Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br />be very unreliable, <br />e of physical <br />purely on geophysical data but he feels the dwithout some typ <br />subject to a lot ofnvariations done on the site- landfill. <br />the results. When the committee wants ~ thout reliable <br />dr i 11 ing to conf it f or a <br />ineering evaluations of those sites. Iwith <br />they will wantnt~ don=eliablenengltability eliable and the reliability <br />data, they can receive be r drilling on <br />very important that the data they of actually <br />geophysical work is not as high as the reliability <br />that site. <br />ht sites to be testing? What factors did the LSS <br />QUESTION: Are these the rig from active consideration at <br />which sites to drop rocesses were involve What <br />consider in determining rocess? What thought p <br />various stages of the p <br />at the current list of four site them better vcandidatesaforntesting <br />arriving <br />characterothers on theslist?r sites ma <br />than th <br />Warren stated that these are the sites that the commit es. <br />the site ranking process have <br />ANSWER. Tom criteria and through the right four site <br />through the screening It took 1-1/2 years in the <br />chosen. The committee feels that these2arearsrrent y <br />rocess has been going on for 2-1/ y rocess was complicated and does <br />This p <br />process to choose these ftoo numerous to 1 st tonight. <br />involve a lot of factors, <br />issioner Gordon indicated she nS tes,additional information on <br />Comm <br />how the LSSC made their decision on the four ossibility <br />acent to site OC2 <br />TION: The OWASA Board of Direct Cane Creek Reservoir adjt t e P is during <br />QUES Lake from sp <br />of groundwater contamination of t e How did the LSSC <br />and potential harm to se or leachate to orvfrom this OC2 on the active list? <br />transport of either refu <br />'n of the site, with what degree of certainty would <br />consider these concer stin the decision to leave si a Cane Creek would not be <br />After geotechnical to g osition paper <br />we be able to say that groundwater contamination of <br />roblem? Please address the concerns raised in the OWASA p <br />a p 1992. <br />dated February 27, <br />eer ointed out that from then outset one of their firs <br />standards, guidelines, <br />ANSWER: Dan VanderM p would not violate a of a landfill. One of the <br />ma <br />criteria was that they <br />regulations or laws that would prevent the siting <br />ere concerned about was whet eer or not a site that they is <br />an laws or any regulations that <br />things they w Site OC2 <br />select for a potential landfill wouly,'ater for other ground water. <br />rotect drinking way impact the reservoir <br />were designed to p <br />law. The question becomes what is Tth Y have <br />far removed from theotected oby and does not in a nto the system. <br />in a way that is pr es and taken intc <br />beyond the legal protection that has been es and rock typ <br />that is available on the topography. From all availablE <br />looked at all thdataailable data on soil typ s sited there and failed, the <br />account all the <br />data, if in the worse case the landfill wa The don't know this as <br />dwater flow and the direction of matyrials out of that sl E <br />direction of groun <br />would not go in the direction of the reservo oint. With reference to t <br />fact but it is tOwASA P sumption at this P t <br />osition paper that „1hedNC Health Department n Th <br />statement in the with Dr. Greg Smith of <br />past", he spent one day <br />