Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-29-1999 - 5aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT .Meeting Date: September 29, 1999 Action Agent Item No. - Q, SUBJECT: Construction & Demolition Landfill Siting DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Draft Resolutions John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300 Gayle ~Ison, 968-2885 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough -732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider adoption of resolution(s) indicating the Board's direction regarding the selection, rejection, and/or further evaluation of two proposed construction and demolition (C&D) landfill sites currently under consideration. BACKGROUND: Site Search Process The C&D landfill currently operated by the Town of Chapel Hill on behalf of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County, is expected to exhaust its capacity to accept additional waste by the summer of 2000. For the past several years, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Department staff, acting under direction from the Landfill Owners' Group, have been exploring options for a new C&D site within Orange County to replace the current facility when it reaches capacity. During the past few months, the Board of Commissioners has taken the lead among the three LOG partners in considering two specific sites -one adjacent to the current facility on Eubanks Road in Chapel Hill Township, and the other near Guess Road in Little River Township. While Joyce Engineering, Inc. has been conducting technical evaluations of the suitability of these two potential sites, the BOCC has sponsored several meetings, including an August 10 community meeting in Caldwell, the presentation of the Joyce Engineering report on September 7, and a public hearing on the potential C&D sites on September 21. Among the perceived advantages of the Eubanks Road site are its proximity to the major waste generation center, its proximity to existing solid waste management operations, the fact that much of the site is already publicly owned, and its comparatively lower estimated development cost ($150,000). Perhaps the most significant perceived disadvantage is its location in a neighborhood that has hosted Orange County's major solid waste operations for the past 25 years. . Among the perceived advantages of the Guess Road site are its large size, long potential lifespan, and availability as property freely offered on the open market. Among its perceived disadvantages are its proximity to the Little River (a primary drinking water source for Durham County) and accompanying citizen concerns about possible adverse impacts on water quality; its distance from the major waste generation center; and its comparatively higher development costs ($750,000). 2 The Town of Chapel Hill (on behalf of the LOG member governments) holds an option to purchase the approximately 178 acre Guess Road site for $2,790 per acre. That option expires on September 30, 1999. Indications are that if the County and its LOG partners do not exercise that option, the owners of the property intend to sell the property to other parties. Decision-making Authority Under the terms of the 1972 interlocal agreement governing the current management. of the landfill and solid waste operations, a decision to site a facility and authorize the expenditure of funds for its acquisition and development would normally require the approval of all three of the landfill owners. At their August 17 meeting, the BOCC adopted a~ resolution requesting that the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill cede authority to the BOCC to make the decision about whether to site a new C&D landfill at either the Eubanks Road or Guess Road site (or neither). The Town of Carrboro on September 7 adopted a resolution granting that authority to the BOCC. The Town of Chapel Hill on September 13 adopted a resolution ceding the siting decision to the BOCC. Under the current interlocal agreement, the Town of Chapel Hill will adopt any budget amendment needed to fund any site acquisition costs and will execute any administrative or legal documents necessary to carry out any siting decision by the BOCC. Existing CSzD Landfill Capacity Over the past several years, several steps have been taken that have extended the life of the current C&D landfill by perhaps two and a half years. Beginning a few years ago, a landfill compactor has been used instead of a bulldozer to compact C&D waste. This has resulted in more densification of the waste, thereby saving air space. More recently, staff have explored the site for pockets of UNC coal ash, which had been buried in the C&D area since about 1993. In some cases, large areas of coal ash have been excavated and used for road building and maintenance on the landfill's internal roads. Staff. believes this space saving measure has now been exhausted. Several recycling/waste reduction actions have been taken to extend landfill life. A differential tipping fee for clean, segregated metals was implemented. A C&D salvage operation that diverts reusable construction materials, including pallets, was implemented. Cardboard and yard waste bans have likewise contributed to some saving of space. Finally, the Town of Chapel Hill implemented a solid waste management plan provision in their development ordinance which allows exploration of alternatives to landfilling, -and allows green building techniques for all applicants for special use permits or zoning compliance permits. Alternatives If a New CAD Landfill Is Not Ready If the Board wishes to provide for a continuing C&D capability within the geographical boundaries of Orange County, it will be necessary to move expeditiously to select a new C&D site, given the impending exhaustion of current capacity and likely limitations on additional measures to extend the life of the current facility. If a new C&D site cannot be identified, acquired, and developed before the current landfill closes, there are two primary options for C&D disposal. The first would be to inform C&D users that there is no capacity in-County, thereby obliging haulers to make their own arrangements at facilities elsewhere in the region. This approach would be easy to implement, but could result in increased incidence of burning, illegal dumping, or inappropriate on-site burial of C&D materials. This option would also lead to significant budget shortfalls, based on the current revenue structure of the Landfill Fund. The second option would involve the temporary practice of continuing to accept C&D material but burying it in the lined mixed solid waste landfill. This approach would also be easy to implement, would not promote any increase in illegal disposal, and would in the short-term avoid any budgetary shortfall. On the other hand, staff estimates that this approach would shorten the MSW landfill life by about one month for each two months worth of C&D material accepted. It would also be a more expensive use of landfill space, as the cost of lined MSW landfill space is substantially more than that of unlined C&D landfill space. This point could in turn, however, provide an incentive to more quickly develop new C&D space to preserve the more costly MSW landfill space. Next Steps Having received the technical evaluations of the two candidate sites and having received citizen comment at the September 16 public hearing, the Board may be at a point. where it is prepared to indicate a preference for one site or the other, or where it is prepared to rule out one site or the other (or both). It may also be that the BOCC needs additional information before taking any action. Staff have prepared a number of alternative resolutions,. of which the Board may choose to adopt one or more. The Board may likewise choose not to act at this time.. If the Board wishes to pursue the Guess Road site, it could adopt proposed resolution A (or a modified version thereof), thereby indicating its preference for that site and instructing staff and attorney to execute the necessary documents to exercise the option on the Guess Road property. If the Board adopts resolution B, or chooses not to instruct staff and the attorney to exercise the option before it expires, the Guess Road site will effectively be removed from consideration for a new C&D landfill. With regard to the Eubanks Road site, the Board may likewise consider adoption of either resolution C (contemplating further evaluation) or resolution D (eliminating from further consideration) that particular site. The Board may also postpone indicating its preference. (or lack thereof) for this site and revisit the issue at a later date, because there is no time pressure associated with a purchase option expiration, as in the case of the Guess Road site. If the Board indicates a preference for one of these two sites, it is possible that some additional subsequent meetings and/or actions may be required for one or the other, depending on guidance received from the North Carolina Division of Waste Management and on the .advice of the County Attorney. If the Board chooses not to further pursue one or the other of these two candidate sites, staff will seek direction. at a future meeting on how to proceed. regarding C&D disposal capability. 4 Required Board Action The only decision required of the BOCC at this meeting is whether or not to execute the option to purchase the 178 acre site near Guess Road. The Board may choose to make other decisions as well, but no other decisions are required at this specific meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The direct costs of siting, developing, and operating any new C&D landfill will be borne by the Landfill Fund, through accumulated reserves and other revenue from that enterprise operation. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends thaf the Board review the alternative resolutions and adopt either resolution A or resolution B to indicate the Board's direction as to whether or not to exercise the option to purchase the Guess Road site. The Board may also consider adoption of resolution C or D, but only if the Board is ready to make a decision on the Eubanks Road site. Resolution A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION INDICATING ORANGE COUNTY'S INTENTION TO FURTHER CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL ON A 178 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND NEAR GUESS ROAD WHEREAS, the member governments of the Landfill Owners Group have for several years been seeking to identify, acquire, and develop a new construction and demolition (C&D) landfill site to replace the existing facility when it reaches capacity; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have ceded authority to the Orange County Board of Commissioners to decide whether or not to site a new C&D landfill at one of two prospective sites, located near Eubanks Road and Guess Road, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has received a report and has taken public comments at a public hearing regarding the technical evaluation of the suitability of both sites; and WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill, acting on behalf of the other owners of the current landfill, holds an option to purchase the Guess Road site, which option expires on September 30, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed Guess Road site merits further evaluation as a potential C&D landfill site: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby indicate its intent to give further consideration to the Guess Road site and hereby directs the County Manager and County Attorney to carry out all necessary procedural steps and to execute all required documents associated. with executing the option to purchase the 178 acre site near Guess Road. This, the 29"' day of September, 1999. Resolution B ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION INDICATING ORANGE COUNTY'S INTENTION TO ELIMINATE FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL ON A 178 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND NEAR GUESS ROAD WHEREAS, the member governments of the Landfill Owners Group have for several years been seeking to identify, acquire, and develop a new construction and demolition (C&D) landfill site to replace the existing facility when it reaches capacity; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have ceded authority to the Orange County Board of Commissioners to decide whether or not to site a new C&D landfill at one of two prospective sites, located near Eubanks Road and Guess Road, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has received a report and has taken public comments at a public .hearing regarding the technical evaluation of the suitability of both sites; and WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill, acting on behalf of the other owners of the current landfill, holds an option to purchase the Guess Road site, which option expires on September 30, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed Guess Road site does not merit further evaluation as a potential C&D landfill site: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby indicate its intent to discontinue further consideration of the Guess Road site and to allow to expire the option to purchase the 178 acre site near Guess Road. This, the 29"' day of September, 1999. Resolution C ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION INDICATING ORANGE COUNTY'S INTENTION TO FURTHER CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL ON A 33 ACRE SITE NEAR EUBANKS ROAD WHEREAS, the member governments of the Landfill Owners Group have for several years been seeking to identify, acquire, and develop a new construction and demolition (C&D) landfill site to replace the existing facility when it reaches capacity; and _ WHEREAS, the governing boards of the Towns. of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have ceded authority to the Orange County Board of Commissioners to decide whether or not to site a new C&D landfill atone of two prospective sites, located near Eubanks Road and Guess Road, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has received a report and has taken public comments at a public hearing regarding the technical evaluation of the suitability of both sites; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed Eubanks Road site merits further evaluation as a potential C&D landfill site: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby indicate its intent to give further consideration to the Eubanks Road site and hereby directs the County Manager and staff to continue the technical evaluation of the site; FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners directs the County Manager to schedule consideration of a formal siting decision on this property as soon as possible in a manner that satisfies all statutory and regulatory procedural requirements. This, the 29~' day of September, 1999. Resolution D ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION INDICATING ORANGE COUNTY'S INTENTION TO ELIMINATE FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION LANDFILL ON A 33 ACRE SITE NEAR EUBANKS ROAD WHEREAS, the member governments of the Landfill Owners Group have for several years been seeking to identify, acquire, and develop a new construction and demolition (C&D) landfill site to replace the existing facility when it reaches capacity; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have ceded authority to the Orange County Board of Commissioners to decide whether or not to site a new C&D .landfill at one of two prospective sites, located near Eubanks Road and Guess Road, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has received a report and has taken public comments at a public hearing regarding the technical evaluation of the suitability of both sites; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed Eubanks Road site does not merit further evaluation as a potential C&D landfill site: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. THAT the Orange County. Board of Commissioners does hereby indicate its intent to discontinue further consideration to the Eubanks Road .site. This, the 29"' day of September, 1999. . ~~, °~ ~~~ ~~ M~oRArmvM ~-~-~ - ~... To: John Link, County Manager From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Response to September 21 Comments by Dr. Z.J. Kabala Date: September 27, 1999 Attached is a response, prepared by Joyce Engineering, Inc., to the technical issues .raised by Dr. Kabala at the September 21, 1999 Public Hearing. In addition to the technical issues raised by Dr. Kabala, there were repeated references made regarding budgetary restrictions for the site studies. The implication was that Drange County was not conducting an adequate environmental evaluation-of the candidate landfill sites in the interest of meeting some arbitrary budget constraint. I wish to assure you that this is not the case. Funds are available within the landfill budget to conduct whatever environmental analysis is necessary to determine that a site can be safely developed and operated.. Joyce Engineering, Inc. is well aware of our demand fora high standard of environmental excellence and thoroughness. TO: Gayle Wilson, Director, Orange County-Chapel Hill Department of Solid Waste Management FR: Jim Bateson, P.G., and Jan McHargue, P.E., Joyce Engineering, Inc. RE: Response to the September 21,1999 Comments by Dr. Z.J. Kabala, concerning Guess Road site characterization DATE: September 27,1999 This memo is in response to comments by Dr. Z.J. Kabala during the September 21 public hearing on C&D landfill siting. Our purpose is to clear up any confusion that those comments may have caused, so that the Board can make informed decisions based on accurate information. Setting the record straight is important for Orange County and the County's Department of Solid Waste Management. Over the long run, inflated public perceptions of environmental risk cripple a community's , efforts to find safe, equitable and affordable solutions to its waste disposal needs. What perceptions were left with the audience? .One was that arsenic from construction and demolition waste will contaminate large areas around such landfills.. Dr. Kabala repeated tonnage figures from a Superfund site in Massachusetts where arsenic-bearing industrial waste was dumped over a period of decades onto a floodplain. Comparing this disaster with a modern landfill is not relevant, particularly in light of the trace levels of arsenic listed in the Environmental Protection Agency's C&D Leachate Database, or contained in the mass of groundwater monitoring data for North Carolina landfills. A second perception was that the engineering and hydrogeologic investigations performed to date at the Guess Road site were inadequate and poorly designed.. Dr. Kabala stated that the arsenic threat warranted. the use of expensive multi-well pumping tests, normally required only at sites with significant known groundwater contamination. Our methods .are industry standard procedures required by the NC Solid Waste Management Rules. Our study design, and its pre-approval by the NC Division of Waste Management, were based on the known risks of existing landfills in North Carolina, and on the accumulated experience of the community of consultants, regulators, and university faculty who tackle groundwater problems in this state. We would be happy to discuss these issues with Dr. Kabala in regard to either of the two sites. Specific comments, with our responses, are attached. We appreciate that Dr. Kabala's arguments for caution in siting a landfill in the Little River watershed were made in the spirit of public service. However, influencing public perception through sensationalism, by using information from sites which are not comparable to C&D landfills, is a disservice to the community. We hope that impressions :left by his words -will not prevent reasoned .discussion about how best to meet Orange County's solid waste challenges. Response to Comments of Dr. Z.J. Kabala l Joyce Engineering, Inc C&D Landfill Siting September 27, 1999 Orange County, North Carolina Responses to specific comments by Dr. Z. J. Kabala: Every single one of the points in Dr. Kabala's review aze well known to the community of environmental consultants, regulators, and university faculty members who work on groundwater problems in the Piedmont of North Cazolina. This community of practitioners maintains an open dialogue in daily efforts to write, implement, and meet effective environmental regulations and policies. These efforts aim to match the levels of detail and effort to the level of potential risk at any given site. An example of this process is NCDENR's review of our investigation plans prior to drilling at the two Orange County sites. 1. "Only much less than 0.5% of the proposed area has been hydraulically tested. " The calculations presented by Dr. Kabala imply that the required goal of our study is to .create a quantitative model of groundwater flow at the site. This is not the case. His contention that we achieved only 0.35% of this goal obscures the fact that landfill siting study requirements are designed to reach a different goal. That goal is to delineate the nature of and limits of groundwater flow paths at the site. This goal is met through gathering and analyzing water -level data; geological data from the literature, outcrop, drill core, and .auger cuttings, grain size analyses, topographic data, and the other types of information presented in our report. Groundwater flow at landfill sites is to be characterized not only through the use of numerical models based on well test information from slug tests or pumping tests. Such reasoning would require several hundred wells at the Guess Road Site. 2. Accuracy of Slug Tests A large portion of Dr. Kabala's presentation consisted of his criticism of our use of slug tests. He implied that these tests form the only basis for our site chazacterization, by ignoring much of the careful and .informed geological reasoning and data contained in the report. JEI and State regulators, are familiar with the references he cited and fully aware of the limitations of using slug tests. In landfill siting. studies, slug tests are used mainly to provide a relative comparison of the transmissive capability of the. soil profile at different depths. JEI employed- the. Bouwer and Rice method, which is recommended by NCDENR for such purposes in shallow wells. We have attached a policy memorandum issued by the Groundwater Section of NCDENR, that concerns applicability and acceptable methods for slug tests in groundwater investigations. The compazative study of slug test methodology contained in the book (Butler, 1998) cited by Dr. Kabala is based on tests performed in a shallow sand aquifer, and the comparison is not valid for weathered crystalline rock 3. "IVo large scale testing was performed - no pumping tests. " Dr. Kabala azgued that the risk of dissolved azsenic from pressure-treated wood reaching the Little River warranted the use of expensive multiple well pumping tests. To our knowledge, such tests have not been- employed prior to siting a landfill anywhere in this state. These tests are normally only required at sites where groundwater contamination has been identified, .and where that contamination poses an imminent threat to public health and safety. See the attached Policy Memorandum referenced above. Response to Comments of Dr. Z.J. Kabala C&D Landfill Siting Joyce Engineering, Inc September 27, 1999 Orange County, North Carolina 4. "No downhole distribution of the hydrologic parameters were obtained - no flowmeter. " f.. __:. '... See #3 above. The potential risk associated with C&D landfills does not warrant such expense at the siting stage. It would take numerous of these flowmeter tests to be able to know much more about groundwater flow at the site than is already known on the basis of existing information. S. "Only one temporal snapshot of the water table was obtained during the dry season. Implications of seasonal water table fluctuations and variability of groundwater flow direction as well as their .implications for leaching contaminants from the landfill have not been investigated. " Additional wet season water level measurements will be taken at the site before completion of the second part of the application, the Design Study Application. The Solid Waste Section does not issue landfill permits unless wet season water level information has been collected at a site. In addition, the applicant must submit and analyze sufficient archival meteorological data and regional recording well hydrograph data to support a conservative estimate of future long-term seasonal high water levels beneath a site. Design base grade elevations are required. to be a minimum- of four feet above these conservatively estimated long term high elevations, to prevent the interaction of waste and groundwater and minimize leaching of contaminants. 6. "Wetlands within the landfill indicate groundwater-surface water interactions, yet their implications for contaminant transport have not been investigated. Groundwater level map seems to be rather inaccurate. For example, it does not indicate any influence of the wetlands. " A properly constructed groundwater level map based on July conditions at the site should not reflect any influence of the wetlands. At the time represented by the water level map (July) the areas classified as wetlands on the site, each smaller than one-third acre, were dry. During July hand auger investigations within the delineated wetland areas, we did not .locate any confining layer that would indicate. perching of groundwater, nor did we encounter moist soils indicating discharge of deeper water. Water levels in our wells near the wetland were well below ground surface. Our water level. maps and cross sections do, however indicate. the influence of the pond on the site. The groundwater level map required for the Design Study will be based on wet season data, and may reflect some influence of the wetlands at that time of year. 7. "A number of hypotheses were posed in the report and accepted without proof. Also, a number of unsupported statements were included and accepted. " • Our statements concerning the effectiveness of the nearby stream as a downgradient discharge point are based not only on our measurement of vertical gradients in the well pair. The vertical foliation of the subsurface rock units, and the high density of vertically oriented fractures in core samples and site outcrop indicate high transmissivities in the vertical dimension.. No shallow confining layer was encountered in the area near this stream. • Our statement that slug test values should be assumed to represent maximum values was meant to reflect our interpretation of results for those wells screened near the transition from regolith to bedrock. Most of the wells in our study were screened in this horizon, as it is a critical horizon, Response to Comments of Dr. Z.J. Kabala C&D Landfill Siting Joyce Engineering, Inc September 27, 1999 Orange County, North Carolina where the bulk of the lateral groundwater flow in Piedmont surficial aquifers is known to occur. Wells screened within this horizon of high fracture density and of high local fracture connectivity will have "fast" neaz-field responses, resulting in slug test overestimates of bulk hydraulic conductivity. Measurements obtained from core at the Guess Road Site indicate fracture densities at least an order of magnitude greater than those reported by Dr. Kabala for the Duke Gate 11 site. • JEI and the NC Solid Waste Section aze well aware of the limitations associated with. applying porous media concepts to fractured bedrock aquifers. The approximations arrived at on the basis of a porous media approach are justifiable partly on the basis of the high fracture densities in the lower parts of the weathering profile beneath the site, and in the upper parts of bedrock. Use of these approximate methods aze also justifiable on the basis of the low environmental risk associated with C&D waste. • Questions about the accuracy of the 1 % effective porosity estimate used for our calculations aze moot, as the magnitude of this value is critical only for calculations applicable to the porous media approach. • The uppermost parts of regolith referred to on page 18 of the Site Application are composed of completely weathered predominantly silty material, and can indeed be expected to act in an isotropic manner.- • The 25-year storm design criterion for storm water control is not "highly questionable". This criterion exceeds the 10-year design storm required by the sedimentation and erosion control rules implemented by the North Carolina Land Quality Section, and is equivalent to the standard used for lined municipal landfills. Design pazameters for sedimentation and erosion control devices proposed at the facility are yet to be established. Criteria for these will, be established during the detailed design required by the Construction Plan Application process, and could be based on a larger, less frequent storm. - . • The EPA recently published results of extensive research in support of its decision to recommend disposal of lead-based paint debris in C&D landfills rather than lined municipal landfills. In their report, they state: "Thus, at the national level, the modeling results indicate that the impact on groundwater at drinking-water wells down gradient of C&D landfills accepting LBP debris appears to be very low and would only occur after an extremely long period of time. " (Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 243/Friday, December 18, 1998/ Proposed Rules; Lead; Management and Disposal of Lead- Based Paint Debris). • In .making the case for a high risk from dissolved arsenic, Dr. Kabala cited three laboratory studies about the role bacteria play in dissolving arsenic under conditions devoid of oxygen. While correct in stating that landfill waste becomes oxygen-starved, he says nothing about just how quickly these extreme conditions change with distance from waste. He mentions nothing about the acidity of the. site subsurface, its high clay content, or its high iron oxide and sulfide contents, all of which tend to adsorb free arsenic or limit its solubility. Nothing was mentioned about the concentrations of arsenic found in the EPA's C&D Leachate Database (May 18, 1995 Draft Report on Construction and Demolition- Landfills, .prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, available .online. Response to Comments of Dr. Z.J. Kabala 4 Joyce Engineering, Inc C&D Landfill Siting September 27, 1999 Orange County, North Carolina Contact JEI if you would like to obtain the web address.). His statements were not made with the benefit of existing data on the trace concentrations measured in monitoring wells at existing older unlined landfills in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Any ability of an aquifer to dilute and disperse these trace concentrations was not considered in his arguments. Instead, Dr Kabala repeated tonnage figures from a Superfund site in Massachusetts where concentrated arsenic-bearing industrial waste was dumped over a period of decades onto a floodplain above a shallow water table. The arsenic traveled in an aquifer of glacial sediment, which lacks the sorptive capabilities of the red clay soil typical of both sites under consideration. The next morning's Raleigh News and Observer reported "pressured wood" as having been shown to mobilize 20 tons of arsenic from a landfill. Such confusion may not have been Dr. Kabala's intent, but his remarks have further distorted the public's perception of the environmental risk associated with landfills. Response to Comments of Dr. Z.J. Kabala 5 Joyce Engineering, Inc C&D Landfill Siting September 27, 1999 Orange County, North Carolina SEP-27-1999 •14 24 JOYCE ENGINEERING INC. 1 336 323 0093 P.02/04 StC~e of North Carolina • Department of Environment, Hevlth and Natural Resources ~ ` • ~ Division of Environmentol Monogement James 8. Hunt, Jr., GovgrnOr ~~'~ Jonathan B..Howes, Secretary Q ~ ~--~ A. Preston Howord, Jr., P.E., DlreCtor GROUNDWATER SECTION October 6, I995 Eavironmeatal Service Companies and Consuhagts ~ • Subject: Changes in Technical~Policy Concerning Slug Tests This is to notify you of specific corrections and revisions that -tiere made zo t~s slag t.~t policy statetnett! that oyes issued on Jute ~0, 1994. The June 3Q; 1994 statemer.L indicated that ~hz Division of Environmental Mariagemeat (DEM) would only reimburse for slug tests perrorrnea iii rt~Onitoring wills that were co~duettd with'the etrtire length of well screen aad sand pack within me saturated zone. Based on further evaluation. of the published scientific: literature, the DEM has arnendod-its policy to e1low for reunbursemcm of slug trsts~petformed in motitoring,wclls that ire screened across the water teh[e, provided that these tests are imQlemeated and analyzed in accuz'dauce with the peer-reviewed, published test. method utdized. Bauwer and Rice (1976 and 29893 aad Hvorsicv (1951}ere the most con~ori test ntetlict3s used for partially.penetrati:ig wells in uaconfiued aquifers .These aieciwds tray be used- Fur uotli "slug-in" tens .(falling head tests) and "slug-out" tests (rising head, recovery or bait tcstsj in monitoring weI1s where the weII screen .and sand pack are entirely below the water table . F~~r monitoring wdls screened acrws the water table, tueso methods may only be used for slug-out 'tests. Slug-in tests are Dot appropriate,.. since Bart of the water added, would Clow out o#' the ael1 ir~to the vadose zone resulting is ea ovErestimation of the hydraulic conductivity. Furthermore, it should be noted that only the length ofwcll screen located is the saturated zone should be used tar~ttrta:-tc hydraulic conductivity. Using the total screen-length would result in undares3mating this. pa:a.rctr "!'ht June 30, 1994 poli_ry statement alsoindicst~d that hydraulic conductivity values ~: btairc-d from sluff tests would not be allowable for use in groundwater. models. Hnwever, Sit~Cd Slug tests t~rc generally considered an appropriate means of estimating the order of tnagnitudr of hvdrauIi Conductivity, the.- DEM has revised its .policy to allow for the use of slug test data t~ .mode! groundwater flow ai locations-where there :are ao potentially impacted .receptors- that -pose. a . risk to human health and the ettvironmert and;wherc corrective actiau under NCAC 15.4 21_.DIOb(1:),(l)' o (m) is ,proposed. Pumping-tests will still be required for locations where it is uecessazy ~o ~btair, tl;r most accurate iydrogeologic data possible (e.g:, there. are potentially lmuacted receptors-that :raS- pose arisk to human health or the emrironment, or for designing groundwater remediation ~•ste~*.:s that involve the withdrawal of groundwater). P.O. Box 29535. RdeiAh. North Camino 276260836 TelepF+ot-e 919-J33-70 t 5 FAX 914-733-3=S9b ~, Eavai OoportunNV atArmath~- Amon ~o~re+ 6~ recycled t Oz ~-cansurat ~~~ SEP-27-1999 14 25 JOYCE ENGINEERING INC. 1 336 323'0093 P.03i04 _ finvironmentat Service Campaaies and Consultaats October 6, 1995 Page ? Pieas~ be advised that ,shag:tost~ ger~etally.underesti~nate-kydranlic conductivity, Therefore, it is rccommcndcd that soiUseditneat~.sm~nptes~ be eollecte~, from the saturated zone Crom the most traasnoissive layer is which t}u•weits ase~scrcened and that these s~nples.bG aaalyzed for grain size distn"bution. Hydraulic condueti~!ity usay;be.calcul~ted froth the~grain size distribution data using as appropriate method (e.g., Hazari {1911 March and Denny (196b) or Sherard, Duaningan and Talbot {1984}]. The slug test values should ,then be compared to .the grain size analysis hydraulic conductiviry values as well as tapublist~ed~ lrydraulie conductivity values for the specific soiUsediment tSpe.:~dditioeally, to dctcrmiilo the variability in hydraulic conductivir; at a situ, slug ?gists she~ald be performed in monitoring welts located in sttata likely to ex$ibit diffcrina llydrogeologia progerzia3. (The DEM will cvtrently reimburse up to 51;500.00 fot implcmeutation_ of :di necessary slug tests at a site.) For purposrs of modclir~g groundwatu flaw, thr greatest hydraulic canducdvity ~.~alues should then be used to ensure conservative model output. ~ • Y would Idce to taloe tiius~ opportunity to'stress that the~DFM will aot reimburse for slug tests or aay other aquifer tests that are~pccformed "improperly. ~Ifi you hsvr an}~ questiosas or`would like further information concer~ingalug~teats; gkase contact Rut& Strauss at (914).'I33-1330. ~~ Siaccrcly, Arthur Moubcsty, P.E. Chief Groundwater Scotian CC: Regional OtTGe Groundwater $uperviSOTS $u1Tie $05hOfF BiU R.eld GCQT~C Matthi3 Rliti12 Strauss ~ SEP-27-1999 14 25 JOYCE ENGINEERING INC. 1 336 323 0093 P.04/04 Bauwer, Ti, and RC. Rice. 197$, "A Slug Test for Determining F~ydraulic Conductivity of Unwnfined Aquifers with Completely or PaztiaUy~~Penetrating Wells," .Water Resources Research v.12, no. 3, pp. 423 - 428, . Bouwer, H., and RC. Rice, 1989, "The Bouwef and~Rice Slug Test • An 1Jpdate", CrEOUndtv~,ter, v. 27, no. 3., gp, 1S • 20. , Hazen, .r'~i, 19I 1, "Dismission of `Damson Sand Foundations,' by A.C. Koenig," TranS8ctiOns of the Arrtecican Society of Civil Eiagineers, v. 73, p. -199. Horslcv, M.J., 1951. "Time Lag and Soil Perimeabiliity ii Gtoctndwater Qbservarions," U.S..4rniy Corps of Enguseers, Waxetwa~ys Experiment St$tian Bullefth 36. ~%icksburg, 1Vli3sissipgi. Masch,l'.I?., and YC.J. Denny, 1966, "Grain-Size Distribution and its Btfec:t on the Permeability ai Unconsolidated Sands," Water Resources Research v. 2, pp, 665 - 67?. Sherard, 7.L., L,P, Dunningan end r.R. Talbot, 1984, `Basic Propertios of Sand and Gravel FiIiers," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. I I0, no. GT6, pp. 684.700. t TOTAL P.04 ie~~ FJi~~~ s~f~ ~~~ ' ~_+~~ i i : ~~l ~~ t7ear Orange County Commissioners: Due to time constraints at last week's public hearing, one issue did not get spoken to very coherently, What follows is a summation of the financial risks to Orange County that would come with the selection of the Guess Road site. The financial projections developed for the Guess Road site assume a continuation of use at the same levels as at the present site on Eubanks Road. This is surely an overly optimistic forecast, If we can look at this as a business for a moment, (and this is presently amoney-maker for the county), a C&D landfill is dependent on its customers coming to its place of business. In every business of this type, location is a very important factor in predicting the volume of business that can be expected. Generally speaking, the more time it takes for customers to get to the business, the more likely they are to look for alternatives. And far Chapel Hill area contractors needing C&D disposal, there are alternatives. Durham's transfer station accepts C&D waste, as do C&D landfills in Wake County (on highway 55) and in Alamance County (just ~ miles from Chapel Hill in Saxapahaw). Although these county facilities are technically supposed to accept waste only from their home counties, in practice few or no questions are asked, especially since C&D fees tend to generate a profit for the receiving landfill. Gayle Wilson admitted to the truth of this situation in response to a question at the community information hearing about C&b waste coming to the proposed Guess Road site from northern Durham County. There are also more than a half dozen private, state permitted "Land Clearing and Inert Debris" landfills nearby (2 in Chapel Hill, 6 in Durham, 5 in Raleigh). The list of materials these facilities are allowed to handle is amazingly close to what is allowed to go into C&D landfills. The main differences axe that painted and treated wood are technically not allowed in these "Inert Debris" facilities. Easily 80% of the materials going into a C&D facility are also allowed in "Inert Debris" landfills. {See memo below from the NC. DNER). GIVEN THE AVAILABILITY OF DISPOSAL SITES CLOSER TO CHAPEL HILL THAN THIS GUES" `~ SAD ~IT~ti ~' ~~, ~~ 7i~'~.~' ~ki.~~lti!i.u~~lTY'S C&D B.ti~~~~,~~ ~ ~Alo.l~ ~'~' SI~t' ~ I'I' i~lC~VI~ IT"S LANbFILL S® FAR FROM MOST OF ITS CUSTOMEkS. A.N ACTI;VTTY THAT IS NOW A MONEY MAKER FOR THE COUNTY COULD WELL BECOME A MONEY LOSER, IN NEED OF ANNUAL SUBSl77]ES. This discussion also gives evidence that development activity in Orange County will not come to a screeching halt if for a period of time the county itself does not provide a C&D disposal facility. Alternatives do exist, and they can and will be used. Thank you all again for your time and your consideration. Tout Campbell 19~ F'~1 SEP 29 '99 ll:a6 F ~ ~ SOLID WASTE SECTION CLARIFICATION OF MATERIALS ACCEI?TABLE FOR D1iSPOSAL AT A CONSTI2UCTION/DEMOLI'I'ION LANDFILL May 1, 1997 This memo provides clarification of the types of materials acceptable for dispose] at a construction/demolition landfill. A construction/demolition debris landfill {GOLF) is not defined in the statutes or rules, but is generrally permitted to accept construction/demolition debris, wastes acceptable for disposal in a land clearing-inert debris landfill, and other wastes approved by the Division. Construction/demolition debris is defined in the statutes as waste or debris resulting solely from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on pavement, buildings; or other structures. Land clearing debris is defined in the rules as waste that is generated solely through land clearing activities such as stumps, trees, limbs, brush, grass, ands other naturally occurring vegetative matter. A land clearing-inert debris landfill is defined in the rules as a facility for the land disposal of land clearing waste, concrete, brick, concrete block, uncontaminated soil, gravel and rock, untreated and unpainted wood, and yard trash. Xard trash is defined as solid waste resulting from landscaping and yard maintenance such as grass, tree limbs, and similar material. A CDLF may also accept asbestos waste for disposal as long as it is managed in accordance with the Rule .0505{ 1 i){d) of the solid waste management rules. In accordance with Rule .0505(11}(b) no hazardous or liquid waste may be accepted for disposal. The Division may approve other wastes for disposal in CDLFs that are similar to wastes typically found in the land clearing-inert debris and construction/demolition waste streams. E~camples would be wastes generated by a roofing shingle manufacturer, waste building materials from a mobile home manufacturer, and wooden pallets. Also, The Division may approve wastes to be disposed in a CDLF that can be demonstrated to be "inert" through the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure{TCLP). MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners and Manager From: Alice Gordon Subject: Construction & Demolition Landfill Siting -Agenda Item 5a Date: September 29, 1999 SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR THIS ITEM I. GUESS ROAD SITE A. Reject the site from further consideration as a C & D landfill by passing, Resolution B. B. Sen¢ ~ letter to Durham County ~ Durham City officials. This letter should inform them of our action, and ask them work with us to increase efforts for cooperative regional planning to include such topics as transportation, approval of large residential and non-residential develop- ments, environmental protection, and recreation, but indicating that at this time we will not be pursuing the development of a regional park at the Durham-Orange border. 2. EUBANKS ROAD SITE A Continue to consider the Eubanks Road site as part of a,~ i~t@rim solution to C8rD waste distjosal. This can be done by passing Resolution C or by simply deferring the decision to a later date. Also, ask the staff to develop recommendations far a comprehensive interim solution, including the pros and cons for each, and bring back a report in a month, or less if possible. B Accelerate the process for providhag watgr to the 'storic Rogers Road neighborhood. We need to indicate how this process will be moving forward in an expeditious manner. Ask staff to bring forward a report on this matter in about a month. 3. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE STRATEGIES A jvstablish a Construction and Demolition Recycling Task Force. This will be an agenda item for the October S BOCC meeting. The group could suggest ways to reduce the amount of construction and demolition material originating in Orange County that is to be landfilled. Among the items for the group to consider axe best practices for C&D recycling that should be considered for implementation in Orange County, suggested language for new (or additional language for old) ordinances in Orange County that would encourage C&D recycling, and the like. B Develov a Long Term Solution for Disposal of C&D 1Naste Direct the staff to suggest alternative solutions, including the pros and cons of each, for disposing of C&D waste in the long term in Orange County. Included should be a suggested time line for implementation of the alternatives, along with a series of suggested deadlines for commissioner approval for the long- term strategy. A report (or at least a progress report} on these alternatives should come back to the commissioners in about a month. POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO C&D DISPOSAL IN ORANGE COUNTY Reject the Little River site. 2. Accept the need to take local responsibility for C&D recycling and disposal. 3. Use Eubanks Road as an interim option. 4. Aggressively explore a fresh perspective on siting and recycling C&D and other solid waste facilities. 1. Little River There are many reasons to reject this site for landfilling purposes: a. Orange County's historical commitment to watershed protection, with or without the appreciation of neighboring jurisdictions; b. Transportation issues that include excessive distances traveled, leading to greater costs and pollution; accident hazards on a local road in a rural community not zoned for high-intensity, non-residential uses; the likelihood of truckers traveling through downtown Hillsborough and through Durham city and county rather than choose less deleterious routes; A 60-year burial. horizon is excessive and counter to placing an emphasis on recycling. d. Regional. cooperation mandates treating our neighbors, and their concerns, as we ourselves wish to be treated; e. The safety of disposal at the site is open to question, both in geological and oversight terms. SUGGESTED ACTION: Reject the Little River site and direct the Planning Board and Commission for the Environment, working with appropriate staff, to develop and recommend criteria for restricting the location of landfills and other, similaz operations in watersheds, the rural buffer, etc. 2. C&D Disposal Despite the unlikely prospect a new mixed-waste landfill will be sited in Orange County, it remains important to take responsibility for disposal of our own wastes to the greatest degree possible. Construction and demolition waste particularly lends itself to recycling, and its collection helps defray other recycling costs. Any C&D burial site must be created as part of an aggressive recycling strategy, and should not function as a witting or unwitting subsidy for development., SUGGESTED ACTION: See 4, below. 3. Eubanks Road There are as many reasons to reject the Eubanks Road site far reasons of equity and long-term viability as there are to accept it for reasons of cast and convenience. Disadvantages: ,, a. Continued adverse impacts on the same, long-suffering neighborhood; b. Possible need to condemn. property; c. Limited life expectancy of site. Advantages: a. Proximate to primary sources of waste generation; b. Readily accessible via major transportation corridors; c. Convenient to current salid waste operations; d. Adjacent to property owned by landfill and potentially available for expansion of solid waste operations (MRF, transfer station). SUGGESTED ACTION: Accept Eubanks Road as an interim option. Develop a C&D landfill there but pledge to thoroughly seek other sites, with the stated intention of fording an alternative by the time the current MSW landfill is projected to close. (Simply choosing to bury C&D in the MSW landfill is also an option, but one that's costly and tends to impose greater time pressure on the process of developing alternative sites and approaches.) 4. C&D Recycling We need to go beyond current efforts to explore C&D recycling. Greater emphasis must be placed on developing a creative, proactive, comprehensive C&D recycling program. This might include: a. A source separation ordinance, perhaps including on-site burial in some cases, that would 'increase the efficiency of recycling efforts; b. Exploration of synergies such as that between school and government use of mulch, the need to ford good alternatives to burning debris from site clearing, and construction scraps brought to the landfill. Similar wholistic approaches can be taken toward agricultural waste, municipal biosolids (sludge), and other supposedly unwanted byproducts generated within the county; c. Explore whether C&D recycling is a viable economic development opportunity, and whether it should be pursued and sited as such. SUGGESTED ACTION: Seek a grant from the N.C. Department of Commerce to develop a C&D site-separation recycling ordinance (unknown in the state) and to explore the economic viability of C&D recycling in relation to current and projected markets and as a public, private, or public/private venture. This would include studying what is done elsewhere within and beyond North Carolina, and would be a joint undertaking of the Economic Development Commission, the current solid waste staff, and the new Solid Waste Advisory Board. The grant application deadline is Oct. 29.