CITIZENS INFORMATION COMMITTEE 

                     MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 1995 MEETING 
 
Attendees 
 
Deb Backhus, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs 
Mike Baker, Coalition Opposed to PCB Ash 
Iris Kiesling, Bloomington City Council 
George Hegeman, Monroe County Board of Health 
Sally Hegeman, League of Women Voters 
Dan Hopkins, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager 
John Langley, Bloomington PCB Coordinator 
Joe Loop for Rachel Loop, Indiana Public Interest Research Group 
Dave Novak, U.S. EPA Community Relations Coordinator 
Brian Pence, People Against the Incinerator 
Alex Tzallas, U.S. EPA Assistant Remedial Project Manager 
 
Not Present 
 
Susan Bremer, Indiana Department of Environmental Management 
Lee Caulfield, Bloomington Rotary 
Lynn Coyne, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce 
Marti Crouch, Near Westside Neighborhood Association 
John Foster, Bloomington Environmental Commission 
Diane Henshel, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs 
Dawn Hewitt, The Audubon Society 
Michael List, Private Citizen, CIC Chair 
Flynn Picardal, IU School of Public and Environmental 
Affairs 
Amy Roche, Student Environmental Action Coalition 
Jordan Shifriss, Harmony School 
Rob Stone, Physicians for Social Responsibility 
 
Observers 
 
Robin Gnagni, Citizen 
Kyle Dreyfuss, Citizen 
Dave Mockert, Citizen 
Dave Porter, Citizen 
Melissa Valentin, MVA Consulting, Inc 
 
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by George Hegeman who
substituted for Chairperson, Michael List. 
 
Approval of Minutes 
 
Susan Bremer, IDEM, sent word that on page 9, paragraph 6, she sent
Westinghouse a letter asking them to review the site security at
Winston-Thomas.  She let the Consent Decree parties know about it,
but she did not send a letter to the other parties.  She is still
awaiting final word from Westinghouse. She wanted to clarify this. 
  
The minutes were approved without amendment.  
 
Remedial Activities  
 
Hopkins said that after the last CIC meeting, some people left the
meeting thinking that because EPA did not have enough data to
warrant an emergency action at Winston-Thomas, that nothing else
would be done there regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) wildlife issues. Hopkins wanted everyone to know, that at
this time, EPA did not have enough data to take an emergency action
at the Winston-Thomas site, but Brenda Jones, EPA Ecologist, Dan
Sparks of FWS and Hopkins are planning to meet to discuss how to
proceed at that site given the data that FWS has collected to date. 
 
Baker said that EPA does not have enough data for an emergency
action but are looking at what their response should be. 
    
Hopkins said that EPA has not stopped looking at this as a remedial
action but EPA does not have the basis for an emergency action. 
FWS and EPA will meet to discuss the ecological risks posed by the
site. Hopkins does not know how comprehensive it will be but
Hopkins feels that the other parties should be brought into the
discussion. 
 
Porter said that the levels in the food chain are not going to go
down. 
 
Hopkins said that EPA announced that they will be taking public
comment through February 1st, 1995 to see how the public feels
about EPA switching tracks from CERCLA to TSCA. Westinghouse and
ABB submitted a proposal to EPA requesting that they switch tracks
and allow Westinghouse to ship the ABB material to a permitted
landfill in Utah.  Even though EPA is asking for comments regarding
the switching of the CERCLA to TSCA track, EPA is making available
the Westinghouse proposal which includes the work plan for
completing this task. 
 
Hegeman asked what the differences between TSCA and CERCLA as
related to the cleanup of this site. 
 
Hopkins said that under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), this action has been
considered a non-time critical removal.  Under the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), the blueprint for implementing CERCLA, an
Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis EE/CA would be performed. 
There would be a limited array of alternatives examined and the
cost to implement those remedies.  After this study was completed,
then a formal public comment period would be done.  EPA could
enforce its remedy under an administrative order.  Hopkins said
that under TSCA, EPA would have to take it to a compliant
incinerator or landfill. Westinghouse's proposal is to take the
material to a compliant landfill.  EPA sees some benefit from doing
it under TSCA. Hopkins said that it is an administrative
prerogative to cease under CERCLA and resume under TSCA.  Hopkins
said that under TSCA, the disposal would be expedited.   
 
Sally Hegeman asked if the public hearing would be for information
if the decision has already been made. Hopkins said that the
decision has not been made but EPA does see some benefits.  One is
getting the material out of town relatively quickly rather than
going through a long period of examining alternatives. 
 
Hegeman asked what landfill would it go to. 
 
Hopkins said that Westinghouse is negotiating with USPCI in Utah to
take it to one of their facilities. 
 
Baker asked why they did not include the Fell material in this
proposal when it is in the middle of downtown Bloomington and the
ABB plant facility is on the outskirts of town in an industrialized
area. 
 
Hopkins said that this is a question EPA thought the community
might ask.  Hopkins said that this is not the first time they have
heard the idea of shipping the material out of town.  He said,
however, it is the first time they have been given a formal
proposal and were requested to review it.  Hopkins said that Fell
has a little different situation administratively from ABB. 
However, EPA is looking for its similarities.  EPA has also
conducted an EE/CA at Fell, decided a remedy, and issued an order. 
Hopkins said that they have a few more steps to go through before
something like this could work for Fell but EPA is looking into it. 
 
Kiesling said that she did not remember how the decision worked for
Fell. 
 
Hopkins said that a two headed decision was made regarding Fell. 
Hopkins said that Westinghouse had made a strong case for
incineration for the Bloomington sites.  EPA issued an order
stating that the incinerator could be used for Fell if it was done
within a certain time frame.  If not, then Westinghouse would have
to treat the material at Fell in a similar manner at an off-site
incinerator.  This order was stayed. 
 
Pence said that the reason it was stayed is because 12 people were
arrested when they tried to move the material out.  Pence said that
he has looked at USPCI before and they have a long list of
violations. 
 
Hopkins said that the reason the order was stayed is because of the
perception that was interpreted as compelling the construction of
the incinerator at a time when EPA was talking with the other
parties about looking for alternatives to incineration.  Hopkins
said that this order is on hold.   
 
Hegeman asked if Westinghouse requested the switch to TSCA. 
 
Hopkins said that Westinghouse made the request and it was
supported by ABB. Hopkins said that ABB wants to sell a portion of
their property and they don't want that material sitting there. 
 
A question was asked if it is necessary for Westinghouse to
initiate the same thing at Fell. 
 
Hopkins said no, but that they could submit additional information
into the administrative record.  An administrative record is a
compilation of material of which a decision is based.  Hopkins said
that there would need to be additional information supplementing
the record that would facilitate arriving at another conclusion.  
     
 
Porter suggested that Hopkins get Westinghouse to take Fell and
Winston-Thomas at the same time they take ABB. 
 
Hopkins said that Westinghouse wants to do this and that they would
like to get rid of Fell too.  Hopkins said that Winston-Thomas is
a little different from the other two sites because it is a part of
the consent decree.  He said that it is not impossible but would be
different. 
 
Baker said that since Winston-Thomas' issues are little more
complicated than Fell but less complicated than Lemon Lane, maybe
the parties could start with a less complicated site, build some
momentum and then tackle the tougher sites. 
 
Hopkins said that at the last principals meeting, after a great
deal of argument regarding sampling Lemon Lane, Westinghouse
suggested that we deal with a site that is simpler and more
straightforward.  Hopkins said that moving out Winston- Thomas is
attractive, but administratively is different from Fell and ABB. 
Hopkins said if the material is handled in a way other than the
requirements under the consent decree, then some performance
criteria must be met. 
 
Valentin said that she would like to know how Westinghouse would be
allowed to leave it in place since that is on the opposite side of
the spectrum from what is outlined in the consent decree. 
 
Hopkins said that at some point all of the parties are going to
closely examine performance criteria.  Hopkins said that if another
remedy was selected that portions of the consent decree would have
to be addressed. 
 
Baker asked what the next step in the process is after taking
public comment. 
 
Hopkins said that the EPA is giving the public an opportunity to
comment but EPA is not required to.  Hopkins said that EPA thinks
that it is appropriate to get comment and is very genuine about
wanting to hear back from the public and listening before coming to
a decision.     
 
Kiesling asked if the public meeting on the 23rd would be
videotaped?   
 
Novak said that it would be transcribed but no arrangements had
been made to videotape it.  He said that EPA would look into it
though. 
 
Hegeman reiterated that many people would like to see it
videotaped. 
 
Porter said that the inability to cut through the legal stuff to
deal with the physical realities disturbs him.  He encouraged EPA
to use the ABB site as leverage to get the materials at Fell and
Winston-Thomas moved also. 
 
Hopkins said that Westinghouse has looked into using the same crew
for both ABB and Fell if EPA could allow landfilling of the Fell
materials. Hopkins also said that Westinghouse has a huge financial
incentive for landfilling the Fell material rather than
incinerating it at an off-site facility. 
 
Valentin asked how long it would take to conduct an EE/CA at ABB. 
 
Hopkins said that it could take as long as a year to complete it
including the public comment periods.  Hopkins said that EPA had
intended to handle ABB and Fell separately from the consent decree
sites.  He said, however, those two sites have become enmeshed with
the other sites to a certain degree. 
 
Update on Lemon Lane Landfill Site Evaluation 
 
Hopkins said that the parties met on January 11th for a principal's
meeting.  Hopkins said that EPA wants cooperation and would like
sampling of the landfill done by the Spring.  EPA wants this
handled but are becoming frustrated with the delay.  
 
 
Hegeman asked what the specific problems are. 
 
Hopkins said that the problems are philosophical differences for
the need to sample.  Hopkins said that it is related to the amount
of money needed for sampling. 
 
BCAT Airing of Geologists Presentations 
 
It was noted that BCAT received copies of the abbreviated version
of the geologists presentations. There are also copies available at
the Public Information Center. 
 
Neal's Dump Residential Well Sampling Results 
 
Hopkins said that Bremer left copies of the qa/qc'ed results for
the Neal's Dump residential well sampling.  If anyone would like to
see those, they are available at the Public Information Center. 
Hopkins does not know if IDEM has selected a contractor for the
alternatives study. 
 
Dye Tracer Data at the Library Repository 
 
Hopkins said that the actual data from the 1989 bromide study have
not been given to EPA yet but all other data has been provided to
the library. 
 
Baker said that COPA has their consultants reviewing the dye trace
data so they can help citizens understand what has been done and
why specific dyes are used for certain types of soils, etc. 
 
Base Catalyzed Decomposition as an Alternative at Winston-Thomas  

 
Valentin asked if there is data to support the mass balance
statement that 98% of the dye is going to Illinois Central Springs. 
 
Hopkins said that he has not seen that data. 
 
Valentin said that information would be nice to have. 
 
Hopkins said that EPA has questioned the same thing. Hopkins said
that there is an issue that some of the bromide detected in the
last bromide test could have been from bromide injected initially. 
 
Valentin said that she thinks that it is significant to note that
much of the material goes to ICS and the fact that some material
goes to the other springs also needs to be addressed.  
 
Hopkins said that EPA has a problem with the basin concept too. 
Dependent on the groundwater elevation, material can go in other
directions.  This is an area that all of the parties have tried to
address in the document on the Lemon Lane Groundwater Monitoring
Philosophy.  Hopkins said that they are looking at whether or not
all the springs that are considered "non-detect" should be
considered as having sporadic detections.  The groundwater
monitoring philosophy calls for sampling at the streams, springs,
groundwater monitoring wells and residential wells. 
 
Valentin said that when background sampling was done, it shows that
the background concentrations are much higher at low flow than at
high flow. 
 
Hopkins said that is part of what the sampling plan will address. 
Hopkins said that another thing that they would like to nail down
is the concentration of PCBs that goes through the stream during a
storm event. Hopkins asked where are the PCBs associated with that
flush.  Are they pushed out initially?  Are they diluted in the
middle? Do they get out at the end?  Hopkins said that one of the
components of the plan is to look at how PCBs are distributed
during a storm event.  
     
Backhus asked if others thought it might be useful to have a
discussion at the next CIC regarding the geology presentations. 
She and others have looked at the geological data at Lemon Lane and
have some questions and comments.  She thought that they should
discuss the Lemon Lane data at a CIC meeting. Backhus said that a
forum similar to the one where Dan Sparks presented his
Winston-Thomas data would work well. 
 
Hopkins said that he would ask. 
 
Hegeman said to put this on the agenda for a future meeting. 
 
Dreyfus asked if these data could influence a decision. 
 
Hopkins said that the tracer studies look at whether or not a
pathway has been established.  Hopkins said that he thinks this was
a really good effort even though not a perfect one.  He said that
it could be important for establishing a receptor and a source.  He
said it gives you a sampling direction. 
 
Dreyfus said that if you were going to use it to influence a
decision, would you not have to jump through the QA/QC hoops that
other data must go through. 
 
Hopkins said that they have trouble with the sporadic detections. 
Hopkins said that some of the springs that do not show a high
breakthrough of dye brings into question how good the background
sampling is especially if you are going to use the background
sampling to discount a positive result.  EPA has some problems with
that and are going through it now.  He said if you do not know
these things then you need to find them out. 
 
Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCD) 
 
Hopkins said that he had his contractor looking at treatment
technologies for Winston-Thomas if EPA were to take an emergency
action there.  EPA does not have enough data at this time to
support an emergency action at Winston-Thomas. EPA will, however,
remember BCD, but Hopkins does not feel it is appropriate to
consider it further for the Winston-Thomas site at this time. 
 
Hegeman asked if EPA had decided against making a decision.       
             
 
Hopkins said that EPA had made a decision that they need additional
data before an emergency action can be taken at Winston-Thomas. 
Hopkins said that they can revisit that if more data suggests
otherwise. 
 
Baker asked if EPA heard a presentation on BCD. 
 
Hopkins said yes, and he was impressed with the process and passed
the information along to Westinghouse.  Hopkins was most impressed
with the cost savings over landfilling. Hopkins said that other
project managers at Region 5 have used this technology.  Hopkins
said that it is a promising technology. 
 
Baker asked if a citizen could participate in the technical
meeting's. He said that the city, county, and state government's
have limited resources and could probably use a technically
competent citizen free of charge.  Baker said that he meets lots of
people on a daily basis that have technical expertise and he thinks
that there is surely one person that could contribute to the
process as well as give the citizens more confidence in the
process.  Baker said that if you accept a citizen in the technical
meetings and they violate the trust of the other parties, then
there will be no more citizen participation. 
 
Hopkins said that he has to agree with Baker that there are many
citizens in Bloomington that could contribute to the process. 
Hopkins said that he thinks there is a fear that there will be a
manipulation of the meetings it is already a difficult process as
it is. 
 
Novak said that one or more of the parties might also feel that the
other parties will not be as forthcoming with information if there
is citizen participation in the technical meetings.  Novak said
that the citizens should put their request in writing so that there
could be a last attempt to include a citizen in the process. 
        
Hopkins said that he thinks the main concern, although he does not
hold this view, is that a citizen could become frustrated by the
process and then take it to the paper. He said that this would not
allow the folks on the local level to be as free to contribute to
the process. 
 
Valentin said that citizens, by being left out of the loop, are not
completely informed.  She said that if a citizen were allowed to
attend these meetings then they may have a better understanding of
the issues.  
 
Pence said that he is confident that Hopkins made a passionate plea
to include a citizen in these meetings but he feels that there are
parties to the consent decree that do not want public participation
and it will always be that way. 
 
Hopkins said that there is a risk involved with allowing a citizen
at the meetings.  Hopkins said that some of the upper management
folks wanted to know if it is enough for citizens if they are told
what is said in those meetings. 
 
Baker said that he thinks the risk could be greater by not allowing
a citizen to participate. 
 
Hegeman said that he is for openness but sees the value in having
the meetings not open to the public. 
 
Baker said that it is not so much the issue of knowing everything
as it is establishing trust. 
 
Loop said that if there had been citizen participation in the
process from the beginning then we would not have to discuss it
today because there would not have been a consent decree. 
 
Baker said that the citizen the parties would pick may come from a
more technical position whereas most of the citizens are emotional
about the issue so the citizens may not agree with their position. 
 
Westinghouse's Net Worth 
 
Hopkins said that from Westinghouse's 10 Q on 12-31-94, they were
at 1.621 billion.  Hopkins said that this is about 576 million over
what they were 6 months prior.  
 
Baker said that it is not the numbers it is the measurement and
whether or not their accounting principles had been changed.  Baker
said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is supposed to be
determining if Westinghouse is meeting the spirit of the consent
decree. 
 
Hopkins said that EPA is looking at whether or not Westinghouse has
the ability to pay for the Bloomington cleanups.  Hopkins said that
the DOJ has not drawn a conclusion yet. 
 
Loop said that he does not understand why EPA is not enforcing the
consent decree regarding the Westinghouse net worth issue. 
 
Hopkins said that DOJ is going to render a decision about this
issue.  
 
Loop said he would like to know what EPA's role in the consent
decree is. 
 
Hopkins said that EPA does not look at things so myopically.  He
said that they believe the trigger has been met and there is a
contest about it.  Hopkins said, however, EPA is concerned that
Westinghouse pay for the cleanup.  There is a legal obligation. 
Hopkins said that EPA is more concerned with getting the cleanup
paid for than flexing their muscle on a single point in the consent
decree.  Hopkins said if that were the case, EPA would be enforcing
the section of the consent decree that requires the incinerator.
Hopkins said that he understands Loop's point but EPA is looking at
the issue much more comprehensively. 
 
Baker said that this issue is a gray area. 
 
Hopkins said that if you read the 10 Q's for Westinghouse, then you
can see that they have 60 million dollars set aside for the
Bloomington cleanup.  Hopkins said that they have 16 million
dollars set aside for monitoring.  Hopkins said that 44 million
dollars is reserved for the remainder of the sites. 
 
There was a discussion of whether or not this is enough money to
handle the cleanup. 
 
Adjournment 
 
It was suggested that the next CIC meeting be held on Thursday
because Diane Henshel has classes Monday through Wednesday evenings
and she would really like to attend some of the meetings this
semester. 
 
The meeting was adjourned by George Hegeman at 9:08 pm.  The next
meeting will be held Thursday March 23, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the
PCB Public Information Center, Suite 322 Fountain Square Mall. 
Free Parking is available in the 4th street parking garage and
off-street parking is available in front of Fountain Square Mall. 
 
Adapted minutes recorded by Sona Chambers, Bloomington PCB Public
Information Center, staffed by Earth Tech.