SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.

 

Excerpt of August 26 Minutes regarding Horace Williams discussion:

 

Item 10 - Follow-up Report on University Waste Sites

at the Horace Williams Property

 

Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard made a brief presentation regarding the staff's ongoing research regarding two inactive waste sites on the Horace Williams property.  

 

Mayor Foy explained that the Council had requested this information at the instigation of citizens and that much more information would be forthcoming.  He said that he was particularly interested in how this site might qualify for Brownfields money, adding that some kind of federal assistance was the Town's best hope.

 

Council Member Harrison noted that there had been a Freedom of Information Act request sent to EPA just before the Council's July meeting.  He asked Mr. Stockard if anything in the packet was a response to that.  Mr. Stockard replied that the Town had not received anything in writing, only over the phone.  Council Member Harrison asked if that meant the EPA was willing to do this over the phone.  Mr. Stockard replied that was correct, but, the Town has not received anything in writing.

 

Council Member Ward asked what would happen if it is determined that the groundwater contamination has gone beyond UNC's property.  He asked does the University buy more property so it stays on their property?  Council Member Ward asked if that would be a trigger that is of significance?  Mr. Stockard replied that he thought it could be a trigger.  He added that it is difficult to create a trigger that would put the sites on a Superfund list, but not necessarily difficult to trigger a reassessment.  That assessment would have to be done by the State, Mr. Stockard said, and by DENR first.

 

Council Member Ward noted that much had been made of the site not being on the Superfund list.  He pointed out that this does not mean it is not a serious problem.  Council Member Ward expressed hope that the University would not perpetuate that notion that this is not a serious problem that needs to be attended to promptly.

 

Council Member Strom thanked Mr. Stockard for the thorough report.  He reminded the Council that they had also received a petition tonight from former Julie McClintock, which asks some very specific questions.  Council Member Strom agreed with Council Member Ward that this ought to be on a priority list for UNC to clean up.  He added that it should be a high priority because UNC's alumni, students, and community would want it that way.  Council Member Strom added that it did not matter what list it was on, that it ought to be cleaned up.  The argument that there is not enough money did not impress him, said Council Member Strom, since the University has over a billion-dollar endowment.  He predicted that people who love the University and Town would support some leadership in moving towards applying some of those resources towards a clean up.

 

Council Member Strom listed five specific questions that he had regarding the timetable, which he described as "very difficult to pin down." 

 

 

1)    Is the Chancellor committed to cleaning up this toxic site during his tenure at UNC?

 

2)      Does the language in the Chancellor's letter, concurrent with the planning of Carolina North, mean that the site will be cleaned up while Carolina North is being developed?  Or, does it mean that the site will not be cleaned up if the roads, utilities and other structures can be sited without conflict with the site? 

 

3)      Is the Chancellor committed to cleaning up this site whether or not Carolina North is funded?  In other words, can we hear a clear commitment to use University resources to do the right thing here? 

 

4)      Will cleanup of this site have to await completion of Carolina North?  Or, will the costs of cleaning up this site be anticipated and included as a part of the Carolina North development costs?

 

5)      Can the University give us a no-later-than date by which the toxic dump will be cleaned up regardless of whether plans for Carolina North are funded and come to fruition?

 

Council Member Ward commented on Attachment #10 of Agenda Item #10, with regard to the Town's Public Works underground fuel storage tanks.  He noted that oil leakage out of fuel tanks on the Town's Public Works site seemed to have been made evident to the Town in the spring of 1998.  Council Member Ward pointed out that it appears that the University only learned about their toxic leakage within the last four to six weeks.  Council Member Ward asked Mr. Horton to correct him if he was wrong about this.  Mr. Horton replied that he did not know whether that information was incorrect or not. 

 

Council Member Ward said that the information he had was that the University had never been notified directly that this had happened.  He pointed out that 860 tons of contaminated soil had been pulled out of that area and said that the Town should have notified the University that this had happened.   Council Member Ward said he wanted to hold the Town to the same high standards that we hold the University to. 

 

Mayor Foy explained that the Council was discussing waste from UNC’s Chemistry Department and from other departments at UNC, as well as the Hospital.  The reason it is so expensive to clean it up, he said, is that nobody knows what is there.  So it must be a very careful excavation of this half-acre site, he said, and the issue is money.

 

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council facilitate the University's efforts.  The University might be prepared to present a timetable and to make a commitment, he said, and recommended asking that question explicitly.  Mayor Foy also suggested that the Town apply for Brownfields money, lobby its elected representatives at the federal level, and make a commitment to finding the money for the cleanup.  He pointed out that doing this will require more than one source of funding.

 

Mayor Foy advised Council members to move forward to engage the University in a discussion of whether it would be possible to set a timetable to get the site cleaned up by a certain period of time. He cautioned against having any illusions about getting it cleaned up in the next two years, however.

 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if he had a recommendation as to how the Council should proceed.  Mr. Horton replied that the staff could follow up on all of the questions that the Council had raised and submit the appropriate ones to the University.  The staff would then follow up on the other questions through its own continuing research with EPA and DENR, he said.

 

Mayor Foy proposed that the staff bring back a progress report by October.  Mr. Horton said that seemed reasonable.  Council members agreed that this was an acceptable way to proceed.  

 

COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REQUEST A FOLLOW-UP REPORT FROM THE STAFF IN OCTOBER.

 

 

Item 3 - Petition by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members

 

7.     Julie McClintock regarding UNC Hazardous Waste Site at Horace Williams Property.

 

Ms. McClintock thanked the Town staff for working so hard to answer the Council's questions.  She then asked Council members to request a commitment from UNC for early notification of any future studies or remediation efforts.  She also recommended that UNC identify a point person in the administration who would be available to Town staff.  Ms McClintock suggested that the Manager receive regular updates from UNC on any new developments regarding hazardous waste buried at the Horace Williams site.

 

Ms. McClintock said that she, Bob Epting and Dan Coleman had wanted to know who was ultimately responsible for seeing that the hazardous landfill wastes that are buried on the Horace Williams site are moved.  She asked who had the authority to make sure that this gets done and what the relationship was between when that is done and when development begins.  "My understanding is that when you have a hazardous waste site that it needs to be cleaned up before development occurs," she said.

 

Ms. McClintock noted that the Manager's memo states that the North Carolina Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) is the agency that would conduct an investigation.  The memo also says that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an agreement with DENR to reassess the sites before placing them on the Superfund list, she said.   Ms. McClintock pointed out that there is a difference between being on a Superfund list and being on a Superfund priority list.  She predicted that this site would never be placed on the Superfund priority list, but said that it probably still resides on the Superfund list.  Ultimately, EPA would have the authority to insure that the site would be cleaned up, she said.

 

Ms. McClintock stated that Chapel Hill citizens were concerned that groundwater has been poisoned as a result of the hazardous wastes that were buried on the site.  "I think that citizens really are owed an answer from the University about the status of this," she said.

 

           

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).