham, NC 27701
5.13 .10 (38.14ac) , Frederick V. Miller, Sr. 1200 New Sharon Church Rc
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5 .13.10A ( 12.25ac) Frederick V. Miller, Sr. 1200 New Sharon Church Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5.13 .10B (11.71ac) Jesse L. Miller 1122 New Sharon Church Roa
Hillsborough, NC 27278
3.13 .14 ( 1288.67ac) Randolph Dudley Fox 2726 Croasdaile Dr . , Suite
Durham, NC 27705
5.14.1 (0. 61ac) Sue Thompson Johnson 2608 St. Mary' s Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5.14. 3 (0.53ac) Calvin Roosevelt Mayfield & P.O.Box 1057
Mable Long Hillsborough, NC 27278
5. .4A (0.74ac) Dwan V. Johnson 13158 Old Durham Road
Roxboro, NC 27573
14
ite OC-17
of # (Acres) Land Owner Address
.18. 27E ( 4.2ac) Ida Strowd Pendergrass, 451 Valencia Drive
et al. Pontiac MI 48058
.19.24 ( 10.0ac) Dr. David Paydarfar 226A Harvard St. , Apt. 1
Cambridge, MA 02139
.19. 24G (10.01ac) Wendy D. & Walker A. Long 28 Wedgewood
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
f
List of Individual Responses to
Access Request Letters
Preliminary Geotechnical investigations
Orange County Landfill Site Search
Property Owners of"Active Sites
(OC-2, OC-9, OC-11, OC-17)
Site 0C-11
Access
granted Lot#(ActeS) I andand Qcaner Address
NO 5.8.31 (13.61 AC) Nancy J. &Ronald R. Beauvais Route 4 Bcx 508
Hltbrbotrxch, P C 27275
NO 5.6.31A (47.00 AC) Alex Watkins Heirs Route 4 Bicx 878
Hillabarou0h,NC 27278
YES 5.8.318 (7.71 AC) Kaye& Paul F. Fendt 14100 E Road
D , P40 208Th
YES 5,8.310 (6.19 AC) SAME AS ABOVE
YES 5.8.310 (3.57 AC) SAME AS ABOVE
•
YES 5.8.31E (3.02 AC) SAME AS ABOVE
NR 5.8.32 (93.02 AC) Dathene Hawkins, et al 71071Mf Fwd
C , t4C 27231
NO 5.8.32E (1.79 AC) Agnes &Warren S. Summey, Sr. 122 Ocx$.'e*M Street
HR1ubo o4gh, 111C 27776
NO 5.8.32E (2.83 AC) Wanda &Warren S. Summey, Jr. 2701 Misr Rtad
Hillaborot ph,110 27773
NR 5.8.36 (4.51 AC) ' Harold V. & Barbara Summey Rout,4 Ex 483
HiliabarQU h, 27271
NO 5.13.1 (35.12 AC) Laura Louise Watkins 1312 Nroi Sharof Church Road
&Alex Watkins Heirs Hl1labort:40,NC 27278
NR = No Response
11
List of Individual Responses to
Access Request Letters
Preliminary Geotechnical Investlgatlons '
Orange County Landfill Site Search
Property Owners of'Active" Sites
(OC-2, OC-9, OC-11, 0C-17)
SEle OC 1,l
Access
r4ranted Lot # (Acresl J and Owner
NO 5.13.18 (16,0 AC) Laura Louisa Watkins 1312 NOP/Shames Church Komi
& Alex Watkins Heirs HlaisboroUgh,pc, 27278
NO 5.13.1A (55.23 AC) Billy W. & Carolyn F. Sprinkle 607 Wat* Str)set
Durham,f NC 127701
NO 5.13.10 (3$.14 AC) Frederick V. Miller, Sr. 1200 Ne}v Shltrori Deitch /toad
Halaboro rgh, C 27778
NQ 5.13.10A (12,25 AC) Frederick V. Miller, Jr. 1200 New Sh in Church Road
filbtbotought INC 27778
NO 5.13.10S (11.71 AC) Jesse L. Miller 1122 Ne}v Slttroqf Church Road
tail sborouph,NC 27278
NO 5.13.14 (1288.67 AC) Randolph Dudley Fox 2726 Crr Ae Drive, ukw 102
Durhy,t,NC�2 '�7705
NS 5.14,1 (0.61 AC) Sue Thompson Johnson 23011 St.Mary's Red
Hialoborougt►, NO 27278
NR 5.14.3 (0.53 AC) Calvin Roosevelt Mayfield 8 P.O. BOA 1057
Mable Long Hilteboro{rgh,NO 27278
YES 5.14.4 (0.50 AC) Alvis I. & Leola S. Gilmore 2616 SL 4O4 r s Reid
Hilksbc0000ts,P4C 27273
NR- 5.14,4A (0.74 AC) Owen V.Johnson 131519 Old Dzrtmin Rood
Roxboro'NC 1 27673
NR = No Response
• Notice given by Roxboro Post Office but letter never picked up
3 o?3 ° 93 Ac A 1"-E M 4
3/233
List of Individual Responses to
Access Request Letters
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations
Orange County Landfill Slte Search
Property Owners of"Active"Sites
(OG2, OC-9, 0C-11, OC-17)
Site OC-2
Access
Granted Lot# (A ,creJ Land Owner
NO 6.23.3 (1.0 AC) Thomas York Tear 8222 SiortIGO Road
ChapatHU, C 27516
NO 6,23.3A(1.0 AC) SAME AS ABOVE
YES 6.23.4C (215.99 AC) Joyce N. Stanford 8700 Skn Road
Chapel *,NC 27516 '
YES 6.23.10 (90.0 AC) Garland A. Cates 458 Camp Rood
BullWr $ n,
PilC 27215
NR 6.23.13 (1.37 AC) Leta Cheek Teer 8222 Ibed
Chapal C 27518
NR 6,23,14 (1.02 AC) SAME AS ABOVE
NO 6.23.15 (223.3 AC) Teer Farms Inc, 8222$
Cha � Rated
21e616.
NO 6.26.1 (49.18 AC) Alease P.Wilson 2521 .110if D*ve
Dum+r.. N 27103
. YES 6.26.2 (8312 AC) Mazie S. Pickett 6011 Ala ti . MI Road
Chapel HZ,NC 211'714
NO 6.26.3'(923 AC) John J. &Helene A. Dixon 4915 ho sy 64 W
ChapaHIM, NO 27618
YES 6.26.5 (142.8 AC) Buck Mountain Development 808 Altort oad
Co. Partnership Chaps4 C 27514
NR= No Response
List Of Individual Responses to
Access Request Litters
Preliminary Geotechnlcal Investigations
Orange County Landfill Site Search -
Property Owners of'Active Sites
(OC-2, OC•9, OC-11, OC-17)
Bite ac-a
Access
2ranteg >roj # (Acres) Land Own( 8dt)teit t
YES 4.1.8.27 (53.0 AC) Corn E. & Robert G. Hancock, Jr. 9847 Shaw C�Road
et al Snow ,NC 27349
YES 4.2.1 (139.46 AC) Marvin Phelps 2400 !S7
ph, 27278
YES 4.2.2 (114.0 AC) Kim Irn Nan Staley 110 Carnpbet Avenue
Crestview, F14 32536
NO 4.2.10 (65.35 AC) Helen N. &Leroy J. Miller 2$0 i57
Harr ph, 27278
YES* 4.3.14 (309.19 AC) Champion fleetly Corp. 18 5+ ai teen e; 'O
Hou thn TX 4
YES 4.4.6 (143.00 AC) J. .1 Freeland Heirs 1900 NC ST
Hiisbawgh, 27278
•Verbal response reported to Mr. Gayle Wilson, Town of Chapel Hill Public Works Alspartm*nt
12
List of Individual Responses to
Acceac Requesat Letters
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations
Orange County Landfill Site Search
Property Owners of"Active" Site*
(DC-2, OC.9, DC-11, OC-17)
,Sjte OC-17
Access
atartied Lot# (Acres) j.xnd Owner gds
YES 7.18.27 (8.08 AC) Regina W. &Woodrow W. Sellers, et sJ 5209 8s�flbsd
Durham, 2'713
YES 7.18.270 (13.8 AC) Llbson R.Johnson 108 South Graham Street
Chapel i►ii4 NCI 27514
NR 7.18.27E (42 AC) Ida Strowd Pendergrass, el al 451 Vs ive
Pontiac,ms 4$5
YES 7.18.27F (2.82 AC) Bernice Bivina & Doris Farmer, et*I 900-12 meter Avenue
Bronx, NY 1045
YES 7.19.24 (83.80 AC) E.M. Blackwood 6523 1,1194tiaa Read
Chapel Hilt NCI 27511
YES 7,19.24F(10.01 AC) SAME AS ABOVE
YES 7.19.24B (3.0 AC) Ruth'&Troy B. Studer,Jr. 100 Laurel1 lisp tint*
Chapel Hi"NCI 27514
NR 7.19.24C (10.0 AC) Dr. David Paydarfar 225A Herierd Street,Apt. t
Carnt> 02139
NO 7.19.24(3 (10.01 AC) Wendy D. &Walker A. Long 28 Wed
Chapel HalteNeciCi 27514
YES 7.20.7A(057.71 AC) Duke University School of Forestry Moe of Uhlvatlekt Counsel
Durham, 217010
YES 7.20.8 (25.0 AC) Mary C. Stokes, at al 932 SOON, Labe
Charlotte,tiC
YES 7.20.9 (25.0 AC) Martha B. Kirkman 2310 Whit Court
Charlotte, 23211
NR = Na Response
•
MT' c 3.
15
i,L
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT made and entered into this( the
day of , 1993, by and between the County of Orange, a
North Carolina political subdivision, the Town of Carrbord, a North
Carolina municipal corporation, and the Town of Chape 1J Hill, a
North Carolina municipal corporation, pursuant to Chapter 160A,
Article 20 , Part 1 , North Carolina General Statutes .
WHEREAS, Orange County, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of
Chapel Hill own and operate jointly a landfill located in Orange
County to serve their respective jurisdictions and the residents
thereof ; and,
•
WHEREAS, Orange County, . the Town of Carrboro and thle Town of
Chapel Hill desire to exercise jointly each agency' s individual
authority under N.C. General Statute 40,E-11 to enter upon private
lands for the purpose of making surveys, borings, examinations and
appraisals as may be necessary or expedient toward the *election
and possible acquisition of a site for a future landfill;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by Orange County and the
Town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as follows:
1 . The Town of Chapel Hill is hereby authorised endidirected
to exercise the authority given under G.S. 40A-11 oh behalf of
Orange County, and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill for the
purpose of considering possible future sites for a landfill to
serve the three respective governmental agencies and their
residents.
2 . All costs associated with the authorized exercise of
authority under G.S. 40A-11 , including, but not limited to, coats
of surveys , borings, and . examinations, shall be berne by the
present Landfill Fund administered by the Town of Chapel Hill .
• 3. This Agreement shall be for the period beginning on the
date of execution first above written and extending to June 30, •
1993 .
4 . This Agreement may be extended or modified by agreeement
of the parties.
16
5 . Any party may withdraw from this agreement. uppn 30 days
written notice to the remaining parties.
ORANGE COUNTY
•
by Attest
County Manager Clerk
TOWN OF CARRBORO
Attest
by
Clerk
Town Manager
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
by Attest
Town Manager Clerk
•
I
P11-1:-: ,?3-
17
•
•
40A-11. Right of entry prior to condemnation.;
Any condemnor without having filed a petition or coup' nt.
depositing any sum or taking any other action provided fbr m is
Chapter, is authorized to enter upon any lands,but not
to make surveys, borings, examinations, and appraisals es be
necaneary or expedient in carrying out and performing its rich or
duties under this Chapter. The condemnor shall give 30 days 'co
in writing to the owner at his last known address and the pertY in
poawesion of the land of the intended entry authorised by this
tion.
Entry under this section shall not be deemed a traipses or taliiing
within the meaning of this Chapter, however, the condemnor
make reimbursement for any damage resulting from such activities,
and the owner is entitled to bring an action to recover for the 4m-
.
age lithe owner recovers damages of twenty•five nt(MI over
the amount offered by the condemnor for reimbursement for( its
activities the court,in its discretion,may award reaenabie attorney
fiesta the owner. (1981, c. 919, s. 1.)
/ 2/ 323—�
A TERRA
Environmental Consultants
August 3, 1992 . .,�3� fp Jr!
A 0 5 1992 r
Mr. Reginald Gillespie 110.
Faison, Fletcher, Barber & Gillespie
University Tower, Suite 1400
3101 Petty Road
Durham, North Carolina 27717-1729
Reference: Use of Geophysical Methods
Reconnaissance for Sanitary Landfill Evaluations
Orange County Sites, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job No. 598
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
As you requested during a July 28, 1992, conversation with Mr. David Duncklee,
Aquaterra has prepared the following information concerning the merit of
geophysical evaluations in siting suitable tracts of land for sanitary landfills. The
possibility of using geophysical techniques such as a seismic or magnetic method was
originally recommended in our March 2, 1992, correspondence (L2434-92).
Prospective Geophysical Methods
Magnetic Prospecting Method
The presence of a diabase dike is a major limitation for a potential site Magnetic
prospecting techniques such as a magnetometer can be used to determine whether a
diabase dike underlies a site These instruments detect variations in the earth's
magnetic field, which indicates the potential presence of near surface objects.
The presence of ferrous minerals in the geologic features account for the features'
magnetic properties. The order of magnetic properties are from the basic igneous
rocks (ie. gabbros, diabase), acid igneous rocks (granites), metamorphic rocks, shale,
sandstone and sediment, and dolomite.
Corporate Office Charlotte Office Greensboro Office
P. O. Box 50328 P. O. Box 668107 P. O. Box 16241
Raleigh,NC 27650 Charlotte,NC 28266-8107 Greensboro,NC 27416-0241
(919)859-9987 (704)525-8680 (919)273-5003
FAX(919)859-9930 FAX(704) 527-2792 FAX(919)271-8138
Mr. Reginald Gillespie
L2757-92
August 3, 1992
Page 2
Near surface geologic and manmade structures significantly influence the total
magnetic field. The closer the magnetic sensor is to a near surface structure, the
greater effect that structure has on changing the total magnetic field where the object
is located. Magnetic susceptibility is the degree to which a substance may be
magnetized. For example, formations that contain a high percentage of ferrous
material (i.e., diabase dikes) would have a relatively high susceptibility whereas a
formation that contains little or no ferrous materials would have a low susceptibility.
Based on these two factors, magnetics could be used to determine whether these
formations are present at prospective sites.
Typically, these investigations involve the use of a gradiometer to determine the
amount of ferrous material in the underlying formations. The earth's vertical
magnetic gradient is particularly sensitive to near surface variations as they are
typically very localized especially in the cases of diabase dikes. The effects of the
near surface structures on the magnetic field rapidly decrease as the distance
between the object and sensor increases.
This method offers four key advantages:
• it is non-invasive with no disturbance of the tract (i.e., trees, road
cutting, drilling)
• the relative quickness for conducting a survey (the site can be covered
in 1 to 3 days, depending on the size of the area and level of detail of
the survey)
• anomalous structures can be located in the field
• the minimal cost for the procedure
Aquaterra has used the magnetic survey techniques for mapping diabase dikes for
both water supply and ground water remediation. Although the diabase dikes are
relatively impermeable, when they are injected through the older rocks, they form
very permeable zones on either side of the dike which can readily transmit ground
water and contaminants. Their presence is considered a major limitation for a
prospective landfill site. 'Aquaterra has mapped for two clients in the Research
Triangle Park over 1,500 acres of land, locating nearly 4 miles of dikes. The magnetic
survey results were used to place 5 extraction wells and numerous monitoring wells
for ground water remediation and one well for water supply.
Electrical Resistivity Soundings
Further definition of the depth to bedrock can be assessed using electrical survey
methods such as DC Resistivity. Vertical electric soundings (YES) can be used to
determine whether a traceable geologic bedrock unit can be found. Generally,
bedrock is more resistant than soils or sediments because of the soils or sediments
fluid content. If this is achieved, several lines consisting of VES will be conducted
through the prospective site to determine whether this unit has continuity. The
depth of the traceable unit will be determined by using a geophysical model; the
AQUATERRA
Mr. Reginald Gillespie
L2757-92
August 3, 1992
Page 3
vertical extent of a site being evaluated for a possible landfill will be approximated
based on this information coupled with any geophysically mappable characteristics of
the site.
Aquaterra proposes using DC Resistivity to determine any traceable bedrock units
for several reasons:
• it is non-invasive
• the relative ease of conducting the survey
• it is not susceptible to aboveground interferences
Seismic Refraction Techniques
Another method of determining the vertical extent of a site being evaluated for a
possible landfill is seismic refraction techniques. The seismic refraction technique
uses information gathered of the arrival times of seismic compressional waves to
determine depths to and competency of definite geologic units.
Refraction lines can be conducted at selected sections to trace out a mappable
bedrock unit and detect depth to ground water. If the geologic conditions between
the soil and the bedrock are significantly different, the outline along the refraction
lines may be approximated. This method involves using a recorder that depicts
arrival times at set stations. These devices are sensitive to the movement of seismic
waves. An energy source (such as a hammer-like device) is used to generate the
seismic wave.
The ability to trace out geologic bedrock units and the water table is the key
advantage of this method. The advantages of this method are its non-invasive
nature, ease to conduct, and its ability to avoid aboveground interferences.
Aquaterra has used seismic refraction techniques on several sanitary landfill siting
studies. One particular study for Rowan County, reduced the need to employ
invasive drilling techniques to only two sites with one being the ultimate location for
their present landfill.
Electromagnetic Method
In this method, a remote transmitter is used as an energy source with frequencies
varying between 15 to 30 kilohertz. The receiver is set at a position normal to the
transmitter wave direction and profile lines are conducted along this trend. The
receiver measures the radio signal distortion along the profile caused by electrically
conductive structures in the subsurface. Aquaterra normally uses an ABEM Wadi
VLF instrument to conduct these surveys.
Fractures are located based on current density distributions of an electromagnetic
field. Current density is calculated by the conductivity meter and then plotted along
the profile. In general, positive current densities are associated with porous
fractures. Fracturing is considered a major limitation for a prospective landfill site.
AQUATERRA - '
Mr. Reginald Gillespie
L2757-92
August 3, 1992
Page 4
A site in Greensboro was surveyed in an attempt to find fractures that could be
pumped for ground water remediation. The electromagnetic survey detected a series
of fractures striking N35° to 50°E. An extraction well was installed that produces
150 gpm.
Geophysics as a Tool in Landfill Siting Studies
Overall, it is felt that the geophysical methods described above can be a successful
screening tool as part of a landfill siting study. The non-invasive approach, low cost
($4,000 to$8,000 per site), and ease of implementation can be very useful to screen a
number of prospective sites to a more manageable number for more `detailed
evaluations. This approach has been used by Aquaterra in the past to produce more
cost-effective results instead of using soil boring programs at every site. Even though
these geophysical methods do not eliminate the need for more detailed study (i.e.,
invasive investigation) on a prospective site to support a sanitary landfill application,
they can be used to minimize the number of sites or even to target a specific site for
detailed and invasive studies.
If you require additional information, please contact us at (919) 859-9987.
Sincerely,
AQUATERRA, INC.
Y10,-2‘
Phillip L. Rahn, P.G.
President
PLR/suz
AQLATERRA