The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-09-02 Work Session w/ COW . . . "'IIIl MINUTES OF JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE, SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 PAGE 653 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and Wilmington City Council held a joint Work Session on Thursday, September 2, 1993, at 12:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 102 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners William A. Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; Vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; County Manager, Allen O'Neal; County Attorney, Wanda Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Council Members present were: Mayor Don Betz; Mayor Pro Tem Katherine B. Moore; Councilman J. D. Causey; Councilman Hamilton E. Hicks, Jr.; Councilman Richard C. Snyder; ci ty Manager, Mary Gornto; City Attorney, Tom Pollard, and City Clerk, Penelope Spicer-Sidbury. Commissioner Sandra Barone was absent due to dental surgery. Councilman Ed Evans and Michael Youngblood were unable to attend due to business commitments. Chairman Greer and Mayor Betz called the respective boards to order and reported the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for removing contamination at the Airport Burn Pit site, which was used formerly as a training site for firefighters. City Manager, Mary Gornto, and County Manager, Allen O'Neal, expressed appreciation to both governing bodies for their willingness to meet on such short notice to hear a status report on the Airport Burn pit site and the clean up actions established by EPA with a response from the responsible parties no later than September 29, 1993. PRESENTATION ON NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE City Attorney, Tom Pollard, reported the site was placed on the National Priorities List for Superfund sites in March, 1989. EPA sent letters to the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, Cape Fear Community College and the Corps of Engineers as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) in September, 1989 relating to the performance of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site. Although the PRPs attempted to initiate negotiations for the performance of the RI/FS, EPA decided to proceed with the performance of such studies. The local government PRPs entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA on June 21, 1990 to conduct the removal action at the site. The removal action was intended to remove visually contaminated soils, tanks, piping, and other potential sources of contamination. The total cost of the removal action was $452,000. The Corps of Engineers paid 25% of the cost. On September 29, 1992, EPA filed the Record of Decision for the site which established the clean up goals. The State standard for groundwater of one part per billion benzene was adopted. The Federal standard for benzene is based on the Safe Drinking Water Act standard of five parts per billion benzene. After performance of the removal action, a risk assessment was performed and the site was determined to be within the acceptable risk range for public health; however, the Superfund and EPA regulations required the clean up to achieve the applicable State standard at one part per billion benzene. In order to achieve the State benzene level, the recommended remedy is to pump and treat the contaminated groundwater and discharge to the City' Wastewater Treatment Plant at an additional cost of at least $2.5 million. Currently, EPA's primary concern is the contaminate benzene. The highest contaminate reading on the levels of benzene at the ~ MINU~ES OF JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE, SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 site is 110 parts per billion. Meetings have been held with potential consultants for the remedial design of clean up with the general consensus that the contamination levels of the site are less than leaking storage tank sites, which are under the jurisdiction of the state. Two-thirds of the cost for performance of the work is related to documentation required by EPA. If the contamination is no more than anticipated, the additional cost of $2.5 million may be excessive. PAGE 654 After meeting with EPA officials, the following issues were discussed: () 1) EPA is currently requesting payment in the amount of $727,631.36 for past response cost at the site. This is an increase from the $685,000 originally requested due to rule changes concerning the calculation of indirect costs. This figure could increase to over $2,000,000 if PRPs do not agree to pay. In the Administrative Order on Consent relating to the Removal Action,' the local government PRPs have already agreed to pay the portion of this cost attributable to EPA's oversight of the Removal Action. 2) Terms of Payment for Past and Future Response Costs: It was anticipated that response costs would be spread over a period of five years; however, EPA guidance documents have changed and do not allow more than three years. Negotiations are currently being held for more time, but it is felt a 3- year term will be required. It appears that all parties understand the situation and understand that the site is not a public health risk; however, the problem is placement of this site on the National Priorities List for superfund sites. As of this date, no one has determined how to remove the site from this list without going through the Superfund process which is costly and bound by regulations and specific time frames. It would be a tremendous advantage to remove the site from the Superfund list and perform remedial action under the State. () 3) Stipulated Penalties: If the parties enter into a Consent Decree there will be stipulated penalties if deadlines are not met. This item is still being discussed with EPA officials and hopefully lower penalty amounts will be negotiated. 4) An Al ternati ve Remedy to the Pump and Treat Method: Discussion is being held for use of al ternati ve methods instead of the pump and treat process. There are al ternati ves that could be more effective at a reduced cost and performed in a shorter period of time; however, under the EPA Record of Decision, the pump and treat method was recommended, which may not be negotiable. 5) possible Groundwater Reclassification by the State of North Carolina. 6) Negotiations with the Corps of Engineers: The Corps has agreed to pay 25% of past response cost and the estimated cost of the clean up in exchange for a release from any further liability relating to the site. o A lengthy period of questions and answers followed with grave concern expressed by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners for the costly pump and treat method recommended by EPA. Vice-Chairman Mathews suggested scheduling a meeting with our local congressional Delegation and top officials of EPA in Washington, D. C., to see if some reasonable method of clean up can be negotiated. ~ . . . ""'llIl MINUTES OF JOINT CITY/COUNTY WORK SESSION AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE, SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 PAGE 655 Chairman Greer strongly objected to the proposed EPA alternative and stated he would be glad to meet with the local Congressional Delegation for discussion of this matter. The City and County have removed the contaminated soil at a cost of $452,500 and are now being asked to spend an additional $2,500,000. As to the groundwater, the benzene contaminant level is very low and is part of a surface aquifer that is not used for drinking water and moves only several feet a year. Concern was expressed for the burden that will be placed on the taxpayers with this costly pump and treat method of clean up and, in his opinion, if no reasonable negotiation can be reached, perhaps the legal route should be considered. Motion: After further discussion of costs and possible liability to the City and County, Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson to direct staff to arrange appointments with members of the Congressional Delegation and the Chief Administrative Official of EPA in Washington, D. C., in order for the Mayor (and/or his designee) and Chairman along with appropriate staff to meet and seek assistance in negotiating the following actions: (1) request an extension of the 120-day deadline of September 29, 1993, for execution of the Consent Decree; (2) remove the Burn pit site from the National Priorities Superfund List; (3) allow more flexibility in pursuing alternatives for the clean up; and (4) reduce the past response cost of $727,631.36. Staff was authorized to continue current negotiations with EPA on the Consent Decree and make an offer to the Corps of Engineers to avoid being penalized or incurring additional liability. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster Commissioner Sisson Vice-Chairman Mathews Chairman Greer Absent: commissioner Barone ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer adjourned the meeting at 1:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (=tX/~ Lucie F. Harrell Cl~rk to the Board ....i Due to page error, pages 656-665 are absent f~om this minute book. """",,\ . """~~("'-~ r~.~~; ~ 0: ',,- / () ()