Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br />report in which this statement was made was an analysis of leakage from <br />landfills that were designed using far less rigorous standards and landfills <br />that were permitted to accept materials that would not be permitted by this <br />landfill. For that reason it would be highly unlikely that the leakage would <br />extend into the Cane Creek Reservoir. They really won't know what the risks <br />are until they do adequate geotechnical testing including borings and all <br />other appropriate testing. They want to get more specific data with respect <br />to the topography and the groundwater flow and soil types so they can make a <br />better judgment of any threat to Cane Creek. Spills and accidents are always <br />possible with respect to any landfill and the probability of a spill increases <br />with distance from the center of waste generation. The greatest threat to <br />surface bodies of water is not from buried substances. The major threat is <br />from runoff from pesticides and land development. He found it curious that <br />OWASA would be so dead set against the landfill in the watershed area that has <br />a sludge demonstration site in the same area. <br />In answer to a question from Commissioner Insko, Dan Textoris <br />explained that they have not done any geotechnical work or subsurface <br />investigation but expect that the groundwater flow based on the surface <br />features -- drainage ways and the ridges -- will follow those features. Until <br />they go on site and do the geotechnical work they cannot state which way the <br />water will flow and if it will go into Cane Creek. The design of the liner <br />system, the leachate collection system and any kind of safety measures, if one <br />of these systems were to fail, would be included in the design consideration. <br />Any unique feature such as the reservoir is a concern and they would want to <br />be able to reliably predict what the groundwater flow will do on the site. <br />As they do the different levels of geotechnical investigation, they may be <br />able to predict what the groundwater will do at one level and may need <br />additional information on the other levels. <br />In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit about the <br />aquatic weeds, Dan Textoris stated he has no data on this issue at this time. <br />QIIESTION: Was site OC-1 removed from the active list because of the presence <br />of a diabase dike? Could any portion of the site be used as a landfill, even <br />if a diabase dike is present? <br />ANSWER: Dan Textoris indicated that it was removed based on rock type that was <br />present. The dike cut right through the middle of 500 acres. He noted that <br />one of the primary objections to the triacic Chathem-Wake site revolves around <br />diabase dikes being present. Some smaller portion of this site could possibly <br />be used as a landfill. <br />QIIESTION: In leaving site OC-9 on the active list, how did the LSSC address <br />the problem of routing sanitation trucks through downtown Hillsborough on <br />Churton Street? <br />ANSWER: Leigh Peek stated that sites were judged on totality. The committee <br />recognized that going down Churton Street was not an optimal solution. They <br />know that there are transportation plans that have alternate routes around <br />Hillsborough and although they are not there now, at a preliminary stage of <br />