1994-02-01 Work Session
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1994
BOOK 23
PAGE 921
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a joint
meeting with the Wilmington City Council on Tuesday, February 1,
1994, at 5:30 P.M. in Room 501 of the New Hanover County
Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; WilliamA.
Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.;
Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen 0' Neal; County
Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F.
Harrell.
Council Members present were: J. D. Causey; Laura Padgett;
Hamilton Hicks, Jr.; Charles Rivenbark; Mayor Don Betz; Mayor Pro
Tern Katherine Moore; City Manager, Mary M. Gornto; City Attorney,
Thomas C. Pollard; and City Clerk, Penelope Spicer-Sidbury.
Chairman Greer called the New Hanover County Board
Commissioners to order for the purpose of discussing the
Hanover County Airport Burn pit Superfund Site and selection
consultant for the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA)
required by the EPA.
of
New
of a
work
Mayor Betz called the City Council to order.
Chairman Greer reported the Board of County Commissioners
adopted the recommendations approved by the City Council and voted
unanimously to take the necessary legal action to include the u. S.
Defense Department (or its representative the Corps of Engineers)
and the State of North Carolina on behalf of Cape Fear Community
College into the remedial action. The County will not sign the
Consent Decree and will wait until a unilateral Administrative
Order is issued.
DISCUSSION OF SELECTING A CONSULTANT FOR PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL
DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIRED BY THE EPA FOR CLEANUP OF THE
SUPERFUND SITE
City Attorney Pollard reported on the importance of being
ready to perform the work when a unilateral Administrative Order is
issued. After discussion with the EPA earlier today, it has not
been determined if the Corps of Engineers and/or Department of
Defense should be included in the unilateral Administrative Order.
Once an order is issued, the time frame for selecting a consultant
will be short.
Request for proposals were advertised on July 31, 1993. Five
firms submitted proposals as follows:
Environmental Investigations, Durham, N. C.
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc., Greensboro, N. C.
Law Engineering, Wilmington, N. C.
National Environmental Technologies, Wilmington, N. C.
Richard Catlin & Associates, Wilmington, N. C.
$446,960
$664,900
$938,119
$711,000
$571,200
Representatives from the City and County staffs interviewed
Law Engineering; Environmental Investigations, and Richard Catlin
& Associates on September 1, 1993. The Committee evaluated the
firms and their proposals based upon the costs for Remedial Design
and Construction; operation and maintenance costs; past work with
EPA and the State of North Carolina; technical expertise; personnel
including current work load; solvency of the firm; and location of
the firm.
The Committee recommends proceeding to negotiate an agreement
with Richard Catlin & Associates based on the following terms with
a final agreement to be presented to the City Council and County
Commissioners for approval. One of the strengths of Catlin &
Associates is that this company will perform the work with its own
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1994
BOOK 23
PAGE 922
personnel except for lab analyses.
Terms of the Aqreement:
1. The issuance of a notice to proceed to perform the work
under the agreement would be subject to the EPA's issuance of an
unilateral Administrative Order and subject to the approval of
Richard Catlin & Associates by the EPA.
2. The work under the agreement would be performed under a
phased approach. The contractor would not proceed from one phase
to the other without approval of the City and County and the
contract could be terminated at any time. The proposed phases
would include at a minimum:
(1) Remedial Desiqn:
(a) Review of alternative technologies including
chemical oxidation, bioremediation and air sparging.
(b) Review of application of new North Carolina
Groundwater Standards to the site.
(c) Construction of deep
groundwa ter to determine the
contaminants.
wells and analyses
vertical extent of
of
the
(d) Design of a pump and treat system.
(2) Remedial Action:
(a) Installation of pump and treat system as required by
the Record of Decision.
(b) Implementation of other remedies subject to approval
of the EPA.
(3) Operation and Maintenance:
(a) Operation of pump and treat system as required by
the Record of Decision.
(b) Operation of other remedies subject to approval by
the EPA.
As to alternative technologies, it will depend on the cost and
risk the City and County are willing to take. The EPA mayor may
not accept some alternative technologies. If money can be saved,
it may be worth looking at alternative technologies. Once the
remedial design phase is completed and a response has been received
from the EPA, the City and County will know how to proceed to the
next phase. Also, the contract would be structured so that if some
form of relief is given through congressional action or amendments
to the Superfund, the contract could be terminated. Once the EPA
response is known, then the City and County can proceed with the
remedial action which may be pump and treat or some other remedy.
Mayor Betz requested the City Attorney to list the members of
the Committee that reviewed the proposals.
City Attorney Pollard reported the Committee was composed of
the Assistant County Manager, Dave Weaver; Director of
Environmental Management, Ray Church; Environmental Specialists,
Dennis Burks; and City Attorney Tom Pollard. The proposal was
essentially the Record of Decision from the EPA.
Mayor Pro Tern Catherine Moore inquired as to whether there
will be language in the contract with the consultant that will
cover the City and County under the negotiated price for the design
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1994
BOOK 23
PAGE 923
of another alternative, particularly if a portion of the work has
to be subcontracted?
City Attorney Pollard reported the design of an alternative
would be negotiated with the consultant and brought back to both
governing bodies. If the record of decision is amended, the
alternative would have to be integrated into the process and the
EPA convinced that the cleanup process would not be delayed. The
price quoted from Richard Catlin & Associates is for the pump and
treat method as listed in the Record of Decision.
Commissioner Caster expressed concern for not understanding
the services that will be received for $571,200 and stated the
remedial design and remedial action must be performed. He
questioned the services received.
City Attorney Pollard reported the $571,200 is for a turn-key
pump and treat operation. The review of alternative technologies
and N. C. Groundwater Standards is not required in the Record of
Decision and will be extra. Also, if an alternative technology is
proposed, this method must be approved by the EPA.
Chairman Greer inquired as to what would happen if the City
and County decide not to do anything when the unilateral
Administrative Order is received?
City Attorney Pollard reported when the unilateral
Administrative Order is issued there is no pre-remedy review. The
statutes specifically state that the Federal District Court has no
jurisdiction of an action challenging an unilateral Administrative
Order. There is the potential for a $25,000 fine per day and if
the EPA performs the work, they could seek treble costs.
Chairman Greer inquired as to what would happen if the City
and County refuse to pay treble costs?
City Attorney Pollard reported the City and County would be
facing some form of a court procedure which would occur after the
remedial action has been performed.
Discussion was held on reviewing any precedent setting cases
where the unilateral Administrative Order was not followed to see
what action was taken. City Attorney Pollard reported statutorily,
the EPA is compelled to seek recovery of the costs, which is the
driving force behind cleanup. This is also why there has been no
relief from the congressional delegation since by statute, this
work must be performed.
Discussion was held on moving forward to select a consultant
to avoid additional costs that would be incurred if the EPA
selected a consultant to perform the work.
Chairman Greer asked if the pump and treat method is started
and another alternative is found, do you think the EPA would modify
the treatment method?
City Attorney Pollard stated proceeding with the Record of
Decision, which is the pump and treat method, would allow the City
and County to make this type of an argument; however, this does not
mean that the EPA will modify the Record of Decision. From the
first meeting with EPA officials, the City and County plainly
stated they felt the pump and treat method would not clean the site
up to this standard and recommended that some alternative
technologies be investigated. The response from the EPA was that
the remedy listed in the Record of Decision must be performed and
the City and County would have to convince them of any other
alternative.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1994
BOOK 23
PAGE 924
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether quotes should be
obtained on an alternative that would essentially perform the same
cleanup?
Director of Environmental Management, Ray Church, reported EPA
investigated other alternatives such as chemical oxidation,
bioremediation, and air sparging which were eliminated with the
pump and treat method being required. The design work requires
more than just pump and treat, such as additional data on whether
there is contamination below the clay layer and additional
information about the characteristics of the site, which will
require pump tests. This information is considered in the design;
therefore, any alternative would probably fit into the pump and
treat design.
Discussion was held on the request to continue monitoring the
site for one year. City Attorney Pollard reported he requested the
EPA to amend the Consent Decree to allow the City and County to
perform additional testing for one year. This request was rejected
by the EPA.
Councilman Youngblood commented on the importance of bringing
all parties that used the site into the remedial action and
recommended that staff move forward as quickly as possible to
identify the additional parties. If legal assistance is needed,
perhaps the City and County should contract this service to speed
up the process.
Discussion was held on the services that will be provided
under the contract with Richard Catlin & Associates. City Attorney
Pollard reported the $571,200 was the number received in evaluating
the bid for the pump and treat system. The request to review
alternative technologies will be extra. Staff would proceed to
negotiate with Richard Catlin & Associates with the agreement to be
presented to both local governments for final approval.
Chairman Greer inquired as to whether the $571,220 included
the committees, plans, drafts, etc. as listed in the Consent
Decree.
City Attorney Pollard reported the consultant would be
required to perform a Health and Safety Plan for the site; a
Sampling Analysis Plan for the site; and all items listed in the
document.
Commissioner Barone commented on being able to use another
remedy and asked if you stayed with the same consultant, would
there be a way to stop the present process and begin an alternative
remedy?
City Attorney Pollard reported the EPA would have to approve
an alternative remedy. If this was approved, the new alternative
would be incorporated into the contract with the consultant.
Mayor Betz reported the design is flexible enough to allow the
use of alternative technologies.
Motion: After further discussion, Commissioner Sisson MOVED,
SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews to direct staff to proceed to
negotiate a contract with Richard Catlin & Associates, Inc. based
on the pump and treat method with the possibility of adding
alternative technologies on a parallel tract if included and
approved by the EPA. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioner Barone
Commissioner Sisson
Vice-Chairman Mathews
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1994
BOOK 23
PAGE 925
Voting Nay: Commissioner Caster
Chairman Greer
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Greer expressed appreciation to the members of the
Wilmington City Council for attending the Special Session and
adjourned the meeting at 6:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board